Talk:Clathrate gun hypothesis

Conflict between articles

This article states the global warming potential of atmospheric methane as 23 over 100 years; the methane clathrate article states the same potential as 21 over 100 years. Which is more accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.164.155 (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Professor Kennett

I have written to Professor Kennett of UCSB for a summary of the state of the knowledge on this topic. I also wrote to a NCAR researcher to find out if this hypothesis is modelled in the AOGCMs. Simesa 18:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting information

I was looking at both the page on Methane and this one and I noticed some dissimilar information on the effects of methane on the greenhouse gas effect. Most notably, the exact figures of the effect of methane. This page does not seem to have a citation for the figures, where as the methane page does. One of these instances cites the half life of methane at 12 years in the atmosphere where as the methane page has values of 9.6 years and 8.4 years, depending on the level of atmosphere. If the 12 year value is correct, could someone please document it? The methane pages also mentions the environmental impact with "Because of this difference in effect and time period, the global warming potential of methane over a 20 year time period is 72." This value is much different than the one on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotowski (talk • contribs) 22:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Acronyms

I see in the section "Current outlook" the puzzling acronym GHE. I can't even guess what it means. Can someone replace it by words? Thank you. Zaslav (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

FixedAndrewjlockley (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro ambiguity

In its original form, the hypothesis proposed that the "clathrate gun" could cause abrupt runaway warming (A) in a timescale less than a human lifetime, (B) [1] and might be responsible for warming events in and at the end of the last ice age (C). [2] This is now thought unlikely.[3][4]

Which is "now thought unlikely", A, B or C? 67.52.81.242 (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC) ==

Let us put this way, we hope it won't happen and based on what we think us know today it will not be able to do it. But then there are those evidence that see an accelerating methane in the shallow seas of the arctic, combined with studies that recently questioned our beliefs of the time rate of earlier historical methane releases, instead of placing it between 400-1300 y now think it can happen in a century or two? Myself I expect a cocktail of effects accelerating all temperature raises, and there methane definitely will be included. And there's one thing more, until recently we thought that the main problem with bogs etc would be the methane, but 'experimenting', separating and partially drying a lake in Siberia, it was found that a considerable amount of CO2 will be contributed. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Warming-Tundra-Releases-Carbon-Dioxide-118363.shtml

And if you look at timescales CO2 have an expected tail of influence, at least a millennium long, which makes it our number one priority. As long as methane doesn't accelerate into a giant 'spike' we won't get a tipping from that alone, and its timescale of influence is decades instead of millenniums. But then there is that possible 'spike'? I don't know, I sincerely hope it never will come to that though as .. I'm sure you can figure out why I hope so yourself.

Look up "Methane release from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. by Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov."

Yoron. 178.30.89.241 (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)