[lisper]

> They're actually the least potent.

Doesn't much matter when we are releasing them by the gigaton.

> Possibly creating a feedback loop according to limited computer models focusing strictly on local conditions and explicitly ignoring global ones.

You don't need computer models to see that warming -> melting permafrost -> more methane -> more warming -> more melting permafrost -> more methane...

[akira2501]

> Doesn't much matter when we are releasing them by the gigaton.

Are the arctic soils expected to release that amount?

> You don't need computer models to see that warming -> melting permafrost -> more methane -> more warming -> more melting permafrost -> more methane...

So, you don't see the need for any sort of scientific method, particularly when engaging in planet scale engineering? It's the same as the article, attempting to find the correct "emotional plea" in lieu of any actual work.

[lisper]

Computer models are not necessary to do science. Isaac Newton managed perfectly well without them. Just because an analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative doesn't make it unscientific.

Another reference:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ticking-timebomb-s...

[peteradio]

“It’s not good news if it’s right,”

Hell of a qualification. The problem with these one-liner responses is that the system is obviously complicated. There is not an infinite source of methane beneath the permafrost, how much is there really? How much is really going to be released? What other feedback loops need to be invoked besides simple temperature rise? I'm not an idiot nor am I in perpetual doubt of the science. Instead I think good arguments need to be made and I think there you are lacking.

I'm familiar with the calthrate gun hypothesis and its implication in this thread but I'm also familiar with the nuclear winter hypothesis and its late subsequent debunking but prior to that its impact on national policy during the cold war.

[lisper]

> how much is there really?

The only way to really answer that to the satisfaction of every possible skeptic is to release it all. But that is a mighty risky experiment.

When you play Russian roulette, your odds of survival on the first round are pretty good, exactly 5 in 6. That doesn't mean playing Russian roulette is wise even for one round.

[peteradio]

5/6 reading this thread get +1 skepticism when reading your poor arguments.

When playing russian roulette with a glock the chances of death are 1/1 in an idealized case. If the first round is a blank deposited by a would be saboteur then chances of death are 0/1 unless the percussion drops the first goer concussed. There are so many more non-linearities to discuss. But somehow you believe this obviously leads to doom and really offer no explanation for a path to redemption.

It is a fallacy to build skepticism opposed to poor argumentation so depending on your intentions you might cease.

[lisper]

> When playing russian roulette with a glock the chances of death are 1/1 in an idealized case.

Yes, that is the reason Russian roulette is played with a revolver and not a Glock.

> ... your poor arguments.

You might want to make an effort to actually understand the argument before you pass judgement, because you have very clearly missed the point.