Global Extinction within one Human Lifetime

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
LOL @ the use of the Permian Extinction to scare people about the GW debacle.

Does anyone know when the Permian Extinction took place? Or what the planet was like at that time? For all intent and purposes, we should be talking about an alien world.

Read the article. The event the author is talking about is happening NOW. A comparison to the Permian event is made but it isn't a key component in the article.
The only two constants in all past extinction events are an increase in volcanic activity and lack of oxygen in the water. Both are happening now.

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I don't know what's more frightening, that study, or the lack of interest in your thread. Twelve hours later and nobody thinks this is HUGE? We have Ocam there who replies ten minutes later, which means he didn't even read the article, and says it's fear mongering, because he/ she doesn't understand it.
I've been trying to wake people up on this site for a long time, some get it, most don't.
Thank you for posting the article, it's important stuff and I would have missed it otherwise.

Very good point you made. He probably didn’t read it. I have found that to be indicative of most deniers either they will not look at the evidence or they simply do not understand the science. It is a problem that hard to deal with because sometimes if you can educate people to where they understand then they almost always will switch their position but many people do not want to understand and I think that goes back to my statement about how it scares people. It is true the saying ignorance is bliss.

reply to post by Grimpachi

It is true the saying ignorance is bliss.

It's probably one of the truest and most honest phrases ever to pass the lips of modern man.

No one denies that there are natural cycles of warming and cooling but man’s interference has accelerated that so instead of temperatures gradually rising like they have in the past it is happening at an exponential rate and by doing so the greenhouse gasses that are being released do not have the benefit of hundreds or thousands of years to dissipate. This causes a cascade effect by releasing more greenhouse gasses in places like Siberia from the permafrost feeding the whole cycle. This is man’s contribution to climatchange please take the time and read the papers for yourself.

Wait
What's Dr. Sal warning us about now?

Whatever it is, we can solve this problem through taxes.

I have been keeping up on this issue for quite a while now. This is a very real possibility. It looks like we have hit a tipping point.

It looks like we have lit the fire, and there is no stopping it until the fuel runs out. I doubt this will end life on Earth, or even the human species, but all evidence points to massive changes on a global scale, and most likely a massive die off.

The evidence is there that the Earth has heated up very quickly, within decades. We might see the oceans rise a hundred feet on the next thirty years. It's going to get crazy.

What would be the impact of methane releases from hydrates in the Arctic?

If an amount of, say, 1 Gt of methane from hydrates in the Arctic would abruptly enter the atmosphere, what would be the impact?



Methane's global warming potential (GWP) depends on many variables, such as methane's lifetime, which changes with the size of emissions and the location of emissions (hydroxyl depletion already is a big problem in the Arctic atmosphere), the wind, the time of year (when it's winter, there can be little or no sunshine in the Arctic, so there's less greenhouse effect), etc. One of the variables is the indirect effect of large emissions and what's often overlooked is that large emissions will trigger further emissions of methane, thus further extending the lifetime of both the new and the earlier-emitted methane, which can make the methane persist locally for decades.


The IPCC (2007) gives methane a lifetime of 12 years, and a GWP of 25 as much as carbon dioxide over 100 years and 72 as much as carbon dioxide over 20 years. (14)

In conclusion, a release of 1 Gt of methane in the Arctic would be catastrophic and the methane wouldn't go away quickly either, since this would be likely to keep triggering further releases. While some models project rapid decay of the methane, those models often use global decay values and long periods, which is not applicable in case of such abrupt releases in the Arctic.


Instead, the methane is likely to stay active in the Arctic for decades at a very high warming potential, due to depletion of hydroxyl and oxygen, while the resulting summer warming (when the sun doesn't set) is likely to keep triggering further releases in the Arctic

Potential for Methane Release

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Methane is very short lived. This article is just a scare-piece.

As an engineer and someone who considers themselves to be a proponent of green technologies, I am really getting sick of seeing people belittle others for disagreeing with the PC stance.

We need data.

An engineer who needs data? I laughed so hard when I read that I almost choked on an ice cube.
That's ALL you folks have, billions of tons of data, but somehow you're not able to interpret the data and come up with a solution. Your entire "community" is plagued with the same disease as politicians, unable to work together you get nowhere fast.
As for the "green" technology, it's a diversion at best. Those products are scarce or priced so far above their actual value 90 percent of the population don't use them. In addition the machine that makes a Prius belches out the same amount of smoke as the one that makes a Chevy.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

What about when there was no ice at all because the weather was much warmer? This is complete fearmongering.

There were no humans either, and large weather shifts correspond to mass extinctions.

Mass extinction is something reasonable to fear, I say.

reply to post by Grimpachi

The reason I believe so many people refuse to look at the science is that it frightens them either that or people believe it is not something that will greatly affect them in their lifetime so they will leave it to the next generation to deal with.

I have looked at the "science" behind global warming.

There is so little it's difficult to actually garner a true picture of what is going on.

The very process by which we measure the arctic ice melt has been changed and challenged in regards to accuracy over the decades - with satellite measurements showing massive amounts of variability.

Further - volcanic sea vents have been increasing in activity in the Arctic over the past few decades. Though I'm sure Al Gore will pin this increase in volcanic activity on humans - I'm not at all swayed.

There was a study done on the psychology behind this and it found that it is very hard for most people to think in long term effects of just about anything.

There have been countless studies done on human psychology to show a wide range of characteristics. One of them is that people are prone to believing media hype and false testimonies of confident experts even when the conflicting evidence is right in front of them.

It isn’t all doom and gloom because at the end of the document it states what needs to happen to avoid catastrophe. Maybe now that it will no longer be the next generation’s problem our generation will do what is necessary.

Immediately cease our use of the only practical source of power and buy products made by the companies that fund this nonsense.

That's our only salvation.

Voting for Obama sure did a lot to improve our nation, now didn't it.

Activists are tools used to further agendas. Nothing more.

Don't be an activist. Be a force.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I have looked at the "science" behind global warming.

There is so little it's difficult to actually garner a true picture of what is going on.

The very process by which we measure the arctic ice melt has been changed and challenged in regards to accuracy over the decades - with satellite measurements showing massive amounts of variability.

Further - volcanic sea vents have been increasing in activity in the Arctic over the past few decades. Though I'm sure Al Gore will pin this increase in volcanic activity on humans - I'm not at all swayed.

I am very glad you looked at the science I can assure I have but I have to disagree about there being so little to be able to see a full picture I would make the argument that there is so much that it is hard to keep up. The page I linked to the op has hundreds of scientific reports indexed to that sight and much of it has to do with Ice melt. As better technology comes along so does better data. Most of the new reports have adjusted to new data and almost all recognize that our old models were inadequate because we are losing ice faster than it was ever expected. Please take some time and read through the reports.

Also as far as I know Al gore has not made any such claims to date so just look at the data unbiased please.

If I was a medical doctor I would say that the patient has a terminal illness and is expected to die of an extreme fever between 2038 and 2050. There are three actions that have to be taken immediately by world governments, if there is any faint hope of preventing the final excruciating stages of death the human race will be forced to live through as we are all boiled like lobsters.


Developed (and some developing) countries must cut back their carbon dioxide emissions by a very large percentage (50% to 90%) by 2020 to immediately precipitate a cooling of the Earth and its crust. If this is not done the earthquake frequency and methane emissions in the Arctic will continue to grow exponentially leading to our inexorable demise in 2038 to 2050.

Geoengineering must be used immediately as a cooling method in the Arctic to counteract the effects of the methane buildup in the short term. However, these methods will lead to further pollution of the atmosphere in the long term and will not solve the earthquake induced Arctic methane buildup which is going to lead to our annihilation.

The United States and Russia must immediately develop a net of powerful radio beam frequency transmission stations around the Arctic using the critical 13.56 MHZ beat frequency to break down the methane in the stratosphere and troposphere to nanodiamonds and hydrogen (Light 2011a) . Besides the elimination of the high global warming potential methane, the nanodiamonds may form seeds for light reflecting noctilucent clouds in the stratosphere and a light coloured energy reflecting layer when brought down to the Earth by snow and rain (Light 2011a). HAARP transmission systems are able to electronically vibrate the strong ionospheric electric current that feeds down into the polar areas and are thus the least evasive method of directly eliminating the buildup of methane in those critical regions.

.

Geo Engeneiring

Originally posted by Grimpachi
This is the most frightening article I have ever read. Any thoughts?

I thought this comment at the end was interesting:

While NOAA did remove this spike, all data from early 2011 for Svalbard still show up as preliminary, so we are still awaiting the final record. The person at NOAA to ask questions to is Dr. Pieter Tans, his email address is at this page. There are only a few stations in the Arctic that measure methane. The Svalbard station only takes flask samples, as opposed to the Barrow station which also takes hourly in situ measurements. I'd like to see more measuring and monitoring done.

The final data hasn't been released by the NOAA yet. The fact that measurements of methane are so sparse in the arctic is probably an issue that needs to be addressed. It's hard to come to reliable conclusions based on sparse data.

The idea of US and Russia building a lot more stations similar to HAARP around the arctic to break up the methane is an interesting one. According to the article this will create diamonds in the sky (nanodiamonds). There is a lot of methane built up and if it's released all at once it will be bad. But I think the writer isn't being realistic in saying:

Once the world's ice caps have completely melted away at temperatures above 22.49 oC and times later than 2051.3, the Earth's atmosphere will heat up at an extremely fast rate to reach the Permian extinction event temperature of 80oF (26.66 oC)(Wignall, 2009) by which time all life on Earth will have been completely extinguished.

With a claim like this it's hard to take anything else he says seriously.

Permian Extinction

The Permian ended with the most extensive extinction event recorded in paleontology: the Permian-Triassic extinction event. 90% to 95% of marine species became extinct, as well as 70% of all land organisms.

Some life survived the Permian extinction and some life will survive the next extinction too.

But if we get some good data, we can use that to decide if we need to build more HAARP like stations to break up the methane.

The 50-90% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 the author pleads for just isn't going to happen so if that's what's needed to survive then I guess we're all doomed. In the meantime, I will be looking out for the official data.

If anyone thinks this will really happen by 2051 you can move to the southern hemisphere (if you're not already there), as the article says you may get an extra 9-29 years there!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thank you for taking the time to read this. I have been looking for a peer review of there findings that refute this but I have not found one yet. If you do please post your findings here.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Thanks for posting it, as it was an interesting read.

I don't know if the problem is so much a refutation of data as it is an absence of data. My take is that more methane data is needed.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


After reports of Methane plumes coming out of the Arctic Ocean along the Siberian continental shelf, the US and Russia sent up several aircraft to take air samples. What they found is an alarming rise in Methane levels above the Arctic Ocean. I think this article is too alarmist, but I have been following this development for going on a year now, and more and more evidence keeps coming out that methane releases from the Arctic is like a cold lit fire burning out of control.

The story broke on ATS last winter. When I read about these plumes of methane a KM in diameter, it was clear that major changes are under way. In the small area of the Arctic Ocean they checked, there were large. Umbers of these plumes. Now the ice is completely melted away from that large slice of the ocean. It all points to this being the tipping point to global warming.

reply to post by Grimpachi

As better technology comes along so does better data.

A fallacy.

The problem we face today is that we are handed so much data that we don't actually know how to make decisions - but we believe having -more- data (and increasing amounts of it) is better.

It's not. Dozens of studies into human psychology have shown that more data leads to poorer decision making and reasoning ability because it creates a false sense of knowledge.

Most of the new reports have adjusted to new data and almost all recognize that our old models were inadequate because we are losing ice faster than it was ever expected.

I've watched this debate over the past decade. The arctic ice sheet grew in 2007 and for a couple subsequent years. During that time, you heard little about the issue of ice melt from the GW nuts and, instead, heard about little island nations that were being flooded (of course - it wasn't because of GW - they were irrigating crops that had become a newfangled thing for them, and were simply over-saturating the island's soil to the point they were raising the water table to levels where towns would sink into mud). Now that ice is melting again - it's convenient to talk about it and show pictures of polar bears walking through puddles.

Please take some time and read through the reports.

Please don't insult me by insinuating I am not informed.

Also as far as I know Al gore has not made any such claims to date so just look at the data unbiased please.

It's hard to say what Al Gore has and hasn't said. He once suggested that the polar ice caps would be completely melted within 20 years - despite the fact that there's not enough solar radiation hitting the planet to accomplish that feat.

I have looked at the data in an unbiased manner - from the skeptical perspective that both sides have to actually prove their case.

The problem with the data supporting GW is that so much of it has been blatantly tampered with and made unusable. Satellite measurements of the ocean have been "calibrated to show sea level rise" - when the whole point of the satellite monitoring was to investigate whether or not there was sea level rise (there wasn't any rise detected until these 'new models' were applied to show agreement with a few errant readings in Chinese ports that were not recorded anywhere else).

However - no one can convince me that humans do not have an impact on the environment. Storms follow highways and deforested areas for a reason - our altering of the environment. So I've yet to be shown data that says the planet is, most certainly, not getting hotter.

I see the issue as inflammatory, filled with want-to-be intellectuals who would try to eat a pie chart. What little accurate information we have on the subject is horribly lacking and insufficient to draw any kind of conclusion.

Then you have these whack-jobs who want to launch # into space to partially block out the sun... and I come to the conclusion that - either way - stupidity will be the glorious end of your race.

You'll either kill yourselves in your attempts to prevent these phantasmic catastrophes. Or you'll all suffer entropic death by depleting all known fuel sources before developing plausible replacements.

Either way - I will be thoroughly entertained.

I've said this before and will no doubt say it again: I am not a scientist, so I must rely on scientistific community of experts to give me its best guess on things like global warming and the environment. Attempting to do it myself, given my limited qualifications, would be folly. Why pretend to know what you don't? Yet we can't really rely on science to tell me the truth because all of the science involved - pro and anti - is highly ideologically charged. Which is a real shame, that we should be blinded about such an important matter for these reasons.. I have heard convincing-sounding arguments on both sides of the matter and ultimately I can't judge what to believe. The idea that there are too many of us and we are slowly (or perhaps not-so-slowly) befouling our nest in various ways seems more convincing to me now than it did even a few years ago. But again, the issue is wreathed in ambiguity from all the petty ideological pig-fighting. A pity...or perhaps even a grotesque tragedy.

Be that as it may, I approach the matter from a slightly different vantage: I DO know a thing or two about economics, society, and human nature, and I am convinced that there is too much momentum to change in the way that the global warming advocates would like the world to change. In a word, its too late. When I was a kid there were only 3 billion people, I think. Now there are 7 billion, and the vast majority of them want to live like they do on MTV Cribs. Even the poorest have huddled around a shared screen and seen the flickering media images designed to inflame greed and consumer cravings. Meanwhile government is in thrall to lobbyists who have their eyes on boosting quarterly profits for their clients and very little else. One thing I'd say you can take to the bank: If some kind of massive global "throttle back" on production and consumption is what is called for, it ain't going to happen. The last two humans will be squabbling over the last working piece of iCrap on top of the ashheap of history if and when the atmosphere coughs its last gasp, and that's just the way it is. We are murderous, carnivorous apes with frontal lobes a bit too large and unbalanced, giving us a prounounced preference for the slick and clever over patience and wisdom. And however you cut it, the greed crazytrain is picking up steam rather than doing anything even remotely resembling slowing down as we lurch deeper into the 21st century.

reply to post by Aim64C


Articic Ice graph to 1012Artic Sea Ice news

Following the new record low recorded on August 26, Arctic sea ice extent continued to drop and is now below 4.00 million square kilometers (1.54 million square miles). Compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, this represents a 45% reduction in the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice. At least one more week likely remains in the melt season.

I think that as Methane hold 20 time the heat that CO2 does, burn the methane, the Plants could use the 'extra' CO2, which by the way, is 393 parts per million of the total atmosphere (that's less than one percent of the total)
We can also keep planting trees and any other bulk CO2 absorbers, or extract it from the atmosphere and pump it into empty oil wells.