I am, however, concerned about the possibility of more droughts, more flooding, water wars in the 3rd World, the health of the Arctic, etc. All of these are real and valid concerns.....just not human extinction; we'd best leave that and other wackadoodle New Age theories to the David Icke crowd, TBH.....that way, we can concentrate more on actual solutions, including, most importantly, reducing Co2 output.

Methane breathers still exist. Second, the ones that died off didn't kill themselves off; photosynthetic organisms killed them off.

The reason why we use, and need oxygen, is because it's the final electron acceptor in the electron transport chain of aerobic metabolism. Other organisms that carry out anaerobic respiration use chemicals such as nitrates, sulfates, and some hydrocarbons. Methane is associated with four modes of metabolism in bacteria: nitrate reduction, methanogenesis, aerobic oxidation of methane, and reverse methanogenesis. The first produces methane. Of the other 3, one (aerobic oxidation) actually consumes oxygen as well as methane, and the other 2 produce CO2 and H2O as waste products. None produce O2.

As far as I know, photosystem II of photosynthesis is the only process that cracks H2O, thereby producing oxygen as a waste product.

I think if we saw EXACTLY how much pain and suffering this will mean, we'd all be completely incapacitated.

Last edited Fri May 10, 2013, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)

....and I'm no optimist, either. But speaking from a realistic point of view, this is quite the exaggeration, TBH.
I'd like to note, btw, that apart from far sooner possibly completed Arctic ice melt, as in our first ice-free period(which, TBH, I'm not convinced that it's liable to have much of an immediate impact, btw, at least in the way of more than what's already been observed), none of the most extreme predictions that I've read about(and there many, TBH) have ever come to pass.

To readers of this article: It appears I was not as clear as I could have been re: Arctic ice melt, as I meant to point out that I was thinking of the first ice-free period, whenever it may come. I apologize for the error, and it has since been rectified.

You keep dropping names like Peter Sinclair. You think Peter would agree with that?

Hint: I follow his blog. He doesn't.

But he DID post this the other day:

Since you seem to have missed it, I'll post the whole thing again: (emphasis in bold).

which isn't liable to have much of an immediate impact, btw, at least in the way of more than what's already been observed.

I'll let you off the hook since you're one of the nicer posters here, but please do be more careful when reading people's statements instead of jumping to conclusions right away, as you did here.

However, though, with that said, looking back on it, I do apologize for not being clear enough(sorry about that. Sometimes my brain works faster than my ability to correct myself): what I meant to say was, while the completed melting out of Arctic ice(first ice-free period, that is)will certainly amplify the problems up there at some point, I'm personally not convinced that additional notable impacts, on top of problems that are already occurring, will necessarily be immediate.

Perhaps I'll edit my earlier statement to reflect what I intended to say to avoid further confusion(hey, better to admit a mistake and correct it than to ignore it, right?)

something that 5-10 yrs ago would be deleted and would earn the poster a tombstone.

It will still be attacked by the majority here, but it now will have a small following and maybe one or two recs. So I'll look to see "Who would recommend THAT?" and guess who I'll see over and over again?

AverageJoe90

I'm sorry if you don't agree with everything I write, but what you said here is simply completely inaccurate.

In fact, if you ever actually do get interested enough to search what I've recced over the years, you'll notice that most of what I rec leans very much progressive, and for the rest, whatever doesn't quite constitute progressive, per se, is still generally liberal in nature.

You can't just assume stuff about someone just because of one or two things they write or say(yes, I'll admit I've had to learn that lesson the hard way a few times). That isn't what DU is about.....

I don't think you're being straight up with who you are and what you really think.

You're good, you're certainly prolific, but from time-to-time the mask slips.

I think you're a pro. Your speciality is greenwashing the climate issue.

I don't think you're being straight up with who you are and what you really think.

Well, the truth is, I certainly have been QUITE straight up with my opinions(perhaps to the point where certain people wish I'd just disappear, I'd say).

but from time-to-time the mask slips.

So, because of ONE slight typo mistake I made in a post here(which I have since corrected, by the way!), I'm somehow this sneaky disinfo person? For shame, man, for shame.

Your speciality is greenwashing the climate issue.

I'm surprised that you would use that term, by the way: From my experience, the term "greenwashing" actually seems to be primarily used by deniers(like Tony Watts!) & anti-AGW supposed skeptics, by either mocking us, or trying to disprove research into alternative energy. And, by the way, it's never really worked, because there's just too much good research that says that alt-fuels really can be viable, and sooner than many think).

Don't believe me, btw? Take a look at these WUWT posts. There ARE deniers on the comments boards using that very term(and it's variations!)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/28/lysenkoism-and-global-warming-theory/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/27/hansen-unleashed-people-he-disagrees-with-are-neanderthals/
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CFQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwiththat.com%2F2013%2F02%2F15%2Fopen-thread-weekend-15%2F&ei=17uNUbO5KI640QGP8IHgDg&usg=AFQjCNE7wpbEVp6V8Mv17ygUFiHyG74gTg&sig2=YUOHXJVdRGa6LUq9j02H9A

That's just a small sample, but the proof is there.

is the extra water vapor in the atmosphere being released from the melting glaciers (changing climates and weather patterns) and increasing sea levels. I think environmental groups too often use Co2 as a rallying cry to enact changes, but I think that is futile. Realistically, to mitigate anthropogenic influences on the environment you have to look at everything not just Co2 levels (benzene, mercury, etc).

And TBH, climate change, while it is indeed perhaps the largest of ALL environmental hazards in this day and age, isn't the only one; ground pollution remains problematic, particularly that of benzene & mercury, as you mentioned, as well as nuclear waste, and many other things.