Methane Clathrates, I said as I read the blurb. John Barnes, "Mother of all Storms," 1994.

These stories of global catastrophe are really getting to be a bit much here and in other media outlets. I mean the tagline to this article says that we're cooked because of methane, but then the article itself goes on to say that there isn't even a proposed mechanism for how this could happen. And not only that, but the researchers interviewed don't agree that it would even happen. Those cited on the first page as having real concerns about this issue go on to say that it doesn't pose that much of a threat. Yet this is not message that the author wants to send with her title. Is this what it has come to? Are we to invoke fear of the apocalypse everytime we want readers to pay attention?

This type of environmental sensationalism is rotting away what each person can do for his/her local environment. It makes people feel like they cannot do anything to impact the future of our planet because we may be on the brink of apocalypse at any moment. I know I will be hearing on the blogosphere in the future about this issue and how if we don't curb emissions tomorrow that this methane will destroy us all.

Also, I still have not seen one peer-reviewed paper that shows that rising emissions will lead to droughts and catastrophic storms the likes of we have never seen. I mean the current models cannot even predict the changes we have seen in global mean temperature to within 10% of what has been observed and yet the author just blankly says that we can count on particular weather patterns in the future. Newsflash, they can't even predict next Wednesday's weather with better than 15% accuracy. Please for the love of all that is scientific please start cited the articles that claim these numbers and future events. This is really just trash without these citations. If you want your readers to have confidence in what your writers put on this website, you will start providing some fucking citations because I am sick of this. I read these articles and then search web of science on ISI for supporting data and I cannot find it. If the writers are being provided this information from researchers in the field, then ask what their references are and if they haven't published ask them why and do not print it. Its that simple. I know this is not a scientific site, but if you are going to be providing readers with scientific stories that are supposed to be informing our decision-making processes about how to deal with these problems, give us all the information. That is your duty and it is our right to have it all.

39.2 degrees F. That's the water temperature at the bottom of the deep oceans.

It's going to take some doing to warm things up enough to change that.

The estimate provided by one scientist-skeptic quoted in the article was 15-20 degrees C. That's a rise of 27 to 36 degrees F.

I have other things to worry about.

In models of past seafloor methane hydrate melting events, the warming of the seafloor and melting of the gas hydrates occurs when sea level drops, not rises. Deep water temperatures are relatively stable over long periods of time--shallow water does most of the fluctuating. You've probably experienced this on a small scale when you go swimming in the summer; the top few inches of the water are much warmer than the rest of the water, and the line between "warm" and "cold" is pretty sharp. The temperature of the "cold" water stays pretty much the same all summer, even though it's out in the sun all day. The top few inches, however, heat and cool significantly each morning and night. This is similar to what happens on a much larger scale in our oceans.

Gas hydrate melting could be induced by sea level fall, which would bring heated surface water nearer to the hydrates, warming the sea floor. Current climate change models predict significant sea level rise, however, putting marine gas hydrates even deeper into the cocoon of cold marine waters.

There are many other factors to consider in the discussion of the release of gas hydrates from the sea floor, but I thought the problem of sea level changed should be addressed.

it's best not to sensationalize. In the atmosphere, methane chemically interacts, mostly by oxidation, to form CO2, on a time scale of around 12 years. So while it is a very strong greenhouse gas, it needs constant replenishment if it is to augment CO2 in raising global temperature. Replenishment via a positive-feedback loop is therefore the central issue, and in that vein, there is obviously too little study to date.

The flip side of this sensationalization warning is, because there's more study needed, it is equally irresponsible to dismiss methane as a significant hazard.

Wow, this is some seriously irresponsible journalism. I particularly like how the author spends the first page and a half scaring the holy heck out of all us dim laypeople out here, and then finally getting around to writing something real, a few paragraphs that basically say, "Hah! Scared ya, didn't I? Just joshin', no need to worry.... it's just to sell newspapers!"

How many of your readers made it that far, I wonder??

Bad editorial judgment, especially on the headline.

Actually the title was "Mother of Storms."

To see Ruppel and Dickens's two sessions, go to the Tuesday poster session at http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08&part=U23D and the speaker session Wednesday at http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm08/fm08-sessions/fm08_U34A.html. This is not apocalyptic stuff, just bricks-in-the-wall-of-science research, none of which is peer-reviewed. Read the science for yourself.

"there has been no increase in ave global temp

in 10 years (the spectator, UK)

Stick to Racy Tracy Flores naughty peek a boo

sex salon its been around since the 60 s!!