The Giant Methane Monster Lurking...

There’s something lurking deep under the frozen Arctic Ocean, and if it gets released, it could spell disaster for our planet. That something is methane. Methane is one of the strongest of the natural greenhouse gases, about 80 times more potent than CO2, and while it may not get as much attention as its cousin CO2, it certainly can do as much, if not more, damage to our planet.

That’s because methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and there are trillions of tons of it embedded in a kind of ice slurry called methane hydrate or methane clathrate crystals in the Arctic and in the seas around the continental shelves all around the world. If enough of this methane is released quickly enough, it won’t just produce the same old global warming.

It could produce an extinction of species on a wide scale, an extinction that could even include the human race. If there is a “ticking time bomb” on our planet that could lead to a global warming so rapid and sudden that we would have no way of dealing with it, it’s methane.

Right now, estimates suggest that there’s over 1,000 gigatons - that's a thousand billion tons - of carbon in methane form trapped just under the Arctic ice. And if stays trapped under the ice, we might have a chance. But, thanks to the global warming that’s already occurring, Arctic sea ice is melting at unprecedented rates.

In fact, as Gaius Publius points out over at America Blog, just about every reputable projection on the loss of Arctic sea ice has been wrong in a very, very bad way. The lack of sea ice cover in the Arctic that we’re seeing today wasn’t supposed to happen for 20+ more years according to 13 of the most accurate models.

As all that sea ice melts, the Arctic ice which once reflected sunlight and prevented global warming, becomes a very blue ocean that absorbs heat and causes even more melting. And this all means that more and more methane is being released into the atmosphere much faster than expected, speeding up the process of global warming and climate change.

It’s all one big and vicious cycle, called a "positive feedback loop," something that can spiral out of balance and control very quickly. But here’s where it gets really scary.

Researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks International Arctic Research Center have found that Arctic methane is leaking out from the ocean floor nearly twice as fast as was previously thought. The researchers found that the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is releasing at least 17 million tons of methane into the atmosphere each year.

Natalia Shakhova, one of the lead researchers on the study, said methane releases from the Arctic seafloor are, “now on par with the methane being released from the arctic tundra, which is considered to be one of the major sources of methane in the Northern Hemisphere.” To put this in perspective, just seven years ago, estimates suggested that only 500,000 tons of methane were being released into Earth’s atmosphere each year. Now we're measuring 17 million tons of it. Just in the Arctic.

Now, we can’t directly stop Arctic sea ice from melting and releasing methane into the atmosphere, but we can help stop what’s contributing to that melting in the first place: fossil fuel extraction.

Every day, the fossil fuel industry extracts more and more fossil fuels from the ground, releasing tons and tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That carbon dioxide warms our atmosphere, which hastens the melting of Arctic sea ice, and the release of even more dangerous methane into our atmosphere.

We need to be keeping the remaining methane right where it is, buried deep under a thick sheet of ice.And a great way to accomplish that goal is by introducing a carbon tax. Putting a price on the amount of carbon that the fossil fuel industry takes out of the ground would encourage less fossil fuel extraction, and more reliance on clean and green energy.

With a carbon tax, fossil fuels would become more expensive than renewables. For every day that America’s fossil fuel industry pumps carbon pollution into our skies, our environment is deteriorating quicker, more and more Arctic sea ice is melting, and climate change and global warming are speeding up.

We have a chance right now to keep the giant methane monster that’s lurking under the Arctic Ocean right where it is, and save our planet in the process. The time for a carbon tax in America is now!

Comments

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 13 weeks ago
#1

BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY! - AIW

patrick H.T. paine's picture
patrick H.T. paine 8 years 13 weeks ago
#2

Unfortunately, your FACTS are missing an important aspect....methane IS more powerful, but its effects only last 20 years......so the brighter side of a "methane release" would be to act as a 'warning' by increasing the "immediate effects" making it harder for the deniers to continue......CO2 is the "major problem" and must be dealt with, methane is simply a distraction, and indeed may be a harsh one BUT, just imagine the deniers try to explain it.........in view of the "ignorance" they have already tried to exploit. ( they would have to go from " more CO2 is good for us" to explain much more rapid and extreme effects of a massive methane release and then have to explain the "difference" between those "'greenhouse gases" and their tiny proportions vs. BIG CONSEQUENCES.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 13 weeks ago
#3

pat paine -- How does the effect of methane dissapate?

Also, how does the amount of methane leaking from fracking and all the pipelines in the US compare to the 17 million?

As AIW says, beam me up Scotty.

johndwyer's picture
johndwyer 8 years 13 weeks ago
#4

Thom, have you seen this report dated June 10, 2014 from Arctic News?

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/06/arctic-atmospheric-methane-global-warming-veil.html

mathboy's picture
mathboy 8 years 13 weeks ago
#5

Methane breaks down naturally in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide gets used or absorbed too, but not as quickly.

mathboy's picture
mathboy 8 years 13 weeks ago
#6

"... it won’t just produce the same old global warming."

Yeah, it'll do something else to the same old global warming as well. ???

That should have read, "it won’t produce just the same old global warming." Because it will produce something else too.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 13 weeks ago
#7

mathboy -- methane, CH4, breaks down naturally into what?

Tom1945 8 years 13 weeks ago
#8

My understanding is that methane reacts with ozone (O3) to produce water and CO2. A little of this helps keeps the atmosphere in equilibrium. Too much, and we have part of the cause of the positive feedback cycle mentioned by Thom.

We only have to look at our nearest neighbor (Venus) to see what may result. (Its surface temperature is about 850 degrees F.)

One of the things that annoys me is that the "deniers" refer to cold places around the globe and that some temperatures have remained flat for the past twenty years. What they don't know or don't care about is that it takes lots of energy to change ice at 32 degrees F to water at 32 degrees F. That involves a change of state (from solid to liquid) with no increase of temperature. But once that ice has melted that same amount of energy can raise the now-liquid water many degrees. This cycle has to stop!

Loren Bliss's picture
Loren Bliss 8 years 13 weeks ago
#9

Alice-I put up a post on yesterday's thread suggesting a secure way to contact me, but apparently it was disappeared before you saw it, so I'm tyring again: write a comment to the TypePad edition of my blog, including contact data. This will NOT be posted until I ok it, which means the contact data will NOT be made public.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 13 weeks ago
#10

Thanks Loren! I will definitely give that a try.

By the way, is it your post that you think disappeared off yesterday's thread? I saw the post; not to worry! - AIW

Loren Bliss's picture
Loren Bliss 8 years 13 weeks ago
#11

Methane is an inflammable gas, and the right oxygen/methane mixture is explosive. An Alaska commercial fishing boat crew learned this lesson c. 1982 or so after their newly hired cook had kept them on an all-chili diet for two or three days. The resultant flatulence filled the enclosed wheelhouse with methane, and when one of the crew lit a cigarette, the methane ignited. This was at night; the blue flash was visible for at least a mile in each direction, and several other boats converged on the scene to render aid, assuming a galley stove had blown up or some other terrible accident had occurred. Actually the flatulent crew suffered no wounds other than slightly singed eyebrows; the worst injuries were to the crew's pride -- how do you explain something like that to would-be rescuers without becoming the laughing-stock of the entire fleet? Alas, some well-intentioned mariner had called the Coast Guard, so an explanation was required, and the incident thus became part of the lore and legend of the Pacific salmon fishery.

Point is, if the planet waxes flatulent, and a bolt of lightning (or anything else) lights off the gas...

Loren Bliss's picture
Loren Bliss 8 years 13 weeks ago
#12

Yeah, Alice...that post doesn't live there anymore; I checked about 20 minutes ago.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 13 weeks ago
#13

Loren, I just went to your TypePad edition, searched up & down repeatedly, but could find no place to post anything. At the top of the page the only places I saw to click on are where it says "Home", "Archives", "Profile" and "Subscribe", none of which look at all relevant to what I'm trying to do. Further down on the side bar, I tried clicking on "Subscribe to this blog's feed"…. but all I got was an empty box with the message: "No RSS reader is installed", whatever that means. The rest is wall-to-wall OAN script, right down to the bottom of the page where your name is displayed with the OAN title and "Powered by NotePad". Without belaboring this any further, I have no clue how to do what you've suggested. - AIW

Loren Bliss's picture
Loren Bliss 8 years 13 weeks ago
#14

Alice...scroll down to the bottom of the newest post. There you'll see some very small, light-faced type. In it you'll find the word "comments" followed by a number (now a zero) in parentheses. (Scroll slowly or you'll miss it; I didn't realize how difficult it is to see and will ask TypePad if it can be made more prominent.) Click on the word "comments." That brings up the comment matrix, after which you just follow the directions. Good luck and thank you!

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 12 weeks ago
#15

Loren, I had ignored the faint, tiny script because it is so hard to read. Anyway I went back down to it and clicked on where it says "comments", and what I got was a vast blank white space, under which is more faint, tiny, hard-to-read script; and under that, at the VERY bottom of the page, under the "Comment" header (in red letters) it said "You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post". (What?!) So when I clicked on that, I got a blank page with the message "No RSS reader is installed". Whatever that means. But then my husband scrolled up and down, went back to where it says "comment" (buried in that barely-readable script at the bottom of the page) and - voila! - he got something entirely different... a box for posting messages! Whoopie!!!! So go check it out! - Aliceinwonderland

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 12 weeks ago
#16

P.S. Loren, were you talking about post #53, on the second page of yesterday's thread? It's still there!

Loren Bliss's picture
Loren Bliss 8 years 12 weeks ago
#17

Alice -- just to let you know, I sent three messages to you via the new route. (I say this because my email -- like that of many other former Occupy activists -- is often mysteriously delayed, sometimes blocked entirely.) //LB

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 12 weeks ago
#18

Sandles - after considerable effort, Loren and I have managed to connect off this blog.

You're next! I'll give that private chat thing a whirl, like you suggested, and maybe we can connect off the blog as well. I might not get around to this 'til the weekend, however; I've got the rest of the week booked pretty solid. For me, trying out anything new on the computer or online takes a lot of energy, so I really want to be rested before I attempt this again... even with my husband's assistance! Hopefully the chat room will be much easier than TypePad turned out to be; but ya never know! - AIW

MMmmNACHOS's picture
MMmmNACHOS 8 years 12 weeks ago
#19

The ant farm is collapsing. Pollution...A devistating side affect of over population and consumerism. With an accelerated world population the only real solution is to reduce population. Less people less waste! If 2 is company and 3 is a crowd...What is a word population of 6 billion consumers?

MMmmNACHOS's picture
MMmmNACHOS 8 years 12 weeks ago
#20

Now don't get me wrong...I am not suggesting a world wide massacre...No! More so I am suggesting tha we change our ways of thinkin. It is one thing to learn healthy ways of living (Thriving) through science, but to "force" life by ways of drugs and "artificial parts"...Thats just another testiment to how greedy and selfish we humans really are.

I have a 92 year old grandma. I love and adore her...I have a life time of wonderful memories with her. However these last 10 years have been very hard on her and our family. She is incontinent, suffers with dimensia, and now is blind due to her heart medication. Just this year she has had 3 eye surgeries to try and bring her sight back...She is still blind and is still taking the heart medication. She has said on many occasions that she feels she is living waaaaaay too long. So stop taking the heart medication...Right!? Well it isn't that simple. Stopping her meds won't necessarily end her life, but it could make it even worse. She could stroke out and be left paralized.
This is one of the reasons why I support the legalization of Human Euthianasia.

sandlewould's picture
sandlewould 8 years 12 weeks ago
#21

Hi Alice...working my way to # 19 and looking forward to it...BTW, I still think you and Loren should set a time on this forum to meet in Thom's chat room and share email via private message. Sounds easier than the alternative...perhaps?

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 8 years 12 weeks ago
#22

MMmmNACHOS ~ GREAT to have you back! What happened? We've been somewhat concerned.

Sorry to hear about your grandma. I know that can keep one busy. However, you're not alone. A lot of people I know are in the same boat. It's hard to blog when you're that distracted. I hope you find some time to check in though. Your input has been sorely missed.

sandlewould's picture
sandlewould 8 years 12 weeks ago
#23

Alice...
Ha! Glad you & Loren finally worked it out! BTW Loren...My activist emails seem to get disappeared by AOL or ATT as well. So much for freedom of speech! I am dreading the day when the FCC inevitably brings down the hammer on this site by making it impossible for Thom to shell out big enough bucks to CoNcast for speeds high enough to grant us access. I can see it now, you can sign up for the "unlimited web access package" for just $5000/month, or the "commercial website package" for $50. You can have your web site broadcast in the slow lane for just $10,000/mo. As I speak, Dr. Steven Cohen has been cut off by CoNcast twice. CoNcast owns Thom's communications and the Heritage Foundation owns his building. (Yesterday, they tried to roast him out by turning off off his AC.) How much longer will we enjoy the camaraderie of fellow Critical thinkers?
Sheez, Anyhooo, Alice, after the "holiday" (gee aren't you proud to be an American?) maybe next week, we will set a time for you, with your husband, to meet me in the chat room and exchange emails. If you are on the West Coast, I am 3 hours ahead of you. Happy American Empire Conquest Day!

Sandles

sandlewould's picture
sandlewould 8 years 12 weeks ago
#24

MMmmNACHOS,

My G-ma ended her own life at age 87 after 8 failed hip surgeries that left her with a crushed sciatic nerve and in constant agony. It is hard. I totally agree Death with Dignity should be a civil right!

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 12 weeks ago
#25

Tom 1945 -- Thanks for that info. I didn't know there was enough ozone around to convert the methane in only 20 years.

You should also mention that it takes a lot more energy to convert water to water vapor. As I remember, it is 512 vs 80. This absorption of energy by evaporation also keeps the temperature steady. However, the water vapor creates tornadoes, floods, etc.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 12 weeks ago
#26

Welcome back, Nachos! When I first saw your post, I had to rub my eyes 'cuz I thought I was hallucinating. I don't think I'd been back on this forum as much as a week last fall before you disappeared. I figured something was up. Sorry to hear your family has been having such a rough time. I can relate; my mother suffered both dementia and incontinence at the end of her life. Yeah, it was difficult. Not a happy memory.

Anyway, I'm thrilled you're back. You were missed. This forum can use more of your kind of energy, with some of the (ahem) newcomers in this bloody circus. I don't know if you've had the time or inclination to follow what's been going on here, even on an occasional basis, but it's been lively. Always is when the right wingers climb onboard! Gives the rest of us plenty of pap to chew on and spit out. - Aliceinwonderland

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 12 weeks ago
#27

Hey Sandles, glad you found my messages. Would it be possible to do the chat room on a weekend? That's when our time is most flexible.

Your prediction as to the future of this blog sounds mighty gloomy. Oh how I wish I could dismiss it as an over-reaction! But given the environment we now find ourselves in, there's not much we can take for granted anymore.

I'm so angry at the FCC's impotence I could scream. That damned institution has been worthless, offering us little if any support in our struggle to keep the public airwaves open and democratic, as they were meant to be. We're losing our democracy, one paper cut at a time. It's stunning how petty and mean these oligarchs can be, like cutting off Thom's air conditioning! Wow. I really don't know what else to say but "Wow".

This blog has been great. I know that I've been pretty ornery much of the time. I'm passionate about so many of the issues Thom brings up, and some people can really trigger me. But it still has been great. I've connected and built rapport with many wonderful folks here; intelligent, articulate, eloquent, loving, courageous free spirits! They inspire me on a daily basis. They help me stay sane by reminding me that I'm not the "lone ranger". There really are kindred spirits all around this country who I've never met, many residing far, far away, who share my values and vision while struggling against the same adversarial forces. You guys know who you are.

Guess I've rambled long enough. In closing, I'd just like to thank Thom for all his fabulous work, not the least of which has been providing us this forum from which to debate, commiserate and vent. - Alice IW

Sven Mills's picture
Sven Mills 8 years 12 weeks ago
#28

Ooops, the climate has stopped warming, sea ice extent and volume has increased in the arctic this year, and there are increasing signs of a cooling period ahead.

A carbon tax will only benefit those who already appropriate the most wealth - fossil fuel extraction will continue as clean and green energy is so expensive given the feed in tariffs, subsidies, and high strike price/price per unit.

There will be no net benefit to the environment from a carbon tax, nor from an emission trading scheme.

Carbon capture and sequestration schemes are a good idea in theory, but in practice nature has been running a far more successful and efficient CCS scheme for hundreds or millions of years. We would be best to support that scheme and leave the money making ideas behind.

Given the net benefit of increased CO2 in vegetation growth, we would help far more if we started replanting and greening our environment - wasteland, brown field sites and retail/industrial/technical/business parks in urban areas, railway & motorway embankments and junction areas, supermarket land banks, scrubland not suitable to agricultural use, set-aside farm land, defence department land, etc.

If people really wanted to do their part, I would suggest as well as recycling and conserving energy (if only for common sense and budgetary reasons) not paving over their driveways and planting a few shrubs or trees would have the twofold benefit of greening their neighbourhood and in flood management and helping their local utility companies manage water run off .

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 12 weeks ago
#29

Climate has stopped warming? What does that mean? Does it mean global temperatures are lower? Does it mean GHG is no longer capturing energy? Does it mean the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere stopped? Does it mean the artic ice has melted and cooled off the artic sea - since melting ice takes 80 times the energy that it takes to raise the sea by 1 degree?

Sven Mills's picture
Sven Mills 8 years 12 weeks ago
#30

By the climate has stopped warming, I mean there has been no significant increase in average global temperatures in the last 17+ years - as per satellite data and as acknowledged by the IPCC. Failure to accept this would be to go against the so-called consensus.

'Stopped warming' doesn't mean temperatures are lower, but a cooling trend over the next couple of decades is not inconceivable and is looking more and more likely the longer the pause lasts.

The arctic ice has not melted, it has rebounded in extent and volume in the last year or so. Prior claims of no sea ice by now have proven false.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 11 weeks ago
#31

Sven -- Leveling off does not mean there is a cooling trend. You need to look at Prof Mullen's (sp?) work. He was paid a million bucks by the Koch's to disprove global warming. He tried for several years and saw it was hopeless. Of course what I have said is just verbage. He has a chart that shows every time the temp has decreased, leveled off, or slowed is due to other factors, mostly solar activities.

The climate scientists originally predicted the Artic Ice was to disappear in 2100. The last thing I heard was the artic ice is due to disappear this summer.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 11 weeks ago
#32

These climate deniers just never give up. Drill baby drill! Drown the Arctic in the bathtub! Fossil fuel rules! - AIW

Sven Mills's picture
Sven Mills 8 years 11 weeks ago
#33

Chuckl8 - I do not mention leveling off nor did I say there *is* a cooling trend (although recent NOAA findings from the USCRN dataset do show a cooling trend in the Contiguous US states over the last decade).

The main piece gives the impression and at times outright says we are experiencing warming when the IPCC acknowledges there has been no significant warming in 18 years.

I am also always surprised when people talk of disappearing sea ice at a time of increasing total sea ice cover. It's strange that never gets the mention it deserves.

Prof Mullen's charts showing natural factors controlling variation in temps at a time when there has been no significant global warming in nearly 2 decades would kind of suggest the climate change we are seeing is not solely man made, would it not? In most warmist' eyes that wouldmake him a denier, hideous descriptive that it is.

(And let us not forget that the funding issue is a smokescreen used to distract from proper discussion - even given the fact that so much more is spent on Pro-AGW propaganda and research than anti).

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 11 weeks ago
#34

Deny, minimize, deny-deny-deny! Lah-lah-lah.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 11 weeks ago
#35

Sven -- Facts would be nice. The best version of facts is numbers. Of course, the facts need to be interpreted and analyzed again and again. For example, "total sea ice cover". seems you are hoping that no one knows that more snow is happening in the antartic due to the warming of the sea. The total body of ice in the antartic is decreasing, but the thin layer of new snow increases the total sea cover.

Sven Mills's picture
Sven Mills 8 years 11 weeks ago
#36

Chuckle8 - Facts are always nice.

Like the fact that the IPCC state there is no proven correlation between extreme weather events and global warming, or that there has been no significant warming in nearly 18 years.

Or that there has been no increase in droughts or heatwaves or extreme weather events in the last couple of decades - admittedly, coverage of such events would seem to imply they are increasing, but the data says otherwise and anecdotal evidence is always trumped by data.

Or perhaps the facts and numbers of the NOAA UNCRN dataset which shows not only no warming in the contiguous US states in the last decade, but a cooling trend.

Or the UK HADCET data set that shows a cooling trend in winter temps in the last 20 years?

Or the fact that total body of ice in the Antartic is not actually decreasing, but is increasing?

Or the fact that the reduction of Arctic sea ice we have seen is not unprecedented as past records show - given that the NW passage has been open a number of times previously?

Or the fact that the 97% consensus has been debunked, but it still accepted by the media and promoted as if it were true.

Of the fact that the comments I made in my original comment on Thom's piece were factually correct?

I am not simply arguing for argument's sake, but am pointing out obvious issues in the climate change discussion. No benefit is gained by ignoring such issues or errata and the debate can only advance when such open discussion is permitted. Entrenched viewpoints need to be challenegd. Factual errors need to be addressed. Science is never settled. Debate is never over.

As you can no doubt see, I come at the topic from a sceptical viewpoint as that seems to me to be the most obvious stand to take, yet I am always looking to balance my viewpoint with others which is why I do not simply lurk around sceptic sites. Only reading opinions and discussions from one side of an argument merely propagandizes.

However, when I see BS - from either side - I call BS.

Such as the claim that the climate is not changing - for those very few who think it is and always has been stable only pointing out the facts of the variation we have seen can persuade. Or the claim that the environment is not an issue at all and that growth and the economy and national interests are all that is important.

Such as claims I have seen on these forums of us all facing our demise, or that we are all doomed, or a comment I have seen today lamenting that we cannot have a fix for the atmosphere that removes CO2 and replaces it with oxygen (a quite barmy and loony a comment as I have seen anywhere).

Open debate and honest discussion - when that is given a chance then much nonsense can be dispensed with.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 11 weeks ago
#37

So who is funding the IPCC; the fossil fuel industry, or some other polluting industries, or our bought-and-paid-for corporate fascist government, or all of the above? - AIW

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 11 weeks ago
#38

Sven -- I agree the 97% has been debunked. Bill Maher has shown the number should be 99.6%.

Quote Sven:Like the fact that the IPCC state there is no proven correlation between extreme weather events and global warming, or that there has been no significant warming in nearly 18 years.

This fact sounds a lot like the fact that there are death panels in the ACA.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 11 weeks ago
#39

AIW -- You should be asking who is interpreting it. Oh yeah, it is Sven.

Sven Mills's picture
Sven Mills 8 years 10 weeks ago
#40

Oh, well if Bill Maher says so it must be true.

New Rule - let's look at facts, eh instead of TV panel show hosts opinions?

Who funds the IPCC? It is a UN body, so that should be clear enough.

But overall, why is there a shying away from facts?

It is quite clear in the latest IPCC report that there is no confidence in a link between AGW and extreme weather.

It is quite clear from historical data that extreme weather events are not increasing in frequency or severity.

This is not my interpretation. This is in the data, the reports, the evidence.

How can tbhis be denied (for want of a better word)?

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 10 weeks ago
#41

Oh well, if Sven Mills says so it must be true. Or whatever. What seems clear to me is that you've your own interpretation of the "facts". Have a nice day, Mr. Mills. - AIW

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 10 weeks ago
#42

Sven -- You saying that the IPCC says it does not mean the IPCC says it. You seem to ignore my comment comparing what you say to the people saying there was a death panel in the ACA.

Bill Maher said there were something like 5500 articles in peer reviewed scientific journals dealing with climate change. 2 of them were from global warming deniers. This seems more factual than anything you have presented.

I should mention there are global warming almost deniers (who you would call deniers) that I agree with, I agree that if there were a super volcano anything we do with ancient sunlight exploiters would be meaningless. I agree in the same vane with a meteor striking the earth.

Sven Mills's picture
Sven Mills 8 years 10 weeks ago
#43

@Chuckle8

"You saying that the IPCC says it does not mean the IPCC says it."

What does that even mean? It is in the report and has been widely publicised.

"you seem to ignore my comment comparing what you say to the people saying there was a death panel in the ACA."

I ignored the death panel comment as it had no relation to reality or my comments.

How can my stating a known fact, easily verifiable, be equated with the death panel myth?

So called extreme weather events have decreased in numbers and severity. How can you doubt this? The stats are clear.

The IPCC says they have no confidence in a relation between extreme weather events and man made global warming. Are they deniers (horrible word that it is)?

"I should mention there are global warming almost deniers (who you would call deniers) that I agree with, I agree that if there were a super volcano anything we do with ancient sunlight exploiters would be meaningless. I agree in the same vane with a meteor striking the earth."

What are you on? What is your problem?

I would not call anyone a denier and have appended any mention of the word with a caveat stating I think it's use is wholly inappropriate.

I am trying to remain polite and civil here, but is English not your first language (not that that is a problem, but may explain your difficulty in understanding)? Is common sense and rational discourse not in your skill set?

'Bill Maher said.... seems more factual than anything you have presented" - Bill Maher said? You accuse me of not quoting facts (when I clearly state facts and reference sources) and then come out with something like "Bill Maher said...." and expect to be taken seriously? Think you're scoring points somehow?

Take a step back, dude. Chill a second. Read what you have written, examine your beliefs (for they are clearly based on a belief system) and try to reassess.

Whilst you're at it there is a website you must try: www.lmgtfy.com

I get more sense and understanding from my 10 year old.

Sven Mills's picture
Sven Mills 8 years 10 weeks ago
#44

It's not because I say it is true, Alice.

The facts are the facts, and what I have referenced is not my interpretation of the facts, but the facts.

Please feel free to dispute them, but I would expect at least some kind of evidence or data to do so.

People are welcome to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Extreme weather events? Not increasing.

AGW causing extreme weather events? Not according to the IPCC as stated in their report, or the UK Met Office (despite what their chief, Julia Slingo said).

The NOAA data showing a cooling trend in the contiguous US states? It's in the data.

No increase in average global surface temperatures in the last 17+ years? Acknowledged by the IPCC, the UK Met Office, just about every expert in the field, and even the temperature record.

You have a nice day, too - the weather is glorious with it being Summer and in no way an CAGW heatwave extreme weather event.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 8 years 10 weeks ago
#45

Kermit?

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 10 weeks ago
#46

Sven -- Other than a 10 yo, your blog is very lacking in numbers.

Quote Sven:How can my stating a known fact, easily verifiable, be equated with the death panel myth?

If it is so easy, would you mind giving me a page number in the IPCC or paragraph heading? Do you want me to read the entire IPCC report to tell you how you have been misled?

You have caught me. As I have said here before, my first language is fortran.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 8 years 10 weeks ago
#47

.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 8 years 10 weeks ago
#48

I know, cat got my tongue for a moment!

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 10 weeks ago
#49

Response to post #94, paragraphs #8 & #11 (excluding salutation): Mr. Mills. since English happens to be your first language, it's spelled "vein" not "vane".

Sven Mills's picture
Sven Mills 8 years 10 weeks ago
#50

*** Response to post #94, paragraphs #8 & #11 (excluding salutation): Mr. Mills. since English happens to be your first language, it's spelled "vein" not "vane". ***

Wow! Well done, Alice. You have totally demolished every single point I have made with scientific precision!

In a chain of 51 comments as post number 51 you have totally invalidated my points (by not addressing my points at all) by pointing out that I have made one typo in coment no. 94.

Is that the basis of your argument? Typos in other conversations?

You have proved me wrong. Well done.

Let's spend trillions on proving how wrong I was!

Jeez, and you wonder why the alrmists

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Today, we are closing Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a literary descendent of Ben Franklin and Tom Paine. His unflinching observations and deep passion inspire us to explore contemporary culture, politics, and economics; challenge us to face the facts of the societies we are creating; and empower us to demand a better world for our children and grandchildren."
John Perkins, author of the New York Times bestselling book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
Leonardo DiCaprio, actor, producer, and environmental activist
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann channels the best of the American Founders with voice and pen. His deep attachment to a democratic civil society is just the medicine America needs."
Tom Hayden, author of The Long Sixties and director, Peace and Justice Resource Center.