Tags for this video have been changed from 'global warming, methane, fire, ice' to 'climate change, methane, arctic, fire, ice, perma frost melting' - edited by Farhad2000

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. It is naturally released from the Arctic, although the release rate is accelerating rapidly due to Arctic shrinkage which is believed to be a result of global warming. Large quantities of methane are stored in the Arctic in permafrost, natural gas deposits and as submarine clathrates. Methane is also transported to the region in rivers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release

I expect someone to find this eventually and claim this is a great thing because its a new energy source for America to exploit.

Methane clathrate deposits will end our species.

Well, the bible does say that the next time we'll be destroyed by fire.

>> ^Zor:
Well, the bible does say that the next time we'll be destroyed by fire.


sweet - I'm so sick of drowning. (oh wait, you're not supposed to know about that)

[edit] crap! now it's eternal fire for me. goddammit!

Lake Farts...awesome!

There are a few more videos here, also from the Alaskan team:
http://www.alaska.edu/uaf/cem/ine/walter/videopage2.xml

This is beyond frustrating, the damage we're doing, and how many deniers there still are.

When I see stuff like this, I always imagine people like Bill O'Reilly standing on the roof of his house, screaming "this is all just a hoax perpetrated by the elite liberal media" as the flood waters envelope everything around him.

Global warming is about as real as Y2K was. Is there 390 ppm CO2 now in the atmosphere, instead of 385 ppm CO2 in 1940 ? Yes. Is it warming the planet somewhat, yes a couple fractions of a degree overall. Has warming happened in the past yes. Will cooling happen in the future yes.

Are zombies like the one above overreacting yes. Any science that claims that global warming could have positive impacts on the planet is scorned. Do scientists gain from doom saying and predicting the worst possible consequences for the planet ... you bet they do. If they predicted negligible effects they would immediately lose their grants and be fired from whatever school they are in. Its not politically correct to challenge global warming.

And you cant get a grant to study how global warming might be not so bad after all.

Science is being hijacked by radical environmentalists on a political mission. Anyone that lives in the great white north knows that its so cold up there that life can barely hang on. Yet all you hear is how its killing polar bears.

Bullshit. A little warming will do the artic much more good then harm. Human beings are here to stay and yes 6 billion of us will change the world. Some species will have to deal with the sudden changes and some will not survive. Some will flourish.

I will never agree with Bill Orielly on principle, because he is a nutjob. However on this one he is less wrong then normal.

Cuz we all know that scientists are just in it for the money...

And the girls...

DrPawn goes to the ignore list

>> ^DrPawn:
Global warming is about as real as Y2K was. Is there 390 ppm CO2 now in the atmosphere, instead of 385 ppm CO2 in 1940 ? Yes. Is it warming the planet somewhat, yes a couple fractions of a degree overall. Has warming happened in the past yes. Will cooling happen in the future yes.
Are zombies like the one above overreacting yes. Any science that claims that global warming could have positive impacts on the planet is scorned. Do scientists gain from doom saying and predicting the worst possible consequences for the planet ... you bet they do. If they predicted negligible effects they would immediately lose their grants and be fired from whatever school they are in. Its not politically correct to challenge global warming.
And you cant get a grant to study how global warming might be not so bad after all.
Science is being hijacked by radical environmentalists on a political mission. Anyone that lives in the great white north knows that its so cold up there that life can barely hang on. Yet all you hear is how its killing polar bears.
Bullshit. A little warming will do the artic much more good then harm. Human beings are here to stay and yes 6 billion of us will change the world. Some species will have to deal with the sudden changes and some will not survive. Some will flourish.
I will never agree with Bill Orielly on principle, because he is a nutjob. However on this one he is less wrong then normal.


1) Don't know where you got your numbers but they are wrong. In 1940, the CO2 ppm was around 310 as reported by the CDIAC in this table here.

2) You apparently don't understand how science works. If someone were, as you seem to be suggesting, to put out an erroneous hypothesis for their own personal gain (i.e. to keep their job or get grant money), it would quickly be discovered since other scientists with no vested interest in the topic will examine the data and conduct experiments themselves and eventually show that the original results were falsified. Remember Hwang Woo-Suk? He tried to do exactly what you are describing and got called out on it.

3) The effects of global warming will do more good than harm? Really. Care to back that up with scientific evidence? Because the evidence that does exist points to catastrophic effects for most of the world. Rising sea levels are already flooding parts of the world like Tuvalu. Weather patterns are changing and wreaking havoc with current ecosystems. Forests in the U.S. are dying out an alarming rate due to the warming. Coral bleaching, species migration pattern disruption, increased death rates in Arctic and Antarctic species like penguins--all of these have been linked to temperature increases. You're saying these are good things?

Methane pockets scare me, because that is a source of greenhouse gasses that we have no control over. As temperatures increase, more methane can be released.

This holds the possibility of creating a problem with no answer. There could be a point at which methane release becomes self-sustaining, meaning that we could cut CO2 emissions to zero and the planet would continue the cycle of methane release.

That is just a possibility though... I do not know how much the average world temperature would have to rise to initiate that scenario. I hope we don't find out.

moments later, they were all eaten by Rodents of Unusual Size.

inject air under the ice and spark the mixture

This makes me laugh. "Oh no! I disagree!" *IGNORE*

>> ^volumptuous:
DrPawn goes to the ignore list

*brief

This video has been flagged as being less than 1 minute in length - declared brief by kronosposeidon.

>> ^thepinky:
This makes me laugh. "Oh no! I disagree!" IGNORE
>> ^volumptuous:
DrPawn goes to the ignore list



It's in no way about disagreeing.

It's about spewing epic nonsense.

bit of *eia going on there whacking the tiny whole with a big stick, no?

Adding video to channels (Eia) - requested by maatc.

DrPawn-I understand the terrible state of American education, so it's likely you don't understand your own statements, and not surprising that you have nearly every fact wrong ("conservatives" like you and Bill O'Really have little or no use for facts, they much prefer "truthieness" where you say what you want and pretend it's fact). It's true, warming has happened in the past, possibly even the amount of warming likely to come from the change in composition of our atmosphere. The thing you ignore there is that, when this happened in the past, over 95% of all species, and over 99% of all biomass was extinguished. That would include people this time, I mention that because apparently people are all that matters in your eyes. Humans already exist in many places where they can't survive without technology, and the number of humans can't be sustained even with it. We are most likely one of the species that won't survive.
The arctic CAN'T survive a "little warming", it's already disapearing, and it takes more than a decade for polar bears to evolve into polar seals, (I know, I know, evolution is also a liberal lie, right?)so they are HOSED. Methane hydrate is melting, accelerating the rate of temperature change, and a little warming would accelerate this process exponentially.
I suppose you won't admit there's a problem until something like this happens, and then you'll find a way to blame Obama for it.
http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/2012/

If only we could put these "nay sayers" on/in their own biosphere and let them kill themselves off without taking the rest of us with them. A man can dream, can't he?

^
Newtboy - Unlesss I have gone insane (finally) you have attributed what was written by DrPawn as to being written by Volumptuous

Otherwise...I agree

Psychologic- From what I've heard, the answer is probably about 3 deg. C. before the methane release is a self sustaining, accelerating process, max 5 deg. Climatologists have recently (finally) admitted that even reducing CO2 emmisions to 0 today would not end global warming for at least 1000 years. The temperature levels from CO2 alone will most likely raise at least the 5deg. C in that time period (most likely in the next 25 years using todays conservative estimates, probably sooner. Methane is already boiling up in the arctic at alarming rates, and these added gasses aren't considered in the climate models that are public.)
Now we get to the unstated problem of CO2, it's raising the acidity levels of the ocean to unliveable levels. The number of "dead zones" are multiplying every year. I don't know for certain, but I have to believe that putting the methane in solution would accelerate the acidification of the ocean (like in the great extinction) killing most living things there and above (can you say acid rain?).
I've recently read that higher temperature water has a difficult time keeping O2 in solution as well. Most things in the ocean require O2 to live. Massive fish kills cause massive bacteria blooms, which release toxic gasses and liquids themselves, killing the surviving sea life. I, for one, don't eat fish, but I still like having my oceans alive.
The reality is that we're hosed. Stop having children people, unless you are sadists and are having them in order to force them into a miserable and short life. Children today have little to no chance of survival to 70+ years, and the insane numbers of people are the main reason for every problem facing the planet. There is no legitimate reason for having more people beyond selfishness. Get a grip and start doing the right thing, or we all suffer the consequences (which are already nearly unsurmountable).

Thanks Zonbie, I fixed it.

Yes, I understand that science is currently hijacked by left wing greenies.

Humans are hear to stay and someone is going to burn the worlds fossil fuels.

The world population will go above 10 billion and we will consume the planets resources.

Wars will be fought over the remaining resource. Hopefully we get to bomb people like you nut jobs first.

>> ^Farhad2000:
I expect someone to find this eventually and claim this is a great thing because its a new energy source for America to exploit.


Operation Canadian Freedom to be announced in 8 years.

Keep living in your bubble DrPrawn, ignorance is bliss.
Because most of the right wing pseudo-scientists are now out of work (because their work can't stand up to peer review), does not mean that science has been hijacked, it means the attemped hijackers have been thrown off the plane and the pilot has regained control, you just don't like where the plane is going.
One thing you're at least partially right about, IF the population does get to 10 billion, we will consume the earths remaining resources. There's little question there.
Sad to say I'm a tough Moth*r F*cker, the bombs will likely kill you first, but I'm game. Anything that gets rid of more people is a good thing, if it doesn't doom the ones left. Can't someone develop the neutron bomb as described in Repo Man? "Eyes melt, skin explodes, everybody dies, but the infrastructure is left intact." If we could only make one that's human specific, war could be the next green movement!

I believe I have been exposed to the majority of current data and theory regarding anthropomorphic anthropogenic climate change. I have yet to view conclusive information proving C02 is an atmospheric pollutant, or that anthropomorphic anthropogenic sources exist in relevant volumes. Maybe you have access to resources I don't?


edit: evidently I don't have access to a dictionary...

>> ^imstellar28:
or that anthropomorphic sources exist in relevant volumes.


Anthropomorphic? Isn't that like when you give human qualities to animals? Then I totally agree! I don't think Bugs Bunny is responsible for global warming at all! *goes back to watching cartoons*

3 points, jianibi!

>> ^Farhad2000:
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. It is naturally released from the Arctic, although the release rate is accelerating rapidly due to Arctic shrinkage which is believed to be a result of global warming. Large quantities of methane are stored in the Arctic in permafrost, natural gas deposits and as submarine clathrates. Methane is also transported to the region in rivers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release
I expect someone to find this eventually and claim this is a great thing because its a new energy source for America to exploit.


Methane doesn't last long in the atmosphere because of the excess oxygen. It's not a major long-term threat because of it's effective half-life of 8 years.

>> ^DrPawn


Do we write in pointless rethorical questions that we immediately answer ourselves ? Yes. Do we also skip some question marks on the way yes. Does this make the text more readable, no quite the opposite. Does it make our points any more valid no.

>> ^jwray:
Methane doesn't last long in the atmosphere because of the excess oxygen. It's not a major long-term threat because of it's effective half-life of 8 years.


It is short-lived, but a given amount of methane also produces about 25x the warming as the same amount of carbon dioxide over a span of 100 years (I think it's 72x for 20 years).

Methane also tends to oxidize into carbon dioxide.


It may not be an issue, but it definitely could be. A period of 8 years is more than enough time to warm the planet enough to release more methane, further warming the earth and continuing the cycle.

I'm certainly not an expert in the field, but I have found enough info about it to be concerned.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^jwray:
Methane doesn't last long in the atmosphere because of the excess oxygen. It's not a major long-term threat because of it's effective half-life of 8 years.

It is short-lived, but a given amount of methane also produces about 25x the warming as the same amount of carbon dioxide over a span of 100 years (I think it's 72x for 20 years).
Methane also tends to oxidize into carbon dioxide.

It may not be an issue, but it definitely could be. A period of 8 years is more than enough time to warm the planet enough to release more methane, further warming the earth and continuing the cycle.
I'm certainly not an expert in the field, but I have found enough info about it to be concerned.


Sudden warming events have happened many times in geological history without causing positive feedback that leads to any runaway warming effect. That's not to say it's impossible, but you're certainly overlooking forms of negative feedback.