Re: Darn it! Old carbon reservoirs unlikely to cause massive greenhouse gas release.

On 8/10/20 1:59 AM, Pavley Oil wrote:
> There goes another Democrat fantasy down the toilet.
> 
> Permafrost in the soil and methane hydrates deep in the ocean 
> are large reservoirs of ancient carbon. As soil and ocean 
> temperatures rise, the reservoirs have the potential to break 
> down, releasing enormous quantities of the potent greenhouse gas 
> methane. But would this methane actually make it to the 
> atmosphere?
> 


Suggesting as I said before that CO2 is NOT driving the temperature but
naturally changing climate temperature is driving the CO2.

Warmer climate created the higher CO2 meaning that CO2 is NOT causing
the initial warming, it's *NOT* the other way around where CO2 is
causing the planet to be warmer.

The models have the cause and effect backwards.  Instead of the CO2
being the driver they need to have the Climate being the driver of the
CO2. The natural warming of an ending ice age caused the CO2 to
increase.  What would lock up more CO2 than most anything... it would be
a frozen planet that has very little microbial activity.  The micromes
convert plant carbon to carbon gas raising the CO2 ppm.

The problem isn't humans it's microbes... the warmth activates more
microbes, they produce more CO2 so the warming comes first and the CO2
comes after the warming as the microbes eat carbon based material and
reproduce and respirate.

We do need to sequester the carbon but the best way to do that is to
stop the microbes from digesting it.  Man has been stopping forest fires
and grass fires that once burned themselves out... leaving behind a
black carbon rich soil...




> Researchers at the University of Rochester—including Michael 
> Dyonisius, a graduate student in the lab of Vasilii Petrenko, 
> professor of earth and environmental sciences—and their 
> collaborators studied methane emissions from a period in Earth's 
> history partly analogous to the warming of Earth today. Their 
> research, published in Science, indicates that even if methane 
> is released from these large natural stores in response to 
> warming, very little actually reaches the atmosphere.
> 
> "One of our take-home points is that we need to be more 
> concerned about the anthropogenic emissions—those originating 
> from human activities—than the natural feedbacks," Dyonisius 
> says.
> 
> What are methane hydrates and permafrost?
> 
> When plants die, they decompose into carbon-based organic matter 
> in the soil.

That microbes would eat?

> In extremely cold conditions, the carbon in the 
> organic matter freezes and becomes trapped instead of being 
> emitted into the atmosphere.

by the hungry MICROBES because they're frosen.

> This forms permafrost, soil that 
> has been continuously frozen—even during the summer—for more 
> than one year. Permafrost is mostly found on land, mainly in 
> Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Canada.
> 
> Along with organic carbon, there is also an abundance of water 
> ice in permafrost. When the permafrost thaws in rising 
> temperatures, the ice melts and the underlying soil becomes 
> waterlogged, helping to create low-oxygen conditions—the perfect 
> environment for microbes in the soil to consume the carbon and 
> produce methane.
> 

That's Anaerobic Bacteria.  And why stagnant water ponds stink.

> Methane hydrates, on the other hand, are mostly found in ocean 
> sediments along the continental margins. In methane hydrates, 
> cages of water molecules trap methane molecules inside. Methane 
> hydrates can only form under high pressures and low 
> temperatures, so they are mainly found deep in the ocean. If 
> ocean temperatures rise, so will the temperature of the ocean 
> sediments where the methane hydrates are located. The hydrates 
> will then destabilize, fall apart, and release the methane gas.
> 
> "If even a fraction of that destabilizes rapidly and that 
> methane is transferred to the atmosphere, we would have a huge 
> greenhouse impact because methane is such a potent greenhouse 
> gas," Petrenko says. "The concern really has to do with 
> releasing a truly massive amount of carbon from these stocks 
> into the atmosphere as the climate continues to warm."
> 

This is the effect they call a *FEEDBACK LOOP* that piles more warming
on top of the already warming climate, the problem is it's a MYTH and
can't be proven.  How can they show that any new warming is connected to
the new gasses that were created from the past creation of CO2.  They
can't even prove that CO2 is warming us as much as they say.

If there were a FEEDBACK LOOP that is causing warming then the why isn't
the warming becoming an exponential function. it wouldn't rise and fall,
it would constantly rise at a faster and faster rate.

The mythical FEEDBACK LOOP of CO2 is just more political gaslighting.

> Gathering data from ice cores
> 
> In order to determine how much methane from ancient carbon 
> deposits might be released to the atmosphere in warming 
> conditions, Dyonisius and his colleagues turned to patterns in 
> Earth's past. They drilled and collected ice cores from Taylor 
> Glacier in Antarctica. The ice core samples act like time 
> capsules: they contain tiny air bubbles with small quantities of 
> ancient air trapped inside. The researchers use a melting 
> chamber to extract the ancient air from the bubbles and then 
> study its chemical composition.
> 
> Dyonisius's research focused on measuring the composition of air 
> from the time of Earth's last deglaciation, 8,000-15,000 years 
> ago.
> 
> "The time period is a partial analog to today, when Earth went 
> from a cold state to a warmer state," Dyonisius says. "But 
> during the last deglaciation, the change was natural. Now the 
> change is driven by human activity, and we're going from a warm 
> state to an even warmer state."
> 

And yet they have no proof that humans caused it in the past or today,
it's speculation.

> Analyzing the carbon-14 isotope of methane in the samples, the 
> group found that methane emissions from the ancient carbon 
> reservoirs were small. Thus, Dyonisius concludes, "the 
> likelihood of these old carbon reservoirs destabilizing and 
> creating a large positive warming feedback in the present day is 
> also low."

Thank you for admitting that.  I spent 20 minutes trying to remember the
buzz word "FEEDBACK LOOP" and the read the next couple of paragraphs and
there it was plain as day all along and all I had to do was read the
next paragraph.  I knew the was going to be the direction this went so I
had to address it and low and behold I was on target.

> 
> Dyonisius and his collaborators also concluded that the methane 
> released does not reach the atmosphere in large quantities. The 
> researchers believe this is due to several natural "buffers."
> 
> Buffers protect against release to the atmosphere
> 

This is what I call the Co2 and the Water vapor, they are buffering the
heat energy NOT capturing it and they don't buffer it for long so no
they don't cause warming....  because they take longer to absorb that
heat energy so the actual warming and cooling is delayed not halted. SO
the heat energy is not CAPTURED.... Which means it doesn't warm the
planet, it does make the temperature more constant or less volatile.
Which moderates the WARMING and cooling, which describes what is
actually happening, less extreme temperature swings a blur between
abrupt hot and cold but NOT actually hotter or colder over the long
term.

> In the case of methane hydrates, if the methane is released in 
> the deep ocean, most of it is dissolved and oxidized by ocean 
> microbes before it ever reaches the atmosphere. If the methane 
> in permafrost forms deep enough in the soil, it may be oxidized 
> by bacteria that eat the methane, or the carbon in the 
> permafrost may never turn into methane and may instead be 
> released as carbon dioxide.
> 

Those little microbes are back in the story....

> "It seems like whatever natural buffers are in place are 
> ensuring there's not much methane that gets released," Petrenko 
> says.
> 
> The data also shows that methane emissions from wetlands 
> increased in response to climate change during the last 
> deglaciation, and it is likely wetland emissions will increase 
> as the world continues to warm today.
> 
> Even so, Petrenko says, "anthropogenic methane emissions 
> currently are larger than wetland emissions by a factor of about 
> two, and our data shows we don't need to be as concerned about 
> large methane releases from large carbon reservoirs in response 
> to future warming; we should be more concerned about methane 
> released from human activities."
> 
> https://phys.org/news/2020-02-carbon-reservoirs-massive-
> greenhouse-gas.html
>    
> 
Human and Bovine methane are irrelivant as there were millions and
millions of Buffalo and other wild life that has been reduced by humans,
we and our cattle simply replaced all the Buffalo and the gas is no
different. Some dairy's even make methane and burn it for fuel which
means it isn't released into the atmosphere and that accounts for a
large number of the cows people believe are polluting with the natural
methane which is no longer methane from the manure.

The cows themselves may produce more or less than Buffalo but it's NOT
going to be enough to lose sleep over.


-- 
*That's Karma*

*Democrats aren't the PARTY of diversity they're the party of division*