Massive Methane Release In the Arctic Region 264
Taco Cowboy writes "Arctic methane release is a well recorded phenomenon. Methane stored in both permafrost (which is melting) and methane hydrates (methane trapped in marine reservoirs) are vulnerable to being released into the atmosphere as the planet warms. However, researchers who are trying to map atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on a global basis have discovered that the amount of methane emissions in the Arctic region do not total up. Further research revealed that significant amounts of methane releases came from the Arctic ocean (abstract) — as much as 2 milligrams of the gas is released per square meter of ocean, each day — presumably by marine bacteria surviving in low-nutrient environments."
Re:positive feedback loop (Score:3, Insightful)
Shhh. It's hard enough to get deniers(I hate that term, is there an less biased term that doesn't give them undue credibility like "skeptic" does) to understand the concept of a second derivative, and its importance to the whole thing. Involving diff-eq is just going to lose even more.
Re:rot (Score:4, Insightful)
Its normal in that this has happened before in the past. The difference is that humans weren't depending on living on the Earth at the time.
Re:Weed need SIMPLE answers to questions... (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument over whether or not it is a natural occurance is a big one (and worth having, IMO), but global warming nay-sayers choose to be ignorant of the fact that the "natural" environment of yester-millenia would literally kill them in a few short, labored gasps.
Re:Methane is bad stuff (Score:0, Insightful)
No, you're being a pedant. If what you're saying is true, Earth should already be like Venus is today, and should have been so millions of years ago.
It was a mostly tropical planet in dinosaur times. Why did it cool off again? Your prediction is that once it gets warm, it keeps getting warmer and warmer and warmer until it becomes a new sun, or whatever absurd conclusion you're making.
This is the most annoying thing about this "global warming" debate. It's a matter of politics now, not science. And the only politics people understand anymore is black vs white, far left vs far right.
Real sciences like climatology don't work that way. There are tons of variables, there's tons of experiments to run, there's a ton left to learn.
But instead you'd rather flip the bird at a guy who owns an SUV, blame everything on him, then look at your own smug face in the mirror while you beat off.
Because that's in line with your politics. Learning things, and trying to understand what is actually happening is not.
And it's like this now on every issue, big or small.
Idiocracy? We're living it.
Oh by the way, you're a liberal hippie fag, dont reply, because everything you say is either DEAD WRONG, or just self-masturbatory preaching to the choir.
The real truth is, you don't know. It is beyond your comprehension.
Re:Weed need SIMPLE answers to questions... (Score:2, Insightful)
(o) So those trapped gases must have been in the air at some point, millions of years ago, and then planet did just fine. So what's there to worry about? Uh.....
Nothing if you're a Gaea-worshiping hippie. Mother Earth will be just fine.
Most of us have concerns a lot more specific than just "the planet" doing fine.
Re:positive feedback loop (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. Once we finally run out of food and drinking water the inevitable nuclear holocaust should solve global warming straight away. Which works out great because we're overdue for both another global extinction event and another ice age. Three birds with one stone!
Lots of jokes but the truth less funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Methane is bad stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
If what you're saying is true, Earth should already be like Venus is today, and should have been so millions of years ago.
No, what he's saying is that there is a positive feedback mechanism that will keep going until a particular part of that mechanism stops running. That would be the supply of methane in permafrost and at the bottom of the ocean.
Your prediction is that once it gets warm, it keeps getting warmer and warmer and warmer until it becomes a new sun, or whatever absurd conclusion you're making.
Straw man and hyperbole. He didn't say that. Furthermore, you're the only one making absurd predictions - and putting them in the mouths of other people.
But instead you'd rather flip the bird at a guy who owns an SUV, blame everything on him, then look at your own smug face in the mirror while you beat off.
No idea how you got that from a comment that essentially says "hey, you're timescale assessment is wrong." Could you be projecting?
Oh by the way, you're a liberal hippie fag, dont reply, because everything you say is either DEAD WRONG, or just self-masturbatory preaching to the choir.
Ignoring the liberal application of random insults and assumptions, you seem to a) engage in the same black-and-white thinking you were decrying two sentences earlier, and b) equate being right with self-masturbatory preaching. Can't handle the truth, can you?
The funny part is that you will be the least prepared for the coming trouble. Have fun. Liberals have guns, too.
Re:Ocean gun? (Score:4, Insightful)
it's a natural cycle (Score:1, Insightful)
we need to simply accept that the earth goes through cycles and we can either adapt or die.
instead of trying to STOP the natural cycle of the earth's cooling and heating we should be spending our energy making sure we can survive the impacts of those natural cycles.
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:positive feedback loop (Score:3, Insightful)
Because deniers and skeptic are two different things.
The would be skeptic if the plied rational thought and learned the facts, science and data. They don't. They cherry pick, spout nonsense, and ignore data - hence deniers.
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
the last 10 years of temperature records
so what about them? do you think they indicate global warming isn't occurring? where do they say that (with any scientific credibility)? you and i probably wouldn't have the expertise to interpret said data even if we had access to it all.
the problem is that you have been told by someone (likely a moron journo) that the last 10 years of temperature records indicates that global warming isn't occurring, and you believed it. in reality you have absolutely no clue what temperature records indicate, because the amount of data that implies is enormous, and 10 years isn't likely even enough time to indicate anything about the global temperature trend any more than summer temperatures are generally warmer than winter ones. if you referred to the last 100 years of temperature records it would at least seem more convincing (even if i knew you were still a gullible slave to corporate mass media)
CO2 isn't more a pollutant than water
from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution], "Air pollution is the introduction of chemicals, particulate matter, or biological materials that cause harm or discomfort to humans or other living organisms, or cause damage to the natural environment or built environment, into the atmosphere."
...of course i didn't realize you were ignorant enough to need the definition of pollution pointed out to you.
co2 is a pollutant because it is released into the atmosphere as a product of combustion. water is also a product, but it isn't a pollutant.
if c02 were released deep underground (carbon capture), it would not be a pollutant because it isn't being released into the atmosphere.
What makes sense is to say that an excess of CO2 might be bad for the earth
so might an excess of ignorance
there's less and less consensus about it
amongst who exactly? a runaway greenhouse effect isn't exactly rocket science. morons argue that a volcano spits out more co2 than all of humanity like it makes everything ok. what they seem to be completely oblivious to is that if enough volcanos spew enough co2 into the atmosphere, it will be just as bad.
the whole point of the global warming debate was that humanity shouldn't be the cause of its own destruction; there has never been any argument that a runaway greenhouse effect couldn't occur naturally, in which case of course we could do little about it.
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
so what about them? do you think they indicate global warming isn't occurring? where do they say that (with any scientific credibility)? you and i probably wouldn't have the expertise to interpret said data even if we had access to it all.
So, I don't have the expertise to read a curve, and say if it goes up or down? COME ON !!!
Well, no. You don't.
You're not reading a curve. You're reading a collection of superimposed curves. If you want to know what the warming effect due to CO2 increase is you've got to remove other effects.