Talk:Clathrate gun hypothesis

message: 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)
thread_title:  Professor Kennett 

message: 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)
thread_title: Conflicting information

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intro / Outlook ambiguity 

message: The ambiguous statements attributed to Ryskin 2003 appear to be out of date, as does the lead section "however" attributed to BBC 2002. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be made more clear that the Ryskin scenario is on very large timescales. The Japanese drilling is not relevant here and it is still a question how feasible that is. Then there is a new study from Kara sea measurements: Offshore permafrost decay and massive seabed methane escape in water depths >20 m at the South Kara Sea shelf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50735/abstract Prokaryotes (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Made the Ryskin part more compact and added Strangelove Ocean, since that is basically the scenario which can also lead to methane release. Though i did not read the paper but Ryskin escribes the same compositon in his paper, just focuses on the methane. I'm not 100% sure but i thought this fits more than just "According to Ryskin.." also, Canfield was later too. Prokaryotes (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed 

message: Princeton University issued a news release entitled: "On warmer Earth, most of Arctic may remove, not add, methane"; from the article: "new research led by Princeton University researchers and published in The ISME Journal in August suggests that, thanks to methane-hungry bacteria, the majority of Arctic soil might actually be able to absorb methane from the atmosphere rather than release it. Furthermore, that ability seems to become greater as temperatures rise.
The researchers found that Arctic soils containing low carbon content — which make up 87 percent of the soil in permafrost regions globally — not only remove methane from the atmosphere, but also become more efficient as temperatures increase. During a three-year period, a carbon-poor site on Axel Heiberg Island in Canada’s Arctic region consistently took up more methane as the ground temperature rose from 0 to 18 degrees Celsius (32 to 64.4 degrees Fahrenheit). The researchers project that should Arctic temperatures rise by 5 to 15 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years, the methane-absorbing capacity of “carbon-poor” soil could increase by five to 30 times.
The researchers found that this ability stems from an as-yet unknown species of bacteria in carbon-poor Arctic soil that consume methane in the atmosphere. The bacteria are related to a bacterial group known as Upland Soil Cluster Alpha, the dominant methane-consuming bacteria in carbon-poor Arctic soil. The bacteria the researchers studied remove the carbon from methane to produce methanol, a simple alcohol the bacteria process immediately. The carbon is used for growth or respiration, meaning that it either remains in bacterial cells or is released as carbon dioxide."
https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2015/08/14/on-warmer-earth-most-of-arctic-may-remove-not-add-methane-isme-journal/ Frunobulax (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good news, but notice that it does not really change the situation outlined in this article (clathrates buried in seabeds and permafrost thaw). And if these bacteria release carbon dioxide it still means increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. prokaryotes (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just leave this here. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypothesis Killer

message: NASA recently finished a 5 year mission studying this and said the climate models need to change. 1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LDWoodworth (talk • contribs) 16:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methane Emissions in Arctic Cold Season Higher Than Expected 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Clathrate gun hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011033742/http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html to http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504113820/http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/default.htm to http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/default.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In this article introduction, it states:
A 2018 published review concluded that the clathrate gun hypothesis remains controversial, but that better understanding is vital.
So I opened the article to see in what point it is controversial, and it states:
So, let's see what the source of this claim says:
If we read further down the article, we see it talks only about continental slopes. It was taken out of context.
 I see that you added this to the article, could you please review it? —Arthurfragoso (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just  wanted to appreciate your work here.  Its long been something I wanted to dive into, and it never seems to make it to the top fof my todo list.  But someone is watching with interest.  Carry on! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the compliment! It will add to my motivation! :) —Arthurfragoso (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The claim that the clathrate gun hypothesis remains controversial 

message: From what I'm reading now is that the Clathrate gun hypothesis only counts for seabed Clathrate, I was probably thinking the hypothesis included terrestrial clathrate, IPCC does not clarify much either.
If we read the IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis:
I now see the hypothesis was defined in the 'Methane Hydrates in Quaternary Climate Change: The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis' book. I will read it to see how broad it is.—Arthurfragoso (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just  wanted to appreciate your work here.  Its long been something I wanted to dive into, and it never seems to make it to the top fof my todo list.  But someone is watching with interest.  Carry on! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the compliment! It will add to my motivation! :) —Arthurfragoso (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition clarification

message: I found this image at Commons. I suppose that it could be used in this article. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I think the lead is not a good summary of this article. It seems to say that this hypothesis is not relevant in the current climate change situation but in the main text there is a long segment that explains the current issues. Pinging User:InformationToKnowledge. You have used long excerpts from this page at arctic methane emissions. The whole setup of the four articles seems to be not ideal: permafrost, permafrost carbon cycle, clathrate gun hypothesis and arctic methane emissions. I like excerpts but when the excerpts are very long, and don't take from the lead, I get a bit suspicious if the structure of the articles is right and if they fit together well. EMsmile (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the lead summarizes the current scientific consensus (that it isn't relevant) and then the article goes in depth on how that consensus was established, tracing the history of research from the earlier, (much) more alarmed position to this current consensus. I thought that this point was quite clear once you get to "Observed emissions" and beyond. If you have any suggestions for improvement, I am always interested! InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead is not a good summary