who/what will this affect?
Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic
291–300 of 384 posts
Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic
#292Honest question: Why is Mainstream Media not covering this like it should be doing? Heck, this should be the breaking news every single day!! After all, this spells doomsday for the upcoming generations, so shouldn't it be the news that should be shown/covered almost everyday on the front page. The people have the right to know that their children and grandchildren will suffer because of something that is going on ri…
I believe this is the case when MSM are not blowing things out of proportion, so by comparison it looks like an understatement. This doesn't "spell doomsday" for the upcoming generations.
First, I believe we are already well on path to sustainable energy. Let's be honest, any planet-wide change will take time, especially when affected by economic means. Granted, world-level dictatorship may achieve zero carbon emissions in a few decades, but I strongly doubt that that is what you want. On the other hand, renewables are surging even with our current level of technology. Any sudden technological breakthrough (be it batteries, fusion energy or room-temperature superconductance) will accelerate it even further, but it's not necessary for the transition. Humanity will surely switch to renewables in a century.
Second, consequences of rising global temperature are harsh, but in no way there are a "doomsday". Do you really believe that loosing Californian fertile grounds will end the humanity? We will adapt and so will the ecosystem in general. It may be costly and inconvenient, but people already live both in the desert (like Northern Australia) and in tundra (like Alaska). Not the end of the world.
Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy.
All in all, I strongly believe that your asteroid analogy is an over-exaggeration.
Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic
#293Honest question: Why is Mainstream Media not covering this like it should be doing? Heck, this should be the breaking news every single day!! After all, this spells doomsday for the upcoming generations, so shouldn't it be the news that should be shown/covered almost everyday on the front page. The people have the right to know that their children and grandchildren will suffer because of something that is going on ri…
If you're referring to the MSM in the US, I think it's because it's in Russia. Russia doesn't get much coverage unless it's about Putin.
Alaska might have a similar problem, though on a much smaller scale.
Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic
#294Honest question: Why is Mainstream Media not covering this like it should be doing? Heck, this should be the breaking news every single day!! After all, this spells doomsday for the upcoming generations, so shouldn't it be the news that should be shown/covered almost everyday on the front page. The people have the right to know that their children and grandchildren will suffer because of something that is going on ri…
I believe this is the case when MSM are not blowing things out of proportion, so by comparison it looks like an understatement. This doesn't "spell doomsday" for the upcoming generations. First, I believe we are already well on path to sustainable energy. Let's be honest, any planet-wide change will take time, especially when affected by economic means. Granted, world-level dictatorship may achieve zero carbon emissi…
For yours points:
1. Renewables in a century? We'd have burned through a large chunk of buried by then. With massive degrees of warming 2. I'm not sure you understand likely warming scenarios. The world doesn't just warm a bit, then stay stable at a new normal. We are triggering runaway feedback effects. At a certain point, even if emissions are zero, the earth keeps warming. 3. This may be something we'll have to do. But it wouldn't stop ocean acidification, for one. Sealife is already dying mysteriously.
Not to get into any of the massive unknowns of manually controlling the atmosphere. Or the political difficulties of doing so while countries face famines from farmland losses and droughts, leading to migration on a scale vastly exceeding what we have now.
Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic
#295Honest question: Why is Mainstream Media not covering this like it should be doing? Heck, this should be the breaking news every single day!! After all, this spells doomsday for the upcoming generations, so shouldn't it be the news that should be shown/covered almost everyday on the front page. The people have the right to know that their children and grandchildren will suffer because of something that is going on ri…
I believe this is the case when MSM are not blowing things out of proportion, so by comparison it looks like an understatement. This doesn't "spell doomsday" for the upcoming generations. First, I believe we are already well on path to sustainable energy. Let's be honest, any planet-wide change will take time, especially when affected by economic means. Granted, world-level dictatorship may achieve zero carbon emissi…
> but people already live both in the desert (like Northern Australia) and in tundra (like Alaska).
Presumably you're referring to Aboriginal Australians and Inuit/Eskimo peoples?
It might be useful to note that these groups of people are known for their utmost respect toward nature, and the fact that their communities are largely sustenance based.
> Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy.
If this were truly the solution to global warming, I find it difficult to believe that no one has already done it.
Saying "can be cheap and easy to deploy" would lead me to think of this were actually true, Greenpeace would already be doing it.
I believe that your explanations don't stand up to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Climate change is accelerating, and it is a big deal for our and future generations.
Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
> for the few who might survive It doesn't have to be for our survivors... We could, and I believe we should, do it for the next civilization to come after ours, even if it's a few alien visitors. If for no other reason than to leave a legacy of our short existence against the infinity of this universe.
I and I'm sure most people on this planet don't care about leaving a legacy to a future species when the problem at hand is our own survival.
Nobody's saying we should give up or not try to survive, but IF the options came down to: Going extinct — or — Going extinct without any trace whatsoever of our existence left behind, which would you prefer?
You said it yourself: If you can't mobilize man to fight climate change, you aren't going to mobilize him to prepare for it either.
Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic
#297God is nice.
God won't let that happen.
Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this is the case when MSM are not blowing things out of proportion, so by comparison it looks like an understatement. This doesn't "spell doomsday" for the upcoming generations. First, I believe we are already well on path to sustainable energy. Let's be honest, any planet-wide change will take time, especially when affected by economic means. Granted, world-level dictatorship may achieve zero carbon emissi…
For yours points: 1. Renewables in a century? We'd have burned through a large chunk of buried by then. With massive degrees of warming 2. I'm not sure you understand likely warming scenarios. The world doesn't just warm a bit, then stay stable at a new normal. We are triggering runaway feedback effects. At a certain point, even if emissions are zero, the earth keeps warming. 3. This may be something we'll have to do…
1. Yep, in a century. I don't see how we can realistically do that faster without some sort of planetary Stalin. You think that would be a better option?
2. "Runaway" is relative and it will stabilize at some point. The particular point is debatable, but it's surely not a Venus-like environment (not until the Earth geology stops). Earth has seen much, much warmer times (palms-on-Antarctica-level warmer) and yet there was a thriving biosphere. Moreover, even the harshest predictions are on the scale of decades thanks to the immense thermal mass of oceans and atmosphere, compared to years if not months that we need to block a large part of incoming sunlight.
3. Ocean acidification is bad and a demise of the great barrier reef will be a pity, but it will not end humanity. Look at the comments around here: people are seriously considering mass-scale human extinction in a decades. Do you really believe that ocean acidification will lead to that, especially in the developed countries?
Sure, there will be political difficulties and mass migration. But it's challenges, not a sudden-death-from-above like an asteroid that GP invoked.
Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic
#299Another bigger problem, raised by VICE reporting, is tundra thawing, leading to ground collapsing 10-30 meters into huge sinkholes. Appearently, one of the possible solutions is replacing tundra forests with grasslands by megafauna and macrofauna grazing, including, potentially, cloned mammoths, because grassland freezes harder in the winter and keeps the permafrost froze during the summer months.
Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic
#300Here is a good video about the arctic methane emergency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9ed5E54s4 Some summary points: - Total amount of methane in the current atmosphere: ~5 gigatons - Amount of carbon preserved as methane in the arctic shelf: estimated at 100s-1000s of gigatons - Only 1% release would double the atmospheric burden of methane - Not much effort is needed to destabilize this 1% - The volume current…
Methane has a short ~5-10 year half life in the atmosphere. So, releasing 50x current methane levels over 100 years does not triple current methane levels.
Untrue and misleading. The more important GWP half-life (neither concentration lifetime nor concentration half-life) is on the order of 50 years.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zuRBO1uTI70/T8A40kdMWBI/AAAAAAAAC9...
