Climate-gate

This may be of interest:

I had read a similar article recently. If they are referring to the same seeps which are located below the thermocline, then the methane breaks down before reaching the surface. Nothing in the article suggested that these were new seeps, just previously unstudied.
 
I had read a similar article recently. If they are referring to the same seeps which are located below the thermocline, then the methane breaks down before reaching the surface. Nothing in the article suggested that these were new seeps, just previously unstudied.

to add to your comment:

Contemporary upper-slope seepage there may be triggered by ongoing warming of intermediate waters, but authigenic carbonates observed imply that emissions have continued for more than 1,000 years at some seeps. Extrapolating the upper-slope seep density on this margin to the global passive margin system, we suggest that tens of thousands of seeps could be discoverable.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/full/ngeo2232.html

Press release:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3979&from=rss
 
to add to your comment:

Contemporary upper-slope seepage there may be triggered by ongoing warming of intermediate waters, but authigenic carbonates observed imply that emissions have continued for more than 1,000 years at some seeps. Extrapolating the upper-slope seep density on this margin to the global passive margin system, we suggest that tens of thousands of seeps could be discoverable.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/full/ngeo2232.html

Press release: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3979&from=rss

Scientists have known about Mehane seepage in oceans for a long time. But the renewed interest and studies seem to indicate these and new plumes are becoming increasingly worrysome for several reasons.

a) GW is happening by concensus of Climatologists.
b) GW causes permafrost to thaw and release methane.
c) Increased methane release is causal to an increase in GW.
d) Methane that does not reach the atmosphere is converted to CO2, which is also causal to increased global warming.

The increase of scientific interest of this self feeding process is not due to an accidental find of pre existing seepage. We are now observing an increase in methane release all over the world to the point it has become a matter of concern.

It has become a matter of great interest and concern for scientists as can be seen by increased reporting and the expressed need for more intensive studies, in spite of the costs of research in this area.

Methane is a well known gas and can be studied in a dung heap. But note the increased interest in ocean methane release is not to study methane, it is to study its potential for a run-away GW phenomenon.
Methane Plumes Arctic Ocean [VIDEO] Hundreds Of Gas Plumes Bubbling From Arctic Seafloor Discovered, Connected To Global Warming?
http://www.jobsnhire.com/articles/1...hundreds-gas-bubbling-seafloor-discovered.htm

If science becomes interested in a potentially dangerous natural phenomenon, it is worthy of note, IMO.
 
I not only looked at it, but responded to it, noting the problem with the assumption - unless we're talking about two different links here, as more than one makes that assumption in estimating how much overall planetary warming it would take to affect the clathrates in the ocean, under the permafrost, etc.
You seem to be referring to Archer 2007. I was referring to the links I posted here. I'm fairly sure that there's one of them that uses a coupled model allowing for fluid exchange between the sediments and the ocean - although, not the cavea

Invalid assumptions remain invalid. Work that makes other invalid assumptions, overlooks other central issues, or errs in argument in other ways, does not "confirm" anything regardless of matching results.
I wasn't saying that it would validate the assumptions, I was saying that it validates the conclusions. I was suggesting that if the results are confirmed by other more detailed work that doesn't make the same assumption, then the initial assumption that was made is irrelevant to the outcome. Alternatively if the assumption can be verified through experimental results...

That's kind of the point: a large batch of papers and articles none of which present valid arguments based on reasonable assumptions and relevant evidence is no better reassurance than one such - in fact, worse: each new one on the stringer increases the odds that the pool from which they are drawn contains no other fish.
Valid arguments in your opinion.
Reasonable assumptions in your opinion.
Relevant evidence in your opinion.
And so on.
 
Iceaura: Refresh my memory. What was the basis of your objection to the suggestion that the thermal inertia of the sediments was sufficient to prevent the destabilization of the clathrates?

To be clear, I remember you object to the diffusion driven heat exchange assumption, but I don't remember why.
 
here is an informative (and somewhat reassuring) link on methane release from the oceans: http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/climate.html

My quick summary of the "bottom line" is at least 98% of the CH4 ice is too deep for themal decompositon by ocean warming on time scale of human concern - I.e. extinction by other man-made processes likely to come first. There may be ~1% of what was CH4 ice in cold land tundra, a few 100 Gtons, but now submerged and mostly decompressed to CH4 that is still trapped by sealing sediments under Arctic waters with occasional new escape paths - the source of the patches seen bubbling up. In addition to this ancient (made in last ice age) methane ice, there is constant anaerobic bacteria production, some in shallow waters coastal shelves - that are being discovered, but are not really new. Most from the deeper organic material deposits will dissolve before reaching the surface and major river delta out flows into the oceans are where these biologically produced CH4 sources are strongest.

Thus, I am not as concern about methane as I once was - especially as now realizing much more rapid and likely processes can lead to extinction first. I.e. Amazon (and other rain forests) drying - becoming major CO2 sources and possibly burning with Hadley cells pumping the soot into high clouds, effectively making same global heating effect as about a 10% step up in solar intensity until the clouds become clean again (Years?). Thermal run-a-ways is interesting physics to consider - but of no import to man as 35C wet bulb temperature kills all land mammals but the tiny mice first.
 
here is an informative (and somewhat reassuring) link on methane release from the oceans: http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/climate.html

My quick summary of the "bottom line" is at least 98% of the CH4 ice is too deep for themal decompositon by ocean warming on time scale of human concern - I.e. extinction by other man-made processes likely to come first. There may be ~1% of what was CH4 ice in cold land tundra, a few 100 Gtons, but now submerged and mostly decompressed to CH4 that is still trapped by sealing sediments under Arctic waters with occasional new escape paths - the source of the patches seen bubbling up. In addition to this ancient (made in last ice age) methane ice, there is constant anaerobic bacteria production, some in shallow waters coastal shelves - that are being discovered, but are not really new. Most from the deeper organic material deposits will dissolve before reaching the surface and major river delta out flows into the oceans are where these biologically produced CH4 sources are strongest.

Thus, I am not as concern about methane as I once was - especially as now realizing much more rapid and likely processes can lead to extinction first. I.e. Amazon (and other rain forests) drying - becoming major CO2 sources and possibly burning with Hadley cells pumping the soot into high clouds, effectively making same global heating effect as about a 10% step up in solar intensity until the clouds become clean again (Years?). Thermal run-a-ways is interesting to consider - but of no import to man as 35C wet bulb temperature kills all land mammals but the tiny mice first.

I thought about sharing that link in my link dump earlier but decided against it for reasons I no longer recall. :)
 
trippy said:
I wasn't saying that it would validate the assumptions, I was saying that it validates the conclusions.
You might want to rethink that. You need a valid argument at some point, no? How many different arguments, with different assumptions and all that, can I find that come to the conclusion the whole issue is silly because any such disaster conflicts with the Bible?
I was suggesting that if the results are confirmed by other more detailed work that doesn't make the same assumption, then the initial assumption that was made is irrelevant to the outcome.
And I pointed out that the "if" clause there seems to lack support. Invalid arguments don't confirm anything.

To be clear, I remember you object to the diffusion driven heat exchange assumption, but I don't remember why.
Because it depends on stability in those sediments. The probability of significant instability is not calculated - or even recognized as an issue. I listed a few known and potentially large scale causes of instability, some of them abetted by global warming.

Valid arguments in your opinion.
Reasonable assumptions in your opinion.
Relevant evidence in your opinion.
Opinions backed by reason and observation, so far completely - completely - unchallenged by countering reason or observation.
 
I believe we should invest heavily in hemp production. The more I learn about this "weed" the more impressed I become. Its uses are almost unlimited and it is a voracious CO2 consumer.
 
I thought about sharing that link in my link dump earlier but decided against it for reasons I no longer recall. :)
Your first link would not open for me. I spent an hour or so on the third as it is authoritative and not biased much - notes the problems and areas still very uncertain. I chose #3 as it is of recent date - Which would you recommend I read next when I get time? and Why?
 
I believe we should invest heavily in hemp production. ... Its uses are almost unlimited and it is a voracious CO2 consumer.
Until it is smoked and after that you don't care much about global warming.

More seriously, all CO2 storage by green plants is temprorary - they give it all back to the air when they die and rot. Perhaps more, if the rotting is anaerobic bacterial process - making CH4 - a much worse GHG, until it becomes CO2. Cows, eating grass, are by far Brazil's main producer of GHGs both CH4 & CO2.
 
Until it is smoked and after that you don't care much about global warming.

More seriously, all CO2 storage by green plants is temprorary - they give it all back to the air when they die and rot. Perhaps more, if the rotting is anaerobic bacterial process - making CH4 - a much worse GHG, until it becomes CO2. Cows, eating grass, are by far Brazil's main producer of GHGs both CH4 & CO2.

Perhaps you are not familiar with industrial hemp. While it belongs to the cannabis family it is very low in THC but its value lies in the physical properties and low maintenance. The entire plant is used, so it does not naturally become a source of CO2 or CH4.
It is useless as a recreational drug, but the plant (there are several varieties of hemp) has an extremely long fiber which lends itself to all kinds of purposes.

I was going to make a list of the industries which can use hemp, but the list is too long, so I'll refer to some sites which explain the history and use of hemp in the US.

I am sure you knew that presidents Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all grew hemp and experimented with several varieties.
Few people know that the first draft of the Declaration of Independence was (is) written on hemp paper and has endured

and from wiki,

Hemp (from Old English hænep) is a commonly used term for high growing varieties of the Cannabis plant and its products, which include fiber, oil, and seed. Hemp is refined into products such as hemp seed foods, hemp oil, wax, resin, rope, cloth, pulp, paper, and fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

Uses
1.1 Food
1.2 Fiber
1.3 Building material
1.4 Plastic and composite materials
1.5 Paper
1.6 Jewelry
1.7 Cordage
1.8 Animal bedding
1.9 Water and soil purification
1.10 Weed control
1.11 Fuel

Producers
3.1 Australia
3.2 Canada
3.3 France
3.4 Russia
3.5 United Kingdom
3.6 United States

I can add that hemp lends itself to the production of the finest quality cheap clothing and fabrics. It can be spun like wool and is much stronger than cotton.

Note that there is no mention of medicinal or recreational use, because industrial Cannabis is not Sativa or any of the other high THC producing varieties. Hemp grows in very poor soil, requires very little water and its roots are a favorite food for ground worms, which improve soil conditions.

All by all, it is a demonstrably versatile farm crop and to treat it as a weed is an insult to nature's gift of this remarkable plant.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you are not familiar with industrial hemp. While it belongs to the cannabis family it is very low in THC but its value lies in the physical properties and low maintenance. The entire plant is used, so it does not naturally become a source of CO2 or CH4.
It is useless as a recreational drug, but the plant (there are several varieties of hemp) has an extremely long fiber which lends itself to all kinds of purposes.

I was going to make a list of the industries which can use hemp, but the list is too long, so I'll refer to some sites which explain the history and use of hemp in the US.

I am sure you knew that presidents Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all grew hemp and experimented with several varieties.
Few people know that the first draft of the Declaration of Independence was (is) written on hemp paper and has endured

and from wiki,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

Uses
1.1 Food
1.2 Fiber
1.3 Building material
1.4 Plastic and composite materials
1.5 Paper
1.6 Jewelry
1.7 Cordage
1.8 Animal bedding
1.9 Water and soil purification
1.10 Weed control
1.11 Fuel

Producers
3.1 Australia
3.2 Canada
3.3 France
3.4 Russia
3.5 United Kingdom
3.6 United States

I can add that hemp lends itself to the production of the finest quality cheap clothing and fabrics. It can be spun like wool and is much stronger than cotton.

Note that there is no mention of medicinal or recreational use, because industrial Cannabis is not Sativa or any of the other high THC producing varieties. Hemp grows in very poor soil, requires very little water and its roots are a favorite food for ground worms, which improve soil conditions.

All by all, it is a demonstrably versatile farm crop and to treat it as a weed is an insult to nature's gift of this remarkable plant.
Thanks for the information, but in the end does it not return the CO2 taken from the air when it grew? (or worse - first convert it with help of anaerobic organisms into CH4, half of which each decade becomes CO2.)

An Oak Tree can remove CO2 form the air for a couple of hundred years - for how long on average does hemp store the carbon removed from the air?
 
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2013/07/10/a-vicious-cycle-new-study-says-wildfire-soot-may-be-a-bigger-factor-in-global-warming-than-previously-thought/#comment-93653 said:
“Most climate assessment models treat fire emissions as a mixture of pure soot and organic carbon aerosols that offset the respective warming and cooling effects of one another on climate. Dubey explained. “However Las Conchas results show that tar balls exceed soot by a factor of 10 and the soot gets coated by organics in fire emissions, each resulting in more of a warming effect than is currently assumed.
“Tar balls can absorb sunlight at shorter blue and ultraviolet wavelengths (also called brown carbon due to the color) and can cause substantial warming,” he said. “Furthermore, organic coatings on soot act like lenses that focus sunlight, amplifying the absorption and warming by soot by a factor of 2 or more. This has a huge impact on how they should be treated in computer models.
Much worse, I think, if big rain forest burnt and via Hadley Cell pumped that carbon high up into the atmosphere, greatly reducing solar reflection by more than factor of 4. I.e. absorbing most of it for a few year, instead of reflecting most of the incindent sunlight back to space.

data from LASL & published in Nature Communication: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130704/ncomms3122/full/ncomms3122.html
 

Anybody with even a basic grasp of statistics could have predicted that would happen.
ZZTXlZp.png

Whenerv you have an extreme measurement, regardless of what's being measured, the next measurement is most likely to fall closer to the mean - it's called regression towards the mean
 
Billy T,

Thanks for the information, but in the end does it not return the CO2 taken from the air when it grew? (or worse - first convert it with help of anaerobic organisms into CH4, half of which each decade becomes CO2.)

An Oak Tree can remove CO2 form the air for a couple of hundred years - for how long on average does hemp store the carbon removed from the air?

This may answer your questions.
WOW! Hemp is the miracle plant of our time, breathing in 4x the carbon dioxide (CO2) of trees during it's quick 12-14 week growing cycle. Trees take 20 years to mature vs 4 months for Industrial Hemp! Our forests are being cut down 3x faster than they can grow! One acre of hemp produces as much cellulose fiber pulp as 4.1 acres of trees!!!(Dewey & Merrill. Bulletin #404. U.S. Dept. of Age. 1916)
http://www.hemp-technologies.com/page33/page33.html

and
Industrial Hemp for Renewable Energy

As a renewable resource from living plants hemp does not contribute to the greenhouse effect. The growing plants absorb as much CO2 as will later be released when oil or other plant matter is burnt. Unlike fossil fuels such as oil, coal, natural gas or nuclear fuels, hemp could supply us with raw materials for thousands of years, without ever changing our climate and without producing waste that remains radioactive for millions of years. Hemp is a high yield fiber crop, producing more biomass per acre than most other crops. As a result, the hydrocarbons in hemp could be used as a renewable, low polluting alternative to fossil fuels. Hemp could be processed into fuel pellets, liquid fuels, and gas, reducing our consumption of fossil fuels and nuclear power. Biomass can be converted into virtually every form of energy used, including methanol to power automobiles. Since methanol is a cleaner fuel than petro-based fuels, this would lead to reduced auto emissions. Corn is the most popular source of biomass today; but hemp can yield up to eight times as much methanol per acre as corn.
http://www.hempsensenatural.com/healing-properties/industrial-hemp-for-renewable-energy.php

The more I read about hemp the more impressed I become with this product. Note that the first response to the intro of hemp as a viable farm crop was a joke! This plant is NO JOKE, it is the real thing and in some countries it is a vibrant industry.
Perhaps now that laws against "medicinal/recreational" Cannabis are relaxing, we can begin to cultivate "industrial" Hemp at large scale.
 
Last edited:
To Write-4-You:
OK, you have convinced me. I'll join the "plant more hemp" band wagon, but not for its ability, which is impressive, to remove atmospheric CO2 at very high rate for 3 or 4 months, but because like sugar cane based alcohol, it can produce car fuel (methanol) to displace oil burning. I think methanol can be shipped thru existing pipelines, which alcohol can not be, and also grows in colder regions.

Do you have any information on its ERE (Energy Return on input Energy) when producing methanol? Sugar cane's alcohol is nearly 10, and that is not counting fact that the crushed cane burns with much more heat release than needed for the distillation, so Brazil gets nearly 4 or 5% of its electric power from it. Hemp gets probably less, I guess, but needs much less fertilizer than Iowa's corn. Much of that fertilizer is converted into NOx by soil bacteria, so it is less damaging to the environment and public health to just used pure gasoline than Iowa's "gasohol." Iowa's corn ERE is barely unity as natural gas is used for the distillation, and making the fertilizer is energy intensive.

It is probably too early to know the cost of hemp based methanol, per gallon, when not yet in mass production, but that is important too. Sugar cane based alcohol is cheaper to produce than gasoline when oil prices are greater than about 75 or 80 dollars per barrel.
 
Discussed here is bad, but nothing like it may become (Same GLOBAL effect as a 10% increase in solar intensity in less than 10 days - See calculation and discussion, which no one comments on, here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?97892-Climate-gate&p=3220284&viewfull=1#post3220284).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fires-could-turn-amazon-rainforest-into-a-desert-as-human-activity-and-climate-change-threaten-lungs-of-the-world-says-study-9259741.html said:
The Amazon rainforest is becoming increasingly vulnerable to catastrophic forest fires due to a combination of droughts, climate change and human activities such as deforestation, farming and habitat fragmentation, a major study has concluded. One of the last great wildernesses on earth – known as the lungs of the world – is balancing dangerously close to a “tipping point” where forest fires will become so commonplace and extensive that they will change much of the landscape forever, scientists said.

Although fires have always occurred in Amazonia, they have been largely controlled by the natural humidity of the region. Now, however, the drying out of the rainforest threatens to ignite the tree-filled habitat – with its rich biodiversity – and convert it almost overnight into barren desert,* they warned.

For the first time, scientists have shown in experiments on the ground how extreme, dry weather combined with the effects of human activities can create a tinderbox environment where intensely damaging forest fires can spread easily, killing trees that have taken hundreds of years to grow.

The study, carried out on three large experimental plots of rainforest monitored by satellite, showed that droughts abruptly increased the risk of intense forest fires compared to non-drought years, and this effect can be exacerbated significantly in areas influenced by human activities. “These results provide, to our knowledge, the first experimental evidence of the link among extreme weather events, widespread and high-intensity fires and associated abrupt changes in forest structure, dynamics and composition,” said the scientists from the US and Brazil.

“This mechanism of rapid forest degradation could operate over a larger geographical area, such as the ‘arc of deforestation’, where droughts, forest fragmentation and forest fires are already common,” they said in a study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

* The sad news is that huge "burp" of CO2, is only the minor part of the problem - The main part is the soot pumped high up by the Hadley Cell, increasing solar absorption by those high clouds by at least a factor of about 2.
 
@Billy T,

Here is a link to a very informative article about the "positive" impact of Hemp on the environment.
http://1st-ecofriendlyplanet.com/tag/environmental-benefits-of-hemp/

and
Unlike virtually all hemp substitutes, growing hemp requires very little effort and very few resources. Most substitutes for hemp (sisal, kenaf, sugar cane) grow in limited geographical areas and none have the paper/fiber potential of hemp. Hemp can be grown in all 50 states!
http://www.nemeton.com/static/nemeton/axis-mutatis/hemp.html

and
The best fuel crop?

As for the (false) argument that hemp is not an exceptional source of cellulose, it's important to keep in mind that hemp:

1) doesn't need as much fertilizer or water as corn, switchgrass or other energy crops (33)
2) doesn't require the expensive drying required of corn and sugar cane (34),
3) can be grown where other energy crops can't (35)
4) is more resistant to “adverse fall weather” than other crops (36) and
5) has long been known to be the lowest-moisture highest-cellulose crop.
http://hemp-ethanol.blogspot.com/2008/01/economics-history-and-politics-of-hemp.html

Once we get over the ridiculous restrictions curently in place, Hemp may become THE fuel of the future. Which brings us back to your original question of how much CO2 is returned into the atmosphere through emission. Keep in mind that most of the Hemp will be used to produce "solid" materials and the fuels are distilled from the "leftovers", which may give us a pleasant surprise on the CO2 return ratio compared to other energy sources.

I am speculating here, but it occurred to me that while Hemp is a natural CO2 "scrubber", only a small part of this CO2 will be returned to the air as fuel emission as the plant can and will be used for other emission free purposes.

From what i have learned so far, there are almost no negatives associated with hemp production. The only negatives are the restrictions imposed by laws and regulations which can make it very expensive to get licensed. But from what I now know, potentially Hemp may become the most versatile, cost efficient, environmentally friendly farm crop on earth.
 
Back
Top