Renewable Revolution

No, I don't read/view everything you link to. You should learn how to EXPLAIN WHY something is interesting, then perhaps I would.  Half the time I can't make out what you are on about.

If 1% of something could double the heating impact of the atmosphere, then it is by definition GIGANTIC.

If you are not panicking about runaway climate change, then why is it you are the only person here who is going on about it all the time, and blaming everybody else for being paid by the FF companies?

The thing to panic about is Peak Oil because its impact is just about to crash the world economy and prevent any kind of industrial reboot.

I may be the only one posting about this on this forum, but for you to ASS-U-ME that means Agelbert is in an "alarmist  panic" (a favorite phrase from your friends in denier land ), when thousands of Climate Scientists (which, unlike you, have scientific credibility) from Woods Hole to Russia all over the planet have been documenting the threat  of the methane bomb, further evidences your woeful lack of critical thinking skills (or your cynical attempt to undermine the message on behalf of the polluting fossil fuel status quo   ).

If you have trouble understanding what I wrote (reposted below) which EXPLAINS why the methane bomb is, not just "interesting", but an existential threat to humanity, then that is your problem, not mine.

Your repeated ad hominem attacks on my person, rather than concentrating on the subject at hand, exposes your desperate straw grasping attempt to downplay the importance of this empirically determined scientific information. MOVE from the tropics to some place cold, Palloy, or you will experience the horrible heating coming your way. I recommend Siberia. You can enjoy watching Putin harvest that bonanza in CH4 and pack it onto the SEVERAL LNG carrying ice breakers Russia is getting. You might just be lucky enough to die before the heat smacks Siberia too.

REPOST: Agelbert NOTE: RE and Eddie and anyone else here besides Palloy, please comment. Palloy thinks this is not intelligible, poorly written, does not explain the facts, and is Agelbert "panic baloney". What say ye?

Agelbert NOTE: This video is rather long for most people. So, let me direct you to the small section by the Eminent Russian Scientist Dr. Natalia Shakhova (International Arctic Research Center), who calmly explains that Global Warming will cause, NOT around 2100 or 2050, but within a DECADE or less, the release of shallow water methane hydrates in the arctic.

THOSE methane hydrates ARE NOT accounted for in ANY of the IPCC RCP models, including the BAU RCP-8.5 "worse case" scenario. But more importantly, those methane hydrates have absolutely nothing to do with the release of GHG pollutants from fossil fuel burning.

So, why should we care? Isn't "peak oil" going to "save us" from burning too much fossil fuels? 

We can argue all day about that (and Palloy does!),  but let us assume, though I vigorously disagree, that, as Palloy claims with "irrefutable" statistical evidence, we will remain well below the RCP-8.5 BAU trajectory because we will "run out" of fossil fuels from some type of civilizational collapse.

Will we be "okay"?

Palloy and his "peak oil will save us" pals aren't just partly wrong; they are MASSIVELY wrong.

The Russian Scientist Dr. Natalia Shakhova explains why, and I'll get to that in a moment.

Back to the "Peak Oil will save us" crowd: You see, even if we severely reduce our fossil fuel use, as the "Peak Oil will save us" crowd religously (and erroneously) claim will happen (that will "keep us from suffering the RCP-8.5 BAU Catastrophic Climate Change scenario"), the overly conservative IPCC scenarios  DO NOT keep us from breaching the 2° C increase (from pre-industrial) LONG BEFORE the projected massive decrease in fossil fuel use from collapse takes effect (i.e. some time before 2050).

In fact, that "collapse from peak oil will save us" happy talk was debunked two and a half years ago by Ugo Bardi. He goes into the IPCC math and shows why stopping fossil fuel use won't prevent Catastrophic Climate Change. I will post it here on request to anybody who still thinks Palloy is pushing anything but a pseudo-scientific back door defense of the fossil fuel polluting status quo.

Ugo Bardi pointed out something that I did not know, but I suppose I should have. The "peak oil will save us" meme came DIRECTLY from the fossil fuel funded Climate Change g Denier Community.

It certainly makes sense that they would come up with that clever propaganda. WHY? Because, on the one hand it supports the Scarcity Meme of fossil fuels, giving the rubes a valid "supply and demand" reason to pay MORE for that "precious" fuel  , while on the other (Orwellian) hand it simultaneously achieves the pretzel logic message that "you've got nothing to worry about by consuming fossil fuels as long as that loyal servant fossil fuel industry works and slaves to provide fossil fuels for you because, uh, it will run out before climate change can hurt us".

This pseudo-scientific claptrap from people like Roger Andrews is accompanied by IPCC GHG math relating to fossil fuel  burning numbers. Ugo Bardi exposes the deliberately untruthful and misleading statements, albeit using real IPCC math as a base, used to claim "peak oil will save us" in his article.

All that said, let us say that Palloy is RIGHT, Ugo Bardi and I are WRONG, and Peak Oil really will trigger such a massive collapse that 90% or more of our fossil fuel consumption will vanish.

I still do not need to bury my head in shame, write several mea culpas, and buy a hummer.     

How can that be? Didn't the Famed Doomer Mathematician Palloy from the mysterious boa filled jungle just take me to to the empirical evidence and critical thinking wood shed and beat me to a smather?


Sorry for the kitty, Palloy. I know that bothers you but I just can't help myself. 

Back to the Eminent Russian Scientist Dr. Natalia Shakhova International Arctic Research Center) in the video below: She clearly says that there are, at present, about 5 gigatons of methane in the atmosphere. Methane is between 50 and 86 TIMES more potent a GHG than Carbon Dioxide. Because of that, methane has a large impact on atmospheric heating.

SO?

The amount of shallow water methane hydrates in the arctic ocean is rather massive. HOW massive? She said (Begin at the 53:47 mark) it is THE largest source of hydrocarbons in the world. She said releasing less than 1% of that would DOUBLE the warming effect on our atmosphere. According to the scientist, there are several HUNDRED to a THOUSAND gigatons of methane that is subject to being released on the way to a 2° C average temperature rise.

What does that mean?

It means that ALL the GHG polutants from ALL the fossil fuels that have been burned for ALL the time we have had industrial civilization are PEANUTS compared to the MASSIVE ACCELERATED ATMOSPHERIC HEATING that the release of  even a small portion of those methane hydrates will trigger. The IPCC has NOT included the release of even a tiny fraction of those methane hydrates in ANY of their RCP scenarios, including the RCP-8.5. What the IPCC has accounted for is SOME methane release from the arctic tundra, which is dangerous in and of itself, but orders of magnitude less dangerous than the methane hydrates in the arctic ocean. 

Are you getting this?

The "peak oil will save us" claim is totally irrelevant. Even the overly conservative IPCC has already accepted that we will reach, and breach, the 2° C increase soon. So NOBODY can guarantee that the methane bomb will not go off. After that methane bomb goes off, all of us that don't have a bunker near the poles become crispy critters.

We needed to stop burning fossil fuels back in 1982, give or take a few years, in order to avoid the baked in 2° C.

What should we do as a civilization (besides telling the "peak oil will save us" crowd that they need a shrink or a prison cell )?

The best we can do is stop all buring of fossil fuels and begin a crash program to get our Carbon Didoxide PPM back to around 350 PPM or we are all dead soon. BAU (Business As Usual) can stop in its track tomorrow from a massive collapse and the 2° C increase is STILL BAKED IN. Peak oil will not save anybody or anything. Every day we delay will simply hasten our demise.

 

Let me direct you to the small section by the Eminent Russian Scientist Dr. Natalia Shakhova (International Arctic Research Center), who calmly explains that Global Warming will cause, NOT around 2100 or 2050, but within a DECADE or less, the release of shallow water methane hydrates in the arctic. Begin at the 53:47 mark


EW | HD | Feb 01, 2018 | 436 views | by FFF