• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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

Threegoofs said:
No one ever can know for certain, of course. There is uncertainty because frankly, we seem to find more methane release the more we look for it, meaning we never know how much methane is getting released until its actually been released.

But people can make pretty good estimates.

Here’s one of those elusive internet answers that elude the sophisticated deniers.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.373.2257&rep=rep1&type=pdf

It took a vast amount of internet searching to find this one. Approximately 0.3 seconds, I’d guess.
Click to expand...

Reading through your link, there’s only one mention of methane as a greenhouse gas (see page 1667) They bring up the usual claptrap that ch4 relative to CO2 is 23 Times as strong.

My comment that you won’t find how much methane will run up global temperatures stands.
 
Threegoofs said:
No...policy makers get their information from scientists. At least, rational ones do.

Example: the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC, which policy makers follow as best they can, unless they are US Conservatives, in which they get their information from Fox News and the Heritage and Heartlsnf think tanks, which are mouthpieces for fossil fuel industries.
Click to expand...

The IPCC doesn’t say how much methane will run up global temperatures. If you think it does, put up the link with page and paragraph numbers plus the direct quote.
 
Steve Case said:
The IPCC doesn’t say how much methane will run up global temperatures. If you think it does, put up the link with page and paragraph numbers plus the direct quote.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say how much all of the hot air being generated while trying to deny global warming will increase the temperature either, but I'm certain that it will be a factor.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It doesn't say how much all of the hot air being generated while trying to deny global warming will increase the temperature either, but I'm certain that it will be a factor.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, and the “hot air” and methane will both cause essentially no warming.

That isn’t to say that there hasn’t been some warming or there won’t be any more. No, just that methane really isn’t a factor to be concerned about. But the guys on your side do go on about how it’s anywhere from 23 to 85 or more times effective as CO2 which in reality is total BS.
 
Steve Case said:
Yes indeed, and the “hot air” and methane will both cause essentially no warming.

That isn’t to say that there hasn’t been some warming or there won’t be any more. No, just that methane really isn’t a factor to be concerned about. But the guys on your side do go on about how it’s anywhere from 23 to 85 or more times effective as CO2 which in reality is total BS.
Click to expand...

Yes. Those highly trained scientists don’t know nearly as much about their profession, unlike you, Mr Anonymous WUWT commenter.

[emoji849][emoji849][emoji849]
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. Those highly trained scientists don’t know nearly as much about their profession, unlike you, Mr Anonymous WUWT commenter.

[emoji849][emoji849][emoji849]
Click to expand...

I post under my own name - mostly because I want credit for what I come up with. Having said that, I acknowledge that some people, post under a pen name for good reason. I assume that applies to you as well.
 
Steve Case said:
Yes indeed, and the “hot air” and methane will both cause essentially no warming.

That isn’t to say that there hasn’t been some warming or there won’t be any more. No, just that methane really isn’t a factor to be concerned about. But the guys on your side do go on about how it’s anywhere from 23 to 85 or more times effective as CO2 which in reality is total BS.
Click to expand...

Is that what the "guys on my side" say?

What does the science say?

While carbon dioxide is typically painted as the bad boy of greenhouse gases, methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas. New research in the journal Nature indicates that for each degree that Earth's temperature rises, the amount of methane entering the atmosphere from microorganisms dwelling in lake sediment and freshwater wetlands -- the primary sources of the gas -- will increase several times. As temperatures rise, the relative increase of methane emissions will outpace that of carbon dioxide from these sources, the researchers report.
Click to expand...
 
Steve Case said:
I post under my own name - mostly because I want credit for what I come up with. Having said that, I acknowledge that some people, post under a pen name for good reason. I assume that applies to you as well.
Click to expand...

Well that changes everything!

Yes. Those highly trained scientists don’t know nearly as much about their profession, unlike you, Mr Amateur WUWT commenter.

[emoji849][emoji849][emoji849]
 
Dittohead not! said:
Is that what the "guys on my side" say?

What does the science say?
Click to expand...

Following your link, it doesn’t say how much methane will run up temperature. Besides the usual claptrap about how many times more powerful than CO2 it is, it comes up with this gobbledygook:

“..a temperature dependence of 0.96 electron volts (eV) an indication of the temperature sensitivity of methane emitting ecosystems “

Does that mean anything to you? If so please enlighten us.
 
Methane not likely to "explode" when it is not contained. Presently there are just a lot of leaks that can be ignited and then there will just be lots of lost energy.
 
Steve Case said:
Following your link, it doesn’t say how much methane will run up temperature. Besides the usual claptrap about how many times more powerful than CO2 it is, it comes up with this gobbledygook:

“..a temperature dependence of 0.96 electron volts (eV) an indication of the temperature sensitivity of methane emitting ecosystems “

Does that mean anything to you? If so please enlighten us.
Click to expand...

What you quoted:

The researchers found that a common effect emerged from those studies: freshwater methane generation very much thrives on high temperatures. Methane emissions at 0 degrees Celsius would rise 57 times higher when the temperature reached 30 degrees Celsius, the researchers report. For those inclined to model it, the researchers' results translated to a temperature dependence of 0.96 electron volts (eV), an indication of the temperature-sensitivity of the methane-emitting ecosystems.
Click to expand...

In non scientific terms, it means that warmer temperatures generate more methane. There you have it, without scientific "gobbledygook."

And, no one knows just how much this feedback loop will increase temperatures. Science has not made that calculation. When it does, feel free to dispute it.

No one really knows just how much other feedback loops will increase temperatures, either. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and it also gets more prevalent in warm temperatures. How much will that increase the temperature? I don't know, you don't know, and neither does anyone else.
 
Dittohead not! said:
What you quoted:

In non scientific terms, it means that warmer temperatures generate more methane. There you have it, without scientific "gobbledygook."

And, no one knows just how much this feedback loop will increase temperatures. Science has not made that calculation. When it does, feel free to dispute it.

No one really knows just how much other feedback loops will increase temperatures, either. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and it also gets more prevalent in warm temperatures. How much will that increase the temperature? I don't know, you don't know, and neither does anyone else.
Click to expand...

Thank you for laying it out that “they” don’t know. For much of what passes for climate science, that sums it up. But of course they do know some things. They do know the basic climate sensitivity for CO2. It’s about 1.2C per doubling. That’s based the absorption spectrum and well known physics. By the same token the climate sensitivity is also known for CH4. But “they” don’t tell us what that is. Instead we get the Global Warming Potential (GWP) nonsense - I assume because it generates a scary number.
 
Steve Case said:
Thank you for laying it out that “they” don’t know. For much of what passes for climate science, that sums it up. But of course they do know some things. They do know the basic climate sensitivity for CO2. It’s about 1.2C per doubling. That’s based the absorption spectrum and well known physics. By the same token the climate sensitivity is also known for CH4. But “they” don’t tell us what that is. Instead we get the Global Warming Potential (GWP) nonsense - I assume because it generates a scary number.
Click to expand...

There is a lot that science doesn't know. There is a lot that they do know as well.

On the other side, arguing against science, are the bloggers and politicians. They don't know anything at all.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There is a lot that science doesn't know. There is a lot that they do know as well.

On the other side, arguing against science, are the bloggers and politicians. They don't know anything at all.
Click to expand...

So how much do you think methane will run up global temperatures by the end of the century?

Me? I think it’s so darn little it’s essentially nothing.
 
Threegoofs said:
You’re an amateur. It’s irrelevant what you think.
Click to expand...

We aren’t going to hear from the “scientists” on this little forum. So what you think is no more or less relative than my opinion. But, it would be nice hear from you what it is. Endless insults isn’t productive.
 
Steve Case said:
We aren’t going to hear from the “scientists” on this little forum. So what you think is no more or less relative than my opinion. But, it would be nice hear from you what it is. Endless insults isn’t productive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, notice that HE never answers your question..., insults are easy for those who know only about pseudoscience.

Snicker.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Yeah, notice that HE never answers your question..., insults are easy for those who know only about pseudoscience.

Snicker.
Click to expand...

None of the climate warriors answer direct questions like that. Not here and not in any public venue where they can be held accountable. The debate (there never was one) is over they say.
 
Steve Case said:
So how much do you think methane will run up global temperatures by the end of the century?

Me? I think it’s so darn little it’s essentially nothing.
Click to expand...

and, you may turn out to be right. The evidence currently doesn't support that, but more data may come to light.

Either way, the Earth is getting warmer, and local climates are changing as a result. The Arctic in particular is getting much warmer, ice is melting, and the polar vortex is coming farther south. Those are facts that science does know.
 
Steve Case said:
We aren’t going to hear from the “scientists” on this little forum. So what you think is no more or less relative than my opinion. But, it would be nice hear from you what it is. Endless insults isn’t productive.
Click to expand...

You hear from scientists all the time, through their writings.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and, you may turn out to be right. The evidence currently doesn't support that, but more data may come to light.

Either way, the Earth is getting warmer, and local climates are changing as a result. The Arctic in particular is getting much warmer, ice is melting, and the polar vortex is coming farther south. Those are facts that science does know.
Click to expand...

The evidence that supports my claim is the statement from the IPCC that methane pound for pound is anywhere from 23 to 85 times more powerful at trapping heat than CO2.

That’s right, the warm up since 1850 is about a degree, the IPCC tells us the warming will be at night, in winter and in thr Arctic.

Polar vortex coming farther south? Hmmm, that’s what caused the minus -23F at my place this past January. That hadn’t happened since 1996. Used to be a common occurrence in the ‘60s and ‘70s. I’m not sure why you’re making that claim.
 
Steve Case said:
The evidence that supports my claim is the statement from the IPCC that methane pound for pound is anywhere from 23 to 85 times more powerful at trapping heat than CO2.

That’s right, the warm up since 1850 is about a degree, the IPCC tells us the warming will be at night, in winter and in thr Arctic.

Polar vortex coming farther south? Hmmm, that’s what caused the minus -23F at my place this past January. That hadn’t happened since 1996. Used to be a common occurrence in the ‘60s and ‘70s. I’m not sure why you’re making that claim.
Click to expand...

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
For the increase of CH4 from about 375 to about 675 ppb, ΔFCH4 ≈ 0.3 W·m–2
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

Ooooo.

Admitting the ACS is an authority in the area?

Well, here you go.

Properties - American Chemical Society
 
Steve Case said:
The evidence that supports my claim is the statement from the IPCC that methane pound for pound is anywhere from 23 to 85 times more powerful at trapping heat than CO2.

That’s right, the warm up since 1850 is about a degree, the IPCC tells us the warming will be at night, in winter and in thr Arctic.

Polar vortex coming farther south? Hmmm, that’s what caused the minus -23F at my place this past January. That hadn’t happened since 1996. Used to be a common occurrence in the ‘60s and ‘70s. I’m not sure why you’re making that claim.
Click to expand...

Neither the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas, nor the polar vortex is a claim of mine. It is a finding by the IPCC, supported by every scientific organization on Earth. I'm not a climatologist, nor am I an astronomer. I'm not in a position to dispute the effectiveness of methane as a greenhouse gas nor whether they actually have a picture of a black hole. Until additional facts and observations prove the theories wrong, I'll continue to believe science over the pundits and politicians.
 
Threegoofs said:
Ooooo.

Admitting the ACS is an authority in the area?

Well, here you go.

Properties - American Chemical Society
Click to expand...

The data are the data, the subjective opinions about the data are simply that, subjective opinions.
The idea of global warming potential is a phrase intended to scare the feeble minded.
Since greenhouse gasses tend to have log responses, a fixed mass input of CH4 starting from 1867.0 ppb,
may have more impact than the same mass of CO2, starting at 410 ppm.
Stating this in no way implies that CH4 per unit mass has more potential than CO2, only that they occupy
very different places on a log curve.
In addition CH4's growth is no where near the growth of CO2.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Let's see CH4's growth over the last decade looks like it averaged 7.3 ppb per year.
This is compared to CO2's growth of 2.86 ppm per year, or 2860 ppb per year.
Once again,
CH4 growth 7.3 ppb per year.
CO2 growth 2860 ppb per year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom