Seven facts you need to know about the Arctic methane timebomb

[redqueen]

From the Guardian, last year.

Dismissals of catastrophic methane danger ignore robust science in favour of outdated mythology of climate safety

Debate over the plausibility of a catastrophic release of methane in coming decades due to thawing Arctic permafrost has escalated after a new Nature paper warned that exactly this scenario could trigger costs equivalent to the annual GDP of the global economy.

Scientists of different persuasions remain fundamentally divided over whether such a scenario is even plausible. Carolyn Rupple of the US Geological Survey (USGS) Gas Hydrates Project told NBC News the scenario is "nearly impossible." Ed Dlugokencky, a research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) said there has been "no detectable change in Arctic methane emissions over the past two decades." NASA's Gavin Schmidt said that ice core records from previously warm Arctic periods show no indication of such a scenario having ever occurred. Methane hydrate expert Prof David Archer reiterated that "the mechanisms for release operate on time scales of centuries and longer." These arguments were finally distilled in a lengthy, seemingly compelling essay posted on Skeptical Science last Thursday, concluding with utter finality:

"There is no evidence that methane will run out of control and initiate any sudden, catastrophic effects."

But none of the scientists rejecting the plausibility of the scenario are experts in the Arctic, specifically the East Siberia Arctic Shelf (ESAS). In contrast, an emerging consensus among ESAS specialists based on continuing fieldwork is highlighting a real danger of unprecedented quantities of methane venting due to thawing permafrost.

So who's right? What are these Arctic specialists saying? Are their claims of a potentially catastrophic methane release plausible at all? I took a dive into the scientific literature to find out.

What I discovered was that Skeptical Science's unusually skewered analysis was extremely selective, and focused almost exclusively on the narrow arguments of scientists out of touch with cutting edge developments in the Arctic. Here's what you need to know.

...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/05/7-facts-need-to-know-arctic-methane-time-bomb

[Zorra]

1. K&R

[NM_Birder]

2. climate change isn't about undisputed facts. It's about

how many people can be convinced to believe the specific portions of research presented, to attain an agenda "win".

The real truth regarding climate change is somewhere between 1) This weeks catastrophic tipping point is nearly here and the world is doomed and 2) climate change is a lie and all is well.

[redqueen]

3. Did you read the article?

[NM_Birder]

7. I did....another "we're at another tipping point" ,

Not that different than the "mysterious craters in Siberia", that have been known about since the 60's.

You can go to one "scientific" site and see that the sea ice is receeding and it's just a matter of time before the oceans rise and the earth is scrubbed clean. Then go to another "scientific" site and see current photos of the pack ice larger than ever reported.

Climate change, formerly know as global warming (the name change is purely for marketing purposes)) was supposed to have rocked the plant years ago, just like acid rain was supposed to have killed off the rainforest, just like nuclear contamination was supposed to have sterilized Hiroshima for 50 thousand years, just like the gulf oil spill was supposed to be the end of everything, ............ and exactly like off shoring heavy industry to China and South Korea are cleaning up the environment..... because the US is going "green".

There is truth and valuable information to be understood regarding the impact people have on the Earth. But I 'm sick of the constant over-alarmist dire predictions that are drama/fear based to push an agenda.

The truth is bad enough without ringing the "we are all doomed" bell at every opportunity

[redqueen]

10. lol I remember you now, you posted the rightwing talking points about Michael Moore

[NM_Birder]

13. Nice course correction, .... your labeling of my opinion as "right wing talking points"

is exactly my point. When was the latest day it's predicted this year that it will be "too late" to edge back from the "tipping point" ?

I haven't had a millionaire paid politician nor millionaire capitalist, lecture me on my wasteful energy habits or my slave/master relationship with capitalism in a long time, is the money not good enough anymore ?

60 Trillion dollars is the "predicted" impact noted in your posted article, .............. 60 trillion dollars. Dr Evil would be proud of that.

[NM_Birder]

16. Did you read your own article ?

real science cannot present something as "fact", and in the very first example use the word "plausible". Unless they are being paid based on the number of clicks the facts receive,............. for advertising reasons. You know, ..... revenue.

[sendero]

12. Not only that..

.... but there is fuck-all anyone can do about most of the drivers of climate change. Even if you could get one or two or even a few countries to reduce their carbon footprint, you'll never get a consensus and you'll never get real cooperation. And it would be too little too late anyway.

There are so many clear and present dangers to beware of that no rational person has time for this.

Oceans ARE going to rise, if you live on the shore better plan. Weather IS going to become more volatile, better plan.

But if you think this can be stopped you're nuts.

[NM_Birder]

15. There has been more severe weather related events recorded

in the last 100 years, as there are now. Climate change was presented as the new marketing strategy, because the earth has actually cooled, not heated up over the last decade. Trying to say that we KNOW what the earth is going to do, based on models of our 100 years of weather data is not unlike saying they KNOW what kind of coffee Jesus would order from Starbucks.

If the cooling trend that is actually going on, instead of the "predicted" heating of the earth continues, then the oceans will lower as the polar ice grows. Don't take my word for it, look it up, the earth has cooled, not warmed over the last few decades. But you can't talk about the truth, because "global warming / climate change" has been so heavily invested in, and bought into.

Like I said, the truth is between " climate change ! we are doomed" and "global warming is crap". but there is very little money and popularity stroking, to be had using the truth. Everything presented as the EXTREME .....

[sendero]

17. Well "science" is not infallible...

..... and has "made mistakes" many times in the past. But 97% of climate scientists believe that the simple molecular reality of burning carbon traps heat and raises temperatures.

It is quite possible that there is some offsetting factor involved that has not been as yet identified. Who knows. You say that the earth is cooling but polar ice IS melting, look it up.

When it comes to thinking we can actually DO anything about this I'm afraid I consider that a fool's errand. So we agree on actions if not reasons.

I drive a tiny car and use less electricity than most Americans because I believe wasting energy is wrong. But climate change is not the reason.

[NM_Birder]

8. Sorry I forgot the punchline to the article.

How amazing is it, that this "cutting edge" research that has just recently calculated this "time bomb" has already come up with an economic impact ?

60 Trillion dollars ............. Who could have guessed that climate change experts and arctic ice researchers, are also secretly economic forecasting guru's ?

<enter revised new tax requirements here>

[redqueen]

4. One self-kick. nt

[Uncle Joe]

5. This is a good read, kicked, recommended and bookmarked.

Thanks for the thread, redqueen.

[snagglepuss]

6. k and r

[IDemo]

9. Must-See Video: Arctic Emergency, Scientists Speak

Damned alarmists speak about their agenda:

Scientists featured in the film include:

Jennifer Francis, PhD. Atmospheric Sciences
Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University.

Ron Prinn, PhD. Chemistry
TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Natalia Shakhova, PhD. Marine Geology
International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

Kevin Schaefer, PhD.
Research Scientist, National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Stephen J. Vavrus, PhD. Atmospheric Sciences
Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Nikita Zimov
Northeast Science Station, Russian Academy of Sciences

Jorien Vonk, PhD. Applied Environmental Sciences
Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University

Jeff Masters, PhD. Meteorology
Director, Weather Underground

[redqueen]

11. Thanks for adding this video

[octoberlib]

14. Excellent read. Thanks for posting

[flamingdem]

18. K+R