OK
#1. Your study quote which said no mechanism had been discovered.
#2. "but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear."...LOCATION UNCLEAR MEANS NOT FOUND.
#3...this does not make sense, "this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks" is self contradictory, since many terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks are NOT moderate...depending on the definition of "moderate". If less than 10 deg C is moderate, then they're right.
#4. You can tell them 98%+ of scientists in the field of climatology say side effects of industry/technology will cause "X" at a minimum in 100 years, and it has already caused "Y" (warming, weather changes, ocean acidification, environmental pollution, rising cancer rates, water shortages, other indisputable factors), send him back with proof of those effects, and I think same result..."no thanks".

I misunderstood I guess. If you did that, he would just be in a rubber room for claiming to be a time traveler, not seen as a visionary. ;-) If he could offer proof of the time travel, the state of the planet, and the environmental trends showing every issue is seemingly getting worse leading to cluster f*ck, it would not be a hard sell in the least, IMO. At least not to people with an IQ over 90. You don't have to abandon all those things (coal, yes), you would just have to design them better. Electric cars were often the norm before Ford in towns. Planes might be electric dirigibles, and satellites might be put in orbit by rail guns.
If you don't think 1/3 of the planet's population (a reasonable guess if water shortages continue the current trend) being migrant doesn't warrant 'panic' (which I never suggested, I will say it warrants concern even by those in the '1st' world) then I don't know what to tell you.
Citations:
#1. It may be unfishable in 15-20 years (I was off by 5 years) at current acidification rates.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/05/climate-change-threatens-crucial-marine-algae/
"By 2040, most of the Arctic Ocean will be too acidic for shell- forming species including most plankton. Significant areas of the Antarctic Ocean will be similarly affected, oceanographer Carol Turley from Plymouth Marine Laboratory in the UK previously told IPS."

#2. by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/interesting-water-facts/
"Unless we change our ways, two-thirds of the world’s population will face water scarcity by 2025"

#3. Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/interesting-water-facts/
"Rapid melting will reduce the Tibetan glaciers by 50 percent every decade, according to the Chinese Academy of Sciences
More than two-thirds of Chinese cities face water shortages"

@newtboy,

How about great big citation needed. Your making a lot of assertions and about zero references to back anything, your just one step shy of claiming because I say so as your proof.

The rotting material creates exponentially more methane than any mechanism could trap.
Citation required.

your study quote did not say that "they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets
The abstract is only a paragraph and the charliem gave the link up thread, just go and read it already, they did numerical estimates AFTER going in and directly measuring the actual affects. And I must additionally add, it's not MY link but was instead the ONLY claimed evidence in thread of your catastrophic methane release.

Let me start us off, the IPCC once again summarizes your problem as follows:
However modelling studies and expert judgment indicate that CH4 and CO2 emissions will increase under Arctic warming, and that they will provide a positive climate feedback. Over centuries, this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
From FAQ 6.1

There are caveats prior to the above quote about unknowns and uncertainty and the possibility the affects will be less or more, but the consensus is, don't panic. Like I said.

As for bringing that person from 1915 in today, you don't get to tell them the environment will be destroyed 100 years from 2015 in the year 2100 as a result. You have to prove that first, which you have merely asserted, not proven. On the other hand, my evidence was bringing our visitor from the past showing them the year 2015, and the consequences of rising global temperatures by 0.8C since his time in 1915. Then I say we ask him if abandoning coal power, airplanes, satellites, and cars to prevent that warming is a better alternate future he should go back and sell the people of 1915 on. I'm thinking that's gonna be a hard sell. I'm additionally pointing out that the IPCC projections for the next 100 years is 1.5C warmer than today, so we'll be going up by 1.5 instead of the 0.8 our visitor from the past had to choose. The trick is, I don't see how you can claim that panic should be the natural and clear response. You need a lot more evidence, which as stated above you've failed to provide, and more over what you've posited is contrary to the science as presented by researchers like those at the IPCC.

It may be unfishable in 15-20 years at current acidification rates.
citation needed.

by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
citation needed, and you need to tie it to human CO2 and not human guns and violence creating the misery.

Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
citation needed

The downvote was not for your opinion, it was for your dangerously mistaken estimations and conclusions...
, says you. If you don't use any evidence to refute me it's still called your opinion...

Perhaps in some minor 'unknown' areas for unknown reasons that could be true, but overall it's far from true. The rotting material creates exponentially more methane than any mechanism could trap. You and they don't even mention the mechanism that traps methane at all, the methane being released is from bacteria eating thawed organic material.

EDIT: Actually, your study quote did not say that "they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets"...it said "numerical simulations predict" they exist, "but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear." This means places where methane capture outpaces release, or happens at all, have not been found-'location unclear'.

OK, you did say 'if we magically remove all the CO2 we've ever produced' (ignoring methane and other greenhouse gasses) in your second post. I missed the 'magic removal' part. My mistake, but that makes it a silly argument since we can't do magic. If we could, there would be no problem....and if I crapped diamonds I would be rich.

Well, in the context of talking to a person from 1912, if you explained to them that the 'progress' (by which I guess you mean population explosion and technical advancements) of the last century comes at the cost of the environment, nature, and may destroy the planet over the next century (at least for human survival), I would bet anyone with an IQ of 90+ will say 'selling (or even gambling) our permanent future for temporary industrial progress is a terrible idea, no thanks'.

Well, you must see that some of that great 'food production' is actually corn and grain for livestock, bio fuels, palm oils, etc., not human food stuffs. In order to make that 'food', forests are destroyed, removing entire eco systems that provided 'bush taco' (natural foods) which wasn't included in the equations about overall food production. Food HARVESTS of natural foods have declined rapidly worldwide, just look at the ocean. It may be unfishable in 15-20 years at current acidification rates. Kill the base of the food web, and the web falls apart. It's a rare place today that can support a human population without industrial agriculture and food importation, both of which have failed to solve starvation issues to date.

You can only be ignoring that data about it being catastrophic. I referenced it earlier. Just to mention ONE way, by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage. In most cases, there's absolutely no way to fix this. For instance, Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade, and that rate is expected to continue to accelerate. With no water, industrial agriculture fails instantly, and people die in 3 days or so. There's NO solution for this disaster, not a plan, not an idea, nothing. There are already immigration problems worldwide, how to solve that when the immigration increases exponentially everywhere?

The downvote was not for your opinion, it was for your dangerously mistaken estimations and conclusions, and insistence that, contrary to all human history and all scientific evidence, this time humans will find and implement a working solution to the problem in time (already too late IMO) that's not worse than the problem was, and so we should not be bothered by the coming massive shortages and upheaval that comes with them, because somehow in that upheaval we'll find and implement massive global solutions to currently insurmountable issues. We can't even slow down the rate of increase in CO2 emissions, it's unbelievable to think we'll turn that to a negative number in 20-30 years even if the tech is invented (which still leaves us in Mad Max times at best, IMO), much more so to think we could erase 100 years of emissions in that time. EDIT:...and I find that kind of dangerous unrealistic suggestion insulting.

A few of my friends and colleagues have been using psychedelics in their research and practice, both in the white market, as well as the black market, for about a decade now. I'm excited for the changes in the use and exploration of these compounds that we'll see by 2025 or even sooner.

Which will arrive sooner?

1. Advertising stops using sex appeal to get viewers' attention.

or

2. Next-generation stem cell treatments can make us all beautiful.

I'd predict [never] for the former, and 2025-2080 for the latter (depending on how you define it).

Free on Amazon if you have Prime.

I thought I recognized the crazy old goof... I liked the start how he talks of wars and rumors of wars as they are bad things, but then wants to vote for the party responsible getting us into these wars and refuses to cut what is above and beyond the worlds largest military budget and instead wants to sacrifice helping the sick and the working poor Jesus said to help... or perhaps that is why they vote for them, to make the process go faster, even though God said he had an appointed time... I can see it now, they bring about the end of the world conditions by 2025, and wonder where the apocalypse is, and then when they get to heaven they go, "...but God, there were wars and rumors of wars and killed millions of innocent women and children. We put the mark of the beast on everyone, and everyone needed a chip to buy stuff. We let the planet ecology fall apart. Why didn't you come back as you said you would?" Then god says to them "I said APPOINTED time, that was going to be the year 502080, just because you made the conditions happen sooner doesn't mean I was going to come back sooner." I honestly heard somebody once say after Obama won "Well maybe this means god is coming back sooner..."

>> ^Edgeman2112:

That's the third eagle of the apocalypse!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOQsvOkkLq4

http://imgur.com/90zCI

http://i.imgur.com/K2HxF.jpg


those are the 2 original pics with Exif data still included it seems


Using http://regex.info/exif.cgi site to read the exif data

Camera Make = Research In Motion
Camera Model = BlackBerry 9000
Last Modified Date/Time = 201012 2025

ah Blackberry thou doth need more megapixels...

>> ^Barseps:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I was looking for a video about Wow Numbers.
Such as:
1³+2³+3³+4³+5³+6³+7³+8³+9³=2025
and
(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9)²=2025
And found this instead.

I wonder if anybody's done:-
Take any 3 figure sum & repeat it, (e.g. 326 becomes 326,326), divide it by 7, divide the result of that by 11, then divide the result of that by 13. You should be left with your original 3 figure number (326). Try it, works with any 3 figured number.


Yeah, I have seen that one before.
I'm still looking for a good video of this type of stuff--if you know of any.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I was looking for a video about Wow Numbers.
Such as:
1³+2³+3³+4³+5³+6³+7³+8³+9³=2025
and
(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9)²=2025
And found this instead.


I wonder if anybody's done:-

Take any 3 figure sum & repeat it, (e.g. 326 becomes 326,326), divide it by 7, divide the result of that by 11, then divide the result of that by 13. You should be left with your original 3 figure number (326). Try it, works with any 3 figured number.

I was looking for a video about Wow Numbers.

Such as:
1³+2³+3³+4³+5³+6³+7³+8³+9³=2025
and
(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9)²=2025

And found this instead.

No surprises for number 1.

1. VideoSift's Archive of Vintage Classics - 6054 votes received (vintage talk)
2. Music - 5598 votes received (music talk)
3. Comedy - 4160 votes received (comedy talk)
4. Everything geek - 2352 votes received (geek talk)
5. Cute - 2025 votes received (cute talk)
6. 1stTube: the best clips of television - 1995 votes received (1sttube talk)
7. Cats and Dogs + others - 1302 votes received (catsanddogs talk)
8. Rock & Roll - 1124 votes received (rocknroll talk)
9. Animation - 968 votes received (animation talk)
10 Live Music - 908 votes received (livemusic talk)

I'm am surprised about number 7. I'd have thought Cats and Dog would have been in my top 3 since I created the channel.

>> ^NetRunner:
I think when Obama hits the magic number (what that number is between 2025 and 2210 will be decided on the 31st), she'll gracefully step aside, and start helping unify the party.
I don't think there's a consolation prize that could buy her off before that. I think afterwards, she's willing to let the chips fall where they may. She wanted to be President, and she'll likely be too old (69) to run again in 2016, especially since she'd have to defeat Obama's VP for the nomination.


I wish I could agree but I don't think there's any "gracefully step aside" in her. She's jumped on Wright and Ayers like a repub would ignoring her own ties to Wright when he twice visited the White House at their invitation and to Ayers group when her husband released two members of the same group from prison. She has offered to "obliterate" Iran in spite of our own intelligence agencies telling us that if they had a weapons program (and we're not even sure of that) they seem to have ended it. She has been trying since the start to convince voters that both Obama and the party are trying to disenfranchise voters when about 1/3 of the people who actually DID it are to be found in her campaign staff, not his. She more recently shifted to being the "white power" candidate, and last I saw she capped that all off with the very recent suggestion that she'd better stay in because as we all should know RFK was assassinated in California in June.

Now her path to the White House seems to run through another persons grave, and she thinks that's ok to use as an excuse to stay in? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyFqmp4wzI

I regret any defense I've ever made for either of them, this campaign has put everything through the years in question and hurt them more than they realize. Before we could hope or assume that the bad parts were just blindness on their part and they didn't know better. But in light of new knowledge on how far they'll go if they see an advantage to themselves all of that needs to be reevaluated too. Maybe their critics were more right than we realized all those years. It's either that or too much time swimming in the sewers with that stuff made them forget what was wrong with it, just as an abused kid often becomes an abuser themselves. For whatever reasons though there seems to be little of honor, fairness, clean play or grace left in them.

At this point, I think the real question everyone's asking is "What does Hillary really want?"

The pundits fill the spectrum, but in my opinion, I think she's saying "President or Bust!"

I think when Obama hits the magic number (what that number is between 2025 and 2210 will be decided on the 31st), she'll gracefully step aside, and start helping unify the party.

I don't think there's a consolation prize that could buy her off before that. I think afterwards, she's willing to let the chips fall where they may. She wanted to be President, and she'll likely be too old (69) to run again in 2016, especially since she'd have to defeat Obama's VP for the nomination.

Obama has to be the one who decides the VP. He can't be forced, or it'll weaken his image. Not to mention, Obama's campaign focus is on a "new kind of politics" and Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of the old kind of politics.

I'm dying to know who Obama will pick for VP. I'd love for it to be Dodd, Edwards, or Jim Webb.

Goooooooo SKELETOR!!!
McCain and Clinton, and the Hillary wins. Ladies and Gentlemen, Bushes and Clintons, Clintons and Bushes......this will be the twin-legacy of the United States' demise, and perhaps historians finally become enamored with truth as they take it back to the beginnings of this circus....Our only saving grace would be to actually try and convict some of the worst of them....WHILE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE!!! No more of this, documents sealed till 2025 bullshit-Drag em the fuck out into the street!!! If you knew the simplest of truths concerning the Clinton's legacy, they would be Rosenberg material, that is, if we had news media. scholars, and justice on the side of truth-

No faith in this system whatsoever, save that of the natural order of business as it relates to systems humans create.......they corrode, wither, and die, and new ones pop up in their stead....

Rome......Dark Ages....enlightenment.....Romish experiment.....Dark Ages, well, lets frikkin' hope not this go-round.....we've come too far, to fuck it back to basics-