Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Newbie questions?

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    ... general, ... under a much ... scientist/environmentalist ... looking for ... an energy ... But no one with electrical/EMF training or biological training
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 19, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "societal muse"
      <societal_muse@h...> wrote:
      > As a new comer to this list and to the issue of global warming in
      general,
      > I'd like to ask some "newbie" questions if I may:
      >
      > 1-I assume that the world's frozen methane hydrate reserves are
      under a much
      > increasingly intense study by both concerned
      scientist/environmentalist
      > community and that of the energy community, the former wary and
      looking for
      > the "trigger point", the latter looking for it's exploitation as
      an energy
      > source?


      But no one with electrical/EMF training or biological training is
      looking at them . . . yet. Hydrates are electrically insulating.
      Indeed, they are located in one methode by trolling electrodes and
      seeking conductivity anomalies. Trigger points are particularly a
      poor way of looking at a biological feedback. If the hydrates don't
      form, the area becomes like an exposed wire--and cannot conduct
      large scale low freq EMF as well--and the cloud feedbacks should
      cool. The issue, from my bio leanings, is modulations and defects
      in biological feedback loops, which include chemistry as well as
      temperature modulations.


      >
      > 2-I've read accounts of the 250mya Permian Extinction which
      theorize that
      > an initial meteor hit set off a +5°C rise in global temperatures,
      which in
      > turn triggered a release of frozen methane, yielding another 5°C
      rise for a
      > total of 10°C. My question is, how was the now gaseous, methane
      hydrate
      > recaptured and frozen again, allowing the planet to cool back down
      to it's
      > pre-Permian level? Was it always a continuous process?
      >

      The recent 60 My event of the astroid in the GOM was much more
      interesting because it was followed by very cold period--according
      to the paleo evidence. This makes sense for hydrates to unform and
      then for the electrically insulating properties to be dramatically
      harmed. CO2 is much more of an interesting forcing ELECTRICALLY,
      but it should be tempered with the idea that it is a modulated
      reality, not a chaotic one, with very subtile signals getting
      modulated into something meaningful that the biosphere can amplify
      and use. Defects in feedback loops will not allow this to happen.


      > 3-Last question, once we know for sure that a global temperature
      rise of X
      > (expected to be 5°C) would trigger a release of methane hydrate
      AND we know
      > for sure that hydrocarbon fuels are actually raising the earth's
      atmospheric
      > temperature (public admission of such by top Republican
      politicians and the
      > oil companies), will we still be able to reverse or just stop
      global
      > warming?
      >


      It is not chaos then, chaos now, burn fossil fuels, but modulation
      then, modulation now, be careful of living feedback loops.
      Removing 30 gigatons of CO2 every year from what is not in the
      biosphere and burning directly into the lungs of the biosphere is
      going to have both direct electrical impact and indirect biological
      impact. Hydrates unforming by warming temperatures is more
      dangerous for droughts in regions that depend on the electrical
      insulating propertie of the hydrates. Active areas of the biosphere
      will uptake the carbon and feedback insulation, and with more life,
      conductivity, so you end up with extremes. If those extremes then
      lead to less modulation, they you get temperature and chemistry and
      ecology instabilities. To me, the most important measure of the
      instability of climate from human influences is the decreasing earth
      EMF, which has become 8 percent less intense over the past 100
      years, and 10 percent over the past 150.
      > Thanks.
      >
      > Societal_Muse
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > <b>Get MSN 8</b> and help protect your children with advanced
      parental
      > controls. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.