A BBC article (link below) summarizes new research appearing in the journal Nature about methane (natural gas) in the Antarctic. The Antarctic could be developed as a methane energy resource.
It is not surprising that there are immense reserves of methane beneath the ice and oceans on and around Antarctica. More than 170 million years ago, it was part of the super continent Gondwona. At several points in its history, Antarctica has been covered with forests and inhabited by life forms. It was much warmer then than now and the continents have moved. But, it is the continuous degradation of life forms that continuously forms methane and petroleum almost everywhere on the planet. Today, this planet is creating gas and oil as it always has done and in quantities that dwarf human use of it. After water, oil is the second most common liquid on this planet. Only human contrivance keeps oil, gas and energy prices high.
Temperatures in Antarctica have been as low as -89 degrees C in our lifetime. Most of that continent is 3 kilometers above sea level, which makes it very different and much colder than the Arctic North Pole where there is no continental land mass. The Arctic north is essentially at sea level. Temperature decreases rapidly with altitude. This means there is almost zero chance of Antarctica warming enough to produce a methane-caused climate catastrophes there… except for the unlikely event of a major asteroid strike on earth or a major tectonic event. BBC fails to point out that Antarctica is gaining sea ice and ice depth on most of its land mass.
Southern Hemisphere sea ice is slowly increasing:
When a long spell of significant global warming occurs again, long before Antarctic ice sheets would melt, the methane hydrates on the continental shelf and Gulf of Mexico offshore the U.S. would warm first and methane would bubble to the surface. That methane would immediately turn to CO2 when it contacts O2 in the air and we would see a steeper increase in the CO2 trend. But, during the last ten years of so, satellite measurements are showing no increase in global temperatures, and satellites produce the most reliable measurement. Some reports show a rising trend in temperatures on land surfaces, but land comprises only about 30% of the planet’s surface and many scientists fault these land-based measurements for location problems and cherry picking of data.
It is very unfortunate BBC chose to use this scientific article to continue the hysterical misinformation that global warming could release this Antarctic methane to cause a climate catastrophe. The scientists only mention the climate warming aspect in the very last phrase of the very last sentence of the abstract in the journal Nature, “with the potential to act as a positive feedback on climate warming during ice-sheet wastage.” Climate was not the focus of their scientific article, but no doubt the mention of the potential climate connection still helps get them published in the UK in the very pro-global warming Nature publications.
It is very unfortunate that BBC chose to publish a negative story instead of a positive story. These sorts of things depress markets and readers. The positive story is that the earth has naturally sustaining reserves of gas and oil which could be developed to stimulate a new renaissance in the macro economics on this planet. Instead, BBC chose to promote the self-fulfilling continuing negative narrative built on global warming. That neo-Malthusian narrative has been proven false, but so-called progressives and liberals continue to repeat that lie because it maintains their status quo and their control of governments and economies, by keeping gas and oil prices high, which in turn inflates the prices of everything else. There is nothing progressive or liberal about sustaining a lie.
It is dishonest that BBC seems to seek out claims that humans are the cause of global warming and that humans could reverse global warming. A limited amount of global warming has not been determined to be a negative for either humanity or the planet. The contrary is true. Even if all of the Arctic sea ice disappeared each summer, that would have many benefits, and that in fact has happened in the past.
The hypothesis that humans cause global warming has been de-bunked by the work of thousands of scientists around the globe. Many of the scientists who still support this failed hypothesis have been caught distorting data, hiding data, and blackballing scientists who speak out against the scientific fraud. One of those nefarious scientists is Dr. Michael Mann, the inventor of the so-called hockey stick sudden rise in temperatures which Al Gore made infamous in his movie and speaking tours. Dr. Mann’s invention has been debunked. Mann is part of the sad episode known as “ClimateGate.”
Dr. Mann works at Penn State which has become notorious for its neglect of its responsibilities in its sports programs. Penn State investigated Mann’s work for 4 months in 2010 and “cleared him of any wrongdoing” in a whitewash report. Most scientists have blasted Mann. Yet Mann’s invention lives on in Gore’s movie, Obama’s speeches, UN-sponsored conferences at posh resorts for thousands of people from hundreds of countries … most on government paychecks and expense accounts…and CNN, PBS, BBC and Nature literature. The elitist, pro-global warming UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included Mann’s hockey stick graph in its Third Assessment Report in 2001 but then removed it from their 2007 Report. Two Canadian statisticians, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, discovered serious statistical errors in Mann’s hockey stick analysis; they even showed that random data fed into Mann’s algorithm would produce hockey sticks graphs.
Canadian climatologist Tim Ball jokingly wrote that “Mann should not be at Penn State but in a State Pen[itentiary].” Mann sued Ball for libel, which leaves Mann open for pre-trial discovery of his hidden data and deposition under oath by Ball and his attorneys. Mann has been hiding his data for years from many legal “Freedom of Information Requests.” Of course, open access to original data is required for another scientists to reproduce the data, but Mann has never allowed full access and Penn State has protected Mann even though Mann’s work was funded by government grants. According to the rules of science, Mann is not doing science. It would be fitting if Mann’s data are used to destroy the EPA’s and UN IPCC’s case for human-caused global warming and Mann went to jail for fraud for taking grant money from the public under false pretenses.
The article in Nature:
Read more on the Mann’s scam: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/climategate_heads_to_court.html
The BBC story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19410444