Methane's profile on the rise as gas raises global warming worries

Mayor Richard Gerbounka describes the methane production at the old, now closed Linden landfill along the Rahway River in Linden.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

The fact is that most of the warming is from CO2. Methane is powerful per molecule but it is a minor gas compared to CO2 and has much less effect.

This is more of the denialist camps 'distract and divide' tactic, not a serious story.

As to land fill biogas, it should be collected and burned to CO2 for power generation. Problem solved.

[Steve Case]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

The fact is that most of the warming is from CO2. Methane is powerful per molecule but it is a minor gas compared to CO2 and has much less effect.
This is more of the denialist camps 'distract and divide' tactic, not a serious story.
As to land fill biogas, it should be collected and burned to CO2 for power generation. Problem solved.

The reason methane is often presented as 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 is that there isn't much of it in the atmosphere. In other words it doesn't take much of an increase to double it's concentration and effect. Per molecule, it ISN'T very powerful as a green house gas.

As this chart
http://www.solarchords.com/uploaded/82/87-338...
explains, the dominant absorbers of infrared radiation are water vapor and CO2. Methane is shown, but not mentioned.

[Ron Wagner]

Natural gas is greatly lowering CO2 emissions by replacing coal. Also stopping dangerous nuclear plants.http://ronwagnersrants. blogspot.com Natural gas is the future of energy. It is replacing dirty, dangerous, expensive coal and nuclear plants. It is producing the electricity for electric cars. It will directly fuel cars,pickup trucks, vans, buses, long haul trucks, dump trucks, locomotives, aircraft, ships etc. It will keep us out of more useless wars, where we shed our blood and money. It reduces CO2 emissions and other pollutants. Here are over 900 recent links for you:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NbaKYme3b...

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
The reason methane is often presented as 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 is that there isn't much of it in the atmosphere.

Wrong. It is presented as 20 times as powerful PER MOLECULE. But the total EFFECT is low since it is, as yet, not present in large amounts and ozone oxidation keeps it in check (converting it to CO2)

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words it doesn't take much of an increase to double it's concentration and effect.

If there is a sudden increase that overwhelms the oxidation from ozone, it may become a factor. That is a risk with rising arctic temperatures perhaps releasing methane hydrates from the permafrost.

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
Per molecule, it ISN'T very powerful as a green house gas.

Bogus. As first stated, it is powerful PER MOLECULE. Which is why it is of SOME concern.

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
As this chart
http://www.solarchords.com/uploaded/82/87-338...
explains, the dominant absorbers of infrared radiation are water vapor and CO2. Methane is shown, but not mentioned.

Again, spin. Water vapor is certainly a signficant GHG but it is REACTIVE, not a FORCING. If you were to remove all 'permanent GHGs' which have forcings that do not react to temperature, the temperature would cool and this would precipitate water vapor, cooling again, precipitating more, until there was no water vapor. At this point, there would be no Greenhouse effect from water vapor. This has (some hypothesize from geological evidence) happened in the past. From this, we understand that water vapor AMPLIFIES warming from CO2 and Methane but does not CONTROL warming.

[Earthling-1]

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Wrong.

How is Steve Case wrong, you're just about to agree with him?

NoFactAllHype wrote:

It is presented as 20 times as powerful PER MOLECULE. But the total EFFECT is low since it is, as yet, not present in large amounts

Steve Case wrote:

The reason methane is often presented as 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 is that there isn't much of it in the atmosphere.

NoFactAllHype wrote:

Water vapor
water vapor.
water vapor.
water vapor AMPLIFIES

When will you admit that you lied when you wrote:
"I have only claimed to have learned the correct English spelling from both school and dictionaries..."
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/china/T7UALT...
"The point is that I learned 'correct English spelling' very well and will use it even if MS-word takes over the rest of the world."
http://www.topix.com/forum/energy/nuclear-ene...

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>How is Steve Case wrong, you're just about to agree with him?

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
The reason methane is often presented as 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 is that there isn't much of it in the atmosphere. In other words it doesn't take much of an increase to double it's concentration and effect.

Read carefully. He is saying that it is 'more powerful' because it is present in small amount which can change easily. This has nothing to do with the GWP (greenhouse effect per molecule)

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>How is Steve Case wrong, you're just about to agree with him?

Bogus. I am very careful to disagree with him on the main point on which he is in total error.

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
Per molecule, it ISN'T very powerful as a green house gas.

I.e He is claiming a low GWP.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. It is presented as 20 times as powerful PER MOLECULE.

And I am correcting that.

Now, if YOU could just get a clue instead of misreading and spamming. One almost wonders if English is a second or third language for you, since you cannot seem to parse the simplest semantics.

[litesong]

"LessHypeMoreFact" wrote:
It is presented as 20 times as powerful PER MOLECULE. But the total EFFECT is low since it is, as yet, not present in large amounts and ozone oxidation keeps it in check (converting it to CO2)

If there is a sudden increase that overwhelms the oxidation from ozone, it may become a factor. That is a risk with rising arctic temperatures perhaps releasing methane hydrates from the permafrost.

Again, spin. Water vapor is certainly a signficant GHG but it is REACTIVE, not a FORCING. If you were to remove all 'permanent GHGs' which have forcings that do not react to temperature, the temperature would cool and this would precipitate water vapor, cooling again, precipitating more, until there was no water vapor. At this point, there would be no Greenhouse effect from water vapor. This has (some hypothesize from geological evidence) happened in the past. From this, we understand that water vapor AMPLIFIES warming from CO2 and Methane but does not CONTROL warming.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Excellent succinct post!

[Earthling-1]

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

One almost wonders if English is a second or third language for you, since you cannot seem to parse the simplest semantics.

Says Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
LessFact:
"It was not a 'mistake'. It was a fact. Even when the first dictionary was being compiled the epistimologist[sic] had to choose between many spellings."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
LessFact:
"I have never claimed to be an epystimologist[sic]. If you READ my posts, I have only claimed to have learned the correct English spelling from both school and dictionaries about the 1960 in Ontario. They held Fourty to be the correct English spelling ( among many other corrections to U.S.'quirks')."
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/china/T7UALT...
LessFact:
"I was very good at spelling."
-
LessFact:
"There isn't a 'right or wrong' way of spelling."
http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/space/TID73A2...
LessFact:
"Note that it is PRONOUNCED as 'spelt' but only an ignorant boor thinks it is SPELLED as spelt."

[PHD]

Earthling-1 wrote:

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:
<quoted text>Says Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
LessFact:
"It was not a 'mistake'. It was a fact. Even when the first dictionary was being compiled the epistimologist[sic] had to choose between many spellings."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
LessFact:
"I have never claimed to be an epystimologist[sic]. If you READ my posts, I have only claimed to have learned the correct English spelling from both school and dictionaries about the 1960 in Ontario. They held Fourty to be the correct English spelling ( among many other corrections to U.S.'quirks')."
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/china/T7UALT...
LessFact:
"I was very good at spelling."
-
LessFact:
"There isn't a 'right or wrong' way of spelling."
http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/space/TID73A2...
LessFact:
"Note that it is PRONOUNCED as 'spelt' but only an ignorant boor thinks it is SPELLED as spelt."

Hay dirtling you missed the topic it's about methane. Now this could be a money maker for you. Harness the methane useless babble that you spew and start selling it. Hay dirtling you never answered the question.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Some news on the sources of methane in nature.

tinyurl.com/8twgstb

[SpaceBlues]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Some news on the sources of methane in nature.
tinyurl.com/8twgstb

Yes, I read it before. Did you check the 4 percent deal?

Maybe NOT all by this source.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, I read it before. Did you check the 4 percent deal?
Maybe NOT all by this source.

It fills in one of the last unknown sources.

In other news, Antarctica is claimed to be a massive reservoir of methane despite the fact that they have detected no methane or indicators of methane deposits.

[Earthling-1]

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Antarctica is claimed to be a massive reservoir of methane despite the fact that they have detected no methane or indicators of methane deposits.

You've really earned your name alteration:

‘Vast reservoir’ of greenhouse gas methane trapped under Antarctic ice sheet

Large methane gas reserves discovered under Antarctic ice sheets could worsen global warming, scientists warned.
http://www.periscopepost.com/2012/08/vast-res...

[PHD]

Earthling-1 wrote:

aka:dirtling-1
<quoted text>I've really earned my name alteration:
‘Vast reservoir’ of useless babble gas methane trapped under Whatever I post.
Large amounts of useless babble reserves discovered could worsen global warming.

Now that’s priceless. Well dirtling you may be your correct the cut and paste thing is much easier than showing your own work.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Earthling-1 wrote:

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:
<quoted text>‘Vast reservoir’ of greenhouse gas methane trapped under Antarctic ice sheet
Large methane gas reserves discovered under Antarctic ice sheets could worsen global warming, scientists warned.

"Up to 400 billion tonnes of the gas could be trapped under the ice sheet"

As I said, COULD. The fact is that they have DETECTED nothing. It is purely speculative and yet they announce it on the news as if it were fact.

Something like how Earthling operates. No facts needed.

[Earthling-1]

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

As I said, COULD.

What's changed, you used to jump on possibilities as proof of fact?

NoFactAllHype wrote:

The fact is that they have DETECTED nothing.

So what, your alarmist friends are all over it like a rash.

NoFactAllHype wrote:

It is purely speculative and yet they announce it on the news as if it were fact.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

NoFactAllHype wrote:

Something like how Earthling operates. No facts needed.

You really did fall for that one, didn't you, hook, line and sinker?
Not the sharpest tool in the box, are you, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
Ö¿Ö

[PHD]

Earthling-1 wrote:

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:
<quoted text>What's changed, you used to jump on possibilities as proof of fact?<quoted text>So what, your alarmist friends are all over it like a rash.<quoted text>Thanks for agreeing with me.<quoted text>You really did fall for that one, didn't you, hook, line and sinker?
Not the sharpest tool in the box, are you, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
Ö¿Ö

More Useless Babble More Useless Babble More Useless Babble More Useless Babble More Useless Babble. Cut and Paste Cut and Paste Cut and Paste Cut and Paste . dirtling the commander of all now with spam.

[Methane 101]

Its a shame they can't produce it mass production. Tag pipelines into each porto potty. OPEC couldn't match that?