• 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!

Underground Methane Bubbles

longview said:
I think we can settle the CO2 vs CH4 question once and for all.
CH4's molar mass is 16.043
CO2 's Molar mass is 44.009, so CO2 is much heavier than CH4
A pound of CH4 would contain 2.74 times more molecules than a pound of CO2.
From the American Chemical Society we learn the the increase in CH4 from 375 ppm to 675 ppm would cause ≈ 0.3 W·m–2, of energy imbalance.
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society

An equal mass of CO2 would be that delta divided by the 2.74 Times higher density of CO2, or from 375 to 484 ppb.
From the same ACS document, the formula for energy imbalance for CO2 is,
5.35 X ln(484/375)=1.36 W·m–2, for an equal mass of both CO2 and CH4.
CO2 1.36 Wm-2
CH4 .3 Wm-2
Claims of CH4 being a more potent greenhouse gas, are simply not supported by the American Chemical Societies page on the topic.
Click to expand...

Thanks for putting up that link and explanation. I’m on airplanes all day today, so I won’t have a good hard look at it until I get home.
 
From ScienceDaily:

Unexpected culprit: Wetlands as source of methane
June 19, 2019
...
Wetlands are an important part of the Earth's natural water management system.
The complex system of plants, soil, and aquatic life serves as a reservoir that captures
and cleans water. However, as cities have expanded, many wetlands were drained for
construction. In addition, many areas of land in the Midwest were drained to increase
uses for agriculture to feed a growing world.
...
"Globally, wetlands are the largest natural source of methane to the atmosphere," says
Jarecke. "Methane has a much bigger impact than carbon dioxide on global warming --
an impact 25 times greater."​

Really "Climate Scientists" didn't know that wetlands (swamps) produce a lot of methane?
Karla Jarecke certainly knows the 25 times greater impact than CO2 BS, but didn't
know where methane comes from until now.

Well really, "Unexpected culprit: Wetlands as source of methane" let that head line sink in.
OK, maybe that's Science Daily's headline, but read the rest of it. These "Climate
Scientists" are proposing to find ways to alter the swamps so they produce less methane:

"This information could be valuable for designing wetland topography that creates
hydrologic conditions for increased carbon storage and reduced methane emissions."​
Yeah, lets dinker with a natural ecosystem to fit our "Climate Change" fairy tale.
What complete and utter BS.
 
Steve Case said:
From ScienceDaily:

Unexpected culprit: Wetlands as source of methane
June 19, 2019
...
Wetlands are an important part of the Earth's natural water management system.
The complex system of plants, soil, and aquatic life serves as a reservoir that captures
and cleans water. However, as cities have expanded, many wetlands were drained for
construction. In addition, many areas of land in the Midwest were drained to increase
uses for agriculture to feed a growing world.
...
"Globally, wetlands are the largest natural source of methane to the atmosphere," says
Jarecke. "Methane has a much bigger impact than carbon dioxide on global warming --
an impact 25 times greater."​

Really "Climate Scientists" didn't know that wetlands (swamps) produce a lot of methane?
Karla Jarecke certainly knows the 25 times greater impact than CO2 BS, but didn't
know where methane comes from until now.

Well really, "Unexpected culprit: Wetlands as source of methane" let that head line sink in.
OK, maybe that's Science Daily's headline, but read the rest of it. These "Climate
Scientists" are proposing to find ways to alter the swamps so they produce less methane:

"This information could be valuable for designing wetland topography that creates
hydrologic conditions for increased carbon storage and reduced methane emissions."​
Yeah, lets dinker with a natural ecosystem to fit our "Climate Change" fairy tale.
What complete and utter BS.
Click to expand...

We are loosing wetlands, so should not the methane levels be falling?
 
longview said:
We are loosing wetlands, so should not the methane levels be falling?
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one (-:

Without trying to find out how much swamp land there is in the world,
I expect that the puny amount of wetland destruction due to agriculture
and urban sprawl isn't a significant factor, but then our good friends on
the left constantly scream about it.
 
From the "You can't make this stuff up" department:

Oyster flatulence worries climate scientists

Plans to expand aquatic farming could have a serious knock-on effect on climate change,
climate experts have warned after new research revealed that underwater shellfish farts
produce 10% of the global-warming gases released by the Baltic Sea.

A study published in the Scientific Reports journal shows that clams, mussels and oysters produce
one-tenth of methane and nitrous oxide gases in the Baltic Sea as a result of digestion.​

No, it's not from The Onion
 
I see this B.S. is making the rounds again:

NewsWeek

SEA 'BOILING' WITH METHANE DISCOVERED IN SIBERIA:
'NO ONE HAS EVER RECORDED ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE'​

It's complete with the video of a "Methane Bubble". It's really a Quaking Bog
 
This being my goto methane thread:

Western Wire
No More Cooking With Gas: Environmental Going After Gas Appliances

Consumers are getting caught in the crossfire of environmentalist's war against
natural gas and the new battlefield is in the kitchen.

On July 18, 2019 Environmentalists met with government officials to plan for the
banning of residential natural gas.

The Rockefeller Brothers funded this meeting called the “Natural Gas Lock In” which
set its sights on gas appliances. The group, from "Trifecta States" where Democrats
control the governorship and both legislative chambers, discussed a full elimination
of fossil fuels.

Climate activists, funded by deep-pocketed environmentalist such as the Rockefeller
Brothers, are hoping that these bans will push consumers toward electric appliances.
 
Steve Case said:
This being my goto methane thread:

Western Wire
No More Cooking With Gas: Environmental Going After Gas Appliances

Consumers are getting caught in the crossfire of environmentalist's war against
natural gas and the new battlefield is in the kitchen.

On July 18, 2019 Environmentalists met with government officials to plan for the
banning of residential natural gas.

The Rockefeller Brothers funded this meeting called the “Natural Gas Lock In” which
set its sights on gas appliances. The group, from "Trifecta States" where Democrats
control the governorship and both legislative chambers, discussed a full elimination
of fossil fuels.

Climate activists, funded by deep-pocketed environmentalist such as the Rockefeller
Brothers, are hoping that these bans will push consumers toward electric appliances.
Click to expand...

The irony is that electric hot water heaters, clothes dryers, and stoves, likely generate more CO2 indirectly that the gas appliances.
 
longview said:
The irony is that electric hot water heaters, clothes dryers, and stoves, likely generate more CO2 indirectly that the gas appliances.
Click to expand...

Besides that:

Residential homes have gas furnaces, water heaters, and dryers for the
simple reason that they use gobs of electricity and are much more cost
effective than their electric counterparts. Otherwise hot water, home heat
and drying clothes by electricity would be preferred because of convenience
and low maintenance costs. That being the case imagine how many more
wind mills and solar panels would be required to supply the necessary
electricity to power all of the extra demand!

Here's an interesting discussion forum, on gas vs electric for home heat.

Regading the stoves, duel fuel ranges are available.
 
Here's a recent paper on Methane:


From the abstract:

So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth
(30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases
is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a
temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1.

Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming
fears are not justified by facts.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom