Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Natural doomsday mechanics?

Fantasma4500 - 8-12-2014 at 06:48

yeah, with that title i better put something worthy up.. indeed

thing is i managed to come across the importance of awareness of methane-hydrate stuck in permfrost under the northern hemisphere

http://arctic-news.blogspot.dk/2013/08/historic-killer-metha...

even russian scientists has decided to call it a ''potential catastrophe''

now i dont know how the rather average persons most of us happens to be can help this overly gigantic issue, others than simply understand it, recognize it and perhaps help spread the message

decided to post something on it here when i read
''There should be a hue and cry from the entire scientific community to not allow this. Presently, it is failing to do so.''


whole thing summed up: total heat content rising, methane released, more heat, more methane - everyone dies.

Varmint - 8-12-2014 at 08:34

Ah, the global warming religion still busy trying to find angles to capture some level of relevancy.

The gig is up guys. We understand you are a branch of the anti-capatilist movement, and so are not to be trusted with any data, at any time, for any reason.

Please find something else you can put your faith in, this one makes you look the fool.

DAS

[Edited on 8-12-2014 by Varmint]

hissingnoise - 8-12-2014 at 09:48

Quote:
Please find something else you can put your faith in, this one makes you look the fool.

How fucking ironic ─ a science-denying moron spewing his low IQ shite on a science forum . . . ?

aga - 8-12-2014 at 09:50

AFAIKR deep sea crustal gas hydrates and minor earthquakes were the 'final' explanation for the Bermuda Triangle incidents.

Tremor, crust moves, hydrates released from pressure, gas escapes in vast quantities.

Buoyancy disappears pretty fast in highly methane gassed seawater, sinking boats.

A methane/air mixture higher in the atmosphere ignited by plane engines, boom ... plus some flashes of light.

Varmint - 8-12-2014 at 10:02

Ah, now only smart people have the capability to believe in global warming/anthropagentic global warming/climate change?

Trouble is, all the smartpeople have already figured you guys out. It's too late. Your mission has failed.

You'll have to find another angle to attack capitalism, comrade.

DAS

mayko - 8-12-2014 at 10:28

Methane clathrates have also been considered as a factor in previous episodes of rapid climate change, such as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum



Figure 1. Svante Arrhenius, known pinko

hissingnoise - 8-12-2014 at 11:01

Quote:
Ah, now only smart people have the capability to believe in global warming/anthropagentic global warming/climate change?

So simple, even ordinary ignoramuses can understand it ─ but you're obviously 'special' in a very special way?


careysub - 8-12-2014 at 11:13

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
AFAIKR deep sea crustal gas hydrates and minor earthquakes were the 'final' explanation for the Bermuda Triangle incidents.


I believe the 'final' explanation for the Bermuda Triangle incidents was to discover there is nothing special about the "triangle" at all.

Wikipedia nails it: "Documented evidence indicates that a significant percentage of the incidents were spurious, inaccurately reported, or embellished by later authors."*

When viewed in context with ocean areas, in terms of missing aircraft and ships in relation to the amount of traffic, there is nothing special about it at all.

The coast of North Carolina (in the U.S.) has a much better claim for excess disappearances (but even there the reasons for this are clear).

*This is like the Oak Island Mystery - which exists entirely due to extravagantly embellished, unverifiable popular stories.

Chemosynthesis - 8-12-2014 at 12:56

I have been under the same impression as careysub.

Guys, can we please leave the insults out of the discussion? How does flaming contribute to your argument? Can we civilly cite data or rationale?

IrC - 8-12-2014 at 14:01

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
How fucking ironic ─ a science-denying moron spewing his low IQ shite on a science forum . . . ?


What science? All I see are insults and personal attacks hysterically delivered. Minus any real data. I call that 'religion' 'brainwashing'. Mindless products of cookie cutter U. You were acting identically during the GW debates. I forgot, not GW that failed, it's climate change. But it has been changing for billions of years. Can't blame that on capitalism. The 70's ice age? Which is it? Whats next?

I look back over 60 plus years. Need that grant tow the line. Clearly science has been hijacked for money and power, for global control worth trillions. By a select few. They have learned to promote the science of fear. Look at the OP's post. Is it possible? No doubt. So what. Methane explodes we all die. So what? We could have all been nuked already but we are still here. Why live in fear? We are more likely to be nuked today than we were in the 70's. Far less stability in the world now.

In my youth I saw the science of taking risks, walking on the Moon. We no longer have brave exploits now do we? Al Gore made over 100 million with his science of fear and failed predictions. By spewing more carbon and heat than any thousand 'regular' citizens. Science today is about proclaiming what we must fear hysterically while we hand over our money, freedoms, way of life. Count me out.

Personally I miss the days of science being the hope of a bright future where we colonize other planets. I guess you had to be there to fully comprehend the way of thinking 50 years ago. We saw the future of the Jetsons. Now it's what should we fear, based upon someones words without evidence. I call it the science of gloom and doom. The old days of Apollo were better.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 8-12-2014 at 14:30

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
Personally I miss the days of science being the hope of a bright future where we colonize other planets.

I do too, was never there, still true.

I don't understand the argument, though. Climate change has been happening for billions of years, therefore it shouldn't bother us if warmer temperatures melt ice and release potentially catastrophic amounts of methane?

Regardless of the root cause, this could be very bad. And with our unique ability to affect the planet on a massive scale, it's possible we could do something about it instead of sitting around saying "so what?" This is an incredible thing. This is my bright and hopeful future.

Zyklon-A - 8-12-2014 at 15:07

IrC, hissingnoise doesn't need to go into the science of anything. There's a long artical on the subject at the top of this thread with far more information than any of us want to write.
He's merely pointing out that calling a possible catastrophe a "religion" and an "anti-capatilist movement". Is just denial and stupid. If it's wrong, provide proof, if not try to do something productive.
Varmint, read a book.
Religion definition: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

aga - 8-12-2014 at 15:09

What's terribly annoying is this notion that Humans are somehow not of this Earth.

Basically We Are.

What we do, what crap we do/produce is completely Natural as regards Nature and this Planet.

Personally i think it extreme arrogance on behalf of Humans to assume that what We do is somehow 'unnatural', as if we're Gods, or even understand, never mind control, Nature.

We're not. We don't.

Our activities are as important to this Planet as the volumes of Methane ants produce.

I would have thought that the discovery that this planet is in a Hot point of multiple ice-age cycles would mean something to intelligent people.

It's a bit Hot, it was a bit cold.
That will likely Repeat, despite what we do.

Yes, i Agree that what we do seems incredibly destructive, and Nature will address that in it's own good good time.

It'll wipe us out, and then do it all over again, as is it's Nature.

IrC - 8-12-2014 at 15:12

Not so much 'so what' as it is why live in eternal fear. The statement "our unique ability to affect the planet on a massive scale" I do not believe however. The whole GW debate which began a decade after the coming ice age debate has now been labeled change to obfuscate 18 years of near zero warming. Both debates cold to hot fear mongering by the same group of 'scientists'. It was hotter in the 30's, damn hot in the days of Rome, damn cold in the dark ages. Climate change long before the SUV. How long has that methane been up there? Why did it not go up in the air during much hotter times? Because the planet has a very great ability to self correct if not meddled with. We are like ants trying to move Everest. I would still like to know why change has replaced warming. If the proof was so positive why the need to change the name Global Warming to Climate Change? Because they were not getting political traction in the goal of shutting down industry when after 18 years no one could show big changes going up. Since climate has been changing for billions of years and always will it is an easier term to use in political pursuits. I would worry far more right now about nukes and the growing tensions in the area of the Ukraine.

mayko - 8-12-2014 at 15:19

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  

What science? All I see are insults and personal attacks hysterically delivered. Minus any real data. I call that 'religion' 'brainwashing'. Mindless products of cookie cutter U.


uh... why would you expect any data? Varmint explicitly dimissed all data that would contradict their thesis, a priori. (Not at all dogmatic.)
Quote:

You were acting identically during the GW debates. I forgot, not GW that failed,


In what sense has global warming 'failed'? Can you support this assertion with evidence and/or data?
Quote:
it's climate change. But it has been changing for billions of years.


Yes, it's amazing. It's almost as though the earth's atmosphere has multiple parameters which are impacted by geochemistry.

"Humans have died of natural causes since time immemorial. Surely *this* death isn't a murder!" - the world's worst defense attorney

Quote:
The 70's ice age?


Several problems with that little myth:
1. It was never a majority opinion at the time - most scientists at the time already agreed that global warming was occurring.
2. The ones who thought an ice age was more likely did so with much more justification than our current crop of denialists have: uncertainties related to aerosols were even bigger than they are now; GCMs were in their infancy; much less was known about ice-age dynamics (the Vostok cores going back 420,000 years were only drilled in the 1990's, for example)
3. The ice-age predictions only gained significant traction in the popular press, not the scientific literature. An examination of the literature since the sixties in fact shows a consolidation of scientific opinion in favor of global warming.

Peterson, T. C., Connolley, W. M., & Fleck, J. (2008). The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), 1325–1337. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1


At this point IrC's post, we delve completely into the realm of narrative. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but narratives are mostly useful because they frame facts, evidence, and data, which you expect from others but provide none of yourself.

By the way, Al Gore is neither a climate scientist, nor an anticapitalist. He is a center-liberal, reformist politician who wins awards on the backs of others. Actual anticapitalists hold him in disdain; curly lightbulbs don't exactly put the means of production in the hands of the workers, after all.

aga - 8-12-2014 at 15:19

Ah yes. Nature at work.
Our own nature is to kill each other when there's too many of us.
Works every time.

Nature is remarkably Good at all of this Life stuff.

aga - 8-12-2014 at 15:26

This Planet is not subject to our understanding of it.

That kind of throws any concept of Scientific Proof out of the window.

Any 'consensus of opinion' would, by default, be formed outside of said window.

We simply do not know enough to make any predictions at all.

[Edited on 8-12-2014 by aga]

jock88 - 8-12-2014 at 15:30


The ebola will get ya anyways.

aga - 8-12-2014 at 15:39

... or not.
Avoid rubbing strangers excessively - Alive or dead.

Should be ok unless it gets an effective airborne variant..

careysub - 8-12-2014 at 16:10

Sigh.

When highly politicized scientific topics, in these highly politicized time, come up the discussion goes all too hell doesn't it?

Climate science is on a very firm foundation and there is abundant scientific material to reference if you are going to make claims. I am talking especially to those of you who are scoffing at the science that actually appears in peer-reviewed journals*.

And, please, no insults folks. I am talking especially to those of you who are defending the science that appears in peer-reviewed journals. Insulting those that ignore the science actually brings you down to the name-calling level where everyone is equal, even if they have no facts on their side.

I think maybe a site policy is a good idea for this issue, requiring that any claim on climate science be actually supported by a link to a real science source. The quality of the links offered should tell the story pretty clearly.

*I am using this awkward, but precise, construct since terms like "accepted", "mainstream", or "consensus" that work with any other topic of science for some reason sends global warming denialists (not an insult, if you have better descriptive term please offer) into a tizzy.

careysub - 8-12-2014 at 16:29

I am not a moderator here, but I am tempted here to don that hat as an affectation for a moment.

Remember the Science Madness FAQ:

"Do not start or perpetuate flame wars."
and
"If you are unable to cite references in support of an idea or as background to your question, the post belongs in Beginnings."

On the topic of climate science I would say posts without reference support should appear in Detritus.

If it includes insults also, it should be deleted.

Also, as a science site, those challenging mainstream science are taking on the burden of proof. Step up and own it. Empty scoffing won't cut it. Put up or shut up.

[Edited on 9-12-2014 by careysub]

Fantasma4500 - 9-12-2014 at 06:51

well hello, people.. how did this thread suddenly get derailed onto politics?

i personally find this whole methane issue very logical..
“There are no brakes. The methane release itself results as a positive feedback from another warming-generated process, the retreat of summer sea ice. So we have global warming causing summer sea ice retreat causing offshore permafrost thawing causing methane release causing a big instant warming boost causing endless other positive feedbacks.”

and it is described as some of you have pointed out that there is a total fearmongering run through the mass medias
but thing is.. this whole thing with methane, its not in the mass medias, and attempting to prevent this earth-runoff would mean to limit the use of fossil fuels (possibly??) which wouldnt profit most of the largest cooperations

im a bit unsure whether this thread was purposedly derailed? because this is some of the most effective derailing i have seen in a long time.. wtf, internet? we cant just blame all this one the lack of D-vitamins, can we?

forgottenpassword - 9-12-2014 at 06:59

Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat  
everyone dies.


I find it perfectly logical. I don't know what all the fuss is about.
Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat  
everyone dies.

A scientifically sound and reasonable conclusion.
Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat  
everyone dies.

Based on hard facts and cautious extrapolation.

Fantasma4500 - 9-12-2014 at 07:02

ahah.. its taken out of context..
Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat  
whole thing summed up


if you are gonna go with taking things out of context you may aswell start rewriting what i wrote

Varmint - 9-12-2014 at 08:08

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php


[Edited on 9-12-2014 by Varmint]

[Edited on 9-12-2014 by Varmint]

Bert - 9-12-2014 at 08:19

I will be stopping by to check progress on this one.

DO NOT FLAME HERE.

careysub has already said most of what needs to be said. Science forum, not political forum. Documentation talks, "everyone knows" walks.

Go ahead and present your data, list and link any information sources you drew from. Present the conclusions you have drawn.

Discuss points of fact, data collection methodology, climate modeling algorithms. NOT WHO PAID FOR THE RESEARCH!!!

It is not likely possible to bring the politics & closely related economics of research funding and publication/editing of "popular science" subjects as presented on mass media into this and maintain civility. I suggest splitting off a thread on THOSE matters in "legal and societal issues" if you can keep a level head, presenting your sources and data... Or in "whimsy", if you want to have a shouting match. Any use of profanity, your post will be deleted. Complete breakdown of etiquette, this goes to lockdown and/or detritus.
Quote: Originally posted by careysub  
Sigh.

When highly politicized scientific topics, in these highly politicized time, come up the discussion goes all too hell doesn't it?

(Snip)

I think maybe a site policy is a good idea for this issue, requiring that any claim on climate science be actually supported by a link to a real science source. The quality of the links offered should tell the story pretty clearly.

*I am using this awkward, but precise, construct since terms like "accepted", "mainstream", or "consensus" that work with any other topic of science for some reason sends global warming denialists (not an insult, if you have better descriptive term please offer) into a tizzy.


Quote: Originally posted by careysub  
I am not a moderator here, but I am tempted here to don that hat as an affectation for a moment.

Remember the Science Madness FAQ:

"Do not start or perpetuate flame wars."
and
"If you are unable to cite references in support of an idea or as background to your question, the post belongs in Beginnings."

On the topic of climate science I would say posts without reference support should appear in Detritus.

If it includes insults also, it should be deleted.

Also, as a science site, those challenging mainstream science are taking on the burden of proof. Step up and own it. Empty scoffing won't cut it. Put up or shut up.

[Edited on 9-12-2014 by careysub]


[Edited on 9-12-2014 by Bert]

careysub - 9-12-2014 at 11:07

Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat  
well hello, people.. how did this thread suddenly get derailed onto politics?

i personally find this whole methane issue very logical..
“There are no brakes. The methane release itself results as a positive feedback from another warming-generated process, the retreat of summer sea ice. So we have global warming causing summer sea ice retreat causing offshore permafrost thawing causing methane release causing a big instant warming boost causing endless other positive feedbacks.” ...



TheWikipedia page on this is pretty good. It covers the topic pretty thoroughly.

Clearly the biosphere can be become severely unstable at intervals, witness the five major mass extinction events. It is likely that it is not just one process five times, but that are different processes that can cause.

We know of one for sure (being hit by an asteroid). Other likely ones are the emergence of a super plume from the mantle creating an extreme volcanism event (the Deccan Traps), and the possibility of a Lake Nios type event on a global scale, where the ocean system evolves into an unstable situation that gradually accumulate methane that is released all at once in a self-catalytic process.

But it looks like clathrates are buried too deeply to contribute much warming in the next century or two. The release would ramp up more gradually, over many centuries, and be sustained for thousands of years. But you can get committed to this event, by getting the warming heat pulse started in a matter of decades.

[Edited on 9-12-2014 by careysub]

careysub - 9-12-2014 at 11:22

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  
Stupid is as stupid does. Who is the greater fool , the fool or the ones who follow him.


Not good start Franklyn.
Quote:
At the time 30 years ago when the speculation was , might there be global cooling , a seminal director of the present political movement in his own words discloses this present dementia. Thermodynamics does not rank highly in the magical thinking of financial elitists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvl5OxoE3zU&feature=youtu...


I am not sure what any of the words written above mean, but I must record for posterity the link he has provided, in case it eventually goes away. The link is to a YouTube channel called "conspiracyrealitytv" and the title of the half hour video he suggests you watch for enlightenment is "How the Illuminati Gained Control of the Earth's Land".

I'm not saying another word.

Polverone - 9-12-2014 at 11:50

Attn all: this is a science site. If you want to argue against the mainstream conclusions of climate science, cite scientific literature to do so. If you are unsure follow this rule: articles without a DOI aren't scientific literature. Youtube and co2science.org are terrible sources.

Bert - 9-12-2014 at 14:44

That's 8 posts deleted for non compliance with forum policy so far.


I'm not closing and locking the thread just yet, maybe after everyone backs off, has a nice meal and a good night's sleep, hopefully even some sex- They will be in a mood to discuss the science, in a fashion that complies with forum policy...

Or possibly I'll just go get REALLY drunk instead, and tell everyone what I think of them. Stay tuned!

OK.

I am going to keep deleting any and all posts to that thread that do not address the OP in accordance with forum policy. And in a civil and scientifically rigorous manner.

Various posters:

Thanks much for your encouragement, but a PM is the place. The thread needs... Science.

[Edited on 9-12-2014 by Bert]

[Edited on 9-12-2014 by Bert]

Geochemical Catastrophes Past

mayko - 9-12-2014 at 16:14

The Oxygen Revolution is another example of a runaway geochemical process, leading to climate change and mass extinction.

Briefly, the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis shifted the earth's redox state from weakly reducing/neutral to oxidizing. Free oxygen being rather reactive, this wrecked havoc with the environment as it existed at the time. For example, the oceans literally rusted, leaving behind deposits known as the banded iron formations.

I am curious about why the deposits are periodic. I have heard several explanations including annual cycles and Liesegang patterning. I wonder if it might not be a feedback loop between productivity and environmental resources, in which dissolved iron supports photosynthesis but oxygen thus produced limits dissolved iron. (Iron is a growth-limiting nutrient in much of the ocean today.) Such a system may generate emergent episodic behavior (compare the Lotka-Volterra predator/prey model). Oxygen output (ie, photosynthetic efficiency * population size) could be thought of as a tuning parameter which is increased over geologic time. Moreover, if this dynamical system was subject to period-doubling, as many are, this hypothesis lends itself to testable predictions: we should be able to, for example, measure Feigenbaum's constant in the iron bands as oxygen output increases.

Another connection to the OP is the relationship between the oxygen revolution and methane. Being a potent greenhouse gas, precambrian methane contributed to climate, and its removal by UV-catalyzed photooxidation may have been involved in 'Snowball Earth' events. Another interesting suggestion is that this process was limited by a negative feedback in which oxygen levels grew to the point of stabilizing a stratospheric ozone layer, and thus limiting tropospheric methane photooxidation. It has also been proposed that the causality is reversed, and that a decline in methanogenic bacteria (inferred from a 'nickel famine' in the oceans, nickel being an important enzyme cofactor in methanogenic enzymes today) may have allowed oxygen to rise.


Further Reading (ask if you need a copy)

Behrenfeld, M., Bale, A., Kolber, Z., Aiken, J., & Falkowski, P. (1996). Confimation of iron limitation of phytoplankton photosynthesis in the equatorial Pacific Ocean.pdf. Nature, 383.

Cloud, P. (1973). Paleoecological Significance of the Banded Iron Formation. Economic Geology, 68, 1135–1143.

Coale, K. H., Johnson, K. S., Fitzwater, S. E., Gordon, R. M., Tanner, S., Chavez, F. P., … Kudela, R. (1996, October 10). A massive phytoplankton bloom induced by an ecosystem-scale iron fertilization experiment in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Nature. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18680864

Dole, M. (1965). The natural history of oxygen. The Journal of General Physiology, 49(1), Suppl:5–27.

Hazen, R. M., Papineau, D., Bleeker, W., Downs, R. T., Ferry, J. M., McCoy, T. J., … Yang, H. (2008). Mineral evolution. American Mineralogist, 93(11-12), 1693–1720. doi:10.2138/am.2008.2955

Holland, H. D. (2006). The oxygenation of the atmosphere and oceans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 361(1470), 903–15. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1838

Kappler, A., Pasquero, C., Konhauser, K. O., & Newman, D. K. (2005). Deposition of banded iron formations by anoxygenic phototrophic Fe(II)-oxidizing bacteria. Geology, 33(11), 865. doi:10.1130/G21658.1

Klein, C. (2005). Some Precambrian banded iron-formations (BIFs) from around the world: Their age, geologic setting, mineralogy, metamorphism, geochemistry, and origins. American Mineralogist, 90(10), 1473–1499. doi:10.2138/am.2005.1871

Konhauser, K. O., Pecoits, E., Lalonde, S. V, Papineau, D., Nisbet, E. G., Barley, M. E., … Kamber, B. S. (2009). Oceanic nickel depletion and a methanogen famine before the Great Oxidation Event. Nature, 458(7239), 750–3. doi:10.1038/nature07858

Kopp, R. E., Kirschvink, J. L., Hilburn, I. A., & Nash, C. Z. (2005). The Paleoproterozoic snowball Earth : A climate disaster triggered by the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(32), 11131–11136.

Rutten, M. G. (1970). The History of Atmospheric Oxygen. Space Life Sciences, 2, 5–17.

Sverjensky, D. a., & Lee, N. (2010). The Great Oxidation Event and Mineral Diversification. Elements, 6(1), 31–36. doi:10.2113/gselements.6.1.31



Fantasma4500 - 10-12-2014 at 05:22

taking it as that the methane is an actually legit problem that may cause serious problems in near future -- there are anaerobic bacteria producing methane, and then there are deposits of methane as methane-hydrate

the bacterias creating methane could be dealt with adding cyanobacteria, as the anaerobic bacterias are quite sensitive to oxygen, and most of them will die if faced with just decent ''oxygen-stressing''

another thing is the methane-hydrates which could potentially be dealt with having a bacteria feeding off the methane, converting it to CO2, taking global warming as being a reality -- being less harmful on the environment

still supposing global warming would be an actualy problem, question is whether cyanobacterias would be able to survive in an very cold environment with rather little amount of UV

MrHomeScientist - 10-12-2014 at 06:49

That's a real treasure trove of information, mayko, thanks for posting it. Perhaps my earlier despair (deleted by mods) was misplaced.

careysub - 10-12-2014 at 07:06

Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat  
still supposing global warming would be an actualy problem, question is whether cyanobacterias would be able to survive in an very cold environment with rather little amount of UV


Being one of the most ancient forms of life on Earth, and a rich source of extremophiles, cyanobacteria are good candidates for thriving in cold, dim environments.

Most clathrates appear to be at considerable depth, and will be very slow to release, but the shallower deposits that may come into play soon might be addressed in this way.

Iron fertilization of the ocean looks like a promising means of drawing down CO2, as does manipulating silic acid levels in the ocean.

Chemosynthesis - 10-12-2014 at 11:53

AKA the Geritol Solution. I remember having to play catch up on that when a "rogue researcher" dumped 100 tons of iron in the Indian ocean. Probably still have papers I could find for people if that kind of thing interests any of you. Personally, the moralizing about my duties as a scientist in the OP article really turn me off. I'm not qualified nor even really all that interested in spreading the word to the public at large, and I would prefer unqualified people leave my field(s) alone lest they cause more harm than good.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/iron/iron.html
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/rogue-geoengin...

Fantasma4500 - 11-12-2014 at 13:20

thats an very interesting idea, anyhow i do understand what you mean, chemosynthesis
my idea was rather to get it out there so that people could at least think about it, not to mean every school should travel to the north pole and dump a tonne of whatever chemical in the water they would mean could help it, the answers doesnt always come from the ones you expect to come up with answers

but indeed, if people would just decide they know best and start doing things in attempt to help a certain problem, it could get really bad fast, the qualified people who has thought it through should be the ones to ''pull the trigger''

careysub - 11-12-2014 at 14:35

The guy doing experiments without any coordination with other scientists, and international bodies charged with overseeing the health of the oceans is a loose cannon making problems for this area of research, and greatly reducing the chance of useful results from coming out of his projects.

The idea of iron supplementation appears sound, and there seems to be growing interest in doing additional experiments like this - but ones that are set up by a team of experts and designed to learn all of the effects - including potential negative ones.

If work progresses the scale of the experiments will need to grow in size, and picking up potential problems in advance is critical.

The fact is - the problem of rising CO2 is intractable enough* that we need to examine all options that may help us deal with it.

*This is true even if you dismiss mainstream science about current evidence for climate forcing. Ocean acidification is also a problem, and it takes the truly clueless to deny that pushing CO2 farther and farther past anything seen in several million years is fraught with potential risks.

aga - 11-12-2014 at 15:07

I feel that it is vitally important to emphasise the limitations of Scientific Discovery.

Yes, Science has brought us closer to understanding things never even conceived as Knowable.

Yet Nature forever throws spanners in the works, and derails even the most meticulous Scientific Method and Proof.

There is a point where one should look Up and see the sheer vastness of even our own Bodies, or Planet, and simply accept that at this stage, we simply have not had enough time to explore, never mind fully understand, the exquisite complexity of it all.

To make predictions on a Global scale and claim Authority is Insane.

That is not to say that said prediction(s) may not come true.

Zyklon-A - 12-12-2014 at 18:19

This is slightly off-topic, but I don't want to start my own thread for such a short question...
I saw this add on YT, and I wonder if it's true. It states that when burning methane, CO2 emmisions are reduced by 60%, relative "todays most used source of energy production".
Of course CH4 contains the lowest carbon-hydrogen ratio of any saturated hydrocarbon, but 60%?
Here's the video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=trueview-instream&...

deltaH - 18-12-2014 at 10:18

Related?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/12/18/390821/arctic-warmin...

zed - 18-12-2014 at 16:36

Did I miss it? Or, has the recent experimentation of tapping into deep-sea's methane-hydrate been omitted here.

Someone, (perhaps the Japanese government?), has been experimenting at tapping into methane-hydrate as an energy source. After all, we can only increase the Earth's temperature by a limited amount via petroleum products. With a little luck, we could become a true sister planet to Venus. Kitchens might become obsolete. You could do all of your cooking on your front porch. No fuel required.