A Note: Global Warming Threads

[adoucette]

To you.

Nope, since local CH4 emissions mix into the general atmosphere over reasonably short periods of time (long enough that we would detect large local releases but still short enough that scientists consider CH4 to be a well mixed gas) then the total CH4 level in the atmosphere is all that matters to the Forcing potential of the gas on our climate system.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

you quote a report as saying:
"There are some specialized bacteria that feed on methane called methanotrophic. A German-French team studied which methanotrophic bacteria could thrive in the ice-cold Arctic deep-sea, at -1 C"
And concluded with:
So CLEARLY, they say that methanotrophic bacteria can TRIVE at even -1 C.
Arthur

but that is not clear at all. Yes, there are some (at least one) anarobic bacterial that can eat CH4 at <4C temperatures. They were found in that strange Canadian spring you linked to. No ozygen, as is a general condition for anarobic organisms to live, and sulpher for then to breath etc.

There is no reason to believe that they would not be eaten in the ocean by other organisms etc. In what sort of environment were these methanotropic bacteria found - Ocean water? - I bet not.

If there is even a chance that they can survive in cold ocean water, why not introduce them into the arctic water as a test to to see? I have only said I know of no bacteria that can eat CH4 bubbling up in the arctic - certainly there are none there now that are effectively destruction agents for CH4. I would need to search but there must be dozens of bacteria that do produce CH4 - Or why else would the main deposits of methane hydrates be found at 300meter or more depth off from the world's main river deltas? Clearly methane producing bacterial are converting the tons of debrie these rivers transport into the sea into methane, and equally clearly there are none destroying any significant fraction of it. Thus you need to justify your use of "clearly" where I made it bold in your text. as they don't exist, where the methane hydrates are forming, I would I would conclude they can not, not that clearly they are viable there as you did.

 

[adoucette]

No Billy,

This report was on another specie and it lives in the deep ocean which is the proof you were asking for that Methanthropic bacteria could trive at <4 C.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Quoting from you link about methne eating bacteria in the sea:

“The volcano emits muds, water and methane from a depth of about 2 km below*. … The volcano presents three concentric ring-shaped areas: the center, a zone surrounded by an area of sulphur bacteria and the exterior rim inhabited by tube worms. … In the central region, scientists discovered a new bacterium species that use oxygen to feed on methane. In sediments of the sulphur bacteria region, the team found a new group of methanotrophic Archaea (archaic bacteria) that form a symbiosis with bacteria and use sulphate to oxidize methane, … Surprisingly, the majority of methane was consumed in the tube worm zone, not in the center. … Tube worms grow about 60 cm deep into the sea floor and actively pump seawater into deeper layers. Microorganisms living at the roots of the worms profit from this situation."

Yes, I will admit that where there are deep sea vents, mud volcanoes, etc at a few spots on the ocean floor, strange ecologic system have evolved but they will not significantly change, except very locally, the methane dissolved in the sea.

Certainly, now that I have read your link, I understand that neither these bacteria, nor their entire ecosystem is “viable” as you suggested it “clearly” would be, on the normal ocean floor. To suggest or imply that they are generally viable or could eat any significant (or even detectable on global scale) amount of the ocean's dissolved CH4 is clearly nonsense.

Please don't waste my time with more nonsense about these methane eating bacteria in sea water helping destroy deep ocean CH4. They are a strange and interesting ecosystems but totally off subject of the thread.
---------
*As it is rapidly coming up according to your link, I would think as it vents it is quite hot. Many deep sea vents discharge temperature greater than 100C, which only the pressure keeps from being steam that rapidly bubbles to the surface.

 

[adoucette]

Billy you keep missing the point, you said there was no proof that methantrophic bacteria would be active at <4 C

What I showed is indeed, they can be.

And these don't live by the hot vents either:

"There are some specialized bacteria that feed on methane called methanotrophic. A German-French team studied which methanotrophic bacteria could thrive in the ice-cold Arctic deep-sea, at -1 C"

So yes there is no intrinsic reason the same bacteria that ate the DH methane in the deep cold water of the Gulf wouldn't be found living and active in the Arctic, the Gulf Stream does flow that far you know.

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

Again, what influence are you talking about that is preventing us from evaluating the possible impact of Methane?

Who has a vested interest in AGW Methane production besides rice farmers and cattle/sheep ranchers?

Who is denying evidence of Methane release? Source please?

Rupert Murdoch. Tom Donahue. Rex Tillerson. The Koch brothers.

The people you are getting your information and line of "reasoning" from. You don't know who they are?

So yes there is no intrinsic reason the same bacteria that ate the DH methane in the deep cold water of the Gulf wouldn't be found living and active in the Arctic,

They aren't. So - -

 

[Billy T]

I take "could" to be speculative in "could thrive in the ice-cold Arctic deep-sea, at -1 C" - but it does not live here AFAIK. They must show that it is not displaced by a competitor or eaten by some organism before "could" means "can."

 

[adoucette]

No Billy, when you read the article it is quite clear that they were saying that the bacteria DID thrive in -1C water, not could.

There are other sources as well:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-07/agu-dae071805.php

As well as the scope of their activity:

Microorganisms living in anoxic marine sediments consume more than 80% of the methane produced in the world's oceans. In addition to single-species aggregates, consortia of metabolically interdependent bacteria and archaea are found in methane-rich sediments

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5529/484.abstract

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Rupert Murdoch. Tom Donahue. Rex Tillerson. The Koch brothers.

Just listing these names does not prove ANY of your assertions.

Proper debate requires SOME actual facts to back up your claims.

Try again.

The people you are getting your information and line of "reasoning" from. You don't know who they are?

BS

My sources for the last 10 pages:

IPCC AR4 WG1 various chapters
NOAA - various depts
NASA - AIRS
NASA - GISS
NASA - ESRL
EPA
Princeton
Nature
Journal Science
AstroBiology
Geophysical Research Letters
ENVIASAT
College of GeoSience
CSIRO (Australian)

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

Just listing these names does not prove ANY of your assertions.

You asked for names, I gave you a few. You want different answers, ask different questions.

You appear to be questioning the observation that powerful and wealthy forces

with great influence over the public media and common information

have an interest in denying, hiding, and minimizing the risk posed by methane release from the stores in cold water and permafrost. Are you serious? Do you actually deny that there are such interests?

 

[adoucette]

You asked for names, I gave you a few. You want different answers, ask different questions.

Yes but the answer can't JUST be the name, it has to have a PROVEN connection to the assertion that these people are doing the things you claimed they are.

So show the connection to the assertions you made.

You appear to be questioning the observation that powerful and wealthy forces

with great influence over the public media and common information

have an interest in denying, hiding, and minimizing the risk posed by methane release from the stores in cold water and permafrost. Are you serious? Do you actually deny that there are such interests?

Do you not understand how debate works ice?

YOU made the CLAIM, which means YOU must provide the evidence to back up the claim.

So far you have done nothing to do so.

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

Do you not understand how debate works ice?

YOU made the CLAIM, which means YOU must provide the evidence to back up the claim.

This isn't a debate, sunshine.

It's more a soapbox derby.

 

[adoucette]

Who has made the more intelligent posts about Methane in the Arctic, arfa or me?

Billy probably thinks it's arfa.

Let's see what arfa thinks.

 

[arfa brane]

I think adoucette probably wins the "I know everything" debate.
He doesn't look like a shill at all, does he?

/sarcasm.

 

[iceaura]

YOU made the CLAIM, which means YOU must provide the evidence to back up the claim.

Only if somebody questions, thinks it might be false, doubts it.

As far as I know, I have made only obvious claims that are not reasonably in doubt.

Please be definite about what you think the claim is (I can't tell, from your posts so far) and state that you actually, really, honestly doubt it.

If the claim is one that I made, I will then provide evidence to back it up.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Just a NOTE to the people of Earth Science

You are still free to post other threads on global warming, but I would HIGHLY suggest reading back a bit to the other zillion threads on the same topic. Doing this will give you a feeling for the type of discussion and the few nuts around here who know too much about the subject

#1. Ill start off with this: Can we please make a list of ONLY FACTS which are 100% guaranteed to be true. From this list, we can do a type of Fermi problem or logic problem to see if, given the facts that we know for sure, global warming truly is an issue. It'll be fun

#2. I think many will agree (and many will disagree for that matter), that it is not a question of IF global warming is occuring, but rather WHY.
From my understanding, we have proof that the earth has gone from being really warm, to really cold, to inbetween and back through the list again several times.

#3. There are some people who will disagree with you completely and think you are a lunatic (that goes for both sides of the argument). There are compeling arguments on both sides and really, its an discussion that wont have a clear victor for many years. Be mindful of this please! In other words, when persuading or discussing, despite being exasperated, do not resort to petty insults. They only make you A.) look like a fool and B.) invalidate everything you have said in the minds of other people (generally).

Most of all, have fun! This is Science and the only way science goes anywhere, is by discussion. We can all agree that despite the fact that there might not be a right answer, the discussion will enrich our lives and broaden our horizons. The only thing that can happen is that you will become more effective and intellecutal in discussion as a result of being exposed to the opposite side of the tracks.


Enjoy.
T

The records are falsified in the northwest. It happened as a results of settlers getting land Grants. This is little known because it is the subject of History and not Science. When the settlers came out west they had to prove that there was enough rain fall to support crops . This was not a reality for the land is Arid and rain falls where to low , so what the settlers did was falsify the records in order to stake there land claims. This is documented by Historians Like I said , but you will have to dig it out for your self. Learn History and you might be surprised as what the truth really is. Now for the last several years like 3 the pattern has changed and you could say it is climate change , but by humans . I don't know? the Verdict is still out in my Mind , but the new pattern is lots more water than there has been for sometime . We are still considered drought stricken by definition of the alarmists, but the forest is good and green and the animals are healthy as can be. The biggest problem is Beetle kill timber and that is chewing up the forest at an unprecedented rate. The forest needs to be cut of this beetle Kill limber if there is any chance of stopping the infestation , but the back yard environmentalist stands in this same way and Federal Land not managed for this same reason Federal land is in a state of disaster. The only healthy land is private and then next state land . The Federal land is rip for a burn that has not happened in thousands of years because of the unnatural suppression of fires and the build up of fuel . So All you backyard environmentalist that no nothing about forest management can watch the show from your backyards with long hot dog sticks while my state burns like it never has in thousands and thousands of years. Even the native people before you lily whiteys new better than this and did prescribed burns as to keep the fuel levels down. Now I got a call for you all . It is called " Wood For Haiti" it is about to make a national appearance, where as it will reduce the fuel in the forest , get rid of beetle kill and rebuild the troubled country of Haiti. The Back yard environmentalist that knows nothing about forest management stands in the way of bringing a 3rd world country off it's knees. What are you all going to do ? Do the right thing . The call and say it from the roof top before it gets to you and your friends will think you are a seer of the future "Wood For Haiti "

 

[arfa brane]

The records are falsified in the northwest.

If only that was all that got falsified.

When the settlers came out west they had to prove that there was enough rain fall to support crops .

Was that because they had to prove they could grow food and not starve?

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

If only that was all that got falsified.
Was that because they had to prove they could grow food and not starve?

Yes partially. It was to show that the farm was self sustaining . There was a required amount of rain fall that was considered sustainable by the Feds back in the day and it was based off of rain falls in the eastern states which had much higher precipitation. Water rights to this day are one big friggen deal because of it and because of the lack of water in reality it kicked of water wars that you could not believe. Even now having first water rights when you buy a piece of property gives you advantages that other property owners just don't have. Now the law is in a state of flux, where as the D. N. R. C. is working to put restrictions on well drilling. State Legislator is making it so you will have to pay an amount of money that is prohibitive to development even if it is just your family member building a single unit to live next to there family , except if you have a certain column of water rights then you will be able to transfer this to your well rights , but first an environmental report is in order before anything happens. All a result of perceived urban sprawl and if anybody out side of Montana comes to the area they hear the bickering about it all and say " What the hell are this backward crazies talking about All I see is open space" You can tell I have my opinion about it all.

 

[adoucette]

Only if somebody questions, thinks it might be false, doubts it.

As far as I know, I have made only obvious claims that are not reasonably in doubt.

Please be definite about what you think the claim is (I can't tell, from your posts so far) and state that you actually, really, honestly doubt it.

If the claim is one that I made, I will then provide evidence to back it up.

I asked 3 questions, to which you gave those names in reply, but NOTHING besides the names to support your assertion.

Again, what influence are you talking about that is preventing us from evaluating the possible impact of Methane?

Who has a vested interest in AGW Methane production besides rice farmers and cattle/sheep ranchers?

Who is denying evidence of Methane release? Source please? ”

Rupert Murdoch. Tom Donahue. Rex Tillerson. The Koch brothers

.

So it is up to you to explain how those names are specifically related as answers to the questions raised.

Seems pretty friggin obvious to me.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

I think adoucette probably wins the "I know everything" debate.
He doesn't look like a shill at all, does he?

/sarcasm.

Yeah, and you know what?

The pay is so much better for being a shill then being a TROLL.

LOL

Arthur