Clathrate gun hypothesis (global warming)

[Machismo]

The first reference.

"In its original form, the hypothesis proposed that the "clathrate gun" could cause abrupt runaway warming on a time scale less than a human lifetime."



Its not hyperbole, if the theory holds true it will cause devastating change in decades. And it will be irreversible (by us).

Methane has 25 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide... There are estimated to be 1200 billion tons of methane frozen in the arctic and antarctic and that it will just take the release of a few tens of billions of those tons to begin the feedback loop... The feedback loop, if it wasn't clear is those original tens of billions of tons of methane released warming the atmosphere sufficiently to increase the release rate of the remaining methane, and so on, and so on, the more it releases, the warmer it becomes, the more it releases, etc. And within several decades there would be hundreds of billions of tons of methane in the atmosphere/sea.

Hundreds of billions of tons of methane would be equivalent to TRILLIONS of tons of CO2 equivalent. To put that in perspective, current human emissions are measured in tens of billions of tons of CO2 equivalent gas releases.

Yes, pointing to the extinction of the species in less than two decades is hyperbole. By trying to highlight the absolute worst-case scenario that has almost zero chance of happening, you are opening yourself up to being ignored by the masses.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'm not setting a number to it. I'm making a point that small chances in a given timeframe shouldn't be summarily dismissed as hyperbole.



The last sentence is hyperbole, but also isn't from the source, and doesn't bear the kind of response you gave. That's reason to take issue with that one line, not the entire post.

That's my point, rhetoric from people like the OP are why so many choose to ignore such issues. He is being flatly disingenuous, and is hurting the actual cause. M y issue is with his words, not with the science involved.

[dwarven]

Hyperbole is not helping the cause of those who are trying to bring awareness to global warming. Yes, the melting of ice shelves and glaciers will cause the rate of warming to increase. No, it's not going to cause the massive fallout in a short amount of time... especially not in a couple decades. People like this are hurting the cause, and are an affront to those who actually care about scientific accuracy.

This is our current outlook without the clathrate gun going off.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...singly-likely/

[Machismo]

This is our current outlook without the clathrate gun going off.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...singly-likely/

And how does this lead to the extinction of the species in less than two decades?

Fearmongering is appealing to emotion, not to logic.

[Deleted]

Well, we had a good run as a species.

/shrug.

[dwarven]

And how does this lead to the extinction of the species in less than two decades?

Fearmongering is appealing to emotion, not to logic.

The most fit % of humanity and some animals may be able to linger on for years after the gun is fired, but once you reach the event horizon the climate will not stabilize for much longer than people are capable of surviving. And there you have the effective extinction of humanity. I'm not talking about a meteor that comes in and vaporizes everyone instantly. I'm talking about a tipping point from which there is no coming back.

If regular old climate change is an increase in global temps of several C by the end of the decade, then what does a 2700% increase in warming look like? I don't think any of us want to find out.

[DeltrusDisc]

Hyperbole is not helping the cause of those who are trying to bring awareness to global warming. Yes, the melting of ice shelves and glaciers will cause the rate of warming to increase. No, it's not going to cause the massive fallout in a short amount of time... especially not in a couple decades. People like this are hurting the cause, and are an affront to those who actually care about scientific accuracy.

Post some evidence, then.

- - - Updated - - -

So you are giving these issues you are referencing a 10% chance to happen? If so, I think we are all screwed. While yes, if I had a 10% chance in the next year to die of terminal cancer, I would be far more concerned then if I had a 10% chance over 100 years time. Everything is a balance between risk/reward.

Way to twist his words. That is not what he said and you know it.

[Ghostpanther]

ROFL. Good one. Thanks.

Now they are trying the old fear factor based on a hypothetical occurrence. :P News flash guys, out in Wyoming is a much larger threat to humankind than this silly concept. And it is not hypothetical, it will happen eventually. Yellowstone National park.

[Machismo]

Post some evidence, then.

- - - Updated - - -


Way to twist his words. That is not what he said and you know it.

Evidence of what, that it's hurting the cause? Look at the initial post, he is talking about extinction in less than two decades. That's clearly not going to happen, which undermines anything he has to say on the issue. People should stick to the science, and leave emotion out of it.

[dwarven]

ROFL. Good one. Thanks.

Now they are trying the old fear factor based on a hypothetical occurrence. :P News flash guys, out in Wyoming is a much larger threat to humankind than this silly concept. And it is not hypothetical, it will happen eventually. Yellowstone National park.

Man-made global warming is not hypothetical. The clathrate gun is just one potential catastrophic consequence of it.

[Machismo]

The most fit % of humanity and some animals may be able to linger on for years after the gun is fired, but once you reach the event horizon the climate will not stabilize for much longer than people are capable of surviving. And there you have the effective extinction of humanity. I'm not talking about a meteor that comes in and vaporizes everyone instantly. I'm talking about a tipping point from which there is no coming back.

If regular old climate change is an increase in global temps of several C by the end of the decade, then what does a 2700% increase in warming look like? I don't think any of us want to find out.

Onc eagain, the evidence doesn't actually support such a doomsday scenario.

[dwarven]

Evidence of what, that it's hurting the cause? Look at the initial post, he is talking about extinction in less than two decades. That's clearly not going to happen, which undermines anything he has to say on the issue. People should stick to the science, and leave emotion out of it.

"The great concern is the rapid rise, over the last three years, in methane levels in the atmosphere. Methane is a gas with 28 times the planet-heating power of carbon dioxide. Scientists estimate there may be as much as 5 trillion tonnes of it locked in permafrost and seabed deposits."

28 times the heating power of CO2 until 2100 equates to ~1.7C of warming per year, or ~17C per decade. You would not be able to breathe comfortably, let alone find any food to eat after just 10 years.

[Machismo]

"The great concern is the rapid rise, over the last three years, in methane levels in the atmosphere. Methane is a gas with 28 times the planet-heating power of carbon dioxide. Scientists estimate there may be as much as 5 trillion tonnes of it locked in permafrost and seabed deposits."

28 times the heating power of CO2 over the next decade equates to ~1.6C of warming per year, or ~17C per decade.

With your claim, I would like that to be backed by actual science, not just a simple math computation that doesn't take a litany of variables into account...

Also, you have spoken of extinction in less than two decades... that is an appeal to emotion that does not appear to be based on actual evidence.

[AeneasBK]

what?

Thank you

[Deleted]

Humanity isn't going extinct for millions of years.

Seeing as though a) humanity hasn't existed but a fraction of that, and b) we've already managed to ensure the eventual extinction of most other large mammals on this planet, that's a completely hilarious statement to make, it isn't based on any kind of science, and even if it was, it would still be pure guesswork at best, with a likelihood of about 50% of being correct.

[dwarven]

With your claim, I would like that to be backed by actual science, not just a simple math computation that doesn't take a litany of variables into account...

Also, you have spoken of extinction in less than two decades... that is an appeal to emotion that does not appear to be based on actual evidence.

Sources have already been posted. It's not my fault if you don't decide to read through them.

[Machismo]

Sources have already been posted. It's not my fault if you don't decide to read through them.

I have not seen any of them point to extinction within two decades.

[dwarven]

I have not seen any of them point to extinction within two decades.

Anything within the range of a human lifetime is the same thing on cosmic timescales.

[Machismo]

Anything within the range of a human lifetime is the same thing on cosmic timescales.

You literally said "in a couple decades or less." You were the one being hyperbolic and pushing fearmongering, I simply called you out on your bullshit.

[Nadiru]

Why don't we just pre-emptively ignite said methane? Sure, Antarctica gets blown to bits but nobody lives there. I suspect a capture mechanism wouldn't work in the South Pole, and a book of matches is cheaper than gas capture & storage devices.

[Endus]

Why don't we just pre-emptively ignite said methane? Sure, Antarctica gets blown to bits but nobody lives there. I suspect a capture mechanism wouldn't work in the South Pole, and a book of matches is cheaper than gas capture & storage devices.

Methane combustion is basically converting 1 CH4 and 2 O2 molecules into 2 H2O molecules and 1 CO2 molecule. Plus a bunch of energy. You get as much CO2 out of the combustion as methane went in, so it's not really a "win".

Plus, the bubbles it's in are often fairly small; it's not like there's one giant bubble of it or something. It's not released in one big "burp", it's released in trillions of miniscule ones. And putting methane capture systems over the entire arctic and antarctic regions, to collect releases from both sea floor and permafrosts, would be ridiculously expensive, to boot.