We could be 16 years into a methane-fueled 'termination' event significant enough to end an ice age

"Regardless of whether termination-scale climate shifts are on the horizon, tackling methane emissions should be high on our list of priorities, Nisbet said. "We can do a great deal to bring down methane," he said, and this includes plugging gas leaks, and tackling emissions from manure, landfill and crop waste."

However, none of that can be effectively done without using conventional transportation. And that adds CO2 in the process. Between a rock and a hard place?
 

rjh

Aug 17, 2023
1
0
10
Visit site
The authors mistakenly state we are not in an ice age. We are in an ice age that started 3 million years ago, in an inter-glacial where the ice partially and temporarily receded 10,000 years ago. Would breaking out of an ice age be bad, overall? Things would change.
"At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago."
 
Jan 15, 2023
123
6
605
Visit site
Methane emissions from tropical wetlands have been soaring since 2006 and accelerating at the same breakneck speed as when Earth's climate has flipped from a glacial to an interglacial period.

We could be 16 years into a methane-fueled 'termination' event significant enough to end an ice age : Read more
Methane emissions from tropical wetlands have been soaring since 2006 and accelerating at the same breakneck speed as when Earth's climate has flipped from a glacial to an interglacial period.

We could be 16 years into a methane-fueled 'termination' event significant enough to end an ice age : Read more
So many aspects to the current climate models. Ironically, humankind may be staving off the return to a cyclic ice episode naturally occurring but overridden due to the introduction of carbon emissions.
If we were able to reduce this human generated condition, the earth would rapidly cool as should be. Ironic would be the word to describe our mortal wisdom.
 
Dec 20, 2022
50
5
55
Visit site
The authors mistakenly state we are not in an ice age. We are in an ice age that started 3 million years ago, in an inter-glacial where the ice partially and temporarily receded 10,000 years ago. Would breaking out of an ice age be bad, overall? Things would change.
"At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago."
Source of your quotation?
 
Dec 16, 2022
32
6
555
Visit site
After reading research reports about the current climate change phenomenon, I came to the same conclusion. We're in a warming period within the current ice age. We shouldn't call this an interglacial period. As long as significant ice sheets are present on the planet, we're part of an ice age. Just because ice sheets retreated around 11000 years ago doesn't signify the ice age is over.

We have no idea how the current climate changes will play out. The best we can do is find similar occurrences in the climate history preserved in the oldest ice cores we can find. Even with that in hand we don't know if the current warming trend is unique or part of a reoccurring climate change pattern. Unless we create a method to harvest massive amounts of methane gas out of the atmosphere, we're pretty much just along for the ride. In absence of finding a fix for the greenhouse gases building up everywhere, we will be spectators of a potential climate change driven species extinction event. In some small ways that appears to be already happening. Instead of spending too many of our resources on reversing the trend, a futile undertaking considering the sheer scale of the ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, we should probably focus on how to survive what seems to become our inevitable future.
 
Jan 15, 2023
123
6
605
Visit site
After reading research reports about the current climate change phenomenon, I came to the same conclusion. We're in a warming period within the current ice age. We shouldn't call this an interglacial period. As long as significant ice sheets are present on the planet, we're part of an ice age. Just because ice sheets retreated around 11000 years ago doesn't signify the ice age is over.

We have no idea how the current climate changes will play out. The best we can do is find similar occurrences in the climate history preserved in the oldest ice cores we can find. Even with that in hand we don't know if the current warming trend is unique or part of a reoccurring climate change pattern. Unless we create a method to harvest massive amounts of methane gas out of the atmosphere, we're pretty much just along for the ride. In absence of finding a fix for the greenhouse gases building up everywhere, we will be spectators of a potential climate change driven species extinction event. In some small ways that appears to be already happening. Instead of spending too many of our resources on reversing the trend, a futile undertaking considering the sheer scale of the ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, we should probably focus on how to survive what seems to become our inevitable future.
We should discuss the implications arising from meeting every goal espoused concerning "climate change".
Humankind is indeed affecting climate, but perhaps in a fashion not considered. The cycles of natural environmental glaciation and thawing won't be thwarted by our egos. Considering humans powerful enough to change the climate and bring about global catastrophe is sheer hubris.
Rather, we are artificially warming the atmosphere, preventing the natural cooling which should be making itself known at present. Stop the greenhouse gasses and inter cold. Ironic, isn't it?
 
Dec 16, 2022
32
6
555
Visit site
We should discuss the implications arising from meeting every goal espoused concerning "climate change".
Humankind is indeed affecting climate, but perhaps in a fashion not considered. The cycles of natural environmental glaciation and thawing won't be thwarted by our egos. Considering humans powerful enough to change the climate and bring about global catastrophe is sheer hubris.
Rather, we are artificially warming the atmosphere, preventing the natural cooling which should be making itself known at present. Stop the greenhouse gasses and inter cold. Ironic, isn't it?
I agree with you. Most of the ongoing climate change is part of a natural cycle. Over 11000 years ago the planet suffered a catastrophic melt off that raised sea levels by about 150 meters within a relatively short time. If that happened today, humanity would be gravely affected. Realistically, we're talking about a potential worst case sea level rise of a few meters during the next 100 years or so. Although this may be bad news for coastal developments, it's a far cry compared to what happened 11000 years ago. Perhaps native Americans were always smarter than us. They didn't choose to live close to the shores of oceans, presumably because they knew that oceans could come for them, via tsunamis, and other sudden disasters. Well, 11000 years ago we had no polluting industries or any other greenhouse gas producing enterprises. In fact, the human population was so small back then, it could've hardly affected the climate. This in itself is evidence, we are way overestimating the ability of humans to affect our worldwide climate. No doubt, air pollution is a bad thing. That's why human induced air pollution needs to be curbed, but not necessarily for controlling climate change,. Rather, we should worry about the adverse health effects caused by breathing contaminated air. Apparently the oxygen percentage of our breathable atmosphere has been dropping for some time, while unhealthy atmospheric components have increased. That's a worrisome trend we can probably do something about.