<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Arctic Research Center: Underwater permafrost is thawing and releasing methane]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/This-too-shall-gas/ Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:20:27 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/This-too-shall-gas/1 Any idea

How much methane and total GHG effect corresponds with how much sea temperature rise?  

The answer is crucial, it means the difference between exponential run away climate disaster and some possibility of a turn around.

For the mathematically aware this is an important question.  Most of the scientists and policy makers in the new administration are aware.  Will that make any difference?

It is so difficult to understand how people who know how exponential growth works can keep their blinders on.  Do the scientifically literate just become better at self-deception as they experience greater levels of information?  Is it the tendency of ambitious people towards mental compartmentalization?

Those we rely on to understand and explain important scientific issues seem to be asleep at the keyboard.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Any idea

How much methane and total GHG effect corresponds with how much sea temperature rise?  

The answer is crucial, it means the difference between exponential run away climate disaster and some possibility of a turn around.

For the mathematically aware this is an important question.  Most of the scientists and policy makers in the new administration are aware.  Will that make any difference?

It is so difficult to understand how people who know how exponential growth works can keep their blinders on.  Do the scientifically literate just become better at self-deception as they experience greater levels of information?  Is it the tendency of ambitious people towards mental compartmentalization?

Those we rely on to understand and explain important scientific issues seem to be asleep at the keyboard.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Comment #2 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/This-too-shall-gas/ Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:35:19 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/This-too-shall-gas/2 Cloud generation

Geo-engineering maybe necessary if the climate tipping point is too close.  Cloud generation seems to be the most benign.  Powered by wind/wave/solar power platforms in the ocean, these could safely increase cloud area to reflect sunlight, and snowfall to reflect and also preserve glaciers.

The ocean water sent into the atmosphere in warmer areas would eventually fall as rain, fresh water to green deserts that would increase CO2 capture through photosynthesis.

Middle eastern nations could invest oil wealth in this technology and turn their region back into the fertile crescent again.  That would be a good way to use oil wealth.
 

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin


]]> Cloud generation

Geo-engineering maybe necessary if the climate tipping point is too close.  Cloud generation seems to be the most benign.  Powered by wind/wave/solar power platforms in the ocean, these could safely increase cloud area to reflect sunlight, and snowfall to reflect and also preserve glaciers.

The ocean water sent into the atmosphere in warmer areas would eventually fall as rain, fresh water to green deserts that would increase CO2 capture through photosynthesis.

Middle eastern nations could invest oil wealth in this technology and turn their region back into the fertile crescent again.  That would be a good way to use oil wealth.
 

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin


]]> Comment #3 by dobermanmacleod http://www.grist.org/article/This-too-shall-gas/ Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:42:34 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/This-too-shall-gas/3 Tired of "experts" dismissing the danger

I have gone out of my way, emailing hundreds, maybe thousands of public officials, scientists, and press officials, trying to sound the alarm on melting methane hydrate. All I get for my trouble is the people in charge citing studies that greenhouse gas emissions from land-based permafrost won't be a problem in the short or medium term.

Frankly, there isn't enought space to give you the rundown of what I've done to raise awareness, nor the material I've been been circulating.  Suffice it to say that I surmise that until the melting permafrost (both land and submarine type) is actually putting out tremendous amounts of methane, the danger will very likely be dismissed.

By the way, while popular culture claims that methane (CH4) is "20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide" (CO2), that is a retarded fact.  Actually, the EPA says it is 23 times more powerful, but that still is retarded.  Instead, CH4 is 100 times more power than CO2 over the first decade of emission.  Furthermore, what I consider the best way to describe it, CH4 is 70 times more powerful over 20 years.  In other words, it is dramatically more powerful a greenhouse gas over the short run, so is being underestimated by "experts."

]]> Tired of "experts" dismissing the danger

I have gone out of my way, emailing hundreds, maybe thousands of public officials, scientists, and press officials, trying to sound the alarm on melting methane hydrate. All I get for my trouble is the people in charge citing studies that greenhouse gas emissions from land-based permafrost won't be a problem in the short or medium term.

Frankly, there isn't enought space to give you the rundown of what I've done to raise awareness, nor the material I've been been circulating.  Suffice it to say that I surmise that until the melting permafrost (both land and submarine type) is actually putting out tremendous amounts of methane, the danger will very likely be dismissed.

By the way, while popular culture claims that methane (CH4) is "20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide" (CO2), that is a retarded fact.  Actually, the EPA says it is 23 times more powerful, but that still is retarded.  Instead, CH4 is 100 times more power than CO2 over the first decade of emission.  Furthermore, what I consider the best way to describe it, CH4 is 70 times more powerful over 20 years.  In other words, it is dramatically more powerful a greenhouse gas over the short run, so is being underestimated by "experts."

]]>