Thinkaboutit
Registered Member
If you want to figure out cause of global warming first figure out why there was (and will be again) an ice age. I mean did the lack of burning fossil fuels cause the ice age? Thinkaboutit
A Note: Global Warming Threads
- Thread starter Tristan
- Start date
Not that I have seen. If you any evidence that bugs make a net reduction of CH4 concentrations when temperature is < 4C, - just give a link to it - your repeated claims to that effect don't cut any ice for me. I want supporting facts. I doubt it strongly as I know that below 300 meters bugs do MAKE a net production of CH4 from the organic matter in large river delta out flows that gets stored as the methane ices.
That colored global map in your last post is interesting,* but you did not tell what altitude is being displayed, nor how data for it was obtained (or is it from someone's model?) Or what year and season is represented?
*Especially the obvious difference between the N & S hemispheres. Perhaps it is a release rate map? - Certainly the Norther Hemisphere does dominate the release of CH4.
later by edit: Thanks for adding the altitude and source data to your interesting map. Your map is for the top of the troposphere - There is no harsh (energetic) UV there to do the breaking of CH bonds or the splitting of water (to make OH radicals) I said would reduce the concentration of CH4. That takes place in the stratosphere.
Last edited by a moderator:
It was you, not me that noted CH4 was heavier than air so would be found in surface layers. I never said anything about the concentrations at high altitude except that a tropical surface air would be heated, rise and cool and then flow towards the poles. That during its high altitude trip what ever CH4 it had would be reduced by the UV and OH exposure. (OH is produced by the UV of high altitudes splitting H2O and that harsh UV does not make it down to the surface.) What is "so wrong" about this? - please be specific.
ON your bold in post 520 - I agreed earlier:
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkaboutit
Registered Member
Global warming is not the threat you think it is global cooling is though.
And yet, there are stories in Science and in newspapers about record levels of methane, and large bubbles (completely undigested by bacteria) reaching the surface of the Arctic. But CLEARLY this is not unusual--it's just the first time anyone noticed (??)adoucette said:
Humans have cut back on "their" methane levels? I'd like to see the evidence, but I think there isn't any.
And yet, again, there are stories in the media about record levels of methane being released, presumably teams on the ground can collect samples that have MORE methane in them than samples collected a decade ago from the same place.
So on the one hand "you don't" see increases of methane in surface samples, but scientists are reporting increases of methane in surface samples.
It just seems a little contradictory--maybe it's me.
These bubbles of CH4 are a new event. The USSR's nuclear subs normally used arctic ports from the start of the cold war* and had no bubble clouds making their sonars useless. That is why Russia scientists became interested in these bubbles that did not exist 10 years ago. Quite possibly there were some that dissolved before rising far from the bottom, but now the sea seems to be saturated so they are out gassing into the air in a positive feedback system of unknown loop gain (probably still less than unity, but increasing). If it gets to be unity, then earth may be in big trouble as there is so much CH4 in the arctic to release.
-----------
*Why the US built the now scrapped DEW line of radars across Canada - to detect the incoming Russian ICBMs in time to fire its own back. (DEW = Distant Early Warning)
That's NOT what I said Billy.
What YOU were claiming is that the ARCTIC AIR HEADS FOR THE EQUATOR AND IS REPLACED BY TROPICAL AIR THAT HAS MADE A HIGH ALTITUDE TRIP WITH UV AND OH RADICAL REMOVING MUCH OF ITS CH4 BEFORE IT SINKS DOWN TO THE LOW ALTITUDES NEAR THE POLE.
But as the global map I showed of high tropospheric Methane levels the OPPOSITE is true.
The POINT is that measurements at the SURFACE would show dramatic increases in the Arctic Methane levels if they were occuring, but they don't show that, and more to the point, on a quantitative level:.
Just 2% Billy.
Arthur
Quite possible true, but irrelievent - I was speaking of the stratosphere air flow towards the poles as that is where the UV is absorbed and the CH4 concentration is reduced by OH (produced there, not the troposphere) and the direct UV rupture of the CH bonds in CH4.
Not true until you show that the dilutions by sinking stratosphere air can be neglected, instead of very important. I have already explained this to you:
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090818/full/news.2009.833.html
http://www.globalmethane.org/documents/events_oilgas_20081203_oilgas-5Dec08_robinson.pdf
http://www.globalmethane.org/expo/docs/postexpo/oil_apokova.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S14/36/49E92/index.xml?section=newsreleases
http://www.epa.gov/outreach/sources.html
So you do know how to give references, but I AM STILL WAITING for some backup of your claim that bugs can destroy CH4 in sea water at temperatures < 4C.
Billy, I gave you one, that showed the methane eaters were working in the DEEP ocean, where temps ARE <4 C.
There are others, and they operate at less than 0 C.
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3519/methane-eaters-at-lost-hammer
Arthur
Which ice age are you referring to? There have been many.
adoucette said:
Humans have cut back on their methane levels, according to adoucette, who went on to post some links. The first link starts with an encouraging headline, but ends with a note about the "confidence level" in the data:
[ed: certain words are now highlighted, for those who might still be "confused" about the story--like I am]
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090818/full/news.2009.833.html said:
The rest of the links seem to be about how to reduce emissions, although there are some reports of actual, but modest, reductions. The amounts of methane that could potentially be released by Arctic melting make these look pretty small, and that's what we're discussing--the potential release of much larger amounts than humans can produce, from natural reservoirs, and how much is known about the mechanisms behind it.
Last edited:
OK, there is one very strange environment on Earth with, to quote from your link: “subzero water is so salty that it doesn't freeze despite the cold, and it has no consumable oxygen in it.” where a unique bacterial has evolved that does eat CH4 at temperatures <4C. This unique spot is the small Lost Hammer Spring on Axel Heiberg Island, Nunavut Territory, Canada. There the researchers did find, to quote from your link again: “very unique anaerobic organisms – organisms that survive by essentially eating methane and probably breathing sulfate instead of oxygen."
I don’t see that this has anything to do with bacterial destruction of methane in deep ocean water as you asserted, but thanks for the time and effort you must have expended to find this one unique Canadian spring.
The common bacterial action, both in the oceans and in trash dumps, is to produce methane, not eat it. There are dozens of trash dumps in the US that are commercially selling the methane that they generate. Also many are interested in collecting “un eaten” methane stored on the ocean floor. Japan has a very active program trying to develop this source as it has no natural gas.
The vast majority of anaerobic organisms PRODUCE methane. For example those found in sealed trash dumps or on the deep ocean floor where the organic load has depleted the oxygen, or in the intestine of animals, especially cow, but even humans. When I was at college and slept in a large dark dorm with many others, "lighting farts" (methane) was popular - flames more than a foot long were possible by some. However evolution tends to fill all niches were life is possible and has evolved this unique, and highly atypical, anaerobic organism in a small strange Canadian spring.
But again, that has zero importance for the global heating problem or the destruction of the CH4 now bubbling up in Arctic Ocean.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aren't you more concerned with the amount of toxic fumes in our breathing air? than the climate slightly changing?.
Peace
Peace
Ah. So these bacteria, or their cousins, are going to do away with the methane problem.adoucette said:
They don't seem to be doing that good a job in the Arctic though. Didn't they get the memo?
Ah some more.adoucette said:
So the story in Science and the newspapers, can safely be ignored?
The Russian subs don't have a methane problem either?
The 2% figure is reliable for the foreseeable future? And that's despite the fact the Arctic is warming?
No, wait, don't try to answer any of those questions, just ignore them like you've been doing--it's safer.
I gave links to actual research articles, you come back with anecdotes.
Yes, Russian Subs might be having problems with methane bubbles in a certain area of the Arctic but that doesn't mean that the quantity being released is sufficient to even show up on a GLOBAL scale
I've been ignoring nothing. Indeed I've done a decent amount of research into the issue and posted links from the IPCC and from mainstream established Scientific studies on Global Methane and Methane in the Arctic.
Safer than what Afra?
I have NO IDEA what point you are you trying to make, but I went back to where you first chimed in on this and the only point you seem to make over and over is that you take issue with the IPCC's report/projections.
arfa brane said:
Arthur
Last edited: