Trump that!

[aged hippy]

Arctic scientists discover new global warming threat as melting permafrost releases millions of tons of a gas 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Preliminary findings suggest that massive deposits of subsea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats


Preliminary findings suggest that massive deposits of subsea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats


The first evidence that millions of tons of a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists.

The Independent has been passed details of preliminary findings suggesting that massive deposits of sub-sea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats.

Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species. Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane – sometimes at up to 100 times background levels – over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.

In the past few days, the researchers have seen areas of sea foaming with gas bubbling up through "methane chimneys" rising from the sea floor. They believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost, which has acted like a "lid" to prevent the gas from escaping, has melted away to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the last ice age.

They have warned that this is likely to be linked with the rapid warming that the region has experienced in recent years.

Methane is about 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and many scientists fear that its release could accelerate global warming in a giant positive feedback where more atmospheric methane causes higher temperatures, leading to further permafrost melting and the release of yet more methane.

The amount of methane stored beneath the Arctic is calculated to be greater than the total amount of carbon locked up in global coal reserves so there is intense interest in the stability of these deposits as the region warms at a faster rate than other places on earth.

Orjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University in Sweden, one of the leaders of the expedition, described the scale of the methane emissions in an email exchange sent from the Russian research ship Jacob Smirnitskyi.

"We had a hectic finishing of the sampling programme yesterday and this past night," said Dr Gustafsson. "An extensive area of intense methane release was found. At earlier sites we had found elevated levels of dissolved methane. Yesterday, for the first time, we documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as methane bubbles to the sea surface. These 'methane chimneys' were documented on echo sounder and with seismic [instruments]."

At some locations, methane concentrations reached 100 times background levels. These anomalies have been seen in the East Siberian Sea and the Laptev Sea, covering several tens of thousands of square kilometres, amounting to millions of tons of methane, said Dr Gustafsson. "This may be of the same magnitude as presently estimated from the global ocean," he said. "Nobody knows how many more such areas exist on the extensive East Siberian continental shelves.

"The conventional thought has been that the permafrost 'lid' on the sub-sea sediments on the Siberian shelf should cap and hold the massive reservoirs of shallow methane deposits in place. The growing evidence for release of methane in this inaccessible region may suggest that the permafrost lid is starting to get perforated and thus leak methane... The permafrost now has small holes. We have found elevated levels of methane above the water surface and even more in the water just below. It is obvious that the source is the seabed."

The preliminary findings of the International Siberian Shelf Study 2008, being prepared for publication by the American Geophysical Union, are being overseen by Igor Semiletov of the Far-Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Since 1994, he has led about 10 expeditions in the Laptev Sea but during the 1990s he did not detect any elevated levels of methane. However, since 2003 he reported a rising number of methane "hotspots", which have now been confirmed using more sensitive instruments on board the Jacob Smirnitskyi.

Dr Semiletov has suggested several possible reasons why methane is now being released from the Arctic, including the rising volume of relatively warmer water being discharged from Siberia's rivers due to the melting of the permafrost on the land.

The Arctic region as a whole has seen a 4C rise in average temperatures over recent decades and a dramatic decline in the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by summer sea ice. Many scientists fear that the loss of sea ice could accelerate the warming trend because open ocean soaks up more heat from the sun than the reflective surface of an ice-covered sea.

Exclusive: The methane time bomb - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

It seems to me that Mother Earth breaks wind, as do Her children.



Peace, Love, & Light

[shaw-n]

The evidence keeps piling up, man actually has very little to do with global warming.
Volcanoes and methane release.
Looking at satellite pictures of the earth and the volcanoes shows the volume of gas and dust the earth can spew out.
Scientists who have measured the output have revealed that volcanoes put out more co2 than we ever could and far quicker.
Arctic methane release trumps cow farts.
But people like to believe faulty science and the "experts" who are just making political hay.

We could all have lived like primates for the past century and the earth would still be warming up.

[metis]

Originally Posted by shaw-n

The evidence keeps piling up, man actually has very little to do with global warming.
Volcanoes and methane release.
Looking at satellite pictures of the earth and the volcanoes shows the volume of gas and dust the earth can spew out.
Scientists who have measured the output have revealed that volcanoes put out more co2 than we ever could and far quicker.
Arctic methane release trumps cow farts.
But people like to believe faulty science and the "experts" who are just making political hay.

We could all have lived like primates for the past century and the earth would still be warming up.

I'm sorry but the evidence is overwhelming that global warming is occurring and that much of it is man made-- even the Bush administration has finally admitted that.

The release of methane from the Arctic is being caused by global warming since the permafrost is melting, thus releasing methane from decaying material that normally should stay frozen. Matter of fact, there was an article about this process in Scientific American a short time ago. You might check the last three months, but I'll check my copies and hopefully get back to you tomorrow.

Gotta go for now.

[shaw-n]

How could I forget, man is so much more influential than VOLCANOES and the SUN.
Sure earth changes are happening, any one can see that.
Why they are happening is where there is dispute.
We like to think that we are the center of the universe, not long ago we believed that the sun revolved around us, the pinnacle of God's wondrous creation.

Certainly we are polluting bastards with big industry being the chief culprits and the thoughtless wasteful consumer being next in line.

The thing here is that the politicos have to have a plan so the sheeple can be placated and comforted knowing that there is a plan and "we can do something about it".
Otherwise they would run amok and riot in the streets.

Sad truth is there is nothing we could do.
We could all commit mass suicide and all be gone and global warming would still occur.

[metis]

Originally Posted by shaw-n

How could I forget, man is so much more influential than VOLCANOES and the SUN.
Sure earth changes are happening, any one can see that.
Why they are happening is where there is dispute.
We like to think that we are the center of the universe, not long ago we believed that the sun revolved around us, the pinnacle of God's wondrous creation...

Apparently you think that the overwhelming number of scientists that have studied all of the possible causation of global warming are a bunch of dolts, but the truth of the matter is that they have taken into consideration the other variables and have concluded that it is the human element, not the natural elements, that has mostly contributed to global warming. Even though there have been a great many questions raised by the vested interests that prefer to bury these findings, even many of them have come to realize these scientists aren't as ignorant as you and they seemed to have presumed them to be.

According to what the research has clearly shown, one cannot account for this trend based on an increase in volcanic activity, which has not occurred, or the fluctuations in our orbit, which actually would indicate that we should be in a slight cooling period if that were to be the prime causation. So far, no natural causation explains what we are seeing.

Instead, what has occurred is a doubling of the carbon dioxide levels since they've been measured going back into the 1800's. And it's been common knowledge for several decades now, according to both experimentation and observation, what this increase means, namely the greenhouse effect.

Anyhow, I gotta go for now.

[shaw-n]

Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

These quotes come from this site:
Home - Global Warming Petition Project


There are many good scientists that say there is no certainty in the science of global warming. To say for certain one way or another is scientific garbage.

Many of the same people that are espousing global warming now were claiming global cooling and a new ice age 20 years ago. There is a lot of hysteria, a lot of bad science, and a lot of budgetary motives (NASA) behind environmental studies.

The names on the Petition Project are real. They are real PHD and real scientists.

32,000 deniers

That's the number of scientists who are outraged by the Kyoto Protocol's corruption of science

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Saturday, May 17, 2008

Read the full 2 page article here:
32,000 deniers

some people claim that the science has been "settled", that we must "act now to avoid disaster"; anyone who still dares to argue is branded a "denier". Is that the way to win a scientific discussion? Of course not. But some people don't care about science. They need all that name calling and fear-mongering to win votes in the next election.

[shaw-n]

Arctic ocean volcano blew its top – even under pressure

* 25 June 2008
* NewScientist.com news service
THE deep ocean continues to surprise: it appears a volcano on the seabed has exploded with a force thought impossible.

In 1999, the largest-ever swarm of quakes was recorded on a mid-ocean plate boundary, on the Gakkel Ridge in the east Arctic basin.

To find out what caused it, Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts, and colleagues peeked at the ridge with a remote-controlled device. They found shattered rock spread over 10 square kilometres, suggesting a series of volcanic explosions (Nature, vol 453, p 1236).

Such explosions can occur in shallow water if the water rapidly vaporises, but beyond 3 kilometres down the pressure is too high. Sohn reckons the magma must have contained up to 10 times more carbon dioxide than thought possible. This separated out as the magma rose and built up in a chamber beneath the seabed. Eventually the roof cracked and the CO2 and magma burst out.

"It opens the door to a lot of things that we didn't suspect could happen," says David Clague of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California.
From issue 2662 of New Scientist magazine, 25 June 2008, page 21

Toxic gas emissions are produced when magma rises and gases that are trapped within the magma at depth are released. It works very similarly to carbonation being released when a bottle of soda is opened.

The two most common gases released when magma ascends is sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. Sulfur dioxide can float high into the atmosphere and mix with water vapor to form sulfuric acid. When it rains, this sulfuric acid comes down with the rain, ruining crops and destroying farms. Carbon dioxide can be lethal to humans and livestock, as it is heavy and usually stays close to the ground.

So volcanoes which have been increasing their activity since 1960 can cause global warming via increased co2 (if that is how the cycle works) or global winter via the ash they release.
They are either way, bad for the environment and people.

According to usgs.gov, Kilauea emits about 1,300,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year. Kilauea is just one of almost 70 active volcanoes on the earth today.

Not only do Volcanoes Produce over 91 Billion Tons of Co2 a year, usgs.gov has reported that volcanoes expel tons of sulfur dioxide, mono hydrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen, argon, neon, methane, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen bromide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, carbonyl sulfide, and many other deadly and toxic compounds.

Dr. S.M. de Jong has found that gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane drive the oxygen out of the soil and the roots of the trees suffocate. As a result trees are dying over large areas around active volcanoes.

Dr. S.M. de Jong has also found that the amount of Toxic gasses being produced by active volcanoes has been increasing since 1995.

If the amount of Toxic material produced by volcanoes continues to increase over the next 50 years, the earth could increase in Global temperatures by 10 degrees. An increase in global temperatures could destroy our civilization.

According to reuters.com, Gas-belching volcanoes may be to blame for a series of mass extinctions over the last 545 million years, including that of the dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs killed by Indian volcanoes, not meteor: paleontologists

[aged hippy]

Originally Posted by metis

[ .... ]
According to what the research has clearly shown, one cannot account for this trend based on an increase in volcanic activity, which has not occurred, or the fluctuations in our orbit, which actually would indicate that we should be in a slight cooling period if that were to be the prime causation. So far, no natural causation explains what we are seeing.
[ .... ]
emphasis mine.

I read some time ago that we are due for an Ice Age if the greater cycles hold true -- in fact, that it is about 1,000 years late in arriving.
I think that it was in Secrets of the Ice Age by Evan Hadingham, but i'm not sure.
I have it around somewhere, if i can find it. I'll have a look later.

Originally Posted by shaw-n

Sad truth is there is nothing we could do.
We could all commit mass suicide and all be gone and global warming would still occur.

This may well be the case, but i think that it is nothing short of stupidity on our part to actually accelerate the process.


Peace, Love, & Light

[metis]

Originally Posted by shaw-n

some people claim that the science has been "settled", that we must "act now to avoid disaster"; anyone who still dares to argue is branded a "denier". Is that the way to win a scientific discussion? Of course not. But some people don't care about science. They need all that name calling and fear-mongering to win votes in the next election.

First of all, I'm generally familiar with the 30+ thousand scientists who signed the petition, but the vast majority of these scientists are out of their area of expertise. Of those who are in that area, the consensus is overwhelming according to the National Science Foundation, which is the main scientific group that advises Congress and Presidents here. On top of that, this is also being confirmed through other governmental agencies throughout much of the world, and they are using the figure of being 95% certain that most of the increase is caused by human actions. Essentially that is slam dunk territory since no scientific group is likely ever to say !00%.

And remember, the BIG $ as far as vested interests are concerned is not to admit a problem since this would warrant outlays of money both at the corporate and governmental levels.

The more legitimate questions are how much of global warming is from our contributions versus other possible causes. Yes, volcanic activity can contribute, but we haven't had a major volcanic explosion in the last several years. Volcanic activity throws pollution into the upper atmosphere, whereas it tends to block out part of the sun's rays reaching the ground and, therefore, it tends to have a cooling effect rather than a heating effect. When Krakatoa blew, it created a cool summer, which I remember quite well (lousy tomato season).

As far as politics is concerned, yes there tends to be positioning vis-a-vis the opposing party with each attempting to demonize the other. However, the NSF and many other agencies both here and elsewhere are not political bodies per se, and since what is being said about global warming is coming from other countries who are not necessarily in an election process, this just adds more confirmation.

I'm not an Al Gore fan by any means, especially since he has all too frequently made statements that were either untrue or exaggerated. But please realize that, especially in the last two years, even more conservative Republicans here have admitted that the evidence certainly points in the direction of global warming being largely a human contribution. We are also seeing more fundamentalist Protestants who now have also recognized what the scientific community has concluded.

Certainly there will always be naysayers, much like so many who deny that evolution ever took place or that our universe is billions of years old. Why? Because they have an agenda to resist scientific information that upsets their theology/philosophy. I have not much doubt we could find 30+ thousand scientists who deny evolution and an old universe in this country simply for these reasons.

So what are we to do? As Aged Hippy well said, we should be reacting against continuing on our headlong path of increasing carbon-based emissions, not only just because of global warming, but for other reasons as well, such as higher levels of pollution and too much reliance on foreign oil. Common sense should dictate that we need to side with caution. However, we also have to realize that quick solutions probably are not in the making and, since we gradually created this problem, we need to gradually undo it.

Gotta go again.

[metis]

Originally Posted by aged hippy

I read some time ago that we are due for an Ice Age if the greater cycles hold true -- in fact, that it is about 1,000 years late in arriving.
I think that it was in Secrets of the Ice Age by Evan Hadingham, but i'm not sure.
I have it around somewhere, if i can find it. I'll have a look later.

In the 1950's and 60's, this was believed by many, based on physical calculations. However, as we have seen, this has not been borne out. Now whether the estimates failed to materialize because of miscalculations or due the accelerating increase in emissions, I simply don't know.

But I think both of us agree that we need to go in the directions of what the evidence is taking us, while at the same time realizing that there are always chances for error. As scientists, we are not perfect by any means. And what bothers me immensely is when I see some fellow scientists catering to their corporate, political, or religious interests first and foremost, thus compromising their objectivity.