Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 00:00:39 UTC No. 16258972

>>16258943
Will we be talking about this...or no?

Am I insane? at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 00:02:20 UTC No. 16258976

>>16258972
sure

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 00:03:42 UTC No. 16258980

>>16258943
>OY VEY THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!
>THATS WHY YOU HAVE TO GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR MONEY AND DO EVERYTHING I SAY!!!
>I AM THE SAVIOR OF PLANET EARTH!!!!
you have a personality disorder, go get your head checked

Am I insane? at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 00:13:42 UTC No. 16258997

>>16258976
I'm deeply sorry, I must be isolating myself and devouring my own delusions for the umpteenth time.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 00:43:15 UTC No. 16259062

>>16258997
I mean there's not much to discuss. Methane is a decent greenhouse gas. A warming trend theoretically could free methane trapped in permafrost, but it's highly unlikely to be a serious amount. Most global warming alarmism isn't based on science.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 01:05:04 UTC No. 16259096

Methane (natural gas) is the biggest source of electricity in the US...

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 01:30:14 UTC No. 16259128

if methane is such a dangerous "greenhouse gas" then why is getting rid of it by burning it bad?

Am I insane? at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 01:57:00 UTC No. 16259148

>>16259128
it produces CO2 as a byproduct, which has the same issues.
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide):
>Long-lived greenhouse gas with a concentration of 415 ppm
>Atmospheric lifetime: 50-200 years
>Global warming potential (GWP): 1 (standard unit for comparison)

Methane (CH4):
>Less abundant greenhouse gas with a concentration of 1,800 ppm
>Atmospheric lifetime: 12-17 years
>GWP: 28-34 times higher than CO2 over 100 years

The difference is that methane has a shorter atmospheric lifetime and a higher GWP than CO2, making it a more potent contributor to climate change over a shorter time frame.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 02:04:02 UTC No. 16259151

>>16259148
Calling CO2 a "greenhouse gas" isn't technically lying, but it's damn close. The same individuals will make sure you know that water vapor "isn't" one.

Am I insane? at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 02:19:46 UTC No. 16259159

>>16259151
I am aware water vapor traps heat as well.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 02:22:55 UTC No. 16259161

>>16259159
Well don't mention it to global warming alarmists.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 02:41:07 UTC No. 16259174

>>16259161
You don't have any secret information. The contribution of water is well understood. You could look it up on wikipedia if you wanted.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 02:51:24 UTC No. 16259184

>>16259174
You can and it's fact, and global warming alarmists still pretend it doesn't exist. CO2 isn't even the most important greenhouse gas if you subtract water vapor.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 02:56:08 UTC No. 16259190

>>16259184
Take your meds. Nobody is keeping secrets from you. There is no grand conspiracy. You just learned about something that is very basic information and thought it was groundbreaking. Have you at least read enough to understand that the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is driven by local temperature and not the other way around?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 02:57:48 UTC No. 16259192

>>16259151
??

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 02:58:47 UTC No. 16259195

>>16259190
>Take your meds.
Eglin Air Force Base.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 03:07:07 UTC No. 16259209

>>16259195
You should discuss your conspiracy theories with your therapist.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 03:50:50 UTC No. 16259262

>>16259209
I'd rather expose you on the site most likely to spread awareness about your behavior. How you like that, you bitch?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 06:25:54 UTC No. 16259372

>>16258943
We are largely protected by the fact that +4C water is the heaviest.
This will go away only after everything is warmer than 4C.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 06:32:49 UTC No. 16259380

>>16259128
[math]
CH_4+2\, O_2 \rightarrow CO_2+2\, H_2O
[/math]

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 06:59:33 UTC No. 16259403

>>16258943
1. there isn't infinite methane to be released; there isn't even enough to cause enough warming for a muh feedback loop
2. even if there was a lot of methane, there is too much oxygen in the atmosphere for it to stick around for more than a few years. it would be converted back to CO2 before long and then it would be be fixed by plants

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 07:05:55 UTC No. 16259409

>>16259161
>humans are not adding to it's amount
every single stock image used in warming alarmist articles is of water vapour. Whenever you are burning a hydrocarbon, you are adding as much water vapour as you are CO2

>but water will muh precipitate
yeah, if you stopped all industrial activity for a month, then all of that water would precipitate, but we continuously add more all of the time, so fuck you

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 07:11:11 UTC No. 16259418

>>16259409
Lol anything that's not CO2 doesn't count, even if it's orders of magnitude more powerful at trapping heat...because REASONS OKAY?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 07:38:59 UTC No. 16259446

>>16258972
>ruptured pipeline
that's not the same phenomena the OP is referring to.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 07:43:07 UTC No. 16259452

>>16259446
I know exactly what he's talking about, you low IQ twit, the question is do you care as much about the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline as you do about an entirely hypothetical clathrate *boom*?

Am I insane? at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:06:09 UTC No. 16259470

>>16259403
You have your points.
> 1. Methane stored in clathrates isn't infinite(of course not), but it's enough to cause significant short-term warming if released rapidly.
> 2. Methane does convert to CO2 over time, but not all methane is immediately oxidized, and its sheer short-term potency as a greenhouse gas is much higher than CO2.
> 3. The concern isn't just about methane alone; it's about triggering feedback loops that could accelerate warming to specific temperatures.

>photosynthesis fails or is disrupted at higher temperatures
>Reduced photosynthesis means less CO2 absorption from the atmosphere, exacerbating greenhouse gas levels.
>lower crop yields impact global food security and economic stability throughout the world.
>Changes in these yields affect habitats and food sources for animals/pests/meatbags. expect hostile migration/relation patterns in the future
>a myriad of other factors that strain agriculture that in turn threatens the foundation of every major civilization

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:14:55 UTC No. 16259475

>>16259470
>photosynthesis fails or is disrupted at higher temperatures
Lol this is absolute fucking nonsense. This is one of the coldest points in Earth's entire history. Photosynthesis is not going to "fail" with slightly increased temperatures. Temps were 4°C warmer only 125,000 years ago.

>lower crop yields
We could only be so fucking lucky. There are too many of you fucking parasites.

>expect hostile migration/relation patterns in the future
You mean more than the almost complete replacement kikes have already inflicted. Get back with me when you have a new threat.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:24:39 UTC No. 16259477

>>16258943
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Titan
>One of the most captivating aspects of Titan's atmosphere is the anti-greenhouse effect, a phenomenon that significantly shapes the moon's climate and surface conditions. Unlike Earth, where greenhouse gases absorb and re-radiate solar energy to warm the planet, Titan’s atmosphere operates differently due to its high concentration of methane, especially in the stratosphere. This methane functions as an "anti-greenhouse gas," by absorbing some incoming solar energy before it can reach the surface, leading to cooler surface temperatures than if methane were less abundant.

>When comparing the atmospheric temperature profiles of Earth[62] and Titan,[63] stark contrasts emerge. On Earth, the temperature typically increases as altitude decreases from 80 to 60 kilometers above the surface. In contrast, Titan’s temperature profile shows a decline over the same altitude range. This variation is largely due to the differing impacts of greenhouse and anti-greenhouse effects in Earth's and Titan's atmospheres, respectively.
Funny, apparently methane is an ANTI-GREENHOUSE gas on Titan, yet it is a greenhouse gas on Earth. Isn't that just quackin' crazy?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:52:36 UTC No. 16259488

>>16259418
Here's a tip,

People are experiencing Abuse in the Bundaberg Maryborough region of Queensland, and want the privvy council to execute you in the next month for continuing to abuse their personal and financial rights

Am I insane? at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 17:47:07 UTC No. 16260078

>>16259477
>Talk about "Clathrate Gun Hypothesis" on /sci/
>Idea is that methane hydrates in permafrost/ocean sediments get destabilized by warming temps
>Methane gets released, super potent greenhouse gas
>Runaway warming, catastrophic climate change, humanity screwed

Response:
>Look up Titan's atmosphere on Wikipedia
>Methane on Titan acts as an "anti-greenhouse gas"
>Absorbs solar energy in the stratosphere, cools the surface
>On Earth, methane is a greenhouse gas, traps heat, warms the planet
>Isn't it crazy? Same gas, totally different effects depending on the planet
>Titan is uninhabitable, with -179°C surface temp and thick atmosphere
>Comparison adds nothing to the conversation

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 20:47:31 UTC No. 16260245

>>16260078
If you start a bot thread, don't be surprised when you attract lots of bots. If you want to discuss, put less buzzwords in the OP, maybe disguise the topic with an actual research paper.

Am I insane? at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 21:17:27 UTC No. 16260260

>>16260245
Sound logic, yet to get responses, one often needs to provoke/sensationalize topics that resonate with the average /sci/ user. (spread fear)

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 00:51:04 UTC No. 16260459

>>16259452
we care just as much
happy?

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 02:37:20 UTC No. 16260567

>>16258943
we can't rule it out, there are some disturbing findings in siberia. HOWEVER, we can rule out the completely apocalyptic scenario of Earth getting turned into Venus 2.0.
>ocean sediments
yeah we probably good on that too. No evidence so far of ocean heat warming up the deep sea. We've found some interesting methane bubbles in the cascadia region, but we can't link those to climate change.

Am I insane? at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 05:57:31 UTC No. 16260749

>>16260567
Okay, the lakes of frozen methane in Siberia detail has me uneasy. The ocean sediments staying stable because of thermal inertia makes sense (oceans are massive and dissipate heat slowly).

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 06:23:15 UTC No. 16260776

>>16259128
>why is getting rid of it by burning it bad?
in the short term it is not; it's actually preferable to burn the escaping methane since it's 25x more potent as as greenhouse gas that CO2.
The next problem is long-term,: CO2 will last for a stupid-long amount of time in the atmosphere.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 06:41:21 UTC No. 16260786

>>16259452
>bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline
AGAIN!

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 20:09:45 UTC No. 16261857

>>16258943
Sounds like we need to start a massive offshoot of the O&G industry which specializes in methane hydrate mining! Burn those hydrates before they release that deadly methane gas!