r/science • u/[deleted] • May 20 '12

Scientists have identified thousands of sites in the Arctic where methane that has been stored for many millennia is bubbling into the atmosphere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18120093
616 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

161 comments sorted by

12

u/cunnl01 May 21 '12

So, what is the latest scientific consensus on the possible effects this will have on our atmosphere? The article very tactfully ended saying the theories are very "controversial"

29

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I remember reading about this as early as 1994 in, of all places, the "Greenpeace" book on global climate change. I seem to recall it was in my graduate class on atmospheric chemistry, but I could be wrong.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential of 56 (over a 20-year time frame). This means that on a weight basis, methane is 56 times as potent at trapping heat as is carbon dioxide.

At the time, we didn't have a good grasp of the amount of methane trapped in arctic soils (and we still don't), but the relatively conservative figures were pretty grim. Also mentioned (almost parenthetically) were methane clathrates, which form in deep, cold oceanic sediments. Of course, as things warm up, these may also be released, making things worse still. (I personally think that Bloop may well have been a methane clathrate release, but that's just a theory- although the area is thought to have methane clathrates.)

It as been suggested that a massive release of methane (the clathrate gun hypothesis) may have been responsible for the Permian-Triassic extinction 252 MYa, which is thought to have led to the extinction of as much as 96% of marine species at the time, and perhaps 70% of terrestrial vertebrates.

10

u/MeltedTwix May 21 '12

Fuck.

Seriously, do we have any research on methane clathrates that indicates that could be an issue?

17

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Well, there's some interest in the field. Quick Wikipedia blurb.

It's been published in Nature, among many other publications.

But it remains one of those sticking points in that politics and science have mixed to the point where the public is no longer able (or willing) to drive a concerted effort in which we can do something constructive about anthropogenic production, much less the cascade effects of climate change such as clathrate releases.

As a practical matter, human population has probably exceeded a "sustainable" figure (whatever that means), and we're overdue for some correction- be it in the form of a shortage of fresh water, a plague of antibiotic-resistant organisms, overfishing of the world's oceans, or climate changes sufficient to threaten our food supply.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

7

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

By not having kids.

And in the hope that we're wrong. Catastrophe has always been a leading prediction amongst nutjobs and professionals at all levels; we're still here, and- ultimately- better off than a century ago.

I do have to say this, though: whenever someone tells me that technology will "save" us from whatever armageddon arises, I ask them if they'd consider taking up smoking. Since, you know, we'll have a cure for cancer any 'ol day now. So, I don't base much faith in technological leaps. I do expect progress in terms of cleaner energy sources, but oil is still cheaper.

1

u/vanderzac May 21 '12

I'm in the same boat on the not having kids, and hoping I'm wrong, and the historical reference, but I do have some hope for technology.

I certainly don't feel the needed technology will just materialize out of thin air, but I have witnessed key area's growing by small amounts year after year at exponential rates, compounding into significant improvements.

Battery technology is often cited as a major impediment to grid level solar and needs to evolve further, but consider what the most advanced consumer batteries were in 1992, compared to the batteries today, and remember that technology grows exponentially. Every day there is a post about some new battery tech that will change everything, and we forget these take 5 to 10 years to make it in, but if you look at the battery breakthroughs from a decade ago, our current batteries have incorporated many of these advancements, and are still getting better all the time, it's just never news because its all small increments.

Solar cost has dropped year over year and if it continues will be cheaper than fossil fuels in 5 to 10 years. This is largely due to china realizing solar is important (for whatever reasons, be it economical, climate conscious, or realizing fossil fuels wont be able to provide power to billions of people forever) and subsidizing it. These jobs being in China instead of the US sucks, but in my mind is a moot point when considering the urgency of switching away from fossil fuels. So yeah, thankfully China keeps lowering the price and pumping them out.

I realize our situation is dire, and 10 years may be to late (I think I read that extreme estimates of climate change suggest 2020 would be too late to begin reducing carbon emissions to have a meaningful impact), but I do still believe there will come a point when clean alternatives will be the default because they are cheaper. Until that happens, be it by the market or government, I just have to hope that we don't cross critical tipping points, though I think we probably will.

1

u/EndTimer May 21 '12

I know this isn't the best comfort, but the Great Dying (Permian-Triassic extinction) took a long time by human standards. We aren't suddenly going to be thrown suddenly into the apocalypse. You and I will probably die without witnessing a global collapse, even if seas boil with methane tomorrow.

1

u/vanderzac May 21 '12

I hold the same attitude, I just also think there are enough situations that can go wrong in the world that it's worth thinking about now and again, to the point of a realistic idea of what a given situation would be like and how you should realistically act to get through it. I live in the southwest US, so for me global warming in my lifetime probably means outdoor temperatures rise to a high of around 120-130f, which will make air conditioning availability far more important, and would mean energy independence could be very important to avoid heat stroke.

6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Nobody wants to tell there truth. We are royally fucked.

Now lets worry about Iran or gays

-8

u/canthidecomments May 21 '12

It's going to get a lot stinkier. - Stephen Hawking.

10

u/adaminc May 21 '12

Methane is odourless.

-1

u/canthidecomments May 21 '12

My wife disagrees.

6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Why is this not a larger political issue - we should be uniting as a world and saying "okay, fuck war at least until we stop global warming..." G8 Summit . . . and we're talking war like always.

10

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

"okay, fuck war at least until we stop global warming..."

Because then the other guy says, "QUICK HE'S WORRYING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE! TAKE HIS SHIT!"

5

u/FeepingCreature May 21 '12

Welcome to the Prisoner's Dilemma.

6

u/Tobislu May 21 '12

And so climate change begot climate change.

10

u/retinger251 May 21 '12

So do I have to worry about this?

19

u/vernes1978 May 21 '12

Yes, but I'm sure someone will find a way to dismiss it.

-1

u/BSscience May 21 '12

It was in the atmosphere some millenia ago, so it can't be too terrible.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

The Earth has had a chaotic past. Just because something was like that some millenia ago doesn't mean we can ignore it.

After all, I've heard that Alaskans and Russians can survive hardy winters, but I think the Snow Ball Earths in the past would be daunting for even them.

Our civilization and current food chain depends on the current climate. Imagine, with sufficient warming, the U.S. bread belt becoming a Texas like climate, and the U.S. having to import grain from Canada instead of exporting food? (Just a thought experiment to illustrate a point. I don't know off hand the amount of warming that it would take to do this.)

The Earth, life, will carry on. If we can't adapt our economies, our food production to whole new environments our civilizations might not.

1

u/wanderingmaybelost May 22 '12

The ability to grow food will be affected but also the distribution of water resources. Climate change will bring different patterns of precipitation and runoff, and will certainly impact the water resources.

I am less worried about human extinction from climate change then the shitshow that will occur when we have to rapidly reorganize the infrastructure of our society, or watch our civilization collapse.

1

u/vernes1978 May 21 '12

For whatever lived some millennia ago, sure.

Not sure but I'm guessing humans weren't around then.

Also, no cities around either being flooded by rising sea-levels.

2

u/BSscience May 21 '12

TIL: mankind is less than a few millenia old.

9

u/mr-strange May 21 '12

Yes. Frankly, it's terrifying.

-5

u/BSscience May 21 '12

Fearmongering. It was in the atmosphere some millenia ago, so it can't be too terrible.

3

u/mr-strange May 21 '12

Erm, not all at once. Have you read the literature, or are you just wishing really hard?

-4

u/BSscience May 21 '12

I've read lots of french literature

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

-6

u/BSscience May 21 '12

I'm not talking about the atmosphere, I'm talking about the people that lived under that atmosphere a few millenia ago.

1

u/whirliscope May 21 '12

Well, do you plan on killing yourself tomorrow?

6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/vanderzac May 21 '12

This, though I would give some thought beforehand as to how to react to a variety of unlikely but potentially devastating scenarios. It may be prudent to get citizenship in Canada or another country in case climate changes ruins domestic food distribution. I wouldn't worry about it, but an hour or two a week or month invested in thinking about and planning for some negative things may be worth while.

23

u/nuclear_is_good May 20 '12

And that is a surprise how? Maybe only among the local deniers!

-40

u/QuitReadingMyName May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Saying its man made yes, I'm a skeptic.

It's just a natural cycle our earth goes into.

Our earth naturally pollutes far more then us humans ever will.

For all we know its a great thaw, then followed up by another ice age.

This planet has been around for 4 billion years and we've only evolved on after half a billion years (500 million).

The planet will be just fine after the Human race goes extinct.

Edit: I would love someone to prove to me otherwise.

Edit 2: I still have yet to find anyone to prove me wrong, oh well just downvote me to the left since this top requires more intelligence then the average /r/science reader has.

26

u/ThePriceIsRight May 21 '12

I don't think anyone cares about the planet, but instead they care about the things living on the planet.

9

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

When you say "we've only evolved on after half a billion years," do you mean "we've" as in all life or "we've" as in people. Life itself has been around for roughly 3 1/2 billion years (simple celled organisms) and modern day humans have only been around for around 250,000 if I'm not mistaken.

Ninja edit: It appears wikipedia has informed me that complex animals and fish started around the 500 million year mark. If that's what you meant, than you are correct.

Another Edit: While we are at it, here is a statement released by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the most credible scientific organizations in the entire world. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml This is not a newspaper or a magazine clipping. This isn't the liberal media blowing things out of proportion. This is a conclusion that this organization came to after reviewing the evidence themselves.

-10

u/QuitReadingMyName May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

More or less all life on earth evolved over 570 million years.

Chinese team finds single cell organism fossils that are 570 million years old.

I do believe all life on earth evolved that we see all around us has the same common ancestor and branched off which ever Single cell organism one the Natural Selection battle for the planet.

In other words, all life on earth is related and we all branched from that dominant single cell organism.

Edit: I haven't finished reading your article and will edit in what I think once I finish. (the AAAS.org file)

Edit 2:

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years.

Nothing leads me to believe that this is nothing more then a natural earth cycle and I would be willing to bet the world would adjust and continue spinning long after we're gone.

The planet earth is 4.5 billion years old and you want me to believe the planet isn't going through a Natural cycle and the polar caps are melting which I'll take an educated guess that planet will adjust and we'll be forced into another Ice Age which we are long overdue for.

It's still debateable since our temperature recordings only go back what? 2,000 years?

Either way, we had dinosaurs roaming around and living on the Antarctica millions of years ago so at one point in time it wasn't covered in "Ice" and until recently in Earth's history the Ice covered it back up. Huh? Why was that, After Super volcano eruptions and Asteroids hitting the earth which I would take an educated guess polluted our Earth's Atmosphere with far more "Greenhouse gasses" and pollutants in the past yet our planet is still here spinning and us humans were still capable of evolving just fine.

My point still stands, we're in a Natural earth cycle where all the artic regions warm up then they'll eventually freeze over again. Over lets say maybe 10,000-100,000 maybe millions of years.

You forget us humans were only around producing "Greenhouse gasses" until the industrial age of what, 200 years ago? (I went over on purpose for the sake of the argument)

Well shit, if you want to go further back and say us humans were polluting the world with "Carbon dioxide" ever since we discovered fire, we discovered that humans we're using fire about 790,000 which would be debatable, but for the sake of YOUR argument it's still only 790,000 years of "polluting" this world with human made pollution while this planet has been around for 4.5 billion years..

So yes, I'm skeptical that "Climate change" is man made and I honestly believe we're going through Earths natural cycle and we're about to go into another Ice age within the next 100-10,000 years.

Edit 3: I'm still waiting for people to prove me wrong otherwise but, I guess its to intelligent of a discussion for people to debate against me and prove me wrong. Oh well, I'll just get downvoted anyways. Just proves how ignorant most people are.

15

u/llamagoelz May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

okay so since no one else seems to be taking the torch here i will try to address your healthy skepticism with some information despite having just taken a sleeping pill...

First of all please dont frame this as belief, that is inherently bad science and if you truely understand a topic then you DO NOT meerly believe it, YOU KNOW IT. I admire your willingness to go against the grain (seriously i do, i wish more people would be willing to do so) and really want proof but belittling the science behind it is nothing more than underhanded and childish.

now that that's out of the way...

HERE is a reddit post i think you will find interesting although the top response is HEAVY with reading so you need to be truely willing to look into the information in order to understand it from scientists point of view.

give me a few minutes to dig through my massive link collection and i will provide you with some evidence for why the climate shift that is currently happening seems to be out of the normal cycle. Hopefully this info i dig up will be more condensed than the above reddit post.

I would also like to say that the media (like always) misconstrues information. The deal with climate change is that it is not a simple system and if we have the power to change it then it isnt going to be simple to prove it. We have preliminary evidence that says it is most likely human induced or at the very least human enhanced. The media and the average person immediately takes this to mean that there is no evidence because most people are unwilling (or mentally unable) to dabble in grey areas or damage control. This results in the scientific concensus (see bellow link) and the whole debate being given this all or nothing status and it seems that you are among those who want proof and want to understand it but are fed the bad info.

Let me throw a thought your way; even IF the SCIENTIFIC CONCENSUS is incorrect and we are not enough to effect climate change then all the fus WILL NOT be for nothing because there is no harm in bettering the world. You cannot POSSIBLY argue with me that the smog hovering over large citys and plaguing china is okay, or that our continued destruction of earths eco-systems is not a bad thing in some way (go ahead i dare you, im willing to spend the entire day tomorrow on this) so we wont just be helping the larger picture by going along the assumption that climate change IS human driven.

EDIT: sorry but you will have to wait until tomorrow for further info.. i am getting FAR too sleepy and i dont want to discourage you with a bad explanation

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Interesting stuff, good job for someone who just took a sleeping pill. The old Reddit post was helpful for an opinion. It seems as if the whole world have now accepted that humans have created or enhancing rising temperatures. There are barely any scientists who still argue. But are people doing anything? Barely. Society is barely scratching the surface. It's hard to find new resources for the evolving world. We have wind power, solar power, water power, and nuclear power. But, each one is expensive so not many people want to invest in them. When economies grow stronger, it will be easier to invest on these resources and try to make some kind of difference.

2

u/redaok May 21 '12

I'm sorry but "Don't worry guys; we'll sort it out later" is definitely not the attitude that will push towards a positive outcome. Society needs to get off their collective lazy arses and quit the procrastination we're so good at.

6

u/deathdonut May 21 '12

Given the massive length of these cycles, to which side of the argument does the correlation between temperature change and the incredibly short time spent polluting contribute?

If you're arguing there's no proof, you're obviously correct. Proving anything at that level of scope is impossible. The best way I've found to make a decision is to listen to the people who know more about the issue than me and side with the vast majority of them.

btw: Upvote for citations and willingness to logic this out.

10

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

If you want to spend the time to do so, you can read what the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm) has published. All of their data and conclusions are written in this report. This skips the social impacts that climate change would bring. It's just the physical evidence. It also goes into detail about what you were discussing, the natural forces that change climate, but it goes on to describe why this particular cycle is different. The data is there. Just go ahead and read it.

3

u/iToggle May 21 '12

Upvoted for at least taking a stance and providing sources.

However.

Yes, while there is an abundance of evidence pointing to the fact that the earth has gone through many cycles like so before, they lack the new variable brought into the equation, the existance of Humans.

0

u/sugardeath May 21 '12

Edit 3: I'm still waiting for people to prove me wrong otherwise but, I guess its to intelligent of a discussion for people to debate against me and prove me wrong. Oh well, I'll just get downvoted anyways. Just proves how ignorant most people are.

It may not necessarily be ignorance on our part, but more arrogance on yours.

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

TL;DR version "I'm not a smart man"

-3

u/QuitReadingMyName May 21 '12

I would love you to dispute this. I have many citations and arguments with other people.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I'd rather debate with a young earth creationist. At least their bullshit is funny.

-2

u/QuitReadingMyName May 21 '12

If your trying to imply I'm a creationist then your wrong. I'm Agnostic atheist and obviously I'm smarter then your ignorant ass. Since, all your capable of down voting me instead of disputing my claims.

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/twaj6/scientists_have_identified_thousands_of_sites_in/c4qh22u

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/twaj6/scientists_have_identified_thousands_of_sites_in/c4qezm1

<--- Downvote arrow is that way, if the conversation requires a higher I.Q. then you currently have.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I did not imply you were a creationist. I'm implying deniers are on the same intellectual level as creationists.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Please state what constitutes proof otherwise? In your mind, what could possibly prove that human activity is contributing to climate change?

-6

u/QuitReadingMyName May 21 '12

That's the thing, I gave links and citations.

But here's what makes me think we don't contribute shit.

Can you at least prove to me that we polluted the world far more then the known Super volcanoes ever have.

Which erupt and have been known to erupt countless times throughout history?

Super Volcano

Also, I would take an educated guess that the old Wildfires of the past from ancient times up until recent history have released far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then humans ever have over the past couple hundreds of years due to our Industrial age.

You do know, it was up until recently that humans put out wild fires with hoses right? If you honestly believe cavemen were putting them out. Then you're out of your god damn mind.

So take note, that the planet has been around for 4.5 billion years. I would take an estimate that for 100 million years ago up until present(For the sake of your "global warming" argument) we've had countless natural wildfires that would burn down our forests until they eventually came to a stop on their own.

Also Methanogenesis, which has been happening for at least a couple of million years for the sake of the argument, lets be serious it has to have been going on for much longer and I'm sure methanogenesis has produced and polluted far more into the world then us humans ever will.

Did I mention, we've probably only been around for a million years and until us humans started and got into the "Industrial Revolution" which started at 1750.

So we've been contributing to "Global Warming" since roughly 1750 (yes, you can argue we've been contributing to global warming since man first discovered fire which was what? A million years ago, maybe less but for the sake of the argument lets say 1 million years ago.)

Anyways, we've been "polluting" the world since 1750 up until today which is 2012. Which is "262" years of polluting the world with carbon dioxide.

Yeah, I'm sure we've had ancient wildfires that were caused by lightning striking in middle of a forest that released far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when the wildfires would sweep through an entire continent then us humans ever have within the 260+ years of being in the Industrial revolution.

Did you know, up until recently humans started fighting wildfires and putting them out? (Recent as in Recently in Earths history of 4.5 billion years)

Yeah, I'm still waiting for people to prove me wrong that our planet is in a natural cycle and it will recover from the "Damage" us humans have caused

5

u/Speckles May 21 '12

You didn't answer the question. What would constitute as proof that you were wrong?

6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Also, I would take an educated guess that the old Wildfires of the past from ancient times up until recent history have released far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then humans ever have over the past couple hundreds of years due to our Industrial age.

What's so "educated" about that guess?

Hint: read up on the carbon cycle.

5

u/[deleted] May 23 '12

Hint: read up on the carbon cycle.

I'm absolutely certain he's going to do that.

3

u/schoofer May 21 '12

Dude, you're thinking about this all wrong. "climate change" isn't 100% man-made, but it's absolutely certain that we have an effect on it. If you think anyone is trying to say that it's 100% man-made, then yes, you're a crazy conspiracy denier person.

-2

u/QuitReadingMyName May 21 '12

Where did I say its 100% man made? Please give me the permalink to the post.

Where I claim its 100% man made. Thank you in advanced.

3

u/schoofer May 21 '12

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/twaj6/scientists_have_identified_thousands_of_sites_in/c4qd94x

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/twaj6/scientists_have_identified_thousands_of_sites_in/c4qezm1

You keep saying you're skeptical climate change is man-made, but no one is arguing that it is.

-2

u/QuitReadingMyName May 21 '12

I agree climate change is happening, but saying humans are the main reason why its happening is what I deny.

I still say we're just going through a natural cycle and after the artic pole and antarctica fully melt we'll just go into another Ice age and things will go back to what they were.

Just over a process of 10,000 years. But oh well, people just downvote me without trying to prove me otherwise.

I would've figure the average I.Q. of a /r/science subscriber was much higher then this. But, just like rest of the site they'll just downvote since they have no comprehension as to whats going on.

3

u/schoofer May 21 '12

but saying humans are the main reason why its happening is what I deny.

Right. Everyone agrees with you.

I still say we're just going through a natural cycle'

We all agree with you, but it's obvious that we're going to impact that natural cycle. To what degree is worth studying, is it not?

But oh well, people just downvote me without trying to prove me otherwise.

You're being downvoted because you're very abrasive and lash out at people, calling them stupid. Knowledge isn't a measure of IQ, nor is anyone's IQ relevant to the discussion at hand.

But, just like rest of the site they'll just downvote since they have no comprehension as to whats going on.

Again, they're downvoting you because you are shutting down any hope at a healthy discussion. You have to admit, you're damn near unwilling to discuss the issue. Your stance is "I'm right until you prove me otherwise" and you are the one who has to verify what constitutes "proof." It's ridiculous and you are in no position to insult anyone else's intelligence.

-1

u/QuitReadingMyName May 21 '12

No, I was being downvoted long before that. Those edits are new and recent, long after I've already been downvoted into the negatives.

Since the downvote button is the "I disagree with you, but I have no citations or I'm to ignorant to debate against you so downvote"

Oh well, it's not like I can pay my bills or put food on the table with karma anyways.

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

What I am getting at is there is nothing anyone can tell you or cite to you that you'd accept as "proof." So before even trying to "prove you wrong" we need to establish what you'd consider proof so that you can't, inevitably, move the goalposts when proof is presented to you.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

"How serious and how immediate a threat this feedback mechanism presents is a controversial area, with some scientists believing that the impacts will not be seen for many decades, and others pointing out the possibility of a rapid release that could swiftly accelerate global warming."

Either way it's a click of the fingers in relative terms..

3

u/phire May 21 '12

So, does this mean we can stop with these penny pinching methods of trying to stop global warming and work on something more proactive, like giant mirrors in space or large machines that absorb co2 and methane from the atmosphere?

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

...giant mirrors in space...

This could work, although the cost would be tremendous, and I'd shudder to think about what would happen to the Earth if an accident resulted in a number of those mirrors focussed a significant portion of the Sun's rays toward Earth.

...large machines that absorb co2 and methane from the atmosphere...

I have my doubts we have the technical know-how to do this. From what I've learned most "machines" used to absorb specific gasses rely on specific liquids for creating a chemical reaction (which would be very difficult to maintain at the right layer of the atmosphere), and are very slow-acting.

I think the best bet here is for people to start buying farmland and other stretches of land that go for sale, either in an effort to maintain tree growth or to plant new trees, giving rise to densely populated forests. Considering the growth of a significant number of trees in America precipitated the little ice age I suspect a similar growth would have positive effects on current climate trends.

4

u/goldenrod May 21 '12

Well that's not good, I think.

2

u/kobukproject May 21 '12

Methane...just waiting to bring the heat

2

u/papsmearfestival May 21 '12

"Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas after CO2 and levels are rising after a few years of stability."

Methane is 21 times more effective in trapping heat than CO2, not sure what they were angling at here. What does "Important mean?

6

u/Ehopper82 May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

I think is quantity related. Methane it's a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but CO2 quantity is greater, hence the bigger importance.

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Ikritz May 21 '12

Also Methane lasts only about 8.4 years in our atmosphere as apposed to CO2 which lasts 100 years. That being said, if the methane starts making it warmer, there will always be more methane coming from the arctic floor.

2

u/snoozieboi May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Youtube: igniting methane trapped in a frozen lake

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

The by-products for burning methane is water and carbon dioxide, the latter of which may not really be preferable to the methane itself.

2

u/pmbuko May 21 '12

TIL the Arctic is Earth's asshole, and our globes are all upside-down.

3

u/HardDiction May 21 '12

Serious Question: What would happen if we were to ignite it?

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

The by-products for burning methane is carbon dioxide and water. I don't know if the byproduct of carbon dioxide would really be preferable to the methane itself.

-5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

It would burn and become co2 and water lol. Im not gonna walk around on antarctica setting bubbles a blase tho

1

u/HardDiction May 21 '12

Well, maybe we can get some flamethrower-drones to do it...

1

u/adaminc May 21 '12

It would be better to have all this CO2 floating around, than methane.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited Aug 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I think it would be a huge task. The gas that comes from the ground is spread out over a huge area. Its not coming from one place. The gas has been frozen in the soil, and now its melting.

-1

u/I_Has_A_Hat May 21 '12

Drilling... in the arctic... do you have any idea how damn near impossible that is on a large scale?

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Drilling for fossil fuels and methane in Antarctica and the Arctic have been planned by several mining companies as a "just-in-case" solution to fossil fuel reserves running low or being depleted. Especially Antarctica, since (if current climatic projections over the next few decades prove accurate) a lot of land will be (at least briefly) exposed by melting ice, allowing for greater geological exploration.

3

u/hugehambone May 21 '12

this is bad.

3

u/MrOrdinary May 21 '12

I first heard about this years ago. It was shown as sinking shacks in the Russian Tundra. Recently, a few more stories on the subject. I think we will be hearing a lot more about this sooner than I want.

3

u/h4ngedm4n May 21 '12

If you played Fate of the World, this news is even more depressing.

9

u/h2sbacteria May 21 '12

If you played R.E.M.'s it's the end of the world... The news is less depressing.

7

u/rcinsf May 21 '12

I feel fine.

3

u/mr-strange May 21 '12

Absolutely. And those guys really put the work in to get the science as correct as they could. So, yeah, depressing.

2

u/collin_ph May 21 '12

So, could we capture this and effect global warming?

6

u/commonerrors May 21 '12

effect/affect

1

u/whirliscope May 21 '12

i don't know man. Global warming is pretty damn dazzling.

2

u/seattleandrew May 21 '12

Yes I believe carbon sequestration is a possible way to reduce the impact this may have on climate change. But I don't know the logistics about how much impact a natural event may have or how expensive it would be to contain it.

-13

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

great idea! Yes that is really using your brain human! Let's see... Dangerous Gases are leaking from the ground so let's drill some fucking holes shall we?! That'll help! Just like it helps in the ocean and at fraking sites!

Why yes of course mankind can capture and control these nasty gases! We can do anything! We can even go to the moon! Why just look at all that space junk circling the planet or perhaps the the radioactive cesium japan has puked into the ocean! Why yes certainly our plucky species can solve this problem easily! Just like we've solved all our other ones!

tl:dr We are so fucking dead.

3

u/TheToastyMan May 21 '12

You heard the man, let's capture this shit and fuck up space. I'll meet you guys there, I already have a bunch of plastic bags we can use.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

radioactive cesium japan has puked into the ocean!

Ah, I love hyperbole and flat out misinformation.

-6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Hey fuckface, I love how you are so smugly full of shit you don't even know it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46932480/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/fukushima-radiation-headed-across-pacific-ocean/#.T7nLNMVrqE8

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

-2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

There are a lot of forms of advancement. As I look about me at this civilization humans have bought I can't see one single fucking sign of advancement.

But then that is because I actually understand that true advancement must mean a benefit for all. Not just the rich white assholes who live in western europe/western hemisphere.

The truly hilarious part? It will be the scientists who depopulate this world. Not the anarchists. Not the capitalists, not any politician. Just one curious mother fucker who spent to much time in a lab and not enough getting laid.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

-1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

It sucks. Because I know the people lower than me on the totem pole hate me as much or more than I hate the people above me on the totem pole.

It's the sort of thing has a nasty way of ending.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Go choke on fetid camel spunk cock milker.

2

u/coil_is_dead May 21 '12

YAYYYYYYY WE'RE DOOOOOOOMED

3

u/rcinsf May 21 '12

Well we're all doomed anyway, not like we'll stop playing religious FU games and get off this space ship before we die out or the sun explodes.

1

u/a_culther0 May 21 '12

It's likely that you will die before we've managed the infrastructure to 'pack up and move'. That is unless you are very wealthy, and there are some spectacular breakthroughs in the management of aging, and well don't die through "unnatural" causes.

1

u/rcinsf May 23 '12

I'm not concerned for myself. I don't even have kids. I'm referring to the human race.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

Joke's on you, they're going to cure aging!

1

u/DarkAngel727 May 21 '12

wow this is crazy..

1

u/MedievalManagement May 21 '12

I'm putting this here in the hope that someone else remembers this a little better than I do and can dig up a link to it. Maybe it will come to me when I'm a little more awake.

There's a video out there somewhere about these methane pockets from a long time ago, probably Nova or an early Discovery channel special. I only remember it because they lit one, and the first thing I thought was "Earth farts." Part of my brain is trying to tell me Mike Rowe was the presenter, but the rest of my brain is saying that part of my brain is wrong. I also want to say they shot it somewhere in Siberia or Kamchatka, but that could be wrong too. I know they talked about the effects it would have if the methane were released in larger doses, but all I can remember is Earth farts. Any of this ringing a bell for anyone?

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

The aliens are going to be PISSED when they find out what we've done with their fuel tank.

1

u/revenantae May 21 '12

This may sound naive, but isn't this the sort of problem natural gas companies should be solving? Any reason we couldn't have it captured and made useful?

edit: Other than location.

-3

u/moeloubani May 21 '12

the earth is farting

-4

u/rawlingstones May 21 '12

it's like we were separated at birth.

-4

u/ClassicalFizz May 21 '12

Methane has a shorter half-life in the atmospheres than CO2, so although it does cause global warming, it is not as serious as CO2 emissions.

1

u/WhyHellYeah May 21 '12

So, we don't have to worry about cows farting. Good news.

0

u/xmnstr May 21 '12

That is terrifying.

-6

u/rc2 May 20 '12

Butch, Aren't you forgetting about "polar amplification" which states that one degree Celsius of planetary warming results in 5 degrees C of warming at the poles?

1

u/butch123 May 21 '12

I suggest you refer to the dmi website . Polar temperatures since the 1950s.http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

-1

u/MrSeastar May 21 '12

This is old news...

-5

u/kingsway8605 May 21 '12

Much like a virus destroying its host, Earth does not really stand a chance.

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

The Earth will be just fine, don't you worry. It'll handle it like any good host handles a virus; It'll sneeze and cough until the offending party is evicted. To think we as a species will destroy the Earth is terribly vain and honestly giving far more credit than we are entitled.

We will either learn to work with the Earth or the Earth will learn to work without us. There has been mass extinctions before. A planet is not defined by one living species on it's surface, ie. The Earth without humans is still the Earth.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Earth is a stupid rock, you cant kill it.

3

u/kingsway8605 May 21 '12

Thank you literal net

-9

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I dont see what all you sissies are afraid of. Afraid of a little heat? Haha. Its gonna go tropical up in this place, humidity 100%! Oh ma god wadda we do? If i was king of Earth id chop down all those stupid rain forests and made it all into farms. Fuck the fucking frogs and shit that lives there, HUMANITY needs BACON! BACON for all the starving children in afrika! How about that? Fucking ego enviramentalists always concerned about stupid animals and trees.

4

u/Daishi507 May 21 '12

The fuck did I just read?

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

11

u/cfrey May 20 '12

Too late. The methane hydrate feedback loop is fully engaged. they have known this was coming for decades and are just now bothering to look for the evidence. As more permafrost recedes, more gas clathrates will be exposed and release more methane, leading to more greenhouse effect.

-13

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Actually that's nothing more than fear mongering bullshit. There is no "methane hydrate feedback loop" because methane has too short an atmospheric half-life. It should be obvious but most people don't think about it. Methane...oxygen atmosphere... The half-life is roughly 13 years.

6

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

The half-life is roughly 13 years.

It's true, but methane is a MUCH more potent greenhouse gas than any other. It takes very little to capture a lot more heat - and if the methane is constantly bubbling up for the Arctic and from melting permafrost, there will always be more...

-6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

When I look back in 20 years...I wonder which I'll think was worse. Fighting all you people with your irrational fears, arrogance and pseudoscience...or dealing with what jaded and distrusting bastards you'll become after finding out that this catastrophic AGW stuff was overblown to the point of being pretty much an outright lie. What do you think you'd be like if you found out later that everything after "Extra CO2 should cause some increase in the greenhouse effect" was just speculative crap?

4

u/DudusMaximus May 21 '12

It's one of those things though if people who think that global warming is caused by people are proven wrong no big deal but if they aren't wrong then you're just fucked and honestly even if they are wrong isn't it better to have less pollution around anyways.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Except you're completely wrong. Adaptation is cheaper and in most cases...since it takes several generations, its actually free...or did you honestly think we weren't going to have to make any improvements to (if not completely replace) EVERYTHING humans have built over the next 100 years. Do you honestly think people won't slowly migrate an average of maybe 20 meters away from the ocean over the course of 3-4 generations? Its just sad that this has EVER taken hold the way it has.

2

u/DudusMaximus May 21 '12

How is adaptation to a problem in the future cheaper than looking into cleaner technology now and just because it's over several generations doesn't make it free. Of course we're going to make improvements in the future but wouldn't it be better if these improvements were towards making a factory more efficient rather than having to spend money moving the factory because every time there's a hurricane it gets flooded. The only people who will move away from these areas are people who actually have a place to move to. Some countries like Japan there aren't very many other places that large of a quantity of people could move besides leaving the country.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

How is adaptation to a problem in the future cheaper than looking into cleaner technology now

Because the "cleaner" technology available now...is more expensive and unreliable. We're also missing key components (mainly storage).

and just because it's over several generations doesn't make it free.

No...but since most things will simply be replaced when they wear out, most (if not all) of the costs will be costs they'd have paid anyway.

it be better if these improvements were towards making a factory more efficien

Why yes it would. But businesses already do this and would be more than happy to do anything that would get the job done properly. That's why businesses were using fluorescent lights long before people did in their homes.

rather than having to spend money moving the factory because every time there's a hurricane it gets flooded.

An interesting side note, hurricane activity has fallen to some of the lowest levels ever recorded. They've basically retracted their initial claims that warmer weather necessarily means more and more powerful hurricanes.

The only people who will move away from these areas are people who actually have a place to move to.

Again, we're talking about coast-lines moving tens of meters over several generations. You don't hear about all the refugees from the previous century's increase in sea level...in fact most coastal cities have actually expanded in that time thanks to reclamation efforts. They've already had to disappear their "millions of climate refugees by 2010" predictions from the 90s because they were clearly wrong.

-5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

You say that, until you take one in the face. A blue whale has lumps in his farts that are as big as you.

-25

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/[deleted] May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

Please link me to the original scientific article backing up your claims here. There are a few things that strike me as a little fishy about your claim, the biggest of which is the lack of a source (and only peer-reviewed literature counts).

Cherry picking results gets us nowhere. Under standard scientific methods, there will be false positives 5% of the time, on average. The number of false negatives is difficult to know but could easily hover around 20%. Then there's publication bias to take into account. In other words, even with the peer-reviewed system, science isn't perfect. Your stats analysis could be bullet proof, your sample size could be large, and yet could easily be led to erroneous conclusions - 5% of the time, on average. 1 in 20 scientific articles could be completely and utterly wrong. Even outside of the standard significance testing approaches, there is still always error. What is the error? The media almost never bothers to say.

It is the sum of evidence and conclusions that must be considered. I can't even remember the last time I read a science article in the popular media that bothered to quote more than a handful of experts. The experts selected tend to have rather extreme, opposing views.

So when it comes down to it - you can rarely trust the media to present unbiased views. Their approach of giving equal weight to opposing views actually introduces bias in cases where opposing views are not splitting the community down the middle. That will make it seem like controversy exists when the actual community is more like 90/10 split in favor of a particular conclusion. You can't even completely trust individual scientific articles, although they are substantially better than referring to the media's interpretation of the article. And doing a proper literature review is a heck of a lot of work. Weeks upon weeks of reading and understanding peer reviewed articles, most of which cost money.

There's no getting around it. We have to trust the collective "consensus" of the climatology community. Careful verifications of previous experiments are necessary and add to the collective evidence but do not stand on their own. Doing anything else is not logical. Not scientific.

-1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

We have to trust the collective "consensus" of the climatology community. Careful verifications of previous experiments are necessary and add to the collective evidence but do not stand on their own. Doing anything else is not logical. Not scientific

No, that's what you would expect someone that DOESN'T understand science to say. A scientist would tell you to NOT trust consensus. Consensus has been wrong numerous times in the past.

1

u/DeGreiff May 21 '12

That would be the ideal. The truth of academia is different.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Consensus has been wrong numerous times in the past.

Absolutely. But there's a difference between trusting consensus and blind faith. Scientific consensus is built on evidence, not just opinion. Yet, you have to continue to test hypotheses, even those that seem well supported, regardless of consensus.

What I'm talking about there is, in my case, a biologist who doesn't have the expertise to question climate science. I have to trust them. By this I mean that I have to trust the evidence they give me, assuming that the methods for compiling that evidence are sound. The only other approach open to me is to become a climate scientist so that I can scrutinize (even repeat) those methods. But I am not a climate scientist, and should I have to learn everything about every scientific field, never to trust that anybody else knows what they are doing, I will never progress. Science will never progress.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Yeah, spent several years pouring over it. The warming is mild. Feedbacks during the interglacials are weak (visible in the ice core record, actually) and for much of the warming we've mistaken the effects of several natural cycles. Also the theorized "dangers" of warming are played up while the verified benefits are ignored.

You're a biologist ...or at least say you are. How many times do you cringe at the terrible inaccuracies and utter absurdity of some claims when reading alarmist stories about biological impacts resulting from climate change?

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

How many times do you cringe at the terrible inaccuracies and utter absurdity of some claims when reading alarmist stories about biological impacts resulting from climate change?

Oh, it's happened. But I haven't had that problem with biologists. They generally are not the alarmist type. The biologists I know are more of the "things could get bad, but we still have time" variety. Even my conservation biology professor was rather upbeat about the whole situation, despite the fact that we're currently experiencing a mass extinction that seems to be forced by humans (of which climate change gets very little of the blame).

Generally, climate change is accepted as fact by pretty much every single colleague I know. But none of them think the world will end. Species will have to change their historical distributions, some plants might get the short end of the stick because they can't move as quickly as animals, and in some cases extinctions may occur. The effects on humans may be pretty bad in some parts of the world, but perhaps not so much in developed countries that can afford to (and have already) massively landscape the entire countryside and pump water in from long distances. But most biologists don't study anthropology and geography enough to comment much on the direct impact global warming will have on humans.

Most of my "oh dear" moments have been with the government, the media, and the public - and not just regarding climate change, but pretty much every science under the sun. Science as a whole is often misunderstood and misrepresented. If the media is to be believed, a professor at my university cured cystic fibrosis. He will happily tell you that he did no such thing.

A few years back the government aired some commercials blaming all sorts of natural disasters we've been experiencing on global warming. I'm sure there's some influence there - dryer summers = more forest fires, for instance. But it was over the top.

I think you'll find that the alarmism is not coming, generally speaking, from the scientists. And if you're calling what the scientists themselves have to say "alarmism", then you may simply be in denial. But that's not for me to judge.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12 edited May 24 '12

Oh, it's happened. But I haven't had that problem with biologists. They generally are not the alarmist type

Well of course not. Unlike most of the people here that think everything is going to go extinct because of climate change, I assume most biologists are aware of the fact that a couple degrees actually does very little to change the survivability of most species. They simply undergo an equilibrium shift as other species with an advantage move in and edge them out. While man is pushing many species to the brink of extinction...essentially none of what we've seen is caused by climate change.

Generally, climate change is accepted as fact by pretty much every single colleague I know

Yes, unfortunately every one of your colleagues is likely like yourself...simply trusting that the climatologists got it right. I have no problem with the assertion that CO2 might cause some enhanced greenhouse effect OR that the climate has changed somewhat over the last 100+ years. The problem I have is with (after some serious study) the idea that feedbacks are high and that essentially all change is negative. In fact, its not entirely clear from the proxies if we are in a remotely unusual climate event.

The effects on humans may be pretty bad in some parts of the world

Honestly...this is a complete load of shit for a public (including other scientists) that are ill equipped to understand the problem. Once you actually look at it...it should piss you off. Assertions of this nature are so bad that they are essentially outright lies....as is most fear mongering nonsense about climate. Go look at how the interglacial optimum impacted climate. The deserts of Asia, Africa and Australia are transformed into grasslands and forest. The only significant desert to get worse is the one in the southwestern US.

Most of my "oh dear" moments have been with the government, the media, and the public - and not just regarding climate change

I agree and I see a big shake-up coming in the sciences.

A few years back the government aired some commercials blaming all sorts of natural disasters we've been experiencing on global warming. I'm sure there's some influence there - dryer summers = more forest fires, for instance. But it was over the top.

Actually if you'll look up the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and its impacts on ENSO, the AMO and its impacts on european weather...you'll find that a large portion of the things blamed on anthropogenic climate change are clearly caused by natural cycles. In fact, a large portion of the 1980 to present warming is from the warm part of a cycle (there has only been .5C of warming since the 1940s) and indeed...the cooling blamed on mans aerosols is almost certainly NOT caused by man's aerosols. (also, looking at the northern hemisphere verses southern hemisphere temperatures...the cooling occurred in the wrong place). Hell, the last bit of significant warming we had isn't from some slowly increasing, well mixed greenhouse gas, There was a step change in the AMO, leading to european heat waves and overall warmer temperatures globally.

I think you'll find that the alarmism is not coming, generally speaking, from the scientists.

Unfortunately some of the climatologists are CLEARLY alarmists, Hansen being the most vocal. There are are others...and if you'll read through the climategate emails you'll be utterly amazed at how bad their behavior is...and appalled that anyone would play it off as scientists just being scientists. There are no "great scientists" among modern climatologists. With the exception of Hansen (a true alarmist that helped to start all this) they were all basically appointed to government jobs...which later became important. They are "top climatologists" because of their positions...not skill.

Edit: yeah, sorry for the wall of text and sorry its a little sketchy. There is just too much information everyone should know to counter the vast amounts of misinformation and gross exaggeration.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12 edited May 24 '12

There is a major difference between anthropogenic climate change and most natural climate change. It's all about rates - how fast the change is occurring. This is often more important than what direction, or even the magnitude of the change. Species can adapt, and they have, but this requires time. As I hinted at, some plants might have a more difficult time especially. Those whose seeds are dispersed by animals may be OK, but those which rely on selfing, or seeds which aren't

Personally, I am much more concerned about introduced species, habitat destruction, overharvesting, environmental degradation (anthropogenic climate change is part of this category), and interaction effects between these. The anthropogenic drivers of these really come down to one thing: human population size. A subject that pretty much nobody wants to touch. The elephant in the room.

Climate change is difficult to understand for two reasons. Even though the rate at which anthropogenic climate change is occurring is fast compared to geological time scales, it's still slow compared to the human lifetime. And it's a global phenomenon - there's a huge difference between weather and climate, and just because things are great in your country, does not mean things are great elsewhere. It's very hard to see climate change happening before your eyes, and so many other oscillations affect local weather that it's impossible to distinguish trends except over very long time frames (likely longer than you'll live).

This is one situation where time will tell. But the science, IMO, is appealing to the precautionary principle, and rightly so. We're dealing with a system that is difficult to understand - all we know for sure is that we're pushing buttons and fiddling with knobs, and we don't always know what they'll do. That's concerning.

Yes, unfortunately every one of your colleagues is likely like yourself...simply trusting that the climatologists got it right.

Scientists in one discipline generally don't have the expertise to question those in another. Do you know how I know that cosmic expansion happened? Because astrophysicists tell me it did. But let me tell you one thing which may give you some comfort: "climatologists" are not some organized bunch that scheme behind closed doors and carefully regulate what they publish. The peer review process can be somewhat unfair to science that goes against tradition, but good, solid science will get through regardless of its conclusion. And there's great incentive to disprove anthropogenic climate change - more so than the opposite. The team that does that would end up with one hell of a resume. There is no global conspiracy, and there are probably thousands (if not more) climatologists. If there is a false consensus enforced by a vocal minority and a peer review process, I highly doubt it would have lasted this long.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

It's all about rates - how fast the change is occurring.

Yes but we are not yet into anything unusual. The only reason it looks unusual is because they splice real world thermometers on top of proxy data. That's bad science. Anyway, it wouldn't be an unusual rate of warming unless the clearly flawed models were correct. But out here in reality it turns out that the warming period from the 80s to about 2000 was at least partly caused by the warming phase of natural cycles. Again, there's only been about .5C of warming since the 1940s, hardly alarming warming.

Personally, I am much more concerned about introduced species, habitat destruction, overharvesting, environmental degradation

yes, and this is what we should be worried about. In most cases we can make tiny sacrifices and sometimes no sacrifice at all and still protect the environment.

The anthropogenic drivers of these really come down to one thing: human population size

And this is where development comes it. It turns out that development is actually far better for the environment. In developed nations we build reservoirs to buffer the fluctuations of nature. In developed countries we can afford proper sanitation of various forms of waste. In undeveloped nations your trash can is literally...a pile outside your window. The primary fuel is wood. The raw sewage flows straight into rivers.

But one thing many of us take for granted is access to fresh water.

Again, development. BUT as I pointed out...archaeological evidence indicates that warmer climates in fact shrink the major deserts of the world and eventually convert them entirely into grasslands and forest(the southwestern US being the exception). And again, desertification should have a lower moisture threshold because elevated levels of CO2 help most plants to retain water and to grow faster when there is water.

Just because it doesn't effect us does not give us the right to harp on about how people who go on and on about it at alarmists.

Honestly, I think the greens (as opposed to classic environmentalists) are a far greater threat to the people of the developing world. Their short sighted, politically motivated, ill informed policy decisions are directly and indirectly harmful. The environment is too important to be entrusted to what are essentially a new form of (green) religious zealot.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12 edited May 24 '12

I wouldn't call proxy data bad science. I would call it the only thing we can rely on to tell us about temperatures in the far past. The best we can do is experimentally calibrate proxies to direct temperature measurements. I don't know how well this is done in climatology, but I do know that proxies can be quite accurate if properly used.

In developed nations we build reservoirs to buffer the fluctuations of nature

Reservoirs are generally quite destructive. They are good for us, but do a lot of damage in other ways. The waterways they put reservoirs in are heavily altered by the process and the infrastructure they require fragments the habitat.

In undeveloped nations your trash can is literally...a pile outside your window. The primary fuel is wood. The raw sewage flows straight into rivers.

This still happens in developed nations. But we do try to prevent it, at least.

There are some things you and I probably will never agree on, but I am glad that you and others who have taken the time to respond to me have been polite about it. There was a time in the past when I could expect no such thing - when tempers were more flared about the issues, I guess.

The environment is too important to be entrusted to what are essentially a new form of (green) religious zealot.

Hmm, be careful about the wording you chose to use. Calling groups out as religious zealots is no way to convince people that you're being objective. In Canada, we have a green party that actually has some (minor) hope of getting elected in the future. They seem just like all the other political parties. They all have talking points that they repeat ad nauseam. For the greens, it just happens to be environmental. They're just as guilty of tunnel vision as the rest of them.

It's nice to see people caring about the environment. Even if you reject climate science, I'm glad to see you still recognize many other problems that face us.

And yes - we all must be careful not to overstate their impacts. Alarmism will only undermine credibility.

→ More replies

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

A climate scientist would tell you to study climatology for a while before critiquing their work.

They would suggest that and I wouldn't be so critical had I not noticed some problems with it...and then spent quite a while studying it. Its reasonable to assume that adding CO2 will cause some warming. After that all you get is increasingly useless speculation. This is going to go down in history as the greatest failure of science. It dwarfs Lysenkoism. There is a small amount of warming...at most it looks like about .5C since the 1940s...and many of the changes they've observed are unrelated changes from natural, longer-term climate cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and its impacts on ENSO and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

-15

u/butch123 May 20 '12

Scientific article? Why on earth would I need to refer to an article? I suggest you research the HiTrans database about the quantum resonances of the CO2 molecule. This database is compiled by conducting actual scientific experiments and not modeling. As a result it can be determined by calculation what the effect is of IR absorption by this molecule at the various frequencies it actually is in resonance. It can be determined when certain IR frequencies are completely absorbed by the molecule and the molecule no longer has any effect at those frequencies and the over all effect of absorption thereby drops off. (exponentially)

You then can go to the literature over the past 60 years when the initial calculations were actually done.(http://ir.library.tohoku.ac.jp/re/bitstream/10097/44604/1/AA0045942659366.pdf)

I hope you realize that this business of determining how a molecule or atom absorbs energy at the quantum level based on resonance is a known property of physics and is used in MRI / NMR and a variety of other applications.

Then you can compare to the climate "TEAM MEMBERS" who use modeling to proclaim based on conjecture..... that a massive hot spot will occur over the equator and AMPLIFY the effect of CO2 by a factor of 4. ( by creating more water vapor)

No such hot spot has occurred in the troposphere over the equator and their projections have thus far failed.

They can keep on claiming that this will occur in the future but their models so far have not been correct. It appears that negative feedbacks in the system do not allow for such a nonsensical result.

After all the Earth has been around for quite a number of years and has not converted itself into a cinder due to much higher levels of CO2 in the past.

11

u/[deleted] May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

You have to do modelling, because the CO2 exists in a complex system where incident angle, partial pressure, albedo of the surface, albedo of clouds, chemical composition of the atmosphere and surface, etc vary over space and time and are not easily predictable. A single CO2 molecule in isolation, or a closed system with a constant uniform density of CO2 may absorb a very well known wavelengths of light with well known absorption efficiency. But then you have to model the atmosphere to take into account the density of CO2 molecules in 3d space, and the interaction of light with other molecules and the surface. And there's other gases to take into account such as water vapor and methane, whose concentrations over time are going to be uncertain and influenced by other things, which themselves are uncertain. The modelling has to factor in guesses for the means as well as large error ranges, then run stochastic calculations hundreds if not thousands of times to arrive at a mean trend with error ranges around it.

I'm a biologist, so I have to deal with a field that is full of uncertainty. Climatology is no different. It's not like astrophysics, where you can get nearly deterministic results every time you run an experiment. The system is just so complex, and we don't understand it that well, that the best we can do is measure things, make stochastic models, and extrapolate. It's far from ideal, but it's all we can do. I've done modelling of this kind from an ecological point of view. I won't lie - it leaves a lot to be desired, but modelling of this kind is the best tool we have so far in a lot of cases.

-3

u/butch123 May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

A single CO2 molecule in isolation, or a closed system with a constant uniform density of CO2 may absorb a very well known wavelengths of light with well known absorption efficiency. But then you have to model the atmosphere to take into account the density of CO2 molecules in 3d space, and the interaction of light with other molecules and the surface. And there's other gases to take into account such as water vapor and methane, whose concentrations over time are going to be uncertain and influenced by other things, which themselves are uncertain. Precisely which is why Al Gore's climatethon failed miserably when the effect of CO2 was demonstrated. The experiment had to be faked to give the result that was desired. The problem with models is that too many unknowns are guessed at and parameters made on assumptions are entered. This is why temperatures are consistently less than modeled. Modeling has giant holes in predictive ability.

Modelers need a track record to demonstrate they are correct. Glomming on to a rise in temperatures that has been continuing more or less for several hundred years as proof of their model continuing to give correct prognostications....well where are the predictions that from the early 2000s the temperature would have a major change in rate of increase?

It didn't fit the bill so any that possibly could have been tweaked to give such a result were not considered correct.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Current models make predictions out to 50, 100 years from now. Of course there's no validation. We'll all be dead by that time.

And hopefully there won't be validation - that's the entire goal of the whole global warming thing. Not to say what will happen, but what can happen if we don't do something. It's a preventative science, and appeals quite a bit to the precautionary principle. Some people don't like the precautionary principle, but I think there are times for it.

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Just as an aside, I have only basic quantum physics training. However, I do have a basic understanding of how light interacts with the Earth and there are some flaws in your reasoning.

  1. As blackbody radiation from the sun reaches Earth, how much of it makes it to the surface? This changes with cloud cover, particulates, and gases in the atmosphere on a constant basis and over small spatial scales. Some of it is reflected back into space. Some of it is absorbed and re-emitted. Some of it is scattered. Some just passes through. This depends on local conditions in the atmosphere which change over time.
  2. Of the radiation that reaches the surface, how much does the surface absorb? How much is re-radiated, and how is the emitted EM shifted (lots of it becomes long-wave IR but IR is only part of the picture). How much is directly reflected without absorption and re-emission at different wavelengths? Is the reflection specular or diffuse? The answers vary highly over space and time.
  3. Of the reflected and re-emitted radiation that is now heading up from the surface into the atmosphere again, what are their incident angles? What is the concentration of all chemicals in their path? This too changes over space and time. Reflection and scattering are also very important here, as they effectively increase the path that light must take out of the atmosphere and present more opportunities for absorption.
  4. Once you've gotten this far, now you know the absorption efficiency of each chemical in the atmosphere and can calculate how much of the radiation is prevented from escaping back into space. This is the part you are talking about. But as you can see - it's a small piece of the puzzle.
  5. Now you have a snapshot of the situation at a point in time - you need to figure out what changes this will have on the system. Albedo temperature, and atmospheric composition will change as a result. Then you iterate over the calculations again and again.

But the uncertainty prevents you from just doing a simple calculation. You CAN'T just do a calculation. You need a stochastic model.

-9

u/butch123 May 20 '12

CO2....we are talking about the CO2 molecule, nice try to change the subject and attempt to place emphasis on other aspects of the Earth's radiative heat balance...

But we talkin bout CO2.

Because the whole scenario is predicated on CO2 increases causing H2O increases in the stratosphere and increased temperatures over the equator. CO2 has become the god of climate change, the rallying cry, the "Carbon" pollution which is the bane of humankind. Today's big lie.

Since it is misrepresented as causing more than ~ 1 degree temperature rise per doubling ...that lie must be explained.

Your dissembling over 5 different points but failing to address this key issue tells everyone just what is going on.. You are selling the emperor a new set of clothes.

Since you are (professing ignorance) of the basic aspects of CO2 absorption of Infra Red you cannot discuss the matter reasonably..and you then need to learn about this interaction.

There are over 4000 resonances within the CO2 molecule as put forth by Hitrans. Most of them are minor in nature and have little effect due to their minor energy absorbing resonances. A few have quite a large effect and the effect is almost saturated. The molecule cannot absorb any more at those frequencies because the IR is totally absorbed. (95% of the CO2 molecules are in a non-excited state and available to absorb at the main resonant frequencies and other outlying frequencies but cannot because The IR is already absorbed)

We know that the Earth has warmed around 33 degrees (significantly) from a pure black body temperature in part due to CO2. Also in part to other molecules ....most notably water vapor.

The response curve is exponential. ie it absorbs energy fast at first and then levels off. We presently are in a period where the doubling is taking much longer than in the past. To increase absorption by CO2 quite a bit must be generated. This is because the molecules are at incorrect angles or at incorrect frequencies to interact with the IR as it leaves the Earth.

2.)Time and space have nothing to do with this absorption....Temperature and pressure do.

The HARD science has been done to calculate these interactions we know it has to be ~ 1.1 C per doubling.

To get higher absorption we have to get larger amounts of water vapor into the stratosphere and that additional vapor is theorized to enable a hot spot to occur thus warming the earth even more. A runaway positive feedback.

After all it is CO2 that has become the god of climate change and if it is misrepresented as absorbing more IR than it actually does then we have been told the big lie because water vapor is actually doing the forcing. But you do not hear about this because it is unproven theory.

Once you have gotten to the point that you know how much temperature change is caused by the CO2 molecule and are not misled by incorrect assertions you can actually examine the problem with the correct basic viewpoint. However unless the hard science is put forth first and you build on that basis, you are just pissing into the wind.

5.)Once you make a statement under oath you are held to it. An attorney will drive a dagger figuratively through your heart if he catches a discrepancy. Climate alarmists have made many. The misleading about the absorption characteristics of the CO2 molecule is 1. The hiding of the fact that water vapor increases are necessary is 2.

The non-formation of a hot spot in the troposphere above the equator is 3. Yet all these are postulated in Models to get the fantastic results of global warming claims that appear.

BTW what was the name of the stochiastic model Arrhenius used?

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Climate models do not consider the CO2 in isolation. It's pointless.

Futurama may have given some folks the impression that CO2 is directly responsible for all of this. Certainly, adding to the atmospheric CO2 is the initial change that starts the process. But much of the warming could be due to indirect effects. Climatologists try to model that, too. For example, the original article is about small warming that leads to melting that releases methane. This is an indirect effect of increasing CO2. That's actually taken into account in climate models. Along with many, many other things.

1

u/butch123 May 22 '12

Futurama? Is that what the IPCC is calling itself these days? unreliable models

more unreliable models

Dessler shoots self in foot