Climate change could release toxins trapped in ice
By Susanne Rust, Climate Watch
Despite a global decrease in the production of certain toxic chemicals, we may be in for an onslaught.
That’s because rising global temperatures are causing the release of persistent organic pollutants, such as DDT and PCBs, which have been locked in arctic ice for more than half a century.
Although the chemicals were created to provide societal benefits, such as killing mosquitoes and protecting crops, it didn’t take long for scientists to see they were having devastating effects on the environment.
Studies have shown many of these chemicals can cause cancer, birth defects and other health problems. And they don’t just wash away. Persistent organic pollutants, as the class of chemicals is known, stick around for decades before finally breaking down.
They also are attracted to fatty tissue in animals and pass through the food chain from one animal to the next.
Recognizing the dangers of these chemicals, dozens of wealthy nations joined forces in 2001 to ban 12 of them by signing the Stockholm Convention on POPs (persistent organic pollutants). Yet since that ban, scientists had noticed localized upticks in atmospheric concentrations of these chemicals, especially over the Arctic.
Oh, my gosh. It’s hopeless, we’re doomed.
Give me a break.
This is actually pretty amusing that someone got paid to do this. Oh i bet that we are paying for this study through the federal governement. maybe stuff like this will be cut soon to help reduce our debt. Now that the novelty has worn off this kind of stuff is what drives me over the edge. Cut our military but keep studying about what gasses will come out of the ice?? What int he world would you do to stop it. TOTAL WASTE OF TAX PAYER DOLLARS
OMG, you mean somebody actually PAID for a study like this? Does anyone know how much toxic gas is released when a volcano erupts? One eruption can put more carbon dioxide into the air than mankind has EVER put into the air. One small example of science. This is nonsense.
Dumbfounded you have been called out, in the name of science. There is data to back up your statement. Find it, post it here, or prepare to be schooled.
Also morons, read the story. The scientists were CANADIAN.
My agressive friend, I did not specify a particular eruption, I did not specify what toxic or non-toxic gas(es), I did not specify a particular volcano. The statement was a reaction to the frantic, crisis-level reporting of “global warming”. I believe that the science has been entirely too speculative. Exactly which “data” do you refer to? I hardly take homework assignments from posters on a local news site, so if you want data, go get it yourself. If there was actually a plan of action that could convievably be taken to avert the release of any gas, toxic or otherwise, due to a possible ice melt, I would welcome the proposal. Attacking conjecture is a waste of time, no? I have prepared myself to be schooled, oh great one.
I have already found that data and can easily find it again. What data, all volcanic emissions data to support the statement:
“One eruption can put more carbon dioxide into the air than mankind has EVER put into the air.”
You specified which gas, you pick the volcano. Pick a really big one. You are still wrong.
You make the statement, it is on you to back it up.
I know that you are wrong.
Let me try. A few days of human carbon emissions equal volcanic emissions in one year. And here is my citation: http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
You are wrong. Would you like me to calculate how wrong you are numerically? Just a guess, you are wrong by a factor of at least 100, could be as high as 100,000.
Being wrong by a factor of 2 is pretty bad. A factor of 10, is laughable. A factor of 100 is dangerously misinformed. A factor of 1,000… is beyond pathetic.
So just for fun, make a statement that is scientific, we can find some data, and find out how that compares to reality.
Come on, in your own words what is so bad about ‘one small example of science’?
Decide on your statement and I will do the homework. Deal?
Robot, very interesting study and data.
“In fact, present-day volcanoes emit
relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio.”
The problem lies with the above statement, which assumes that only present-day volcanoes have any significance. It ignores past and future eruptions to make a specific point. Assumptions are only proved wrong or right through long-term study and observation.
I stand by the conjecture that a past or future volcanic eruption COULD eject far more gas than humankind has.
Thank you for your single-source reference. It provided some entertainment and enlightenment.
Single source reference… Did you see the references section at the end of the paper? You want more papers that prove you wrong?
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
You claim that one super eruption exceeds the CO2 emissions. Failing to take into account the frequency of those eruptions and how much CO2 is sequestered naturally in that time.
You still haven’t posted anything to support what you said.
You are just making things up.