Despite the ever present wailing from green activists that we are sitting on a “methane catastrophe”, it’s simply business as usual for Earth in the Arctic. Even Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS thinks the issue is “implausible”. This study further confirms that the issue is just another emotional overblown green issue of no merit.
Methane seepage from the Arctic seabed occurring for millions of years
From the Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment
We worry about greenhouse gas methane. Its lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than CO2´s, but the impact of methane on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period. 60 percent of the methane in the atmosphere comes from emissions from human activities.
But methane is a natural gas, gigatonnes of it trapped under the ocean floor in the Arctic.
And it is leaking. And it has been leaking for longer time than the humans have roamed the Earth.
“Our planet is leaking methane gas all the time. If you go snorkeling in the Caribbean you can see bubbles raising from the ocean floor at 25 meters depth. We studied this type of release, only in a much deeper, colder and darker environment. And found out that it has been going on, periodically, for as far back as 2,7 million years.” says Andreia Plaza Faverola, researcher at Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and Climate, and the primary author behind a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters.
She is talking about Vestnesa Ridge in Fram Strait, a thousand meters under the Arctic Ocean surface offshore West-Svalbard. Here, enormous – 800 meters high – gas flares rise from the seabed today. That’s the size of the tallest manmade structure in the world – Burj Khalifa in Dubai.
“Half of Vestnesa Ridge is showing very active seepage of methane. The other half is not. But there are obvious pockmarks on the inactive half, cavities and dents in the ocean floor, that we recognized as old seepage features. So we were wondering what activates, or deactivates, the seepage in this area.,” says Plaza Faverola.
Why 2,7 million years?
She, and a team of marine geophysicists from CAGE, used the P-Cable technology , to figure it out. It is a seismic instrument that is towed behind a research vessel. It recorded the sediments beneath these pockmarks. P-Cable renders images that look like layers of a cake. It also enables scientists to visualize deep sediments in 3D.
” We know from other studies in the region that the sediments we are looking at in our seismic data are at least 2.7 million years old. This is the period of increase of glaciations in the Northern Hemisphere, which influences the sediment.. The P-Cable enabled us to see features in this sediment, associated with gas release in the past . ”
“These features can be buried pinnacles or cavities that form what we call gas chimneys in the seismic data. Gas chimneys appear like vertical disturbances in the layers of our sedimentary cake. This enables us to reconstruct the evolution of gas expulsion from this area for at least 2,7 million years.” says Andreia Plaza Faverola.
The seismic signal penetrated into 400 to 500 meters of sediment to map this timescale.
How is the methane released?
By using this method, scientists were able to identify two major events of gas emission throughout this time period: One 1,8 million years ago, the other 200 000 years ago.
This means that there is something that activated and deactivated the emissions several times. Plaza Faverola´s paper gives a plausible explanation: It is the movement of the tectonic plates that influences the gas release. Vestnesa is not like California though, riddled with earthquakes because of the moving plates. The ridge is on a so-called passive margin. But as it turns out, it doesn´t take a huge tectonic shift to release the methane stored under the ocean floor.
“Even though Vestnesa Ridge is on a passive margin, it is between two oceanic ridges that are slowly spreading. These spreading ridges resulted in separation of Svalbard from Greenland and opening of the Fram Strait. The spreading influences the passive margin of West-Svalbard, and even small mechanical collapse in the sediment can trigger seepage.” says Faverola.
Where does the methane come from?
The methane is stored as gas hydrates, chunks of frozen gas and water, up to hundreds of meters under the ocean floor. Vestnesa hosts a large gas hydrate system. There is some concern that global warming of the oceans may melt this icy gas and release it into the atmosphere. That is not very likely in this area, according to Andreia Plaza Faverola.
” This is a deep water gas hydrate system, which means that it is in permanently cold waters and under a lot of pressure. This pressure keeps the hydrates stable and the whole system is not vulnerable to global temperature changes. But under the stable hydrates there is gas that is not frozen. The amount of this gas may increase if hydrates melt at the base of this stability zone, or if gas from deeper in the sediments arrives into the system. This could increase the pressure in this part of the system, and the free gas may escape the seafloor through chimneys. Hydrates would still remain stable in this scenario .”
Historical methane peaks coincide with increase in temperature
Throughout Earth´s history there have been several short periods of significant increase in temperature. And these periods often coincide with peaks of methane in the atmosphere , as recorded by ice cores. Scientists such as Plaza Faverola are still debating about the cause of this methane release in the past.
” One hypotheses is that massive gas release from geological sources, such as volcanos or ocean sediments may have influenced global climate.. What we know is that there is a lot of methane released at present time from the ocean floor. What we need to find out is if it reaches the atmosphere, or if it ever did.”
Historical events of methane release, such as the ones in the Vestnesa Ridge, provide crucial information that can be used in future climate modeling. Knowing if these events repeat, and identifying what makes them happen, may help us to better predict the potential influence of methane from the oceans on future climate.
###
Reference: Role of tectonic stress in seepage evolution along the gas hydrate-charged Vestnesa Ridge, Fram Strait. A.Plaza Faverola, S.Bünz, J.E.Johnson, S. Chand, J. Knies, J. Mienert and P. Franek. Geophysical Research Letters. 2015.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062474/abstract
Abstract
Methane expulsion from the world ocean floor is a broadly observed phenomenon known to be episodic. Yet the processes that modulate seepage remain elusive. In the Arctic offshore west Svalbard, for instance, seepage at 200–400 m water depth may be explained by ocean temperature-controlled gas hydrate instabilities at the shelf break, but additional processes are required to explain seepage in permanently cold waters at depths >1000 m. We discuss the influence of tectonic stress on seepage evolution along the ~100 km long hydrate-bearing Vestnesa Ridge in Fram Strait. High-resolution P-Cable 3-D seismic data revealed fine-scale (>10 m width) near-vertical faults and fractures controlling seepage distribution. Gas chimneys record multiple seepage events coinciding with glacial intensification and active faulting. The faults document the influence of nearby tectonic stress fields in seepage evolution along this deepwater gas hydrate system for at least the last ~2.7 Ma.
We need to get our there and capture that methane for the good of the planet 😉
Bingo!
Then burn it for electricity and warmth.
Sorry to put this comment here but it is a timely warning to the media about running scare stories over premature methane ejection. Nafeez Ahmed ran an earlier story, then Warmists came in on the attack over catastrophic methane release.
Note to media: Sceptics exist for reasons like the above. We don’t swallow, we spit. 😉
So the bottom line is, we don’t have to stop eating cows? Right?
Right. We don’t have to stop cows from eating either.
But remember what killed the dinosaurs after baked beans night.
And cows don’t need this stuff:
http://www.prise2tete.fr/upload/franck9525-etude_scientifique.jpg
“But under the stable hydrates there is gas that is not frozen. ”
Methane forms hydrates when it contacts water under 55° F (12.8° C). Elevated pressure accelerates this. Methane hydrate is a continuing problem in natural gas pipelines, where substances such as methanol are added to prevent the water from forming the clathrate ‘cages’ around the methane molecules.
If there is ‘gas that is not frozen’ below the hydrates, it must be dry down there because it is certainly cold and pressurized, and there isn’t any methanol.
Since temperature below the seafloor increases with depth, the hydrate formation zone is limited to around 100 meters of sediment. see: Cold Seeps and Methane Hydrates.
As many WUWT regulars have already pointed out, ‘Methane’ will almost certainly be the new ‘CO2’ over the next couple of years. The CAGW ‘Sophists’ have a truck load of egg on their faces – they will be in total denial as, as yet, they have no real hard examples where recent ‘global warming caused by CO2’ has actually jumped out and gone Boo! Even temperate Spain has deep snow right now. The nice thing for us Climate ‘Realists’ is that there is considerably less atmospheric Methane (0.002%) to CO2 (0.04%). This is an excellent trumping point for additional incessant debate.
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2015/650x366_02052000_hd34.jpg
wow, snow falling in the winter along the mountains in northern Italy, parts of France, Switzerland and Austria I am sure the ski hills are pretty happy. Is this phenom any different than other years? Was there a methane release in the Mediterranean Sea we don’t know about? Sorry I am just getting frustrated with all the 0.01 degree with +/- 0.05 degree margin of error discussions to me the nit picking is getting out of control the warmists are getting desperate and as someone else mentioned I hope methane does become the next boondoggle we have to go through.
“‘Methane’ will almost certainly be the new ‘CO2′ over the next couple of years”
Wait till the read the not-so-fine print about water vapour…
Oh… please.
I can’t wait for the first congressional hearing where some idiot calls for an immediate reduction of anthropogenic water vapor emissions.
I think the debate will actually be over at that point.
“‘Methane’ will almost certainly be the new ‘CO2′ over the next couple of years”
Wait till the read the not-so-fine print about water vapour…
It certainly will just add oxygen O2 O2 O2 and lightning and
CH4 becomes (1)CO2 and (4)H2O
I can see California banning ALL swimming pools even though they sit just east of the largest body of water on the planet.
Connecting the dots isn’t one of their strong points.
Geejam, not just Northern Spain, we have friends on the Costa del Sol who have told us the temperature tonight is 0 Celsius.
NORTHERN SPAIN reported yesterday on the BBC. Spanish children won’t know what snow is.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/80802000/jpg/_80802553_db7f9057-0de7-4dce-b5b2-d5b307eb557d.jpg
Jimbo, after almost 15 years, excerpts from the ‘Independent’ prediction on 20th March 2000 probably now need editing. I suggest . . . .
Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, said ‘within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event” now reads “Dr David Viner posseses an articulate sphincter”.
“. . . . snow is starting to disappear from our lives” and “. . . . “fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks” now reads “dried and crumbled in large amounts, the infusion of the Liberty Cap (Psilocybe semilanceata) into boiling water creates a hallucinogenic ‘tea’ which causes stupor, psychedelic nomenclature, makes you feel happy and you giggle lots.”
So the global warmers were right! Now Britain has got a climate like Southern Spain, just as they promised.
lol, apparently, so, but, never fear, that methane flash in the pan chicanery will soon dissipate into oblivion, heh, heh, HEH!
***********
Why methane (besides the obvious that it’s easily linked to petroleum production)?
Why because….. it sounds a WHOLE lot more like “Man Bear Pig.” Mm, hm.
MethaneMANBEARPIGmethaneMANBEARPIGISREAL!
“I’m super — cereal.
The End.”
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
#(:))
When I heared about the methane time-bomb from the Arctic I thought to myself “maybe methane has always been leaking…..” Then I said this has to be a scare story. And yest it is.
There WAS no methane bomb (or sustained spike) when the Arctic was largely ice free during periods of the early-Holocene summers. Even Gavin Schmidt concurred.
Thank you, Jimbo, for more of your non-stop, powerful, refutation.
Jimbo,
It would be nice if your list of excellent citations of good scientists doing brilliant honest work, you’d provide some references to the first “scare story” you heard so that everyone can decide for themselves whether the messaging was scary, false … whatever … as you say. And further, so that we know where to direct our specific complaints if we feel such is warranted.
No problem. To be precise it would be the first “scare story” I read. The first I cannot recall as there have been many.
I’ll get you some more right away.
Brandon Gates, here are some more methane scare stories.
The funny thing is Brandon, that even the Guardian and other outlets began running stories questioning the earlier alarm. I will give you these too right after this comment.
Brandon, here are some articles questioning the earlier alarm. Please don’t ask me to find you more as I think I satisfied your first request. Have a nice day.
Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/sep/05/jury-out-arctic-methane-catastrophe-risk-real
MotherJones
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/arctic-methane-hydrate-catastrophe
New York Times
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/arctic-methane-is-catastrophe-imminent/?_r=0
New Scientist
Meltdown: the Arctic armageddon
Forget polar bears, the rapid warming in the Arctic could be a catastrophe for us all. Fred Pearce reports
Can be found below
As you can see from all the earlier references it is NOT unprecedented. These people are living in cloud cookoo land, spreading scare stories, when they, as the experts, should know better than even me. Economical with the truth are the only word that comes to mind.
Jimbo
Thankyou! That was brilliant! Tears of laughter are flowing down my face.
A better trouncing of the egregious Brandon Gates is hard to imagine.
Again, thankyou.
Richard
Richard, had Brandon been paying attention over the years he would not have bothered asking me for references. The Arctic methane fairy tale has been told to death. I could have given him many more references but what’s the point?
Here is something worth reading from last Spring.
Jimbo,
Thank you for your prompt and complete answer to my call for references. It will take some time to read through them, though a cursory skimming reveals pretty much my memory of them at the time. Which for me was, holy shit, scary.
richardscourtney,
Really? Jimbo gave me exactly what I requested, and promptly so, which is far more than I can say for you, for whom I have to drag it out amidst much ado about me being “daft” for even asking. As for scare stories, you sell a different brand of it: fear of those whom you don’t like. Well, I don’t like you much either, but I’m still trying to save your unpleasant hide from your own foolishness without scaring the bejezus out of everyone in the process by making rational appeals to good science. Perhaps you see yourself trying to accomplish the same mission, but from where I’m sitting I don’t see it. Mutual suspicion does abound in this debate I suppose, and I am as human as any.
Brandon Gates @ 2-7 -15; 1:09 pm.
admits that he was familiar with the alarmist junk science on methane scares which he, in a previous comment, pretended ignorance of and so demanded that Jimbo provide references in regard to.
Brandon Gates, consider another line of evidence. There is now tundra where there used to be trees.
If you look closely you will see that one of the people spewing out the methane alarm is the Arctic sea ice specialist Professor Peter Wadhams. Gavin Schmidt rightly says that there is no record of a major methane excursion during the largely ice free period of the Holocene Climate Optimum summers which lasted for a millennium or more.
Why was I not at all worried about Professor Peter Wadhams‘ irresponsible scare stories. Because he does not like to own it when shown to be a fool. He predicted an ‘ice-free’ Arctic ocean THIS YEAR or next year AT THE LATEST. Read here. He then changed it to 2020 and gave no reason for his change of heart. This is the kind of nonsense I am fighting against. It is irresponsible to put out scare stories to the media and getting people unduly worried.
Yet I am called the ‘D’ word by some people. How sad for us all.
What are you talking about? The science is settled the debate is over or haven’t you received the crazy assed memo?
☺
The coincidence of global warming events with methane release could be due to increased plate tectonic activity initiated by gravitational forcing from cyclical orbital variations (Milankovitch rhythms). Associated increased terrestrial volcanism would release hydrogen chloride, which would deplete ozone, allowing increased solar UV-B irradiance and consequent warming. See ozonedepletiontheory.info for further discussion on this.
David Bennett Laing, I think the volcanism and orbital variations was covered to some degree yesterday.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/05/inconvenient-study-seafloor-volcano-pulses-may-alter-climate-models-may-be-wrong/
A. Watts
“And a nation is left to wonder
how they possibly could have been so gullible.”
“War of the Worlds” — Orson Welles Oct. 31, 1938 (youtube)
Hey Janice, I’m so glad you’ve popped by. I’ve missed your comments for a while. I need some help (see below).
Question: Leaving ‘You Tube’ URL’s aside (as they upload automatically), how do you insert an image/photo in to your WUWT comments in word press. I’ve tried and tried – but WordPress just ‘strips-out’ the URL. I’ve seen many great comments from you – enhanced with an embedded image to emphasise your point. Please help me (and other regulars too).
By the way, I’m the one who posted that comprehensive list of all the ways we manufacture CO2 that you was so interested in seeing a couple of years back. Remember.
GeeJam
Hi, GeeJam!
Oh, WOW — a question for ME! COOL. I can answer it, too!
I just learned how about a month ago.
1. Double left click on a photo (from any web page) — to make its http deal appear in the navigation bar at top of page.
2. Single left click on the “http:// blah, blah, blah” web address at top of page (to highlight it).
3. Type CTRL-c (that is, the Ctrl key simultaneously with the letter c).
4. In WUWT comment box, type, CTRL-v.
Wordpress will convert the http deal into the photo (I usually test it — still unsure… but, the test page would not materialize (or I’m too impatient) for me just now, so…. here goes!
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=golden+retriever+photos&qpvt=Golden+Retriever+photos&qpvt=Golden+Retriever+photos&FORM=IQFRML#view=detail&id=04AFE709E0D570E50D5247466715E8F9D1E3F1DA&selectedIndex=56
Great to hear from you, GJ (and SO nice to know I’ve been missed by someone, here — just busy trying to find a job :(.) I’ve wondered if you’ve made any headway on the CO2 Truth Primer project. You would do a FINE job at that with your writing skill. We NEED such a thing. And how is your Golden (or whatever breed dog you and your wife regularly walk if I’m misremembering)?
Take care, over there! #(:))
Janice
Well! I messed up! I’ll go test my method (grr) and get back to you.
How to Post a Photo on WUWT:
1. RIGHT click on photo.
2. In drop-down menu, LEFT click on “Copy”
3. In WUWT comment box, Type: “CTRL-v”
I did what I do to place photos into e mails (blush).
Okay. Gee Jam? I was wrong (apparently).
I’ve been testing both of my methods on the WUWT “Test” page and now NEITHER one is working. I don’t know why.
Suggestion: Ask Ric Werme (click on his “Guide to WUWT” in right hand margin of this page — his e mail is in there. Ask him. The “instructions” I saw printed somewhere on WUWT were not specific enough to be helpful, imo.).
Well, dear Gee Jam, since this is a slow thread, here is the result of my FIRST method (at 11:41am today) which has now worked TWICE on Test and faild one time here … so far…
Golden Retriever same photo second attempt with same method as at 11:41am:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-biznduk2iuQ/UCyoyi6RbnI/AAAAAAAAOow/04A8e_H6WW8/s1600/Golden+Retriever4.jpg
Use the 11:41am method (kinda shaky, but, it works on and off — SO WEIRD!). Test first!
Right Janice. Here goes. hope it comes out.
http://i.imgur.com/eBjAUHV.jpg
CO2 in relation to all other gas.
Bingo Janice. A huge huge thank you . . . . and well done for remembering our Golden Retriever. I am humbled when you say “You do a FINE job with your writing skills”. Like everyone else here, we all care so passionately about the AGW deception (see one of my recent comments below).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/02/shock-study-results-calling-climate-skeptics-deniers-just-pisses-them-off/#comment-1851055
Trust it’s not too cold over there. It’s chilly here and just gone 9.10pm tonight – so time to replenish the Sauv Blanc. You’re probably just having your lunch.
CONGRATULATIONS!!! #(:))
(and excellent graphic)
… and (your 1:10pm comment appeared AFTER my later one… WordPress is so weird…) Well said, and hear, hear! to your Feb. 3 linked comment. You might try submitting that to an online publication, even a monthly newsletter for an organization with which you or a friend are affiliated would be good. ALL truth spoken does some good! It all adds up.
Keep on writing!
(and give your dog a love from me — dogs are the best)
Yup. I’m LATE (and kind of cranky about it, too) to get to my lunch.
Bye!
Geejam,
Uhoh. That graph is pretty but appears to be wrong. 5 ounces in 3200 gallons is 0.0012%. CO2 is 400ppm which is 0.04%
Hi, Phil C. P.,
Until Gee J (it is about 1:42AM where he is, I’m pretty sure) replies, my thought is: the graphic depicts human CO2 emissions (and, if that is still not small enough, the graph may be just for U.S. CO2 emissions). Natural CO2 emissions outweigh human by a factor of 2.
— Native Sources of CO2 = 150 (96%) gigatons/yr
— Human CO2 = 5 (4%) gtons/yr
[At about 36:34 on the video of Dr. Murry Salby’s 2013 Hamburg lecture posted below on this thread, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/06/inconvenient-study-methane-seepage-from-the-arctic-seabed-has-been-occurring-for-millions-of-years/#comment-1853842 ]
Janice
PhilCP, thank you for raising the query, I see where you’re coming from, but sadly you’ve misread the information. The image attempts to emphasise the amount of man-made CO2 only, not the total amount of atmospheric CO2.
The image was created shortly before 10th May 2013 when global warming alarmists sensationalised the fact that during the last 40 years, CO2 levels had increased from 314 parts per million (0.0314%) to 400 parts per million (0.04%).
So, 0.0314% of 3,200 imperial gallons is one gallon. Thus, in total, there is only 1 gallon of CO2 to every 3,200 gallons of atmosphere.
We know that there are 8 x pints in 1 x imperial gallon and that there are 20 fl.oz. in 1 x pint.
Of that 8 pints of total CO2, naturally occurring Carbon Dioxide accounts for 96.775%*, whilst the remaining 3.225% is ‘our fault’.
So, 96.775% (Natural CO2) of 8 pints is 7.75 pints, which leaves a quarter of a pint (or 5 fl.oz) that is caused by man.
The diagram is correct. For every 3,200 gallons of atmosphere, only 5 fl.oz. of it is anthropogenic CO2. Remarkable but true.
I trust this clarifies your query.
* http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Ref: Section 4 ‘Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations of greenhouse gases’.
Janice, for reference, it’s just gone 1.00 am in the wee small hours of Saturday morning.
You can see that in the Arctic ice is more than last year.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/RecentSnowCoverEuropeAsia.gif
If the Global Warming people forgotten to learn in School – they DO have problem…
But it’s their problem. Not others.
Where have all the money gone?
Well, Ms. Norah, that’s easy: they obviously DRANK it ALL.
“…. when will they ever learn? When will they… e–ver— learn?”
(I know what era of music is YOUR favorite (smile))
Well, like NEVER, apparently. Just gotta sideline them (with a glass of whatever) and keep movin’ the ball of truth down the field — GO, ANTHON-Y!
*************************
btw: This year, your wonderful genuine scientist dad would have been 100, if I’m not mistaken. Your science blog (https://norah4science.wordpress.com/) is a GREAT tribute to him! He would (perhaps, IS :)) been so proud.
Yes my dad would have been 100 February 24th…..
my mother had her 99th Birthday late January. Unfortunately she has alzheimer and demens. But she always recognise me and she is at a wonderful place where she and the others can have breakfast anytime they want between 7 and 11. Wonderful people working there, and above all she loves it.
Dear Norah,
That is too bad about your mom, but… that she still knows you (and is not paranoid and suspicious of you as can happen) is wonderful. Glad she is well cared for. Wow, what genes! You’ll be keeping the quality of the comments on WUWT threads at high level until the “pause” becomes “The Great Chill”…. and … then, beyond to (after ENSO, etc… once again warms the earth overall) …. and an old familiar refrain is sounded … “The Earth is About to Explode
(due to too many people walking around, disturbing the soil …. so you must all go live in this pr–…… er… “village” …. where you can only walk within its 100 meter square area…)
— We Must Control the People and We Must Have More MONEY!”…
“There is nothing new under the sun.” Solomon.
Take care — and keep warm!
Janice
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Hmmm…. Yet another climate-alarmist “We’re doomed” moment called into serious question.
Take heart, HOWEVER, dear Allies for Truth! #(:))
“… convinced, if only briefly.”
Truth wins.
Every time.
Hi Janice,
I too would like to add a ”warm” welcome back to you.
Best regards, Eamon
Eamon, me fine Irrreeesh Writer for Truth (last time, the truth about that excellent source of energy: Nuclear Power)!
VERY good to hear from you! #(:)) And, thanks. Keep up all that commenting in the face of all that stoney, glazed-over-eyed, staring back at you. SOMEONE (likely several “someones” ARE reading you with comprehension and thinking….. .). Each little photon of light brightens the darkness of ignorance — many photons add up to: ILLUMINATION! Truth SHALL prevail. You are not alone. Thanks to small but SIGNIFICANT efforts of many (like you!), the CO2 Cult is on the margins of the battlefield (slithering away from the light, into the dark corners…. where rats live). Stalwart wielders of the pen like you will keep them there.
Waving at you from the west coast of the U.S.,
Janice
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
So the green activists want more money without doing proper scientific studies or any other work?
Well, I for one think it’s time for the children (hm excuse green activists) to grow up.
So we were wondering what activates, or deactivates, the seepage in this area.,” says Plaza Faverola
====
just ask a marine biologist how marine sediments work….ammonification, nitrification, denitrification, sulfurization
The world wouldn’t work if it didn’t load and unload
Well… I expect future news from NASA on the creation of The Orbiting Methane Observatory (OMO). Go for the money, guys.
The science may be bollocks, but the animated graphics and pretty pictures are often what captures peoples minds, beliefs, and funding. I’m not joking. It happens in other disciplines too.
Here, enormous – 800 meters high – gas flares rise from the seabed today.
But since it is in water over 1,000 meters deep, it is still absorbed by the water. Still not getting into the air.
Slam — DUNK!
Case closed.
Sounds too simple.
So you’re saying that methane is absorbed into the water then doesn’t, at some time later, get released into the air from the water?
I have no idea one way or the other, but would love to understand this process better.
If in fact the methane that is absorbed into the water stays absorbed and does not ever get into the air, well, that’s a powerful argument against the alarmists.
Are there any references on this supporting your assertion?
Dear Mr. Allensworth,
There is an even simpler answer to this latest hot air from the windmill promoters (they are the main beneficiaries of the fra-ud) which requires no knowledge of methane’s properties at all:
1. Processes that have been going on for thousands of years and haven’t “blown up the planet” are not likely to do so — ever.
2. Even IF, ad argumentum, they will…. there is not a THING we humans can do about it.
Some bugs emit methane.
Some consume methane.
That’s not surprising when you think about it. Why would nothing manage to find away to exploit that niche?
Link to Wikipedia on Methanotrophs. The references section looks quite good but some are paywalled.
Critical pressure is around 45 bar if I remember well, pressure release at bottom is 100 bar supercritical, if there is no chemical reaction it will be released to the atmosphere at the surface.
Let’s just make sure that before you light a match the cows are in another pasture.
This article by Alfred Wegener Institute touches on ocean surface methane emission as well as absorption:
http://www.awi.de/en/research/research_divisions/geosciences/marine_geochemistry/research_themes/methane_in_high_latitudes/methane_from_submarine_sources/
Here is a paper on Solubility of methane in distilled water and seawater:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/je60068a029
I’m no chemist, but I thought somebody might find this stuff useful.
Here’s one that’s not pay-walled that is related: Methane emission from high-intensity marine gas seeps in the Black Sea into the atmosphere
http://users.ugent.be/~jgreiner/papers/Schmale_etal_2005_GRL.pdf
And, (believe it or don’t)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n5/abs/ngeo1452.html
Methane’s effect as a radiative gas is completely swamped by the radiative effects of H2O. It’s complete nonsense to worry about it at any level below the concentration required for ignition in your stove. Here’s a pdf with all the atmospheric gases and their absorbance:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3758743/AtmosphericTransmission.pdf
Sounds reasonable. But is methane well mixed?
If not land emissions of methane would be more significant than marine emissions
I don’t know if that’s right or not but I always suspect simple answers with respect to any aspect of the climate.
Nice link Paul. If you know, how does that look in the presence of 30 – 40,000 ppm of water vapor?
Here, enormous – 800 meters high – gas flares rise from the seabed today. And they call this ‘seepage’?
The abstract did not indicate if any data or estimates of mass flow rates were determined for the 800 meter high plumes of methane ‘seepage’ or how many of these plumes they encountered. I note this because it begs the question: Are these plumes releasing more or less methane than global cow flatulence and/or global termite flatulence ?
Inquiring minds need to know….
Methane remains in hydrate form as long as nothing disturbs its zone of stability.
Google” Methane hydrate zone of stability” for a chart.
Reduction of water pressure, increase in temperature, vibration, or increased pressure
from below can cause the gas to pass back into a gaseous state.
Hydrocarbons are created deep in the earth and rise where they meet the least resistance.
The least resistance seems to be along fault lines, but they perk up all around the world,
but are are deflected where the shield is near the surface.
Methane hydrates are the reason for the continuing of the rise of atmospheric CH4 and C02
levels when the warm periods end and the ice returns.
As the sea levels fall, large amounts of hydrates are released from their zone of stability .
This process continues until the sea level stops falling.In a short time, the methane degrade
into CO2.
This accounts for a lag, in one instance of an observed lag of ~8000 yrs.
When the steady state returns, methane is introduced into the atmosphere at its background
level.
The large amount of CO2 observed along the fault lines or mid ocean ridges, or at volcanoes are mostly his methane being oxidized by the heat, though some methane passes through,
The “Black Smokers” which exhibit astonishing amounts of life are powered by Methanotrophs
consuming the gas at the bottom of the food chain.
Golden Gate Bridge is 2,700 m long. A nice illustration.
We need a Coles Note summary of the logic and observations that support the late Nobel Prize winning Astrophysics Thomas Gold’s assertion that the source of the hydrocarbons on the surface of the earth including ‘natural’ gas, crude oil, and black coal is from the deep earth (there are more than 50 different observations to support that Gold deep earth theory).
The source of the ocean floor CH4 and the CH4 from land sources is the core of the earth. As the earth’s core solidifies the CH4 is expelled. The super high pressure expelled liquid CH4 breaks a path through the mantel. The super high pressure liquid CH4 picks up heavy metals in solution as it moves through the mantel which explains why there are heavy metals in oil and black coal and why there are super concentrated deposits (up to a million times concentrated more than the typical mantel) of Gold, Uranium, Thorium and so forth in the mantel.
The radioactive uranium and thorium which the liquid CH4 dissolved, radioactively decays releasing Helium which explains why there is helium associated with oil deposits (the source of all commercial helium is from oil deposits). As Gold notes there is no logical reason if oil’s origin was plant life for there to be helium connected with the oil deposit and heavy metals. The helium travels through the cracks and paths in the mantel created by the liquid CH4 enabling it to rise to up to the oil deposits. If there has no mechanism to create the cracks and paths in the mantel the helium would stay with the uranium and thorium deposits.
One of the implications of the deep earth CH4 hypothesis is there is a steady large new input of new carbon (‘natural’ gas is low C13) into the biosphere which means the sinks of CO2 are larger than estimated. The implications of a large new steady input of CO2 into the biosphere and large sinks is that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is not the primary cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.
An observation to support the assertion that there is a steady new stream of new CO2 into the atmosphere(CH4 disassociates in the upper atmosphere and then forms CO2 and H2O) is the fact that ratio of C13/C12 in sediments stays the same in the geological record, rather than gradually increases as plants preferentially use C12 and the fact that there are methyl hydrate deposits on the ocean floor in the Arctic. (What is the biological mechanism alternative?)
The above comments provides a mechanism/explanation to support Salby’s hypothesis that more than 50% of the recent CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to natural CO2 release.
William: The CO2 is released from the ocean when it warms and from land due to a mechanism that causes there to be an increase in CH4 movement from the deep sources when there is a solar magnetic cycle change (slow down or increase in the solar magnetic cycle). The increase in CH4 movement explains why there is an increase in earthquakes when there is significant increase or decrease in solar magnetic cycle activity.
But what is the methane doing to the acidity of the warming deep ocean water as sea level rises?
(Trying to fit 4 scaries into one sentence.)
“The increase in CH4 movement explains why there is an increase in earthquakes when there is significant increase or decrease in solar magnetic cycle activity.”
Mr Astley, am I correct in interpreting your statement to mean that solar perturbations cause earthquakes? I’m not snarking, just seeking enlightenment.
Does all the methane released reach the surface?
What about the methane tundra time-bomb?
As you can see the Earth has some specialised organisms ready to exploit these events that have been with us for eons. We even have bacteria that ‘eat’ crude oil!
What about Dana Wigington, solar scientist, saying we are reaching a Venus Syndrome scenario if the MASSIVE GEOENGINEERING worldwide does not stop. He claims the spraying and weather modification is at a point where the industry is having to spray chemicals, use HAARP, scalar weapons etc. to keep the methane release from getting worse? geoengineeringwatch .com
Tell Dana Wigington that he is denying IPCC science.
Check your briefs for dreaded CH4 movement, butt don’t check to close.
…possible CH4 leakage fix…no solution however.
” So we were wondering what activates, or deactivates, the seepage in this area.,” says Plaza Faverola.”
Well obviously it’s the retreating glaciers in Iceland causing the sea floor to rise off the coast of Alaska ….
Methane comes from two sources. Biogenic comes from Archea methanogens. Thermogenic comes from end point catagegenesis of organic matter that was originally marine kerogen or terrestrial peat. Permian Basin is the former, Norway’s offshore fields are the latter. Methane hydrate can form from either source. Japan’s Nankai trough is biogenic. GoM is thermogenic. Alaska and Sineria tundra hydrates are both.
And methane in seawater can be metabolized by methanotrophs. Most of the Macondo blowout methane was metabolized. Been papers written on that. Some formed hydrate; that is what plugged the failed dome it over and pump the captured oil and has out attempt.
Most of the methane on Earth comes from the geochemical reaction of water and carbonate rock at high temperature-pressure. The reproducible reaction has the ugly name “serpentinization,” which seems to prevent it from being widely adopted or understood:
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/05lostcity/background/serp/serpentinization.html
That’s unfortunate, because it appears to be the most important clue we have to the origin of life, producing complex organic molecules from rock & water without violating thermodynamic constraints:
http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/ncr
It is also how we explain the abundance of hydrocarbons and “organics” on Titan:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18410
No “marine kerogen” or “terrestrial peat” there. (Comet Haley is 1/3 “kerogen” – 500 years of OPEC output on that tiny pebble)
I think the real concern is methane release from melting permafrost:
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html
if methane release from seabeds has been occurring for millions of years, then it’s obviously part of the “background” that existed well before humans started pumping methane into the atmosphere.
“One hypotheses is that massive gas release from geological sources, such as volcanos or ocean sediments may have influenced global climate”
Methane is not found in volcanoes. It is too thermally unstable.
“By using this method, scientists were able to identify two major events of gas emission throughout this time period: One 1,8 million years ago, the other 200 000 years ago.”
The big release 200 000 years ago would have fallen in the middle of the Saalian/Illinoian Ice-age (MIS 6). No warming happened. The Antarctic ice-cores (EPICA Dome C, Vostok) do show a peak to c. 610-630 ppb at that time, but that is hardly sensational, there have been several higher ones.
“Methane is not found in volcanoes. It is too thermally unstable.” So what is the explanation for the light emitted by erupting sub-aerial volcanoes?
Hey, Bohdan Burban (just FYI),
How to Make Sulphur Matches (youtube)
Quite a bit of sulphur in volcanoes (sub and not subaerial).
A Few Facts About Volcanic Gases
Symonds, Rose, Bluth, and Gerlach (1994) published a list of compositions of high-temperature volcanic-gas samples. They also have a comprehensive list of published sources for high-quality volcanic-gas data .
•Convergent-plate volcanoes: Etna, Mount St. Helens, Merapi
•Divergent-plate volcanoes: Erta Ale, Surtsey
•Hot-spot volcano: Kilauea
Equilibrium compositions, temperatures, and log fO2 values of high-temperature and low-pressure (1 bar) volcanic gases. Concentrations are in mole %; log fO2 given in log bars.
{See this page for source of quotes and accompanying chart (scroll down to it): http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/151 ‘
Note: I do not vouch for the accuracy of every assertion on that page; it’s sponsor, Oregon State U. is notorious for some blatantly false human CO2 propaganda (for examples, just search WUWT threads)}
H20, CO2, and SO2 are the most common gases in all samples.
Minor gases are H2, H2S, HCl, CO, and S2.
Methane is mentioned once on that long page (that I saw) as a sometimes-present trace gas, apparently without any significance.
I think the real problem here is one of advertising. The general public isn’t interested in actual facts, no what they are ruled by advertising. So you show a fluffy animal in some distress, an unintelligible chart with a guy in a white coat, tell them some [pseudo] science mambo jumbo
( involving some pub chat facts) tell them they have been naughty but if you pay us lots of money we can make it better and job done!
It’s only the down turn in global finances that have made Joe public question where the money is going.
Sorry rant over
Barry;
Sounds like a callus and deliberate act of pollution. Is this a corporate scheme, or do you cite malevolent intent by the general public? I for one cannot afford a methane pump so you must be referring to my septic system. Sorry, can’t buy that guilt trip approach.
lol
Make that callous.
Alright Barry I agree, lets blame it on Heinz beans, the “human” factor.
Thanks for the good article. It seems like nature is always more complicated than we think it is. Good to keep learning, even though we are not in control.
Yes, indeed, Mr. Valencia. Good point. And…. I daresay…. the more facts people learn, the more they realize that there must be (or, at least, once was) an Intelligence in control (smile).
Take care, O Man Who Once Said a Kind Word to Me! #(:))
Indeed Andres, Humanity cannot control itself, much less this planet. Please keep up your optimism, it is contagious.
Howday,
The solar magnetic cycle changes cause there to be an increase or decrease in CH4 to be released from the core and the deep deposits of CH4. It is the CH4 changes that cause earthquakes.
One interesting side effect of the deep CH4 that is released from the core and then pushes up to the surface, is CH4 sudden release which causes some types of earthquakes. Below 60 km the mantel is plastic and cannot therefore be stressed. The very deep earthquakes are caused by the sudden release of the CH4. That explains why massive regions of the ocean floor suddenly fall as occurred in a series of recent Pacific region earthquakes. The same phenomenon explains why there were drops of up to 30 feet of land in the famous Alaskan earthquake of 1964. Supporting mantel cannot disappear to cause very, very, rapid drops in the earth’s crust, CH4 release from the mantel on the other hand will cause sudden drops.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~coleen/earthquake.jpg
The same CH4 release caused the Mississippi, New Madrid earthquake.
http://www.new-madrid.mo.us/index.aspx?nid=132
Best wishes,
William
Uhhh . . . William, the New Madrid Earthquake was in 1812. That pic is 4th Avenue in Anchorage, Alaska, 1964.
Oh, I see you said that. My browser didn’t display that first time thru. Sorry.
No, it was not methane that caused the New Madrid event of 1811, which was a series of tremors, some severe, that lasted for several weeks. The area still shows slight seismic activity, as recorded by seismographs.
mpainter, I have to agree. I thought that deep earthquakes cause very little if any surface damage, as far as I can tell the 9.0 in Japan and the 2004 in the Indonesian area were shallow (~10-15 kms) and caused by slip motions. I am not sure about the 1964 Alaska quake or the 1989 San Fran quake, ( I’ll check on the USGA site).
‘The bad smell is sulfur that is contained in the CH4. ‘
So CH4 + S
Just got a new perspective! Many thanks!
Yeah, it’s bad enough when listening to the CO2 horror stories of our Greenhouse of death, but when Methane is introduced into the hysteria, I’m really ready to “slap a physicist”!
Sometimes theories are counter intuative not because because they are profound but because they are wrong! The rise of Methane by 100 parts per billion in the last 35 years supposedly being able to cause warming of the atmosphere is one of those assertions that are just way too counter intuative to take seriously. Let’s just get some common sense on this one please! 1 molecule of methane absorbing enough energy from heat leaving the earth, before redirecting half of it back to earth to heat the earth enough to raise the temperature of 10,000,000 molecules of mixed air (that has either had its “greenhousyness” calculated or which doesn’t have any ability to absorb radiant heat directly) through conduction by a measurable amount!!!
Use whatever equations you like, I’m not buying it!
Why do all these studies finish with things like: “provide crucial information that can be used in future climate modeling.”
Now were gonna fine-tune the settled science with “crucial information”, seems like a bass ackwards way to do things, but as long as everybody gets paid who cares.
If H2O and CH4 have similar IR properties and CO2 is different; is H the problem child and not C?
Gavin’s quote seems a bit incongruous until you realize that his religious beliefs, which guide his career rule out an Earth older than 1000 years.
For Gavin, Man created the Universe, the Earth, and Climate and all else therein. Man is at the Center of the Universe and All Creation.
Well that’s what NASA Goddard bought.
Har har
Darwin also believed similarly, even after observing faulting rock strata and shelfish sediments high up in mountains. He concluded that the Earth *MUST* be older than the age stated in the Bible (Which he strongly believed in).
“60 percent of the methane in the atmosphere comes from emissions from human activities.”
Really?
Reblogged this on Joe's Notepad and commented:
Anthony Watts presenting the other side of the arctic methane story…
It doesn’t seem to have occurred to the authors that methane (natural gas) is formed at any depth below 30 km under the surface of the earth from the materials (including water) available down there, the pressure and heat being sufficient to synthesize it.
As the depth increases, longer chains are formed so that by 100 km the formation of C9H20 is possible. This was theorised and tested in Russia using 100km depth pressures (about 100,000 atmospheres) at about 1550 degrees in a chamber of 0.6 cu cm. Instead of worrying about the seeps, they should be drilling and capturing them and piping them to needy people. It is free and probably inexhaustible.
Where do people think the gas comes from? Old wood??
Wood is one source of methane. The process of decay/decomposition of any type of organic material produces methane. There is sufficient organic material incorporated into sediments to account for the methane found in them.
Do yourself a favor and refrain from repeating the idiotic fantasies about the earth’s mantle being the source of methane found in sedimentary rocks.
There were no “idiotic fantasies” in Crispin’s post.
Do yourself a favor and study the subject before criticizing people who have evidently done so.
========
“….hydrothermal activity at Lost City is driven by chemical reactions between seawater and mantle rocks that make up the underlying basement. […]
The formation of magnetite during the serpentinization process involves the oxidation of ferrous iron (Fe2+) in olivine to form ferric iron (Fe3+) in magnetite and leads to what is called reducing conditions. As a consequence, reduced gas species, such as hydrogen gas (H2), methane (CH4) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), can be produced during serpentinization.
– NOAA
========
I note that you cite the NOAA. Interesting. Why did you not consult the USGS on this? Or some other authority on geology, which the NOAA is _not_.
You seem to lack any founding in Geology. Hydrothermal activity has nothing to do with the mantle. It is confined to the crust. The mention of seawater should have clued you to that fact.
I can tell you most definitely that methane in sediments is organically derived. This is textbook stuff.
Methane in the mantle is idiotic fantasy. For hydrogen in mineral species of the mantle, see amphiboles.For carbon in mantle, see diamonds. For composition of volatiles derived from the mantle, see analysis of oceanic volcanoes such as in Hawaii.
Do yourself a favor and consult those who are knowledgeable on the subject?
Methane from the mantle is a delusion.
► I note that you cite the NOAA. Interesting. Why did you not consult the USGS on this? Or some other authority on geology, which the NOAA is _not_.
I cited the article because it is an unusual example of a non-political article from NOAA, because it made your “idiotic fantasies” claim look silly, because until quite recently it was a rare example amongst articles on the topic that bothered to mention methane production, and–most importantly–because it transgressed the boundaries of mere geology, describing the chemistry, the conditions, the thermal output of the reaction, while also mentioning the organisms that bring “fossil fuels” back to life again in the blink of an eye by feeding off the products.
It’s the grandeur of the holistic totality with its resurrection climax that I found most appealing.
Had I wanted to limit the scope of my understanding of “fossil fuel” production to geologic realities, excluding living things from the equation for some mysterious “fossil” reason that I can’t fathom, I would have instead pointed to the serpentinization on Titan responsible for its methane seas. But then you might have asked, “Oh, why did you not consult an authority on cosmology?”
I note that you don’t cite anyone at all when you make bold claims about someone’s credentials as an ice-core pioneer. And when asked if you can verify your statements, you just keep repeating them without a reference!
Yet here you are demanding that I should use your preferred sources, while you still can’t furnish even one relevant link to your own preferred “authority.”
I also note that your preferred “authority” would have yielded nothing of value.
► “You seem to lack any founding in Geology. Hydrothermal activity has nothing to do with the mantle. It is confined to the crust.”
Actually, I’m founded from geology, and you seem to lack my depth of knowledge and understanding on the subject of methane, so you resort instead to dogmatic assertion and insults. Now, it so happens that those particular hydrothermal vents in question at “Lost City” are only 15 kms from the spreading center of the mid-Atlantic ridge. That’s a big clue that it might in fact have plenty to do with mantle rocks:
=======
“Unlike black smoker hydrothermal vents, LC is situated on exposed mantle rock, allowing for the serpentinization process to abiotically produce of methane and hydrogen gas”
microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Lost_City_Hydrothermal_Field
=======
and:
=======
“Here it is important to keep in mind that while magmatic or mantle-derived CH4 generation is abiotic, not all abiotic CH4 is mantle driven.”
–Natural Gas Seepage: The Earth’s Hyrdocarbon Degassing, Giuseppe Etiope, p.141
(Petroleum geologist, Senior Researcher at National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, Rome)
=======
►“I can tell you most definitely that methane in sediments is organically derived. This is textbook stuff.”
I can see that you can’t be bothered to cite any of that “texbook stuff,” or refer to any evidence that might support your dogmatic assertion. Since you are too lazy and condescending to do so, let me try half-heartedly to do exactly that on your behalf, quote:
=======
“Below the seafloor, an unknown but potentially vast biosphere of microbes may be making the methane that percolates upward."
-When Seafloor Meets Ocean, the Chemistry Is Amazing
(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry Dept, February 13, 2004)
=======
► “Methane in the mantle is idiotic fantasy. For hydrogen in mineral species of the mantle, see amphiboles. For carbon in mantle, see diamonds. For composition of volatiles derived from the mantle, see analysis of oceanic volcanoes such as in Hawaii.”
Methane in the mantle is a repeatedly demonstrated reality (op.cit x 3). For hydrogen liberated from mineral species in the mantle see i) “serpentinization” and ii) “Hydrogen generation from mantle source rocks in Oman” (Neal & Stanger, 1984). For deep carbon from the mantle in petroleum (rock oil) see “diamondoids.” For composition of volatiles derived from the mantle see (figure 14 in particular) Helium and Hydrogen Soil Gas Anomolies Associated with Deep or Active Faults (Jones & Pirkle, 1981.)
► “Do yourself a favor and consult those who are knowledgeable on the subject?
My webpage on the subject is recommended for study by this expert on the subject:
http://martinhovland.weebly.com/biography.html
Do yourself a favor: click on my name and study the content on my website. You might learn something.
[Long, very detailed reply. Thank you. .mod]
Khwarizmi:
I have a BS Geology and I know whereof I speak. You do not appear to have basic geologic understanding. You give the impression of a pretender.
1. Methane in sediments is organically derived. See any textbook in the subject.
2. Oceanic crust us not mantle. Any textbook on the subject will help you and you badly need help. You are badly confused.
3. Ultramafic rocks may be found in the crust. See kimberlite, fayalite, ultramafic. Hydrothermal processes are confined to the crust; likewise serpetinization. Any basic textbook will confirm this.
4. You ignored analysis of volatiles of oceanic volcanoes, these deriving from the mantle and showing no methane or minute traces (probably sample contamination). This data is conclusive and utterly refutes your idiotic notions of methane coming from the mantle.
My friend, you come on as an uninformed crank spouting about that which you are clueless. I will not be visiting your website, thanks but no thanks.
Well meant advice: refrain from commenting on matters that involve geology.
Furthermore, Khwarizmi,
I perused your NOAA Lost City reference. This article makes it clear that it is oceanic crust that is involved in the study. It uses the word “crust” or ” crustal” several times in the report in describing the geothermal processes.The Atlantic Massif rises to within 700 metres of the surface of the ocean, according to your reference, and in your confusion you imagine this to be the mantle. Never have I encountered such utter confusion as you display in this thread. You need help.
Perhaps we are in a period of decreasing Methane seepage. What then? :
Rising sealevel should tend to stabilize the clathrate desposits with increasing pressure. Only under massive sealevel drop, say at the beginning of glacial periods would I expect the clathrates to become massively destabilized.
I like the idea that methane released from the ocean floor explains the mysterious Bermuda triangle.
The planes flew into a cloud of methane and ignited it.
boats sailed into an area of sea water containing methane bubbles and couldn’t float.
Sorry to cloud the issue with facts but those who advocate denying the reality of man made climate change and its inherent dangers are guilty of willful blindness or worse. They have been duped by the same disinformation strategies used by lobbyists and PR firms promoting the interests of tobacco, lead, asbestos, and pesticide industries who are hard at work doing the same for the fossil fuel industry. So by all means light up a cigar, paint your family bedrooms with lead paint, fill up you pick-up truck with leaded gas, insulate your homes with asbestos and spray your fruit and vegetables with DDT…what could possibly go wrong? Cheers
Yes, “Scott”.
How many people do you demand be killed to prepare and maintain your ideal Garden of Gaea of no fossil fuels, natural insect (lack of) control, no refrigeration, no vaccines, no medicines, no fuel for transportation, farming, shipping, and preservation?
What are YOU doing to live in impoverished isolation huddling below your natural wool blanket in the rat-infested hovel you built by piling driftwood and windfalls together under the forest primeval? It is fossil fuels that INCREASED human life spans from 25 years just 200 years ago to today’s 60-70-80 and 90-year spans. Yes, I have lived in asbestos-insulated homes. I have lived in lead-painted walls – but did not “eat” the paint. My children did not “eat” the paint either. We did not “breathe” asbestos – we knew how to live with it and its benefits. We do not smoke – my father did for many years. I’ll call him tonight and see how his 85 birthday is going to be celebrated. And I’ll eat foods treated with pesticides, flown up from Chilean orchards for our pleasure, but washed in clean water treated with chemicals, pressured by electricity from fossil fuels, piped in steel melted under fossil fuels, rolled in mills power by fossil and nuclear plants, and shipped by fossil fuels rolling on highways built of concrete mined by fossil fuels, burned to carbonates by fossil fuels, stored and refrigerated in vessels and cans and cartons built by fossil fuels.
But 80% of YOUR world cannot enjoy those life-saving benefits due to YOUR fears.
You are propagandizing and exaggerating. YOU are killing millions each year with YOUR demand for deliberate energy poverty and deprivation. Feel better with those real deaths on YOUR head? Or do YOU deny those deaths YOU cause by YOUR religious fear and religious faith as YOU deny science and evidence?
Go ahead. Yes. YOU TOO should starve to death as YOU demand others starve to death in squalid infestations of parasites and vermin. Do don’t demand I starve for your fears as you deny the evidence of science.
Scott, the media used the same line about the dangers of the MMR vaccine.
Children died.
That can go wrong.