• 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 Bubbling Lakes in the Arctic

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,849
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Another bit of evidence confirming the predictions is coming in green.

Across the Arctic, bubbling lakes are leaking carbon dioxide, methane and other dangerous greenhouse gases



Ancient reservoirs of methane being released, we can now check off that box.
 
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[h=1]Surprise finding: Arctic Ocean methane does not reach the atmosphere[/h][FONT=&quot]From the CAGE – CENTER FOR ARCTIC GAS HYDRATE, CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT and the cancel the “methane time bomb” department comes this surprising finding: 250 methane flares release the climate gas methane from the seabed and into the Arctic Ocean. During the summer months this leads to an increased methane concentration in the ocean. But surprisingly,…
[/FONT]
May 27, 2016 in Arctic, Methane.
 
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[h=1]Another IPCC modeling failure – so THAT's where the atmospheric methane went[/h][FONT=&quot]From Oregon State University – Scientists discover carbonate rocks are unrecognized methane sink CORVALLIS, Ore. – Since the first undersea methane seep was discovered 30 years ago, scientists have meticulously analyzed and measured how microbes in the seafloor sediments consume the greenhouse gas methane as part of understanding how the Earth works. The sediment-based microbes…
[/FONT]
October 15, 2014 in IPCC, Methane.
 


Uh, you do understand what bubbling means. Amirite?
 

The OP is about Arctic tundra and lakes, not the Arctic Ocean :roll:

Presumably that was the nearest hit you could find on you knee-jerk trawl through your favourite source of science misinformation and propaganda.
 
ABOVE THE ARCTIC CIRCLE, ALASKA — Katey Walter Anthony has studied some 300 lakes across the tundras of the Arctic. But sitting on the mucky shore of her latest discovery, the Arctic expert said she’d never seen a lake like this one.
Click to expand...

So one lake on the edge of the permafrost is having a bubble of methane.

Yeah?

Do we even know it is not just a methane vent from a gas pocket underground?
 
Surface Detail said:
The OP is about Arctic tundra and lakes, not the Arctic Ocean :roll:

Presumably that was the nearest hit you could find on you knee-jerk trawl through your favourite source of science misinformation and propaganda.
Click to expand...

Actually, the best one was linked in #3.
 


This is a natural event. Has happened for centuries.
 
Surface Detail said:
The OP is about Arctic tundra and lakes, not the Arctic Ocean :roll:

Presumably that was the nearest hit you could find on you knee-jerk trawl through your favourite source of science misinformation and propaganda.
Click to expand...

So? It is a natural cycle.
 
Jack Hays said:
The amount is inconsequential.
Click to expand...

Yes, that attitude, when it comes to thinking, has indeed been the obvious shortcoming in most, if not all, of your AGW arguments. You are correct.
 
calamity said:
Yes, that attitude, when it comes to thinking, has indeed been the obvious shortcoming in most, if not all, of your AGW arguments. You are correct.
Click to expand...

How much methane do you think is required to cause a +2c warming?

Anything less is inconsequential for humanity or good for us.
 
calamity said:
:lamo
Click to expand...

When you have lost the argument but feel that as long as you have the last word you must have won just reply with a picture or if you don't even have that use and emoticon.

Works (for you) every time!
 
calamity said:
To play the Plumber for a minute. "How much 'no longer perma' permafrost must we have (to the nearest gram, please), before it's a problem?" :lol:

How much wood must a woodchuck chuck before there is no wood left for the woodchuck to chuck?
Click to expand...

No need for a stupidly precise figure.

If you can tell me what the problem would be for what loss of permafrost I will conceade.

If not then you don't have an argument.

I see nothing bad in not having any permafrost in the world directly. There may be bad consequences indirectly but I have no love for ground that supports very very little life.
 

When it comes to taking your argument serious, it would help if you could spell concede.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Bubbles often get reabsorbed as they travel up.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article?

The researchers were working on a lake with an average depth of 3 feet. I doubt much methane is getting reabsorbed.

By the way, we're not dealing with natural cycles. Permafrost that is used to be stable, and is anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 years old, is now melting. Emissions of carbon and CH4 by permafrost is increasing. This is happening because temperatures are rising, and that's not because of any natural events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…