• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A way to finally end the AGW debate.

And so it continues. never satisfied with whatever evidence is offered, the cult demands more. There is no evidence that will rationalise them from a faith position.
The debate is over. Only the speed and breadth of the uncontrolled damage is in doubt. As we speak, the French hosts are reconvening for overnight negotiations on a climate resolution. let's hope common sense prevails.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Methane is not 84 times more effective. That link is a lie, and shouldn't be trusted.

Maybe you care to sow us the scientific source they use to make that unsourced claim?
Click to expand...

Here's another link, not that you will care. The denier is strong in you.

As climate change melts Arctic permafrost and releases large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, it is creating a feedback loop that is "certain to trigger additional warming," according to the lead scientist of a new study investigating Arctic methane emissions.

The study released this week examined 71 wetlands across the globe and found that melting permafrost is creating wetlands known as fens, which are unexpectedly emitting large quantities of methane. Over a 100-year timeframe, methane is about 35 times as potent as a climate change-driving greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and over 20 years, it's 84 times more potent.
Click to expand...
Arctic Methane Emissions 'Certain to Trigger Warming' | Climate Central
 
iguanaman said:
Here's another link, not that you will care. The denier is strong in you.

Arctic Methane Emissions 'Certain to Trigger Warming' | Climate Central
Click to expand...

Someone elseeading the same alarmist tripe.

Can you show me where a scientists paper makes that 84 times claim?

Can you identify what measurement unit's it is comparing?

Can you tell me what would the effect be if both CO2 and CH4 doubled in atmospheric concentration?

Every one of you warmers cannot explain any of this to show they understand the sciences.

Do you like being someone elses slave to their agenda? Repeating lies as if they are fact?
 
Manc Skipper said:
And so it continues. never satisfied with whatever evidence is offered, the cult demands more. There is no evidence that will rationalise them from a faith position.
The debate is over. Only the speed and breadth of the uncontrolled damage is in doubt. As we speak, the French hosts are reconvening for overnight negotiations on a climate resolution. let's hope common sense prevails.
Click to expand...

Quelle Surprise! The #COP21 climate talks are deadlocked | Watts Up With That?
 
 
iguanaman said:
So you deny the existence of large amounts of methane trapped in Ice and permafrost? Methane is 84 times as efficient at reflecting heat What do you think is causing the large holes in Siberia? Don't you think methane qualifies as a having "strong feedback"?
View attachment 67193919https://www.edf.org/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas
Click to expand...

The holes are called pingos. They are the result of ice forming in large pockets under the surface of the earth and then melting. Look in Canada and you find thousands of them. They are a very old and well understood phenomenon. They pretty much rule out any real estate development in those areas! Think of it: you build a house on a nice meadow and one winter a big mound of earth pushes it up. Then in summer the mound collapses into a hole, and there goes your house!

The strongest potential feedback is from water vapor, and it's muted by the fact that water vapor turns into clouds and ice that reduce, not enhance, warming. The most credible work indicates that the overall feedback from the water cycle is slightly negative, not positive.

Methane would not be a source of feedback in any case. It's just another forcing. Its level mainly depends on land use. Water vapor becomes a feedback if and when warming causes a higher absolute humidity, but it doesn't work out that way.
 
LowDown said:
The holes are called pingos. They are the result of ice forming in large pockets under the surface of the earth and then melting. Look in Canada and you find thousands of them. They are a very old and well understood phenomenon. They pretty much rule out any real estate development in those areas! Think of it: you build a house on a nice meadow and one winter a big mound of earth pushes it up. Then in summer the mound collapses into a hole, and there goes your house!

The strongest potential feedback is from water vapor, and it's muted by the fact that water vapor turns into clouds and ice that reduce, not enhance, warming. The most credible work indicates that the overall feedback from the water cycle is slightly negative, not positive.

Methane would not be a source of feedback in any case. It's just another forcing. Its level mainly depends on land use. Water vapor becomes a feedback if and when warming causes a higher absolute humidity, but it doesn't work out that way.
Click to expand...

They are not ordinary pingos. These have ejected material, likely from igniting methane.

But that's just what the people who study this for a living say, and we all know they know less that libertarian autodidacts.
 
LowDown said:
The holes are called pingos. They are the result of ice forming in large pockets under the surface of the earth and then melting. Look in Canada and you find thousands of them. They are a very old and well understood phenomenon. They pretty much rule out any real estate development in those areas! Think of it: you build a house on a nice meadow and one winter a big mound of earth pushes it up. Then in summer the mound collapses into a hole, and there goes your house!

The strongest potential feedback is from water vapor, and it's muted by the fact that water vapor turns into clouds and ice that reduce, not enhance, warming. The most credible work indicates that the overall feedback from the water cycle is slightly negative, not positive.

Methane would not be a source of feedback in any case. It's just another forcing. Its level mainly depends on land use. Water vapor becomes a feedback if and when warming causes a higher absolute humidity, but it doesn't work out that way.
Click to expand...

The "pingos" in Siberia are the result of melting of the permafrost which releases large amounts of methane. That is called positive feedback since it is Co2 warming that is causing the melting.
 
Threegoofs said:
They are not ordinary pingos. These have ejected material, likely from igniting methane.

But that's just what the people who study this for a living say, and we all know they know less that libertarian autodidacts.
Click to expand...

Actually, the people who study them for a living call them pingos. The people who are desperate for fraudulent AGW show-and-tell call them signs of the impending end of the world as we know it.
 
Threegoofs said:
They are not ordinary pingos. These have ejected material, likely from igniting methane.

But that's just what the people who study this for a living say, and we all know they know less that libertarian autodidacts.
Click to expand...

What nonsense. Even very old pingos have that "ejecta", which is the remnant of the earth mound over the ice pocket, not real ejecta.
 
iguanaman said:
The "pingos" in Siberia are the result of melting of the permafrost which releases large amounts of methane. That is called positive feedback since it is Co2 warming that is causing the melting.
Click to expand...

Pingos have been forming in the north for hundreds of years. Collapsed pingos result when weather is warmer than normal, but there are thousands of those, some of them very old, so it's not a recent phenomenon.

It would be sad if global warming alarmists were drawing attention to what is a little known but ordinary phenomenon in order to gin up more alarm, would it not?
 
LowDown said:
What nonsense. Even very old pingos have that "ejecta", which is the remnant of the earth mound over the ice pocket, not real ejecta.
Click to expand...

Its funny. The people who actually study this for a living (as opposed to, say, googling this sometime this year when they read about it on a denier website) say that the craters found are different from ordinary pingos because of the ejected material.

New Theory Behind Dozens of Craters Found in Siberia

Theres a reason why National Geographic doesnt quote libertarian autodidacts in their articles about geology. If they did, they'd look like idiots.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Its funny. The people who actually study this for a living (as opposed to, say, googling this sometime this year when they read about it on a denier website) say that the craters found are different from ordinary pingos because of the ejected material.

New Theory Behind Dozens of Craters Found in Siberia

Theres a reason why National Geographic doesnt quote libertarian autodidacts in their articles about geology. If they did, they'd look like idiots.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like NatGeo lines up with the pingo concept.

". . . Now, scientists are arguing that the methane theory is unlikely, based on new satellite surveys released by Russian researchers that found dozens of new craters in Siberia.


"The jury is still out" on the cause of Siberia's craters, says Carolyn Ruppel, chief of the U.S. Geological Survey's Gas Hydrates Project. But she and other scientists say the new satellite mapping suggests another explanation that has to do with the rapid melting of ice cores called pingos.

A pingo is a plug of ice that forms near the surface over time and has a small mound or hill on top.

When an ice plug melts rapidly—as many have been, thanks to unseasonably warm temperatures in Siberia over the past year—it can cause part of the ground to collapse, forming a crater. But that process alone isn't enough to explain the ejected rocks that have been found around the rim of the craters, which suggest some sort of explosion.

Instead, Ruppel theorizes that the craters were formed by a sudden release of natural gas that had been stored in the permafrost but was kept under pressure by the weight of the pingo. . . ."
 
Threegoofs said:
Its funny. The people who actually study this for a living (as opposed to, say, googling this sometime this year when they read about it on a denier website) say that the craters found are different from ordinary pingos because of the ejected material.

New Theory Behind Dozens of Craters Found in Siberia

Theres a reason why National Geographic doesnt quote libertarian autodidacts in their articles about geology. If they did, they'd look like idiots.
Click to expand...

It would be a shame if global warming alarmists drew attention to an old but little known phenomenon in order to gin up fear about global warming, would it not?

Here's a picture of old pingo hole in Canada:

http://www.arctic.uoguelph.ca/cpe/environments/land/landforms/pingo.jpg

Oooh! Look at the "ejecta" on that one!

I tend not to believe anything that global warming functionaries say. As you say, they make their living doing this, therefore they are not free to utter anything but the CAGW line for fear of losing their livelihood. Appeals to authority of that type do not impress.
 
Jack Hays said:
Looks to me like NatGeo lines up with the pingo concept.

". . . Now, scientists are arguing that the methane theory is unlikely, based on new satellite surveys released by Russian researchers that found dozens of new craters in Siberia.


"The jury is still out" on the cause of Siberia's craters, says Carolyn Ruppel, chief of the U.S. Geological Survey's Gas Hydrates Project. But she and other scientists say the new satellite mapping suggests another explanation that has to do with the rapid melting of ice cores called pingos.

A pingo is a plug of ice that forms near the surface over time and has a small mound or hill on top.

When an ice plug melts rapidly—as many have been, thanks to unseasonably warm temperatures in Siberia over the past year—it can cause part of the ground to collapse, forming a crater. But that process alone isn't enough to explain the ejected rocks that have been found around the rim of the craters, which suggest some sort of explosion.

Instead, Ruppel theorizes that the craters were formed by a sudden release of natural gas that had been stored in the permafrost but was kept under pressure by the weight of the pingo. . . ."
Click to expand...

The bolded above shows that this process seems to be different from ordinary pingos. And the scientists involved think that the rapidly warming arctic and thawing permafrost is impacting the formation of these.

But what do I know? I'm not a libertarian autodidact.
 
Thing about these formations, is I have never found that methane is part of the equation. Only that someone has made popular such a hypothesis. Methane hydrates are not stable under around 40 or 45 atmospheres. These formations near the surface need not be formed and in my opinion, are likely not containing methane.
 
Threegoofs said:
The bolded above shows that this process seems to be different from ordinary pingos. And the scientists involved think that the rapidly warming arctic and thawing permafrost is impacting the formation of these.

But what do I know? I'm not a libertarian autodidact.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the natural gas theory. But the alarm was sounded because of a feared methane doomsday. That has been debunked. Natural gas is the AGW believers' next line of defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom