Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking: Bubbling ... the news isn't good (294 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That would actually be even worse. The added (33+ / 0-)

    Methane and CO2 (and CO) would simply add to the envelope of these gases that is forming around our atmosphere, and mixing with it.  This envelope (and the thicker air) would hold more solar heat, and less is reflected by melted ice as well.  That process all by itself is already bad.  The extra gases are far worse - but if you lit them all on fire, you would do ten times the damage - a flame creates enormous heat, and feeds on itself.

    Think about being in a concert hall seeing a great rock band that plays at least one good love song - 10 or 15 years ago when they still used Lighters in the dark instead of cell phones to show their concert-goer love.  Those 5,000 lighters all lit up at once, heat up the concert hall really quickly - you can feel it.  Same deal with lighting the methane bubbles on fire, but on a much larger scale, and no doors to open for more fresh air.

    We do extract different gases by concentrating "air" and separating them, but it takes enormous amounts of energy.

    Maybe a solar powered "air separator"?  Solar powered desalinization plants for fresh water?  Who knows what the future holds.  We'll all be Canadians if it gets bit warmer.  And, occasionally, hurricanes DO happen on the West Coast.

    #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

    by Evolutionary on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 08:35:50 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  that's an excellent answer, (7+ / 0-)

      description, clarification. Thank you. It makes it very clear to me, a non-science type.

      The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it is difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln

      by Mnemosyne on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 09:38:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  not so (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ashaman, A Siegel, bnasley, pengiep, kyril

      If the gas was concentrated enough to use (and unfortunately it sounds like it isn't) burning it would replace the methane with CO2. CO2 has a much lower greenhouse effect. That improvement would swamp the one-time heating effects of burning. Assuming that  the burning were used to provide power, it would displace some other polluting power source, so the process would be a net gain. Perhaps there will be some other case where this works.

      Michael Weissman UID 197542

      by docmidwest on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 06:49:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We need as many ideas to use as possible. The (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bnasley, cotterperson, ozsea1

        more creative with our ideas we can be, the more choices we will have, and the more tools we will be able to use.

        This is how science works!  Not being a climate scientist myself, I don't know if you are correct, or if I am.  I can only make an educated guess.  Both of us are on the right track though.

        #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

        by Evolutionary on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 07:25:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site