New research on Arctic methane

[RodISHI]

If you want to do something, why not do something that everyone can agree on that will make a significant difference? There are thousands of coal fires burning unrestrained throughout the world. These are polluting the air with every imaginable pollutant including GHGs. Figure out how to extinguish them.

I don't think anyone will be against it. But, until people start tackling these obvious win-wins.....I'm not in favor of anything that actually impacts the way people live or the money they pay for things. If they are ignoring coal fires and trying to do "cap and trade" and other BS, they are not being honest. That says to me that this is more about power, control and money, then any serious attempt to influence the climate.

Very interesting thank you. I found a few links but have not found anything that shows the depth of these fires.

 

[Old Rocks]

while i can agree with that, if "sunk" carbon is removed from the ocean, then the ocean can absorb more
this world is a closed ecosystem
whats here is here

The ocean can only "absorb" more in terms of slow outgassing that single celled organisms metabolize. Fast outgassing, such as we as was measured, both by Russian and British scientists, in the Arctic goes into the atmosphere. Yes, when you put something into the atmosphere, it is there. When it is a GHG, then the atmosphere warms. All the name calling, use of adolescent scatological terms, and accusations of being a {[LIBERAL]} will not change that. It only reveals the depths of your intellectual poverty, and lack of civility.

 

[Old Rocks]

Very interesting thank you. I found a few links but have not found anything that shows the depth of these fires.

The amount of coal burnt by man far overshadows the affects of the presently existing natural coal fires.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The amount of coal burnt by man far overshadows the affects of the presently existing natural coal fires.

You are obviously one of those people who just types anything that comes to mind without regard to whether or not it's true.

 

[DiveCon]

The ocean can only "absorb" more in terms of slow outgassing that single celled organisms metabolize. Fast outgassing, such as we as was measured, both by Russian and British scientists, in the Arctic goes into the atmosphere. Yes, when you put something into the atmosphere, it is there. When it is a GHG, then the atmosphere warms. All the name calling, use of adolescent scatological terms, and accusations of being a {[LIBERAL]} will not change that. It only reveals the depths of your intellectual poverty, and lack of civility.

sorry, but when you post moronic shit, i will CALL it moronic shit

 

[Tech_Esq]

Very interesting thank you. I found a few links but have not found anything that shows the depth of these fires.

I'll post this to you instead of Rocks for brains since he's not a serious person.

Article from EoEarth

This will give you an idea of just how serious the problem is. Remember, this is just China, but the problem is also bad in many other areas of the world. I'm just posting the China bit for brevity sake.

Today, the main coal fire areas stretch along the coal mining belt in China, which extends for 5000 kilometers (km) from east to west along the north of the country. Here more than 50 coal fields affected by coal fires have been identified. At present in China an estimated 20-30 million tons of coal burn each year. This corresponds to the amount of Germany’s annual hard coal production.

So, you can see Rocks was just talking out his ass.

Actually, the tenfold amount of the resource is lost, since coal adjacent to a coal fire becomes inaccessible. The economic loss of the valuable resource in China is estimated to sum up to total 4.2 billion tons since 1960. Thus, China faces the world’s biggest problem of coal fires both in terms of the spatial area affected and the amount of coal lost each year.
The picture shows a geologist collecting temperature measurements of hot gases emitted by an underground coal fire. Temperatures at these cracks and vents in the bedrock surface can exceed 500°C. (Photo taken by Claudia Kuenzer, September 2003, Wuda coalfield, China.)

Besides the economic loss, coal fires pose many environmental threats. The fires produce large amounts of greenhouse-relevant and partially toxic gases including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrogen oxides (NOx), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). According to most recent estimations coal fires in China contribute about 0.1% to 0.2% of the annual human induced CO2 emissions globally. They contribute 12% of all Chinese coal-based carbon emissions in the form of CO2. In addition, coal fires lead to the degradation of their direct surrounding area through significant aerosol input to water sources and agricultural areas. Additionally, the toxic fumes released pose a threat to the health of the local inhabitants.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, by the article that you posted. The coal fires in China contribute about 0.1 to 0.2% of the human induced CO2 annually. A tenth to two tenths of one percent hardly equal what we burn to make electricity. Do you even bother to read what you post? Or are your reading skills still at third grade level?

 

[Old Rocks]

sorry, but when you post moronic shit, i will CALL it moronic shit

No, you will call names just like a small child to hide the fact that you are completely clueless on this subject.

 

[dilloduck]

It would be nice to try to do the right thing even if we might not succeed. The question to my way of thinking is whether we will try, not whether it will work, and the discussion should be about what the actual consequences would be and the best and safest (most conservative) way forward.

There are real risks to remaining dependent on fossil fuels (a limited resource) and foreign fossil fuels (bargaining chip for hostile countries). There are risks to switching to sustainables (economic, perhaps, etc)

I am a strong proponent of solar, everyone agrees that warming is due to solar radiation, so it should be obvious that the sun is hitting us with us tons of energy every day. But we don't know the environmental costs of generating the panels, etc, so a balanced portfolio including remaining on fossil fuels while other risks are determined from sustainables, seems reasonable.

But, not doing anything, seems like we are defeatist.

I am not opposed to treating nature as respectfully as we can. I am opposed to any argument that consists of saving the planet. The planet is fine.
The planet can exist quite well without humans on it and has done so. It has probably existed with no known life forms on it at all.
We are try to save ourselves. If it came down to it we would destroy "lower" life forms on Earth before we would sacrifice our own habitat.We may have already inadvertently done that too.

Many life forms have ceases to exist and humans weren't even around to decide whose fault it was.
This is only one of the many moral choices humans will face as our population continues to explode. Another is facing our limitations.

 

[DiveCon]

No, you will call names just like a small child to hide the fact that you are completely clueless on this subject.

see, more moronic shit from you

 

[Caligirl]

I am not opposed to treating nature as respectfully as we can. I am opposed to any argument that consists of saving the planet. The planet is fine.
The planet can exist quite well without humans on it and has done so. It has probably existed with no known life forms on it at all.
We are try to save ourselves. If it came down to it we would destroy "lower" life forms on Earth before we would sacrifice our own habitat.We may have already inadvertently done that too.

Many life forms have ceases to exist and humans weren't even around to decide whose fault it was.
This is only one of the many moral choices humans will face as our population continues to explode. Another is facing our limitations.

Hard to disagree with any of that.

 

[dilloduck]

Hard to disagree with any of that.

Thank you , I think.

Make no mistake about it---enviromentalism is a religion and it claims that the way life is NOW is supreme. But we are becoming sinful and we may not be able to sustain NOW with an ever increasing population that demands more food, more energy, more water, more breathable air and more room.
If nature does not destroy large populations of humans as she has in the past we will have to destroy them ourselves.

I LOVE throwing an aluminum can in the trash once in awhile. It makes me feel so free.

 

[DiveCon]

Thank you , I think.

Make no mistake about it---enviromentalism is a religion and it claims that the way life is NOW is supreme. But we are becoming sinful and we may not be able to sustain NOW with an ever increasing population that demands more food, more energy, more water, more breathable air and more room.
If nature does not destroy large populations of humans as she has in the past we will have to destroy them ourselves.

I LOVE throwing an aluminum can in the trash once in awhile. It makes me feel so free.

you...you... you just HATE the earth
LOL

 

[Chris]

The ocean can only "absorb" more in terms of slow outgassing that single celled organisms metabolize. Fast outgassing, such as we as was measured, both by Russian and British scientists, in the Arctic goes into the atmosphere. Yes, when you put something into the atmosphere, it is there. When it is a GHG, then the atmosphere warms. All the name calling, use of adolescent scatological terms, and accusations of being a {[LIBERAL]} will not change that. It only reveals the depths of your intellectual poverty, and lack of civility.

That's it.

It's pretty simple really.

GHGs warm the earth. That is a fact that no one disputes.

 

[dilloduck]

you...you... you just HATE the earth
LOL

no--I think garbage dumps suffer from an aluminum deficiency. If all that waste justs cooks there with no aluminum, God knows what will happen.

 

[Zoomie1980]

We have passed the tipping point, and we are pushing the accelerator.

We are increasing CO2 at an accelerated rate, and now the arctic methane is going to kick in.

When we reach the solar maximum in a few years, we will see the effect even more.

I like global warming. I can grow more tomatoes....

 

[dilloduck]

I like global warming. I can grow more tomatoes....

Damn straight-----froze my ass off covering my garden. Cold sucks

 

[Caligirl]

Make no mistake about it---enviromentalism is a religion and it claims that the way life is NOW is supreme.

You're mixing environmentalism with environmental fundamentalism.

Environmentalism includes things like sewage lines, so that we don't crap our homes. Sewage treatment cuts down on disease for one thing. Although I am sure you pee in the bushes from time to time, I doubt that you think an outhouse would be preferable to indoor plumbing, even though you could probably save money by having an outhouse. Less water usage etc.

LOL I wonder if pooping in your yard would make you feel free. I throw recyclables in the trash too, especially when I am having a really bad day, it's cathartic.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think we need to get something staight here. Concern about global warming has little to do with environementalism per se. It is concerned with human survival. We have over 7 billion human beings alive at present. An adrupt climate change will very adversely affect the agriculture that we depend on. Even here in the US, we have become net importers of food. A crash in food production would end the wonderful life, compared to the past, that most of us lead. I like my present ability to travel, to not worry about basics, such as food and shelter, and having access to the whole worlds knowledge. I would like to see future generations having an even better life. Unless we change how we power our civilization, that will not be.

Once again, every single scientific society on earth states that global warming is a clear and present danger, and that the burning of fossil fuel is the primary driver of that warming.

 

[RodISHI]

I'll post this to you instead of Rocks for brains since he's not a serious person.

Article from EoEarth

This will give you an idea of just how serious the problem is. Remember, this is just China, but the problem is also bad in many other areas of the world. I'm just posting the China bit for brevity sake.



So, you can see Rocks was just talking out his ass.

Thank you. I looked up and read as much as I could on the subject the other night. I read what I could about the town in Pennsylvania too. We drove through that are back in 1996 and I had asked Rod, "I wonder why this area looks so dead?" now I have a clue why.

It sure would seem regardless of the limited damage anyone would claim on such a matter that it would make sense to find a solution. I do not think God is planting new coal beds into the earth. So it makes perfect sense that it would be best to try to preserve what is there.