High level of deadly methane bubbling to the surface of the

[Frutty Profile]

Reusable TIME magazine cover

[Atomant77 Profile]

So true. Here in Australia we're copping a carbon tax from July 1st next year. Their aim is reduce emissions by 5% by 2020. Given that Australia puts out 1.3% of the worlds total emissions, it equates to 4/10,000ths of the worlds total, ie fuck all. Yet we're going to be paying thru the ass for this and there's nothing we can do about it. All whilst china are putting up a coal fired power station every single week which will negate anything we do very quickly. It's cash grab and will do nothing but fleece the middle class and force manufacturing off shore to countries where pollution reduction is either non existant or much less stringent. Even though we reduced our emissions by something like 11% without a tax in the past. go figure.

Errr... so how do you pay for all this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/22/environment-2011-year-review?intcmp=122

Money from the fairy money tree?? it has to be payed somehow. Your livelihood might not have been affected by the extreme events in the article but other people's has. I won't go into the unfairness and corruption of the whole system since this was about Arctic Methane release to start with. If you have strong issues with that join an activist group and go out shout about it.

Regarding the blog... I assure you I don't have a CO2 model fetish. I've never seen any of the IPCC carbon based models; and that is because they lack variables as I have mentioned earlier. Now, this is not to say that CO2 is not causing the air to warm, this is basic thermodynamics and energy transfer. CO2 retains part of the solar radiative heat that would have otherwise bounced back to space from the earth itself. I don't think there is anything religious about that believing that fact and the logic that the more CO2 you add to the air (do not forget the atmosphere is really very, very thin) the more heat will be retained. Then add to this the life of the Carbon in the air before it gets sunk back by any mean which can be from 1 to thousands of years and realize that the present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years... sometimes facts speak for themselves and I personally don't need the likes of Al Gore or the IPCC to see how the change is happening. The lack of variables means that their predictions are incorrect as in the speed and intensity of the change, not the change itself.

I'm well passed deniers since they never provide any proof to show that fast changes aren't happening to the environment and weather.

That's cherry picking, take hurricanes and earthquakes, they're not on the increase, nor are floods http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/02/27/global-hurricane-intensity-not-increasing/.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php We've seen extreme weather events right thru history with and without mankinds contribution of 0.04% of co2 in the atmosphere. This info outlines man's contribution to greenhouse gasses http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html It's miniscule.

13 of 15 years on 'RECORD' which means going back around 130 years. Again, cherry picking. It should also be noted that co2 levels have been as high as 4000ppm in the past and there was no run away warming, instead we saw glaciation. Lastly, there is no proof that co2 drives temperature nor is there any proof that man's contribution is the driving force behind 'climate change' in this modern industrial era. It's alarmism, cherry picking, assumption and proclamation in order to get policies in place to tax you to the hilt. The alarmists where this badge of courage thinking they're going to change the climate for the better and save the world whilst telling mother nature to stop doing her thing. It's enough to make a jihadist proud.

I'm all for change and weaning off fossil fuels but these crooks are taking advantage of the fact that we can't measure it ourselves and we need to rely on these govt funded agencies to do so. Anyhow back on topic I guess.

"we were not able to corroborate the presence of upward trends in hurricane intensity over the past two decades in any basin other than the Atlantic."

What he is saying is that nowhere but in the Atlantic have hurricanes intensified in the last 2 decades. He is not denying that hurricanes have intensified.

This was written in 1998. Back then CO2 in the atmosphere was 360ppm and we are now on a 392ppm year average.
http://accurate.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html

So in 14 years we've increased the volume by a lot more than the 0.04%, (given the increase and time span), you claim, which btw, where did you get the figure from?

I'm still not disagreeing with the corruption and some of the elites making a buck out of carbon taxes and other 'green' schemes. It makes me mad also. Like it makes me mad that BP is shutting down all renewable and carbon storage projects or the government trying to make SPV subsidies harder or WWF involved in logging corruption but that is a different issue which you people seem to thing is all and the same. Man has always taken advantage of situations... wherever there is a chance to make big money ethics go out of the window... nothing new.

[Atomant77 Profile]

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

From your second link. That shows a degree of human arrogance not unexpected from, erm, a human. It takes a 3 degree rise in your body temp for you to feel like shit. You live in a layer of the atmosphere that is onion skin thin in relation to the size of the planet. We have dug out, and still continue, Gigatons of carbon that had been locked for millenia and have released it back into the atmosphere. On top of that we have reduced the forests to less than half, they being a very important carbon sink, and saturated the oceans, the biggest carbon sink, to the point that corals are dying. To understand what effects this excess gases have and which quantities you need before an effect is actually alarming you need to understand how these gases behave and interact... the blogger doesn't seem to understand... and yes, heat/energy makes them move and interact, because like in everything else in the Universe, Entropy plays a part.

[Atomant77 Profile]

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/19/392242/carbon-time-bomb-in-arctic-new-york-times-print-edition-gets-the-story-right/

Nice.

[Rydher Profile]

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/19/392242/carbon-time-bomb-in-arctic-new-york-times-print-edition-gets-the-story-right/

Nice.

[Atomant77 Profile]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=Dx5&rls=en&channel=suggest&biw=1366&bih=603&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=permafrost+map&btnG=Search&oq=permafrost+map&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=0l0l0l267019l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0

Pick any permafrost map from the link above and check which areas it covers. Then look at this:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=13&fy=1983&sm=09&sd=13&sy=2011

I have purposely picked a date near the summer minimum which is officially on the 16th Sep. By this time a lot of energy has gone into the the earth and ocean from the 24 hour polar day over the 3 previous months. It is clear that the area where the permafrost resides is not as cold as it used to be during the summer, and the difference in ice shows this. It is more than safe to assume that the methane trapped in the permafrost will be released as it melts.

You can by all means challenge what I say but logic to me says that the only way to keep these CH4 reservoirs from escaping in mass would be to somehow re-freeze the area to levels like 30 years ago or more.

[Svaha Profile Website]

The chart of Piri Reis was made by copying charts that were very old.
On the chart antartica can be seen, the land mass, no ice.
So there was a time when there was no ice there, and maybe we're now still in a sort of ice age.
There is not enough reliable data to predict which way it's going, colder or warmer. In the whole picture we're like a grain of sand and on this material level our influence is almost zip, we're so to speak slaves of the elements, have no overview of the whole organic system and the only ones we hurt are ourselves, 'till extinction.

[Atomant77 Profile]

The chart of Piri Reis was made by copying charts that were very old.
On the chart antartica can be seen, the land mass, no ice.
So there was a time when there was no ice there, and maybe we're now still in a sort of ice age.
There is not enough reliable data to predict which way it's going, colder or warmer. In the whole picture we're like a grain of sand and on this material level our influence is almost zip, we're so to speak slaves of the elements, have no overview of the whole organic system and the only ones we hurt are ourselves, 'till extinction.

Ooooh the ignorance.... No wonder we're fucked a species. Not a single bit of decent proof and all I get to debate with is a tin foil hat troll and someone who thinks Piri Reis went to Antarctica a saw a ice free continent??. is that like the Ice, forest and everything , free Europe on his map?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piri_Reis_map_of_Europe_and_the_Mediterranean_Sea.jpg

Even the claims that he went there aren't clear... some think he took the knowledge of Antarctica from the Chinese, but this again, is a different subject of discussion.

I second my own comment earlier on about moderation being rather weak by allowing people who are not in for a debate but to either troll or divert the subject. All this guarantees is the death of serious threads whilst crappy threads remain.

I'm not here to teach any of you btw... couldn't care less what happens to you all on our lives whether abduction, pepper sprayed, H1N5, chemtrails poison you or else. I just thought some DTV'ers were interested in facts not just fiction.

[Rich316 Profile]

What he is saying is that nowhere but in the Atlantic have hurricanes intensified in the last 2 decades. He is not denying that hurricanes have intensified.

That's just one article I found in 20 seconds. What is needed is evidence that hurricanes are both on the increase and on the increase in intensity. but I cannot find anything that suggests they are. Same for earthquakes, same for flooding. Yet the media will have you thinking otherwise. very cunning. People forget the past and now it's in our faces 24/7, it's only natural that people fall for the alarmism. Then again, perhaps it needs to be exagerrated this way in order to get people to listen?

This was written in 1998. Back then CO2 in the atmosphere was 360ppm and we are now on a 392ppm year average.
http://accurate.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html

True. 360 vs 392 is about 8% more. Then when you look at that as parts per million.. 392 parts per 1,000,000, it's rather a tiny increase.

So in 14 years we've increased the volume by a lot more than the 0.04%, (given the increase and time span), you claim, which btw, where did you get the figure from?

Sorry I lost what you mean in the above. 0.04% is 400 parts per million.. I think that's what I was refering to by using a round number. [/quote]

I'm still not disagreeing with the corruption and some of the elites making a buck out of carbon taxes and other 'green' schemes. It makes me mad also. Like it makes me mad that BP is shutting down all renewable and carbon storage projects or the government trying to make SPV subsidies harder or WWF involved in logging corruption but that is a different issue which you people seem to thing is all and the same. Man has always taken advantage of situations... wherever there is a chance to make big money ethics go out of the window... nothing new.

They're just selling the idea wrong. It's really poor PR work on their behalf. What they really need to instill into people is the ACT NOW idea, because it's going to take a LONG TIME to wean off and create new methods for generating and storing power. So in 100 years time when we have nothing left, we'll be in a position already to transition away from fossil fuels. But I dare say, whilst there is oil and coal etc in the ground, we won't do much of anything on a worldwide scale because it's driven by money not ecology.

[Mrmcnuggets Profile]

They're just selling the idea wrong. It's really poor PR work on their behalf. What they really need to instill into people is the ACT NOW idea, because it's going to take a LONG TIME to wean off and create new methods for generating and storing power. So in 100 years time when we have nothing left, we'll be in a position already to transition away from fossil fuels. But I dare say, whilst there is oil and coal etc in the ground, we won't do much of anything on a worldwide scale because it's driven by money not ecology.

It will be a very long time before we run out of coal entirely.
Also, NASA has developed 'carbon strings' which is exactly what it sounds like. Strings of pure carbon, it is conductive, and a sound design, and can be used as batteries. These strings can hold massive amounts of power and last for years,
but you are right. The economic market today is driven by capital not ingenuity, or long term stability.