• 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:
No theory, the glaciers have been in retreat for 12,000 years.
The same process has been ongoing, for much of that 12,000 years.
The question is weather the process has accelerated, and we do not have sufficient data on that.
Click to expand...

There is sufficient data for a scientific theory.
There is insufficient data to sway political ideology.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There is sufficient data for a scientific theory.
There is insufficient data to sway political ideology.
Click to expand...
No, there really is not much data showing that the rate of the change from tundra to forest,
has changed. It is an ongoing process.
A theory as to why something is happening different, would require, well something happening different!
As I said before, bogs from melting permafrost have been around for as long as the chemistry that causes
decaying plant matter to give off methane.
We can say the warming is from the extra CO2, yet the warming in the antarctic is almost non existent.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
Compare the warming of 60N to 90N to 60S to 90S. but the CO2 levels are the same in both places.
 
longview said:
No, there really is not much data showing that the rate of the change from tundra to forest,
has changed. It is an ongoing process.
A theory as to why something is happening different, would require, well something happening different!
As I said before, bogs from melting permafrost have been around for as long as the chemistry that causes
decaying plant matter to give off methane.
We can say the warming is from the extra CO2, yet the warming in the antarctic is almost non existent.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
Compare the warming of 60N to 90N to 60S to 90S. but the CO2 levels are the same in both places.
Click to expand...

There will never be enough data to sway political ideology. Such ideology is impervious to facts anyway.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There will never be enough data to sway political ideology. Such ideology is impervious to facts anyway.
Click to expand...
The data could convince me, because I follow the data.
It is the data that says that the atmosphere is not as sensitivity to added CO2 as the IPCC suggests.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Broken link.

Hard for you to do things right?

How many gigatons are you talking about? There is less than 5 gigtons of CH4 in the atmosphere. These earth farts hardly contribute.
Click to expand...

Your computer is broken not the link. Call someone since you don't have a clue.

How much carbon is stored in frozen ground?

There is a huge amount of carbon stored in permafrost. Right now, the Earth's atmosphere contains about 850 gigatons of carbon. (A gigaton is one billion tons—about the weight of one hundred thousand school buses). We estimate that there are about 1,400 gigatons of carbon frozen in permafrost. So the carbon frozen in permafrost is greater than the amount of carbon that is already in the atmosphere today. That doesn't mean that all of the carbon will decay and end up in the atmosphere. The trick is to find out how much of the frozen carbon is going to decay, how fast, and where.
Click to expand...

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html
 
iguanaman said:
LOL Some us believe we need to do something about it while you blissfully rock in your chair. We need to conserve and eventually phase out fossil fuels as soon as possible. Burning it all is not an option.
Click to expand...

Burning it all is not possible.
 
grip said:
Agreed, but there are far more methane hydrates in the ocean floor than the ice. And I still think the OP is aiming at something besides Climate Change.
Click to expand...

The methane at the bottom/sides of the ocean is not going to melt at all. It is not going to see any change in temperature in the deep ocean. Physics stops this. It si going to see an increase in pressure (if you believe the forcasts) due to rising sea levels. This will further lock in the methane ice.
 
grip said:
... I still think the OP is aiming at something besides Climate Change.
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed this earlier comment.

No, the Original Post is aimed squarely at the B.S. that the Climate Change activists dish out on a regular basis.
In this case, I'm sure there are Climate Change activists who know perfectly well that the so-called "Under Ground
Methane Bubbles" are in fact Quaking Bogs. But they don't pipe up to say so. There were at least a dozen news
outlets that carried the phony story about methane bubbles about to explode. I didn't see big the names, CNN,
NPR, CBS, NBC etc. running the story, but I didn't see them trashing it for the B.S. that it is either.

The "Methane is 86 times more potent than CO2" B.S. came up in the discussion - that was off the exact topic of
the Original Post, but I was glad to be able to post a rational response that stands without rebuttal.
 
Steve Case said:
I just did a Google search on national enquirer methane bubbles siberia
and it looks like the Enquirer had the good sense to not run the B.S.
Click to expand...

Right, right! The National Enquirer is real news. That CNN, ABC, NBC NYT and all that, just fake news. Pass it on.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
You do realize that the national enquirer has as much credibility as the onion?
Click to expand...
The onion did not run the story ether, Perhaps they thought it might sully their reputation!
 
longview said:
The onion did not run the story ether, Perhaps they thought it might sully their reputation!
Click to expand...

The onion is a joke magizine, it's entire purpose is to post stories that are so wild and absurd that they cannot be taken seroiously.

The national enquirer relies on a similar practice: write outlandish cover stories that don't pass a skeptical test.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The onion is a joke magizine, it's entire purpose is to post stories that are so wild and absurd that they cannot be taken seroiously.

The national enquirer relies on a similar practice: write outlandish cover stories that don't pass a skeptical test.
Click to expand...
And yet both of those less than distinguished operations, took a pass on the methane bubbles story!
 
longview said:
And yet both of those less than distinguished operations, took a pass on the methane bubbles story!
Click to expand...

Perhaps because it wasn't outrageous or implausible enough. Stories about Bigfoot and the Kardashians are the grist of the mill for the National Enquirer. Satire is the grist of the mill for the Onion.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Perhaps because it wasn't outrageous or implausible enough. Stories about Bigfoot and the Kardashians are the grist of the mill for the National Enquirer. Satire is the grist of the mill for the Onion.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think a headline that says

Terrifying! More than 7000 underground methane gas bubbles are about to explode in the Arctic​

is worthy of either publication.
 
Steve Case said:
Oh, I think a headline that says

Terrifying! More than 7000 underground methane gas bubbles are about to explode in the Arctic​

is worthy of either publication.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, that sort of an attention grabbing headline is worthy of either one, particularly the Enquirer.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Well, yes, that sort of an attention grabbing headline is worthy of either one, particularly the Enquirer.
Click to expand...

And this is the headline from the Wahington Post, a so-called paper of record:

Russian scientists find 7,000 Siberian
hills possibly filled with explosive gas​

That's toned down from, Terrifying! and about to explode, but not a lot.
But it's the fact that they ran with a bogus story a day or two later
when they had time to check it out that really tells a tale. If nothing
else they could have read one of my comments on the earlier stories.
They are either lazy, incompetent or liars. Take your pick.
 
Steve Case said:
And this is the headline from the Wahington Post, a so-called paper of record:

Russian scientists find 7,000 Siberian
hills possibly filled with explosive gas​

That's toned down from, Terrifying! and about to explode, but not a lot.
But it's the fact that they ran with a bogus story a day or two later
when they had time to check it out that really tells a tale. If nothing
else they could have read one of my comments on the earlier stories.
They are either lazy, incompetent or liars. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

Yes, the headline is over hyped, but is it or is it not true that 7,000 hills in Siberia could have explosive gas? We know that some of them actually do. The idea is to make people wonder if the whole of Siberia is about the explode, so they'll read the article.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, the headline is over hyped,
Click to expand...
Shouldn't a paper of record do better than that?

Dittohead not! said:
but is it or is it not true that 7,000 hills in Siberia could have explosive gas?
Click to expand...
There were two formations illustrated in those news stories.
One was the quaking bog video and one of those things isn't
going to explode. The other was a sinkhole of some sort and
it had a rim of what "Could" be ejecta. So what did they
estimate there there were 7,000 of? Bogs? Or sink holes?

Oh to answer your direct question: You've got a big fat "COULD"
lodged in the middle of it you know. Just about anything "Could"
happen. A few decades ago some lake in Africa "burped" CO2

In 1986, possibly as the result of a landslide, Lake Nyos suddenly
emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,746 people...​

So yeah, it COULD be true - hills with explosive gas - but
I'm not betting the farm on it.


Dittohead not! said:
We know that some of them actually do
Click to expand...
Actually do what? Explode? Actually those news items talked
about exploding but no hard evidence like someone seeing it
happen. You need a mixture of air and methane to set off
an explosion. That has to happen somehow. I'm going with
probably not an explosion.

Dittohead not! said:
The idea is to make people wonder if the whole of Siberia is
about the explode, so they'll read the article.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I read one all the way through first day I ran across
this nonsense and I just read a few now. And it's all speculation
and no clearification that the "underground methane bubble" is
actually a quaking bog.

I don't automatically believe sensational headlines.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom