GOOGLE Frozen Methane Hydrate - I am sick of peak oil soothsayers

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/index.html ^

[UnChained]

“”CO2 increases follow rather than precede warming.”

I assume you are assuming but not mentioning bounds on that statement? Because it sure does not hold true in a beaker.”

I don’t understand what you are saying. It seems to me, that is EXACTLY what happens in a beaker. Gases are more readily soluble in water as you lower the temperature. Heating water will cause the dissolved gases to leave the solution.

Since this is all about global warming, it’s worth trying to figure out the cause and effect relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temps.

There is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and Global warming, but correlation isn’t causation. I tend to believe that increased CO2 levels is an Effect of warming rather than its cause.

The tendency for gases to come out of solutions as they are heated is a much more powerfully linked phenomenon than CO2’s effect as a greenhouse gas. Carbon Dioxide is such a minor player as a greenhouse gas that it dooesn’t make sense to consider it the cause of warming like the greenies are preaching.

I’ve read that the cycles show the warming always preceding the CO2 increase by some years which if true, pretty well settles which is cause and which is effect.

[PGalt]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

[Melinator]

Ever heard of electricity? No pipeline necessary. Just wireline to the nearest grid.

[ndt]

"I don’t understand what you are saying. It seems to me, that is EXACTLY what happens in a beaker."

Only if you put bounds on the statement as you did by specifying a particular set up (saturated solution etc).

"I tend to believe that increased CO2 levels is an Effect of warming rather than its cause."

To some degree that is true, as in the case of melting and subsequent decomposing of permafrost for example.

"The tendency for gases to come out of solutions as they are heated is a much more powerfully linked phenomenon than CO2’s effect as a greenhouse gas."

Debatable. My point was however what you just agreed to, C02 is a green house gas. The argument is not does it, it clearly does. The question is, is it enough to matter?

[Melinator]

Not in a beaker. Not unless the beaker is the size of the World’s combined oceans and takes years to heat up before releasing CO2. If you know about beakers, you should know that colder temperaters and high pressures allow for CO2 absorption. There is a time lag. IF global CO2 levels are causing warming on their own (which mathematically is “spit in the wind” compared to the effect of water vapour), we can expect CO2 levels to rise far inexcess of our own daily production. The Oceans are a CO2 sink.

Personally, I tend toward the fact that the Sun is increasing in intensity. Why do the Greenies (gross, like squishy little boogers) never refute the fact that other planets in our Solar system also show recent sign of warming, and historical warming and cooling periods?

Probably because they are Kool-aid drinking scam artists and con men who don’t care to analyse the facts, only to push the scam.

P.S. Quick, send money to meee to build a Sun Temperature Stabilizer Machine, or we’re all going to DIIIEEEEEEEEE! Quickly, It is urgent that I get this money before you consider analysing any part of what I’m saying! In fact, here’s a free video for your kids, explaining all!
</algorecarboncorpspinmachineimpression>

[Melinator]

CO2 is higher than at any time in the last 650,000 yrs?

Please explain the periods between 650,000 yrs ago and now, when global average temperatures were warmer than now. Or did’nt you know about them? They lasted thousands of years. Please explain, oh explainer of simple truths.

[ndt]

"Not in a beaker. Not unless the beaker is the size of the World’s combined oceans and takes years to heat up before releasing CO2."

Again, you are putting bounds on the statement. Which is exactly what I was saying he had to do. I'm not sure if you people are trying to prove my point or debate it.

By the way, the Southern Oceans are saturated with CO2 so they clearly have not been releasing it in large amounts do to warming.

And I'm not saying that CO2 is causing measurable effect, only that denying that it is a factor is demonstrably dumb.

[ndt]

"CO2 is higher than at any time in the last 650,000 yrs?"

Are you even reading what I write or are you just attacking your idea of what you think I am saying?

[steve8714]

historical pattern

[theymakemesick]

The global warmists will indeed object to this. “You’re adding carbon to the atmosphere!”

We need to teach the poor idiots that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere!

[ndt]

"Please explain the periods between 650,000 yrs ago and now, when global average temperatures were warmer than now. Or did’nt you know about them? They lasted thousands of years. Please explain, oh explainer of simple truths."

To answer your question anyway...

Assuming CO2 was the main cause, a lag time is easily explained by the heat absorbing properties of the oceans.

If that is the case then we are in deep poo as that would tend to suggest that the temps are set to rise higher then anytime in the last 650,000 years.

But like I said, I'm not saying that.

[the final gentleman]

I dunno, ndt, UnChainged seems to have won the semantical point. Paleo-measurements support his contention.

Maybe you have some other postulate to offer...?

[scrabblehack]

Hmm...I heard some of the same claims about ethanol that I’m hearing about methane hydrate...it burns cleaner, will solve our energy dependency, etc.

[four more in O 4]

400 million trillion cubic feet

I BELIEVE THE GLASS IS HALF FULL.

That must be a BIG glass!!

[ndt]

"Maybe you have some other postulate to offer...?"

My only postulation was that CO2 in a beaker traps heat more efficiently than air. The addition of CO2 saturated water and expanding the beaker to the size of the words oceans as the other posters did is "putting bounds" on the statement which is exactly what I said needed to be done.

[ndt]

"I heard some of the same claims about ethanol that I’m hearing about methane hydrate...it burns cleaner, will solve our energy dependency, etc."

Ethanol does burn cleaner than gasoline which is what I assume you are comparing it to.

In terms of CO2 (again people I'm not saying doom were gonna die so relax) ethanol is generally produced from biomass so there is no net increase in CO2 year to year.

In the case of Methane Hydrate, it is carbon that has been sequestered for thousand to millions of years, so really no different from oil in terms of carbon impact.

[SunkenCiv]

Ping!

[nicollo]

We need to figure out a way to capture livestock flatulence. Maybe a diaper or bag of some sort, I dunno.

Posts like this always make me smile:

"Gas Bag Car" -- a farmer's reply to gasoline rationing in WWI UK
(it's a Buick; although stories circulated in the U.S. at the time to the contrary, it was likely powered by coal-gas rather than cow-produced methane)

[ndt]

"Posts like this always make me smile:"

It makes more sense then you might think. Home sized biodigesters to produce methane are quite popular in India and other places and make perfect sense on a larger scale in some industries here.

[dwntmpo]

Well this interested me a little, so I thought I’d share..

being a firm believer in peak oil, my first thought was that my car doesn’t run on natural gas.. saying a natural gas discovery is going to solve the oil problem is kinda like a shortage in gold being solved by discovering more zinc.. they serve different purposes..

If oil does deplete to the point that it’s no longer feasible, then everything we have that runs on oil would have to be made to run on natural gas.. meaning that NG is no longer responsible for 22% of our energy usage, it would be more like 62%...

The line that stuck out for me was, “If only one percent of the methane hydrate resource could be made technically and economically recoverable”.

Hopefully a lot more than 1% would be realistic, as that’s not enough to do much of anything.. 1% of 200,000 trillion cubic feet would only be 2000 trillion. If used as a replacement for oil, a rate of 62 trillion cubic feet per year would only be 32 years worth.. hardly an end all solution.. it wouldn’t be long till we were dependent on foreign methane hydrates..