Huge Methane Leak Detected in Arctic

reply to post by hippomchippo
Hold on Hippo,
Those scientists who exaggerated data were/are the leading scientists in that field, that's why the whole thing went giggery buggery.



[edit on 17-3-2010 by smurfy]

Originally posted by poet1b

Obviously, there are a lot of people here who need to seriously back off the oxycontin, and stop listening to continheads. You people must be betting your retirement funds on the oil companies. How dare anyone consider an alternative to oil.

Why not tap this huge energy source?

If it's really there i'd say yes harvest it as fuel, but Greeners would only get in the way. Methane has a right not to be burned up ya know. Poor little methane is being released from it's frozen undersea home.

I wasn't slamming your robot idea.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

Hold on Hippo,
Those scientists who exaggerated data where the leading scientists in that field, that's why the whole thing went giggery buggery.

And somehow that affects the data collected by the University of Alaska?
You have to realize that people are people, and will become corrupt for the goal of monetary gain, the upside is that not all humans are corrupt and will still fight for what they believe in, do you really think that all scientists who study in this area are corrupt?
And let me put on record that I am not for a global tax, nor am I even entirely certain this is manmade global warming, but I do know that we're seeing the effects of it on a global scale.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

Hold on Hippo,
Those scientists who exaggerated data where the leading scientists in that field, that's why the whole thing went giggery buggery.

And somehow that affects the data collected by the University of Alaska?
You have to realize that people are people, and will become corrupt for the goal of monetary gain, the upside is that not all humans are corrupt and will still fight for what they believe in, do you really think that all scientists who study in this area are corrupt?
And let me put on record that I am not for a global tax, nor am I even entirely certain this is manmade global warming, but I do know that we're seeing the affects of it on a global scale.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by hippomchippo]

Did i say anything about data being affected, nope! do I have to realise people are people, whassat mean? people are quite obviously people,(unless they are really Lizards) of course. BTW your last paragraph does not make sense as written. Now I will give you a word of advice, since i've been around long enough to know how things often work. How does a scientist get his money to do his research? ask them.
Here is an interesting link,(circa) late 2008, look at the signaturies,

www.cato.org...

[edit on 17-3-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by Frogs


Wow...this was predicted in the most recent web bot ALTA run.

(For $10 you can get your own report from them, but we can't copy and paste per copywrite laws.)

But...it was definitely predicted by the web bots!

Before this article I wasn't really ever for "Cap and Tax"
But in this new light, yes, lets cap that energy and tax its sales!

And, how much exactly are the fines going to be on the planet for stinkin up our environment?
HOW RUDE!

reply to post by hippomchippo


nope.

like i said, it was just an interesting thing i read.

ive never believed in global warming. mainly as they seem to just make it up as they go along, one major indicator of thsi was the change from publicly calling it "global warming" to "climate change" as they realised some places are getting colder, some hotter, and their is no actual steady rise in temps.

Cap and Trade is a horrible idea, I hope it never passes. It is just one big scam.

As far as I am concerned, however, the biggest obstacle to more environmental friendly, alternative, renewable energy sources is big oil.

Once all the easy to get at, high quality crude that built up over millions of years is tapped out, then we hopefully will start to see alternative energy sources able to compete in the markets. This, IMHO, will be very good for the worlds economy.

Originally posted by primus2012
reply to post by Phlynx

 

What are we going to do with this evidence of the earth polluting itself. Use it to scare the crap out of ignorant people? Make the suckers feel guilty about it and agree to pay a tax somewhere to compensate for their added daily methane?

HUGE METHANE LEAK - DANGER - BEWARE - RUN - THIS TIME IT REALLY IS GLOBAL WARMING...ER CLIMATE CHANGE - IT'S YOUR FAULT - YOU SHOULD PAY POOR LITTLE UNINDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES MONEY FOR BEING ADVANCED SOCIETIES - POOR LITTLE FISHY AND POOR LITTLE FUZZY BEAR AND POOR LITTLE TREE.

Phooey.

I don't enjoy people trying to troll me, and assuming things. I believe climate change is natural, like it has been in the past. I also don't enjoy all caps, it isn't very pleasing on the eyes.

reply to post by Phlynx

I believe climate change is natural, like it has been in the past.

Climate change was natural, but since we have been heavily exhausting carbon dioxide from underground into the atmosphere, the Earth's climate cycles are no longer natural. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution we have been greatly pollutating the atmosphere with Sun light absorbing molecules. This is not the way the Earth's natural climate cycles work. This is now a man-made problem the Earth faces as the climate cycles have been totally knocked off their natural course.

Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.

Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 C.E.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

But like the OP said, having a lot of Methane in the atmosphere is far worse than having carbon dioxide circle the globe. In fact, methane can trap 20-25% more heat from the Sun than carbon dioxide.
www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

You can believe global warming doesn't exist if you want to, but the fact is greenhouse gases absorb and trap the heat from the Sun. This will undoubtedly increase global temperatures.

Here is a link to a bio of Syun-Ichi Akasofu, who is one of the signaturies in the link in my last post, and who was most likely in charge of any Arctic projects at the time from the UOAF, this man amonst others contradicts the "official" idea of climate change, and/or global warming.

en.wikipedia.org...

More All gore flat
ulance IMO . Junk science in the extreme.
second lines the same as the first

reply to post by boaby_phet



There is a multi-million dollar industry in maintaining the status quo. Let us assume the USA, Europe, China, and India cut their Greenhouse gasses to a level that would prevent catastrophic climate change. This would cut into the oil companies' bottom line because people would be driving less. This would also cut into automakers bottom line because people will be taking public transport rather than driving. But it will not end there.

If cap and trade or some other carbon tax goes into effect, living in the suburbs would be costly. Public transport might not reach the suburbs and fuel will be expensive. This will force people out of the suburbs, which would depress real estate values in the suburbs and cause many suburbanites to lose much of their net worth.

If you want to argue cap and trade or carbon taxes, do not attack the environmental science. It makes you look like an uneducated tool. Attack the consequences of the carbon tax. Many so called environmentalists who rail around global warming have no idea of the economic implications of cap and trade and other measures.

Originally posted by wylekat
This is what's known as 'grasping at straws'- one of probably not a few last ditch efforts to make 'global warming' look like a real concept.

I think the only 'massive methane leak' is coming from the amount of BS Govt and the scientists who work for them are producing.

Its an accepted scientific fact. It is only disputed by people with an agenda - which is then repeated by people without the ability to think rationally.

I asked this in another thread..... How much have temps increased on the Arctic Ocean Floor that has caused this? Looking at this Data... ak.aoos.org...

it doesn't look super warm to me. I would have to see more data to back up the claim of permafrost on the ocean floor melting. I can't imagine there being any sort of abrupt temp change unless there is volcanic action happening.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


yet another vitrolic based ats reply based on what the writer things is written and not what was actualy written.

everything you have mentioned as "consequences" is nothing but your own specualation and conjecture!

global warming is a lie that has been used to make alot of people alot of money. When scientists proved global warming was a lie, the people making the money changed the name of their scam to "climate change" which cannot be argues, as climbate change happens, it always has happened and always will, it may have got slightly warmer but it will also get slightly cooler! Our ice caps will not melt and we will not end up living in water world as man made climate change is a complete fabrication!

some wee facts..

theirs around 6 billion humans on this planet, their are 500 billion animals .. all these animals produce Co2 (not counting insects and fish).

their are arround 600 active volcanoes in the world, all producing massive amounts of c02 on a yearly basis.

in 2005, it was counted that their were 400,246,300,201(approx) trees on earth, all recycling co2 out of the atmosphere. . . that does not inclue plants, weeds, bushes, ferns, shrubs. . . just trees!


Decaying organic matter produces 220 gigatons of co2 per year

and to finish ....

volcanoes.usgs.gov...
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

now we have some hard facts, who is the tool? i suggest you go read some more of your al gore bunk! (which is now banned in uk schools UNLESS the teachers make it perfectly clear to pupils thats its not accurate and some of it might not actualy be true!) The facts speak for them selfs, man made global warming is a big LIE ... and im SUPER SERIAL!

[edit on 17-3-2010 by boaby_phet]

#PS ...also (and i could well be wrong here, but ill take the risk)...

has any astrologists ever actualy found a planet which is 100% covered in water like the global warming /climbate change people would like us to believe earth will one day become??

[edit on 17-3-2010 by boaby_phet]

Originally posted by Phlynx

Originally posted by primus2012
reply to post by Phlynx

 

What are we going to do with this evidence of the earth polluting itself. Use it to scare the crap out of ignorant people? Make the suckers feel guilty about it and agree to pay a tax somewhere to compensate for their added daily methane?

HUGE METHANE LEAK - DANGER - BEWARE - RUN - THIS TIME IT REALLY IS GLOBAL WARMING...ER CLIMATE CHANGE - IT'S YOUR FAULT - YOU SHOULD PAY POOR LITTLE UNINDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES MONEY FOR BEING ADVANCED SOCIETIES - POOR LITTLE FISHY AND POOR LITTLE FUZZY BEAR AND POOR LITTLE TREE.

Phooey.

I don't enjoy people trying to troll me, and assuming things. I believe climate change is natural, like it has been in the past. I also don't enjoy all caps, it isn't very pleasing on the eyes.

All caps were "HEADLINES" you could borrow for a related thread. Spread the evidence of global warming...not man made this time. Maybe then we can get this world tax/government thing cooking with gas...get it methane gas...lol

Here's one i plan on writing:

SUN CAME OUT IN LONDON - COULD THIS BE CLIMATE CHANGE?
Pip and Terry Chippers of London discovered that when the sun is shining, London warms up. "Specially when there aren't many clouds in the sky and it ain't winter" writes Pip.

reply to post by boaby_phet



Do you even bother reading what you post as "proof" of your supposed argument?

I mean obviously not - but here - let me highlight the important part you clearly missed IN YOUR OWN POST:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

So yeah - add this to the neverending pile of backwards denier rhetoric where you guys once again debunk yourselves and don't even realize it - but then proceed to have a big laugh at all the "Al Gore" fanboys who apparently can't think for themselves.

By the way pretty much everything else you posted is either completely wrong or completely irrelevant - but obviously the details behind the facts that "speak for them selfs" aren't very important to you.




As for the OP:

Yup - scientists have been warning us for years about potentially dangerous positive feedbacks like this - and now once again their words are ringing frighteningly true. Yet it's amazing how many people still choose to ignore all the blatant dead canaries in the coal mines, but continue to get their panties in such a bunch every time someone finds a typo in an IPCC report.

Originally posted by nikiano
reply to post by Frogs

 

Wow...this was predicted in the most recent web bot ALTA run.

Well spotted! You beat me to it, but only because I was sleeping at the time.

For those who have supported Clif with their $10, the apparent reference to this event starts under the "Blue Flue" heading on page 25 of the webbot report. I'll paraphrase a small portion of it so as not to infringe copyright. Bear in mind that the ALTA reports predictively track linguistic trends, not actual events. They track what people and the media are talking about. It does not predict whether there is actually going to be a methane leak, or whether the methane is a problem, but rather predicts the rise of the meme in our consciousness and discussion.

Paraphrased (with certain words l33t3d so as to not poison the webbot data gathering from these threads) :

There is an indication that a large release of meth4ne from blue undersa 1ce in the Pacif1c and the Arct1c will negatively impact upon shipping and transportation in the previously mentioned regions. Not only will people and other life be directly 1mpacted by the l4rge cl0uds of drift1ng m3thane, but TPTB will go crazy trying to come up with a bel1evable story to explain the events.

Get your $10 copy from here.

reply to post by mc_squared


ok gore fan lmao, i suppose real information aint no match for al gores disinformation eh