Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Methane Outbreak Alert!

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Man you slay me sometimes when your posts.





I still can't fathom how we could possibly affect the entire planet. I say this because I can't get past the idea that trillions of aquatic species have been pooping in the ocean for 300 billion years and the ocean still hasn't become a giant turd


But your point still gets across.


BTW it's Trillions of trillions of aquatic species, and 4 billion years put your point is very valid. ( that was for the people that would have pointed it out.)
edit on 27-4-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-4-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)


No it isn't, it is anti-intellectual and the kind of nonsense which shows how the "anti climate change brigade" are using their lack of knowledge in a dangerous way.

The earth has a vast range of eco-systems which exist to moderate and control the environment. These are very efficient in making use of natural by-products such as described in the post above.

What mankind is doing and has done extensively since industrialisation of the west is making use of resources in an unnatural way on a massive scale.

It is ludicrous that anyone doubt that our actions wouldn't have an effect on our climate. I have absolutely no respect for such people.




posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Man you slay me sometimes when your posts.





I still can't fathom how we could possibly affect the entire planet. I say this because I can't get past the idea that trillions of aquatic species have been pooping in the ocean for 300 billion years and the ocean still hasn't become a giant turd


But your point still gets across.


BTW it's Trillions of trillions of aquatic species, and 4 billion years put your point is very valid. ( that was for the people that would have pointed it out.)


Well, here's another point: Imagine a time before man (before firefighters) when all of the continents were big green forests. Lightning strikes. The forests burn. WHOLE continents burn! And yet, the ice caps didn't suddenly vanish in a meltdown. No great methane release.

Compared to continental forest fires, man's total output of pollution around the entire planet has to be the equivalent of a mosquito peeing in the ocean.


I agree with you 100%.

I have made that same remark, only to be met by ridicule.


Rightly so. Preposterous.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982
This AMEG group frightens me a little.They a calling for the governments to cool the Arctic.

Through geo-engineering.Hmm,what is another word for that?


It is imperative that Governments collaborate and adopt a plan of action for cooling the Arctic in order to halt the retreat of the Arctic sea ice and therefore slow the release of methane being emitted from the continental shelves. A variety of means of cooling the Arctic are available, some of which may be classed as geo-engineering. Governments should support the moratorium on drilling in the Arctic as urged by the UK Environment Audit Committee in their report “Protecting the Arctic” (September 2012).


www.ameg.me...

Am I alone in seeing this as hyper-inflated sensationalism?

Peace,
K


Depends on your qualifications to form that opinion.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Melting of the permafrost will undoubtedly seal our fate, and if that doesn't the super volcano surely will destroy everything. Then ice age will happen once more. The next generation if there is one that survives, will find a droid phone in a chunk of coal and wonder how it got there.
edit on 28-4-2013 by sean because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by citizenx1
 





Depends on your qualifications to form that opinion.


I have none.

Just an opinion,nothing more.All developed through observation.

Would love to hear yours,though.

Peace,
K

edit on 28-4-2013 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg



Compared to continental forest fires, man's total output of pollution around the entire planet has to be the equivalent of a mosquito peeing in the ocean.
reply to post by jiggerj
 



Do you have anything to back up those claims? As we know though tree absorb CO2. So when there was nothing but trees. what was not burning (and I seriously doubt there would ever have been a whole continent on fire!) would suck up the Co2. Now we're cutting down all the tree,s and burning more fossil fuels. More Co2, less stuff to absorb it. Out of balance in nature is still out of balance.

Now, the problem we have is that the permafrost in Siberia is melting. And the Mammoth crap underneath is kicking out methane. It only takes a little rise in temp, to start the chain reaction. This is a very simple comcept

Please take a look at Venus, and you will see what runaway global warming does.


No, I have nothing to back up my thoughts. But, why would you find a continental fire impossible? There have been forest fires today that would have kept on burning if not for the firefighters.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Yes, increased release of methane is a sign we may have entered run away warming and yes methane traps more energy in the form of heat than does carbon dioxide. I feel as if people are trying to use that as a "see carbon dioxide isn't as bad so it's not our fault!". That is false logic.

The arctic and the methane it stores should have remained frozen for another thousand years or more and released much slower over a very long period of time. The arctic ice cap is melting much more rapidly than it should and that is because of human emissions of greenhouse gasses, predominantly co2. It's now expected that the arctic will have its first (in our current climate era) completely ice free summer in 2014-2015, that certainly won't help all that methane stay frozen.
edit on 28-4-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Well, if the methane hydrate deposits in the Arctic are destabilising then we're all screwed.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by StarsInDust
 


STAR for you !!!!!!

I can agree it is worth a look at. But I refuse to line anyones pockets ( Al GORE remember him he invented the internet ? ) while I look at it !

Here's another look, it baffles me why there is a lack of data after 2007.


edit on 27-4-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



you people have to quit saying al gore SAID he invented the internet....YOU right-wing people are the only ones that keep intimating that he did. he never said he did, if so, PROVE IT OR STFU. he showed statistics that the amount of carbon dioxide are off the charts in our lifetime, in comparision to ice core samples from hundreds of thousands of years ago. this isn't speculative, or something hard to measure, it's an easily measurable scientific fact. and of course you have the evidence that "al gore lined his pockets"...no?...didn't think so.
edit on 28-4-2013 by jimmyx because: spell



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
1800 ppb is the same as 1.8 ppm is the same as 0.00018% or 1.8/10,000 of one percent. I just have doubts that changing from 1.6 to 1.8 ppm would really make much difference in atmospheric heat absorption.


It would be interesting to know how they measured with any accuracy the ppb over the last 400,000 years.

Just sayin...



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by StarsInDust
 


STAR for you !!!!!!

I can agree it is worth a look at. But I refuse to line anyones pockets ( Al GORE remember him he invented the internet ? ) while I look at it !

Here's another look, it baffles me why there is a lack of data after 2007.


edit on 27-4-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



you people have to quit saying al gore SAID he invented the internet....YOU right-wing people are the only ones that keep intimating that he did. he never said he did, if so, PROVE IT OR STFU. he showed statistics that the amount of carbon dioxide are off the charts in our lifetime, in comparision to ice core samples from hundreds of thousands of years ago. this isn't speculative, or something hard to measure, it's an easily measurable scientific fact. and of course you have the evidence that "al gore lined his pockets"...no?...didn't think so.
edit on 28-4-2013 by jimmyx because: spell


Again, when you are measuring ppb, how accurate is it when your samples are bubbles in old ice? And even if it is accurate, thats one spot on the earth. Why wouldnt it be artibutable to a local release of methane in the area the ice core was taken? Not defending anyone here just asking the question. When you give someone a bag of money to do studies, the money cancreate tunnelvision in terms of the results of the study.
edit on 28-4-2013 by Mike.Ockizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Methane Outbreak Alert!



When I saw this I was expecting you were warning us about some huge fart you had just done!

edit on 28/4/13 by Cinrad because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
1800 ppb is the same as 1.8 ppm is the same as 0.00018% or 1.8/10,000 of one percent. I just have doubts that changing from 1.6 to 1.8 ppm would really make much difference in atmospheric heat absorption.


It would be interesting to know how they measured with any accuracy the ppb over the last 400,000 years.

Just sayin...


well, study your ass off for twenty of so years, work in this field day in and day out, read and verify countless studies, run hundreds of experiments yourself. talk to and work with hundreds of others in the same field, AND YOU TOO MIGHT KNOW.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
1800 ppb is the same as 1.8 ppm is the same as 0.00018% or 1.8/10,000 of one percent. I just have doubts that changing from 1.6 to 1.8 ppm would really make much difference in atmospheric heat absorption.


It would be interesting to know how they measured with any accuracy the ppb over the last 400,000 years.

Just sayin...


well, study your ass off for twenty of so years, work in this field day in and day out, read and verify countless studies, run hundreds of experiments yourself. talk to and work with hundreds of others in the same field, AND YOU TOO MIGHT KNOW.


guess I hit a nerve. Only said it would be intersting to know. Take a valium.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


Samples are taken from all over the planet. Ice cores from the arctic and antarctic, sea bed cores from all over, lake bed core samples, tree ring samples. It's not like someone found a bubble in a snowball one day and said hey lets make an entire scientific field off this.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Thanks Rez for the link.

I don't see any new information, but it looks like more people are aware of this huge problem popping up on the radar screen.

Last I read, Arctic ice began breaking up almost as soon as it formed in February.

Then there is recent news about the spike in the Gulf Stream in 2012, but no info as what the temp is doing right now. I wonder when this added heat will, if it hasn't already happened, hit the Arctic Ocean. I am waiting to see how much information we will get as this situation develops over the summer.

Will we read about observed numbers of plumes of methane coming up from the Arctic, or will this information be withheld. Odds are good that 2013 will set a new record in sea ice shrinkage. There is the possibility that this will have no major impact, but all the evidence points to the probability that this is a huge change coming our way that is beyond biblical.

People want to believe that this will not have any serious impact for a hundred years, but current evidence suggests this could have an extremely serious impact in the next decade.

edit on 28-4-2013 by poet1b because: Typos



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by StarsInDust
 


STAR for you !!!!!!

I can agree it is worth a look at. But I refuse to line anyones pockets ( Al GORE remember him he invented the internet ? ) while I look at it !

Here's another look, it baffles me why there is a lack of data after 2007. :

Erm the only people who cant find the data after 2007 are the ones who don't want to find it !!!!!!!!!!!!!

It took me about 30 seconds to find the up to date charts. Go on have a go. It's easy. You type the following into google:

Global temperature 2012

Guess what we are still screwed due to man made increases in in CO2 which can be verified by measuring the ratio of the carbon isotopes.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
There are things that people can do to help. IE: If you have land go and plant a couple evergreens tree's and plant bushes and keep a garden every season. Tree's and shrubs use carbon dioxide (co2) gasses in their photosynthesis. They also help cool the planet down to help with methane. For every tree being cut down ought to replace it with three more. You can go out and look at logged units with nothing but stumps, that's not a healthy practice. Taking and never giving back.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by sean
There are things that people can do to help. IE: If you have land go and plant a couple evergreens tree's and plant bushes and keep a garden every season. Tree's and shrubs use carbon dioxide (co2) gasses in their photosynthesis. They also help cool the planet down to help with methane. For every tree being cut down ought to replace it with three more. You can go out and look at logged units with nothing but stumps, that's not a healthy practice. Taking and never giving back.
I agree with the effort,.
however, if the data we have all seen from the charts of the increase and decrease of temps and CO2 over the last 650,000 years is at all correct,. then planting a few trees in our lifetime won't do anything to dent the coming change we will all be experiencing. The "Off the chart" data that weve seen may be our contribution,. but nevertheless,. i believe the next global iceage will arrive regardless of what we do and trees dont grow well in ice and snow, not to mention plants needed for food.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I used to be firmly in the "Natural Cycle" camp, but lately I have changed my thinking a little. Things like the BP Oil Spill and Fukushima MUST have a drastic affect on all of this as they destabilize the ocean currents. More than anything else it are these currents that influence our weather patterns. Not to mention all of the animals these events kill. This planet is locked in a very delicate ecological balance and we are effing it all up.

Good news though. We won't kill ourselves. We are a pretty resilient species. Once it becomes glaringly obvious we must change directions, the power brokers of this planet will reluctantly cave in and allow tech to be released that can avert all of this. I don't buy into "runaway" climate change that we cannot control.

If we pooled all of our resources, we have the power of Gods.





new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join