of hundreds and thousands of years now for "gaia" to reestablish the 
finely tuned balance of organic life and the atmosphere as it was before 
man's injudicious use of fossil hydrocarbons began. With a new 
revolution in horticulture, reestablishing the fertility of the soils 
and the incredible dynamics of life that occurs in the top few inches of 
soil, the figures show clearly that the excess carbon we have introduced 
into the atmosphere, beyond that 300 ppm can be re-sequestured in 
relatively short order. Our opinions do not matter, but the facts, but 
misinformed opinions can avoid the facts, and certainly change what 
choices we make. Will the fossil fuel industries and the governments 
running in support of them acknowledge this? What do you think? Will 
Gore's 20% reduction in twenty years do it?  I don't think so.

We are in agreement that there are many things to be done to prepare 
what inevitably will fall out, even though we do not agree on the 
causes.  I think it is a matter of man's choices, not 'nature', both in 
what has lead us to this brink, and what we can do now to survive it. In 
this we differ greatly.

We even agree apparently on some of these measures we should now take. 
We do not only have to reestablish new habitats ... we can reestablish 
what we already are using and have abused. Still, the storms, the 
droughts, the flooding will increase exponentially.  what we should have 
done decades ago was not done, and we are not yet today doing what we 
must do.  To preach that continuing to dump excessive amounts of CO2 
into the atmosphere will make no difference is the very last last thing 
we need to hear. We must turn to what brought down the levels of CO2 in 
the air to livable concentrations in the first place. Of course, this is 
also the only solution to many other problems besides global warming ... 
hunger, thirst, heating and cooling and health, wars ... you name it.  
Hopefully the earth does not yet have to forever remain what we have 
made of it, but certainly we must face the consequences, even if all the 
lands become desert like some secular experts predict. These mass 
migrations, disruptions, wars and riots do seem pretty much inevitable, 
given our unwillingness to face the truth: boiled down to All this is 
indeed US.

Do I think that we WILL do what is required for some life and some 
humans to survive? That question is unanswerable, dependent totally upon 
our WILL and what we do. Who knows what that WILL be until the moments 
are passed.  That,.I think,.is still totally up to very basic human 
choices. Will we stop burning fossil fuel, and yes, even Methane until 
the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are again below 300 ppM? As we become 
even more aware of the centrality of this issue, certainly a reflection 
of even deeper issues, we will accept our responsibility, or not.

There is a lot involved... social, political issues, as well as medical, 
spiritual, psychological, chemic all, ALL .... totally interrelated and 
intrinsic now  to addressing the issue of what level of CO2 is in the 
air ... not increasing it one bit, but decreasing it by choosing life, 
not death, green, not black.  I know you see this as unrealistic, naive. 
I do not. It appears I may be as well versed on  the geology, the 
history, and meteorology, the chemistry as you are pertaining to this 
topic, who knows?  I think you have made some pretty wild misstatements 
of fact.  Everything is involved, outer/inner, everything. This is where 
the GoThomas fits in, or where Everything fits into what it points.  
Where the true Causes and Sources are found, not as a historical 
document but as here and now representation of what is, and what counts.

We can still answer that still open question, even if it is the only one 
remaining. Will any life survive?  Even since Yeoman's book was 
published in 2005, there have been astounding developments in 
photoelectric panel technology.  Have you read about this? This is 
pretty big news, especially to the fossil fuel industries, to be sure, 
and OPEC. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-2-2006-95061.asp  There 
are  whole worlds of "solutions' available, yet untried, living now in 
the heads and bodies of persons alive in the earth this day. They can 
and will stand up. There is much opportunity for very worthwhile action 
and hope. It is only those who have already lost touch with life that 
will say all that counts is to eat drink, and make Mary.

There are indeed yet things man can and will do.  Too late, not enough 
to assure continued association with the earth and it's further 
development?  We most definitely shall soon see, whether alive or not on 
this dimension. I do not miss the valid point that the consequences 
already set in motion must be dealt with the best we can. I do disagree 
with you on the present source of these consequences, and the part man 
has played and is playing with what happens on this planet. I think it 
is you missing this point, and how it has culminated in what IS .... 
period.

Without biological life, without the CO2 and it's greenhouse effect, no 
life would exist on earth. For almost 25 million years, the levels of 
CO2 have remained stable, at 300 ppm. it really is a relatively small 
amount that has has tipped the balance. Again. To even begin to 
understand the global warming and the dynamics of the interaction of 
life on earth and the atmosphere, some very basic, thoroughly understood 
science, facts, not opinion, must first be grasped. Our opinions are 
important in determining what we selectively perceive. Such little 
things as parts per million as opposed to parts per billion here can 
make quite a difference.

I agree heartily with dealing with the inevitable, though we disagree on 
the cause and the severity of the sky which is indeed 'falling'. It 
turns out, I think what we can productively and purposely do is just as 
meaningful and significant in facing our immediate exigencies as it is 
preparing for any long term eventuality. The requirements are the same. 
Earth-formed, earth-sheltered structures are crucial now for any 
eventuality. There are lots of things which need be done now, with no 
fear of wasted time and effort being made. Learning again to grow our 
own food, locally and sustainably .... as well in larger quantities for 
those tied up in our population centers, as long as we have the chance. 
Not long, in my view. Even new social structuring where true freedom of 
expression and culture exists, along side new forms of group decision 
making when relationships between persons are involved, and free and 
voluntary economic association.  There is much yet to be explored and 
manifested. IF some make it beyond what is upon us, then it can flourish 
full flower. But even today, these results are beautiful in and of 
itself, healthy and life serving, not death dealing.

This does not require exotic development of other planet's or ocean 
habitats, and yes reclaiming deserts and wasted lands are very much part 
of the over-all steps that we can take to reestablish CO2 levels, as 
well as feed the world .... if we begin now before chaos and panic 
reigns.  It is a common belief it takes a thousand years to create one 
inch of top soil. Man can do it in three years, working WITH earthworms, 
insects, mammals, and the incredible, almost miraculous microbiological 
process of turning CO2 into humic acid and fertile soil.  It is not the 
impossible task it might seem, easily quantifiable and reproducible over 
and over again. Even I have done it. I have seen it work with my very 
own eyes and DONE it with my own hands, my friend. Haven't you? 
Encouraging life, not killing it off?

And it involves making  informed 'human' choices. It will involve that 
today, for me. I must go see what forgetting to close up the greenhouse 
last night has done to our lettuce and growing transplants, being 
distracted by this discussion. I even left the chicken house door ajar. 
I will now go count the chooks to see how well the other creatures 
around here ate last night!

Love you John.  I hope this discussion has helped you get the facts and 
priorities straight as much as it has me.   jerry

------------------------

BitsyCat1@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 4/6/07 5:22:28 AM, kurt31416@yahoo.com writes:
>> Methane is 10 times as effective a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
>>
>> Basic chemistry.

> Yes I provided a link to a NASA photo of the methane co2 mix in the haze

> I suppose that NASA is just..... making that up maybe they doctored it   oh I 
> know they shot it in a studio and then claimed the photo was from outer 
> space?
> Here is another link to greenhouse gases
> you will note that methane occurs nearly 5 times greater than CO2
>
> http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/253.html
>
> You will note atthe bottom of the page that when methane hydrate melts.
> it burns and produces Co2 naturally
> there are vast quantities of methane hydrate under permafrost (A potential 
> source of energy)
>
>  So why measure only Co2.. because it doesnt work out on the charts
> unless you just measure Co2 
>  You have to leave that out in order to make the point that That book made
>    Or maybe its just to complicated to note all the gases necessary to make 
> up the system (He wanted to make it easy or he didn't understand the complex 
> relationship between gases himself) 
>
> People read one book and assume that the author presented ONLY   the 
> information which was ....smile, convenient for their theory
>  Leaving out significant facts. Why... either he didnt know... or perhaps he 
> was trying to make it simple for the non scientists.
>  Why confuse people with complete information when its so much easier just to 
> measure.... Some that corresponds to his pet theories
>  I tend to agree..... global warming....might in fact be a good thing
> we dont need any more ice ages.
>  It would seem that those were civilization or mankind killers,
>  If we assume that the world must go int a cooling period within x number of 
> years.... A raise in temperature might mean a continuation of the species
>  rather than the end. By offsetting the cold
>  Actually we are only a couple of bad volcanic eruptions away from such a 
> cool down..since we cannot predict these, I noted that there has been increased 
> Volcanic activity;
>  Should there be a major eruption cycle.... We may hope it got a lot hotter
> fairly quickly.( It would be the nuclear winter scenario fairly quickly)
>  Man is not going to effect climate change. We can effect survival of climate 
> change in the future.
>    Regards,
> johnmoon3717@aol.com

-------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, John,  here is what you said and what I went by:.

....  " Methane is at least 5 times the amount of CO2 ..."

and then gave the link to that site. I look again and see no reference in text or table of a five times over increase rate of methane over CO2.  Where did you come up with that statistic? Until I learn different, I'll continue to think you may be bluffing, covering up for some very wild statements you have made. 

Your earlier statements also clearly referred to quantity, not the 'rate of increase'. No point in digging it up. I see you again now reiterate your opinion that CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas.  I think you will have a very hard time finding agreement with that anywhere today, or in reality, but you are welcome to your opinion. It would be only dangerous if you get a lot of other persons believing this, that CO2 is not really important, irrelevant, as you say. Or that it is the cows and pigs in the world that we should focus our attention upon, not our own irresponsible choices. 

CO2 is indeed and always will be the major greenhouse gas, since methane always oxidizes in the atmosphere over a relatively short time into CO2, and CO2 does not change into any other greenhouse gas. The site you linked to emphasized this as well, and also clearly pointed to man as the source for both the rise in CO2 and the rising rate of methane. I don't quite understand why you would bring this to our attention with your views, but I am glad you did. Thanks. Perhaps your views are changing a bit after all? Far out!

CO2 levels are indeed recognized, not only by Al Gore, and every other scientist I know of, as by far, many times over, the most significant factor in determining the temperature of the earth and every other planet, I believe. Without enough CO2 we'd be fried or frozen like on the moon, too much, and we'd be baked liked on Venus. Very basic science, John, the properties of CO2 and it's relationship to Life. What about it bothers you so? What is the mystery here? Every other known factor does pale in significance to the CO2 level in our atmosphere, as relatively small in % to other non-greenhouse gases as it is.  And that this only determining factor can be, and has been increased by man is indisputable, well understood and obvious. We have flucked ourselves, and a whole lot more living creatures.  The math is easy.  I haven't missed your point. I just think it is in grievously huge error. Soooo much what we do not need now, except for some of your ideas what we must do. How we do this? I think we might also have some disagreements there also. It's okay we disagree.  I think these things need to be talked about. Very much so, though what we DO is even more important. 

So far there is apparently little evidence that increased activity of the sun is resulting in increased temperatures. Have you found it? I wouldn't rule that out myself, but presently, CO2 levels alone quite adequately seems to fit the facts. You may also remember me saying here that what happens on the sun may also  be closely and directly aligned with what is occurring within man, as Cayce taught.  Now this idea is not backed up by any experiment or science journal nor is it likely to be soon. So unpopular, radical, or unconfirmed ideas do not bother me,as you must know by now, and I think the day when what you believe proves true I will acknowledge it. It's just that I presently think your points are quite mistaken, not that I don't get them. What point again you think think I do not get? 

I never once intimated that CO2 was the only measurable greenhouse gas, and who is it that has said this? Gore? I highly doubt that, and he is no hero of mine, either. Or who here would it be so foolish as to say such a thing? I never read it. Where are you coming from with these kind of statements? Seems a straw man to me, as well as your suggestion anyone is advocating killing cows and pigs. Now that is irrelevant if you want to talk irrelevance, imo. Really small stuff compared to melting permafrost and Methane Hydrates. Glad you see that now.

The future "exponential, geometrical" increases in methane rising from methane hydrates due to raising temperatures of the oceans and melting permafrost .... I mentioned myself several times. Do you remember? It's been in almost every paper, magazine, and news broadcast for weeks.  Again, what is it that has caused this rising temperature, in your view, but excessive amounts of CO2 from fossil fuels and agricultural products?  I think the truth is straight forward and simple, really. Not cows or pigs, not methane, not ozone, nothing but too much CO2, no other factor in any yet significant or comparative manner or quantity. That I said, and repeat again. Continued diversion from this fact, for whatever reasons, will not serve any of us well.  

Ford designed the model T to burn ethanol, not petrol. What happened? Interesting story. Why did Charles Lindbergh quit the airplane industry?  An interesting story. The makers of nitrates for gunpowder hit upon the idea 'fertilizer' after the end of WWII, (a misnomer if there ever was one). These same chemicals are now what comprise the homemade bombs in Baghdad and what blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma. Interesting story? Our choice to use fossil fuels in these ways was not made in innocence and ignorance of what it would do to the fragile atmosphere of the earth, nor its inhabitants. You can bank on that, as many have.  

When they are sprayed from planes to kill coca plants in Columbia or 'weeds' in my next door neighbor's property, and what they do is readily available to read on the label or many hospital ledgers. I asked for a label today from the BIG farmer who mines the 65 acres for only $800 bucks per year from my neighbor(actually a close friend of the man and woman who invented Roundup, he says)  ... for three plantings a year! I have good reason to be concerned, and not only because our well and garden is less than fifty feet away from the field round after round of chemicals are sprayed. The Chesapeake Bay is also within a stones throw, and most of the fish are now to dangerous to eat.  The only cow shit that I smell is what I read on such labels, and such persons mouthing such statements as yourself. Nothing to do with what we have done or are doing. B U L L S H I T, John, but much, much, much, much, much worse than bullshit ever could be. Abominations is what it is. Making desolate.

We all know better, and what are we doing about it? Just keep sniffing that gray asbestos, as Sam says. Killing those worms, birds, honey bees and "beneficial" insects. It literally does and should make us SICK. We should all know better, and we are soon to learn it if we do not already.

We all still participate in the sham.  Now we all fall down and pay the price, not as a punishment, but simple consequence, and surely not as fate or predestined. Simple choices.  We still, I am told, have one. That some life could possibly make it through what we have brought upon ourselves. Our own doing, not God, not even 'nature'. US, JOHN! That's the point we must get.  Not your unnamed force or smelly fertile substance. 

Don't you yet get that point? Its what you and I have done and are doing right now, this instant. Burning fossil fuels, sitting quiet while BIG BEAST kills our friends, family and neighbors of all species. A life and death matter for certain. Trying to absolve ourselves and hide from the incredible fact of what we have done and are doing is what is false, not true. Kidding ourselves will not cut it any more, "Man". I think I too may have said my peace on the subject here for awhile, anyway. Make of it what you will.  And regards to you, jerry

------------------------------------------------------------------


John Posts:

In a message dated 4/6/07 11:14:21 PM, liberty@kaballero.com writes:
Methane is at least 5 times the amount of CO2 ..."

------------------

(er .... I didn't say this, you did)

How you doing John? You sure are bright, and such a nice fellow!  

If 1 unit of one substance does the work of say 10 units of another, yet there are one thousand more of the second than the first, which is 'major' or most determinative in how much work is accomplished?  Now, suppose in addition to this, we note that the first is continually transformed into the second, the second always retaining it's form and properties. How much more dominant then is the role of the second substance than the first? The same the role of CO2 is to the role of CH4 in determining the temperature of the earth. 

It was not me that "pooh poo'd" the charts of the splendid site to which you linked. I agreed with, and just repeated what it said. Where was the pooh pooing?  It was not the site that was and must have felt pooh-poohed. Sorry. 

I am not accepting what anyone else has said without question.  Who is it doing that?

It was not me that ever said anything about changing inevitable consequences of global warming already set in motion. 
I entertain no such foolish notions as "refreezing the ice", or that eliminating "pollution" is going to change what already is occurring, the balance being tipped. I think I appreciate the power of these great forces already set in motion as much as you do.

It was me that first mentioned the "exponential" and "geometrical" rise of Methane emissions into the atmosphere due to rising temperatures, melting Hydrates and thawing Permafrost, dwarfing any and all other sources of Methane, including cows and pigs. I earlier mentioned how methane is "oxidized" into CO2 (either gradually or by burning).  

I've never contested that billions, not millions of tons of greenhouse gases would not be released, but that they WILL be, and ARE already. Not "fifty years" in the future, but happening as we type. Who is it saying all these crazy things you attribute to me?  Where we differ is on the cause of the warming. I think it is anthropogenic CO2 that did it, and is doing it, through our injudicious use of fossil hydrocarbons. 

Not once have I argued that preparing for and dealing with the inevitable was NOT the way to go. Also a shared opinion.  Remember the 'only still open question' spiel I have given so often? "Will any life survive?" not how to avoid or mollify the consequences.  "Only do what we know and can do to see that as many as possible do survive." We are not alone in saying this. Some persons are even already doing it.

One part of what "we know and can do" is stop doing what caused the warming in the first place.  Since we differ so greatly on what this is, I can understand why the measures we might suggest might also differ. Continuing on with the same poisonous practices can only add to the intensity and shorten the time of inevitable extinction if we were to continue on as is. We differ greatly in our estimation of the relevance of "green house gases" to temperature on the surface of the earth. It is not irrelevant, it is most always the major factor and always will be.  I think I see clearly your point about the self-perpetuating and amplified power once these events have been set in motion. I fully appreciate this, and have said as much many times myself, even in our dialog. And to what result? To be accused of the opposite, it seems? That is rather aggravating which may well be your intention.

The gradual increase of life forms on the earth is about the only factor that reduced the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to livable levels in which later forms such as 'us' could live. It was these "simple" life forms evolving into more complex that formed the 'fossil' fuels to begin with. It is this same process of single cell life forms that will in the main again lesson the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere to where we will be able to continue to live. With continued poisoning the levels now again rise to unlivable proportions, with death, the fall out. This process is self-amplifying  ... less life, more C02 in the atmosphere instead of the ground. This is so straight forward and well understood, today it seems foolish to even point it out. encouraging more life in the soils, making more soil is the only thing that can feasibly restore the concentrations of CO2 to levels life can thrive. You do not accept this can be done within say ten years. I do, though I doubt seriously it will be done, and yes, hell will be payed. The consequences will continue to fall out for perhaps thousands of years. No argument there, John

One must have adequate appreciation for the power and quantities of life, particularly in the soil, forming the soil (and not nearly as much as on forest floors, but open fields and grasslands) to sequester Carbon again into the ground. If any life does survive, it will be this re-fertilization ( re-habitation,if you will) that will allow it to continue. Beginning now to abet this process will certainly not involve time or effort wasted since this is what is already required to face this day in a healthy way, not just tomorrow. Speaking of habitation as you do, you should be able to see how we share this concern, and need not keep preaching to the choir about that. I just disagree with your estimation of how important this CO2/life cycle is and always, each moment, will continue to be. To me this is the next step, furthering life in every way we can and know to do. This is not just sweet sentimentality ... but the very basis of our being. Grassy, vibrant fields teaming with life are again necessary,cropped and fertilized by animals and man, and the time is now to start, not tomorrow. This will never begin, piling on hydrocarbons, pesticides and herbicides, delivering the dated, pumped up goods, thousands of miles, burning fossil fuels distributing them to cites crammed with people. The words are local, green, and small. And now. If you have other interests, fine. Do your thing and I'll do mine, but DO something.

Established life requires periods of adjustment to change. I think already everyone is going insane and anxieties will increase every day. Learning how to stay centered in what is truly real is MOST important, and part of this is getting straight with one's surroundings. This to me is what the Gospel of Thomas is about, and making the inner and outer one is how to do it. We do not have fifty years, or even twenty years to play around, making conditions worse in our daily lives, isolating ourselves further from life and the world about us. Learning to do what it is we want to do and not doing what we hate is always the order of the day. If those persons who realize what is occurring can prepare for what is 'coming down' as well as already here, some of those who do not, particularly the young, who do not even realize what is occurring can indeed be saved. No fear need be instilled.  The message is very, very good. The Kingdom is in our midst, even in the hells we have made and have descended to. It's all of one piece. What we do here and now is what we will be doing in the future unless we change our minds now, and act accordingly.  Time to shovel the snow probably caused by global warming. 


jerry

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

John,

You and your link refer to the K-T event with it's almost 300 km crater 
. Yes, widely accepted as a meteor crater. My reference which you quote 
was to an event that lead to extinctions ten million years later, theorized due to 
warming, not cooling.

The relevance of the Siberian Steps lava flows is the emission of 
massive quantities of CO2 leading to warming which led to melted Methane 
Hydrates and all the other cataclysmic events. These are believed to 
have killed more species than the event that did away with most of the 
dinosaurs 200 million years later.. The P-T event played out over a long 
span of time (thousands, maybe millions of years). The initial very long 
lava flow event is suggested to have released about the same amount of 
greenhouse gases as has the burning of fossil hydrocarbons and dumping 
them on our soils has in only 100 years.  Whether this is true or not, I 
sure do not know. As Kurt points out, this current situation is a unique 
and possiily even one-time event. No one knows all the surprises in 
store from such a radically fast rise in earth temperature. The K-T 
meteor (and others with it, it is suggested) of course set off the 
cooling literally over-night.

jerry

------------------

In a message dated 4/8/07 1:38:30 AM, liberty@kaballero.com writes: 

Yeomans also refers briefly to the warming and melting Methane Hydrates
that ended the Palaeocene epoch leading to the extinction of 55 million
years ago, after the K-T event. Apparently there are several known
extinctions thought to be caused by warming, and Yeomans discusses how
they might correspond to what is occurring now.

Well the assumption is we are not being hit by a planet killer meteor which generally is beleived to have initiated these events... Looks outside for signs of a large falling object

 However..... ripping a hole in the earths surface generally will cause a significant extinction...and lava flows thqat do kill things

http://www.bits.bris.ac.uk/iain/meteor/


The results showed that beneath 1100 metres of limestone, that has been laid down in the intervening years, there have been found 3 major concentric rings and parts of a 4th one. The outer ring, which may correspond to the basin's topographic rim (its main rim), is about 280 km in diameter. The rings are all gravity highs, due to their deep excavation and deformation associated with the crater before its collapse. In the centre their is a gravity high which is mostly to due to a mass concentration, a dense impact melt sheet and the uplift of silicate basement rocks.
 There are also other pieces of evidence which suggest that the extinction had a meteoritic origin, although it was at first thought that volcanic activity could have been the cause.
 It was first shown, near Gubbio Italy that a peculiar sedimentary clay layer that was laid down at the K-T event, showed an enormous amount of iridium, and was soon shown to be the same world-wide, by a team lead by L. Alvarez [11]. It was suggested that the enhancement was the product of a huge asteroid impact.
 High temperatures would be generated by the impact and would have started many fires; indeed soot has been found in the boundary clay.

We can consider one more piece of evidence, of shock metamorphism, when in mineral quartz the passage of a strong shock wave can cause dislocation of the grains' crystal structure along preferred crystal orientations. Impacts are the only natural process known to produce shock waves of sufficient strength, of pressure and strain rate to cause deformation of this type hence they are not due to volcanism.
 Whether the asteroid killed off the dinosaurs or not we may never be able to prove but it most have had some effect on the mass extinction of life. The size of the chicxulub crater indicates that it may be one of the largest impact structures to be produced in the inner solar system since the period of the early bombardment ended nearly 4 billion years ago. The earth, so far as we know has not experienced any other impact of this magnitude since the development of multi-cellular life about a billion years ago, so it may have been unique.

So you will note that it was previously thought (Before knowledge of impact craters, that it was volcanic activity, now almost universally accepted as a
unique planet killer asteroid or meteor
Regards,
johnmoon3717@aol.com

John,

You and your link refer to the K-T event with it's almost 300 km crater.
Yes, widely accepted as a meteor crater. My reference which you quote
was to an event that lead to extinctions ten million years later, theorized due to
warming, not cooling.

The relevance of the Siberian Steps lava flows is the emission of
massive quantities of CO2 leading to warming which led to melted Methane
Hydrates and all the other cataclysmic events. These are believed to
have killed more species than the event that did away with most of the
dinosaurs 200 million years later.. The P-T event played out over a long
span of time (thousands, maybe millions of years). The initial very long
lava flow event is suggested to have released about the same amount of
greenhouse gases as has the burning of fossil hydrocarbons and dumping
them on our soils has in only 100 years. Whether this is true or not, I
sure do not know. As Kurt points out, this current situation is a unique
and possiily even one-time event. No one knows all the surprises in
store from such a radically fast rise in earth temperature. The K-T
meteor (and others with it, it is suggested) of course set off the
cooling literally over-night.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, yes and no, Kurt

You asked if anyone knew of extinctions due to global warming. I point
out [you're welcome] that it is thought likely by many that the greatest
known extinction events of all time were due to the release of massive
quantities of CO2, not particulate cooling, not methane. When the
critical point of 5 C degrees ocean temp is reached then Methane
Hydrates are melted and bubble to the surface. We have not yet reached
that point, and it is this fact that "Allen C.Yeomans" believes offers
some small window for us to make a difference. We best hope he is right,
I think, since no one else seems to be coming up with any feasible answers.

There seems to be some confusion here over the time line. We are
considering four events separated by millions of years. The P-T
extinction, The T-P meteor event almost 200 million years later, the
ending of the Pleistocene era 10 million years after that, and what is
occuring as we type, 65 million years later. Do I know what happened
then? Hell no. We all are examining what other persons say about it, and
must decide for ourself which is most likely true, based on our own
experience and insight.

Here is an excerpt of what Yeomans says about the relation between CO2
and Methane in such events. (published in 2005) Note the direct lead-in
from the P-T events to the discussion on Methane Hydrates.
-------------------
What we are doing by our massive use of fossil fuels and our destruction
of organic matter in soils is adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere
that, according to IPCC (the United Nations sponsored International
Panel on Climate Change) estimates will cause a similar world
temperature rise. IPCC suggest possibly 5.8ºC. Such a temperature rise
will most certainly cause a significant percentage of species to become
extinct, but nothing remotely like the Permian-Triassic, the P-T
extinction of two hundred and fifty-one million years ago. For a P-T
like extinction to occur requires a world climatic change to occur that
needs the temperature to rise a further 5ºC than that currently
predicted by rises in anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels. That’s a
total of 10ºC or 18ºF rise in world air temperatures.

Our current use of fossil fuels cannot add enough greenhouse gasses to
the atmosphere to make this occur. But we very possibly could be
triggering effects that might just make it an all too terrible reality.
And the trigger might be a hair trigger. And the consequences would
probably be irreversible.

What is the point in humanity taking such an incredible gamble?

At the bottom of any pond or sea or ocean, both in the time just before

the Permian-Triassic extinction and in times today, there is and always
will be massive quantities of decomposing biological residues. As they
decompose they produce methane, and we know methane is twenty times more
powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. In all shallow water, the
methane constantly bubbles to the surface as “marsh gas”. The methane in
the bottom of deep oceans doesn’t
bubble to the surface. It stays there. Under the extreme pressures and
in the extreme cold at the bottom of the world’s oceans, the methane
combines with water and freezes into snowflake type crystals of methane
hydrate. There in the deep cold on the floor of the oceans the crystals
accumulate. A four or five degree Celsius rise in the temperature of the
seas and the oceans will start the methane hydrate crystals to thaw on a
massive scale. That’s about seven to nine degrees Fahrenheit.

If that happens untold millions of tons of methane gas will inexorably
bubble up to the surface and escape into the air. That extra methane in
the atmosphere will be more than enough to raise world temperatures by
the additional few degrees that created the greatest extinction in the
history of planet Earth.[P-K] It can happen. There is twice as much
carbon in the methane hydrates frozen at the bottom of oceans than there
is in all the known fossil fuels of all types, anywhere in the world.
The quantity is considered to be around 10,000 billion tons. We know it
can happen because it has already happened before. Fifty-five million
years ago
the ocean waters did indeed warm gradually.The reason is as yet unknown.
But we do know the critical threshold was reached, for quite suddenly
the methane started bubbling up. Sea surface temperatures rapidly rose
8ºC and deep ocean temperatures rose 5ºC. Those temperatures changes
ended the Palaeocene epoch.

The Palaeocene epoch is the relatively short period between the end of
the dinosaurs at the K-T boundary 65 million years ago and the
extinction of 55 million years ago.
-----------

The really key point is that if it is possible to reduce the Excessive
CO2 levels before this most massive release of Methane occurs, then
great extinctions would be
avoided. Whether or not Yeomans is too optimistic in his ideas on
recapturing C02 remains to be seen. His and his Father's expertise and
successes in agriculture speaks well for at least giving him an ear, I
think. Seems we would have a lot to gain, and perhaps nothing to lose.
From the little I know, and my experience in agriculture, his math
seems reasonable to me. His resume and credentials are far from shabby,
but I will each one judge this for themselves. I am grateful he has
offered his life time of deliberations and down-to-earth experience and
the incredible range of research he ties together, FREE for the
downloading. I don't take his word for anything, but I have never read
any other work more thought provoking or engaging to read, the issues
being so vital. The restoration of soils is just one prong of what he
thinks needs to be done, and can be done. I'm having to rethink a lot of
old conceptions I had just a few weeks ago. Here is another short
statement that might help clarify the CO2/CH4 issue. Remember, written
probably in 2004.

"What do these numbers mean by comparison? The figure of 1,700 parts per
billion is another way of writing 1.7 parts per million (ppm) [as
compared to 365 parts per million for CO2] Carbon dioxide levels have
risen 80 ppm but methane has at least twenty times the greenhouse effect
of CO2 so it has the warming equivalent of 34 ppm of carbon dioxide.

The public relations ploy of blaming all methane build up on cows is a
giant red herring. The press produces more wind than the cattle."

chapt 4, page 77

This of course represents closely the state of affairs of the present.
Not what will occur if the Hydrates start to boil.

jerry

--------------------------------------------------

> enhouse gas of carbon dioxide, 
> but "yeoman's" says the lava flats alone was responsible for the P-K 
> extinction, not the methane hydrates. Granted the new idea is the 
> claim it was the methane which was caused by the lava. Truth is, we 
> just don't know for sure. 
>
> Which, of course, means we need to err on the side of caution.
>
> --- In GospelofThomas@yahoogroups.com, Jerry B <liberty@...> wrote:
>   

>> ok Kurt, I found it.
>> Extinctions occurring from global warming, and even the grand-daddy of
>> all extinctions, the P-K extinction, 251 million years ago.  The cause
>> is not yet certain but many think it was the result of the 'Siberian Flats' 
>> long-term (thousands of years) Lava flows over a huge area, 
>> including coal beds, resulting in very high CO2 levels and eventual 
>> melting of Methhttp://www.yeomansplow.com.au/docs/PRIORITY-ONE-Chapter1.pdf ane Hydrates on >> the ocean floor!  Yeomans discusses it on page 36 of Chapter 1 .... 
>> course Wikipedia also covers it.

>> Yeomans also refers briefly to the warming and melting Methane Hydratesthat ended the Palaeocene epoch leading to the extinction of 55 million years ago, after the K-T event.  Apparently there are several known extinctions thought to be caused by warming, and Yeomans discusses how they might correspond to what is occurring now.   Jerry