My point is simply that dissolved gaseous species, even though present at concentration levels of parts per million, can still be highly biologically significant.
And I'll say for the fifty-fifth time, I NEVER SAID METHANE WAS A PROBLEM. I don't see why you keep bringing that up.
"As an aside, you’ll note I prefer to employ a solubility number expressed in moles (micro moles actually) per litre, because comparing solubility by mass (mg) can be misleading due to the difference in molecular weight of 02 versus CH4.
One unit vs another. As a chemist, I certainly understand the "micro-moles/liter", but for the benefit of non-chemist lurkers/readers, I used the still valid but more easily understood figure of "mg/Liter", which is, even in the scientific literature, a more widely used and less confusing (to nonchemists) unit.
As to the rest of your suppositions, I'll wait 'til I have a chance to see the actual published peer-reviewed article over a newspaper summation. I'm quite well aware that, on subjects of science, reporters virtually always get one or more substantial points totally wrong.
On the overall subject of the Gulf oil spill, if you look back over my postings on the subject, you will see that I was one of the early advocates for NOT thinking "there's a spill in the Gulf, AND WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE".
Thus far, all the evidence points to my early comments as having been correct.
In the end, the more we wrote, the more we listened to each other.
I had indeed inferred incorrectly that you thought methane was a problem. You never stated that.
Also, I never meant to imply that you were an oil-spill-alarmist.
Thanks for helping me turn a rant into cogent thoughts ;-)
Long live PV=nrT