How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:17 am

I loved this one, Ben. This was one of my favorites :lovehearts:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32878&hilit=Brignell&start=210

A more complete list of things caused by global warming

I love his review of Dellingbellendpole's catchy sounding book.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/watermelons.htm

How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children’s future.

They are green on the outside, but under the skin the deepest of reds. Their methods are neo-Marxist, especially in the adoption of a form of Trotskyite entryism. The green veneer derives from their first successful coup in achieving control of the environmentalist group Greenpeace, resulting in the departure of original members such as Patrick Moore, the co-founder. Their subsequent success in infiltrating and taking control of leading institutions of politics, science and the media has been nothing less than extraordinary. The organisation is diffuse, largely invisible and contains members who are highly various, ranging from violent revolutionaries to failed politicians who have turned their attention to personal wealth creation. In an age of specious conspiracy theories they have created the greatest and most lucrative conspiracy in the history of human civilisation.

They are savage in their treatment of opponents and critics: for example, in an inexcusable exploitation of the Holocaust, labelling them as "deniers". A highly successful academic, who happened to be a global warming sceptic, was fired by his university (motto: "Open minds. Open doors") without explanation; and should you think this was a unique occurrence it happened to another. That such things could happen in any university, let alone ones in the land of the free, would until recently have been unthinkable, but universities have now become so dependent on huge dollops of hapless taxpayers’ money, doled out to promote watermelon-sponsored causes, that they dare not put them at risk.

This then is the murky alligator-infested pool into which James Delingpole has dared boldly to plunge. He wryly and self-deprecatingly recounts his experiences of dedication to the cause of reason. He has discovered that overt scepticism brings you nothing but relative poverty and gross insult. One of the myths that the movement has successfully propagated is that sceptics are fuelled by massive funding from such sources as the energy industries. Not only do such sources not materialise, but such industries are often in on the rackets themselves. As for the insults, they come from a numerous body of hangers-on (Lenin’s useful idiots). Many (anonymous of course) are full of debased Anglo-Saxon epithets, while in other slightly more polite ones you get to be called "moron" by people who are manifestly unable to string together two coherent sentences. From the posh end you get ex cathedra pronouncements from the Court of Prince Charles, heir to the British throne. He makes it up as he goes along, without evidence: for example "Sceptics have no love for nature and her works". If he bothered to speak to some of them, he would find that the reverse is true, though they would tend to avoid the rather effete personal adjective.

The first chapter of this book is called Imagine, and is an ironic survey of what life might have been like if the watermelons had not existed. Then comes an account of Climategate, a momentous and outrageous event that in a rational world would have put an abrupt end to the whole caboodle. The suffix "-gate" has been much over used, but it is justified in the case of Climategate, as the political cover-up was as egregious as the original transgressions. The difference is that this time the whitewashers completely got away with it, an awesome demonstration of the power and influence of the watermelons in politics and the media.

The third chapter is about "The Science" which only the cognoscenti will recognise as something quite different from "Science" tout court. Further chapters entertainingly and comprehensively fill in the detail of the origins and activities of the watermelon movement. Chapter 8 is Welcome to the new order, an account of the way we are really governed today. It starts with the sinister Club of Rome and proceeds via a soporific catalogue of interlocked organisations to the UN IPCC. As the author warns us, boredom is a powerful political tool. It was notably used by extremist entryists to take control of the trades unions, who waffled on until the ordinary members had left and then put their killer motions to the rump of the meeting. The burden on taxpayers of keeping all these gas chambers afloat is colossal, but it is dwarfed by the costs of the policies they impose. The last chapter is a postscript, The big lie, the title being a reference to the well known Hitler quote.

Perhaps the most tragic event in all of this for lovers of science was when the Royal Society, having been taken over by a watermelon faction, changed its sceptical motto of centuries, to one that managed to be both banal and sinister. Recent Presidents of the Royal Society have been watermelons first and scientists second (Robert May for example).

Of the many corporate villains of this piece one of the most egregious is the BBC. The watermelons who have seized control of it have effectively torn up its charter, turning it into a shop window for their pet causes, especially global warming. It is not just the occasional extravagant spectacular, but also the constant daily drumbeat of reminders. If climate change really is real, why do they have to keep telling us so? After all, they don’t keep telling us the sky is blue. Could it be that they do not really believe it, but need us to believe it, so that we will meekly accept their policies that lead to world socialist government? With one exceptional circumstance sceptics never appear on any BBC channel. The exception is when they are being set up for a hatchet job.

Delingpole himself was the victim of a BBC stitch-up. Though it did not seem so to him at the time, this was a great compliment. It meant that they considered him to be a serious danger to the maintenance of the elaborate scenario so painstakingly created by the watermelon community. To an ordinary rational human being, what the BBC gets up to on these campaigns seems beyond reason, which ironically lends that organisation a spurious credibility. Who would expect any person or institution to devote enormous resources to obtaining many hours of video just so their editors can extract a few moments that cast their victim in an extremely unfavourable light? This, however, is just what they do, after a subtle seduction to induce cooperation by the dupe. In the case of Lord Monckton they made elaborate promises, such as editorial approval, which they casually broke, and then sent an "independent" crew to follow him round the world gathering material that could be given a condemnatory bias by cunning editing.

It is difficult for ordinary people to understand how the BBC now operates. It has virtually infinite resources (torn from UK households in the form of a sort of compulsory poll tax, currently £145 per annum). It grossly overpays its "stars", many of whom exhibit blatantly limited talent, and also its overweening management. It still rests on the reputation it had in pre-watermelon times for sober and unbiased reporting of world events. Its prejudices wreck otherwise excellent programmes. While your reviewer was reading this book, BBC Radio 4 presented a fascinating piece on the great extinctions. It was genuinely edifying for about twenty five minutes, with contributions from obvious experts, but then came the "message from our sponsors", a total non sequitur. A "climate scientist" was wheeled on. Guess what! You can forget all that stuff about volcanoes belching noxious sulphurous gases; it was all down to the dreaded carbon dioxide.

Finally, to intrude a personal view, your reviewer’s preoccupation with this subject began with his ancient and yellowing PhD thesis. Among other things this contains elements of quantum physics, measurement statistics and computer modelling; all of which turn out to be the sources of gross dubiety in the global warming belief system. The author of Watermelons started out as an undergraduate student of English at Oxford and went into journalism. It is personally fascinating that two people from opposite ends of the educational spectrum should arrive at virtually identical opinions.

Please read this book and then tell people about it, because the establishment media will most likely pretend that it does not exist.

John Brignell


I love how you brought this halfwitted crank to my attention. He's clearly not a web design major (the thing is uglier than the hate fueled rhetoric he spews) but it is the source of utter amazement and crucially, an important lesson in how people would rather believe the lies of the polluters than the uncomfortable truth of the climate scientists.

Ben, I salute you. Thank you for providing me with mirth
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby brainpanhandler » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:43 am

wintler2 » Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:56 pm wrote:
When does willful ignorance become systematic deceit?


That's a fine question.

Does deliberately misrepresenting Judith Lean’s position on solar irradiance variation and it’s contribution to global warming relative to anthropogenic causes count ?

Oh wait, sorry. That must have been an honest oversight.

edited for clarity
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5114
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby wintler2 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:43 am

Rush Limbaugh: 'If You Believe In God ... You Cannot Believe In Man-Made Global Warming'
The outspoken radio host is making waves after criticizing a recent speech by Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry, an ardent supporter of climate change action, was speaking to the State Department’s Office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives when he said protecting the planet was an inherent responsibility for the "safe guarders of God's creation."

Here's a partial transcript of Limbaugh's response:

John Kerry, our esteemed secretary of state, said that climate change is our challenge, a challenge to our responsibilities as the safeguarders of God’s creation. The safeguarders — it would obviously be the safeguardians. The safeguarders.

So John Kerry says that climate change is a challenge to our responsibility as the safeguarders of God’s creation. What about God’s creation called a fetus, Secretary Kerry, what is your responsibility as a safeguarder there?

See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God then intellectually you cannot believe in man-made global warming.

Limbaugh goes on to speak of the acceptable religious affiliations that can cohabitate with climate science (i.e. none) and the hypocrisy espoused by "militant environmentalist wackos."

You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he can’t create.

It’s always in fact been one of the reasons for my anti-man-made global warming stance. The vanity of these people — on the one hand, we’re no different than a mouse or a rat, if you listen to the animal rights activists.

We are pollutants of this planet. If it weren’t for humanity, the militant environmentalist wackos, if it weren’t for humanity the earth would be pristine and wonderful and beautiful and nobody would see it. According to them, we’re different, we are not as entitled to life on this planet as other creatures because we destroy it. But how can we destroy it when we’re no different than the lowest lifeforms?

More than 97 percent of peer-reviewed scientific papers support the notion that man-made climate change exists. Organizing for Action recently launched a campaign to call out climate change deniers in Congress. 135 unicorn statues engraved with an award for "exceptional extremism and ignoring the overwhelming judgment of science," were delivered to the likes of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.).

Unfortunately, many loyal listeners of Limbaugh's (and other conservative media consumers) can become more skeptical of climate science over time, according to a study released earlier this month. Nearly 60 percent of Americans said they were worried about climate change in a poll from earlier this year, and President Obama has become more vocal over the past few months, most notably with his statement that "we don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society."

But, alas, many voices on conservative outlets have remained staunch climate change deniers.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Sat Aug 17, 2013 5:22 am

There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby coffin_dodger » Sat Aug 17, 2013 6:44 am

Not exactly earth-shattering - but an indicator, nonetheless.
Climate Change Is Altering the Taste and Texture of Fuji Apples

In new research, Japanese scientists determined that warmer temperatures have gradually made the Fuji apples mealier and less flavorful. Photo by Flickr user MShades

If the last Fuji apple you grabbed from your grocery store’s produce section was mealier and less flavorful than the Fujis you remember from childhood, you’re not alone. Your memory isn’t at fault, and it’s not as though you’re particularly bad at picking apples, either.

The truth, though, is much more distressing than either of those possibilities. In chemically comparing modern-day Fujis with tests on samples during the 1970s, a team of Japanese researchers found that today’s apples are less firm and have lower concentrations of a specific acid that contributes to their taste. Their conclusion, published today in the journal Scientific Reports, is that by making apple trees’ blooming time earlier in the year and raising temperatures during apple maturation, climate change has slowly but surely changed the taste and texture of the apples we hold so dear.

They started off by testing two types of newly harvested apples: Fujis—which happen to be the world’s leading apple cultivar—and the Tsugaru. In Japan, apples are taken seriously (the country produces roughly 900,000 tons of apples annually, amounting to 14 pounds per person), and records on these same parameters have been kept on this apples dating back into the 1980s, and in some cases, the 70s.

When the researchers compared modern-day Fujis and Tsugarus to their predecessors, they found that their firmness and concentration of malic acid, which corresponds with an apple’s taste intensity, had slowly declined over the decades. Additionally, the modern apples were more susceptible to watercore, a disease that causes water-soaked regions in the apple’s flesh after it matures that over time cause the fruit to break down internally. In other words, today’s apples were consistently mealier, less flavorful, and more disease-prone according to objective measurements such as titrating their juices to determine acid concentration, or using mechanical plungers on the fruit’s flesh to test firmness.

To see if climate change might have played a role, they analyzed the long-term climate trends in the two regions of Japan where the apples were grown (Nagano and Aomori prefectures), and found that during the 40-year period, temperatures had gradually risen by a total of about 2°C in each location. Records also indicated that, over time, the date on which apple trees in the two regions began to flower steadily crept earlier, by one or two days per decade. The last 70 days before harvest in each locale—i.e. the days during which the apples hung on the trees, ripening in the sun—were also, on average, hotter.


http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science ... ji-apples/
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby wintler2 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 7:01 am

17 Dead, Thousands Hospitalized in Japan's Historic Heat Wave
The death toll is mounting and thousands have been hospitalized as an exceptional heat wave topples all-time temperature records in Japan.

According to data from Japan's Fire and Disaster Management Agency, 17 people died and 9,815 people were transported to hospitals due to heat-related illness during the week of Aug. 5-11 as the record heat expanded into Japan. Of those hospitalizations, 5,140 occurred over the weekend of Aug. 10-11 alone.

A new all-time national record high was reached Sunday at the Ekawasaki weather observation station in Shimanto city, Kochi Prefecture, on the southwestern Japanese island of Shikoku. The temperature there surged to 41.0ºC (105.8ºF) at 1:42 p.m. local time, breaking country's previous record of 40.9ºC (105.6ºF) set at Kumagaya, Saitama Prefecture (near Tokyo) and at Tajimi, Gifu Prefecture in central Japan, both on Aug. 16, 2007.

The Ekawasaki observation site broke another record Tuesday when it reached the 40ºC (104ºF) mark for the fourth day in a row, the first time any Japanese location has ever recorded such a hot streak in national records dating back to 1875, according to the Japan Times. ..



Record heat wave bakes Canada's North
Temperatures 10 degrees above normal across Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories

Temperatures across Canada’s three territories have been about ten degrees above normal this week. .. In some communities, like Kugluktuk, Nunavut, it’s been even more remarkable: yesterday, it set temperature records for the sixth consecutive day on Tuesday, hitting 29 degrees Celsius.

'I've never felt an August this warm, for this length of time'—Kugluktuk resident Barbara Olson. Typically, in Kugluktuk, it’s about 13 degrees this time of year, according to Environment Canada.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sat Aug 17, 2013 5:16 pm

"Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?"

I have it on good authority that they are, but only when they're basking in a sunbeam.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby justdrew » Sat Aug 17, 2013 5:24 pm

wintler2 » 17 Aug 2013 04:01 wrote:
Record heat wave bakes Canada's North
Temperatures 10 degrees above normal across Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories

Temperatures across Canada’s three territories have been about ten degrees above normal this week. .. In some communities, like Kugluktuk, Nunavut, it’s been even more remarkable: yesterday, it set temperature records for the sixth consecutive day on Tuesday, hitting 29 degrees Celsius.

'I've never felt an August this warm, for this length of time'—Kugluktuk resident Barbara Olson. Typically, in Kugluktuk, it’s about 13 degrees this time of year, according to Environment Canada.


So. a serious methane pulse is fairly inevitable at this point then?
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby wintler2 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 8:31 pm

justdrew » Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:24 pm wrote:
wintler2 » 17 Aug 2013 04:01 wrote:
Record heat wave bakes Canada's North
Temperatures 10 degrees above normal across Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories

Temperatures across Canada’s three territories have been about ten degrees above normal this week. .. In some communities, like Kugluktuk, Nunavut, it’s been even more remarkable: yesterday, it set temperature records for the sixth consecutive day on Tuesday, hitting 29 degrees Celsius.

'I've never felt an August this warm, for this length of time'—Kugluktuk resident Barbara Olson. Typically, in Kugluktuk, it’s about 13 degrees this time of year, according to Environment Canada.


So. a serious methane pulse is fairly inevitable at this point then?


Dunno. Theres definately quite a bit of methane bubbling to surface already, and theres a fucking shitload down there, but the stability of the methane hydrate deposits is unclear: maybe the melting of some will trigger melting of alot more, maybe it'll be a strictly linear x amount of heat= x amount of melt dynamic. The deep sea is warming, how much will be too much? we just don't know.

In some ways the issue gets too much focus, as alot of methane is already being released from gas fracking & plain old coal, gas & oil extraction. If we were concerned about methane from hydrates you'd think we would do something about those other sources. But we don't. If i anthropomorphise the sea, maybe it just wants to join the party.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby wintler2 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 8:49 pm

Iamwhomiam » Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:16 pm wrote:"Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?"

I have it on good authority that they are, but only when they're basking in a sunbeam.
:)

It is my experience that even when the sunbeam goes away, the Judge just turns inwards to internally judge, and egos cycle of violence grinds on. :|
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:41 pm

wintler2 wrote:

It is my experience that even when the sunbeam goes away, the Judge just turns inwards to internally judge, and egos cycle of violence grinds on. :|

Not a pretty sight to behold. Sad, really.

However, as the deep lying sediment across vast areas progressively thaws, underwater landslides along many thousands of miles of steep slopes will become so frequent they could be seen as ongoing.

Those landslides will release millions of tonnes of methane and that to me spells change so radical as the end of civilization as we've known it. To say nothing of the simultaneous release of millions of tonnes of methane from millions of miles of former permafrost.

Mentioning the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef reminded me of this:
Stop the Great Barrier Trainwreck
Image

It would be hard to make this stuff up. Australia’s legendarily irresponsible mining industry has a new plan: while the planet faces catastrophic climate change, build the world’s largest coal mining complex, and then build a shipping lane to that port straight through the greatest ecological treasure we have - the Great Barrier Reef!

This is a terrible idea with devastating consequences, and the investor group Aurizon that’s backing it know it. They’re getting cold feet, and we might be able to push them over the edge, and kill the project. One of the main potential funders has even donated to climate activism!

If one million of us express our head-shaking disbelief at this crazy project in the next few days, we can help get Aurizon to pull funding and maybe even persuade the Australian PM to step in. This is what Avaaz is for, let’s raise a voice for common sense:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/australian_ ... bb&v=27482

The Great Barrier Reef -- the largest living organism on earth and home to a quarter of all the species that live in the world’s oceans -- has slowly been dying for years. It’s lost half its coral in the past three decades and that rate is only accelerating. Climate change is one cause, but so is Australia’s booming mining industry. The German Magazine Der Spiegel reported that “if current trends continue, the unthinkable could happen: the Great Barrier Reef could die.”

And yet, the mining industry plans to build massive new ports at a complex called Abbot Point in Northeast Australia to make it easier to get the coal it’s mining out to the world. Not only would that mean doubling the number of ships that pass by the Reef each year and ripping up to 3 million cubic meters of material from the fragile sea bed, but if all the coal from the proposed mines this would enable were burned, it would be three times Australia's current climate pollution -- hurtling us faster towards the point of no return.

The investors are meeting now to decide what to do and the Australian Environment Minister will choose whether to approve the project in the next two weeks. Our voices can signal to all of them to block this disaster, especially to Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd if he hopes to maintain his global reputation in the lead-up to his re-election bid.

They’re all deciding what to do now. Sign this urgent petition and share it with everyone you know to stop the Great Barrier train wreck:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/australian_ ... bb&v=27482

The Avaaz community has been fighting to save the unparalleled beauty of the reef for years. Last year, Avaaz members threatened a public US Bank when they were set to invest in Reef destruction. And hundreds of thousands of Avaaz members sent messages to the Australian Environment Minister to help win the largest marine reserve in the world. Let’s do it again and put the reef out of reach of these profiteering plunderers.

With hope and determination,

Alex, David, Emily, Lisa, Oli, Marie, Ricken, Alice and the whole Avaaz team

PS - Many Avaaz campaigns are started by members of our community. It's easy to get started - click to start yours now and win on any issue - local, national or global: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/start_ ... db&v=23917

SOURCES:

Great Barrier Reef Under Threat (TIME)
http://world.time.com/2013/07/22/great- ... fic-ocean/

'Death By a Thousand Cuts': Coal Boom Could Destroy Great Barrier Reef (Spiegel)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 00911.html

GVK's Australia coal project 'a quagmire, not an investment' says report (The Times of India)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/busi ... 651363.cms

Report- Stranded: Alpha Coal Project in Australia’s Galilee Basin (IEEFA)
http://www.ieefa.org/report-stranded-al ... lee-basin/

GVK rejects claim Alpha is 'stranded' (The Age)
http://www.theage.com.au/business/carbo ... 2oj96.html

Abbott Point Coal Mine Map (Greenpeace)
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/ ... -the-reef/
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby coffin_dodger » Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:30 pm

European forests near 'carbon saturation point' 18 August 2013

European forests are showing signs of reaching a saturation point as carbon sinks, a study has suggested.
Since 2005, the amount of atmospheric CO2 absorbed by the continent's trees has been slowing, researchers reported.
Writing in Nature Climate Change, they said this was a result of a declining volume of trees, deforestation and the impact of natural disturbances.
Carbon sinks play a key role in the global carbon cycle and are promoted as a way to offset rising emissions.
Acer autumn leaves (Image: BBC) Many of Europe's forests are reaching an age where growth, and carbon uptake, slows down.
Writing in their paper, the scientists said the continent's forests had been recovering in recent times after centuries of stock decline and deforestation.
The growth had also provided a "persistent carbon sink", which was projected to continue for decades.
However, the team's study observed three warnings that the carbon sink provided by Europe's tree stands was nearing a saturation point.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23712464
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:07 pm

Jul 3, 2012 Laura Naranjo

What does seeping methane mean for the thawing Arctic?

As people watch the decline of Arctic sea ice, the most obvious sign of climate warming in that region, scientists are noting other signs of change, like methane seeping out of the ground as permafrost thaws and glaciers melt across the Arctic. Scientists suspected these methane seeps existed, but no one had measured how much methane was escaping—until recently.

After working for nearly ten years on the ground studying Siberian lakes, Katey Walter Anthony, an aquatic ecosystem ecologist at the University of Alaska, was flying over the Alaskan tundra in 2008 when she spotted something odd in the lakes there. She said, “There were large open areas in some lakes, which at that time of year should have been frozen solid. When we got to these sites on the ground, we saw large plumes of bubbling gas—it looked like these parts of the lake were boiling.” These upwellings were plumes of methane, seeping out of the ground and up through the water. The convection associated with the bubbling prevented the ice from freezing. Where does this methane come from? And does its escape mean more warming in the Arctic?

From whence the gas?

Methane is trapped in and beneath the permafrost overlying the Arctic’s sedimentary basins, and is common in the organic material deposited by glaciers, and in marshy lakes and ponds. The frozen soil acts like a bathtub, holding water in the lake basins and preventing methane beneath the permafrost from percolating to the surface. When the permafrost thaws beneath lakes, gas-permeable chimneys open up, and the methane seeps out.

Walter Anthony and her team started to investigate these large methane seeps, which are thought to occur all across the Arctic. Having surveyed Alaska and Greenland using airplanes and field expeditions on the ground, they discovered more than 150,000 seeps. There are likely many more across the vast reaches of Arctic Russia and Canada, and the team hopes to use remote sensing to confirm this.

During ground surveys, they examined the chemical and isotope composition of the bubbling methane to determine where it was coming from. In many of the smaller bubbling seeps methane was newer, formed when plants and other organic material decayed in the lakes. However, they found that the largest seeps were outgassing fossil methane from ancient sources, such as natural gas and coal beds. Much of the seeping geologic methane had been trapped underground for tens of thousands of years, meaning that permafrost was thawing to such an extent that it was finally releasing those long-stored gases.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YegdEOSQotE

^^^^ University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Katey Walter Anthony demonstrates how and why methane gas is seeping out of Alaska’s lakes. Credit: University of Alaska Fairbanks

Image
Bubbling methane melted a hole in the ice of this otherwise frozen lake in the Brooks
Range, Alaska, in April 2011. (Photo by Katey Walter Anthony)

Why worry about methane?

Seeping methane is worrisome because it is a potent greenhouse gas. Melanie Engram, a researcher at the University of Alaska and a colleague of Walter Anthony’s said, “Methane is twenty-five to twenty-eight times more effective at retaining heat as carbon dioxide.” Engram is one of the researchers working with Walter Anthony to figure out how to measure the amount of methane now seeping out. When scientists model the effects of greenhouse gases, they need to account for as many sources of a gas as possible, now including these seeps. “Currently there is no quantification for these lakes in the methane budget,” Engram said. “One of the most exciting aspects of this project is investigating the use of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite imagery, provided by NASA through the Alaska Satellite Facility, to quantify methane bubbles trapped by lake ice.” SAR remote sensing, which can image through clouds and at night, is a tool well-suited for monitoring northern landscapes during dark Arctic winters. Satellite remote sensing is valuable for providing images of remote Arctic regions that would otherwise be too logistically difficult or expensive to observe.

And as permafrost warms and glaciers recede across the Arctic, the frozen cap locking methane underground will continue to thaw. Scientists are still trying to understand the extent of seeping methane. If thawing continues, Walter Anthony estimates that more than ten times the amount of methane currently in the atmosphere may bubble up out of the lakes. More methane could fuel the feedback loop that further warms the Arctic and the global atmosphere.

Reference

Walter Anthony, K. 2009. Methane: A menace surfaces. Scientific American 301: 68-75
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1209-68

http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/07/03/what-does-seeping-methane-mean-for-the-thawing-arctic/
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Arctic methane: What’s the story?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:30 pm

Arctic methane: What’s the story?

By Michelle Cain | August 13, 2013 |

The Arctic. What pops into your head when you hear those words? Polar bears, icebergs, freezing temperatures? These days, you might also think about the declining sea ice, and the possibility of the Northwest Passage opening up for ships. In fact, the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the global average, so you might associate the Arctic with “warming” as well as “freezing” these days.

One reason why the Arctic is warming faster than other areas is to do with “positive feedbacks”, where any warming feeds more warming. For example, warmer summers mean more sea ice melts. The sea ice is white and reflects sunlight back out to space, whereas the exposed seawater is dark, meaning that it absorbs more sunlight and gets even warmer. Another positive feedback comes from the greenhouse gas methane. The amount of methane released by wetlands increases with temperature. As methane is a greenhouse gas, more methane causes more warming, leading to the release of even more methane. Small changes can be amplified by these positive feedbacks, so it’s all the more important to try and quantify – and maybe even predict – them.

It’s the methane emissions that we are trying to understand in the MAMM project (which stands for Methane in the Arctic – Measurements and Modelling). The Arctic is a relatively unexplored wilderness, as it is vast and much of it difficult to reach. There are a handful of stations collecting continuous measurements of methane in the Arctic air, but there aren’t nearly enough to get a good idea of what’s going on.

This summer, we are going out to the Arctic to try and gather enough data to paint a better picture of how much methane is being released, and where it’s ending up. On the ground, we’ll have a team of fearless scientists in the wetlands (fearless against the huge mosquitoes at least), measuring how much methane is released by different types of wetland vegetation, essentially by placing a container over a patch of land and then measuring how much methane gets captured in the container. The wetland methane comes from microbes in the soil that produce it as a metabolic byproduct.

Then we’ve got the road trip, where some of the more adventurous among us will drive around remote parts of the European Arctic in a car, collecting bags of air along the way. Of course these aren’t just the kind of plastic bags that you get in the supermarket – they are airtight and coated with a non-stick, unreactive material (like your frying pan at home), so the air remains intact and can be taken back to the lab for analysis.

One of the things we will analyse is the isotopic signature in the methane, which is a bit like taking the fingerprint of the air samples. Different sources of methane (CH4) have different fractions of the carbon-13 isotope (carbon with 7 neutrons instead of the more common 6), so by measuring how much carbon-13 is in a sample you can tell if it’s from biological sources like wetlands, or from other sources like fossil fuels.

For example, the gas that we burn in our homes has a higher fraction of carbon-13 compared to wetland methane. This is an incredibly powerful way of knowing the source of the methane you have measured, so we will be able to tell whether any methane we measure has come from wetlands, gas fields or other sources.

The wetland measurements will look in detail at the local methane, then the road trip will sample across the whole region, and finally we’ll be taking the UK’s atmospheric research aircraft (ARA) to take measurements across an even wider swathe of the Arctic. The converted jet plane, run by the Facility for Airborne Atmospheric Measurements (FAAM), has most of the passenger seats replaced by large pieces of instrumentation to measure the atmosphere. There’s an excitingly-named quantum cascade laser, which measures methane from air that is sucked in from outside into the instrument. Other instruments measure methane at a distance below the aircraft (“remote sensing”), or back in the lab from samples. These instruments on-board the aircraft will help us to see the bigger picture, to try and scale up the detailed local measurements and see what impact the Arctic has on methane worldwide. We will use computer models to help us do this, alongside the measurements.

The ARA will be taking off and landing from Kiruna airport in northern Sweden, so most of the MAMM team will be based there in August and September 2013. The team is made up of: instrument scientists, who look after and calibrate the instruments on board; the team who run the aircraft, including pilots, engineers and cabin crew (scientists need caffeine and air sickness pills to function properly, especially when it’s a bit bumpy!); and mission scientists, who coordinate where to fly to get the best data, and make sure the whole thing comes off smoothly. Be it the weather not playing ball, travel sickness, or some essential bit of kit breaking at an inopportune moment, there is usually something to keep us busy! As much as we want to make super precise and accurate measurements, we still have to go out in to the real world to get the data, and we all know how messy the real world can be! But dealing with that is part of the job, and part of the fun of it.

Find out more about how we’re getting on in the field by following this blog and listening to audio diaries at the Barometer podcast http://thebarometer.podbean.com.

Previously in this series:

Arctic Methane: Hello and welcome to the MAMM blog

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/2013/08/13/arctic-methane-whats-the-story/
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:57 pm

Claims of Arctic methane disaster stir up controversy
Becky Oskin LiveScience
July 29, 2013 at 1:54 PM ET

Image
When brought to the surface, methane gas will escape from the hydrate and can be burned off, as seen in this picture. (Department of Energy photo)

A scientific controversy has erupted over claims that methane trapped beneath the Arctic Ocean could suddenly escape, releasing huge quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas, in coming decades, with a huge cost to the global economy.

The issue being debated is this: Could the Arctic seafloor really expel 50 billion tons of methane in the next few decades? In a commentary published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, researchers predicted that the rapid shrinking of Arctic sea ice would warm the Arctic Ocean, thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea and releasing methane gas trapped in the sediments. The big methane belch would come with a $60 trillion price tag, due to intensified global warming from the added methane in the atmosphere, the authors said.

But climate scientists and experts on methane hydrates, the compound that contains the methane, quickly shot down the methane-release scenario.

"The paper says that their scenario is 'likely.' I strongly disagree," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
Image
(Photo by Jeremy Potter NOAA / OAR / OER)
The dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice this summer is just one of the signs global warming has not stopped, scientists say.

An unlikely scenario
One line of evidence Schmidt cites comes from ice core records, which include two warm Arctic periods that occurred 8,000 and 125,000 years ago, he said. There is strong evidence that summer sea ice was reduced during these periods, and so the methane-release mechanism (reduced sea ice causes sea floor warming and hydrate melting) could have happened then, too. But there's no methane pulse in ice cores from either warm period, Schmidt said. "It might be a small thing that we can't detect, but if it was large enough to have a big climate impact, we would see it," Schmidt told LiveScience.

David Archer, a climate scientist at the University of Chicago, said no one has yet proposed a mechanism to quickly release large quantities of methane gas from seafloor sediments into the atmosphere. "It has to be released within a few years to have much impact on climate, but the mechanisms for release operate on time scales of centuries and longer," Archer said in an email interview.

Methane has a lifetime of about 10 years in the atmosphere before it starts breaking down into other compounds. [What are Greenhouse Gases?]

Defending new model
On Friday, Peter Wadhams, a co-author of the Nature commentary, defended the work against critics in an essay posted online.

"The mechanism which is causing the observed mass of rising methane plumes in the East Siberian Sea is itself unprecedented, and the scientists who dismissed the idea of extensive methane release in earlier research were simply not aware of the new mechanism that is causing it," wrote Wadhams, an oceanographer at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom.
Image USGS
On this cross-section running from onshore to deep-water ocean basin, gas hydrates occur in and beneath permafrost that is onshore and on continental shelves flooded over the past 15,000 years due to sea level rise. For the deep-water system, the gas hydrate zone vanishes on upper continental slopes before thickening seaward in the shallow sediments with increasing water depth.

"But once the ice disappears, as it has done, the temperature of the water can rise significantly, and the heat content reaching the seabed can melt the frozen sediments at a rate that was never before possible," Wadhams added. "David Archer's 2010 comment that 'so far no one has seen or proposed a mechanism to make that (a catastrophic methane release) happen' was not informed by the ... mechanism described above. Carolyn Ruppel's review of 2011 equally does not reflect awareness of this new mechanism," Wadhams wrote.

But Ruppel, a methane hydrate expert at the U.S. Geological Survey who authored a review of research on gas hydrates in 2011, also called the sudden-thawing scenario unrealistic.

"I would say it's nearly impossible," Ruppel, chief of the USGS Gas Hydrates Project in Woods Holes, Mass., told LiveScience.

Methane: microbial or hydrate?
Much of the Arctic's methane sits in permafrost buried under hundreds of meters of seafloor sediments, Ruppel said. The deposits formed on exposed ground during the last Ice Age, when sea levels were lower. The rising seas have been warming the deposits for millennia. Any added warming will have to work down through the thick sediment cap.

Much of the modeling predictions in the Nature commentary were based on recent discoveries of rising methane plumes in the East Siberian Sea. However, those plumes may be from methane hydrates or from microbes.

"Methane release in the Arctic from both marine and terrestrial sources is expected to increase with warming climate, as documented in numerous papers," Ruppel said. "Much of the methane may actually be produced in the shallow sediments by microbial processes and be completely unrelated to methane hydrates."

However, there has yet to be a detectable change in Arctic methane emissions in the atmosphere over the past two decades, Ed Dlugokencky, a research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory, said in an email interview.

Email Becky Oskin or follow her @beckyoskin. Follow us @livescience, Facebook and Google+. Original article on LiveScience.com.

* 8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World
* The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted
* Earth in the Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/claims-arctic-methane-disaster-stir-controversy-6C10786434
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 164 guests