Reply With Quote
Yes, but doesn't that occur with a sea level decrease rather than rise?
sea-floor methane hydrates surfacing will be the coup de grace.
Permafrost methane will happen much sooner, if not already in progress
Yes, but doesn't that occur with a sea level decrease rather than rise?
The methane is from decaying plants from a previously warmer climate
sorry, DarrinS, was there a point you were trying to make?seriously, i must have missed it
What is wrong about their test is the density difference between CH4 and air. Air is about twice as heavy as CH4. The buoyancy loss would be greater with Ch4.
I don’t understand why people would deny this? It’s scary ....so maybe that’s why....the extreme right secretly is terrified so they just ignore it....maybe?
The oligarchy makes USA policy for oligarchy's wealth, with carbonizing, environmental degradation, unabated, even accelerated, while china, etc are de-carbonizing rapidly
American citizens are powerless, disenfranchised
I don't read anymore dat kind of stuff... too ing depressing
BP swims away, the Gulf will be ed for decades
http://247wallst.com/energy-business...F7+Wall+St.%29
BigCarbon just got Repugs to open up ANWR and all US waters to unlimited destruction
GMO militants continue to militate for unmitigated increase in GMO mono-crops on chemically sterilized soil, whose runoff of GMO chemicals turns rivers and their oceanic outflows into dead zones.
When the permafrost melts, you get more bacterial metabolic activity. some microbes, when "eating" on the now avaiable "food" produce methane as a bi product.
Oops, basically answered later in thread.
Last edited by pgardn; 01-16-2018 at 10:56 AM.
Stop.
This is absolutely stupid.
The vast majority of people who know the science of farming are firmly aware that tilling the soil is by far more harmful to the soil than your silly monocropping. You look at snowflakes as the problem when the iceberg sits right in front of you. If you are dishonest about this stuff, or over emphasize a minor activity instead of the real problem, then you cry wolf and eventually they throw your stinking bath water out with the baby in it. You have yet to learn about this with people who don't care about environmental issues. You misrepresent, they use it against you on really important matters.
The scale of a tanker v. their boat is a bigger problem I would think. The guy says a tanker would snap? You can't automatically upscale and down scale and flippantly say this. And they had an open hulled vessel where water coming over the side fills the boat. Tankers don't have this same problem.
I would think you would compress the methane bubble to approximately the same size as an air bubble. But I don't know for sure.
You would pressurize the methane essentially because of the surrounding water pressure remaining. So your density argument might not make any sense. Have you studied the difference between a methane bubble and an air (~80% N2 ~20% O2) bubble at varying depths surrounded by water? I have not. Then, not just one air/methane bubble but many? This could be quite complex.
I would think the above is NOT readily apparent.
And I am sure a real atmospheric/ocean type scientist could put their kinda silly play games and our conjectures in a much cleaner light.
This is an example of why I don't buy your climate arguments. If your sources and your arguments don't make any sense to a science guy that is not even a climatologist... That's not good.
Everyone is an expert on climate except the experts in your world.
because all scientists across the globe are in on the liberal plot to create fear in order to enact legislation/taxes/NWO
Not my problem if simple physics and simple chemistry are beyond you.
Yeah.
Then explain why the density of a methane bubble would be less if the surrounding water pressure remains and pushes in on the bubble the same. It would just squish the methane gas more to possibly be the same size as the air bubble.
Mr. Simple Physics?
You turn.
Explain.
And I'm the science person in this conversation, you disqualified yourself a long time ago.
You think climate is easy... Ok...
It simply has to do with the density of methane vs. the density of air, and near the surface, there is little compression involved.
The density of air is 1.225 kg/m³
The density of methane is 0.656 kg/m³
Compression is involved.
These boats would be at depth where there clearly would be compressed bubbles. If this were not true, the ship would sink incredibly rapidly. Almost a free fall through air or methane.
So those are the density of those substances in a bubble surrounded by water and under pressure?
Last edited by pgardn; 01-16-2018 at 03:28 PM.
Until they go to point of compressing into a liquid, air and CH4 still maintain the ratio of close to 2:1. At STP (Standard temperture and pressure) they have the density I gave. At two atmospheres of pressure which would be about a 32 ft. depth, their densities each, would be double.
That is the density of the gas itself. The density of sea water is 1029 kg/m3. It really doesn't matter much between the gasses. Still, if on the threshold, the ship may sink with the equal volume of CH4 when it doesn't with air.
If they managed to get 20% of volume under the boat with air, and if you want two ATM, instead of one ATM (32 ft), then the density of the water drops from 1029 kg/m3 to 823.7 kg/m3. This is 80% of the density of the sea water, but unlikely enough to affect a ship. Probably need at least a 30% reduction, but it depends on the ship design. Personal boats that are relatively agile, are a poor choice for such an experiment. The larger ships that are massive, and and almost no agility, are designed with less buoyancy when at their gross weight. That's another thing. Did they use any ballast in the boat to simulate its maximum load?
And of course you would dumb the discussion down as if pressure doesn't change those values.
At two atmosphere's of pressure surrounded by what? A fixed wall? Nope. A possible sphere of water? Bubbles take on very different shapes and pressures as they move through the water column. They are moving, changing volume and shape. Anyone who has snorkled or SCUBA knows you got a moving mushroom of a structure that constantly changes shape. This is not as easy as putting a known amount of gas into a known volume with rigid walls and saying aha, here it is. If you try the same home experiment to measure the density of air using a ballon you will get an answer that is off if you try and measure the volume of the balloon by displacing it in water. The reason they did the experiment I assume is because the numbers are not an easy thing.
Overall it's rather a bizzare idea.
And the fact that the bubbles moving up created an upwelling of water threw in another variable not anticipated. Imagine this happening deep with all the ocean currents distorting the bubble mass. You might get a big event of nothing. I see the point of trying it as they did learn few things and with so many variables this can be valuable. I think they were probably very proud of their bubble maker and skimped on the boat design. If the boat is gonna sink at some point the water has to get through a hull or other opening. Their boat had a gigantic opening. A tanker type mock up might even be dropped into a bubbling froth and come bobbing back up like a diver.
But it does change those volume. Doubling the density makes the volume half.
Are you too ing stupid to see that?
I get all that. Their example using a private boat is no good. Too much of a reduction of the combined water and air mass is needed to sink it.
I don't know the specks, and not going to look them up. But if a boat weights 2,000 lbs, and can carry another 1,500 pounds, it is designed to displace far more than 3,500 pound to prevent sinking. Probably around 10,000 pounds or more, as a safety factor. A larger ship may have a full weight of say 1,000,000 ponds, and since it has far less instantaneous motion in any direction, might only have a maximum displacement of 1,100,000 pound before it sinks. It doesn't need the same percentage of safety to prevent it from sinking.
Now I know the numbers are not real world, but as an example, from an engineering perspective, the safety margin percentage can be reduced as the mass of the ship increases.
I suspect they did not use enough ballast to weigh their test boat down to it's maximum designed load anyway.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 01-17-2018 at 01:05 PM.
I see that you are dumbing this different phenomenon down too.
This reminds me of you using that solubility chart for a year to describe the behavior of the ocean.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions