Hi, An interesting question, I remember dealing with the issue of gas hydrates in teaching before. Well, the answer would be yes they do, because they release the powerful GHG methane gas under certain conditions ... but for comparison so do (also natural) mires /swamps and the larger issue is that when left undisturbed this release either doesn't occur or is much less. So, it brings us to the anthropogenic aspect -when people disturb the ocean floors which contain large amounts of gas hydrates much of the methane is released. There has been speculation about the potential for using this kind of mining as a fuel source of the future ..but I would be sceptical about the carbon balance aspects of this if carried out on a large scale. I am sure someone is likely to be doing research on this somewhere. Paul

The methane molecule has 20 times the greenhouse insulation property compared to carbon dioxide. The methane hydrates are know to exceed the coal, petroleum and gas resources from conventional sources. Since the hydrates form under combination of low temperature and high pressure the increase in global temperatures from the current unprecedented carbon dioxide levels are leading to global warming it is possible that higher temperatures and ocean temperatures could lead to destabilization of massive amounts of hydrates. Efforts in Korea are exploring the ability to mine hydrates as a source of natural gas. Hydrate use which would exclude coal use would be something which could be consider superior to long term dependency on coal fired electricity. While over two thirds of present global warming is attributed to elevated carbon dioxide the remaining global warming has been associated with methane and nitrous oxides which are being elevated along with carbon dioxide levels. While the relative amounts of methane and nitrous oxide is small compared to carbon dioxide there insulation values are much greater than carbon dioxide. In terms of greenhouse gas effect coal represents the worst case scenario natural gas generates one half the ghg effect and does not have the major issues of particulates, mercury and diverse toxic materials compared to coal. Since hydrates generations previous were not on the radar screen they do need to considered considering the massive potential to influence our atmosphere which has been conclusively shown to be changed by human activities in ways which are unprecedented before the agricultural and industrial revolutions. Coal fired dependency is also a worst case health scenario.

I follow answers

best regards

How can the carbon budget of our planet be transformed? The billions of tons of greenhouse gas can be addressed by emission reductions and sequestration. . Lets start with changing our core coal thermoplants to natural gas which will reduce that signature by one half. Completely doable to obstacle even better as the health costs will be reduced significantly. Then secondly what about a new generation or safe nuclear options. Third what about the implementation of wind, geothermal, micro hydroelectric. The conversion to hybrid and electric cars. Then what about an implementation of the restoration of our global coral reef system. Now agriculture as proven no till can contribute to 10% reduction of global greenhouse gas. Let us add the use of cover crops which give 2 to 4 times the no till proven sequestration. Third lets consider compost which has a another 2 to 4 times then add biochar providing not only stable conclusive renewable energy for massive carbon sequestration demonstrated by pre Colombian Indians. These are all doable and feasible and they add up. Do the math. These are solutions not nay saying. Of course we have not addressed the planet forests or stimulating the greater phytoplankton through micronutrients. As the Bible aptly pinpoints the people perish for lack of knowledge. There certainly is the potential to get a handle of escalating greenhouse gas enrichment when we have the will. The greatest current limitation is not technology nor cost but vested interest and lack of will. Those who have ears let them hear.

Geologically, the earth is coming out of an ice age. Therefore it is in a warming cycle and the polar ice caps would naturally be melting. Another group of naturally occuring events are the

Milankovitch Cycles. These are astronomical and related to the orbit of the earth around the sun. The earth obits the sun in an eliptal shape and over many millenia the orbit morphs into a circle. Further, the tilt of the polar caps changes. Also, the tilt wobbles. If you can imagine, when the orbit is elliptical, twice a year the earth is relatively closer to the sun. Combine this with a tilt where a pole is pointed toward the sun, the ice will melt and sea levels rise. When sea levels are high, fine grained material (shales) are deposited. Observing the rock record, there are repeating cycles of sands (relatively low sea levels) then shales (higher sea levels) occuring 100’s of million years ago; long before man. Another cycle that is very predicable is the sun-spot (solar flares) activity. Normally there 100,000 + sun-spots a day. Suggesting a significant amount of radiation from the sun. However, there are periods where the sun-spots are in the 5-10 per day. This is called a maunder minimum. The mini ice age during the late 1700’s where the River Thames froze is considered due to a maunder minimum. It is expected that we will enter another minimum period in 2030. Global ‘warmists’ who blame man as the reason for these changes largely ignore the naturally occuring cycles of the earth.

Regarding gas hydrates, the natural gas is locked up in ice that forms 300-1500 meters below the ocean floors. In general most of this methane is inert. However, naturally occuring releases do happen. For instance, the Bermuda Triangle may be a region where this occurs. The 5 war planes flying in formation wing-tip to wing-tip about 100 feet above the sea surface in WW II that mysteriously disappeared most likely flew through a methane cloud due a naturally occuring release of a gas hydrate. Methane being less dense than air, the planes will no longer have lift. Also the engines will choke out. This event will happen when say a submarine channel migrates laterally and gets close enough to a gas hudrate formation and relatively warmer sea water melts the ice and releasing the methane. Further, world-wide there are oil seeps. There are also nature gas seeps as well. Again these are naturally occuring events/conditions.

One last comment, there was a hole in the ozone layer that was attributed to the ‘works of man’. However, it is now believed the hole has annealed. The reasoning is EPA mandates. However, what about 3rd world countries where they don’t have such mandates? This reasoning suggests the North America was largely to blame for the hole in the ozone layer. A more resonable assertion is that this condition is most likely a naturally occuring development.

Is the massive burning of fossil fuels a natural phenomenon? Definitely not. Does the massive burning of fossils serve as the source for current greenhouse gas enrichment? Affirmative.

Does the enrichment of the atmosphere associate with the current significant increase in global temperatures? It certainly associates significantly. Does this current increasing temperature follow the model on the behavior of greenhouse gases? Well scientific models and data supports the theory. Except for the first question which is undoubtedly no all the other answers are yes. All the others are no. While science can show the theory of global has proof the idea that this is natural is something that only be supported by conviction that man activities do no have potential to alter our climate when the information shows it already has. Beside the earth information the interplanetary information also supports the warming theory just check out Mars and Venus for the influence of greenhouse gas. The tenet is the rapid and unprecedented changes being experienced are business as normal has very little support. I do not think dinosaurs were running massive revolutions in agriculture nor changing the natural energy system of our planet. Since man has indeed done the present work it illustrates that in current level of consciousness he/she can certainly undo it since the causes are related largely to human activity. We are no longer in dinosaur and pre human economies where the natural cycles largely govern the climatic results. Global change deniers do not accept the reality that for the first time in geological time human activities override the natural geological cycles. Unless you can show previous biological forces changed atmosphere to the present rate and effect you might want to accept as Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz remarked well Toto I do not think we are in Kansas anymore. The reality is the paradigm has changed because we are in different game than before human activity when we had such limitation based on lower population and technological levels. As Bob Dylan sang the times they are changing and we cannot be inert to our part in how they are changing only at our peril and that of this and future generations.

For perspective, there is a study that shows vegetation (trees, etc.) tend to absorb more CO2 when the globe

Is warmer. Frankly, this is a very interesting phenomena. Evolution has created a condition where the conditions that develop when the ice caps are melting is compensated by nature.

Another perspective: how long is the digital age? That is, how long do we have an extremely accurate record of the composition of the atmosphere and/or oceans and/or tides, etc. Thirty years? All these ‘assumptions’ are based on a record that geologically is a nano-eyeblink!! Even the weather record is vague when looking older than 1940. When one looks at the assumptions from the Obama directed paper written to justify the US getting into the Paris Accord, the paper states: when the weather record is vague, assume a global warming model. This is technical blasphemy! Making asumptions based on an accurate record that is extremely short - geologically is very poor judgement.

Dear Duane Pankhurst You are absolutely correct that as greenhouse gases are elevated plants can help compensate by uptaking the Carbon dioxide. The bigger part of this equation is that the greenhouse emissions are far outstripped by respiration which largely from unrelented reliance of fossil fuels non renewable resources. There is nothing natural about the present massive use of coal and petroleum which is driving current climate changes which are not strictly related to planetary cycles. When globally warming is linked to increase in global carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the models prove out the association of the drivers. In addition the models show that increased greenhouse gases increases the extreme climate events such as hurricane, typhons, and droughts. The most limiting effect on our present ability to feed a growing population is the ability to have more efficient use of scarce water resources. In the United States there is a reliance of almost half of our vegetable and fruit production under irrigation from Sierra Mountain snow pack. As the global warming is affecting conditions for snow the present food system in United States is under real jeopardy. In terms of Himalayas where the retreat of mountain glaciers is amply demonstrated the elimination of these glaciers would endanger the rice basin for one quarter to one third of the world population. I guess we could throw up our arms and think this is all normal but scientific consensus does not support that. Indeed scientific consensus is that it is at the feet of our human activities and indeed our activities will need to adapt and change to avoid worst case scenarios. Our first step in this process is to get out of a River in Africa called Denial.

interested

Paul, i stated that as tempertures rise (i.e. global warming presumbly

due to CO2 emissions) the vegetation will uptake more CO2. This was proven by a recent study I read (can’t remember the author/group) where they created a hotter enviroment and actually meaured the CO2 uptake in the vegetation.

A point to ponder regarding human nature. In academia/research there's a long-standing motto: 'publish or perish'. Further, there is a very small and tight-knit group of scientists that publish global warming work. The need to survive in human nature is strong. Do you think it might be advantageous to some to create public hysteria? This hysteria would bring in much welcomed research funding!!

Another point: the huge volume of greenhouse gases emitted by the ‘works of man’ would actually elevate the current-day earth temperatures by 10 degrees Celsius! This is/has not happened. This fact suggests that the scientific community does not fully understand the impact of greenhouse gas emmission and/or the system.

In my opinion, where the scientific community should spend energy understanding and predicting is volcanism. Last year, 90 volcanoes were discovered below the Antarctic ice. Geologically, there are periods where significant volcanism occurs world-wide.

Krakatoa is an example where the volume of ash put into the atmosphere in 1883 blocked the sun for days remained in the atmosphere and subsequently caused global earth temperatures to drop 2 degrees F the next year. It took 5 years for global temperatures normalize. Clearly the impact of volcanism far outweighs the impact of man.

Yellowstone Park in Wyoming is currently bulging and streams are reversing direction. This is because the magma that is the heat source for the geysers is getting closer to the surface. Satellite imagery of the region shows remnants of a cluster of coalescing calderas. These calderas are several miles across! There are some that believe Yellowstone may erupt sometime in our lifetime. This may very well be a hugely catastrophic event; far outweighing the impact of burning fossil fuel.

Dear Duane The emissions of fossil fuels and the sequestration of greenhouse gases is under human control. Vulcanism and eruption of Yellowstone is something which we have no control of yet. It could happen today tomorrow or in thousands of years. It certainly is no reason to dismiss human induced climate change adapting and mitigating it. I do not refute that carbon dioxide is fueling photosynthesis and will refute that carbon dioxide is also driving climate change. It is also clear that increased photosynthesis is not counteracting the massive use of fossil fuels nor the lack of sufficient sequestration to reverse the exponential increases of both carbon dioxide and global temperature. I for one am not waiting for a super volcano to reverse massive exponential climate change which is clearly associated with our human activities we have control of. I am hoping that saving an extinction event we need to plan for better future in the things we control such as energy systems and land and marine management.

Paul, how do you justify the fact that given the volume of greenhouse gases emitted by mankind, the current day earth temperatures should be 10 degrees Celsius hotter than they currently are? Assuming 100% sequestration of greenhouse gases may be erroneous. To me there are many elements of greenhouse gases and their contribution(s) to global warming that are poorly understood. Assumimg that when something is publisjed that it must be gospel may be a little short-sighted. i refer to the Obama directed paper where the assumption to fill in a global warming model when the weather record was

vague.

Another element to consider is ocean gyres and cold water upwelling. Fishermen off the western coast of South America coined the term ‘El Nino’ because the nutrient-rich cold water wasn’t upwelling where it used to. Therefore the fish went to different locations and the fishermen’s livelihood was threatened. Now warmer nutrient poor waters are circulating adjacent to the continent. Although this is the Pacific Ocean, similar conditions develop in the Atlantic as well. There are some who want to believe that the recent hurricanes are due to global warming causing the ocean waters to have higher temperatures. In reality, it’s due to changes in the cold water upwelling; a common and somewhat regular occurrence in the ocean gyres. Another example where common sense is largely ignored in order to promulgate public hysteria!

Duane so you believe the temperatures have not risen? If you are in a state of disbelieve you might also believe ice mass has not retreated and that the ocean level has not risen. All of these are testifying to a single cause the massive exploitation of fossil fuels and the unprecedented artificial human influence on our atmosphere.

I am not arguing 10 degrees of 1 degree I am saying that the dataset shows temperature is rising and that this conforms with the theory of global warming and indeed the temperature warming is accelerating with the accelerated emissions of greenhouse gases. Both temperature curve and the greenhouse gas content are showing exponential curves. Curves related to out of control situations such as a population explosion.

The Department of Defense in both Bush and Obama have made reports supporting the measured and predicted effects of global warming. Afe both these part of conspiracy?

While the effects of el Nino and la Nina is important it does not obviate the importance of global warming.

Of most interest is behavior of Exxon corporation whose in house work strongly supports the importance and utility of greenhouse gas induced global warming but who also take a disinformation position that it does not exist.

It is an undisputable fact that in the last hundred years the Northern Hemisphere ice mass has been reduced one third this is not hysteria as you suggest this is documented history.

To think this is happening by random or from natural causes does not add up.

Dear All,

Thanks for your time and effort.

"The trigger was probably not always warming of the atmosphere, but also the opposite. ......."

I think we should try to focus the issue of gas hydrates at a relatively larger time-scale. It seems the conclusions may vary widely as the time-scale associated with this process increases; and obviously, the conclusions deduced at the end of different time-scales may altogether have NO correlations at all, I suppose.

The depth, water pressure at that depth, ocean temperature at that depth, the role of aerobic and anearobic microbes, the presence of continental slopes and many more factors - may act together and decide the fate and transport of methane hydrates either in dissolved form or in gaseous form (as bubbles) from the sea bed to the ocean surface - before it can start contributing to the global warming. On the other hand, there are few chances for the global freezing as well resulting from the presence of gas hydrates (the opposite reaction). Well, it requires a lot more data to understand; and above all, the time-scale of interest should be very large in comparison with that of the average human life span in order for us to deduce some reasonable conclusion, I think.

Thanks again for your time.

Paul, in any work whether you’re an engineer, carpenter, or scientist, there’s as much of an art as there is a science to understanding cause and effect. The art is to be able to see the trees (I.e. the detail) while simultaneously seeing the forest (I.e. the big picture). I emphasize simultaneously!!

Regarding gas hydrates. Consider the Macondo prospect Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico about 8 years ago. After the release of the oil, they were monitoring the migration of the oil plume and almost overnight the plume literally disappeared! Chemosynthetic organisms digest and convert hydrocarbons (oil and/or gas). There are huge communities of these organisms around hydrocarbon seeps at the ocean floor. If one contends that global warming will cause the oceans to warm, melt gas hydrates and therefore release the natural gas; one must consider how and where hydrates form. Hydrates form at a temperature/pressure triple point below the sea floor. Depending on local geologic conditions, this triple point occurs at varying depths below the sea floor. Further, temperature gradients in the ocean vary due to salinity and other local conditions. Thus, the affect of a warmer atmosphere and how fast and deep the ocean water warms will most likely be a gradual process and will not result in a catastrophic world-wide release of natural gas from melting hydrates but in local pockets. How this will add to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is unpredictable. These local pockets may release into the oceans but like the Macondo oil spill it is likely the natural gas will be dissipated in the oceans by natural phenomena.

I used to work for a major oil company and submitted for patent a gas hydrates production methodology. This is one of the next frontiers in Oil & Gas. The methology was dismissed by engineering because I did not utilize a traditional borehole. I visualize using a borehole akin to trying to draw fluids from a block of ice using a straw. The area of influence away from the borehole walls using perforated screen will be minimal. Over the years I’ve reconsidered the design and modified it significantly. The operative element of the design is modular and can be built on barge(s) then sunk to the sea floor and can be reused. Further, the design takes into account a potential problem when melting a block of ice. That is, it reduces in volume. A reduction in volume below the sea floor will cause differential settlement of the overburden. The design takes this into account. Further, the design has secondary containment should an uncontrolled release occur and has a system to manage the volume of gas due to an uncontrolled release. If pockets of melting hydrates develop due to warming sea water, this design could help manage the problem.

Paul, regarding loss of polar ice. What is largely ignored is that althoigh ice may retreating in one region it’s getting thicker in adjacent regions! Being myopic on one element suggests one’s nose is buried in the bark of the trees and not seeing the whole picture. Further, regarding rising temperatures. I didn’t suggest they hadn’t risen. In a previous post, I mentioned that the earth is coming out of an ice age and a rising temperature is what’s expected. I refer to the fact that the immense volume of man derived greenhouse gases should have raised the temperatures a cataclysmic 10deg C!! This has not happened. Therefore, the real issue is: sequestration and what are the actual affects of greenhouse gases on the earth’s temperatures!

I refer you to the ‘Haq Curve’. This is a curve or plot of the relative sea levels over geologic time. High sea levels are a proxy for a warmer globe (less water locked up in the poles) and lower sea levels are a proxy for a colder globe. Looking at the Haq Curve one will notice short periods where the rate of change of the curve is different. One may call this a ‘blip’. Some of these blips are huge suggesting a significant chamge in sea level. Beyond the blip, the rate of change of the Haq Curve returns to it’s previous rate. Given the short length of time of the digital age (30-40 years: geologically a nano eye-blink) where we have detailed and accurate data on a plethora of conditions. How do you know we are not on one of those ‘blips’? How do you know that the current rate of warming hasn’t been going on since say the 1400’s? Or even longer? The accuracy of historic weather/temperature records is highly questionable. Relying on a 30-40 year record of accurate measurements is again very myopic and largely ignoring the big picture.

Which ONE of the following will be very sensitive in terms of accelerated global warming?

(A) Hydrates in solidified form or in compressed form or in adsorbed form

(B) Slow/Moderate/Enhanced hydrate growth kinetics

(C) Slow/Moderate/Enhanced stability of hydrates

(D) Atmospheric pressure & moderate temperature

(E) Enhanced pressure & Low temperature