Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Slaughter in Connecticut: 20 Children, 6 Adults Dead in Kindergarten Massacre
- How the Mighty (Mississippi) Has Fallen: Historic Drought Plagues US
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Study: World's Mighty Giants Dying off at Alarming Rate
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Remember All the Children, Mr. President
- Save the Children: Tears and Tragedy in Connecticut
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pakistan: Flood Fatigue Closes Eyes to New Disaster
KARACHI - Men and women wading through waist-deep water with infants straddling their sides; a convoy of donkey carts laden with entire families’ possessions moving towards dry land; people being rescued by uniformed men in rubber boats; ailing elderly carried on rope cots; bird’s-eye views of vast tracts of land submerged under water.
Shaista, a three-year-old girl, displaced by floods, holds a drink of water as she takes refuge with her family in a camp for flood victims in the Badin district of Pakistan's Sindh province September 23, 2011. The latest floods, triggered by monsoon rains, have killed more than 230 people, destroyed or damaged 1.2 million houses and flooded 4.5 million acres (1.8 million hectares) since late last month, officials and Western aid groups say. More than 300,000 people have been moved to shelters. Some 800,000 families hit by last year's floods are still homeless. Aid groups have warned of a growing risk of fatal diseases. (REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro) The televised images of such enormous devastation in Pakistan may well have been reruns from last year, but they aren’t. Rather, the glaring pictures of helplessness, starvation, disease and death captured this past month mark the second straight year of floods wreaking havoc on 17 of the Sindh Province’s 23 districts, leaving 11 of them completely inundated.
As water levels remain stagnant throughout much of the province, which experts say is facing worse flooding than last year, official figures estimate that eight million people have been affected and 600,000 homes totally destroyed.
The death toll has already hit 400 since the floods began in August.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the United Nations food agency, claims the rains have destroyed 73 percent of the region’s crops and 67 percent of food stocks.
"I foresee growing food insecurity in Pakistan as there has been significant damage to cotton and sugarcane; vegetables and fodder have been destroyed and it will not be possible to cultivate wheat in November either," says Dr Bakshal Lashari, director of the Institute of Water Resources Engineering & Management at Mehran University in the Sindh’s Jamshoro district. "The rural economy of Sindh depends on agriculture and livestock and both have been severely affected," he told IPS.
According to the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), over 94,000 heads of livestock have perished, with "many more at risk of dying if they don’t get fodder and are not vaccinated against disease," said Lashari.
In the days to come, he added, this significant loss of agricultural land and livestock will impact not only the lives of those directly affected by the floods, but the whole country.
Yet the disaster has failed to move the international community or the people of Pakistan to dig deep into their pockets. The response towards the victims has been, at best, half-hearted. The United Nations effort to raise 357 million dollars has resulted in the collection of just 19 million dollars.
One possible explanation for this apathy could be the dearth of news reporting from the flood-affected areas, leading people to believe that the floods aren’t as bad as last year’s, which submerged a fifth of the South Asian country and directly affected 21 million people.
"People are simply not aware how bad it is as the media is not highlighting it...floods don’t sell," said Faisal Kapadia, a young entrepreneur, talking to IPS. Now, he says the "trust factor" has decreased because the "mainstream media, instead of encouraging private and public philanthropic ventures, choose to focus on incidents of corruption and (mismanagement) of relief efforts in Pakistan, (even though) this takes place everywhere in the world."
Last week the private television channel DawnNews ran a four-hour telethon about the floods for two days, but Sophia Jamal, one of the programme’s hosts, said the whole exercise was not only "quite painful" but futile: "People called in to chat or ask what the government was doing. I had half a mind to ask them what they were doing for their part," she told IPS.
Beyond simple indifference to the plight of flood-affected victims, experts believe that the government’s mismanagement of the relief effort last year may have led some to turn their backs on the current crisis.
Speaking to IPS, Mubashir Akram, spokesperson for the UK-based charity Oxfam said experts developed an exhaustive plan for modern disaster risk reduction (DRR) steps after the 2010 floods, which the government failed to implement.
Among the nine priority areas identified by the NDMA were institutional and legal arrangements for disaster risk management (DRM), hazard and vulnerability assessment, setting up a multi-hazard early warning system, mainstreaming DRR into development, capacity development for post-disaster recovery, training, education and awareness.
"The measures would have required spending just 30 million dollars then and would have saved billions of dollars now," he said.
The NDMA has reported that the government still has 56.8 million dollars left from last year’s fund, which it failed to release when people needed it most. Former NDMA chairman Nadeem Ahmed said "bureaucratic hitches" led to the non-utilisation of the funds.
Naeem Sadiq, Karachi-based businessman was among the many urbanites who "saw the destruction and helplessness of inundated millions on such a large scale" for the very first time with his own eyes. Along with a few prominent philanthropists, he formed a group that conducted flood relief and rehabilitation work until the onset of the floods this year.
He too has observed a significant waning of enthusiasm or a "tragedy burnout". "Some level of desensitisation and some fatigue, which is natural, have crept in this time," Sadiq told IPS.
"Donor fatigue is a major issue," agreed Kapadia. "People are tired of one disaster after another hitting this land. The economic conditions are very bad so people are donating less this time than last year, simply because they have less."
But not everyone is feeling the dip in enthusiasm. Businessman Salim Tabani and his like-minded friends remain are working to provide immediate relief. In 2010 they distributed rations to 150,000 people over a period of three months. "In addition we finished building 1,000 wooden homes and 30 concrete ones for those whose homes were completely destroyed last year," he said.
This year the group has collected about 20 percent of what they had gathered in 2010, primarily from the same donors. He finds "the excitement is less this year. I guess people are now used to these natural crises."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
97 Comments so far
Show AllExaggerations and lies, with no scientific basis, to serve the geoengineering agenda of your corporate masters.
Everything I have posted comes from highly qualified scientists... Which of them is exaggerating and lying Null? .
Dr Geoengineering Troll is lying. Not one citation he has produced supports his key lie: that a methane catastrophe is imminent, that an abrupt methane release will result from the loss of Arctic sea ice. Yet he persists with this lie, and with the lie that scientists agree with this lie.
Such alarmism serves multiple purposes, all of which are in the interest of the right-wing think tanks Dr Geoengineering Troll is working for.
Dr Geoengineering Troll seeks to discredit any commenters who prefer to limit the discussion to assertions which the science supports.
Defeatism, such as expressed in Dr Geoengineering Troll's first post in this thread, is useful as an antidote to activism.
Crazy assertions such as Dr Geoengineering Troll is prone to may be cited by right-wing websites as typical of the CD community.
Dr Geoengineering Troll regularly uses the false emergency he concocts in order to advocate SRM - the deliberate pollution of the stratosphere.
Good job, troll.
Here is just one comment written by a highly respected scientist, a oceanic bio-chemist, Dr. Natalia Shakova... A comment which fully backs up what I have psted that melting permafost will insure the methane will release. I only quote the scientists about that... NO LIES !
From Dr.Shakova... ("As the atmosphere warms, the (permafrost) that has locked in (methane gas) in wetlands and beneath continental shelves (melts),,,, (releasing more methane),,, which then warms the planet more.").
To help assist the obtuse Aleph Null understand that comment ,, he should (conncentrate) on the words Shakova says,,, permaftrost-- methane-- melts-- releasing more methane.
It's impossible to repeat it enough times to get through to Dr Geoengineering Troll, but Shakova's statement clearly says nothing about when or how quickly this will happen. She has not commented on that issue, other than to conclude, in her last peer-reviewed study, that Arctic methane emissions are not yet globally significant.
It is an outright, outrageous lie to imply that Dr Shakova, who is a highly respected researcher working for the NSF, endorses Dr Geoengineering Troll's insane notion that a methane catastrophe is imminent. It's one of the lies Dr Geoengineering Troll quite commonly engages in:
Shakova says if 1% of ESAS methane is released into the atmosphere, it would be catastrophic.
See, Shakova said there would be a catastrophe.
No. This is not the first time and probably won't be the last time I have to say this: when someone says "If a meteor hits the earth, it would be catastrophic," it does not mean "A meteor will hit the earth."
That is correct, Dr. Shakova did not state exactly (when) that will happenand she said three years ago it is not yet alarming.. Three years ago the Arctic permafrost was not melting near as rapidly as it is now.
Dr. Shakova stated as the permafrost melts the methane will release Something you Null say no scientists have ever stated. It is not just the Arctic sea ice that is the issue.
Since the Arctic will be ICE FREE within the next three to four years, which includes the sub sea permafrost where most of the most troubling methane deposits are located, it is clearly obvious that the vast amounts of methane will have to release in that 3 to 4 year time frame.
Other scientists both you and I have quoted say, "if only 2% of the Arctic's methane releases it will cause a catastrophic disaster"
No sensible or reasonable, intelligent person would believe when the Arctic is ice free that only 2% of the once safely locked in frozen permafrost will escape and cause a catastrophic disaster,,, as is clearly stated in articles ~Aleph Null~ also posted this past week.
Dr.Shakova stated "if only (a fraction) releases it will be catastrophic", as has Dr Semiletov stated the same thing... None of the 400 scientist they have lead disagree with them... It is always far better to be safe than to be sorry... A mass extintion of life you have acknowledged may happen becausse of methane "burps" will be a very, very sorry event Aleph Null.
Another very inportant fact is,,, the sub sea permafrost can thaw faster than the upper sea ice, because the Arctic Ocean waters' are now warmer than they have ever been since records have been recorded. They are warmer than minus 32 degrees F. The permafrost is melting, even in the winter months.
Aleph Null wrote about me the following lie..("Dr Geoengineering Troll regularly uses the false emergency he concocts in order to advocate SRM - the deliberate pollution of the stratosphere. ")
I never heard of SRM until Aleph Null brought up the subject this past week and I have never in my life suggested any such thing... So Aleph Null is lying,,, again....I willl protest his continual lying about me here at CD..
Several times in this very thread you have advocated technological intervention to cool the earth. Technological interventions of this kind are commonly referred to as geoengineering. Interventions to cool the earth (rather than draw down CO2) are called Solar Radiation Management (SRM).
You're able to advocate something before going to the trouble of learning the terminology used to designate the thing you are advocating. Your ignorance is truly breathtaking.
No Null, several times I have statesd "scientists must find a way to stop the Arctc's methane from releasing and the onlyway I know of todo that, not being a scientist, is to artifically cloud the Arctic and have stated I do not believe any way can be found to safelydo that.
I have never in my life advocated using SRM or other geoengineering methods to accomplish that (safely).
I havee only once suggested we take a look at the Silver Lining project, which does not use (SRM) and yet found that idea to not be a safe method to artifically cloud the arctic
So when you keep saying that I troll for geoengineering, or that I advocate using (SRM), it is a lie,,,, (your lie) ~Aleph Null~.... I do not and have not said anything other than that which I have just staated here on this comment about "geoengineering".
I have also said several times, I do not believe any geoengtineering program will be safe., but unless SCIENTISTS figure a method to prevent the Arctc's methane from releasing within the next three to four years, we will very likely have another mass extintion of life on Earth.
Today Joe Romm published an interesting interview with Ken Caldeira, a prominent geoengineering consultant. Some excerpts:
Most carbon dioxide removal proposals are either expensive or marginally effective (e.g., massive planting of trees), but most of these proposals do not pose new kinds of climate risk. In contrast, the sunlight reflection approaches introduce a range of new environmental and political risks, and therefore should be treated differently.
If... we are speaking about the sunlight reflection approaches, then I still think it unlikely that these would ever be deployed unless there is some kind of crisis... even if the system worked as advertised, there is still great potential that socio-political risks could outweigh climate benefits.
Of course, the system will not work as advertised. The Earth system is much more complex than any model, and so we can expect surprises to occur if a system is deployed. This adds another layer of risk.
So, there is a danger if people come to believe that carbon dioxide removal or sunlight reflection methods can substitute for emissions reduction. Outside of a few nutters, I don’t think anybody thinks that the prospect of deploying these approaches means it is OK to relax and that we can continue dumping our waste CO2 into the atmosphere.
Caldeira is a thoughtful, cautious scientist. The danger that we will engage in risky Solar Radiation Management (SRM) forms of geoengineering rises as the perception of global emergency rises. It's nearly a double-bind: there needs to be enough of an emergency for the world to seriously initiate carbon reductions, but not so much that we wind up cutting our own throat with some SRM scheme.
The nutters among us like Dr Geoengineering Troll seek to persuade us that we're already in an emergency, that the time has come for SRM.
You certainly are stuck on the "geoengineering" theme ~Aleph Null~.
I have written that I believe scientists MUST find a SAFE way to stop the Arctic methane from releasing and not being a scientist, the only method I know of to do that is to artificially cloud the Arctic in the summer months and allow the Arctic's ice to recover and stop the rapid release of methane gas,,, which will set off or trigger a feedback loop to global warming and we will then not be able to do anything to prevent a runaway GW,,, which will result in another mass extintion of life on Earth, somthing you have previously stated is very possible Null.
I have suggested we discuss the Silvver Lining program, but after reading about it have decided as you have that it will not be a safe method to cloud the Arctic and have said that, a comment you read and replied to.... That is the ONLY geoengineering thing I have (ever) spoken of in my entire 78 years .
I don't believe any geoengineering program will be safe or will suffice to prevent the release of (trillions of tons) of methane into our atmosphere and Dr. Hansen's suggestions will not work in time to prevent that catastrophic disaster either... So that is where we stand..
Unless scientists can find a (safe method) to prevent the Arctic methane from releasing by less than 2% within the next three to five years, we are ALL permenantly screwed. And that disaster is definently going to happen, in spite of your contnual denials.
Here are two other comments YOU recently posted ~~Aleph Null~~...(" We have Tamino's methane analysis. Tamino is a widely respected authority on the application of statistical analysis techniques to climate data. He shows a global methane uptick which began in 2007. One of the more disturbing opinions I've seen.")
And you also wrote this Null.... ("There is enough heat "in the pipeline" from human emissions already that you have to go back to the Miocene epoch - more than 5 million years ago - to find a precedent... Hominids emerged during the Miocene. Should AGW (destabilize geologic methane), we stand a chance of raising temperatures beyond what they were in the Eocene epoch - 55 million years ago. The order of primates emerged during the Eocene.").
Yes indeed ~Aleph Null~, we stand a very, very good chance to do that within just the next three to five years and 55 million years ago when tha toccurred was the last mass extintion of life on Earth... So far it was the last.
But don't with any reason or common sense discuss (any methods) to prevent that disaster from occuring, discuss it with honesty, friendliness, intelligence and civilty... Be what you have shown yourself to be here on this and another CD thread Null, an obnoxious, attacking persson, who says one thing one day and reverses your words the next day, if someone has the gall to disagrees in any manner with your and Dr. Hansens's opinions.
You have written the insulting words that I am dispicable, a kook, a prostitute or a whore, a geoengineering doctor, etc, etc, etc, but much of what I have posted here in regards to the Arctic's methane threat, you have posted the same on anothrer thread here at CD
You are lying about me Aleph Null, to satisfy your false agenda, which is in full support of big oil and shipping corporations, and or also, your warped and egotistical bulying nature. Which btw Null, I find to be very, very ammusing..., So rave on with your insults and nonsense, whatever makes your heart throb ~Aleph Null~ .
Dr Geoengineering Troll wrote:
I don't believe any geoengineering program will be safe or will suffice to prevent the release of (trillions of tons) of methane into our atmosphere and Dr. Hansen's suggestions will not work in time to prevent that catastrophic disaster either.
This is despicable defeatism. It is based on an insane expectation of inevitable catastrophe, similar to that of a rapture preacher. If this is all you have to say, it would be far more constructive for you to just shut up.
I really hate the geoengineering advocacy, because it is and will prove enormously destructive. But if you let go of that and still retain your end-of-days fanaticism, you have nothing to contribute which helps anyone considering practical solutions to the global warming problem - solutions which are within reach, contrary to your sick bleating.
What I find to be very disturbing is there have been no further words published by the ISSS teams since 2009 that I can find and I also suscribe to Journal Science and when going to the NSIDC news website, we can only find comments posted in 2011 and those comments were from articles written in the years 2010 and prior, most were writtenn in 2009
Who is gagging them? __ As was done to the scientists in Australia and New Zealand with threats up to including death threats, unless they shut up about the GW issue.
A little bit ago I heard that S&S were heading out on a new expedition. Now we're starting to here some remarks about what they're finding:
VLADIVOSTOK, September 26 (Itar-Tass) — A Russo- US expedition which visited the eastern sector of the Arctic seas found powerful methane emissions in the northern sector of the Laptev and Bering seas, expedition Chief Igor Semiletov, who represents the Far Eastern Institute of Ocean studies under the Russian Academy of Sciences and University of Alaska Fairbanks, told Itar-Tass by telephone from board the Akdemik Lavrentyev research ship.
"Methane torches" have been running up from the depth of the ocean with methane emitted into the air, Semiletov said. Possibly, methane comes from the depth of the Earth crust, which is a sign of a strong seismic activity in this region, Semiletov said.
Heavy methane emissions found in Arctic Eastern sector
The corporate media has a general policy of ignoring climate scientists in general. There doesn't need to be a specific gag on the ISSS team, because there's an effective gag on nearly everyone.
At any rate, this talk of seismic activity releasing "methane torches" from deep in the Earth's crust is nearly enough to scare the shit out of (even) me. Isostatic rebound causes Greenland to rise as its ice melts, leading to local earthquakes. Possibly, Semiletov is discovering an unanticipated mechanism of methane release, something that could overturn Archer's results. If it's significant, we should see a bump in the global methane data.
At this point I have to trust the global methane data from NOAA ESRL. If I start distrusting nearly all the scientists, than I don't have any firmer foundation for my knowledge than the denialists have.
Aleph Nulol, you wrote what Semiletov said,,,(""Methane torches" have been running up from the depth of the ocean with methane emitted into the air, Semiletov said. Possibly, methane comes from the depth of the Earth crust, which is a sign of a strong seismic activity in this region, Semiletov said").
When referring to the (Arctic methane) however, Drs.Semiletov and Shakova have both also said, ("If only a fraction of the trillions of tons of Arctic methane releases it will be catastrophic.") ... I agree with them.
If you were capable of comprehending what others write Null, you would have noted I never mentioned the MSN... I referred to the ISSS not having a report since the year 2009 and the NSIDC website not having anything on their news website that is current or even for the year 2011,
And what is the CURRENT Arctic methane data from the government controlled NOAA Aleph Null? __ And why have you cited so many other scientists other than the NOAA this past week about the Arctic methane threat Null? __ BS again Null. Haa haa haa all over again. And you tell me to just shut up. L m a off.
I see you are still citing references one has to pay for to read,, which violates CDs comment policy.
You poor confused soul, babbling incoherently. Perhaps after you sober up some remote corner of your cobweb-strewn mind can take this in: nobody here has the slightest idea what you're talking about. What is the purpose of submitting posts that nobody can understand?
Null is talkning to himself again... When a shill doesn't have an answer to the issue they attack with gubberish and insults.... From reading all of the prior comments there is noone here who has agreed with Null.... On the other hand.... Well, never mind it is useless to attempt to have an adult intelligent discussion with someone who has a mind set to stick with a flawed agenda they support. Big oil would support Null but they don't post comments here, just their shills do that.
This from Dr Geoengineering Troll, who has openly advocated deliberate pollution of the ocean and atmosphere several times in this very thread, in service to the right-wing think tanks which share his ecocidal agenda.
That is not true, show us where I have posted that once, anyplace, ever. :
We both know that most likely noone else is reading these comments now Null, but if any are, everything I posted is here to read and what you wrote is false, and you know it is false.... So what does that truely make you Aleph Null?
At the risk of touching off another incomprehensible outburst from the resident mean drunk, this chart shows current atmospheric methane, as monitored by the NOAA Earth Systems Research Lab at Mauna Loa:
CHx Methane
The current level is 1.82 ppm. Multiply by 72 to get the amount of CO2 with the same global warming potential over 20 years: 131 ppm. If atmospheric methane were to triple, it would equal the short-term forcing of CO2 today (at 391 ppm). Such an increase would be catastrophic.
No researcher anticipates a tripling of atmospheric methane within 20 years. Semiletov has informally hypothesized a seismic source of methane plumes he's observed over the past month, which could represent an unanticipated methane-release mechanism. The mechanics of melting Arctic sea ice are anticipated by analysts who have evaluated the likelihood of a catastrophic methane release (e.g. Archer, 2007). In 2006, Maslowski predicted that by 2016 (plus or minus three years) Arctic sea ice would decline to less than 20% of its historic extent - which he considers an essentially sea-ice-free Arctic.
Serious students of the cryosphere will take pains to distinguish between a sea-ice-free Arctic (in summer months) and an ice-free Arctic. An ice-free Arctic would mean the disintegration of Greenland's ice-sheet and several meters of sea-level rise - a process expected to take a couple of centuries under the most pessimistic projections.
Nobody is quite sure about the exact structure of methane deposits on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS), the region upon which Shakova and Semiletov have focused because it represents the most immediate methane threat. The recent study Shakova (2010) contends that a subsea permafrost lid over ESAS methane deposits is becoming perforated, releasing as much methane as the rest of the world's oceans.
But terrestrial sources of methane vastly outweigh marine sources, and Shakova (2010) concludes by saying "the current estimate is not alarmingly altering the contemporary global CH4 budget." Shakova has said that ESAS methane stores are so large that if only 1% were released into the atmosphere, it would increase global methane levels 3 or 4 times. But neither Shakova nor anyone else has predicted that a loss of Arctic summer sea-ice will lead to a rapid release (in less than 20 years) of this much methane.
Those who imply otherwise are misrepresenting the current state of scientific knowledge, or relying on non-scientific sources.
~~Aleph Null~~ did not state the NOAA report HE posted,,, (does not) refer to the coming release of CH4 in vast quantities from the melting Arctic permafrost.
From a link I have previously posted on this thread,,, ("Dr Dlugokencky who is in charge of NOAA's global network of methane monitoring stations, is sometimes referred to as ,,,"the keeper of the world's methane",,, said the following.
(“Atmospheric levels of methane, the greenhouse gas which is much more powerful than carbon dioxide, have risen significantly for the last three years running leading to fears that a major global-warming "feedback" is beginning to kick in.
For some time there has been concern that the vast amounts of methane, or "natural gas", (locked up in the *frozen* tundra of the Arctic) could be released as the (*permafrost is melted*) by global warming.... This would give a huge further impetus to climate change, an effect sometimes referred to as "the methane time bomb".”)... End Dr. Dlugokencky's comments.
Atmospheric methane CH4 will more than triple if only 3% escapes from the rapidly melting permafrost in the Arctic Siberian Shelf region alone and that is going to happen within the next three to four years.
I would refer any who may read these comments by myself and Aleph Null to read my comments posted at 11:24pm on Oct 7 and at 5:20 pm on Oct 8.
And who is being mean,, rude,, childish and obtuse with me and others here? I have never been drunkin my life btw, nor have I ever used any mind altering drugs, nor have I ever been a shill for anyone... Nor have I ever lied about anything or anybody with any comments I have ever posted on any internet website.
Perhaps you can post more insane insults in reply to that post ~Aleph Null~, which shoots your prior post down in flames?
Come on now bud, think of something,,, or just go away in the shame you should have after all of the obnoxious, lying slurs and insults you have tossed at me and others on this thread,,, and another thread.
~~Aleph Null~~ replied to ~Michael Desautels~ with ("we must have faith"), mentioning the term "faith" several times, like a Bible thumper TV preacher as the cure for the soon to arrive disaster.
Null also was the first poster on that thread, giving a speil of stop drilling for oil, as if when the Arctic is ice free, which Null apparently approves, the Oil Barons won't be drilling for oil and if Dr. James Hansen's proposals are ever adopted world wide, they will have at least until the year 2100 to ruin the Arctic, 88 more years.
Well actually that is what the Oil Barons think,,, they will have three to four more years like everyone else unless scientists manage to find a (safe) method to prevent the mass release of methane from the rapidly thawing Arctic's permafrost, both on land and sub-sea.... Just have "faith" folks and vote yes on Dr. Hansen's 88 year long program.. tt tb
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/methane-levels-may-see-runaway-rise-scientists-warn-1906484.html
From that article,,,("Methane levels may see 'runaway' rise, scientists warn… Atmospheric levels of methane have risen significantly for the last three years running “)..... But Null says I’m a crazy, drunken, scum liar when I quote scientists such as the ones listed in that article.
Null wrote, "we simply must stop burning fossil fuels, specifically by 6% a year"....The Oil and Coal Barons would be rolling on the floor in laughter at that suggestion. They would hire people to write such garbage as that... 6% a year will never prevent the Arctic from becoming ice free within the next 4years,, it may help a little in 88 more years,,, of course that wil be way too late and Null should realize that. Think he does?
Wayne,
There's nothing wrong with a non-scientist reading up on matters of interest and honestly sharing his impressions. But the bar for honesty is necessarily higher when discussing scientific matters. It has to be, because we are awash in denialists distorting the science to create an impression that there's nothing to be concerned about. If I let it pass when someone concerned about AGW distorts the science, then I have no business challenging the distortions of someone denying AGW.
Ethical concerns mandate that even the appearance of misrepresentation must be avoided. You don't describe the findings of "most scientists" unless you're prepared to cite a survey to that effect. You don't describe the findings of "some scientists" unless you're prepared to provide the citations. And you don't imply that when a scientist said A, he must have meant B - if he had meant B he would have said B. Violations of all of these principles are common in the denialist community.
There is plenty of science to back up the warranted concerns of those who are concerned. There is no need for concerned students of AGW to distort the science, as there is for denialists.
Case in point: you apparently want to share your impression that without a technological intervention (i.e. geoengineering) of some kind, a methane catastrophe will begin in 4 years. How can this be expressed honestly? There are two points of difficulty (in reverse order):
You need to be absolutely clear on the basis for your methane catastrophe claim. If it's a scientific opinion, provide the unambiguous, direct citation. If it's the guess of a nonprofessional, that's okay too - only have the decency to say so, to state that you are not qualified to speculate about, say, sub-sea permafrost dynamics, because you have no formal training.
The part about the unspecified technological intervention is slippery. Depending on the technology, initial deployment may take more than four years. After deployment, it's impossible to assess the vital question of whether the technology in question could have a chance of averting the methane catastrophe you foresee, because there's no specific technology in question. The ethical problem here is that it's easy to create the impression that a technological intervention could be effective, when there is no basis for that implication.
I am interested in attacking your lies, not you. As abhorrent as I find the idea of geoengineering, your advocacy of geoengineering will not motivate me to attack you, only the idea. But you exhibit a lack of integrity when you continually lie. If you tell no more lies, I will no longer be attacking them.
Just because YOU say "I lie",,, means nothing at all ~AlephNull~.... You for example explained why you didn't attack ~~Manysummits~~ AKA ~~Michael Desautels~~, because he didn't say so and so... Bull-shit!...You attacked (coco) here as nastily as you did me and she seldom posts any comments but she agreed with me... So you attacked her.
The last link I posted where scientists say,,, ("Methane levels may see 'runaway' rise, scientists warn… levels of methane have risen significantly for the last three years running was published in 2010... Ch4 has continued to rise even more so in 2011, read all of the articles in the links I have posted.
Those scientist also state it is a most serious problem and it may cause a mass extinction of life on Earth just as occurred 55 million years ago.. (And you ~Aleph Null~, have posted those same words on an earlier thread.)… Those are the words and opinions of scientists I have repeated here, they are not lies, unless you are saying all of those scientists I have quoted are liars.
You like the professional GW deniers are playing semantics with words, word games... I have said scientists have stated the Arctic methane releases as the permafrost melts... When the Arctic is ice free in three to four more years a lot more than just 2% of the Arctic's methane will have to release. That will be a catastrophic disaster,,, different word use, the meaning of how I worded it is the same meanings as the scientists words are warning of a catastrophic disaster,
A prime example of your word games is you wrote I had posted the following,,, ("Lie number one: "What the scientists have said, more than once, is as the sea ice melts off, the sub-sea permafrost melts... Those scientists comments were made three years ago, before the Arctic sea ice was receding as rapidly as it now is." ) Then you added this question,,, ("Please prove me wrong, and show that this is not a lie. Provide the citation: which scientist said it, and what exactly did he say? It would be quite strange for a scientist to say any such thing three years ago, as knowledge of the state of sub-sea permafrost is extremely tentative even today.")
I have already posted the link for the scientist who said (*this year*).,,,("Dr Dlugokencky who is *(in charge*) of NOAA's global network of methane monitoring stations, is sometimes referred to as ,,,(*"the keeper of the world's methane"*),,, said the following,,,, (“Atmospheric levels of methane have risen significantly for the last three years running, leading to fears that a major global-warming "feedback" is beginning to kick in..........For some time there has been concern that the vast amounts of methane, or "natural gas", (locked up in the *frozen* tundra of the Arctic) could be released as the (*permafrost is melted*) by global warming.... This would give a huge further impetus to climate change")
Did you ~Aleph Null~ happen to comprehend the words that scientists said, (locken in the frozen tundra) and (permafrost is melted)??? Did you notice that scientist is the one who furnishes the NOAA with their information about the atmospheric methane level???? You probably didn't comprehend it,,, but I put (**) around the key words for you Mr. Null.
Now finally Aleph Null,,,those scientists in the links I have already posted here, are some of the scientists I have quoted and so I suppose they are all lying in your estimation... You need help Null... Manysummits shot you down with your question you asked him in your snotty and superior attitude manner, by askingyou if further elaboration of wha the meant was necessary.
Five times you have explicitly lied just recently. I have explicitly pleaded with you to prove me wrong on any of them. Instead you pile more on, moron.
"methane could be released as the permafrost is melted"
"as the sea ice melts off, the sub-sea permafrost melts"
You're going to tell me that these statements are equivalent? Where is the scientist who says that as the sea ice melts, so will the permafrost? This is a very simple request which you refuse to understand.
I have posted what the scientist who is considered by his peers to be the top methane expert on the planet... He has stated. when the permafrost melts the methne releases., so have the 400 scientists on the ISSS teams agreed with Drs. Semiletov and Shakova who say the same.
The Arctic's sub sea permafrost has been melting faster than the sea ice. The ocean waters are often warmer than the surface temperature and are above freezing...That is one of Dr. Shakova's comments and I do believes one thing you posted on a previous thread, Mr. Null.
You tell us where anyone with any common sense at all, would say when the Arctic is ice free,, that the permafrost will still be frozen.... You are totally ignoring the comments of the scientist I just quoted for you btw... Bye Null.
I'm still waiting for the citation which backs up this line of crap:
Lie number one: "What the scientists have said, more than once, is as the sea ice melts off, the sub-sea permafrost melts."
While you're at it, here's another lie:
Lie number six: "The Arctic's sub sea permafrost has been melting faster than the sea ice."
The lie here is your false attribution of this to Shakova. She never said it. Prove me wrong. Produce the citation, for once. It's as if you think one lie is made up for by telling ten more.
Continued with the reply to a person who cannot comprehend what otheres write, such as myself and Michael Desautels for just two of several I have noticed.
AlephNull wrote what I had previously posted,,,, (Lie number four: "In addition; you have posted some of the same links I have on another thread and have said much of what I have posted here." ),,,Null then added with this comment.... ("Please prove me wrong and show me where any link either of us has provided quotes a scientist who thinks a methane catastrophe is 4 years off.")
Not one single scientistst had given a year or date when the feedback loop of no return will happen, none I know of... Many of our best scientists have stated, "when the Arctic's permafrost melts, the methane will escape into the atmosphere." They have also stated the Arctic will most likely be ice free within three to four years.
When the Arctic is (ice free) the methane will have to release and by far more than just 2% when the Arcti is (ice free)...The methane has to release when the permafrost has melted and it will melt as the Arctic is ice free,,,.any dummy can understand that.
I know that nothing I post, no matter whom I cite will make any difference to Aleph Null... He/she will continue to call me a liar, a troll, scum, dispicable, a whore or a prostitute, a drunk, scum, and or any other term he/she can think of... But that is strictly his/her problem... I won't waste any more time replying to his other comments about he/she saying I'm a liar.
Just the fact Null has twice said I'm a drunk, is enough evidence to show he/she is not a reliable person, as he/she does not know anything at all about my personal behavour... When commenters resort to that sort of attacks, they are not credible and are grasping at straws to prove they are correct.
Clearly you are now caught in the lie that scientists have said "as the sea ice melts off, the sub-sea permafrost melts." Not one scientist ever said this, you lying scum. Prove me wrong. Produce the citation. Please.
Again and again, I have pointed to this very statement as your key contention, the basis of your perception of an immediate methane threat. We know that Arctic sea ice is collapsing. You say that when the sea ice melts, so will the sub-sea permafrost. But no scientist says that. Only Dr Geoengineering Troll says that. It's time for you to stop telling this lie:
Lie number one: "What the scientists have said, more than once, is as the sea ice melts off, the sub-sea permafrost melts."
What the scientists have actually said is as the Arctic continues to warm the ice and permafrost melts,,, but play your childish WORD games Null. Read the articles I offered and read all of their words and try to understand what the scientists are telling us.
I will post one more links for you Mr. Null,,,,, read all of the words in the links I will posted. That is all I have to say to you from now on Aleph Null.
The Arctic could continue to warm for another 500 years. The supportable assertion you relate here is completely different from the lie you have repeatedly told to the effect that when Arctic sea ice disappears, a methane catastrophe will ensue.
But it is yet another lie number seven for you to pretend that you don't understand the difference between "as the Arctic warms, the permafrost melts" and "when the Arctic is sea-ice free, a methane catastrophe will ensue." This is not a word game. It's a question whether anything you say can be trusted, and another example of how you dissemble when caught in an obvious lie.
You also fail to address lie number six where you attributed the following statement to Shakova: "The Arctic's sub sea permafrost has been melting faster than the sea ice." This one should be very simple for you to prove, merely produce the citation - Shakova's actual words, and where you found them.
As previously noted, your consistent pattern, when responding at all to a request for a citation, is to quote something irrelevant. When a citation is asked for, the general practice is to produce an equivalent statement, not something (usually vaguely related) which does not say the same thing at all.
The (only) reason I have bothered to reply to ~~AlephNull~~, is because someone may read his comments which are only designed to discredit me and so I feel obligated to respond. Here is my final post on this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release
Comments from the article…. (“Sea ice loss is correlated with warming of Northern latitudes. This has melting effects on permafrost, both in the sea and on land. Lawrence et al. suggest that__(* current rapid melting of the sea ice may induce a rapid melting of arctic permafrost.*)
This has consequential effects on methane release…Some studies imply a direct link, as they predict cold air passing over ice is replaced by warm air passing over the sea. This warm air carries heat to the permafrost around the Arctic, and melts it. This permafrost then releases huge quantities of methane, the permafrost could melt far faster than generally thought.”
"There is another possible mechanism for (*rapid methane release*). As the Arctic ocean becomes __(*more and more ice free*)__, the ocean absorbs more of the incident energy from the sun. The Arctic ocean becomes warmer than the former ice cover and much more water vapour enters the air. At times when the adjacent land is colder than the sea, this causes rising air above the sea and an off-shore wind as air over the land comes in to replace the rising air over the sea.
As the air rises, the dew point is reached and clouds form, releasing latent heat and further reinforcing the buoyancy of the air over the ocean. All this results in air being drawn from the south across the tundra rather than the present situation of cold air flowing toward the south from the cold sinking air over the Arctic ocean. The extra heat being drawn from the south further accelerates the warming of the permafrost and the Arctic ocean with increased release of methane”.)...Unquote
Finally; __ here is another scientists quote which should answer Aleph Null's comment of my supposed lie number six.... This is a direct quote from the link I previously posted a few posts up,,,, ("Now comes the first news that levels of methane in the atmosphere, which (began rising) in 2007,,, when an unprecedented heatwave in the Arctic caused (*a record shrinking of the sea ice*), have continued to rise significantly through 2008 and 2009.
I personally do not believe those scientists are lying,,, and neither am I. Bye.
When I say you are lying by once again misinterpreting or misrepresenting various scientists, I am in no way implying that the scientists you mention are lying - this is obvious to everyone except for Dr Geoengineering Troll.
First of all, let's revisit lie number six: that Shakova said "The Arctic's sub sea permafrost has been melting faster than the sea ice." The words you quote here are not Shakova's and do not remotely pertain. Global methane data can be viewed by anyone. It clearly shows a three-year increase from 2007 to 2010, and an apparent plateau 2010 to 2011. How can you fail to understand that whatever the global methane trend is, it does not mean that Shakova said what you claim she said in lie number six?
The Wikipedia article you cite is a useful reference, and much closer to subject at hand. Thank you for sticking to the subject for once. The subject is: Will a loss of Arctic sea ice result in a (catastrophically) rapid methane release?
Scientists consider their words carefully, not because they are playing word-games, but because they want to express themselves as precisely as possible. Non-scientists aren't accustomed to such a precise attitude toward language as science demands. Compare these statements:
The loss of Arctic sea ice may induce a rapid melting of Arctic permafrost.
The loss of Arctic sea ice is likely to induce a rapid melting of Arctic permafrost.
The loss of Arctic sea ice will induce a rapid melting of Arctic permafrost.
The Wikipedia article appears to assert statement #1, while you leap to statement #2 or #3. This illustrates a useful constraint for you to keep in mind, to avoid misrepresenting the science and thereby impugning your own credibility: if you want to attribute the methane threat to scientific authority, simply refrain from exaggerating the conditional.
The possibility of a rapid methane release ensuing from a sea-ice free Arctic strikes me (as a frequent reader of climate literature) as credible. You can inflate the scientifically-attributable possibility to a likelihood and call it your own personal (non-professional) opinion. But if you do so and attribute statement #2 or #3 to a scientific source, that's a lie.
I'll be seeing what I can dig up from the sources this Wikipedia article cites. This is interesting.
Sorry I changed my mind and will post one more. Null ignored the scientists comment,,,(when an unprecedented heatwave in the Arctic caused (*a record shrinking of the sea ice*), methane has continued to rise significantly through 2008 and 2009.
Do you understand that NUll? __ Methane levels continued to rise significantly since a unprecedented heatwave caused a record shrinking of sea ice... In other words, when the sea ice melts, methane releases increades (significantly)... Sea ice loss means more methane will release as the permafrost melts faster when sea ice melts.. The permaftost melts faster as the sea ice melts. That is what I have been saying.
The author of that Wiki article quotes several scientis Null, Including Dr. Shakova if I recall it correctly on that point.. Have fun Null.
From ‘Arctic Armageddon’ Needs More Science, Less Hype by Richard A. Kerr (Science, Aug 6 2010):
Taking into consideration numerous factors—including latitudinal patterns of change in atmospheric methane and shifting regional climates—Dlugokencky and his colleagues concluded that the recent methane
jump was not driven by melting hydrates and permafrost. Instead, it seemed to be due to some combination of the high northern latitude warmth in 2007 that is accelerating emissions from wetlands there; biomass burning contributing methane in the tropics; and heavy rains in Indonesia and the eastern Amazon encouraging tropical wetlands emissions. But because methane stopped increasing in the polar Northern Hemisphere in 2008, “the Arctic has not yet reached a point of sustained increased CH4 emissions from melting permafrost and CH4 hydrates,” the group wrote in GRL. Dlugokencky summed up their conclusions at the AGU meeting: “Despite all the media hype, I don’t think we’re yet at an arctic tipping point.”
For more information, the US Climate Change Science Program issued a very detailed report called Abrupt Climate Change. Chapter 5 thereof, Potential for Abrupt Changes in Atmospheric Methane, is the most thorough discussion I've seen of the methane threat, with an impressive roster of authors: Brook, Archer, Dlugokencky, Frolking, and Lawrence.
Nope, that was one opinion and we probably aren't at the Arctic tipping point YET. We have three to four more years max.. Maybe only one or two more years... We'll see.
When the Arctic is ice free, we'll have a tipping point Null,,, a great big one. .
Actually, it's six opinions: Kerr, Brook, Archer, Dlugokencky, Frolking, and Lawrence. But clairvoyance is Dr Geoengineering Troll's specialty. Not counting from one to six.
Actually they all had the same (one) opinion, from three years ago data.
August 2010, when Richard Kerr wrote the passage above, is only slightly more than one year ago. Kerr fairly well explains in the quoted passage (and in the remainder of his article) that nothing has happened since the 2008 Abrupt Climate Change report to change the consensus view of the methane threat in the scientific community.
But Dr Geoengineering Troll knows better than the scientific community. In another thread, he links to a "very credible article" from his climate denialist colleagues Mark Morano and Anthony Watts alleging that climate scientists, in general, are guilty of professional misconduct.
Yeah, 2010,,, citing data from 2008.
.But because methane stopped increasing in the polar Northern Hemisphere in 2008, “the Arctic has not yet reached a point of sustained increased CH4 emissions from melting permafrost and CH4 hydrates,” the group wrote in GRL. Dlugokencky summed.
And actually methane continued to once again rise rapidly in 2010 and 2011 and the scientists have never been computing that data correctly in their climate models.
"(IPCC) Assessment... These reports involved the work of hundreds of climate experts. The reports rely on measurements of greenhouse gases as they exist in the atmosphere, (after) they have mixed with other gases... In other words, the findings in the report do not reflect the quantities that were actually emitted".... Check it out Null.
"And actually methane continued to once again rise rapidly in 2010 and 2011 and the scientists have never been computing that data correctly in their climate models."
In one fell swoop, Dr Geoengineering Troll impugns the competence not only of the climate modelers, but also of the scientists monitoring global methane. Global methane data from the Earth Science Research Lab of NOAA shows the level as flat since mid-2010. But we have Dr Geoengineering Troll's solemn assurance that all the stupid scientists are screwing up their measurements and modeling.
We are not worthy, Dr Geoengineering Troll.
And new scientific research shows that data Aleph Null quotes is incorrect.
According to new calculations, the impacts of methane on climate warming may be double the standard amount attributed to the gas. The new interpretations reveal methane emissions may account for a third of the climate warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases.
The IPCC report, which calculates methane’s affects once it exists in the atmosphere, states that methane increases in our atmosphere account for only about one sixth of the total effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases on warming when it actually has caused near a third of the warming.
IPCC) Assessment. These reports involved the work of hundreds of climate experts. The reports rely on measurements of greenhouse gases as they exist in the atmosphere, after they mixed with other gases. In other words, the findings in the report do not reflect the quantities that were actually emitted.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=climate+model+errors+with+methane&form=OSDSRC
Rave on Mr. Null, instead of taking the time to get yourself educated on the subject and perhaps in some small way be helpful... When the Arctic methane burps out in ernest in the nest one to three years you can say, "oops", along with Dr. James Hansen.
This NOAA ESRL global methane data was last updated in October of 2011. This is current data, from the best source of atmospheric data since Keeling started measuring on Mauna Loa in 1958. Without so much as a "pshaw" Dr Geoengineering Troll rejects the work of our best scientists tasked with monitoring the atmosphere.
We are not worthy, Dr Geoengineering Troll.
Yeah, the NOAA is still giving data of what is in the armopshere, but after methane has mixed with other greeenhouse gases. not that which has released.
Methane which has released into the atmophsere alters and that released from 25 to a 100 years ago in not any longer all measured as methane. So their report is inaccurate as has recently been stated by many top scientists.