Dns fog
66°
Dns fog
Hi 87° | Lo 61°

Letter: Killing Mother Earth

Global warming has a newly discovered dire consequence: global extinction within one human lifetime from spreading Arctic methane heat waves and surface firestorms.

In the next 25 years, as mean global temperatures rise due to man-made CO2 increases (we are at 400 ppm and climbing), the Arctic will be releasing increasing amounts of methane. Giant fountains/torches/plumes of methane entering the atmosphere up to 1 kilometer wide have already been seen on the East Siberian Shelf. This paints a frightening picture of the beginning of an uncontrollable, global warming induced destabilization of the subsea Arctic methane hydrates which started in late 2010.

What is extremely worrisome is that once this process starts, there is no stopping it, resulting in a doomsday scenario. Methane is more than 20 times the strength of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and as temperatures start to soar, it causes the release of more methane, thereby further increasing global temperatures. By burning fossil fuels, we are replicating atmospheric temperature increases that occurred 250 million years ago by massive volcanic action that led to the Permian Extinction. The resulting CO2 emissions, and temperatures, hit the 5C degree tipping point for methane release from the oceans. This led to a massive extinction where 95 percent of life was extinguished.

Unless we do something, temperature increases will begin a chain reaction that will make Earth uninhabitable. We are killing our Mother Earth with our insatiable use of fossil fuels and denials.

FRED DiFRONZO

Concord

Bretton Woods opened today....I love to ski in October in NH..because...global warming.

I think you all give citizens too much credit for doing what is logical. We basically are driven by cost not common sense. In 1960 when I moved here the Merrimack river and it's tributaries were virtually trash and sewerage filled foul smelling liquid rivers. Businesses were so driven by profits that they simply dumped poisons in our waterway and harbors, dumped their waste on the backside of their plants and spewed god knows what up their smoke stacks. The common sense yankees of NH almost succeeded in clearing all of southern NH and the White Mountains of all trees. This only stopped with the Hatch Act in 1887. Now we sit around and piss and moan on how the Northern Pass will ruin our precious landscape. Landscape we would not have if not for government regulations. Our rivers can now be used for recreation, our air quality is much better but we still have those pesky superfund sites. So don't preach about how regulations are ruining us, we don't have a great track record as citizens when it comes to the environment. No politics here just the truth.

The solution: decrease the world's human population by 80%, level all cities and go back to being hunter-gatherers.

lets start by eliminating the liberal, progressive democats first and then we will all see how well the world operates

What is frightening is the dumming down of Americans that now believe these bumper sticker alarmists

For future reference: It's 'dumbing down'.

ooooooopsie - My Bad - big fingers & the small tablet - Thanks for the catch

The sky is falling!!! What happened to the theory of global cooling 30 years ago? Everything goes in cycles and always has. What is driving these folks is fundraising and chasing grants. If you are a "scientist" and you want the funding and grants to continue, you don't tell the world everything is alright and this too, shall pass, come another season. You tell everyone the world is coming to an end unless you get another million bucks.

Response to the same tired post that follows most letters on global warming: Global cooling made headlines in the mid-70's in a few cover stories, but was never a big deal among the majority of climate scientists then. Most scientists even then were watching the Keeling Curve of increasing CO2, and knew that continued increases were likely to mean a warmer planet. Those who wondered whether global cooling might be an issue knew that we were in an inter-glacial period, and that the sun was in a relatively quiescent phase. We now know that our added CO2 is warming the planet, and is over-riding what would otherwise be a slight cooling of the planet, were CO2 levels still at pre-industrial levels.

"Global cooling made headlines in the mid-70's in a few cover stories"......Yeah..just a few....http://www.populartechnology.net/2013_02_01_archive.html

Wow! Newspapers covering the news! Who would have thought! There were roughly 2000 newspapers in the U.S. in the 1970's. So if each one published only ONE article reporting on the possibility of global cooling, that's...2000 ARTICLES! That's out of ...let's say each paper published 300 times a year x 10 years = 3,000 x 2,000 papers = 6,000,000 daily editions. Let's be generous and say poptech's list numbers 100 articles. That's 100 articles out of 6 million--1 in every 60,000 articles. What's your definition of just a few? As for scientists then: "A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom." http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

LOL..whats your definition of a "few" Bruce??? Less than the facts show??

To piggyback on my response below: pop tech makes a false equivalence between the concern about global cooling in the 1970's, which was based on limited and very tentative findings, and which the majority of scientists doubted at the time, and the overwhelming majority of scientists today who believe that AGW is a serious problem.

Reply regarding GWTW's post below: "LOL...." Demonstration of Troll Rule 26: When you're in a hole, keep digging, and pretend no one notices.

The solution...bomb all the coal plants in China...bomb them right back to the 5th Century. It would "save" the Earth..and our economy. I mean really...its a small price to pay to avoid 95% of life being extinguished on Earth...right?

the climate alarmism movement is dead due to the fact that the earth has..... not... Not... NOT warmed in almost 2 decades.

you are correct Sail, globull warming is a political movement.

Perhaps you can give a sound answer. Why is global warming a political movement? Just who has anything to gain politically by it? There have been many ice ages over the history of this planet and it is a natural phenomenon, nothing political there. Just why do we fight the notion that man may be accelerating the process? If there is a chance that there is some truth to global warming - wouldn't erring on the side of safety be wise? To just flat out dismiss based on politics is really just short sighted and one could argue stupid. I am willing to look at both sides of the issue and that makes me hilarious, humm is there logic there????

Who has anything to gain politically? Well first of all the same people who are in favor of population control and regulating the lives of others (basically government) are Hell bent on pushing the global warming movement. The environmental lobbies can then push their pet companies like wind companies, solar companies, etc. Companies are regulated to death out of the premise that maybe, just maybe, man is accelerating it. Then our existence here, our quality of life, our economy, etc. are dampened and impacted negatively. Bureaucrats and politicians are all out to control people and be in control. This is one more movement, one more agenda that allows them to seize more and more control from the citizens in the name of the "common good". The hysterics, many of whom post here do more to damage the science and make skeptics than anything that the press can do. One in particular cherry picks facts to call of immediate moves to live under a rock and regulate everything. If that is not political, I don't know what is.

Itsa, I guess I expected too much. What exactly is wrong with wind/solar power? If it were not for government regulations NH would be a deforested patch of land teaming with chemical cesspools that were originally rivers. Man, business, politicians with agendas have all had to be forced to follow federal regulations as a result of their unregulated behaviors. Google, The Hatch Act, Clean Water Act, Love Canal and superfund site to get an idea of why your fear of govt regulation are just non-sense. All I am asking is just what makes you believe that all govt regulations are a plot to gain mind control? I guess I misspoke when I asked why this issue was so political. I should have asked is why are people so afraid (re: paranoid) when anyone mentions ecology or the possibility of global warming? BTW- coal was the power source of the 19th century, this is the 21st century, should we bring back horse drawn buggies as well? For the record I am not prone to tree hugging, don't like granola but I am willing to think "what if" which is more than most here are capable of. Sorry I asked to tough of a question.

You are correct as possible for a denier. Twenty years isn't even a fraction of a tick on the climate change clock. Look at all the melting of glaciers, the disappearance of the glacier in Glacier National Park. Climate change is a natural cycle of the planet, it just remains to be answered - How fast do we want to accelerate it? As to the writers statement about killing mother earth, Mother Earth will be around alot longer than man.

Mauser1 is hilarious....... the climate alarmists statisticians themselves set 15 years are the benchmark for "statistically significant" outcome. For any reader to believe Mauser they have to have their hands over their ears and scream lalalalalalalala because Global Sea Ice is at normal levels: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/03/antarctic-sea-ice-peaks-at-third-highest-in-the-satellite-record/

You post is not only insulting but a sad commentary of the politicization of science and the wish to believe only what one wants. Since reading comprehension is apparently not high, where exactly did I mention global sea ice in the antarctic. Simple, I didn't. Look at the dramatic disappearance of the ice sheets in Greenland for a start. But as for your juvenile histrionics, given the source I'd say some teachers severely failed somewhere along the line. (Mr. Moderator- I realize this borders on violating your guidelines, but someone has to stand up to these juvenile posts.- Geoffrey Carson. At least I am not a coward who must hide behind a screen name.)

As usual, the poster above is wrong, and has no idea what he is talking about. The least he could do would be to link to a current WUWT article. It would still be a distortion of the science, but at least it would be an up to date distortion. "September average sea ice extent for 2013 was the sixth lowest in the satellite record. The 2012 September extent was 32% lower than this year’s extent, while the 1981 to 2010 average was 22% higher than this year’s extent. Through 2013, the September linear rate of decline is 13.7% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ As for the Antarctic, sea ice extent there is increasing slightly, but not to the extent it makes up for the overall loss of polar ice. As for the reasons for the current, and likely temporary increase in ice extent in the Antarctic--changes in wind patterns and possibly ocean currents as well. This article linked below explains the likely reasons for the increase. http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/09/17/stronger-winds-explain-puzzling-growth-of-sea-ice-in-antarctica/

I triple checked those facts, you are indeed correct. Expect the naysayers to come along with manipulated statistics.

Global sea ice area is the highest this millennium, is approaching the highest area ever measured, and has been above normal for most of 2013. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/2013-global-sea-ice-area-highest-this-millennium-approaching-an-all-time-record/.... FACTS always destroy the alarmists rhetoric

Reply to itsa's and sail's misleading posts below: Such an incurious lot! And you wonder why your behavior is considered troll-like. You spend an inordinate amount of time responding to letters and opinion pieces by name-calling and by cutting and pasting misleading slogans and headlines that support your extreme views. The misleading pair of posts below regarding global sea ice extent are examples of tag-team trollery. First, one posts from a blog that distorts the facts regarding ice extent, then the other chimes in, claiming "I triple-checked your facts, you are...correct. Expect the naysayers to come along with manipulated statistics". That last claim is laughable, and is itself yet another distortion of reality, because that's exactly what they do. In trolldom it seems important to land the first blow--hence their haste to make contradictory claims quickly to create an illusion of controversy regarding the science. So to be clear: the only naysayers on here are the Carpers-- when it comes to climate science, that's why they're called deniers. Second, they're the ones guilty repeatedly of using "manipulated statistics", as a close examination of the topic and a comparison of our respective links shows. The cherry-picked statistic, and the deliberately misleading headline, are the deniers' stock in trade: each designed to inaccurately describe the facts regarding, in this instance, sea ice extent. You can look it up.

Simply untrue. The warming continues; surface warming has slowed--not stopped. More of the enhanced greenhouse heat energy is going into the oceans. Surface warming will pick up again when ocean and wind current cycles change--when the Pacific Oscillation of air pressure between west and central tropical waters changes, likely triggering the next El Nino event, bringing warmer waters to the surface. But as we muck up the climate system, we are likely altering whatever regularity these cycles had in the past.

Fact check on the submission from the alarmist: "Bottomless Pit: Even if ocean ate the warming, would only change ocean temperature by IMMEASURABLE hundredths-of-a-degree" - Heat capacity of ocean water: 3993 J/kg/K..... Heat capacity of air: 1005 J/kg/K.....the ...... The IPCC estimated total ocean heat content since 1950=10^23 Joules. What that corresponds to in degrees C. is a rise of only about 0.04C.

Ah, blissful ignorance....The warming isn't spread evenly through the oceans from top to deepest trench. And it's not as if ocean warming won't cause other ills--thermal expansion is part of seal level rise; warm water can absorb less CO2 and grows more acidic, affecting sea life. "Scientists at NOAA have discovered that the world ocean has warmed significantly during the past 40 years, the Commerce Department announced today. The largest warming has occurred in the upper 300 meters of the world ocean on average by 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit. The water in the upper 3000 meters of the world ocean warmed on average by 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit. These findings represent the first time scientists have quantified temperature changes in all of the world's oceans from the surface to 3000 meters depth. "In each ocean basin substantial temperature changes are occurring at much deeper depths than we previously thought. This is just one more piece of the puzzle to understanding the variability of the earth's climate system," said NOAA Administrator D. James Baker. "Since the 1970's, temperatures at the earth's surface have warmed, Arctic sea ice has decreased in thickness, and now we know that the average temperature of the world's oceans has increased during this same time period." http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2000/mar00/noaa00020.html http://www.oceanfdn.org/newsroom/oceans-and-climate-change

Giant vacuum cleaners filtering out methane from the air. Combine it with the carbon dioxide and you get vodka.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.