If I die I'll die with a boner

No we arrrrrrrrn't. At least, no more than we've ever been.

ie, We are fuuuuuucked

I can't believe I can't remember the handle of that one right-wing poster on poe-news that would constantly post stories he thought supported his position, but reading them would reveal that they actually destroyed it. And yet, I can remember Rishi's sick burn about his moving to Laos, because the Hmong worship the retarded.

It's not the same thing.

Deep sea methane deposits in the Gulf of Mexico aren't effected at the rate that shallow arctic and near-coastal deposits are.

Ah, here we go. Apocalypse is back on. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/if-we-release-a-small-fraction-of -arctic-carbon-were-fucked-climatologist

>>Ah, here we go. Apocalypse is back on. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/if-we-release-a-small-fraction-of -arctic-carbon-were-fucked-climatologist


Well, the problem I'd have there is that the science doesn't actually justify the rhetoric. Forget the spectacle of a sweary-mouthed climatologist - what matters is what's being said, not how they say it. And it's perfectly clear that Dr Box is still in the realm of speculation.

Are there methane plumes? Yes, probably. A little methane release is perfectly natural and nothing to worry about, but pending corroborative observations by other research teams, I think it's fair to accept Dr Box et al's conclusion that the rate of sea-born Arctic methane release is increasing. What is causing these plumes? Nobody knows. There hasn't been enough data collected, and this is, of course, possibly the most important question being asked. As the article says, they "*speculate* that a warmer tongue of ocean current was destabilizing methane hydrates on the Arctic slope" .... but speculation is easy, and it's a long way off from a solid theory, let alone a workable hypothesis (it should also be pointed out that their current hypothesis does not, in and of itself, obviate an anthropogenic mechanism, which I think would be the biggest question on the public's mind). And finally, what would be the effects of this methane? Again, nobody really knows. Catastrophic methane release has been a favorite scientific doomsday-scenario for many years, but it's hotly debated, and if Dr Box is any closer to figuring out just how bad (or benign) it would be, he gives no indication of it here.

There's a lot of little issues, like the claim that "methane is 20 times more potent than CO2 in trapping infrared as part of the natural greenhouse effect" - which is true, as far as I know, but also very misleading, particularly given the context. Potency by volume is only one piece of data, and without a measure of volume, it's nothing more than a meaningless soundbite. For example, say I've got a factory producing a chemical named Applejackium, which is a hundred thousand times more potent than CO2. That sounds scary, but what if I'm only producing Applejackium at one-millionth the volume of a similar factory's CO2 output? Anyway, lot of little issues like that; it's pretty clear that this article was written as a scare piece, a bit of agitprop more concerned with the message (perhaps irresponsibly so) than with the actual science. But there is one concrete claim made, right at the end, which I think neatly sums up Dr Box's position, and somewhat salvages the article itself:

-------------------------------------------
"If you stand to lose everything, then even a low probability event is high-risk. That's why people fund armies—just in case they get invaded."
-------------------------------------------

It's far too early to call this an apocalypse scenario, and reading past the yellow journalism bullshit, it looks like Dr Box's team readily agrees. But it is something to watch, something well worth monitoring, and something we should be planning for, even if, like fallout shelters of the 1960s or the ammo stockpiles of the 20teens, nothing actually comes of our prepping. And in this, of course, Dr Box is hardly alone; scientists have been arguing for more funding for methane observation for years, decades even.

On the plus side, that article led me to this (NSFW):

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/you-can-use-dogecoin-to-buy-c ustom-made-furry-porn-drawings-on-reddit-nsfw?trk_source=popular

Word salad.

Sorry, meme. You can read the summary on my Twitter.

You don't know what "word salad" means (it isn't lack of brevity) and now you're Internet raging. This is why humans are fucked. Too stupid for language.

Have you ever known me to rage at you? of course not. I'm not raging, I'm trying to be nice to you! You see, I don't really think you believe my post was "word salad". I just think that it's too long for you to bother reading, so you fall back on passive-aggressive dismissal. You wouldn't be the first person to do that, and in all honesty I wouldn't blame you; my posts can be very dense, and that is not always appropriate, given the venue. tl;dr is a social mistake that I make quite frequently.

However, if you really *do* believe my posts are "word salad", then by all means, point out where I'm wrong. Point out where my reasoning is flawed, or, if for some reason you believe I'm literally in a dissociative state characterized by an inability to form coherent sentences, then point out where I have failed to follow proper rules of syntax and grammar. I'd be happy to hear your corrections, if indeed there are any to be made, or, if the problem instead lies with you and your reading comprehension, then I'd be equally happy to try and simplify things. A third possibility, that you know I raise some good points, and are simply being difficult in order to "troll" me into posting yet more walls of text, should also be considered; I wouldn't mind that, either, but I would ask that you give me something a bit more substantial to argue against then "hyoomans are stoopid".

I'd also like to make sure that *you* know that the world isn't going to end tomorrow on account of methane bubbles. It is a serious issue, of course, just not as serious as some people on the internet make it out to be. I'd hate to think that any of my friends were going to lose sleep over an internet video or some doom and gloom op-ed piece.

Evilhomer, you're an idiot.

Typing out 3 paragraphs of "i'm not sure" doesn't make you look smarter or qualified to dismiss science based on your stupid hunches.

but i'll also point out where you're an idiot;

"And finally, what would be the effects of this methane? Again, nobody really knows."


You're an idiot.

I read it all actually, I don't criticize lightly, unless it's obviously cartoony, like I do with SolRo, the only impolite Russian I've ever known (for real, Russians are smart, savvy, wonderfully affectionate people, and damned pleasing on the eyes (I got Russian fever bad), except SolRo).

I think you take sides too quickly in your arguments and so jump too quickly to look for ways to invalidate the other side, all in the name of presenting both sides (I know me saying that is like Hitler saying "Jesus, lighten up on the Jews").The origins of the bubbles, and what ultimately lead to their blooping up to the surface, is open for speculation, but that is the "theory of why this is happening" it is not a question as to whether or not it is happening and what the consequences can be predicted to be. Chemistry is mechanical. Also, the concern is all arctic carbon, not just the bubbles in the video and this group has been studying it for ten years. You dismiss the work of those presenting the information too quickly from your own position of doing no study at all, and that looks biased. The word salad comes from you going back and forth in a way that over the course of the sentences obviously leans towards one side with a lot of words used to veil the transition.

>There's a lot of little issues, like the claim that "methane is 20 times more potent than CO2 in trapping infrared as part of the natural greenhouse effect" - which is true, as far as I know, but also very misleading, particularly given the context. Potency by volume is only one piece of data, and without a measure of volume, it's nothing more than a meaningless soundbite.

You say something you believe to be true is an issue, but it's verifiable well worn scientific data, you could have put it to rest in private and never said that at all, but it's useful to obfuscate your dissent. It isn't misleading at all, you're misleading by saying it's misleading, and if I thought you did that on purpose I wouldn't bother typing this out. How do you know the volume isn't knowable? You speculate a ton, all very negative towards the observations. In fact, if you strip the whole argument to what has been solely observed, you have zero data and they have all of it.

>And finally, what would be the effects of this methane? Again, nobody really knows.

Every chemist knows, there are formulas. Not since the beginning of time has the universe disobeyed the rules of chemistry.

>For example, say I've got a factory producing a chemical named Applejackium,

Completely useless analogy made up in your mind outside all observations. Climate change isn't a thought experiment, you can't wish it away in your mind.

Observation is the only tool of reason, Pythagoras was full of shit.

I really don't mean to shut you down, but you are all over the place unnecessarily. It's okay to just say "I refuse to believe this because I don't like it." Look at SolRo. We still wash him on the weekends.

Your Father (OscarWildcat) is better at this than I am.