Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[FordGT90Concept]

Then have one:

Siberian Crater Mystery: Are Exploding Gas Pockets Really to Blame?

Thawing permafrost in Siberia may be letting off greenhouse gases, but scientists are skeptical that giant methane explosions are wrecking the landscape.

www.livescience.com

This methane from decomposition of ancient organic material shouldn't be confused with methane hydrates, which are ice lattices that have methane trapped inside.

Methane hydrates aren't likely to combust forming craters as observed.

Vasily Bogoyavlensky, a researcher at Moscow's Oil and Gas Research Institute, told the Siberian Times that giant craters observed in Siberia over the past few years could be thermokarsts created when decomposition gases, such as methane, put pressure on the overlying earth, causing dirt-covered ice hills called pingos to explode. But even if the craters are caused by melting permafrost, that mechanism of formation is just speculation, Abbott said.

 

[Grog6]

Methane hydrates aren't likely to combust forming craters as observed.

No, methane hydrates only form under pressure, under deep water, which precludes the whole explosion thing.

The blowups in Siberia, are due to methane permeating the underlying structure, before hitting that magic o2 mix.

Blowups Happen. ( That's also a really nice shortstory)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The idea of mammoths (or other large animals) decomposing makes a lot more sense than methane hydrates. Decomposition that was delayed because of permafrost would create a pressure chamber. The biological material of the animal is the fuel for the methane to form. The growing gas bubble can cause a temporary collapse which allows oxygen to enter it, fueling the detonation. Other than permafrost, the only other prerequisite is the soil composition being suitable to both fuel the decomposition and trap the gases. Easily explains why there are so many.

 

[Grog6]

Lol.

That's a lot of mammoth carcasses.

If you notice the pic, that's sedimentary rock or clay, the layers show the multiple years it took for formation.

Clay or sedimentary rock is impermeable, so whatever blew it out was under that layer.

These pits test high for methane, but it could have been another gas.

The soil on top is blown there by winds, or washed there by water flows and that much topsoil is at least 20,000 years or so. Depositation rates vary by area.

The mammoth carcasses would be on top of the sediment, not under.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The mammoth carcasses would be on top of the sediment, not under.

They wouldn't have suggested that to be the cause if they weren't likely to be found under. They likely radiocarbon dated the sediment layers where the gas bubble likely was and it matches the time frame large animals could have been present. The important thing is that they died and then froze (not decompose). Sediment covered them up over millennia. Then it warmed--the heat causing the frozen corpse to begin decomposition. This results in a pressurized methane gas chamber beneath the sealing sediment. There perhaps may not even be a fire--just explosive decompression.

That's just one theory anyway. We fundamentally don't know how or when these craters formed. The concern is that if the craters occurred because of the aforementioned theory, the thawing permafrost may be a minefield and as the permafrost continues to thaw, there may be more and more of these craters forming.

 

[Grog6]

I DO know how sedimentary rock forms, and how topsoil is created.

Apparently, whoever you're quoting does not.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Apparently, whoever you're quoting does not.

Do tell. Remember that these parts of Siberia had glaciers on them.

 

[Grog6]

Glaciers, no. Permafrost, yes.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Glaciers, yes.

Ice Age Maps showing the extent of the ice sheets

These maps show the rate at which the ice sheet over the British Isles during the last Ice Age melted. A set of maps created by the University of Sheffield have illustrated, for the first time, how the last British ice sheet shrunk during the Ice Age. Led by Professor Chris Clark from the...

donsmaps.com

Lake Black would become the Black Sea today which is north of Turkey. For reference:

Siberia was under ice about 100,000 years ago. Mammoths existed about 5 million years ago to as recently as about 4000 years ago. That's plenty of time for some to freeze to death and get covered by sediment, then compacted by glaciers into rock.

 

[Grog6]

OK; it you want to go THAT far back, so was North America down to about Kentucky.

Hell, the Great Lakes, the Grand Canyion, and several other features were carved out in That timeframe, lol.

Here in the US, the Tsunami from the Dinosaur extinction event went all the way to Chicago, so WTF.
That was only ~65million years ago, lol.

We don't seem to see those explosions like that here in NA, even tho the permafrost is melting, and we find a lot of mammoths, so I'm going to say this is Whataboutism at it's finest.

It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

The big question is; what killed all those mammoths so quickly and froze them so suddenly that they are fresh, and have undigested food in their stomachs?
(People have eaten the flesh, and not died in the past)

The Time 250,000-Year-Old Mammoth Was Served For Dinner

"The grand ballroom of the Roosevelt Hotel won't serve food like that again this year," wrote Herbert B. Nichols in the Christian Science Monitor on January 17, 1951. In fact, it probably hasn't served food like that ever since.

mentalfloss.com

(This article is wrong on the age of the meat; it was closer to 20,000 years, when carbon dated.)

No one believes Vellikovsky.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The mammoths came to North America about 200,000 years ago. The ones causing the craters are older than that.

They likely froze to death on the Siberian plains in a sudden winter storm.

 

[Grog6]

A storm that lasted for 200k years, right.

Woolly mammoth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The woolly mammoth coexisted with early humans, who used its bones and tusks for making art, tools, and dwellings, and the species was also hunted for food. It disappeared from its mainland range at the end of the Pleistocene 10,000 years ago, most likely through climate change and consequent shrinkage of its habitat, hunting by humans, or a combination of the two. Isolated populations survived on St. Paul Island until 5,600 years ago and on Wrangel Island until 4,000 years ago. After its extinction, humans continued using its ivory as a raw material, a tradition that continues today. With a genome project for the mammoth completed in 2015,[2] it has been proposed the species could be recreated through various means, but none of these is yet feasible. "

Amazingly enough, most of the research I'm familiar with is now buried on the internet by Creationist garbage.

If the world is only 6000 years old, why do these sites try to pin it so far back?

Lol.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

A storm that lasted for 200k years, right.

No, the cold did. Think about it: the mammoths that came to North America had to have crossed on ice. That means the ones that were buried to explode today had to have been buried long before that.

Anyway, frozen animals only explain some of the craters, not all of them. The size of some of the craters is staggering...and still growing.

There's a 'Doorway to The Underworld' in Siberia So Big It's Uncovered Ancient Forests

It's no secret that Siberia's permafrost is on thin ice.

www.sciencealert.com

UN convened on climate again:

'You have stolen my dreams,' an angry Thunberg tells U.N. climate summit

Teenage activist Greta Thunberg angrily denounced world leaders on Monday for failing to tackle climate change, unleashing the outrage felt by millions of her peers in the heart of the United Nations by demanding: "How dare you?"

www.reuters.com

Nevertheless, there were few new proposals from governments for the kind of rapid change climate scientists say is now needed to avert devastating impacts from warming. The summit has, by contrast, been marked by a flurry of pledges from business, pension funds, insurers and banks to do more.

IEA rings alarm bell on phasing out nuclear energy

A steep decline in nuclear energy capacity will threaten climate goals and power supply security unless advanced economies find a way to extend the lifespan of their reactors, the International Energy Agency said.

www.reuters.com

Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report

Nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of both cost and capacity as its reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions, an industry report said.

www.reuters.com

 

[FordGT90Concept]

This might be counter-productive...

Scientists endorse mass civil disobedience to force climate action

Almost 400 scientists have endorsed a civil disobedience campaign aimed at forcing governments to take rapid action to tackle climate change, warning that failure could inflict "incalculable human suffering."

www.reuters.com

 

[robot zombie]

This might be counter-productive...

Scientists endorse mass civil disobedience to force climate action

Almost 400 scientists have endorsed a civil disobedience campaign aimed at forcing governments to take rapid action to tackle climate change, warning that failure could inflict "incalculable human suffering."

www.reuters.com

“We need to be rethinking the role of the scientist and engage with how social change happens at a massive and urgent scale,” she said. “We can’t allow science as usual.”

Not sure what century they think they're in. She talks about it like we're in the literal dark ages. Also, this woman thinks she knows what science is and is not better than anyone else. In her mind, it has to be more than empiricism, rationalism, or skepticism... you know... observation, rigor, and application of knowledge. Including political activism definitely seems grounded... yep... definitely not a huge leap in rationale there.

I think by the time you're making claims like that, you're better off calling what you're doing something else... no? Or maybe you tack it on. I think in most people's eyes, you're no longer acting strictly as a scientist. You're activists with a science-centric ideology. Historically, science and activism have occasionally aligned with great strides made, usually in times of great oppression, but I don't think anyone ever claimed the activism itself WAS science. It was just FOR science. The goal wasn't necessarily to revolutionize science. Just open up a path for it, as it already existed.

And honestly, it's probably better if scientists stay dedicated to following the science. Civil disobedience, we've learned generally doesn't "bolster legitimacy" in these times. In spite of the goings on over on the internet these days, mob rule is still frowned upon, probably due to the storied history of collateral damage. That alone is probably going to lose the trust of anyone even slightly conservative. Though proposing justifications for undermining the government is a slippery slope no matter where you stand. Due process isn't perfect, but most people agree it is better than tribalism.

I'm still trying to figure out the meaning behind the vague statement "We can't allow science as usual." Not even sure what to say about that.

I dunno... maybe there are good intentions. And maybe it'll work out. But from where I stand it just comes off as sort of detached. Or maybe too fixated on the wrong things. The conforming majority is going to say these are the claims staked by crazy people. Just those two statements have a lot to bite into.

Counter-productive, to be sure...

 

[oobymach]

The sun is the only thing in our solar system large enough to affect earths climate. Manmade climate change is a lie designed to sell more taxes. Scientists in the 70's used the exact same data to "prove" we were going into another ice age. Anyone who believes in manmade climate change likely also still believes in santa claus. Co2 makes plants grow, they use it to make oxygen.

google co2 generators for greenhouses

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The problem is this:

We're adding more by burning fossil fuels than the environment can take out and we've been doing this for decades which has an additive effect. There is now ~50% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was pre-industrial era. We have to go back over 100s of millions of years in the geological record to find a time when CO2 was this high.

 

[SL2]

Co2 makes plants grow, they use it to make oxygen.

google co2 generators for greenhouses

Nice find, as if we didn't already know that. I learned that in school when I was 11 or so.

The sun is the only thing in our solar system large enough to affect earths climate.

You forgot the atmosphere, just to name one other thing.

 

[oobymach]

Nice find, as if we didn't already know that. I learned that in school when I was 11 or so.

You forgot the atmosphere, just to name one other thing.

It seems most people don't know plants turn co2 into oxygen.

The atmosphere can't change our climate. The only force in our solar system other than the sun that can affect our climate is the lack thereof. If a supervolcano erupts and causes nuclear winter, that will affect our climate, but short of a supervolcano blacking out the sky of the entire planet, no, we are not changing the climate.

If people are alive in china, we're fine. China is the worst polluter around, and they're still alive and thriving so again, no, we aren't changing our climate. We may be polluting the oceans beyond repair, we may be irradiating ourselves with uncontained leaks like fukushima and causing oceanic disasters like the BP oil spill (and continual pipeline ruptures leaking millions of gallons into rivers from every fucking oil pipeline they build), we may be stupid enough to bomb ourselves into the stoneage but no, we're not changing the climate.

The ONLY force that can affect our climate is the sun. See spaceweather.com for live solar updates.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Watch this:

Shows how much the level of CO2 changes every year.

 

[oobymach]

If there's too much co2, why do greenhouses need more? Because your data is falsified (everything that comes from NASA (a government institution) is pre-approved for public consumption, kind of like how CNN or FOX NEWS puts their own spin on everything), and everything you are told is a lie to control you.

 

[R-T-B]

It seems most people don't know plants turn co2 into oxygen.

I guess if you subscribe to the idea that manmade climate change is only for idiots, sure. Unfortunately for you it's really not that simple.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The atmosphere can't change our climate.

The atmosphere literally establishes climate. Why are mountain tops barren, for example? Because the atmosphere is too thin to support life. Why is Mars cold and lifeless? Because it's atmosphere is thin, dry, cold, and mostly comprised of CO2.

The only force in our solar system other than the sun that can affect our climate is the lack thereof.

The sun is an energy source.

If a supervolcano erupts and causes nuclear winter, that will affect our climate, but short of a supervolcano blacking out the sky of the entire planet, no, we are not changing the climate.

What do you think coal power plants belching out particulate matter do? Block the sun.

If there's too much co2, why do greenhouses need more?

Because the high density of plants causes the CO2 to be removed from the enclosed environment rapidly which means plants downwind get starved of it. If you watch the video, you see huge amounts of CO2 removed from the atmosphere during the spring for a lot of it to get dumped back in during the fall as leaves fall off of trees and decompose and crops are harvested leaving debris to decompose.

Let's also not forget that too much CO2 is a bad thing for some plants too:

Climate Change: Plants Choke on too Much Carbon

It looks like even for plants, there can be too much of a good thing. Trees and flowers use carbon dioxide (CO2) to make energy, absorbing the gas to help fuel the process of photosynthesis. For this reason, some experts have theorized that rising carbon levels will eventually promote plant growth.

www.natureworldnews.com

Sample crops, grasslands, and forests all seemed to lose some ability to absorb nutrients when exposed to rising CO2 levels in large-scale field experiments held in eight countries across four continents.

"The findings of the study are unequivocal. The nitrogen content in the crops is reduced in atmospheres with raised carbon dioxide levels in all three ecosystem types," Johan Uddling, a researcher with the University of Gothenburg, said in a statement.

This is why atmospheric CO2 continues to climb. The plants and oceans are doing all they can and it is not enough.

 

[R-T-B]

If there's too much co2, why do greenhouses need more?

I think you really misunderstand there is a massive difference between a greenhouse and the earth.

 

[oobymach]

I think you really misunderstand there is a massive difference between a greenhouse and the earth.

Dur hurr, one is bigger than the other, and if it's true that we have too much co2, plant life everywhere would be thriving without needing even more co2. What I'm saying is that all the information you've been given on the subject is wrong. If there were too much co2 we would all suffocate. Since we're not all suffocating then there's no way we're producing enough co2 to harm the planet.

Since we cannot even at full capacity produce enough co2 to harm the planet or ourselves or even slightly affect our own climate I submit that your claims are false.

Hell, people believe in chemtrails and that the earth is flat, it's no wonder we have people that believe everything they're told from television (tell-lie-vision).

Also, NASA (your friendly government institution) has been lying to you for the last 50 years, why would they suddenly tell you the truth now?

The funniest part about this post is that whoever made it is unfamiliar with 4th grade science. Many millions of years ago when there was a lot more CO2 in the air and the planet was much warmer, flowers much larger than you see today were blooming. Give a plant (hemp, for example) lots of CO2 and put it under heat lamps, and see what happens. It will thrive. Basic elementary school stuff here, people.

My point exactly, we aren't breaking temperature records every day, Florida last winter got so cold iguanas were falling frozen from the trees, we are far from being overrun by giant plants, it's human nature to panic when presented with the falsities we are now force fed on a daily basis.

Any fool can use photoshop to turn the jetstream red and red makes people panic (because the military uses red alert as the highest alert phase, it is ingrained in most normal humans). In 50 years when nothing has happened I'll be here in my robot body saying I told you so.