It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leaking Siberian ice raises a tricky climate issue

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Excellent example of misdirection there.

Climate change data dumped


Maybe you need to actually learn the meaning of the term misdirection instead of throwing it around whenever you feel you can make some absurd blind accusation. I never linked to anything to do with UEA CRU and if I did then you can just change the dataset. If they indeed falsified evidence then there is no excuse - however it was a mere cog in a very large wheel - and does not somehow negate everything else.
edit on 21/11/10 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
thanks Sinterklaas for that input.

But this threat isn't about proving if the climate change is a hoax or not. I just want your opinion and input in how much this melting of the permafrost will effect our climate.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
www.americanthinker.com...
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” -- from the Oregon Petition, signed by over 31,000 scientists

United by that conviction, over 800 scientists, economists, and policy makers arrived in New York City last Sunday to attend the Heartland Institute’s 2nd Annual International Conference on Climate Change. They came to talk a wide range of subjects, from climatology to energy policy, from computer climate models to cap-and-trade, from greenhouse gas (GHG) effects to solar irradiation. But most of all they came to help spread the word that the answer to the question posed by this year’s theme -- Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis? -- is a resounding NO.

Sunday’s keynote speakers wasted no time making that point. Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus scolded those whose alarmist opinions are driven by profits from writing and speaking fees, carbon trading and investments in non-carbon fuel products. And policy makers who blindly accept hyped Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publications as the final word in climate science. In truth, says Klaus, there is no fixed relationship between CO2 and temperatures, as clearly illustrated by the wavering heat trends of the 20th century, despite the steady rise in CO2.

Next, M.I.T’s Richard Lindzen explained that many scientists toe the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) line to “make their lives easier,” as underfunded scientists can write a single paper endorsing AGW and suddenly be inundated with offers. Even ambiguous or meaningless statements that can be easily spun are financially beneficial to scientists, so why complain about the spin? Ever wonder why you never stop hearing about studies finding GW responsible for everything from kidney stones to cannibalism? Explains Lindzen: It’s become standard that whatever you’re studying, include global warming’s effects in your proposal and you’ll get your funding.

www.americanthinker.com...



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
If methane seepage is increasing and methane is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, wouldn't it make sense to capture the methane and utilize that in powerplants, vehicles and such, thus converting it to the far less devestating CO2? Should also lower the particulate emissions as well.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DutchBigBoy
 


Depends on whether they included the methane release in climate models.

Anyway...

It is possible we could very well be driven into an ice age because of a warming. The future will tell.

Personally I find it hard to believe that a self respecting scientists didn't think of the possible release of methane from melting permafrost. It's not really a far fetched result.

Basically it is just natural gas. I say build a pipeline and harvest it. Currently it is the cleanest natural resource to burn.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
It is also 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and the amount stocked is in the trillion tons. The amount suddenly being released from the permafrost could be 10 times the amount now in the atmosphere.

In fact the number of days vehicles can use perma-roads each year has reduced from 225 days per year, to less than 25 days per year over the past 30 years. Buildings and other structures such as pipelines built directly on permafrost are becoming unstable as well.





posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DutchBigBoy
 


Well... If you think this is uhm... Disturbing. The amount of methane trapped under the oceanc continental shelves, called methane clathrate is just as disturbing and just as likely to escape as the permafrost methane.

Whatever happens in the future if the greenland ice sheet melts to fast an ice age is more likely to occur.

I've done a little search by the way. Did you know I've made a thread about this when it first hit the news ?
Well not this exactly, It was about nitrous oxide...

Add that to the methane.
Arctic thaw frees overlooked greenhouse gas: study

Makes it even more disturbing doesn't it.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


Hi... I've read all that stuff before and it's most compelling.

I believe it doesn't really matter as any action would also be one step closer to a cleaner environment.

That does not mean I agree with the politics that surround this subject. I am convinced it's a scam and it won't be in our best interest to comply to the ideas of All Gore and co.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
This is a very interesting article, and I am glad you posted this here at ATS. When I saw the new article, I came to ATS to see if anyone have started a thread on the subject.

Let all the wacko deniers of global warming and the science that tell us it is happening whine all they want. Those of us who are paying attention can stay in the know.

This article about the huge amounts of methane in Siberia is clearly an important piece of information. The pace of global warming has been accelerating, and it looks like it will continue to accelerate.

If a large release of methane in Siberia occurs, and it is probably something that can not be easily captured and used as fuel, we could experience rapid global climate change. It seems that this is the type of thing that will reach a tipping point, and release large amounts of methane some time in the not too distant future. No, this is not a sure bet, but something to keep in mind.

Meanwhile the seas around Antarctica continue to warm. Warm currents above freezing are rising up from lower depths and whittling away at the ice shelves. Once these ice shelves go, then the large glaciers on the continent will accelerate their slide into the ocean.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by DutchBigBoy
 



So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer.


I wonder how many were coerced to this "consensus"?


coerced??...why are you even on this thread? it is obvious you wouldn't believe anyone anyway, so why do you bother. i guess it would have to be approved by sean hannity on FOX, before you would be convinced...you know...a guy with the real expertise on climate change.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by vkturbo
 


So the climate has never changed before without the help of mankind?

"Second line... I hate when people do this"



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


The climate has changed many times in history but with the number of people on this earth now it will have more impact IMO.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


Lindzen has been debunked over and over and over. Just Google his name followed by debunked.

You cherry picking skeptics love to pretend that you know what you are talking about when you haven't the first clue.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas 25 (must be 23 IMO) times more potent than carbon dioxide, and the ongoing global warming driven by carbon dioxide will inevitably force it out of its frozen reservoirs and into the atmosphere to amplify the warming. Such an amplifying feedback may have operated in the past, with devastating effects. If the modern version is anything like past episodes, two scientists warned earlier this year, it could mean that "far from the Arctic, crops could fail and nations crumble." Yet, with bubbles of methane streaming from the warming Arctic sea floor and deteriorating permafrost, many scientists are trying to send a more balanced message. The threat of global warming amplifying itself by triggering massive methane releases is real and may already be under way, providing plenty of fodder for scary headlines. But what researchers understand about the threat points to a less malevolent, more protracted process.


As you can see in the image below, the amount of methane in the arctic is much larger then all the oceans combined.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by DutchBigBoy
 


The combined methane Dutch, Not the oceans them self. lol



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


you are correct the combined methane in the oceans.
My mistake.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
I have found some additional video's about the methane in the permafrost.





posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
As global warming continues, this source of Methane will accelerate the process. If the Earth continues to warm, than our coasts are going to change dramatically in the next century, possibly the next couple of decades.

planetsave.com...

planetsave.com...

What ever is causing global warming, we are going to have to start dealing with the consequences soon.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DutchBigBoy

Originally posted by nocents
OK correct me if I am wrong.
The premiss of the article is that the melting ice is causing the gas to be released. Yet the article also states that the methane has been leaking for 10,000 years. If the methane has not escaped at the same rate as it is leaked their must be one huge methane bubble under the ice. And this scientist is walking around Siberia with a lighter. This could make Tangusta look like 4th of July celebration.



You aren't wrong it has been leaking for thousands of years but the last 30 years it is accelerating, that is what they are troubled about.


Since it has been leaking for 10,000 years, then it has been warming the planet since the last ice age. Stands to reason that it would eventually reach a tipping point where the warmer planet would cause an increase in the thawing of the tundra. Therefore the leaking methane from the frozen tundra is to blame for climate change, not man. That makes more sense to me now.
edit on 7-12-2010 by palg1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DutchBigBoy

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 



There is a consensus among 97 % of the scientific community, specialized in climate related subjects.

They agree that the evidence suggest the climate change is caused or at least major influenced by man.


Can we have a backing source for this statement? Thanks.


here you go :-)

read this article


That's not even an answer, it just describes what a consensus is and how a consensus can be reached over time by narrowing down the argument until one side gives in. The analogy is applied to all aspects of science, not climate change. Then at the end they offer a statement that says the consensus agree. And it's like ... oh by the way, lots of scientists agree by the way ...at the end. It's frustrating and annoying like 'the science is settled' statement. Not having a go as Skeptical Science normally produces convincing arguments but this is lame.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join