But, but, but the science is settled

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Uh oh! Seems like we don't know as much as we think we know.

Scientists Found A ‘Totally Unexpected’ Source Of Climate Cooling


MICHAEL BASTASCH

Arctic waters absorbed vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, creating a cooling effect that’s 230 times greater than the warming from methane emitted from underwater seeps, according to a new study.

The findings are a complete reversal of what scientists previously believed — that methane seeps in the Arctic Ocean were contributing to global warming.

“If what we observed near Svalbard occurs more broadly at similar locations around the world, it could mean that methane seeps have a net cooling effect on climate, not a warming effect as we previously thought,” John Pohlman, a U.S. Geological Survey biochemist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Monday.

If the results hold, Pohlman’s study could have big implications for how scientists calculate the global carbon “budget” and for future projections of global warming.

“This is … totally unexpected,” Brett Thornton, a Swedish geochemist who was not involved in the study, told Science Magazine.

A group of U.S., German and Norwegian scientists measured methane and carbon dioxide concentrations off Svalbard’s coast. They found 2,000 times more carbon dioxide was taken out of the atmosphere than methane escaping from underwater vents.

Methane escaping margin seeps at depths of 260 to 295 feet appeared to stimulate marine phytoplankton, which may have increased their intake of carbon dioxide. The study “suggests physical mechanisms that transport methane to the surface may also transport nutrient-enriched water that supports enhanced primary production and CO2 drawdown.”

“These findings challenge the widely held perception that areas characterized by shallow-water methane seeps and/or strongly elevated sea−air methane flux always increase the global atmospheric greenhouse gas burden,” reads the study’s executive summary.

Pohlman cautioned the “cooling effect” of the seeps may be limited to certain times of the year, but he and his team were astounded to find such low amounts of methane above the seeps.

“These areas of methane seepage may be net greenhouse gas sinks,” reads a summary of the work.

Methane is a more potent gas than carbon dioxide, and scientists have become increasingly worried about “methane bomb” from thawing permafrost and warming oceans. Methane hydrates from the ocean floor “a key cause of the global warming that led to one of the largest extinctions in the earth’s history,” Ryo Matsumoto, a University of Tokyo professor, said in 2008.

Scientists worry a huge release of methane from the sea floor could cause massive amounts of warming. One 2016 study warned “the release of methane from hydrate may be apocalyptic.”

But Pohlman’s research suggests there’s a lot more to learn about methane seeps and their role in global greenhouse gas inventories.

Pohlman’s study was the first to observe this in methane-rich waters, but the implications for climate science could be big if results can be replicated at other methane seeps.

“We are looking forward to testing the hypothesis that shallow-water methane seeps are net greenhouse gas sinks in other locations,” Pohlman said.
 

Popeer

Freshman
Sep 8, 2003
21,466
81
0
Fake news. Bought off by the right. Guy probably voted for Trump. [laughing]
 

PriddyBoy

Junior
May 29, 2001
17,174
282
0
Fake news. Bought off by the right. Guy probably voted for Trump. [laughing]
From an earlier discussion.
Or the unqualified replies like "HaHa, you're a moron" which basically means they give up without admitting it.

Or [laughing], like everyone knows something is funny when in actuality most are thinking the laugher must have mental issues.
 

Keyser76

Freshman
Apr 7, 2010
11,912
58
0
PATX gonna find that smoking gun article on climate change yet! Who cares, your boy in charge, he doesn't believe it either.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
PATX gonna find that smoking gun article on climate change yet! Who cares, your boy in charge, he doesn't believe it either.

The point I am making is that climate science is relatively new, yet we insist the science is settled. The gloom and doom predictions have been wrong. The models produced by climate scientists have been wrong. The IPCC has revised their earlier estimates all pointing to lower temps and lower certainty. We seemingly find contradictions to widely held beliefs each month. Now, after El Nino, world temperatures are plunging.

Until we know much, much more about man's role, we should not engage in activities that will destroy whole industries or impact our economy negatively. And we certainly should not enter into an agreement (Paris) that forces changes on us today that will raise energy prices while China and India get a pass until 2030 assuming they every live up to that agreement.

I want clean air and water and we should focus on ways to reduce pollution (which we have made great strides in). But that is far different than global warming changes.
 

Brushy Bill

Hall of Famer
Mar 31, 2009
52,631
102,609
113
I want clean air and water and we should focus on ways to reduce pollution (which we have made great strides in). But that is far different than global warming changes.

Exactly the EPA was politicized to fight the great climate wars of the last 2 decades and now it is being restored to its proper function of protecting the actual land, air and waterways of the USA.
 

op2

Senior
Mar 16, 2014
11,174
547
103
The point I am making is that climate science is relatively new, yet we insist the science is settled. The gloom and doom predictions have been wrong. The models produced by climate scientists have been wrong. The IPCC has revised their earlier estimates all pointing to lower temps and lower certainty. We seemingly find contradictions to widely held beliefs each month. Now, after El Nino, world temperatures are plunging.

Until we know much, much more about man's role, we should not engage in activities that will destroy whole industries or impact our economy negatively. And we certainly should not enter into an agreement (Paris) that forces changes on us today that will raise energy prices while China and India get a pass until 2030 assuming they every live up to that agreement.

I want clean air and water and we should focus on ways to reduce pollution (which we have made great strides in). But that is far different than global warming changes.

Even if we were 100% certain that fossil fuels did not cause climate change it's crazy to be still promoting in 2017 an ethic of us relying on them so heavily. First of all, climate change aside, fossil fuels pollute like crazy. And secondly, having such strong reliance on fossil fuels funds very bad people due to the geography of whose land the fossil fuels sit under. Know how you always read about Europe being Islamicized? That's not only due to the immigrants but also due to the funding for mosques and whatnot that is coming from the oil money in the Persian Gulf area.

People seem to think that new technologies develop at a certain pace no matter what. But instead they develop faster if we put more money and effort into them and slower if we put less. In 1961 JFK said that by the time the decade was out we'd put a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth. IOW, we're going to put forth the resources and we're going to get it done. And we did.

If not for vested financial interests working against it we could have done the same by now for developing renewable energy resources. Eventually the technology is going to get good enough so that renewables are all over the place so why not just put forth the effort now and be done with it? And then we'd have less pollution permanently and less money going to religious fundamentalists who turn around and use the money to export religious fundamentalism (and less money going to repressive Russia and less money going to the dictatorship in Venezuela, etc).
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Even if we were 100% certain that fossil fuels did not cause climate change it's crazy to be still promoting in 2017 an ethic of us relying on them so heavily. First of all, climate change aside, fossil fuels pollute like crazy. And secondly, having such strong reliance on fossil fuels funds very bad people due to the geography of whose land the fossil fuels sit under. Know how you always read about Europe being Islamicized? That's not only due to the immigrants but also due to the funding for mosques and whatnot that is coming from the oil money in the Persian Gulf area.

People seem to think that new technologies develop at a certain pace no matter what. But instead they develop faster if we put more money and effort into them and slower if we put less. In 1961 JFK said that by the time the decade was out we'd put a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth. IOW, we're going to put forth the resources and we're going to get it done. And we did.

If not for vested financial interests working against it we could have done the same by now for developing renewable energy resources. Eventually the technology is going to get good enough so that renewables are all over the place so why not just put forth the effort now and be done with it? And then we'd have less pollution permanently and less money going to religious fundamentalists who turn around and use the money to export religious fundamentalism (and less money going to repressive Russia and less money going to the dictatorship in Venezuela, etc).

This country was built on cheap energy. We became wealthy because of it. Fossil fuels have done more for man than any other asset in our history. We have a cleaner environment in the U.S. today even while using fossil fuels. I encourage research but let the market place decide on fuel choices. When renewables become cost competitive, the market will react. We should not use artificial means to use renewables and drive up energy costs that impact the poorest among us the greatest. It is a very regressive cost. We should also continue to make fossil fuels as clean to burn as possible.
 

op2

Senior
Mar 16, 2014
11,174
547
103
This country was built on cheap energy. We became wealthy because of it. Fossil fuels have done more for man than any other asset in our history. We have a cleaner environment in the U.S. today even while using fossil fuels. I encourage research but let the market place decide on fuel choices. When renewables become cost competitive, the market will react. We should not use artificial means to use renewables and drive up energy costs that impact the poorest among us the greatest. It is a very regressive cost. We should also continue to make fossil fuels as clean to burn as possible.

The market isn't deciding now. Fossil fuels have big subsidies. That's the nature of big business. They do something important so they get big. Then because they're big and powerful they entrench themselves and try to get more advantages for themselves to make it harder for others to compete.

"Lobbying" is companies giving money to politicians to help bend the laws in their favor and the bigger a company is the more lobbying it does.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
The market isn't deciding now. Fossil fuels have big subsidies. That's the nature of big business. They do something important so they get big. Then because they're big and powerful they entrench themselves and try to get more advantages for themselves to make it harder for others to compete.

"Lobbying" is companies giving money to politicians to help bend the laws in their favor and the bigger a company is the more lobbying it does.

Stop all subsidies. Green energy is getting massive subsidies. Hopefully, the new tax bill will remove all subsidies and let free market capitalism thrive. Do not distort the market.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
This country was built on cheap energy. We became wealthy because of it. Fossil fuels have done more for man than any other asset in our history. We have a cleaner environment in the U.S. today even while using fossil fuels. I encourage research but let the market place decide on fuel choices. When renewables become cost competitive, the market will react. We should not use artificial means to use renewables and drive up energy costs that impact the poorest among us the greatest. It is a very regressive cost. We should also continue to make fossil fuels as clean to burn as possible.

Wrong, some became wealthy, others simply received a goat or a donkey for their mineral rights. If you know anything about WV history, you know this to be accurate.

Fossil fuels have done more for man than water?

We only have a cleaner environment because of regulations and enforcement, and improvements can still be made. We still have acid mine drainage issue polluting our streams and water wells.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Wrong, some became wealthy, others simply received a goat or a donkey for their mineral rights. If you know anything about WV history, you know this to be accurate.

Fossil fuels have done more for man than water?

We only have a cleaner environment because of regulations and enforcement, and improvements can still be made. We still have acid mine drainage issue polluting our streams and water wells.

This country is extremely wealthy. Even our poor have far more than those in other countries. Without fossil fuels, this would not have been possible. Energy, cheap abundant energy, have been critical to our growth as a nation and indeed world wide growth.