To all, at this late hour, can I publicly urge/remind all to remain
respectful to one another, considered and to regain focus on
constructive debate. We're all on this list because we have
overlapping passions, concerns and interests. Full and frank debate on
the very serious issues raised, is expected, and welcome. However it
will cease to be a forum or constructive if we lose sight of these
principles. Best, Jonathan
On 12/15/11, Omega Institute <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear mr Barker,
> I thank you for your email, and I note all that You say. Can I suggest that
> you re-read all the things I have said re the Arctic methane group, and the
> final report, which, as I was repeatedly at pains to point out, is not a
> peer reviewed paper, in a learned journal, but a public science document. it
> makes, quite clear, what we are saying. it gives a list of references. it is
> written as a consensus document of a number of experts, in various fields. I
> have yet to actually see, of course, anyone on the crisis forum who has
> raised any points about the actual document, and it's contents, that are
> based on a critical and scientific analysis. Is this because the critics on
> the crisis forum are only able to make personal attacks on me, and dubious
> allegations, and lack the expertise to do such an analysis, or is it that if
> they did so, they would be revealed as lacking in scientific rigor?. Science
> proceeds by discussion, and not by personal attacks, that do not relate, in
> any way, to a science project and its outcomes. The attacks on me, that do
> not relate, either to such a critical rigerous analysis, of the proffered
> evidence, are not scientific, they are just nasty. They have no place in a
> discussion group that supposedly operates on scientific rules of evidence. I
> always tell people it does not matter who writes what, what matters is, what
> is written, the evidence trail, the referenced sources, etc, so that by
> reading it in a coherant manner, people can make up their own minds. This
> was not done, in the crisis forum. it speaks for itself, and the intolerance
> that is now rife in climate issues, and the general meanness of English
> intellectual life, it's narrow mindedness, and its provincalism. A well
> known technique, of the anti-climate change people, is personal attacks, and
> a careful avoidance of critical analysis of what is being said, as evidence
> for the fact that we are now on the very brink of a catastrophe for the
> civilization we live in. lacking scientific ability, it's just so much
> easier to be nasty.....like Mr McIntosh. Whats your ctual scientific
> evidence, Mr McIntosh, that I, and the others involved in this work, are
> actually wrong?. Could it actually be, that you don't have any?
> Graham Ennis
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Barker, Tom
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 1:37 PM
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse gas"
>
>
> Hi Graham
>
>
>
> I would be interested in what Jon Hughes has to say. As has been said by
> Mark, this has rather got out of hand, but I must stand beside what Alastair
> has said. The key thing I teach my students when they write to is answer the
> question, ‘How do I know?’, and I’m talking of course about data or peer
> reviewed science. Without it, what justification is there for the reader to
> trust what is said?
>
>
>
> All the scientists i know are careful about what they say. Things are
> easily taken out of context, dismissed or exaggerated. Your correspondence
> so far to the forum has not been quite so measured, which means that the
> questions being raised by others are reasonable.
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Omega Institute
> Sent: 15 December 2011 10:30
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse gas"
>
>
>
> Thank You. I agree. I am primarily concerned with the work, nothing else.
> Jon Hughes, the actual editor for the group, will be making a statement, on
> behalf of the group, later, about these issues, to set the record straight
> and formally correct.There have been some concerns about his matter. The
> group wants people to understand what we are doing, and why.
>
> Thank You.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Torsten Mark Kowal
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:24 AM
>
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse gas"
>
>
>
> All:
>
> I suggest that this is enough now.
>
> All that is very likely to happen is personal aggravation and scoring of
> points, and there is little point in descending into that.
>
> We have each observed the exchange and learnt what we can.
>
> I doubt anything more productive will come out of this from now on.
>
> Let's do something else with today!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> At 10:01 15/12/2011 +0000, Omega Institute wrote:
>
>
>
> Mr McIntosh,
> You are not party to what has been going on, behind the scenes.You
> comment without proper information.
> The report was posted, as you say, but no public revelation of the
> web-site.It was not ready, for public release. It then got pulled, so that
> some key editing could be done, especially with regards to work relating to
> Hansen, in America. Various other things were done. It was you who kept
> pushing me, to get it out. I did push as much as I could, to do, so,as a
> result, and I commented, on the Forum, to keep you and others informed. but
> the Arctic group is a collegium. I was asked to wait, by Jon Hughes, the
> editor. Thats why I said what I did. You owe me an apology. The group is now
> satisfied with it, and it's on the website, for public distribution. If you
> had to wait, blame the group. I was doing as requested. Don't blame me. My
> posts on crisis forum related to the query from the forum, if there was
> anybody on here, that knew about the Independent story. I did. I was
> involved, and in all innocence "owed up" to that. What an earth is wrong
> with that? more to the point, what is wrong with you?. Why are you so
> obcessed about me, instead of getting on with the actual issue, which is
> covering these serious and grave events. No, my posts are not green ink. But
> you are behaving as if you have green hair. They are factual. Read them
> again. They were supported by others in the group. What is your problem.
> Snide comments about me will get you nowhere. We still have free speech in
> this country, (for a limited period of time) but academics like you can
> really be unpleasant sometimes, since you claim some sort of superior view
> and uthority to mine, it seems. I did not see you at any of the meetings
> that put this whole thing together, but you presume to dictate to me. Once
> again, you should apologise. I have put, entirely "pro-Bono", several months
> of work into this, along with the others on the group. Your comments about
> it not being a "Report", but a brochure, are pendantic. I have carefully
> explained, several times, on the forum, that this is NOT a peer reviewed
> paper for a journal, but an emergency report for purposes of "Public
> Science". Did you read that?.
>
> We do not have time for nicities anymore. We could not wait up to two
> years, for a journal slot, and peer review. This is a HUMAN emergency. The
> fate of our civilization is at stake. get that?.
> I don't have to submit to you, what I write on here, it's a forum, and
> if you want to complain, do so to the moderators. As is always the case with
> people like you, you wll no doubt use your best efforts to have me banned on
> here. I would'nt be suprised. As a matter of history, there were schools of
> Theologians, endlessly arguing about things like angels dancing on the head
> of a pin, even as the barbarians broke down the gates of Constantinople.
> There is a message there, somewhere.
> Graham Ennis.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Alastair McIntosh
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 9:37 AM
>
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse gas"
>
> Graham …
>
>
>
>
>
> You say “At last!!!” to the long-awaited report …. the report that you
> kept urging everyone to read because (as you kept saying in private emails
> to me) it was already in the public domain … then you kept saying it would
> be on the web very shortly … and now somebody else (John Nissen) has
> pointed us to it. According to Google, the report has been online since at
> least 29th November, so I don’t see why you had to put us through all this
> song and dance.
>
>
>
>
>
> I want to review what has happened, noting Chris’s point yesterday about
> this being good epistemological learning experience.
>
>
>
>
>
> Let us remember how this started. I have re-posted some of the earlier
> emails below because somebody along the way has chopped them off the thread.
> There is also the parallel thread I started the same day inquiring as to
> your credentials headed “Questioning Graham Ennis….”
>
>
>
>
>
> This all started with Jonathan on Dec 13 drawing our attention to the
> Independent story and asking if any of us had further information on the
> story. It was clearly going to be an important story. Google News currently
> shows it as having spawned 34 copy-cat stories around the world.
>
>
>
>
>
> George Marshall then came in, saying: “I would also like some
> corroboration. Igor Semiletov has made quite a name for himself as the
> Russian methane Cassandra- he has been making high profile claims for years
> about this.
>
> Now of course he may be a brave visionary (after all, Cassandra was
> proven right) but I am wary...other scientists urge caution and this might
> be wise….. So I would like to know more from scientists who are specialists
> in this field- is Semiletov regarded as being well grounded in evidence or
> does he enjoy the limelight from making strong statements without sufficient
> back up? All fair questions because he is making very very serious claims.”
>
>
>
>
>
> You then appeared the same day, giving what appeared to be insider
> information and speaking as if one of the research team about which the
> Independent reported. You speak as if part of the “We” of the research team.
> You also said in a separate post: “This is Graham Ennis, one of the
> scientists who signed the original report, in the Uk, that led to the story,
> plus the link in to the Russians.”
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin also piled in with: “Likewise I would appreciate the link to this
> report. It is all well and good saying this and that is happening but if we
> are to believe this then we need to see the research and/or report of the
> events to which this article alludes.”
>
>
>
>
>
> By this time several of us were researching your background. I put out
> my own preliminary findings in my “Questioning Graham Ennis.” Since then
> colleagues have sent me a lot more, and I understand that your expertise on
> UFO activities is well received within the extraterrestrial community. For
> example: editor Graham Birdsall in UK UFO Magazine June 2003 referring to
> "a mind-numbing article by Graham Ennis, who has a 100% proven track record
> on everything he has previously said or predicted within these pages during
> the past three years."
>
>
>
>
>
> Now, and “At last!!!” thanks to the offices of John Nissen we have been
> shown the report to which you have been referring – what you appear to
> describe as “the original report, in the Uk, that led to the story” [in the
> Independent, and now the Daily Mail etc].
>
>
>
>
>
> It turns out that the report -
> http://www.arctic-methane-emergency-group.org is not any kind of a
> scientific research paper or report at all. It is merely a campaigning
> brochure. It may be a very good campaigning brochure. That is not my
> question, and I have not studied it to consider that question. I can only
> see that it is not a scientific research report as you led us all to
> believe. If it is true what you say that this is the report that led to the
> Independent story, then the Independent needs to review its science
> reporting standards.
>
>
>
>
>
> You have based your credibility in asserting your position on being a
> signatory to the report along with a number of top level academics. In fact,
> the “About” page of the report with the heading, “Who are we?”, is blank.
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course, I would hope that there is much more behind the Independent
> story than you have so far given us evidence of. But if it is merely a
> re-hash of Semilotov’s work, then George Marshall’s question stands
> unanswered, and remains a pressing one.
>
>
>
>
>
> Finally, I would like to share with this forum my personal opinions on
> the exchange of the past few days.
>
>
>
>
>
> I consider that the time of some of us has been wasted by what I view as
> flaky thinking and inflated claims of agency. The fact that for some time
> you have been posting on this list under the heading of the “Omega
> Institute” (which shows no evidence of being more than a one man show in a
> laptop) led some of us, initially, to take you seriously.
>
>
>
>
>
> In retrospect, I now see your emails, as having been the e-mail
> equivalent of what newspaper editors used to call a “green ink” letter.
>
>
>
>
>
> This may be in all innocence, in which case, you’re simply on the
> learning curve that many of us have passed through at some point in our
> careers. Alternatively, it may be hubristic inflation of ego – a narcissist
> device that leaps on to diverse causes to seek attention and influence … at
> the expense of those very causes. This has parallels with cultic thinking
> (see attached from Marc Gallanter’s book, Cults.)
>
>
>
>
>
> If you still insist on the position previously taken, and intend to
> carry on pushing that line, could you either give us better evidence for
> your claims or desist. If like Chris said yesterday you too have found these
> doubtless bruising exchanges to have been a valuable lesson in how knowledge
> is produced and contested then that is great, and what, surely, a scholarly
> discussion forum like this is for.
>
>
>
>
>
> I do not intend to get into further discussion with you about this
> unless I have got anything wrong, and an apology is due.
>
>
>
>
>
> Alastair McIntosh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [
> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Omega Institute
>
> Sent: 15 December 2011 00:55
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse gas"
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi All. At last!!! sory for the delay. Now you can all read the stuff.
> we did our best......Graham Ennis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: John Nissen
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:24 PM
>
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse gas"
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> It's just been uploaded to the website [1], in the form of the
> "brochure" that we distributed at the AGU conference last week.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> [1] http://www.arctic-methane-emergency-group.org
>
> Follow link to "AGU Brochure".
>
> ---
>
> On 14/12/2011 20:30, Jonathan Ward wrote:
>
> Dear Graham,
>
> You mentioned yesterday in your correspondence that you hoped the report
> would be live today. Is it now live and where would we access it?
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 14 December 2011 19:59, Omega Institute <[log in to unmask] >
> wrote:
>
> Dear Christiopher,
>
> I agree. If you had been at the actual workshop meetings, which were
> highly dramatic, you would have felt some kind of scientific history was
> being made. It's clear, if we are correct, that this is the first clear
> report that shows strong evidence for a major, climate change related,
> geophysical event, that will affect very directly, and very quickly, he
> Human race.
>
> Regards Graham
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Shaw" <
> [log in to unmask]>
>
> To: < [log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:53 PM
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse gas"
>
> Dear all
>
> Can I say what a privilege it has been to follow this discussion, to see
> the
>
> contestation of the knowledge production process on this so vital and so
>
> complex topic play out before my eyes.
>
> There is an academic paper in this exchange of ideas, and the
> implications
>
> for the communication of science. Fascinating.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
>
> [ mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Omega Institute
>
> Sent: 14 December 2011 12:11
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse
>
> gas"
>
> dear oliver, I agree. The thing that frightens Me is that although we
> stand
>
> by our work, on the methane report, and we think it will lead to an
> eventual
>
> serious situation, we have no certainty that in the short term, it will
> not
>
> lead to savage "Whipsaw" events, where we alternately freeze, and bake,
> over
>
> peiods that might be quite short. Also, some unknown mechanism, (There
> are
>
> plenty still out there) might allow the whole thing to "Lock" into an
> ice
>
> age, at a certainpoint.
>
> It's looking, (Personal opinion) as idf we might face a choice, death by
>
> ice, or by fire.
>
> Graham Ennis
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oliver Tickell" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: < [log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:23 AM
>
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse
>
> gas"
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/123/3207/1061.full.pdf
>
> According to this paper by Ewing and Dunn, from 1956, the effect of the
>
> melting of the Arctic Ocean could be to increase glaciation as a result
>
> of the additional water in the Arctic atmosphere leading to additional
>
> snowfall, leading on to Ice Age development.
>
> GCMs have been unable to model the flip to Ice Age and it may be that
> this
>
>
>
>
>
> is precisely because they are looking at the Arctic getting colder, when
>
> in fact stage one if for the Arctic to get warmer.
>
> Of course this does not mean we should not be concerned at Arctic
> warming.
>
>
>
>
>
> We humans do not very much need an Ice Age right now.
>
> Oliver.
>
>
>
> -----
>
> No virus found in this message.
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
> Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2108/4679 - Release Date:
> 12/13/11
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [
> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Omega Institute
>
> Sent: 13 December 2011 23:51
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse gas"
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Kevin, You are exactly right. I did some work on the very strange
> goings on of the Gulf-Stream, last year. it got completely booted from the
> Guardian, by some annoying twenty-something know all. . Well, they are going
> to be embarrassed, as one of the big drivers of Arctic warming is the
> displaced and redirected flow from the gulf Stream, up the West side of the
> Greenland coast.
>
> The only environmntal journalist who comes out of this with honour is
> Steve Conner, of the Independent, and Jon Hughes, former deputy editor of
> the "Ecologist". he is real hero, as will be seen. The main response I have
> had, is a lot of nasty emails from climate denialist "Trolls". likewise,
> some others involved, who have also been abused. The mysterious black out on
> this, with both the AGU in America going on, and the Durban talks, is
> something I would like to get to the bottom of, myself. Ask the Guardian why
> they did not cover it. They were told. What we have now is not climate
> change, but a climate cataclysm, with the process detonating though the
> environment at a speed that is almost like a Uranium chain reaction,
> compared to previous climate events. We have perhaps five years, or less, in
> my own personal opinion, before things start to seriously frighten the
> General public, and they realize they have been lied to, yet again.
>
> I am hpeful he report will be posted, for public acess, very soon.
> Perhaps tomorrow. if it is, i will get it announced on here, by he report
> editor.
>
> Graham Ennis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Kevin Coleman
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:34 PM
>
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse gas"
>
>
>
>
>
> Likewise I would appreciate the link to this report. It is all well and
> good saying this and that is happening but if we are to believe this then we
> need to see the research and/or report of the events to which this article
> alludes. Also I would not be able to argue the point with others who would
> disbelieve the science of climate change without some conclusive evidence to
> back them up.
>
> One last question. If this research trip took place during the summer
> why is it only now we are hearing about the first stage of our planets
> demise such that it is? Surely such a cataclysmic event witnessed by the
> entire crew would have been broadcast far and wide and would also have made
> more of an impression at the recent COP17 talks. I get the impression that
> this was not mentioned for political reasons.
>
> Kev C
>
> On 13/12/2011 22:54, George Marshall wrote:
>
> Dear Graham
>
> In this case could you kindly share with us a link to the report you
> refer to when you said
>
> This is Graham Ennis,
>
> one of the scientists who signed the original report, in the Uk, that
> led to the story, plus the link in to the Russians
>
> So is this a report by yourself/your partners or is this something that
> also involves Semiletov?
>
> I would like to read the original
>
> Thank you
>
> George
>
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [
> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Omega Institute
>
> Sent: 13 December 2011 22:32
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse gas"
>
> Dear George,
>
> The Russians made an exploration voyage this summer past, They saw the
> plumes, some of which were more than a kilometer across, of boiling sea.
> They took 115 observations, with all means, over a long transit line. in
> other words, they did all they could, with measures at their disposal. They
> have been quite dliberately starved of funds, and resources. They are
> unpopular. They did the very best that they could. We did have an
> independent UK corroberation, from a UK expedition, that was very
> frightening, that something very big is happening up there in the North. The
> urgency of getting out a first report, (NOT a science paper, but a public
> science report) due to the seriousness of it all, was uppermost in our
> minds. We would be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong, eventually, as
> the outcome, for all of us, is otherwise extreamly frightening. Publishing
> now, will hopefully trigger off the scientific process of falsification, or
> not, and clarify the matter. But we have gained a year, by doing this. We
> are quite satisfied now, that there is a very high probability of the Arctic
> sea ice reaching Zero, at th end of the melt season, by 2015. (Give or take
> a couple of years or so.) We have very good observational data for this.
>
> So time is of the essence, as zero ice = year zero, as a benchmark for
> the observation of near future very rapid climate and weather change events,
> as recorded in ice core data, from previous events. Very serious. Every year
> now counts, and once gone, we cannot get them back, and put them to any good
> use.
>
> I hope that this explains why we have acted as we did. By end of
> January, I think we shall be having more material, and more back up. I will
> certainly try to keep everyone informed.
>
> Best regards
>
> Graham Ennis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: George Marshall
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:43 PM
>
> Subject: Re: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
> greenhouse gas"
>
> I would also like some corroboration. Igor Semiletov has made quite a
> name for himself as the Russian methane Cassandra- he has been making high
> profile claims for years about this.
>
> Now of course he may be a brave visionary (after all, Cassandra was
> proven right) but I am wary...other scientists urge caution and this might
> be wise. And Semiletov’s quotes don’t give me confidence. When he says:
>
> Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider
> area there should be thousands of them."
>
> that does not sound like a scientist talking---most scientists are very
> wary of extrapolating from a single occurrence. And for good reason- we had
> a big scare a few years back about the gulf stream packing out that was not
> supported in later studies. I am also wary of newspaper articles that quote
> a single source that they know will give them good copy. The Independent
> loves eco doom stories as much as the Telegraph likes eco-fraud ones.
>
> So I would like to know more from scientists who are specialists in this
> field- is Semiletov regarded as being well grounded in evidence or does he
> enjoy the limelight from making strong statements without sufficient back
> up?
>
> All fair questions because he is making very very serious claims.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Jonathan Ward
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:46 PM
>
> Subject: "Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly greenhouse
> gas"
>
> Of interest to Forumers - does anyone have more information behidn this
> story?
>
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html
>
> Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times
> more potent than carbon dioxide – have been seen bubbling to the surface of
> the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the
> region.
>
> The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of
> the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East
> Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
>
> In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov, of the
> Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he has
> never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released
> from beneath the Arctic seabed.
>
> "Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only
> tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found
> continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000
> metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed
> by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small
> area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands
> of them."
>
> Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of
> methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from
> the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East
> Siberian Arctic Shelf. One of the greatest fears is that with the
> disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rapidly rising
> temperatures across the entire region, which are already melting the
> Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the
> atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change.
>
> Dr Semiletov's team published a study in 2010 estimating that the
> methane emissions from this region were about eight million tonnes a year,
> but the latest expedition suggests this is a significant underestimate of
> the phenomenon.
>
> In late summer, the Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev
> conducted an extensive survey of about 10,000 square miles of sea off the
> East Siberian coast. Scientists deployed four highly sensitive instruments,
> both seismic and acoustic, to monitor the "fountains" or plumes of methane
> bubbles rising to the sea surface from beneath the seabed.
>
> "In a very small area, less than 10,000 square miles, we have counted
> more than 100 fountains, or torch-like structures, bubbling through the
> water column and injected directly into the atmosphere from the seabed," Dr
> Semiletov said. "We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and
> discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale – I think on a scale not seen
> before. Some plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went
> directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was a hundred times higher
> than normal."
>
> Dr Semiletov released his findings for the first time last week at the
> American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
>
> No virus found in this message.
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
> Version: 2012.0.1873 / Virus Database: 2108/4677 - Release Date:
> 12/12/11
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
> Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2108/4681 - Release Date:
> 12/14/11
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2108/4681 - Release Date:
> 12/14/11
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2108/4682 - Release Date: 12/15/11
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
|
