# 'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice



## ScienceRocks (Dec 15, 2011)

'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice 
Daily mail ^ | 12.13.2011 | n/a 

The Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted a survey of 10,000 square miles of sea off the coast of eastern Siberia. They made a terrifying discovery - huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed. 'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across,' said Dr Igor Semiletov, 'These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere.'


(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice - a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide | Mail Online


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

Climate Change: The Next Generation: Semiletov tells AGU that, if released, 1 percent of ESAS methane could cause runaway warming

Semiletov points out that geologists estimate that the amount of methane stored beneath the Siberian shelf to be on the order of 2,000 gigatons. (Keep in mind that methane is a greenhouse gas 20-times more potent than CO2, and that total carbon emissions today are in the range of eight gigatons a year.) Semiletov thinks that if just 1percent of the ESAS methane is released, it will push total atmospheric methane up to 6 parts per million, and he cites researchers such as David Archer in arguing that this would push us past the point of no return toward runaway global warming.
Leading climatologist James Hansen also gave a talk at the conference, to his usual throng of thousands, about the threat of runaway global warming and the need to phase out coal plants. He happened to mention that the global atmospheric record showed a slight fall-off in methane for 2008, so I asked him if he was less concerned about this particular threat to a stable climate. Hansen said that on the contrary, the paleontological record probably isn&#8217;t a good guide to global methane release, because &#8220;even though evidence of releases might look like spikes on a plot, they still happened over thousands of years. Human forcings are happening so fast they don&#8217;t allow for negative feedbacks.&#8221;


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

*Looks as if things are going to change even faster than the 'alarmists' have been predicting.*

Home

Methane hydrate is frozen solid methane (natural gas) combined with water (ice). It exists on and beneath the sea floor around continental margins. Tiny amounts of the gas can seep out through cracks in the hydrate (frozen lattice).  

In the cold Arctic waters and under high pressure, methane hydrate occurs below permafrost, making it stable but particularly vulnerable to global warming, which destabilizes the solid hydrate, releasing methane gas. It is especially vulnerable in the shallow East Siberian Arctic shelf (ESAS), where 90% of Arctic methane hydrates are situated. 

Unexpectedly a team of Russian scientists researching Siberian methane emissions have discovered that ESAS hydrates are already venting methane to the atmosphere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

A call for immediate action. Useless, of course, except in the context of the scientists being able to state "We told you so". 

NGU brochure

Nothing will be done, and we will see all of this happen. The 'tipping point' is passed. As individuals, and as a nation, we need to plan for consequences. That is not going to happen, either. Except for a very few people, none will consider this serious until it is directly affecting them. Even then, many will insist it is 'cyclic' and has nothing to do with the GHGs that we put into the atmosphere.


----------



## editec (Dec 15, 2011)

Matthew said:


> 'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice
> Daily mail ^ | 12.13.2011 | n/a
> 
> The Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted a survey of 10,000 square miles of sea off the coast of eastern Siberia. They made a terrifying discovery - huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed. 'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across,' said Dr Igor Semiletov, 'These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere.'
> ...


 
Oh _merde!_



> *Methane clathrate*, also called *methane hydrate*, *hydromethane*, *methane ice*, "fire ice", *natural gas hydrate* or just *gas hydrate*, is a solid clathrate compound (more specifically, a clathrate hydrate) in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.[1] Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth.[2] The worldwide amounts of methane bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.[3]
> Methane clathrates are common constituents of the shallow marine geosphere, and they occur both in deep sedimentary structures, and as outcrops on the ocean floor. Methane hydrates are believed to form by migration of gas from depth along geological faults, followed by precipitation, or crystallization, on contact of the rising gas stream with cold sea water. Methane clathrates are also present in deep Antarctic ice cores, and record a history of atmospheric methane concentrations, dating to 800,000 years ago.[4] The ice-core methane clathrate record is a primary source of data for global warming research, along with oxygen and carbon dioxide.


 


> Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Despite its short atmospheric half life of 7 years, methane has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 21 over 100 years (IPCC, 1996; Berner and Berner, 1996; vanLoon and Duffy, 2000). The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits has been hypothesized as a cause of past and possibly future climate changes. Events possibly linked in this way are the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
> 
> Climate scientists such as James E. Hansen hypothesize that methane clathrates in the permafrost regions will be released as a result of global warming, unleashing powerful feedback forces which may cause runaway climate change that cannot be controlled.
> 
> Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tonnes of methane being released[32][33][34][35][36] with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times above normal.[37]


 
source


----------



## zzzz (Dec 15, 2011)

Too late. Its like stopping a runaway locomotive, once you apply the brakes it is already too late and takes forever to stop.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

Methane catastrophe

Written some time ago, and, unfortunetly, quite prophetic.


----------



## wirebender (Dec 15, 2011)

Look out your window and note that the sky is not falling.  Apply some lotion to your hands which are undoubtedly raw and chapped from the incessant hand wringing and take a few deep breaths and try to understand that you have been hoaxed.

Do you really believe that the sea bed has never burped methane before?  Methane has no more capacity to warm the atmosphere than CO2.


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

Jeez, it didn't happen in the 1930's (when it was warmer) it didn't happen in the MWP (when it was way warmer, and it didn't happen during the RWP (when it was likewise way warmer).  I say get a team down there and cap the plumes at their source and start generating some power with it!


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 15, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Look out your window and note that the sky is not falling.  Apply some lotion to your hands which are undoubtedly raw and chapped from the incessant hand wringing and take a few deep breaths and try to understand that you have been hoaxed.
> 
> Do you really believe that the sea bed has never burped methane before?  Methane has no more capacity to warm the atmosphere than CO2.



LOLOLOLOL.....just more retarded anti-science drivel from the forum's resident bogus bloviater and tragic Dunning-Kruger Effect victim.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2011)

"The shelf is shallow, 50 meters or less in depth, which means it has been alternately submerged or above water, depending on sea levels throughout Earth&#8217;s history. "

Read more: 'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice - a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide | Mail Online

Which can only mean that the SUV is far older than anticipated


----------



## earlycuyler (Dec 15, 2011)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2011)

If only Western civilization looked like North Korea at night...ahhh, the EnviroMarxists can dream can't they?


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> Jeez, it didn't happen in the 1930's (when it was warmer) it didn't happen in the MWP (when it was way warmer, and it didn't happen during the RWP (when it was likewise way warmer).  I say get a team down there and cap the plumes at their source and start generating some power with it!



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....wow, big surprise, the walleyedretard is insanely wrong again...as usual for the poor confused imbecile...

The world was not warmer in the 1930's, but the walleyedretard has fixated on the old news that the continental US (only 2% of the Earth's surface) was a tiny fraction of a degree warmer in 1934 than 1998 compared to the 1951-1980 average. Like two one hundredths of one percent (1934 ~ 1.25ºC vs. 1998 ~ 1.23ºC). The difference is not statistically significant. In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest year with 2010 in a close tie.

The world was not warmer either during the MWP or the RWP according to the scientific evidence, even though the walleyedretard's denier cult myths say the opposite. The world is warmer than it has ever been in at least the last six thousand years, maybe eight.

Talking about "_capping_" a multitude of methane plumes each a thousand meters wide just demonstrates how insane and clueless the walleyedretard really is.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 15, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "The shelf is shallow, 50 meters or less in depth, which means it has been alternately submerged or above water, depending on sea levels throughout Earth&#8217;s history. "
> 
> Read more: 'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice - a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide | Mail Online
> 
> Which can only mean that the SUV is far older than anticipated



No, but your moronically drooling posts can only mean that your brain died some time ago and was replaced by some moldy cottage cheese.


----------



## Sunshine (Dec 15, 2011)

The day the earth farted!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> Jeez, it didn't happen in the 1930's (when it was warmer) it didn't happen in the MWP (when it was way warmer, and it didn't happen during the RWP (when it was likewise way warmer).  I say get a team down there and cap the plumes at their source and start generating some power with it!



10,000 sq. miles. A square one hundred miles on the side. And in this small area, they found over 100 of these plumes. Some exceeding 1/2 mile wide. 

If you have a reasonable way of capping this, patent it. It will be a real money maker, and a boon to us all. 

However, returning to reality, last year, they were looking at some plumes 100 meters across. And ten years ago, they were measuring methane in solution in the ocean, and the increase in percentage of methane in the air above the oceans. This is releases on an order of magnitude in the space of a year. That is correct, they did not have these plumes in the MWP when it was not warmer than at present. And it was not warmer the world over in the '30's, only in the continental US.

Methane, once it is in the atmosphere, for the first 20 years is over 60 times as effective of a greenhouse gas as CO2. The higher the percentage of methane in the atmosphere, the longer this more effective period lasts. In other words, an addition of 1 ppm would be the equivelant of an increase of over 60 ppm of CO2. Even discounting present methane and other GHG increases, that 1 ppm would push us over the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2. 

Going to be interesting to see what happens in 2012 in this region. A major burp, such as that of the Storega Slide of 8000 years ago could provide us with some real entertainment.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> The day the earth farted!



Methane Thought To Be Responsible For Mass Extinction

Methane Thought To Be Responsible For Mass Extinction
ScienceDaily (Aug. 28, 2003)  EVANSTON, Ill. -- What caused the worst mass extinction in Earth's history 251 million years ago? An asteroid or comet colliding with Earth? A greenhouse effect? Volcanic eruptions in Siberia? Or an entirely different culprit? A Northwestern University chemical engineer believes the culprit may be an enormous explosion of methane (natural gas) erupting from the ocean depths.

In an article published in the September issue of Geology, Gregory Ryskin, associate professor of chemical engineering, suggests that huge combustible clouds produced by methane gas trapped in stagnant bodies of water and suddenly released could have killed off the majority of marine life and land animals and plants at the end of the Permian era -- long before dinosaurs lived and died. 

The mechanism also might explain other extinctions and climate perturbations (ice ages) and even the Biblical flood, as well as be the cause of future catastrophes.


----------



## Sunshine (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Jeez, it didn't happen in the 1930's (when it was warmer) it didn't happen in the MWP (when it was way warmer, and it didn't happen during the RWP (when it was likewise way warmer).  I say get a team down there and cap the plumes at their source and start generating some power with it!
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "The shelf is shallow, 50 meters or less in depth, which means it has been alternately submerged or above water, depending on sea levels throughout Earths history. "
> ...



Now that is disrespect to moldy cottage cheese.


----------



## SAT2 (Dec 15, 2011)

How can we be so far behind the eight ball on this?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2011)

Matthew said:


> 'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice
> Daily mail ^ | 12.13.2011 | n/a
> 
> The Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted a survey of 10,000 square miles of sea off the coast of eastern Siberia. They made a terrifying discovery - huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed. 'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across,' said Dr Igor Semiletov, 'These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere.'
> ...



*huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed*

I thought humans were responsible for the increase of methane in the atmosphere.

Now we're supposed to believe that there is methane that we're not responsible for? 

Impossible!!! 

Next they'll tell us that termites generate methane that we can't be blamed for as well.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

SAT2 said:


> How can we be so far behind the eight ball on this?



The scientists have been warning us for over 50 years that there could be some bad cess coming from the rapid warming. For the last 30 years, they have been stating that there will be some bad cess. 

Now, we are seeing that bad cess. But the same people that were denying that there was any warming right up to 2000, when it bacame too obvious too all that it was warming rather rapidly and radically, are now denying that the changes we are seeing in weather, the increase in the number and ferocity of the extreme weather event, are happening.

But our society, and most others, for that matter, would rather try to live in an alternate reality, than face up to the evidence that the scientists are presenting. And, when reality arrives in their back yard, they will be the first to blame the scientists for not warning them.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > 'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice
> ...



You are one fucking dumb asshole. We warmed the atmosphere and ocean with our GHG emissions. That is why the clathrates are rapidly degrading.


----------



## SAT2 (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> A call for immediate action. Useless, of course, except in the context of the scientists being able to state "We told you so".
> 
> NGU brochure
> 
> Nothing will be done, and we will see all of this happen. The 'tipping point' is passed. As individuals, and as a nation, we need to plan for consequences. That is not going to happen, either. Except for a very few people, none will consider this serious until it is directly affecting them. Even then, many will insist it is 'cyclic' and has nothing to do with the GHGs that we put into the atmosphere.





Old Rocks said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> > How can we be so far behind the eight ball on this?
> ...



I think that the rich figure that they can buy their way out of anything, and the average denier is their dupe in this, like they are in everything.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

From Australia, Russia, and the Missouri and Mississippi of the US, we can see that weather events of the magnitude of the past two years spare no one in their path, irregardless of position or wealth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> > How can we be so far behind the eight ball on this?
> ...



*The scientists have been warning us for over 50 years that there could be some bad cess coming from the rapid warming.*

They've been warning us since the 60s?
Weren't they warning us we were entering a new ice age in the mid-70s?
Damn, you don't even realize the BS you're spreading, do you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Or, the Earth was warming before we added GHG and we couldn't slow down the warming, even if we tried.


----------



## SAT2 (Dec 15, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They've been warning us since the 60s?
> Weren't they warning us we were entering a new ice age in the mid-70s?
> Damn, you don't even realize the BS you're spreading, do you?



No "they" weren't. There was a Time magazine article about a possible new ice age. You're taking a popular press article from three decades ago and using it to attack reality. Fail.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2011)

SAT2 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They've been warning us since the 60s?
> ...



Time said we were entering a new Ice Age while all the scientists said we were warmer than ever?

Any links to prove your claim?


----------



## asterism (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



These plumes are caused by a 1 deg rise in temperature?


----------



## asterism (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> From Australia, Russia, and the Missouri and Mississippi of the US, we can see that weather events of the magnitude of the past two years spare no one in their path, irregardless of position or wealth.



And Florida saw the same in 2004, 1960, 1845, etc...

Much of the nation saw this in the 1930s with the dustbowl.  

Soooo.....  ???


----------



## SAT2 (Dec 15, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's not quite what I said. 

You are referring to a popular press article about global cooling. 

When we talk about global warming, we're talking about a century of data supporting global warming.

You're combating [or trying to] that century of data by fighting with an article in a popular magazine.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SAT2 said:
> ...



Damn, you are even more of an ill informed and stupid fuck than I thought. 


What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?


What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument...
Ice age predicted in the 70s
"The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s. In 1975, cooling went from 'one of the most important problems' to a first-place tie for 'death and misery'. The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming." (Fire and Ice).

What the science says...
Select a level...  Basic    Intermediate    
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.  


In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call aerosols  emitted by human activities into the atmosphere  also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, its become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming  warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.



The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

asterism said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Global Warming and the Arctic FAQs | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Why study the effects of global warming on the Arctic?

For years, climate scientists have believed that the Artic would likely be one of the first regions to be affected by global warming and would likely experience greater warming than the rest of the world. Recent evidence has validated these concerns. While the world as a whole warmed about 1oF over the entire 20th century, parts of the Arctic have warmed by 4-5oF just since the 1950s.
The Arctic continues to warm at a rate about twice as fast as rest of the world. Scientists, as well as the indigenous people of the Arctic, have noticed dramatic changes in the Arctic environment that has affected ecosystems and wildlife, human settlements and infrastructure, and the way of life of indigenous peoples.

For these reasons, the ACIA was undertaken to evaluate whether these changes are caused by human activities; how Arctic climate change may affect climate change in the rest of the world; and the risks of continued global warming for the Arctic, its people, and its ecosystems and wildlife.

How will warming in the Arctic affect the rest of the world?

Climate change in the Arctic is expected to affect other parts of the world. The melting of ice masses in the Arctic could contribute significantly to global sea-level rise, and the addition of that fresh water to the salty oceans could change global ocean circulation patterns. Arctic tundra also stores huge amounts of carbon, which could be released to the atmosphere during a thaw, further enhancing the greenhouse effect and global warming.

How will warming in the Arctic affect the United States?

Some of these impacts are detailed in our report, Observed Impacts of Climate Change on Natural Systems in the United States by Camille Parmesan of and Hector Galbraith, released on November 10, 2004. Observed impacts in Alaska include the northward migration of treelines, increased melting of permafrost and the release of carbon dioxide from the thawing tundra, and changes in competition between species such as the arctic and red fox.

Additionial research on environmental impacts from global warming:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2011)

SAT2 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SAT2 said:
> ...



*When we talk about global warming, we're talking about a century of data supporting global warming.*

Maybe when we talk about that, you have some papers published in the mid 70s that show the data back then supported warming. I'm sure there were thousands, 100% blaming manmade CO2.

Let me know when you find links to a bunch of that proof. Thanks!!


----------



## Zander (Dec 15, 2011)

Global warming alarmists need to step up. It's time for you folks to walk the walk.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



*At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming*

So cooling temperatures didn't count, because CO2 was increasing? OMG!
You're fucking hilarious.
Please stop emitting CO2, for the planet.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

asterism said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > From Australia, Russia, and the Missouri and Mississippi of the US, we can see that weather events of the magnitude of the past two years spare no one in their path, irregardless of position or wealth.
> ...



*So, in the last two years we have seen weather disasters around the world in very rapid succession. *

Flooding in Australia: The reality of a secondary peril | Swiss Re - Leading Global Reinsurer

According to Mehlhorn secondary perils have contributed to about 30% of the total insured natural catastrophe losses over the last 30 years on a global level. Insured losses for recent years totaled around USD 10bn annually, which is well above the long term average.

The December 2010  January 2011 events in Australia underline once again the importance 

*And this year in just the US, we had 12 Billion+ dollar weather events. Ignore it if you want, it is going to be at your front door eventually.*


----------



## Zander (Dec 15, 2011)

Global Warming Alarmists, please,  kill yourselves. Do it for the children.  Save the planet!







Help the babies...


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

*It is not just the Clathrates that are emitting CH4 from the warming.*

Methane Gas Seeps « Water and Environmental Research Center

Potential Impact
Potential benefits of the project are: 

Reduction in the consumption of diesel fuel in Atqasuk both for power generation and home heating (approximately 500,000 gallons per year) 
better understanding of the gas resources in the NPRA area, with potential larger markets 
on the climate change side, quantifying natural seeps to atmospheric CH4 sources may change our understanding of the global balance between human and natural sources. 
Recent work revealed that seeps may contribute as much as 50-70 million tones of atmospheric CH4 per year, or ~10% of global sources. Additionally, capture and use of CH4 from seeps mitigates global climate change in two ways: Combusting CH4, a potent greenhouse gas (CH4 is 25 times stronger than CO2 on a per molecule basis), converts it to the weaker greenhouse gases, CO2 and H2O; and use of local CH4 reduces energy consumption associated with diesel usage and shipping to remote villages.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

Poor Zander, too damned stupid to bring a real arguement to the table. What a whiney old ass.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

You know, the most pathetic thing one learns on these boards is just how stupid and willfully ignorant you 'Conservatives' are. Buckley would have told each and every one of you to finish the third grade.


----------



## Zander (Dec 15, 2011)

Global Warming Alarmists- please- Help the babies!!! Kill yourselves, so this baby can live!!!


----------



## whitehall (Dec 15, 2011)

I doubt if anyone on the left would try to make a case that the water deep under the Arctic ice is warming and I doubt if they would try to make a case that bubbles of methane are caused by some man-made phenomenon. They post this stuff hoping that the ignorant and the grammar school kids will draw sinister conclusions. Throw enough crap against the wall and some of it might stick.


----------



## Zander (Dec 15, 2011)

whitehall said:


> I doubt if anyone on the left would try to make a case that the water deep under the Arctic ice is warming and I doubt if they would try to make a case that bubbles of methane are caused by some man-made phenomenon. They post this stuff hoping that the ignorant and the grammar school kids will draw sinister conclusions. Throw enough crap against the wall and some of it might stick.



If you question the phony science, you are a denier. Stop being a wolf, the alarmists really need more sheeple...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "The shelf is shallow, 50 meters or less in depth, which means it has been alternately submerged or above water, depending on sea levels throughout Earths history. "
> ...



What does it mean? 

Does it mean the Earth has undergone "GlobalWarmerCooleringClimateChangeDisruption" before the invention of the Internal Combustion engine?


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Jeez, it didn't happen in the 1930's (when it was warmer) it didn't happen in the MWP (when it was way warmer, and it didn't happen during the RWP (when it was likewise way warmer).  I say get a team down there and cap the plumes at their source and start generating some power with it!
> ...








Wow, you bring new meaning to the term moron.  The plume may be 1000 meters across when it reaches the surface but I assure you the point of origin is smaller then that.  As far as the MWP goes, you are as usual, wrong.  Here are a few links from peer reviewed papers from all over the world (including Antarctica) that show the MWP was global and warmer then the current day.

Evidence for a warmer period during the 12th and 13th centuries AD from chironomid assemblages in Southampton Island, Nunavut, Canada

Generation, transport, and preservation of the alkenone-based <b xmlns="">U</b> <sub xmlns=""> <b>37</b> </sub> <sup xmlns=""> <b>K&#8242;</b> </sup> sea surface temperature index in the water column and sediments of the Cariaco Basin (Venezuela)

ScienceDirect - Quaternary Research : Unstable Climate Oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula

Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium

ScienceDirect - Quaternary International : Climate changes and flood/drought risk in the Yangtze Delta, China, during the past millennium

Alkenone-based reconstruction of late-Holocene surface temperature and salinity changes in Lake Qinghai, China


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Jeez, it didn't happen in the 1930's (when it was warmer) it didn't happen in the MWP (when it was way warmer, and it didn't happen during the RWP (when it was likewise way warmer).  I say get a team down there and cap the plumes at their source and start generating some power with it!
> ...







Wow, just imagine NONE of this has ever happened before...in the WHOLE 4.5 billion year history of this planet man is in the space of 200 years destroying everything.  Man we kick ASS!


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...








So, what's the average temp in Antarctica?  Winter and Summer?  Does it ever average above freezing?


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






And there have NEVER been weather disasters in rapid succession before?  Really?  Dude you need to stop smokin whatever it is you're smoking.  12 Billion in inflated dollars is supposed to impress me?

And how about this you little hypocrite you.  If the polluion is so bad then why are you still working for EVRAZ?  Hmmm?  You pollute, by yourself, more then all of the people on this forum at any particular time of day.  What have you got to say for yourself?


----------



## wirebender (Dec 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> Here are a few links from peer reviewed papers from all over the world (including Antarctica) that show the MWP was global and warmer then the current day.



But mann made a hockey stick......and the bristlecone pines......and the single most important tree in the world...and hansen supported man and his hockey stick.


----------



## wirebender (Dec 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *So, in the last two years we have seen weather disasters around the world in very rapid succession. *




Here, have yourself a little shot of reality and stop wringing your hands.

World&#8217;s Top Climate Scientist Fails At Climate History | Real Science


----------



## SAT2 (Dec 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> Wow, just imagine NONE of this has ever happened before...in the WHOLE 4.5 billion year history of this planet man is in the space of 200 years destroying everything.  Man we kick ASS!



Give me a time when man has made more rapid, major alterations to the natural world than in the last 200 years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 16, 2011)

Mann, OR and EnviroMarxists want to turn us into North Korea at night


----------



## konradv (Dec 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



WOW!!!  Just imagine that we're expected to fall for this line of reasoning..., AGAIN!!!  It isn't about whether or not it's happened before, but how fast and WHY!!!  Doesn't everyone see right through that particular logical fallacy by now?!?!


----------



## editec (Dec 16, 2011)

Of course methane has and will continue to bubble ip from the ocean's floors naturally.

That will happen if the climate remains the same.

But if the methane that is trapped as ICE on the oceans floors is relased in masive amounts?

Well kids, that really could trigger events that rapid change the nature of the earth's atmosphere.

DID YOU KNOW that one theory about the Burmuda triangle is that occassionally massive methane plumes erupt causing boats which happen to be crursing over that site to _instantly_ sink?

Interesting theory, eh?

Of course if a methane plume is large enough that is exactly what would happen to boat crusing over it.


----------



## asterism (Dec 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



It already is at my front door since I live in Florida, a place that has been ravaged by hurricanes, flooding, and tornadoes for much longer than the current rise in CO2 emissions.

I'm aware that weather catastrophes are expensive.  Inflation, increased development, and stronger building codes all cause the costs to rise.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 16, 2011)

Matthew said:


> 'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice
> Daily mail ^ | 12.13.2011 | n/a
> 
> The Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted a survey of 10,000 square miles of sea off the coast of eastern Siberia. They made a terrifying discovery - huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed. 'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across,' said Dr Igor Semiletov, 'These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere.'
> ...



well,  looks like it time to blow up the sea floor or whatever geological formation that is responsible for this, they are fuking up  up the environment, maybe the UN can start a fund?............


----------



## Douger (Dec 16, 2011)

Fuck it.
I'm getting one of these.


----------



## wirebender (Dec 16, 2011)

Douger said:


> Fuck it.
> I'm getting one of these.



Do they make it in a coal fired model?  If so, I'm in also.


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 16, 2011)

Even if this phenomena isn't bad, it sure as hell can't be good.


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *So, in the last two years we have seen weather disasters around the world in very rapid succession. *
> ...






You do realise that all history that occured prior to 35 years ago doesn't count right?  They have decided that the history of the world is a impedance to their stated political goals so all weather related history prior to that is hereby declared illegal and may not be mentioned.  So you better watch it buddy!


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

SAT2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, just imagine NONE of this has ever happened before...in the WHOLE 4.5 billion year history of this planet man is in the space of 200 years destroying everything.  Man we kick ASS!
> ...







Man has a tremendous ability now to do terrible damage at the local level.  Strip mines are the best example of that.  However, look at a google image of Earth.  Find five strip mines and locate them on a map for us.  Let us know how much fun you have trying to find them.


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Oh no dudette.  I'm agreeing with you.  We kick ASS on an epic scale.  I predict that within the next 25 years we should be beating the shit out of the Moon too.  Leave no planet un-soiled!


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

editec said:


> Of course methane has and will continue to bubble ip from the ocean's floors naturally.
> 
> That will happen if the climate remains the same.
> 
> ...







Did you know that in the history of the world there is no evidence of that ever occuring?  On the other hand there is ample evidence of meteor strikes and near meteor strikes occuring.  The last occured in Siberia (thankfully) a little over a 100 years ago.  we just had a rock the size of an aircraft carrier zip between the Earth and the Moon.

You want to see civilisation end?  Let one of those hit us.  Man finally has the ability to prevent a true worldwide disaster that would, if not end higher level life on this planet at the very least end civilisation, and your hero's are fiddling like Nero over a non problem.

Look throughout paleo history.  When it was warm life flourished.  When it has been cold life was terribly hard.  Don't believe a word I say, go look it up for yourself.  But if you truly wish to save the world invest in finding the rocks that can and WILL kill us.  This AGW BS is just that BS.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


No, walleyedretard, that is your job and one that you're doing very well. As your every post demonstrates.





westwall said:


> The plume may be 1000 meters across when it reaches the surface but I assure you the point of origin is smaller then that.


LOL. You really like talking out of your ass, don't you, you poor imbecile. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about but you talk anyway. LOL. Methane clathrates are distributed across the sea floor. There is no "_smaller point of origin_". It is not like a leaking undersea oil well that can be "_capped_", as you idiotically imagine.






westwall said:


> As far as the MWP goes, you are as usual, wrong.  Here are a few links from peer reviewed papers from all over the world (including Antarctica) that show the MWP was global and warmer then the current day.


Oh you poor walleyedretard, you still seem to imagine that repeating your denier cult myths over and over will somehow magically make them turn into reality. LOL.

Denier cult myths - *The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as todayRepeating this point does not make it true*
(excerpts)

*Objection: It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as it is today. 

Answer: There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years. On its website, NOAA has a wide selection of proxy studies, accompanied by the data on which they are based. Specifically, they have this to say on the MWP:

"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect."​*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Egad, Walleyes, you are getting senile. Flew over these a few years ago. One try on google to locate them. Center on 38 degrees 08' 06" by 80 degrees 28' 48"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



*There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now*

Are those the reconstructions with real data, or the reconstructions where they left out the inconvenient data?


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SAT2 said:
> ...






Yes, now find five of them.  It's easy to find one or even a group of two or in a couple of cases three in a group.  But find five.


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Read the links twit.  They are all from peer reviewed papers (one was even published by the AGU)and they all say the same thing, the world was warmer and it was global.

Go ahead read them you little denier you!  I dare you!  And, if we're doing such a bad job...why are you losing?  You must REALLY be dumb to let retards like us wipe the floor with you!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 16, 2011)

A snowstorm in NYC in Oct is "evidence" of "ManmadeGlobalWarmerCooleringClimateChangeDisruption" but warmer weather in the USA in the 30's is ignored due to its small size.

Are you writing this down?


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I read your links, you half-wit twit, something you very obviously failed to do, and *none* of them say that "_the world was warmer_" during the MWP or that "_it was global_". Not one of those papers even hints at such conclusions. You must just scrape these bogus citations off some denier cult blog and then you must foolishly believe them when they misinform you that these papers say anything pertinent about the MWP without you bothering to actually make any attempt to read them or comprehend them, you sad sorry retard. I dare you to quote any line from those abstracts that says anything about "_warmer_" than the present "_globally_".







westwall said:


> And, if we're doing such a bad job...why are you losing?  You must REALLY be dumb to let retards like us wipe the floor with you!



You have no idea what is going on, you sorry-ass brainwashed moron, or what the issues are or what arenas they will be settled in, so your foolish fantasies about you 'winning' are completely meaningless. As far as "_winning_" any debates about climate science, you lost those a long time ago but you're too retarded to get it so you keep repeating your debunked drivel and lies, ad nauseam.


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








Ahhh, now I KNOW you're lying.  I ignore lying sacks of poo.  They stink up the place.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Are you in the third grade or are you just *that* retarded? The papers you cited say nothing whatsoever about the global climate being warmer during the MWP. I dared you to quote any line from the papers you cited that supported your claim that those papers "_show the MWP was global and warmer then the current day_" and you have failed to even try to meet the challenge. That tells me that you know they are bogus citations, you corrupt lying troll.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2011)

Walleyes posted an article about the evidence from the ocean floor sediment cores from the Indian Ocean, stating that showed it was warmer in the MWP. However, on reading the article, it stated clearly that the average obtained from those cores and other sites indicated a warmiing of about 0.2 C compared to 0.7 today, globally.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Very interesting. A point source for an area of a kilometer in water 50 to 150 meters deep. Those are quite some angles on the sides of that cone. Walleyes, do you ever think before you post?


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Yes I do, unlike yourself.  The bottom is fractured throughout the region.  It is a relatively simple matter to seal up the fractures to get one hole that you cap.  But that's called engineering and clearly anything more complicated then 2+2 is beyond your ability.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOLOLOL....jeez but you're funny, walleyed. You are sooooo ignorant and naive about things like the difficulty involved in doing something "_to seal up the fractures_" in the ocean floor over hundreds of square miles. LOLOL. 

Moreover you obviously have no idea what methane hydrates actually are or where they are found or how and why they dissolve and outgas. You seem to imagine that the methane is coming from deeply buried sources and is seeping up through cracks in the seabed. LOL. You are so completely clueless about this, as well as everything else, and yet you still continue to make a fool out of yourself by posting your ignorant drivel here no matter how many times it is completely debunked. So you're either really retarded or you're a paid troll here to spread disinformation, lies and propaganda. Or perhaps a combination of the two.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOL.  In an area 100 miles by 100 miles, there were over 100 'boils'. And you are going to seal them up, on an ocean bottom that is only 50 to 150 meters deep? At what cost? And what does the first storm do to your 'seals'?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2011)

Global warming fractured the bottom of the Arctic Ocean?


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







I decided to lower myself to your level so that you might understand better.  I see I didn't lower myself enough.


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Try looking at the offsets for the LEAST densely compacted oil fields.  100 boils in a 100x100 mile section is a VAST amount of offset.  There are oil fields where the offsets are under 100 FEET.  The goal would not be to seal them up, the goal would be to tap the boils.  In certain situations with a heavily fractured sea floor you use cement to seal up the fractures AFTER you have bored a well and tapped the source.  That way there is a pressure relief system in place.

I can assure the cost would be far less then the trillions of dollars you clowns want to spend on doing nothing.  And, we would be able to generate power with it.  So PEOPLE would be happy to pay for it.

Jeez, did you even graduate grade school?  It seems even the most simple of concepts are far, far beyond your ability to comprehend.


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Walleyes posted an article about the evidence from the ocean floor sediment cores from the Indian Ocean, stating that showed it was warmer in the MWP. However, on reading the article, it stated clearly that the average obtained from those cores and other sites indicated a warmiing of about 0.2 C compared to 0.7 today, globally.






Wow your level of understanding of the physical world is remakably primitive.  The importance of the Indian Ocean study was to show that the temperature rise was indeed global (refuting one of your basic tenets) and that in the middle of a gigantic heat sink and thermal regulator the temp increase was significant enough to be read!  

You really have no concept of thermodynamics at all do you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 25, 2011)

Home

*Well, according the these scientists, the fat is already in the fire. Real scientists here, people that have studied the Arctic close up and personal. But no one is going to listen. So we will definately find out just how much a major emission of clathrate methane will affect our civilization. Going to be interesting, though I think, a bit unpleasant.*


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Home
> 
> *Well, according the these scientists, the fat is already in the fire. Real scientists here, people that have studied the Arctic close up and personal. But no one is going to listen. So we will definately find out just how much a major emission of clathrate methane will affect our civilization. Going to be interesting, though I think, a bit unpleasant.*






Yep, real scientists using real crappy computer models are predicting the end of the world yet again.  So, what doos this make?  Tipping point number 3011?  

But, in the real world, the Arctic ice extent is probably going be the highest recorded in over 7 years.  And, this is just the beginning.

BTW, I LOVE their name, the Arctic Methane Emergency Group!  What a hoot.  No bias there at all, hm um, none at all




COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 25, 2011)

And the number of experiments showing how AGW did any of this is still zero


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 25, 2011)

Matthew said:


> 'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice
> Daily mail ^ | 12.13.2011 | n/a
> 
> The Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted a survey of 10,000 square miles of sea off the coast of eastern Siberia. They made a terrifying discovery - huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed. 'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across,' said Dr Igor Semiletov, 'These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere.'
> ...



So if the methane comes from the bottom of the sea, What difference does ice make?  Wouldn't the gas just find its way to the edges of the ice?  Also, humans didn't create the methane.  The Earth released it.


----------



## asterism (Dec 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Home
> 
> *Well, according the these scientists, the fat is already in the fire. Real scientists here, people that have studied the Arctic close up and personal. But no one is going to listen. So we will definately find out just how much a major emission of clathrate methane will affect our civilization. Going to be interesting, though I think, a bit unpleasant.*



How was this caused by man again?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 26, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Global warming fractured the bottom of the Arctic Ocean?



Yeah, that's the part I find hard to believe.  The water there is slightly less than 32 degrees 365 days a year.  How does that melt these methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 26, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > 'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice
> ...



What these methane heads have failed to show is that this methane release hasn't been going on all along.  Just because some government funded expedition finds something, that doesn't mean it's a new phenomena.  

This reminds me of the ozone hole.  No one ever bothered to prove that was something new either.  They just assumed it.  Yet, we all had to give up using fluorocarbons in our air conditioners.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Home
> 
> *Well, according the these scientists, the fat is already in the fire. Real scientists here, people that have studied the Arctic close up and personal. But no one is going to listen. So we will definately find out just how much a major emission of clathrate methane will affect our civilization. Going to be interesting, though I think, a bit unpleasant.*



You'll have to forgive me if I don't accept publicans from the "Methane Integrity Group" as credible.  They come off as some fringe leftwing environmental political hack operation.


----------



## waltky (Dec 26, 2011)

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... an' when dey crank up dat Large Hadron Collider...

... sparks from dem atoms dey splittin'...

... gonna set off dat methane from alla dat polar bear poop atta North Pole...

... an' blow uppa world...

... just wait an' see...

... gonna happen on Dec.21, 2012, just like dem Mayans predictin'...

... an' den we all gonna die.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 26, 2011)

Matthew said:


> 'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice
> Daily mail ^ | 12.13.2011 | n/a
> 
> The Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted a survey of 10,000 square miles of sea off the coast of eastern Siberia. They made a terrifying discovery - huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed. 'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across,' said Dr Igor Semiletov, 'These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere.'
> ...



There's no video evidence at the link.

so excuse me for finding it hard to buy that it's only occurring there.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



You are still proving yourself to be a stupid ass, Pattycake. Yes, the ozone 'hole' was proven to be something new, and it was proven that the chemical reactions at that altitude from the flourocarbons were the problem. In fact, a Nobel prize was awarded to the chemist that supplied the proof.

Of course, you could have researched to see how far back this has been monitored, and what was found then. But that would be a little like work, and you would just rather flap yap. 

Your opinion, based in willfull ignorance is irrelevant, in any case.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > 'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice
> ...



Hmmm.....   The outgassing was spotted by satellite. And were it occuring in other oceans, we would see that also. And, as stated by the scientists that were on the ship that was put out on an emergency basis, these findings were in just an area 100 by 100 miles. They stated that they saw no reason that the rest of the shelf was not doing the same.

If it were to be occurring at this scale in other oceans, then it is game over. Runaway climate change. That does not mean Venus, what it does mean is that we cannot affect the scope, or extant of the change. A repeat of conditions in the PETM, possibly worse. With seven billion people on the planet. A sad kind of population control.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 26, 2011)

If you want to survive, start hanging around old farts so you can adapt.


----------



## konradv (Dec 26, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> And the number of experiments showing how AGW did any of this is still zero



Hmmm, equal to the number of times Frank is right!  Coincidence?  I think, NOT!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

Home

Professor Peter Wadhams, on behalf of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, spoke about this critical issue at the December 2011 American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco, USA. Key elements of his talk have been widely reported, following an article in the UK's Independent newspaper. (Please find copies of this and subsequent articles attached.) 

The substance of our concerns &#8211; and the basis for these media reports &#8211; is outlined in the attached 16-page document entitled Arctic Methane Alert. To summarise:

&#8226;	The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and increased warming of the Arctic seas threaten methane hydrate instability and a massive catastrophic release of methane into the atmosphere, as noted in IPCC AR4. 

&#8226;	Research published by N. Shakhova* shows that methane is already venting into the atmosphere from seabed methane hydrates on the East Siberian Arctic shelf, or ESAS (the world's largest continental shelf), which, if allowed to escalate, would likely lead to abrupt and catastrophic global warming.

&#8226;	The latest research expedition to the region (September/October 2011), according to Professor I. Semiletov, witnessed methane plumes on a "fantastic scale," "some one kilometer in diameter," "far greater" than previous observations, which were officially reported in 2010 to equal methane emissions from all the other oceans put together.

&#8226;	The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and subsequent increased Arctic surface warming will inevitably increase the rate of methane emissions already being released from Arctic wetlands and thawing permafrost.

&#8226;	The latest available data indicates there is a 5-10% possibility of the Arctic being ice free in September by 2013, more likely 2015, and with 95% confidence by 2018. This, according to the recognised world authorities on Arctic sea ice, Prof. Wadhams and Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski, is the point of no return for summer sea ice. Once past this point, it could prove impossible to reverse the retreat by any kind of intervention.  The data indicate the Arctic could be ice free for six months of the year by 2020 (PIOMAS 2011).

Home


----------



## konradv (Dec 26, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming fractured the bottom of the Arctic Ocean?
> ...



Doesn't need to melt, as methane hydrates aren't really frozen.  A lowering of pressure can cause methane release, which is what would happen, if the upper layers warmed and the water became less dense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 26, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming fractured the bottom of the Arctic Ocean?
> ...



"We did it"......Liberal logic.


----------



## waltky (Dec 26, 2011)

Now, for some appropriate mood music...

*The Mighty Quinn (Quinn The Eskimo)*
_by Manfred Mann_


> Come all without, come all within
> You'll not see nothing like the Mighty Quinn
> Come all without, come all within
> You'll not see nothing like the Mighty Quinn
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> You are still proving yourself to be a stupid ass, Pattycake. Yes, the ozone 'hole' was proven to be something new, and it was proven that the chemical reactions at that altitude from the flourocarbons were the problem. In fact, a Nobel prize was awarded to the chemist that supplied the proof.



No, it wasn't proven to be something new, turd.  The Ozone hole has probably always been at the South Pole because it doesn't get any sunlight for six months.  Ozone is created when sunlight strikes Oxygen, if you didn't know that.  If you think there was proof the ozone hole wasn't always there, then produce it.



Old Rocks said:


> Of course, you could have researched to see how far back this has been monitored, and what was found then. But that would be a little like work, and you would just rather flap yap.



If you have proof, then produce it.  Otherwise shut your yap.



Old Rocks said:


> Your opinion, based in willfull ignorance is irrelevant, in any case.



It appears your opinion is based on "willful ignorance."


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 26, 2011)

konradv said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Uh . . . . That might lower the pressure by 0.00001%.  The water at the surface is 32 degrees year round.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Oh puhleaze.    Other oceans are far warmer than the arctic ocean, but you expect us to believe that only now the methane hydrates in these other oceans are decomposing?  There are methane hydrates all over the Caribbean.  The water temp there is far warmer than the arctic.  How can there still be Methane hydrate in the Caribbean if a water temperature of 32 degrees at the surface is sufficient to make them decompose?

The warmist cult members were looking for a way to scare the voters into giving them control over our lives and tax us into the Stone Age, and this is just their latest attempt.  

Note:  They are still claiming the arctic will be ice free in a few years even though ice in the arctic has been increasing for the last 7 years.

The warmist cult members have been wrong about every claim they have made.  Anyone who falls for their latest scam is terminally gullible.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 26, 2011)

These guys would really freak if they studied gamma rays.   lol


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...






Oh, really now.  Please provide the peer reviewed papers that showed it was a recent phenomena.  I have plenty that show it is entirely natural.


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...






Actually, I think a major flu outbreak or an attack of hemorrhagic fever would be worse.  Starvation sure is a crappy way to go too, of course when it's warmer plant life blooms so you can't pray for famine to kill people, no matter how hard you try to pin that on AGW.


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Home
> 
> Professor Peter Wadhams, on behalf of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, spoke about this critical issue at the December 2011 American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco, USA. Key elements of his talk have been widely reported, following an article in the UK's Independent newspaper. (Please find copies of this and subsequent articles attached.)
> 
> ...








[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8U0HxhR2Bc&feature=related]Woman farts in pool!! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 26, 2011)

meh.......the "predictions" record by those in the alarmist camps has been abysmal, in fact, all these predictions and pronunciations of "this computer model says" and "that computer model says" are looked at by the public as a joke in 2011. Its not even debatable.

IN 2011, when the public see's news reports about this crap being tied to global warming, they are laughing their balls off.

How do I know with 100% certainty?


>>>>>>>>>>>>Delivering the post mortem on climate legislations failure 


HAPPY NEW YEAR


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> meh.......the "predictions" record by those in the alarmist camps has been abysmal, in fact, all these predictions and pronunciations of "this computer model says" and "that computer model says" are looked at by the public as a joke in 2011. Its not even debatable.
> 
> IN 2011, when the public see's news reports about this crap being tied to global warming, they are laughing their balls off.
> 
> ...






My gosh but they DO whine don't they?  Worse then my 5 year old girl.  I expect their next response to be "fine I'm going to go play by myself now!"


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



*Just about a dumb fuck, aren't you, Pattycake.*

Arctic Report Card - Ocean - Proshutinsky, et al.

Ocean temperature and salinity
Upper-ocean temperature

Upper ocean temperature anomalies in summer 2010 (Fig. SIO7 were comparable to those in 2009 (not shown) but remained lower than the record set in 2007, with no significant inter-annual changes in summer warming since 2008. In August 2011, there is a wide area of anomalously warm SSTs (sea surface temperature) in the western Arctic Ocean (north of NW Canada, Alaska and eastern Siberia), although maximum values do not reach those seen in 2007 (Fig. SIO7). Much of the eastern Arctic Ocean (north of western Russia and Europe) is also anomalously warm, with the exception of Fram Strait. For more information about water temperatures in Fram Strait, and the adjacent Greenland and Norwegian seas, see the essay on Cetaceans and Pinnipeds.

Inter-annual variations in SST anomalies reflect differences in the pace of sea ice retreat (see the essay on Sea Ice), as well as changing advection of warm ocean currents from the south (Steele et al. 2011). In recent years, solar radiation has penetrated more easily into the upper ocean under thinning and retreating ice cover to create warm near-surface temperature maxima (Jackson et al., 2010). In the Canada Basin, this maximum has descended to depths around 30 m because of increased downwelling in the convergent Beaufort Gyre during recent strongly-anticyclonic years (Yang et al. 2009), while surface mixing is decreasing as stratification increases (Toole et al. 2010; McPhee et al. 2009). Outside of the Beaufort Gyre, the temperature maximum does not survive through the winter (Steele et al. 2010).


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

Home

Methane hydrate seems intrinsically vulnerable on Earth; nowhere at the Earth's surface is it stable to melting and release of the methane, and it floats in water, so the only factor holding it at high pressure is the weight of the mud overlying it in coastal margin sediments. A few degrees of warming in the deep ocean can have a significant impact on the stability of the hydrate, and it is known that the temperature of the deep ocean responds to changes in surface climate, albeit with a lag of centuries to millennia. Hence, there are concerns that climate change could trigger significant methane releases from hydrates and thus could lead to strong positive carbon&#8211;climate feedbacks (Schiermeier 2008).*David Archer  09 Gas hydrates: entrance to a methane age or climate threat?


Global warming through ocean warming will, when the sea floor is warmed upo enough destabilize methane hydrates releasing methane gas. The feedback is shown by a 2006 global warming assessment for the German government .

It is estimated that if 10% of methane stored in permafrost was released into the atmopshere, it would have an effect similar to a ten-fold increase in CO2. Abrupt warming would occur if the concentration of methane, or CO2, increased suddenly; this would in turn cause further melting of permafrost and release of even more ancient methane deposits  ; and therefore it would intensify global warming even further.  This phenomenon is known as a &#8216;positive feedback&#8217;. Even if methane accumulates with a slower pace it will still intensify global warming by oxidizing to CO2 which is a less potent greenhouse gas but with a much longer lifetime of 230 years. 

Although as far back as 1992*(USGS) the threat of an enormous global climate change impact from marine methane hydrates destabilized from global arming was recognized. The scenario is sea level rise with ocean warming from which it has been assumed that it will take hundreds of years for global surface warming to penetrate down to the sea floor and below to destabilize the solid hydrates. 

Methane gas has 160X the volume of the solid hydrate containin it, and therefor methane hydrate destabilization will tend to be explosive - on large por small. An MIT model *has found this effect and it has been suggested that this property makes the hydrates more vulnerable to warming because destabilization could be self propagating. "This indicates that we may be greatly underestimating the methane fluxes presently occurring in the ocean and from underground into Earth's atmosphere,"  Ruban Juanes 09 MT energy research


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

Home

NASA has given methane more attention so is a good source of information for example NASA's*Methane
a Scientific Journey by Gavin  Schmidt.

Methane is very important because it is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The figure usually quoted for methane global warming potential is 25 (XCO2), but this defers the global warming  of methane over 100 years and was more a policy decison than science. The IPCC gives methane's GWP over 20 years at 72. Methane lasts in the atmopshere about 10 years over which time the GWP is at least 100. That matters in the Arctic methane emergency where we need to know what the global warming effect of methane over the very short term. 


Methane only lasts 10 years because (unlike CO2) it is chemically reactive inthe atmosphere. It is oxidized 
by atmospheric hydroxyl, but  to other GHGs notably water vapor vapor and CO2 so methane emissions cary on warming (to a small degree) long  after 10 years. The IPCC accounts for the water vapor warming of methane emissions but not the CO2. The atmospheric chemistry of methane in the atmsphere is very hard to pin down. Drew Shindell of NASA is a leading world expert on that aspect of methane.

Because methane is removed from the atmosphere by hydroxyl, a very large constant emission can use up the hydroxyl thereby allowing methane to last longer inthe atmosphere. 

Dr Shindell has determined by modeling methane in the atmosphere that its global warming potential  (GWP) is up to 30% higher than assumed.


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 26, 2011)

Can we increase the hydroxyl in the atmosphere?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

Home

At the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco from 5-9 December 2011, there was a session on Arctic Gas Hydrate Methane Release and Climate Change at which Dr Semiletov of the Far Eastern branch of Russian Academy of Sciences reported dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane &#8211; a greenhouse gas about 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide &#8211; were seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region. 

This has been reported by UK The Independent and copied by news around the world and in a number of online blogs, but the background is explained in detail by a website set up by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group. Essentially the problem they have identified is the following:

This emergency to our planet's biosphere comes from multiple positive Arctic climate feedback processes, each of which affects the whole biosphere and each of which will increase the rate of global warming / temperature increase. Atmospheric temperatures are rising faster in the Arctic than in temperate or tropical regions.

Already today, all the potentially huge Arctic positive climate feedbacks are operating.
The Arctic summer sea ice is in a rapid, extremely dangerous meltdown process. The Arctic summer ice albedo loss feedback (i.e. open sea absorbs more heat than ice which reflects much of it) had clearly passed its tipping point in 2007 &#8211; many decades earlier than models projected, meaning that it is now inevitable that the Arctic will become ice free in summer within the next few years. Models of sea ice volume indicate a seasonally ice free Arctic likely by 2015, with the possibility of a collapse to a small amount of residual ice as soon as summer 2013. 

*Such a collapse will inexorably lead to positive feedbacks under which today's carbon sinks such as permafrost, peat bogs, and rainforests worldwide will become net sources of atmospheric carbon leading to planetary catastrophe. 

The retreat of sea ice is leading to the most catastrophic feedback process of all, many decades ahead of projections. This is the venting of methane to the atmosphere from frozen methane gas hydrates that are destabilizing along the East Siberian continental shelf in the Arctic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

Mr. H. said:


> Can we increase the hydroxyl in the atmosphere?



That and other remedies are discussed at the site given for the posts. 

All most all of the scientists that deal with the Arctic are very serious about the September observations of the methane emissions in the East Arctic Shelf. This was not expected at all.

The first expeditions checking the clathrates and other issues in the Arctic Ocean was done in 2003. They found elevated CH4 in the ocean, and elevated amounts in the atmosphere above the ocean. These increased until in 2010, they observed what they called 'torches', streams of methane bubbles breaking surface and going directly into the atmosphere. Some of these were tens of meters across. 

But in Sept of 2011, in an area only 100 miles by 100 miles, they found over 100 'torches', some over a kilometer in diameter. According to Dr. Semiletov, there were probably tens of thousands of these 'torches' spread over the whole of the shelf. Most of the shelf is 50 meters or less in depth. And the temperatures of the water has been increasing every year, and the increased storms are mixing it more than in the past.

Simply, worst case scenerios were calling for this to happen toward the end of the century, not this year. The climate scientists are wrong again, they were far too optimistic about the time we had left to deal with the feedbacks in the Arctic.


----------



## Intense (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Can we increase the hydroxyl in the atmosphere?
> ...



Maybe we should stop whining about it and try to capture it, or would you complain about that too?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

Mr. H. said:


> Can we increase the hydroxyl in the atmosphere?



Should the governments actually decide to address the issue, people in your business will be in demand. For, somehow, that leaking methane needs be prevented from exiting into the atmosphere unburned. And, should we decide to do this, then we should at least get something back for the effort.

However, given we are talking about costs on the order of WW3, it is not going to happen. And, since governments are not going to do anything, we, as individuals, will have to deal with the consequences of runaway warming on an individual level.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

Intense said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



That is addressed on the site. But it will be at a cost comparable to that of WW3. In other words, no profit, just using as much as we can to defray the expenses a little.


----------



## Intense (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Can we increase the hydroxyl in the atmosphere?
> ...



I'd take the problem to Oil and Gas Exploration, not Government directly.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

WHO ARE WE?

In the preparation of the report contained in these pages, scientific and/or engineering advice was sought and obtained from the following people:
*
Ken Caldeira, Professor of Environmental Earth System Sciences, Stanford University, US;
Ed Dlugokencky, PhD, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US;
Michel Halbwachs, Professor of Physics, University of Savoie, France;
Veli Albert Kallio, Chairman of the Frozen Isthmuses Protection Campaign, UK/Finland;
Jon Egill Kristjansson, Professor of meteorology, Oslo University, Norway;
Mike MacCracken, PhD, Climate Institute, Washington, US;
David Mitchell, Associate Research Professor, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, DRI, US;
Brian Orr, PhD, former Principle Scientific Officer, Department of the Environment
Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering at Edinburgh University, UK;
Natalia Shakhova, PhD, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska, US;
Igor Semiletov, PhD, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska, US; 
Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, Cambridge University, UK;
Leonid Yurganov, PhD, Dept of Physics, University of Toronto, Canada.

Also consulted concerning the use of diatoms for water oxygenation were M V Bhaskar and Richard Harvey, the latter attending the workshop on Saturday only, see below.  Furthermore Emily Lewis-Brown was consulted on ecosystem issues, and Andrew Lockley on methane air capture.


At the end of the Arctic Methane Workshop held in Chiswick, London W4, on the weekend of 15-16 October, 2011, a position statement on the Arctic methane emergency, proposed by the chairman, John Nissen, was agreed by the following:

Graham Ennis                                                                                                                                                                                                   Doly Garcia                                                                                                                                                                                                 Jon Hughes                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Veli Albert Kallio                                                                                                                                                                                                  Graham Knight                                                                                                                                                                                                              Dr Brian Orr                                                                                                                                                                                                    Professor Stephen Salter                                                                                                                                                                               Professor Peter Wadhams

Working group team producing the report, distributed as a brochure at the American Geopysical Union conference December 2011: 

Sam Carana, writer blogger and editor at geo-engineering.blogspot.com
Peter D Carter, MD, US Canada;
Anthony Cook, science educator, International School of Ulaanbaatar,MN
Graham Ennis, former aerospace engineer, UK;
Gary Houser, documentary producer, US;
Jon Hughes, ex-editor Ecologist, UK;
John Nissen, MA, chairman of the working group, UK.

See Home


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

Intense said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



They have neither the resources or finances for the scale the effort would have to be done on.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 26, 2011)

"The climate of the Arctic is characterized by long, cold winters and short, cool summers. There is a large amount of variability in climate across the Arctic, but all regions experience extremes of solar radiation in both summer and winter. Some parts of the Arctic are covered by ice (sea ice, glacial ice, or snow) year-round, and nearly all parts of the Arctic experience long periods with some form of ice on the surface. Average January temperatures range from about &#8722;40 to 0 °C (&#8722;40 to +32 °F), and winter temperatures can drop below &#8722;50 °C (&#8722;58 °F) over large parts of the Arctic. Average July temperatures range from about &#8722;10 to +10 °C (14 to 50 °F), with some land areas occasionally exceeding 30 °C (86 °F) in summer."

OR, call wiki and tell them to add a sentence of two on how our SUVs are melting the Arctic Ocean floor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Home
> 
> Methane hydrate seems intrinsically vulnerable on Earth; nowhere at the Earth's surface is it stable to melting and release of the methane, and it floats in water, so the only factor holding it at high pressure is the weight of the mud overlying it in coastal margin sediments. A few degrees of warming in the deep ocean can have a significant impact on the stability of the hydrate, and it is known that the temperature of the deep ocean responds to changes in surface climate, albeit with a lag of centuries to millennia. Hence, there are concerns that climate change could trigger significant methane releases from hydrates and thus could lead to strong positive carbonclimate feedbacks (Schiermeier 2008).*David Archer  09 Gas hydrates: entrance to a methane age or climate threat?
> 
> ...



* it is known that the temperature of the deep ocean responds to changes in surface climate, albeit with a lag of centuries to millennia.*

That's excellent news. It shows that any methane release is unrelated to man made CO2.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



According to your paper, the maximum surface water temperature was 37 degrees in the year 2007.  Furthermore, the deepest this warm water penetrated was 30 meters in a specific local:



> In the Canada Basin, this maximum has descended to depths around 30 m because of increased downwelling in the convergent Beaufort Gyre during recent strongly-anticyclonic years



How much does the density of water change with a temperature change of 5 degrees?  It hardly changes at all.  

From Wikipedia:

Properties of water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Temp (°C) 	Density (kg/m3)
-----------------------------------------
+4 	999.9720
0 	999.8395

So the change in density is less than 0.001 percent, and that is only down to 30 meters, at the most.  The change in pressure would be too miniscule to even measure.  The temperature at the bottom is still slightly less than 32 degrees.  

The idea that lower pressure from warmer water due to global warming is causing methane hydrates to dissolve is simply too absurd for words.

*What do you have to say about that, Dumbfuck?*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Home
> ...



Fucking dumb, Todd. The East Arctic Shelf has an average depth of about 50 meters. That is not deep ocean, in fact, at that depth a storm can mix surface water right down to the bottom.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Now Pattycake, someone with a bit of intellect might read the article and learn something.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



That's great, we don't have to worry about the deep ocean for centuries.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 26, 2011)

Anyone wonder how we got over a mile of ice over 50m of sea?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Pattycake, someone with a bit of intellect might read the article and learn something.



I obviously did read the article, you dumb turd, but I'm not a scientific and mathematical ignoramus like you.  I actually understand what I'm reading.  

If you had something intelligent to respond with, you would have posted it.

You've been pawned.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 26, 2011)

Actually, since the weight of the ice deformed the land and compressed it, the melting should have made the methane deeper in the ground.  As it expanded, it would create spaces for the water to fill and thus maintain a great deal of the weight.  Which weighs more a ton of ice or water?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



And the number of repeatable lab experiments showing how AGW melts ice 50m down is still zero


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







*"RESULTS ARE FROM A 2D COUPLED ICE-OCEAN MODEL."*  Once again they confuse models with data.


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Home
> 
> Methane hydrate seems intrinsically vulnerable on Earth; nowhere at the Earth's surface is it stable to melting and release of the methane, and it floats in water, so the only factor holding it at high pressure is the weight of the mud overlying it in coastal margin sediments. A few degrees of warming in the deep ocean can have a significant impact on the stability of the hydrate, and it is known that the temperature of the deep ocean responds to changes in surface climate, albeit with a lag of centuries to millennia. Hence, there are concerns that climate change could trigger significant methane releases from hydrates and thus could lead to strong positive carbonclimate feedbacks (Schiermeier 2008).*David Archer  09 Gas hydrates: entrance to a methane age or climate threat?
> 
> ...







Gee.  I wonder where all this methane is coming from.  Perhaps an abiotic source?  It sure seems to be coming from areas where it is not likely to originate based on the current theories of hydrocarbon production.  This is more like what is seen on Saturns moons.


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Home
> 
> At the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco from 5-9 December 2011, there was a session on Arctic Gas Hydrate Methane Release and Climate Change at which Dr Semiletov of the Far Eastern branch of Russian Academy of Sciences reported dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane  a greenhouse gas about 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide  were seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.
> 
> ...







Ahhhhhh!


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







That is simply ridiculous.  Energy in untold quantities and all you dudes want to do is get rid of it.


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Need to check your facts there silly person..the average depth of the East Siberian shelf is actually 100 meters.  Really powerful storms can mix to a depth of 500 meters so there is definately a interaction going on.  However, at such a shallow depth capping and exploiting are a relatively easy proposition!


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Anyone wonder how we got over a mile of ice over 50m of sea?







We don't.  You only get really thick ice like that with continental glaciation like is seen on Greenland and Antarctica.  Depth of ice on the Arctic ocean is on average around 1.5 meters.  Really old ice (over 4 years old) will get to a depth of 3 to 5 meters.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 26, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



And observations with hypothesis and experiments


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone wonder how we got over a mile of ice over 50m of sea?
> ...



So 1.5m is holding down all this high pressure methane?  Well that certainly would never work.  Inconvenient truth number 1,006 rears its ugly head.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 27, 2011)

Gotta love what stupid bastards you guys are. A year ago, when the first plumes were observed, only tens of meters across, and not that many, all of you stated nothing to worry about, probably normal. Now, in only a years time, we see an outgassing that is an order of magnitude or two greater than last year. And real scientists, not internet posters, are telling us that this is a major worry.

In fact, one of the statements goes like this. "The Arctic has been said to be the canary of climate change. Well, folks, the canary just died". But, not to worry, nothing is going to be done, and we are going to be able to observe the effects of adrupt climate change. Going to be very interesting.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



This is simpy ridiculous. Someone that claims to be a scientist, does not even bother to read what some very well respected scientists from some prestigeous institutions actually are proposing.

Of course, that fits right in with the willfull ignorance practiced by Walleyes and the other ignoramouses that post nonsense here.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Gotta love what stupid bastards you guys are. A year ago, when the first plumes were observed, only tens of meters across, and not that many, all of you stated nothing to worry about, probably normal. Now, in only a years time, we see an outgassing that is an order of magnitude or two greater than last year. And real scientists, not internet posters, are telling us that this is a major worry.
> 
> In fact, one of the statements goes like this. "The Arctic has been said to be the canary of climate change. Well, folks, the canary just died". But, not to worry, nothing is going to be done, and we are going to be able to observe the effects of adrupt climate change. Going to be very interesting.



It is normal for this type of cycle Old Rocks.  Trying to stop nature again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Gotta love what stupid bastards you guys are. A year ago, when the first plumes were observed, only tens of meters across, and not that many, all of you stated nothing to worry about, probably normal. Now, in only a years time, we see an outgassing that is an order of magnitude or two greater than last year. And real scientists, not internet posters, are telling us that this is a major worry.
> 
> In fact, one of the statements goes like this. "The Arctic has been said to be the canary of climate change. Well, folks, the canary just died". But, not to worry, nothing is going to be done, and we are going to be able to observe the effects of adrupt climate change. Going to be very interesting.



If only we had given Al Gore total control over the economy, this never would have happened. 

Oh well. We're doomed.


----------



## westwall (Dec 27, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...






Yes, yes indeed it does.  Keep it under your hat though.  Can't let the secret out


----------



## westwall (Dec 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Gotta love what stupid bastards you guys are. A year ago, when the first plumes were observed, only tens of meters across, and not that many, all of you stated nothing to worry about, probably normal. Now, in only a years time, we see an outgassing that is an order of magnitude or two greater than last year. And real scientists, not internet posters, are telling us that this is a major worry.
> 
> In fact, one of the statements goes like this. "The Arctic has been said to be the canary of climate change. Well, folks, the canary just died". But, not to worry, nothing is going to be done, and we are going to be able to observe the effects of adrupt climate change. Going to be very interesting.








Actually the first plumes were discovered way back before 2008 not that a little thing like facts ever bothered you...
Interestingly enough, methane plumes were discovered on Mars as well.  Back in 2003 I believe it was.


More methane plumes found in Arctic

By Tom Peterkin

11:00AM BST 25 Sep 2008


"Hundreds more methane plumes have been discovered in the Arctic raising fresh fears that the greenhouse gas is contributing to global warming."



More methane plumes found in Arctic - Telegraph


----------



## westwall (Dec 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






So please educate us, what do they want to spend the trillions of dollars on?  This World War III level of spending.  What do they want to do with all of that money?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Gotta love what stupid bastards you guys are. A year ago, when the first plumes were observed, only tens of meters across, and not that many, all of you stated nothing to worry about, probably normal. Now, in only a years time, we see an outgassing that is an order of magnitude or two greater than last year. And real scientists, not internet posters, are telling us that this is a major worry.
> 
> In fact, one of the statements goes like this. "The Arctic has been said to be the canary of climate change. Well, folks, the canary just died". But, not to worry, nothing is going to be done, and we are going to be able to observe the effects of adrupt climate change. Going to be very interesting.



So is your theory that the extra .5PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere last year caused an order of magnitude increase in the outgassing?  Really?

Move to North Korea, EnviroMarxist.


----------



## westwall (Dec 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Gotta love what stupid bastards you guys are. A year ago, when the first plumes were observed, only tens of meters across, and not that many, all of you stated nothing to worry about, probably normal. Now, in only a years time, we see an outgassing that is an order of magnitude or two greater than last year. And real scientists, not internet posters, are telling us that this is a major worry.
> 
> In fact, one of the statements goes like this. "The Arctic has been said to be the canary of climate change. Well, folks, the canary just died". But, not to worry, nothing is going to be done, and we are going to be able to observe the effects of adrupt climate change. Going to be very interesting.







Here's an intersting addendum.  Seems the scientists involved were a lot more honest about the causes of the plumes.  Something the doomsayers forgot to mention.

"We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change.

In fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years ago.

We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone.  And like most scientists in our field, we have to deal with slowly improving understanding of ongoing processes that often incorporates different points of views expressed by different groups of researchers."


Andrew Revkin actually wanted to clarify this and he reported it when others of the cult did not.

I wonder why?????


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 27, 2011)

Andrew Revkin can forget peer reviewed papers any time soon.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta love what stupid bastards you guys are. A year ago, when the first plumes were observed, only tens of meters across, and not that many, all of you stated nothing to worry about, probably normal. Now, in only a years time, we see an outgassing that is an order of magnitude or two greater than last year. And real scientists, not internet posters, are telling us that this is a major worry.
> ...



Ouch! That'll leave a mark.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 27, 2011)

Faithers are immune to full disclosure.


----------



## Intense (Dec 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



They are just Pussies.  You know.... *Americant's*

We see Potential, they see an opportunity to power grab.


----------



## Intense (Dec 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Everything about you is Coulda-Woulda-Shoulda. I presume Science backs up your claims? Why even bother considering the possibilities? What exactly do you see being threatened by potential? Is it that you won't be in control? Isn't there a theory that life here in the distant past took a big hit from methane concentrations?

The clathrate gun hypothesis is the popular name given to the hypothesis that rises in sea temperatures (and/or falls in sea level) can trigger the sudden release of methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in seabeds and permafrost which, because the methane itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, leads to further temperature rise and further methane clathrate destabilization  in effect initiating a runaway process as irreversible, once started, as the firing of a gun.[1]

In its original form, the hypothesis proposed that the "clathrate gun" could cause abrupt runaway warming in a timescale less than a human lifetime,[1] and might be responsible for warming events in and at the end of the last ice age.[2] This is now thought unlikely.[3][4]

However, there is stronger evidence that runaway methane clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species became extinct 251 million years ago.[5]

Clathrate gun hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Were we building SUV's 251 Million Years ago??? Were they equipped with Air Bags?


----------



## westwall (Dec 27, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Andrew Revkin can forget peer reviewed papers any time soon.







He's a reporter who usually tows the line.  He was even a subject of the mass dump of emails in CLIMATEGATE 2.0 because he was working to closely with the "team".  Looks like he's trying to make amends.


----------



## westwall (Dec 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







That's all the "Green Movement" is these days.  Just worldwide socialism revisited.


----------



## westwall (Dec 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...







Nope!  Airbags like olfraud et al hadn't been invented yet.


----------



## Intense (Dec 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Still.... Those Evil Republicans must have been behind the scheme to blow up the Earth, even back then. I suspect time travel.  I bet Bush was on point too.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



The whole "Science" is a huge stumbling block for the Warmers. They just make an observation and then find tree rings and computer models that back up their unstated theory and presto! Consensus and Settled Science!

Imagine if medical research worked like that. Scientists proposes a new drug, whips up computer models showing its 100% safe and effective and fudges any contrary data...ahh, what a world that would be!


----------



## Intense (Dec 27, 2011)

I don't get it. I see Opportunity and challenge.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 27, 2011)

LOL.   Flapyaps have plenty to say, but not a single reputable scientist to link to back what they say. Typical.

And, dingleberries, it is real scientists that are publically stating the dangers this increase in CH4 emission represents.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 27, 2011)

Methane should provide good cover for Old Rocks...

Pull my finger buddy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta love what stupid bastards you guys are. A year ago, when the first plumes were observed, only tens of meters across, and not that many, all of you stated nothing to worry about, probably normal. Now, in only a years time, we see an outgassing that is an order of magnitude or two greater than last year. And real scientists, not internet posters, are telling us that this is a major worry.
> ...



Honesty is something you are incapable of, Walleyes. The Spitzbergen plumes did not break surface and vent CH4 directly into the atmosphere as these massive plumes are doing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 27, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Methane should provide good cover for Old Rocks...
> 
> Pull my finger buddy.



Ah yes, the best and only reply you have. Indicutive of your intellect.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Methane should provide good cover for Old Rocks...
> ...



A sense of humor will be very helpful in the end times.  I can make a point and be funny at the same time.  When you going to start doing at least one of those things?


----------



## westwall (Dec 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL.   Flapyaps have plenty to say, but not a single reputable scientist to link to back what they say. Typical.
> 
> And, dingleberries, it is real scientists that are publically stating the dangers this increase in CH4 emission represents.






Yes this what THE ACTUAL SCIENTISTS WHO ARE DOING THE WORK IN THE FIELD HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE METHANE....



"We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change.

*In fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years ago.*

We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone. And like most scientists in our field, we have to deal with slowly improving understanding of ongoing processes that often incorporates different points of views expressed by different groups of researchers."


Or did you miss that part?  Or are you just ignoring it because it refutes your hysteria?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 27, 2011)

*Real science from real scientists. Nothing that you will bother to read, Walleyes.*

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming
from Arctic methane emissions

Ivar S. A. Isaksen,1,2 Michael Gauss,1,3 Gunnar Myhre,1,2 Katey M. Walter Anthony,4
and Carolyn Ruppel5

Received 13 April 2010; revised 4 November 2010; accepted 4 February 2011; published 20 April 2011.

[1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are
unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with
thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane
releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with
processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a &#8220;state
of the art&#8221; atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4
would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the
atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional
methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions
were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect
contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be
attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of
CH4 release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and
submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric
chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime,
and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a
result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios,
our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry
that would amplify climate warming.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 27, 2011)

Although the high&#8208;CH4 scenarios applied in this
study are unlikely, they demonstrate the strong CH4 feedbacks
in the climate system, with large amplification of
atmospheric composition changes and RF compared to the
direct RF of CH4 emissions.

I read a ton of uncertainties, unknowns and approximations in that.  Yet we are suppose to take your word for what it all means.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Look out your window and note that the sky is not falling.  Apply some lotion to your hands which are undoubtedly raw and chapped from the incessant hand wringing and take a few deep breaths and try to understand that you have been hoaxed.
> 
> Do you really believe that the sea bed has never burped methane before?  Methane has no more capacity to warm the atmosphere than CO2.



And there is no god.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 27, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Although the high&#8208;CH4 scenarios applied in this
> study are unlikely, they demonstrate the strong CH4 feedbacks
> in the climate system, with large amplification of
> atmospheric composition changes and RF compared to the
> ...



No, you are supposed to read what the scientists said in the light of the recently discovered massive CH4 emissions in the Arctic.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 27, 2011)

Nowhere does the synopsis of your article blame global warming for the dissolution of methane hydrates in the arctic.



Old Rocks said:


> *Real science from real scientists. Nothing that you will bother to read, Walleyes.*
> 
> http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 27, 2011)

Dumb fuck.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf

2. CH4 Emissions From the Arctic Region [12] We consider two major sources of CH4 emissions from the warming Arctic: (1) Methane produced from microbial degradation of labile organic carbon that becomes bioavailable as permafrost thaws; and (2) methane released from gas hydrate deposits as they dissociate in response to climate warming. Thawing permafrost may also promote emissions from other methane sources in the Arctic, but the amount of methane that could potentially be produced by
microbial processes in thawed soils or release of methane from gas hydrates far exceeds that associated with other Arctic sources. There is evidence that continuous permafrost is actively thawing in many circum&#8208;Arctic regions, both onshore and in the shallow offshore continental shelves
[Rachold et al., 2007].


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2011)

*See, Walleyes, you are getting senile.*

Yale Environment 360: Large Plumes of Methane Discovered Off Spitsbergen in Arctic

17 Aug 2009: Large Plumes of Methane
Discovered Off Spitsbergen in Arctic
British and German scientists have discovered 250 plumes of methane gas rising from the thawing seabed off the Spitsbergen archipelago in the Norwegian Arctic, apparently a result of the warming of the West Spitsbergen current. The researchers measured the plumes rising from the seabed at a depth of 150 to 400 meters (500 to 1,300 feet). The methane &#8212; a potent greenhouse gas &#8212; is being released by frozen methane hydrates on the sea floor, which are thawing as a result of a 1 degree C (1.8 F) warming of the West Spitsbergen current in the last 30 years, the scientists said. Most of the methane is absorbed by the ocean before it reaches the surface, but the gas increases the acidity of the ocean, which inhibits the ability of marine creatures to grow shells. Scientists fear that as the world&#8217;s oceans warm, huge amounts of methane will be released. The Spitsbergen researchers said they were surprised by the large number of methane plumes. &#8220;Our survey was designed to work out how much methane might be released by future ocean warming,&#8221; said one scientist. &#8220;We did not expect to discover such strong evidence that this process has already started.&#8221;


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb fuck.
> 
> http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf
> 
> ...



There's absolutely no basis for that claim.  A 0.001% change in water density is not going to cause the release of anything.


----------



## westwall (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb fuck.
> 
> http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf
> 
> ...







Allways with the lingo of the con man.  Allways.


----------



## IanC (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks doesnt believe that the reason for the methane being released could be anything but the global warming that he obssesses over. it doesnt matter that the scientists involved believe it is seawater infiltration on the time scale of thousands of years, or that the same outgassing if caused by warming would have already happened in the MWP when Greenland was warmer than today.

I am a little concerned that the scientists involved decided to 'go on vacation' and be 'unavailable for comment' when the publicity erupted over their findings. the public will only remember the incorrect headlines and probably wont even hear that global warming is not the cause for the methane release. allowing false statements about your work to go unchallenged is just as bad as doing the actual lying when you are a scientist.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Although the high&#8208;CH4 scenarios applied in this
> ...



Read crap into the report that's not in the report.  I see.  That explains a lot.  Care to comment on the part which says the environment will absorb all of this in 8 to 9 years?


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 28, 2011)

Matthew said:


> 'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice
> Daily mail ^ | 12.13.2011 | n/a
> 
> The Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted a survey of 10,000 square miles of sea off the coast of eastern Siberia. They made a terrifying discovery - huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed. 'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across,' said Dr Igor Semiletov, 'These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere.'
> ...



Somebody light a match.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2011)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks doesnt believe that the reason for the methane being released could be anything but the global warming that he obssesses over. it doesnt matter that the scientists involved believe it is seawater infiltration on the time scale of thousands of years, or that the same outgassing if caused by warming would have already happened in the MWP when Greenland was warmer than today.
> 
> I am a little concerned that the scientists involved decided to 'go on vacation' and be 'unavailable for comment' when the publicity erupted over their findings. the public will only remember the incorrect headlines and probably wont even hear that global warming is not the cause for the methane release. allowing false statements about your work to go unchallenged is just as bad as doing the actual lying when you are a scientist.



*Total and complete lying bullshit, Ian. And you know it.*

Home

Letter to world leaders;

I write to you on behalf of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, which includes among its founding members Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, Cambridge; Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design, Edinburgh; and Brian Orr, former Principal Science Officer at the UK DoE (as was). The Group has received support and advice from many pre-eminent climate science colleagues around the world.  The purpose of this letter is to respectfully bring to your attention new evidence of the rapidly deepening climate change crisis in the Arctic. We appeal to you to support our call to put the imminent loss of Arctic summer sea ice and escalation of Arctic methane emissions at the top of the climate change agenda and to support emergency measures to cool the Arctic.

*The articles in the peer reviewed journals will be out this spring. That is just about as fast as science can be done.

In the meantime there is much being communicated to those who have power. But you can celebrate, nothing will be done. 

As I have stated before, you fellows have won. We get to see what an adrupt climate change will do to our present civiliazation. Going to be interesting.*


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 28, 2011)

We win when these con artists posing as scientists are in jail for fraud.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2011)

We win when the lying assholes like Inhofe are in jail. Liberturd, you have yet to back up any of your opinions with real science. The mark of a 'Conservative', considers the opinion of an obese junkie on the radio as worth more than the works of thousands of scientists from all over the world.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> We win when the lying assholes like Inhofe are in jail. Liberturd, you have yet to back up any of your opinions with real science. The mark of a 'Conservative', considers the opinion of an obese junkie on the radio as worth more than the works of thousands of scientists from all over the world.



Making blind guesses now I see.  I listen to local radio with no nationally syndicated talk shows.  I'm just using your reports and finding the holes and lies by you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Liberturd, you have yet to back up any of your opinions with real science.



Nether have you, dipstick.  Computer cartoons are not science.


----------



## Intense (Dec 28, 2011)

The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda decided to reduce the risk of a sudden eruption of the gases dissolved in Lake Kivu. This is intended to be done in an economically beneficial and environmentally sustainable way. In total, the dissolved methane in Lake Kivu is worth an estimated amount of 20 billion dollars and should help to reduce the dependency on imported energy resources and wood fuel.

Governmental institutions as well as companies delivering consultancy services and private investors have been involved in the project of harvesting the methane in Lake Kivu.

In Rwanda, the Unit for the Promotion and Exploitation of Lake Kivu Gas (UPEGAZ), a body within the Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA) is responsible to promote the project of methane harvesting.

While COWI, a Danish consulting company, was mandated to evaluate the natural dangers of a disaster caused by eruption of Lake Kivu and the risks of proposed gas extraction projects, the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) provided advice on how to embed the harvesting of the methane and the monitoring of the stratification of Lake Kivu in a legal, regulatory and institutional setting.

Eawag: A fascinating ecosystem and a source of energy: Methane Harvesting


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 28, 2011)

Lord knows we don't want it to get hot in Rwanda or the Congo....

Might melt all the permafrost there...


----------



## Intense (Dec 28, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Lord knows we don't want it to get hot in Rwanda or the Congo....
> 
> Might melt all the permafrost there...



Just pointing out action taken to turn a negative into a positive. They are not crying about the problem, they are seizing an opportunity.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2011)

*We are now seeing the influence of the Arctic Methane in the worldwide amount of CH4 in the atmosphere.

One minor correction here. The factor of potentcy as a GHG for CH4 is over 20 for 100 years. Because of the chemistry of it's interaction with hydroxals in the atmosphere, over 20 years, the potentcy is at least 60 times that of CO2, and may be as high as 150.*

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20111109_greenhousegasindex.html

&#8226;A continued steady increase in carbon dioxide: Global carbon dioxide levels rose to an average of 389 parts per million in 2010, compared with 386 ppm in 2009, and 354 in the index or comparison year of 1990. Before the Industrial Revolution of the 1880s, carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels swing up and down in natural seasonal cycles, but human activities &#8211; primarily the burning of coal, oil, and gas for transportation and power &#8211; have driven a consistent upward trend in concentration.  
&#8226;A continued recent increase in methane: Methane levels rose in 2010 for the fourth consecutive year after remaining nearly constant for the preceding 10 years, up to 1799 parts per billion. Methane measured 1794 ppb in 2009, and 1714 ppb in 1990. Pound for pound, methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but there&#8217;s less of it in the atmosphere. 
&#8226;

NOAA's Annual Greenhouse Gas Index is a gauge of the climate warming influence of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by human activities and compared with the "index" year of 1990. The AGGI shows a steady upward trend, reaching 1.29 in 2010. This means that the heating effect of additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased by 29 percent since 1990 

High resolution (Credit: NOAA) 
A continued steady increase in nitrous oxide: Best known as laughing gas in dentistry, nitrous oxide is also a greenhouse gas emitted from natural sources and as a byproduct of agricultural fertilization, livestock manure, sewage treatment and some industrial processes. 
&#8226;A continued recent drop in two chlorofluorocarbons, CFC11 and CFC12: Levels of these two compounds &#8211; which are ozone-depleting chemicals in addition to greenhouse gases &#8211; have been dropping at about one percent per year since the late 1990s, because of an international agreement, the Montreal Protocol, to protect the ozone layer.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2011)

Intense said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Lord knows we don't want it to get hot in Rwanda or the Congo....
> ...



For a small area, this is possible. And it would be possible to capture a lot of the methane in the arctic, and convert it to energy and CO2. However, I fail to see how we can capture enough of it to make a differance. And certainly not at a profit. We are discussing millions of square miles, on land, and under the Arctic Ocean on the offshore shelves.

Such projects are being discussed as we post. And one government could not possibly do it alone, even with all the governments on earth contributing their entire defense budget, I doubt that it is doable. 

You will find the discussions here;

Home


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Lord knows we don't want it to get hot in Rwanda or the Congo....
> 
> Might melt all the permafrost there...



Very intelligent. The methane produced in any one location respects national borders, correct?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *We are now seeing the influence of the Arctic Methane in the worldwide amount of CH4 in the atmosphere.
> 
> One minor correction here. The factor of potentcy as a GHG for CH4 is over 20 for 100 years. Because of the chemistry of it's interaction with hydroxals in the atmosphere, over 20 years, the potentcy is at least 60 times that of CO2, and may be as high as 150.*
> 
> ...



Wowzers!!!! Assmuning no rounding errors, methane has increased by 4ppb a year for the past 20 years! At that rate, in a few thousand years, all of us living today will be dead!!  

Oh Dear! How are you not moving to North Korea with that sword of Damocles hanging over you?

The Official Webpage of The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2011)

At the low end of the scale for GHG potentcy for 20 years, that is equal to at least 50 ppm of CO2.

Now the scientists have stated that 450 ppm of CO2 is pretty much the point of no return. We have increased the CO2 to 390 ppm. But we have increased the CH4 from around 800 ppb to 1800 ppb, without taking 2011's increase into account. Long term, that alone represents the equivelent of 20 ppm of CO2. But we have also increased the NOx in the atmosphere, as well as the industrial chemicals, which have no natural analogs, many of which have a potentcy measured in the thousands. 

So the reality is that we are already past the 450 mark. And that is what the melt of the Arctic Ice and the outgassing of the clathrates are telling us. 

I see no rational way of preventing the coming 'runaway' warming. So we need to be discussing how to deal with the consequences. That will not happen at government levels until the situation is beyond remedy. Whores like Inhofe will prevent that. So it is up to each of us as individuals to understand what is happening and access our vulnebility to these changes. Not a good time to be living on a flood plain.


----------



## westwall (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks doesnt believe that the reason for the methane being released could be anything but the global warming that he obssesses over. it doesnt matter that the scientists involved believe it is seawater infiltration on the time scale of thousands of years, or that the same outgassing if caused by warming would have already happened in the MWP when Greenland was warmer than today.
> ...







"We write to the world leaders to please please please give us loads of money so we can continue to live in the manner to which we have grown accustomed even though we haven't produced one usable bit of technology for the hundred billion plus taxpayer dollars that has been given to us."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> At the low end of the scale for GHG potentcy for 20 years, that is equal to at least 50 ppm of CO2.
> 
> Now the scientists have stated that 450 ppm of CO2 is pretty much the point of no return. We have increased the CO2 to 390 ppm. But we have increased the CH4 from around 800 ppb to 1800 ppb, without taking 2011's increase into account. Long term, that alone represents the equivelent of 20 ppm of CO2. But we have also increased the NOx in the atmosphere, as well as the industrial chemicals, which have no natural analogs, many of which have a potentcy measured in the thousands.
> 
> ...



*Now the scientists have stated that 450 ppm of CO2 is pretty much the point of no return. *

Point of no return for what?

*So the reality is that we are already past the 450 mark.*

So we can't do anything? Great, quit whining already.

*So we need to be discussing how to deal with the consequences.*

OMG! You sound like a conservative!


----------



## westwall (Dec 28, 2011)

Intense said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Lord knows we don't want it to get hot in Rwanda or the Congo....
> ...






Which is what intelligent people do.  The one common trait amongst all of these AGW "scientists" is sub par work.  They are lazy and doing field work is terrifying for them.  We referred to them as "black box" scientists, they were real good at manipulating numbers but couldn't identify simple rock formations.  How they got their degree's I'll never know.


----------



## westwall (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> At the low end of the scale for GHG potentcy for 20 years, that is equal to at least 50 ppm of CO2.
> 
> Now the scientists have stated that 450 ppm of CO2 is pretty much the point of no return. We have increased the CO2 to 390 ppm. But we have increased the CH4 from around 800 ppb to 1800 ppb, without taking 2011's increase into account. Long term, that alone represents the equivelent of 20 ppm of CO2. But we have also increased the NOx in the atmosphere, as well as the industrial chemicals, which have no natural analogs, many of which have a potentcy measured in the thousands.
> 
> ...







What is that, tipping point number 3022?  They have cried "wolf" too many times.  The People no longer believer their bullshit because it is...well bullshit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Now Walleyes, you continue to be a lying bastard. The money spent on Arctic research reachs the billion mark only when you include satellites.

And people like Mr. H would be getting more money than any of the scientists for they are the people that would be doing the very difficult work involved there. That is, were anyone to listen. 

People like you will prevail, nothing will be done, either to try to prevent the continueing melt, or to deal with the consequences. 

But, what the hell, you won't have to deal with it, and who cares what your children and grandchildren have to deal with. You got yours.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> At the low end of the scale for GHG potentcy for 20 years, that is equal to at least 50 ppm of CO2.
> 
> Now the scientists have stated that 450 ppm of CO2 is pretty much the point of no return. We have increased the CO2 to 390 ppm. But we have increased the CH4 from around 800 ppb to 1800 ppb, without taking 2011's increase into account. Long term, that alone represents the equivelent of 20 ppm of CO2. But we have also increased the NOx in the atmosphere, as well as the industrial chemicals, which have no natural analogs, many of which have a potentcy measured in the thousands.
> 
> ...








"See this ring right here under my pinkie? That was the point of no return"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 28, 2011)

My wish for 2012: OR, Rdean, TM and Mr Charmin all convince each other to move to North Korea...I'm crying tears of joy here...should one man be allowed to have such a happy fantasy?


----------



## westwall (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







No, you toffeynosed maloderous pervert, the total amount given to the AGW cult is well over 100 billion dollars over the last 20 years and they HAVE PRODUCED NOTHING OF VALUE TO HUMANITY.  Not one damned thing!  Based on that metric alone they are abject failures as are you you sanctimonious twerp.  When you give up working for EVRAZ and the notoriously polluting industry you have sold you soul to you can come back and speak about pollution.

But while you are a proximal cause of said pollution you can go pound sand.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Now Walleyes, just because you cannot argue logically, nor produce any evidence for your arguements, is hardly reason to totally lose your cool.  

For someone that is supposed to be a geologist, but misplaces a continent from the south pole to the equator, I would be researching a bit before you post your normal nonsense.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 28, 2011)

We did a peer review Old Rocks.  You don't want to know the results.


----------



## westwall (Dec 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Yeah I missed that one by a few degree's didn't I.  But, when you don't look at the stuff for twenty years, that sort of thing happens.  As far as the rest, show us one thing that the alarmists have produced for humanity.  Go ahead, I dare you.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 28, 2011)

Hand pump hair spray?

Something to write on t shirts?

A large carbon footprint in worthless reports?

Second career for Al Gore?

Boosted the sales of survivalist books and guns?

Diverted funds that might have cured diseases?

Gosh, this is a rather long list.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 28, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Hand pump hair spray?
> 
> Something to write on t shirts?
> 
> ...



Higher prices for electricity.

Higher taxes to pay for "green energy."

auto maker bailouts so Detroit can build Obama electric cars.

More highway deaths due to lighter cars that are less safe.

The disappearance of the cheap top-loading washer.

The end of the incandescent light bulb.

Power black outs.


----------



## westwall (Dec 28, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Hand pump hair spray?
> 
> Something to write on t shirts?
> 
> ...







Ummmm, I said benefited HUMANITY!  Not the con men Jeez, is it so hard!


----------



## IanC (Dec 29, 2011)

why didnt all the methane come out during the Medieval Warm Period? the permafrost melted then. surely no one is saying that all this methane has built up in the last thousand years. why didnt the MWP cause a tipping point? or the Roman Warm Period? 

it is a sad joke that the doomsday prophets always get a certain portion of the population to believe them no matter how often they are found to be wrong. unfortunately this doomsday scenario has gone beyond the usual shelf life because it has been profitable for a great many people, and it can be directly blamed on humanity.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 29, 2011)

Suppose they'll claim global warming if the Arctic spouts a chocolate fountain?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 29, 2011)

Because the MWP was nowhere near as warm as we are right now.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Because the MWP was nowhere near as warm as we are right now.



Consult your nearest manipulated data graph.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 29, 2011)

IanC said:


> why didnt all the methane come out during the Medieval Warm Period? the permafrost melted then. surely no one is saying that all this methane has built up in the last thousand years. why didnt the MWP cause a tipping point? or the Roman Warm Period?
> 
> it is a sad joke that the doomsday prophets always get a certain portion of the population to believe them no matter how often they are found to be wrong. unfortunately this doomsday scenario has gone beyond the usual shelf life because it has been profitable for a great many people, and it can be directly blamed on humanity.



Ya know, the funny part about all their blather concerning receding glaciers is that in many of these glacial valleys they are finding evidence of human occupation where the glacier once stood.   That kind of blows a hole in their theory that it's never been warmer than today.


----------



## westwall (Dec 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Because the MWP was nowhere near as warm as we are right now.







Wrong as usual.


----------



## westwall (Dec 29, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > why didnt all the methane come out during the Medieval Warm Period? the permafrost melted then. surely no one is saying that all this methane has built up in the last thousand years. why didnt the MWP cause a tipping point? or the Roman Warm Period?
> ...







Oh no it doesn't!  Facts do not matter!


----------



## PrometheusBound (Dec 29, 2011)

An exciting book to read on this is _Fire Ice_, by Clive Cussler.


----------



## IanC (Dec 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Because the MWP was nowhere near as warm as we are right now.



I think it is a coin flip whether the present or the MWP is warmer. what isnt in doubt is that they are both very close to the same temp. without Mann's bogus hockey stick graph, and the downstream efforts to prop it up using the same distorted methods and data, there wouldnt even be a discussion of which was warmer.

if methane release was going to cause some tipping point, it would have done so during  some previous warm period.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2011)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Because the MWP was nowhere near as warm as we are right now.
> ...



*It is no longer just Mann's hockey stick graph. There  are about a dozen differant studies, and they all come out the same. A very lumpy hockey stick, but a hockey stick, none the less.*

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.

It's probably the most politicized graph in science  an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others  and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the hockey-stick plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.


The Hockey Stick is Accurate « Oxford Kevin

The Hockey Stick graph along with 12 other Temperature reconstructions from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

The paper Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence  by Wahl and Ammann assesses the results of the MBH98 by using principal component analysis in the appropriate way. Wahl and Ammann also looked at the impact of removing the Bristlecone and Foxtail Pine proxy data which McIntyre and McKitrick had criticized the use of in both MBH98 and MBH99. They published the results of their work and you can see the impact that this had on the shape of the Hockey Stick in the graph below.

*Seems to me what is bogus here is your continued prevarication concerning the hockey stick graph.*


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 30, 2011)

They all had the same manipulated data to work from Old Rocks.  You are truly a broken record.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Well of course they did olfraud.  When they are all based off of the same damned tree you kind of limit your data sets.  Jeez, I thought you were smart.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> They all had the same manipulated data to work from Old Rocks.  You are truly a broken record.




Not only that, but they all also used some variation of Mann's discredited Principle Component Analysis scam to combine the data.


----------



## IanC (Dec 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Mann's data and methodology were bad. the paper should be retracted with publicity, and all subsequent papers that used his results should be amended or retracted as well. 

I am too lazy to go over the history again. the papers that use the principal component method to exaggerate hockey stick shapes seem to bolster Mann's original but every time a mistake is fixed the results get closer to looking like Lamb's graph in the first IPCC report which distinctly showed the MWP and LIA. just the simple fact that Mann and his cohort continue to use bristlecones and the upsidedown Tiljander cores should be enough to convince anyone that they are only trying to support a particular viewpoint, not searching for the truth. the fact that the updates to many treering data sets have been hidden away from public view is also a giant black eye to climate science.

using outdated, incomplete and contaminated data, combined with inappropriate statistical methods, just to support preconceived conclusions is not how proper science is done. period


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 31, 2011)

They call it stupid for a reason Ian.  Poor science has a great friend in poor intelligence.


----------



## IanC (Dec 31, 2011)

I just wish the cleansing property of openness could be used. I have no idea why the NAS, Wegman, Penn State, and British inquiries didnt get to the bottom of this scandal but the politics involved are very disappointing. the second set of climategate emails show that the 'right questions' were not asked, even though the sceptics were screaming them to high heaven. sooner or later it will all come out.


----------

