• 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!

The Big Melt

Into the Night said:
You are correct. Methane's ability to warm the Earth is the same as it is with CO2:

Zero.
Click to expand...

Groan . . . “Green house” gas theory really does hold up. Summer nights in Mississippi are oppressively warm beacause of high humidity. In Arizona on the rim of the Grand Canyon it’s down right chilly because of the dry arid climate. CO2 to a lesser degree has the same effect as humid air. Methane does too, but in reality it’s pretty close to zero.

Science is all about numbers, and when the numbers are zero or nearly zero, people with an agenda can play games.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I really wish you would learn the sciences and stop denying reality.

Think of greenhouse gasses like insulation. They slow down the heat from the earth exiting, which increases the average temperature. Just like wearing clothes when it's cold, and a coat when colder. The more insulation you have, the slower the heat escapes. Greenhouse gasses keep the earth warm in a similar manner as clothing keeps us warm. In our case, our bodies generate the heat. In the case of the greenhouse gasses, the sun generates the heat.
Click to expand...

You didn't finish. No green house gases no people.

I say we gather up the methane and burn it instead of coal to produce electicity. Problem solved.
 
Threegoofs said:
Like the doom cult claiming 20 million people a year are dying of starvation because of corn to ethanol conversion?

Yeah. Those people are real basket cases. Total wackos!
Click to expand...

I provide strong, never refuted evidence and mechanism, that shows how the artifical increase in food prices caused by the use of food as fuel has created this situation and that 20million people less would die next year if we stopped it today.

Your continual wish to see any slight almost problem as a reason for all of humanity to be doomed unless we give all our money and power to your chosen cult leaders is just one of the odd things about you. An other is the constant attempt to claim scientific understanding that you clearly never had.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
You didn't finish. No green house gases no people.

I say we gather up the methane and burn it instead of coal to produce electicity. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

There isn’t any problem.
 
Steve Case said:
It’s not a guess. If methane and CO2 both increase by a few parts per billion, methane will run the temperature up way more than CO2. It’ just that in either case the increase is nearly nothing and way more than nearly nothing is still nearly nothing.
Click to expand...
I think the reason they say CH4 is more powerful than CO2 is because of how they structured the theoretical experiment.
They used a theoretical gigaton pulse, applied to the current levels.
The problem is that a gigaton added to 1.8 ppm CH4 is a much greater addition than a gigaton added to 410 ppm CO2.
For the same change in ppm, CO2 creates about 10 times more energy imbalance than CH4, (in theory) as no one has actually been able to measure
this imbalance happening in a quantifiable way.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I really wish you would learn the sciences and stop denying reality.
Click to expand...
I already do know the science. It is YOU that is denying science here.
Lord of Planar said:
Think of greenhouse gasses like insulation.
Click to expand...
No gas or vapor reduces the heat into space. You are trying to reduce radiance and use that to increase temperature again. The Stefan-Boltzmann law says you can't do that.
Lord of Planar said:
They slow down the heat from the earth exiting,
Click to expand...
You can't slow or trap heat. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Lord of Planar said:
which increases the average temperature.
Click to expand...
You can't trap heat. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
Lord of Planar said:
Just like wearing clothes when it's cold, and a coat when colder.
Click to expand...
Insulation reduces heat. That how it works.
Lord of Planar said:
The more insulation you have, the slower the heat escapes.
Click to expand...
You can't slow heat. Insulation reduces heat, it doesn't slow it.
Lord of Planar said:
Greenhouse gasses keep the earth warm in a similar manner as clothing keeps us warm.
Click to expand...
You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. You can't reduce radiance and increase its temperature at the same time.
Lord of Planar said:
In our case, our bodies generate the heat.
Click to expand...
At least you have this part right.
Lord of Planar said:
In the case of the greenhouse gasses, the sun generates the heat.
Click to expand...
The Sun does not cause the Earth to generate heat. The Earth is warmed by heat COMING the Sun. Your 'insulation' would prevent it from reaching the Earth. Earth would be COLDER, not warmer.

You can't just ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law states: radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4. Radiance is proportional to temperature, never inversely proportional...ever.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
 
Steve Case said:
It’s not a guess. If methane and CO2 both increase by a few parts per billion, methane will run the temperature up way more than CO2. It’ just that in either case the increase is nearly nothing and way more than nearly nothing is still nearly nothing.
Click to expand...

Methane is not capable of warming the Earth. Neither is CO2.
 
Steve Case said:
Groan . . . “Green house” gas theory really does hold up.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. It violates too many laws of physics and builds a paradox.
Steve Case said:
Summer nights in Mississippi are oppressively warm beacause of high humidity.
Click to expand...
Nope. It is because that high humidity is coming from a nearby warm body of water. Mississippi is not the Earth.
Steve Case said:
In Arizona on the rim of the Grand Canyon it’s down right chilly because of the dry arid climate.
Click to expand...
It's also hotter during the day. Arizona simply experiences a wider temperature swing than Mississippi does. The average doesn't change between them (except for the effects of altitude).
Steve Case said:
CO2 to a lesser degree has the same effect as humid air.
Click to expand...
You are mistaking specific heat index for temperature. They are not the same.
Steve Case said:
Methane does too, but in reality it’s pretty close to zero.
Click to expand...
It IS zero, just like water vapor, just like CO2. They are all zero.
Steve Case said:
Science is all about numbers,
Click to expand...
WRONG. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, nothing more, nothing less. Science isn't data. Data is the result of an observation. Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only. They are not a theory and they are not a proof of any kind.
Steve Case said:
and when the numbers are zero or nearly zero, people with an agenda can play games.
Click to expand...
People can play games with numbers without any of them being remotely close to zero!
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
You didn't finish. No green house gases no people.

I say we gather up the methane and burn it instead of coal to produce electicity. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

No need. Methane is easy to make. Actually much easier than trying to gather up what little methane is in the air. It's even easier to use naturally occurring sources (which is what we generally do).
 
Tim the plumber said:
I provide strong, never refuted evidence and mechanism, that shows how the artifical increase in food prices caused by the use of food as fuel has created this situation and that 20million people less would die next year if we stopped it today.

Your continual wish to see any slight almost problem as a reason for all of humanity to be doomed unless we give all our money and power to your chosen cult leaders is just one of the odd things about you. An other is the constant attempt to claim scientific understanding that you clearly never had.
Click to expand...

These subsidies have pretty much destroyed the sugar cane industry in the United States. I used to live in Hawaii. The devastation to the economy there was incredible. Whole areas covered with sugar cane are abandoned and are now just scrub brush. The farmers are gone. The mills are closed. The islands are no longer green with fields of sugar cane.
 
Into the Night said:
These subsidies have pretty much destroyed the sugar cane industry in the United States. I used to live in Hawaii. The devastation to the economy there was incredible. Whole areas covered with sugar cane are abandoned and are now just scrub brush. The farmers are gone. The mills are closed. The islands are no longer green with fields of sugar cane.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Ethanol subsidies didn’t destroy Hawaiian sugar cane.

Free trade and the removal of tariffs did, making it non competitive.
 
Into the Night said:
Mercury is everywhere already. The stuff is not plutonium.
Click to expand...

It's every post with you.

New England had mercury raining down on it for generations from coal fired plants. Hopefully, the fires in the permafrost (that is so frakking weird to say that) won't rain more down on us.

But it is a problem here, now. And it could become a problem elsewhere. The young can get seriously messed up, even by small doses.
 
Threegoofs said:
Then go mix a few grams in your drink and enjoy this harmless substance.
Click to expand...

Just so everybody knows, that's a lethal dose if you don't get treatment fast. Even there, it's gonna be a bad day.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Ethanol subsidies didn’t destroy Hawaiian sugar cane.

Free trade and the removal of tariffs did, making it non competitive.
Click to expand...

Yes, Thank-you president Clinton.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Try micro-grams or nano-grams. Be more realistic.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an argument which is a wee bet disingenuous...

The results show that Arctic permafrost holds roughly 15 million gallons of mercury—at least twice the amount contained in the oceans, atmosphere and all other land combined. "The concentrations were huge—a lot higher than we expected them to be," Schuster says. "That was a big surprise."


The big question is: What’s going to happen to that mercury?

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/melting-arctic-permafrost-toxic-mercury-environment/
Click to expand...

But, of course, that's what it takes to deny reality.
 
calamity said:
Sounds like an argument which is a wee bet disingenuous...


The results show that Arctic permafrost holds roughly 15 million gallons of mercury—at least twice the amount contained in the oceans, atmosphere and all other land combined. "The concentrations were huge—a lot higher than we expected them to be," Schuster says. "That was a big surprise."


The big question is: What’s going to happen to that mercury?

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...y-environment/
Click to expand...


But, of course, that's what it takes to deny reality.
Click to expand...

Assuming that is true, with a 19 million square kilometer surface area, that is 40 micrograms per square meter. How deep is the permafrost?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Assuming that is true, with a 19 million square kilometer surface area, that is 40 micrograms per square meter. How deep is the permafrost?
Click to expand...

You are rightly dismissing this story.

I mean, it tells you what scientists who study this think.

Certainly you, who was introduced to the concept well over an hour ago and have no understanding or training on environmental toxicology knows much more about this issue than some PhDs and the editors of National Geographic!
 
Threegoofs said:
You are rightly dismissing this story.

I mean, it tells you what scientists who study this think.

Certainly you, who was introduced to the concept well over an hour ago and have no understanding or training on environmental toxicology knows much more about this issue than some PhDs and the editors of National Geographic!
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it isn't a concern. First off, it's natural.

How did it get there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom