SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (250965)5/24/2014 10:44:09 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541310
 
Yup- I'm up on all that. I refuse to give up hope, though- because we are not doing shit to stop whatever part of climate change we could stop, so hope is all I've got.

And after hope, there's the "well at least the Earth will still be the Earth- humans may just have a hard time living on it."

And since I'm not all that obsessed with humans being around, I can deal with that. Things change. Life movies on. Species die out.



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (250965)5/24/2014 1:31:03 PM
From: T L Comiskey  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541310
 
Livescience:

The Arctic methane time bomb is bigger than scientists once thought and primed to blow, according to a study published today (Nov. 24) in the journal Nature Geoscience.

About 17 teragrams of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, escapes each year from a broad, shallow underwater platform called the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, said Natalia Shakova, lead study author and a biogeochemist at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. A teragram is equal to about 1.1 million tons; the world emits about 500 million tons of methane every year from manmade and naturalsources. The new measurement more than doubles the team’s earlier estimate of Siberian methane release, published in 2010 in the journal Science.

“We believe that release of methane from the Arctic, in particular, from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, could impact the entire globe, not just the Arctic alone,” Shakova told LiveScience. “The picture that we are trying to understand is what is the actual contribution of the [shelf] to the global methane budget and how it will change over time.”




To: Wharf Rat who wrote (250965)5/25/2014 1:40:22 AM
From: koan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541310
 
I think the reason scientists have been conservative on global warming is that it is part of their culture to be very careful of being wrong, or saying anything without the studies to back them up. They don't involve themselves in a bunch of wild speculation.

And as regards an apocalypse, which we could be facing, they would never say that, as to too many that would seem nuts.

No one will say that. And it might be true; probably is true.

<<
"oops, we were too optimistic"

Been like that since at least '07. Deniers don't want to understand that the "alarmists" are pretty conservative.

"it's even possible there may be systems that produce a waterfall effect- and that things will go much more swiftly than we think"
I'd say "probable". Yeah, we gotta keep hoping, but we had better start doing, too. I wish Congress would say, "yeah, what California just did."

Arctic Ice Melting Much Faster Than Predicted

Richard A. Lovett
for National Geographic News

May 1, 2007
Arctic Ocean sea ice is melting faster than even the most advanced climate change models predict, a new study concludes.

news.nationalgeographic.com