Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
LOL @ the use of the Permian Extinction to scare people about the GW debacle.
Does anyone know when the Permian Extinction took place? Or what the planet was like at that time? For all intent and purposes, we should be talking about an alien world.
Originally posted by Trublbrwing
reply to post by Grimpachi
I don't know what's more frightening, that study, or the lack of interest in your thread. Twelve hours later and nobody thinks this is HUGE? We have Ocam there who replies ten minutes later, which means he didn't even read the article, and says it's fear mongering, because he/ she doesn't understand it.
I've been trying to wake people up on this site for a long time, some get it, most don't.
Thank you for posting the article, it's important stuff and I would have missed it otherwise.
What would be the impact of methane releases from hydrates in the Arctic?
If an amount of, say, 1 Gt of methane from hydrates in the Arctic would abruptly enter the atmosphere, what would be the impact?
Methane's global warming potential (GWP) depends on many variables, such as methane's lifetime, which changes with the size of emissions and the location of emissions (hydroxyl depletion already is a big problem in the Arctic atmosphere), the wind, the time of year (when it's winter, there can be little or no sunshine in the Arctic, so there's less greenhouse effect), etc. One of the variables is the indirect effect of large emissions and what's often overlooked is that large emissions will trigger further emissions of methane, thus further extending the lifetime of both the new and the earlier-emitted methane, which can make the methane persist locally for decades.
The IPCC (2007) gives methane a lifetime of 12 years, and a GWP of 25 as much as carbon dioxide over 100 years and 72 as much as carbon dioxide over 20 years. (14)
In conclusion, a release of 1 Gt of methane in the Arctic would be catastrophic and the methane wouldn't go away quickly either, since this would be likely to keep triggering further releases. While some models project rapid decay of the methane, those models often use global decay values and long periods, which is not applicable in case of such abrupt releases in the Arctic.
Instead, the methane is likely to stay active in the Arctic for decades at a very high warming potential, due to depletion of hydroxyl and oxygen, while the resulting summer warming (when the sun doesn't set) is likely to keep triggering further releases in the Arctic
Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Methane is very short lived. This article is just a scare-piece.
As an engineer and someone who considers themselves to be a proponent of green technologies, I am really getting sick of seeing people belittle others for disagreeing with the PC stance.
We need data.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Grimpachi
What about when there was no ice at all because the weather was much warmer? This is complete fearmongering.
The reason I believe so many people refuse to look at the science is that it frightens them either that or people believe it is not something that will greatly affect them in their lifetime so they will leave it to the next generation to deal with.
There was a study done on the psychology behind this and it found that it is very hard for most people to think in long term effects of just about anything.
It isn’t all doom and gloom because at the end of the document it states what needs to happen to avoid catastrophe. Maybe now that it will no longer be the next generation’s problem our generation will do what is necessary.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Grimpachi
I have looked at the "science" behind global warming.
There is so little it's difficult to actually garner a true picture of what is going on.
The very process by which we measure the arctic ice melt has been changed and challenged in regards to accuracy over the decades - with satellite measurements showing massive amounts of variability.
Further - volcanic sea vents have been increasing in activity in the Arctic over the past few decades. Though I'm sure Al Gore will pin this increase in volcanic activity on humans - I'm not at all swayed.
If I was a medical doctor I would say that the patient has a terminal illness and is expected to die of an extreme fever between 2038 and 2050. There are three actions that have to be taken immediately by world governments, if there is any faint hope of preventing the final excruciating stages of death the human race will be forced to live through as we are all boiled like lobsters.
Developed (and some developing) countries must cut back their carbon dioxide emissions by a very large percentage (50% to 90%) by 2020 to immediately precipitate a cooling of the Earth and its crust. If this is not done the earthquake frequency and methane emissions in the Arctic will continue to grow exponentially leading to our inexorable demise in 2038 to 2050.
Geoengineering must be used immediately as a cooling method in the Arctic to counteract the effects of the methane buildup in the short term. However, these methods will lead to further pollution of the atmosphere in the long term and will not solve the earthquake induced Arctic methane buildup which is going to lead to our annihilation.
The United States and Russia must immediately develop a net of powerful radio beam frequency transmission stations around the Arctic using the critical 13.56 MHZ beat frequency to break down the methane in the stratosphere and troposphere to nanodiamonds and hydrogen (Light 2011a) . Besides the elimination of the high global warming potential methane, the nanodiamonds may form seeds for light reflecting noctilucent clouds in the stratosphere and a light coloured energy reflecting layer when brought down to the Earth by snow and rain (Light 2011a). HAARP transmission systems are able to electronically vibrate the strong ionospheric electric current that feeds down into the polar areas and are thus the least evasive method of directly eliminating the buildup of methane in those critical regions.
I thought this comment at the end was interesting:
Originally posted by Grimpachi
This is the most frightening article I have ever read. Any thoughts?
The final data hasn't been released by the NOAA yet. The fact that measurements of methane are so sparse in the arctic is probably an issue that needs to be addressed. It's hard to come to reliable conclusions based on sparse data.
While NOAA did remove this spike, all data from early 2011 for Svalbard still show up as preliminary, so we are still awaiting the final record. The person at NOAA to ask questions to is Dr. Pieter Tans, his email address is at this page. There are only a few stations in the Arctic that measure methane. The Svalbard station only takes flask samples, as opposed to the Barrow station which also takes hourly in situ measurements. I'd like to see more measuring and monitoring done.
With a claim like this it's hard to take anything else he says seriously.
Once the world's ice caps have completely melted away at temperatures above 22.49 oC and times later than 2051.3, the Earth's atmosphere will heat up at an extremely fast rate to reach the Permian extinction event temperature of 80oF (26.66 oC)(Wignall, 2009) by which time all life on Earth will have been completely extinguished.
Some life survived the Permian extinction and some life will survive the next extinction too.
The Permian ended with the most extensive extinction event recorded in paleontology: the Permian-Triassic extinction event. 90% to 95% of marine species became extinct, as well as 70% of all land organisms.
As better technology comes along so does better data.
Most of the new reports have adjusted to new data and almost all recognize that our old models were inadequate because we are losing ice faster than it was ever expected.
Please take some time and read through the reports.
Also as far as I know Al gore has not made any such claims to date so just look at the data unbiased please.
Following the new record low recorded on August 26, Arctic sea ice extent continued to drop and is now below 4.00 million square kilometers (1.54 million square miles). Compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, this represents a 45% reduction in the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice. At least one more week likely remains in the melt season.