Good for slightly cooling heat islands (cities) a tiny bit, but unless they require it on every house, building, parking lot, road, anything else dark…it won’t do much even locally. The thought that they could paint 1% of the planet is absolutely insanity. Have they even been to earth? It’s huge, and mostly unpaintable. (and I have serious doubts about that number since way more than 1% of the earth WAS covered with white ice that’s now dark ocean or exposed permafrost, and that has to be replaced before we are back to the earth’s normal reflective value, they’re talking about making it more reflective than it was naturally to reduce average temperatures…good luck).

They seem to completely ignore that it’s only that reflective when brand new, are we going to pressure wash 1% of the earth twice a week to keep it reflecting? I think not, so within two weeks, it won’t be any better than 80% regular paint. What a waste of time and energy.

I’m sure there are excellent applications for such a reflective paint, combating climate change is absolutely not one. Wishful thinking at best.

*doublepromote someone else finally telling the truth, even if it is just a fictional tv character. I’ve been saying the same thing since around 2000. If we went all in, halted all co2 emissions and all methane emissions 20 years ago, and invested in methods to catch and sequester what we already emitted, we might have avoided the tipping point where we are no longer in control….but instead we increased emissions every year, flooring it towards that cliff and hitting the nitrous button.
*quality if inconvenient truths

That tipping point was reached well over a decade ago when methane started to melt out of permafrost and the deep ocean where it has been frozen for eons. It’s capable of causing warming >80 times as much as co2 short term, >25 times as much long term, and is boiling out at rapidly increasing rates. Pre 2006 it’s estimated around .5 million tons per year…2006 it was measured at 3.8 million tons…by 2013 that was up to 17 million tons with the trend increasing. More recent estimates are hard to find, but it’s agreed that as temperatures climb not only are hydrates melting much more rapidly, bacteria are also accelerating decomposition in the thawed permafrost, and they emit methane. The Arctic is warming up to 5 times faster than the average global temperature. It’s likely over 50 million tons per year by now if not much higher.

Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatonnes (Gt=1 billion tons) of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve in one shot….game over.

Bear in mind, 1 cubic meter of hydrate contains >160 cubic meters of methane gas at atmospheric pressure.

The amount of increase from bacterial emissions in rotting permafrost is debatable, but even the lowest estimates are insurmountable.

This is only one of dozens of KNOWN feedback loops already in action, and there are definitely unknown feedback systems we can’t predict.

This does not mean there’s nothing to be done, we can still mitigate the damage somewhat, maybe slow the rate of change enough that some animals and plants more advanced than bacteria survive long term. It does mean a massive >99% culling of humanity, a total shift in civilization from a money based civilization to one focused on survival, and likely an unavoidable mass extinction rivaling any previous extinctions.

Says the dumb fuck who didn't graduate 8th grade, just like his pa and paw paw.

118F, Bob. Shouldn't be over 40F. All time highs broken world wide daily...but nope, Bob knows better than everyone with his 80 IQ and D average through middle school. You are such a dumb fuck it's amazing. I bet you also insist trickle down works for the poor, cigarettes aren't addictive and don't cause cancer, and the sun revolves around the earth carried in a flying chariot. Leave the science to people with brains, please. You only force us to ridicule you when you pretend to know or even understand it.

No Bob. All is lost now thanks to fucking idiotic morons like you.
We have tipped some tipping points, started the natural feedback loops that signal the end of our opportunity to control the changes, there is now no avoiding severe climate change that civilization will not survive, likely humans won't survive at all.

Yes, Bob, actually ALL experts, including UN experts, agree. Climate change isn't a theory, it's reality. It's unavoidable. Now, it's likely unmitigateable and unsurvivable. Your video was from 3 years ago and was overly optimistic then, assuming we would lower emissions rather than ramp them up, things are exponentially worse today because instead of curtailing our emissions we've increased them to over 36.5 BILLION tons per year...if forests were all healthy at 1900 levels they could absorb 7 billion tons, but thanks to deforestation and droughts, that's cut in half or worse. Same goes for the carbon sinks in the ocean, they were absorbing around 7 billion tons a year, now heat and acidity have all but stopped them from absorbing CO2 and destroyed the most diverse ecosystems underwater.
Estimates are 1600 billion tons of carbon are stored in permafrost as methane, which is 25 times as damaging as CO2 in the short term. That's >40 times the carbon humans produce annually, all in the worst of greenhouse gasses, and it's melting out rapidly....exploding out in many cases.

I hope you live long enough to be forced to accept responsibility for your stupidity...something fitting, along the lines of being slowly eaten alive by your family for days before they're murdered by a mob of survivors for their water before you die in agony, limbless, dehydrated, and burnt to a crisp. You deserve no less.

Such an unbelievable bat shit crazy moron you've become.

Before "someone" spouts off about this being a singular, isolated weather event in America and Canada, it's happening world wide.
All time record high temperatures are also happening in Europe, Asia, Africa including ground temperatures in Siberia above the arctic circle at 118F, not so good for permafrost that should be near freezing. Mexico has seen all time high temperatures for June exceeding 125F, nighttime low temperatures are also shattering all time highs like 105F overnight in palm springs, and over 70F was the overnight low in S Africa (southern hemisphere) on the WINTER solstice. Let's not forget, June is typically the coolest summer month.
It's hard to imagine this not triggering feedback loops like permafrost releasing methane and less ice reflecting heat that are each, by themselves, more than we could possibly counteract with current technology with an unlimited budget and the collective will to try. Combined, and without the unlimited funds or collective will to act, it's looking like game over, man.
Somehow "we told you so" hardly seems sufficient.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/heat-wave-russia-brings-record-breaking-temperatures-north/story?id=78446355

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2021/06/22/wild-high-temperatures-worldwide-show-the-extent-of-record-june-heat-wave/?sh=496b6bc05668

Your video, Siberian Methane Bubbles Increasing as Permafrost melts, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Siberian Methane Bubbles Increasing as Permafrost melts has been added as a related post - related requested by Mordhaus on that post.

If they get bored and stop listening, they'll get confused, won't they? I think they often get bored because they can't follow along, it's incredibly boring to have someone drone on using statistics and measurements you don't grasp and won't remember on a subject you also don't grasp.

I agree, but so far, measurements have consistently been outpacing the estimates, almost never the reverse.

What they tend to do is come from that incomplete data and incomplete analysis to model the absolute best case scenario to dictate policy, not the worst. That's absolutely what the U.N. report does, and it's not clear to most how much is left out, like infinitely better melting models (the measured melting in Greenland is already at the rate not predicted to be reached until 2075 in the UN's published estimations) and feedback loops we already see in action like melting methalhydrates and permafrost, both outgassing massive amounts of methane. Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome, then suggests policies to avoid it, at all cost when that worst case is extinction. Since measurements are consistently as bad or worse than the worst case scenario modeled, the only rational thing to do is assume that will continue and plan for the worst....you know, like they taught in preschool, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Your house burning down is an unlikely worst case scenario, but I bet you have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and support the fire department. Good planning is to assume you WILL have a fire and plan to minimize the damage.
Or, terrorist attacks. The likelihood you'll be killed in a terrorist attack is exceptionally low, but we spend untold billions and sacrifice liberties to combat a worst case but unlikely scenario.

Prudence is the better part of valor.

Edit: as to most problems society faces, I suggest they are likely ALL a function of overpopulation....no question imo when it comes to the apocalyptic problems. Pollution, resource mismanagement, ecological destruction, etc. None would be disastrous with 1/10 the population.

There have been some interesting suggestions to solving the methane hydrate issue, but the none are very realistic. The closest thing to a possible plan would be that we introduce particulate, natural or man made, into the atmosphere to partially block the solar heating cycle. That would seal the methane back into the permafrost and give us time to try to reverse the effects of climate change or find another method of neutralizing it.

That is the main issue. We don't have a way to remove the methane safely. Basically the situation is primed, we have a methane bubble that is going to happen at some point, there is no stopping that without removing the methane deposits in a safe fashion.

The simplest counter arguments to your dismissal are, 1) it's not a single degree, it's a number of degrees in a short time, releasing massive amounts of methane at once instead of over a few millennia. 2) it's exactly what happened 250 million years ago when climate change happened rapidly enough to release massive methane deposits in a short time frame, causing massively more climate change and a mass extinction event. Since then, there has not been the same kind of rapid mass increase in ocean temperature since the methane deposits were replaced.

It's about the speed of the temperature change, not just the amount of temperature change. Methane is short lived in the atmosphere, so if a change happened over 1000 years, the same total amount of methane might be released as a 100 year change, but only 10% of it will be in the atmosphere at a time. Consider, we've raised the temperature fast enough that the permafrost is melting at the same time as ice at the bottom of the ocean. That's a fairly unique situation that releases two enormous deposits of methane at the same time.

Our understanding does not need to be "complete" to be scientifically valid, or right. We may not know everything we need to know about the climate, but what we do KNOW is how methane reacts in the atmosphere, and how methane hydrates melt at certain temperatures/pressures, and we are near those levels in the deep oceans and permafrost areas today....so close that there are massive methane pockets bubbling out of the northern oceans and recently frozen ground worldwide.

These methane clathrate (methane hydrate/hydromethane) deposits have been releasing both under the ocean and from permafrost melt for years now...with the rate of their melt release increasing exponentially.
Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is more than 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.
For those of you who are religious....this is the 'burning seas' you would expect from the apocalypse, because the pockets of gas coming from the ocean are highly flammable, even explosive.
This is why I have said for over a decade that there's absolutely no chance to avoid human extinction along with a world wide extinction of most of life. Once the methane started bubbling up from the sea floor, any chance of stopping the change was gone, and that was a while ago and we've done absolutely nothing but increase the amount of greenhouse gasses we produce. The ocean responds quite slowly to climate change, so there's nothing that can be done now that it's warm enough to release the methane, even if we stopped producing all greenhouse gasses today.

This is game over, people, game over. A massive methane release will have almost immediate effects and could double the entire temperature rise since the industrial revolution almost overnight. When (not if) that happens, say goodbye to nature both on land and in the seas.
The above number, 80% of life on earth vanished, is misleading. 80% of species were lost completely forever, 98% of all biomass died, so of the 20% of species that were left, only 10% of their population survived. Humanity won't.
*doublepromote
*quality

Again, I can't seem to pull up the full text of your article through google scholar. Even your summary though states an additional warming contribution of 0.3C by 2100. Sorry, but I don't class that as catastrophic. What's more, simply doing a google scholar search for articles on "permafrost methane climate" and taking the first four full articles give the following, with absolutely zero effort taken to pluck out ones that support my particular claim:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016/fulltext/
According to our results, by mid-21st century the annual net flux of methane from Russian permafrost regions may increase by 6–8 Mt, depending on climatic scenario. If other sinks and sources of methane remain unchanged, this may increase the overall content of methane in the atmosphere by approximately 100 Mt, or 0.04 ppm, and lead to 0.012 °C global temperature rise.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000326/full
It's a more sweeping assessment so it doesn't have a nice short quotable for our particular point. It's most concise point is in Figure 7 which I'm not sure how to link into here as an image. You can check for yourself though that even the highest error margins on methane releases touch natural emissions till long, long after 2100, matching the IPCC millenial timescale statement I cited earlier.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full
A detailed study of one mire show that the permafrost and vegetation changes have been associated with increases in landscape scale CH4 emissions in the range of 22–66% over the period 1970 to 2000.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/36/14769.full
We attempted to incorporate in this study some of the latest mechanistic understanding about the mechanisms controlling soil CO2 respiration and wetland CH4 emissions, but uncertainties remain large, due to incomplete understanding of biogeochemical and physical processes and our ability to encapsulate them in large-scale models. In particular, small-scale hydrological effects (36) and interactions between warming and hydrological processes are only crudely represented in the current generation of terrestrial biosphere models. Fundamental processes such as thermokarst erosion (37) or the effects of drying on peatland CO2 emissions (e.g., ref. 38) are lacking here, causing uncertainty on future high-latitude carbon-climate feedbacks. In addition, large uncertainty arises from our ability to model wetland dynamics or the microbial processes that govern CH4 emissions, and in particular how the complicated dynamics of permafrost thaw would affect these processes.

The control of changes in the carbon balance of terrestrial regions by production vs. decomposition has been explored by a number of authors, with differing estimates of whether vegetation or soil changes have the largest overall effect on carbon storage changes (39–41). These results demonstrate that with the inclusion of two well-observed mechanisms: the relative inhibition of respiration by soil freezing (42) and the vertical motion in Arctic soils that buries old but labile carbon in deeper permafrost horizons, which can be remobilized by warming (3), the high-latitude terrestrial carbon response to warming can tip from near equilibrium to a sustained source of CO2 by the mid-21st century. We repeat that uncertainties on these estimates of CO2 and CH4 balance are large, due to the complexity of high-latitude ecosystems vs. the simplified process treatment used here.

And I was able to find the full PDF for your own original sink on the subject:
here
We conclude that the ice-free area of
northeastGreenland acts as a net sink of atmosphericmethane,
and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under
future warmer climatic conditions.

All of the above seem to fairly well corroborate my earlier citation to the IPCC's own summary of the current knowledge on permafrost and northern methane impact on future warming:
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

If you want to more simply claim that there exist studies, with noted high uncertainties, that under the worst case emission scenarios that show a possible significant release of methan prior to 2100 and possible catatrophic releases after, then I agree. If you want to claim that the consensus is we are facing catastrophe in our lifetime, as your first post claimed, then I most point to the overwhelming scientific evidence linked above that simply does not agree, once again chosen at random and with no effort to cherry pick only results that match what I want. I must note I lack surprise though as the IPCC had already been claiming the same of the literature and existing evidence.

Interestingly with my global journal access through academia, not anywhere is the article I linked shown as peer reviewed media accessible through the common university publications...must just be a nature journal thing to want to rort people for money no matter what their affiliation.

At first glance, I read this article to mean that the area is a sink in so far as it contains a large quantity of methane, and its 'consumption' or 'uptake' rates are shown in negative values...indicating a release of the gas.

In checking peer reviewed articles through my academic channels, I come across many that are saying pretty much the same deal, heres a tl;dr from just one of them;

"Permafrost covers 20% of the earth's land surface.
One third to one half of permafrost, a rich source of methane, is now within 1.0° C to 1.5° C of thawing.
At predicted rates of thaw, by 2100 permafrost will boost methane released into the atmosphere 20% to 40% beyond what would be produced by all other natural and man-made sources.
Methane in the atmosphere has 25 times the heating power of carbon dioxide.
As a result, the earth's mean annual temperature could rise by an additional 0.32° C, further upsetting weather patterns and sea level."

Source: Methane: A MENACE SURFACES. By: Anthony, Katey Walter, Scientific American, 00368733, Dec2009, Vol. 301, Issue 6

@newtboy,
as the ice on land disappears, it exposes permafrost that, as it melts, also emits methane.

More from charliem's article's abstract:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear.

The article he linked IS saying that they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets. They note this is a relatively unknown area as opposed to northern regions that emit methane. Charliem just didn't read the reference he pulled out at is it is counter evidence to his and your own statements.

As for your point:
As for your misunderstanding of CO2, removing all CO2 production tomorrow
I never said anything about that, I said:
if we could magically remove all the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere
As in I was talking about not merely ending our emissions, but also sequestering and pulling out of the atmosphere all the CO2 lingering there from us over the last century as well. That's pushing CO2 concentrations back down from nearly 400 to under 300. Re-read my statements in the correct context and they'll make more sense.
As for people "thriving", that's just ridiculous. There's been a food shortage world wide for quite some time now.
Again, context matters doesn't it? I'm describing how a person from 1915 would not look at our world today and wish they could go back to their time, end all CO2 emissions and avoid the catastrophic consequences we're suffering in 2015. If you want to talk about food distribution, your right and we've had problems with it forever. If you want to talk food production though, it's never been higher, if you go look at global agriculture output it's a steady increasing line as surely as the instrumental temperature record.

For the record, I absolutely state that the evidence throughout the entire instrumental record is a warming planet since records began in 1900. I absolutely state that the evidence is irrefutable that CO2 contributes to warming. I absolutely state the the evidence is irrefutable that we are raising global CO2 concentrations with our actions. Where I diverge from those like you is I do NOT see the scientific evidence declaring the results are catastrophic. It's simply not there to be found, in many cases it is in fact contrary to the limited evidence we DO have on it as well.

There MUST be a miswording there, or bold faced, outright lie.
As temperatures rise, frozen underwater methane (methyl hydrate)is melted and RELEASED, not trapped. Not only that, as the ice on land disappears, it exposes permafrost that, as it melts, also emits methane. It's been happening for a while now, and is accelerating. Methane is FAR more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2, for longer times, so once this cycle takes off, we can expect exponential increase in the temperature rise.
It's POSITIVE feedback loop, not a negative one.
EDIT: Perhaps they mean when the Atlantic currents are disrupted and the lower ocean becomes colder...at that point it will have the ability to store more methane, but not the ability to capture it from the atmosphere since the upper ocean will be far warmer.
As for your misunderstanding of CO2, removing all CO2 production tomorrow won't remove any in the atmosphere, it will be there for quite some time before it could be absorbed in the ocean/forests, and that time period extends daily as the ocean becomes more acidic (making it impossible for diatoms to use the CO2 to make their shells) and the forests are removed. Once the ocean stops absorbing CO2, even the amount naturally created will be far too much for the atmosphere, and temps/CO2 levels will still rise even if we produce absolutely none. The tipping point was in the 70s-80s when we could have stopped CO2 production and made a difference. Now, it's too late unless we find a way to trap CO2 and keep it trapped. The systems are quite slow to react.
As for people "thriving", that's just ridiculous. There's been a food shortage world wide for quite some time now. The water shortage is becoming a bigger threat, and that's expected to increase exponentially as glaciers, snow packs, and aquifers rapidly disappear. Ocean harvests have drastically decreased, as have natural foods. We are thriving in the same way locusts 'thrive' when they swarm...but note that 99.9% of them die of starvation in the end.

You keep thinking that then if you'd like. As I watched this, when he asked what card he was thinking of I thought to myself 'nine of hearts'- NO SHIT

Somewhere embedded in his technique is the answer to the suggestion
Metaprogrammings' a motherfucker.

Anyone else??

Or wait....Maybe it's simply having seen this before and the 9 of hearts was already there, locked into the folds of the hippo-campus/cerebral cortex highway? Don't recall ever having seen this before...

Either ways...If David Blaine came over, I'd prolly tell him what Han Solo here told him BEFORE he had a chance to mind-fuck me..The difference? It wouldn't be......"ACTING!!!"

Seriously though, y'all really thought that Blaine was being rudely and cruelly ejected from his home?? C'mon people...suspend your disbelief for the sake of your hearts and get over yourselves....all he said was the 'eff' word.

"Next up: Blaine will bury himself in the permafrost of Antarctica in a steaming-hot bubble-bath of human blood and for forty days and forty nights with but a single meal-worm to snack on for the duration. When he rises from his ghoulish and self-imposed sarcophagus he will have drunk all the contents of the bathtub...But first, this commercial interruption to your body's natural vibrations."