There
is an old adage that says something like 'you don't know something is
true or not until the first official denials come out'.
Isn't
it interesting that Yale is concerned, not by the reality but in what
parts of the internet thinks and in the appearance of truth.
Interesting
that they have divided the whole thing into six 'bite-size' portions
– best designed for propaganda.
If
you are interested in communicating scientific knowledge to the
public, rather than pulling the wool over their eyes then this is
what it looks like.
In my comment to the original video I asked “how are your colleagues, Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov doing?”
For
the most preposterous part (and the most egregious abuse of a
scientific term) you can't go past her comment on 'endothermic
reactions'.
Another
scientist (who hasn't, by her own admission) done active research
for half-a-decade, by putting herself at the service of what for me
is the Dark Side, has lost all credibility she might have had.
As an interesting aside the author of this blog must have had a copyright strike against him because all his videos were removed. I have restored them from the original source.
One way of dealing with your scientific progress, I guess.
As an interesting aside the author of this blog must have had a copyright strike against him because all his videos were removed. I have restored them from the original source.
One way of dealing with your scientific progress, I guess.
Yale
University goes out of its way to say Nothing To See Here! on
Permafrost
"Nothing to see here". I can retire now because obviously my eyes (along with all those who watch this video) are failing and it it is all a figment of my imagination. How is it I never saw this before (sic)!
FrozenEarth,
8
February, 2019
More
Arctic Methane Shenanigans: Ivy League university Yale in the United
States of America is worried that their January 2019 propaganda video
on methane hydrates wasn’t swallowed hook, line and sinker by human
beings connected to the Internet.
The
first sign that you are reading a political propaganda piece and not
science communication, is when an article isn’t talking about
Climate Element X, but rather about human beings connected to the
Internet who are worried about Climate Element X. Sometimes this may
be hard to recognise, but in our case, it’s spelled out:
«Such
concerned voices in recent weeks are the focus of this post»
Bud
Ward, Yale Climate Connections
This
may seem trivial to an untrained eye, but when the focus isn’t
Climate Element X, but concerned voices, then the scientific
discipline involved is also no longer climate or natural sciences,
but social or political sciences. In a nutshell: How can we make
these darn concerned voices go away? Josef Stalin or George W. Bush
could prolly suggest one or two ways such voices can be silenced. But
let’s read Yale’s article carefully.
«The
blogosphere for years has been abuzz, and particularly in recent
weeks, with information – and, equally importantly, misinformation
– about the near-term risks posed by uncontrollable and potentially
catastrophic releases of large Arctic deposits of methane hydrates,
ice-like substances holding a powerful greenhouse gas.»
Bud
Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment:
Several high–profile voices from David Attenborough and Stephen
Hawking to scientists and world leaders have stated in recent years
that Climate Change is the defining or most important issue of our
time. Yale University shouldn’t be so surprised to also find human
beings connected to the Internet who share this view. In fact, their
chosen authority figure, USGS Lead Scientist Carolyn Ruppel, confirms
the fact that these hydrate deposits are thawing already, and thereby
also releasing their methane to the Earth’s atmosphere.
«Highly
vocal have been voices cautioning about existing or perhaps imminent
methane releases to the atmosphere, resulting in global catastrophe
or cataclysm and threatening human civilization.»
Bud
Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment:
Any thawing of sediments under a rapidly warming ocean containing
hundreds of gigatons of a highly potent greenhouse gas is of course a
potential threat to human agriculture & civilisation, and
cautioning about these emissions by our planet itself seems, if
anything, highly appropriate. This is something we need to know
about, and Yale University ought to look closer at its own university
shield, which in English has the motto “Light and Truth”. Yale
shouldn’t take it upon themselves to spread Darkness and Lies, so
should praise any and all information campaigns about these very
important issues instead of trying to quell them.
«Such
concerned voices in recent weeks are the focus of this post, as many
appear to be in response to the January 29 post of videographer Peter
Sinclair’s monthly video, at this site. That video included
interviews with several highly regarded experts pushing back on the
doom-and-gloom “methane time bomb” meme.»
Bud
Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment:
Peter Sinclair’s video on YouTube was a cleverly crafted propaganda
video, in which scientific authority and language were abused in
order to give human beings connected to the Internet the impression
that ice couldn’t melt because it requires heat. The USGS Lead
Scientist was kicking in open doors with her “revelation” that
hydrate meltdown requires heat — we all know that this heat is
available in abundance once the thawing front in the ESAS reaches
more deposits deeper down in the subsea permafrost layers. Calling
this irreversible deeper and deeper thaw into the methane containing
layers a “time bomb” is hardly an exaggeration.
«It’s
no surprise that some of those recent and ongoing online commentaries
mischaracterize the expert perspectives reflected in that January 29
video. One comes to expect that of the online world of commentary and
hyperbole.»
Bud
Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment:
What’s the issue with the “online world” and human beings
connected to the Internet? Does Yale expect people in 2019 to arrive
by horse and carriage to deliver their commentary, or do they perhaps
prefer surface mail or telefax messages littered with handwritten
comments? It’s strange, but amusing, to see Yale repeat a meme that
is almost as old as the Internet itself, namely that modern human
beings using it must be inherently evil or ill–informed. And what’s
the nature of these “mischaracterisations of expert perspectives”?
Is it that the whole video was called propagandistic? If it’s
ridden with political propaganda, is it not a political propaganda
video? If such characteristics are unwanted, maybe Yale should think
about not releasing political propaganda footage to YouTube? Nip it
in the bud, eh. Easier than trying to control the response, when
propagandising the planet.
«Carolyn
Ruppel, PhD, who heads the gas hydrates research project for the
United States Geological Survey, USGS, is among those featured in
that video, along with other reputable scientists.»
Bud
Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment:
… Who admits on tape that she stopped working with the Arctic half
a decade ago.
«But
given constraints on how much information could be included in that
single six-minute video, we provide here six brief educational videos
– ranging from one minute to nearly five minutes – drawn from the
Ruppel interview remarks not included in that initial video.»
Bud
Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment:
Artificial, self–imposed constraints. Peter Sinclair voluntarily
made his monthly YouTube video that short, likely because he wanted
to convey a simple, propagandistic message about Arctic methane:
Nothing To See Here, Move Along! He wanted to “Keep It Simple,
Stupid” for political propaganda effect, not out of respect for the
scientific matter at hand. His narrative shows an almost crying
female student who used to believe Arctic methane meltdown was kinda
dangerous, but who now understands that the danger was “overblown”,
because #endothermic. Because ice simply can’t melt on planet Earth
because melting would require heat. It’s so stupid.
«These
six segments provide authoritative background on the “methane time
bomb” and why experts may not “lie awake at night” fretting
about it.»
Bud
Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment:
Well, that would be nice, wouldn’t it. But they don’t. Please see
my walk–through of the videos below. And thank you for providing
the extra footage, revealing to me and everyone that the
propagandistic contents and intents of the January video were exactly
as bad as first assumed, if not worse.
Video
Footage Walk–Through
For
clarity, what human beings connected to the Internet are mostly
worried about, the aforementioned Climate Element X, is methane
hydrates in the shallow ESAS (0–50m water depth) in East Siberia.
#1
«[…]
But it doesn’t mean there is hydrate everywhere in there. One of
the things in terrestrial areas, is that gas hydrate tends to focus
only in certain areas, it’s not this big, wide–spread or
high–saturated deposit. So, one thing I think we generally have to
be careful of, is talking about what the inventory of gas hydrate is
to begin with. OK. So, even if the thawing’s happening, the amount
there in the first place on these Arctic continental shelves, is not
a huge amount. And it is not ubiquitous. And it is not necessarily
even a thick deposit. So, that’s one of the things: The amount
available to even emit methane is probably not nearly as large as
some people are estimating.»
Carolyn
Ruppel, Lead Scientist, USGS
Comment:
Well, obviously, the worry is about the methane that’s there, and
how fast that’s gonna thaw. If Ruppel disagrees with “some
people” about the amounts, that’s a matter for scientific debate
among experts. On Wikipedia, citing science reports, the only figure
we find for subsea methane / methane hydrates in the ESAS is 1,400 Gt
carbon. Ruppel admits these deposits are thawing, and the scientific
consensus seems to be that the submerged permafrost is thawing by
about a foot every year, across the ESAS shallow seas.
#2
«Barents
Sea […] pockmarks […] on the sea floor […] methane releases […]
But that doesn’t necessarily mean we need to panic about the amount
of methane that’s coming out.»
Carolyn
Ruppel, Lead Scientist, USGS
Comment:
True, but the human beings connected to the Internet are panicking
about current and future releases from the ESAS, not the Barents Sea.
Giant, kilometer–wide pockmarks in the Barents sea floor only make
the matter worse, not better.
#3
«[…]
Again, it’s not ubiquitous. So, again, I’d argue that probably
the amount is not nearly as large as people might think it is, if
they don’t think about the vagaries of gas hydrates.»
Carolyn
Ruppel, Lead Scientist, USGS
Comment:
Again, obviously, the worry is about the methane that’s there, and
how fast that’s gonna thaw. If Ruppel disagrees with “people”
about the amounts, that’s a matter for scientific debate among
experts. On Wikipedia, citing science reports, the only figure we
find for subsea methane / methane hydrates in the ESAS is 1,400 Gt
carbon. Ruppel herself admits these deposits are thawing, and the
scientific consensus seems to be that the submerged permafrost is
thawing by about a foot every year, across the ESAS shallow seas.
#4
Ruppel
here explains that ocean waters are under-saturated with methane,
meaning that for releases from waters more than 100 meters deep,
methane tends to be absorbed in the water column before reaching the
surface. “It’s not a freight train that this methane is going to
wind up directly in the atmosphere.”
Bud
Ward, Editor, Yale Climate Connections
Comment:
Well, the worry, as mentioned, is methane hydrates in the shallow
ESAS (0–50m water depth) in East Siberia. These human beings
connected to the Internet are obviously less worried about other seas
and deeper waters.
#5
Ruppel
here discusses what she calls a common “misconception” involving
the risk of a “catastrophic trigger” of methane releases. The
thermodynamic properties of methane hydrate render that fear “not a
scientifically sound worry,” she says. “That is simply not how
these deposits can function thermodynamically.” She explains that
the reaction that releases methane is “endothermic.” The
significance of that, she says, is that the methane absorbs heat from
the surroundings, and the methane “keeps shutting itself down.”
Bud
Ward, Editor, Yale Climate Connections
Comment:
Well, the video shows a dry, laboratory environment, with hydrate
resting on a table at prolly sub–zero temperatures Celsius. In real
life, ESAS sea floor permafrost thaws about a foot every year, and
the above zero C wet environment (commonly known as ‘the ocean’)
melting the hydrates won’t be shut down, even though the hydrate
melt is endothermic. The physics is the same as for a glass of ice
cubes being introduced to tap water: They will melt. The melting of
ice cubes into liquid water is also endothermic (it requires heat
transfer), that doesn’t stop them from melting. In fact, global
warming and the collapse of the Cryosphere (or Frozen Earth) is all
about adding heat and melting the ice. Duh!
I think that what the team at Yale University and the others, such as Dr. Michael Mann, are saying is that the fossil fuel industry's PR campaign is shifting its focus somewhat.
ReplyDeleteThe old campaign simply denied that climate change was happening and so people did not have to do anything about it.
Unfortunately for the fossil fuel industry, more and more people now accept that human-caused climate change is happening.
The message of the new campaign therefore is that the climate change is happening but the situation is so severe that it is beyond repair. Nothing can be done and so people should not bother trying to do anything about it.
The objectives of the old campaign and the new one are the same – no effective action to control fossil fuel emissions.
The team at Yale University and the others are not saying the methane situation is not serious. What they are saying is that nothing is yet beyond repair.
So long as there is life there is hope.