TPA
10 kW
Thank goodness we killed all those Buffalo!!!!liveforphysics said:
Is Global warming real?
- Thread starter Drunkskunk
- Start date
dak664
1 kW
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 317
I don't know about cows in India, but those in the USA contribute less than 1/10th (140Tg CO2-eq) to greenhouse gases compared to USA transportation fuels (2000Tg), according to
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
julesa
10 kW
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 950
liveforphysics said:
You're a smart guy. Why do you keep repeating this? Even if it's true, it's meaningless.Imagine you have a balanced scale. For centuries, large weights have continually been placed on both sides, and removed from both sides. Over all this time, the weights on both sides have been matched very closely on average.
Then humans come along, and start sprinkling a couple tiny feathers on one side of the scale only. After a hundred years, the feathers are piling up pretty high. So what if the feathers don't weigh as much as the large weights? They're still perfectly capable of shifting the average balance point.
Besides, Like I said recently in another GW thread... all the carbon emitted by a cow was recently removed from the atmosphere by whatever plants the cow was eating. Net bovine atmospheric carbon impact = zero.
Last, warming is not the only effect of increased atmospheric carbon.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737
julesa said:
This is true. Plants absorb carbon from CO2 residing in the air, expelling O2 as a waste product. However, CO2 is emitted as a waste product by most carbon lifeforms who breath in O2, so it seems there was a historical balance. I kind of wonder how much the explosion of the human population, relative to all other species including plants, has unbalanced the historical cycle? The explosion in the human population has been made possible by amplifying food yields with modern technology and by advancing medical technology.
Here's a source that claims human breath emits about 8% of world-wide carbon emissions.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/1022
The reason why I question the relationship between the human population and CO2 levels is how eerily similar the CO2 and human population curves are. Even back in 1900 when practically very little cars existed, this relationship still existed.
Carbon Dioxide history (Top graphic, carbon; Right side, 1500s to Now)
http://nordpil.com/static/images/carbon_dioxide_and_temperature_historic_trends_full.png
You'll notice that the carbon started growing exponentially shortly after the 1800s.
You'll notice that the human population started growing significantly around the 1700-1800's which is an odd amount of timing.
So, in essence, I think the main cause behind the increase in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries is due to disproportionate human population growth due to advancing food and medical technologies. The industrial revolution and other carbon-based devices (Like cars) afterwards had a way of amplifying the carbon contribution of each person (It might have multiplied it upto 12 times, as the 8% human breath statistic might imply, but I think it's probably close to 4-8x. Whatever the case, it's clear the carbon contribution per person hasn't grown in a similarly exponential way as much as human population itself has.), but the root of the exponential growth of CO2 emission is human population.
liveforphysics
100 TW
julesa said:
Perhaps a whisker of education and/or thought before speaking on a topic?
Methane = CH4
Carbon Dioxide = CO2
1 CH4 = 25 CO2
The plants draw CO2 and bio-sink that carbon. The cows consume the bio-sinked carbon, and if the cows only created CO2, then it wouldn't be an issue at all. However, they create CO2 (not a problem), and a much lighter than air gas (Methane), and each molicule released is 25 times as potent of a greenhouse gas as the CO2 that was taken up.
With respect to CO2, rain forests are fairly neutral as well. With respect to Methane, they are a massive impact.
CO2 is heavier than air, and it can move in bio-cycles. Methane is very much lighter than air, and once it's created, it's forever.
If one is only going to swallow the propaganda pills issued out nightly by the media, then things appear however they make the pill.
liveforphysics said:
All good points. But, to highlight your claim,
which would be the crux of the issue (as it would accumulate, but IF it does dissipate and the cow population is kept constant, then the atmospheric methane levels should remain relatively constant), the EPA at http://www.epa.gov/methane/ counters:
The site above said:
TPA
10 kW
perhaps we could install pilot lights on cattle. Oxidize the methane immediately.
I had no idea life was so harmful to the planet.
I had no idea life was so harmful to the planet.
317537
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 939
I think its both natural and us to blame. Global warming is a natural phenomenon which is cause and effect due to us. Recently they have found coral reefs forming as far south as Tasmania.
Whether it is our fault or not things are changing fast, and exactly what can stop it? The aftermath of global warming.
There isn’t much we can do to stop it now because it has been triggered already.
As the climate changes human lives are in jeopardy, disaster, famine, disease, and our future is doomed.
Sorry to be all negative but the implication of global warming has intrinsic undeniable facts.
Whether it is our fault or not things are changing fast, and exactly what can stop it? The aftermath of global warming.
There isn’t much we can do to stop it now because it has been triggered already.
As the climate changes human lives are in jeopardy, disaster, famine, disease, and our future is doomed.
Sorry to be all negative but the implication of global warming has intrinsic undeniable facts.
EMF
100 kW
Don't worry, once the mainstream, corporate owned media finishes misinforming the public and over- hyping the Swine F..ooops I mean H1N1 "pandemic" ( No flu is serious enough to possibly disrupt sales of pork or upset those advertisers) and once the fear campaign has moved all of the vaccines for their pharmaceutical customers, they will return to hyping the global warming/climate change issue for their political friends. Then the taxation process can get underway and "solve" the problem of this doomsday scenario for us.
Cue the polar bears! But, above all: Tune in and Keep the Faith....
Cue the polar bears! But, above all: Tune in and Keep the Faith....
317537 said:
It's not a matter of "stopping it" absolutely and completely effectively, it's more about minimizing future damage.
There isn't much one can do to stop the person attacking you when the attack has been triggered already. For sure, let's not try to stop them from killing you.
liveforphysics
100 TW
swbluto said:
The people helping the most are the folks clear cutting rainforest, and digging drainage draining wetlands are doing the greatest global warming relief. The irony is folks like Al Gore with his increadible personal energy consumption and mega consumer practices are the folks shaking their fist at the people actually helping.
liveforphysics
100 TW
EMF said:
Amazing how enviromental "problems" seem to follow a 4 year schedule interval isn't it?
I wana see the political human finger pointing towards the people responsible for turning the worlds largest rainforest into the Sahara desert, draining the largest inland sea ( south western US ), making Syberia go from jungle and plains to cold desert, etc etc. Temps go up and down. Some areas die, other areas blossom.
0.6deg in 100 years. I'm sure it will be hell on some places, and the greatest relief to others. People invested in certain places with low ocean front property will likely be thinking its the end of the world. People in Syberia will likely be thankful for an extra day or two of growing season.
I use CO2 (carbonic acid) that is a by product of my calcium reactor in my reef aquarium to trigger blooms of macro algae to bio-sink excess N and P waste. Ph drops about 0.3 points, the bloom triggers, BAM! All disolved CO2, NO3's, and PO4's are bio-locked in macro algae, and levels all return to normal. I don't see why this same effect couldn't happen in the oceans if something got too far out of balance.
The earth is dynamic. Things have been making crazy radical changes long before humans were burning things.
Link
1 MW
julesa said:
Don't be lazy.
liveforphysics
100 TW
I post from my cell phone during the day. Its tough to put together links from multiple pages from my phone. This evening when I'm at a computer I will post up some links for you guys.
boostjuice
10 kW
There is a voting choice missing from this poll.......
What about people like me who -
- Believe global climate change to be a naturally occuring dynamic phenomenon which would continually change even if humans did not inhabit the planet BUT also believe that human influence has a significant impact in addition to natural climate change.
Maybe not in so many words, but where is this option? This poll is incomplete without it.
I DONT believe humans are entirely to blame for the future climate, but i DONT believe humans are devoid of significant influence upon it so how can people with this opinion vote?
in response to previous comments -
-Yes politicians often use contentious issues to promote their own interests. That doesn't mean the subject is defunct just because many politicians are self serving smarmy bastards that twist or selectively pick science to fit their own agenda.
-If you study geology even a little and you don't subscibe to creationist timelines then you start to realise the earths history shows some EXTREME climate change - both hot and cold - within fixed locations around the world. Apart from several mass extinction events such as meteor impacts and volcanism over the past few billion years, biodiversity has remained at healthy levels even through some extreme variations. But It's only because this change has been slow that adaption through evolution has been allowed to occur. The issue with current climate change is not so much the degree of change, but the timescale. It's happening WAY FASTER than science predicts would occur if human influences were excluded. We are talking decades/centuries rather than millenia which evolution requires to adapt and maintain healthy biodiversity.
Geologists/Biologists are already reporting that we are currently at the beginning of another mass extinction event. Biodiversity is being lost at a high and accelerating rate. Naturally many people find this hard to believe because they don't come into known contact with the majority of these species, even if they have an important role in the food chain/biosphere.
-A Global AVERAGE temperature increase of 0.6>2degrees doesn't mean everywhere in the world increases by the same amount. If it was this simple then most species including humans would easily be able to cope and things wouln't be too bad. However in some areas, average anual temperatures will get MUCH hotter (up to 5>10degrees centigrade) and in others they will get MUCH colder. Some will change a little, some won't change at all. The global average temperature increase doesn't tell the full story
What about people like me who -
- Believe global climate change to be a naturally occuring dynamic phenomenon which would continually change even if humans did not inhabit the planet BUT also believe that human influence has a significant impact in addition to natural climate change.
Maybe not in so many words, but where is this option? This poll is incomplete without it.
I DONT believe humans are entirely to blame for the future climate, but i DONT believe humans are devoid of significant influence upon it so how can people with this opinion vote?
in response to previous comments -
-Yes politicians often use contentious issues to promote their own interests. That doesn't mean the subject is defunct just because many politicians are self serving smarmy bastards that twist or selectively pick science to fit their own agenda.
-If you study geology even a little and you don't subscibe to creationist timelines then you start to realise the earths history shows some EXTREME climate change - both hot and cold - within fixed locations around the world. Apart from several mass extinction events such as meteor impacts and volcanism over the past few billion years, biodiversity has remained at healthy levels even through some extreme variations. But It's only because this change has been slow that adaption through evolution has been allowed to occur. The issue with current climate change is not so much the degree of change, but the timescale. It's happening WAY FASTER than science predicts would occur if human influences were excluded. We are talking decades/centuries rather than millenia which evolution requires to adapt and maintain healthy biodiversity.
Geologists/Biologists are already reporting that we are currently at the beginning of another mass extinction event. Biodiversity is being lost at a high and accelerating rate. Naturally many people find this hard to believe because they don't come into known contact with the majority of these species, even if they have an important role in the food chain/biosphere.
-A Global AVERAGE temperature increase of 0.6>2degrees doesn't mean everywhere in the world increases by the same amount. If it was this simple then most species including humans would easily be able to cope and things wouln't be too bad. However in some areas, average anual temperatures will get MUCH hotter (up to 5>10degrees centigrade) and in others they will get MUCH colder. Some will change a little, some won't change at all. The global average temperature increase doesn't tell the full story
liveforphysics
100 TW
They have long been thought of as the antidote to harmful greenhouse gases, sufferers of, rather than contributors to, the effects of global warming. But in a startling discovery, scientists have realised that plants are part of the problem.
According to a study published today, living plants may emit almost a third of the methane entering the Earth's atmosphere.
The result has come as a shock to climate scientists. "This is a genuinely remarkable result," said Richard Betts of the climate change monitoring organisation the Hadley Centre. "It adds an important new piece of understanding of how plants interact with the climate."
Methane is second only to carbon dioxide in contributing to the greenhouse effect. "For a given mass of methane, it is a stronger greenhouse gas, but the reason it is of less concern is that there's less of it in the atmosphere," said Dr Betts.
But the concentration of methane in the atmosphere has almost tripled in the last 150 years, mainly through human-influenced so-called biogenic sources such as the rise in rice cultivation or numbers of flatulent ruminating animals. According to previous estimates, these sources make up two-thirds of the 600m tonnes worldwide annual methane production.
Frank Keppler, of the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, who led the team behind the new research, estimated that living plants release between 60m and 240m tonnes of methane per year, based on experiments he carried out, with the largest part coming from tropical areas.
David Lowe, of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, said the new work, published in Nature, is important for two reasons. "First, because the methane emissions they document occur under normal physiological conditions, in the presence of oxygen, rather than through bacterial action in anoxic environments," he wrote in an accompanying article. "Second, because the estimated emissions are large, constituting 10-30% of the annual total of methane entering Earth's atmosphere."
Yadvinder Malhi, a specialist in the relationship between vegetation and climate at Oxford University, said the plant source of methane had probably been missed in the past because scientists have a poor understanding of the way methane circulates in the atmosphere. "There are a variety of sources and sinks of methane and there are huge error bars on those terms," he said. "What's been uncertain is where the methane is coming from and where it's going. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane is much more dynamic; it lasts about 10 years in the atmosphere."
Biogenic methane has traditionally been assumed to come from organic materials as they decompose in oxygen-free environments. But Dr Keppler found plants emit the gas even in normal, oxygen-rich surroundings: between 10 and 1,000 times more methane than dead plant material. When the plants were exposed to the sun, the rate of methane production increased. "Until now all the textbooks have said that biogenic methane can only be produced in the absence of oxygen," Dr Keppler said. "For that simple reason, nobody looked closely at this."
The discovery sheds further light on the complex relationship between greenhouse gases and the environment. "If you're after predictions of global average temperature, it won't make a huge amount of difference," said Dr Betts. "But it shows how complicated it is to exactly quantify reforesting or deforesting in comparison with current fossil fuel emissions."
It will also intensify debates on whether targets in climate change treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol should be based entirely on carbon emissions, which are easily measured, or also take sinks into account, which remove carbon from the atmosphere but are more difficult to measure.
For climate scientists, the new work clears up a few unexplained features in the environment.
"The rate of methane increase in the atmosphere has slowed down in the last 10 years and there was no really convincing explanation of why that's been going on," said Dr Mahli. "This paper argues that tropical deforestation may be a factor there."
In addition, the new research could help to explain the source of plumes of methane observed by satellites over tropical forests. "The sheer biomass of the forest may be a factor there," said Dr Mahli.
The fact that plants produce methane does not mean that planting forests is a bad idea, however. "Putting a tree where there was no tree before locks up a lot of carbon and this [new research] perhaps reduces the overall benefit of that by a fraction," said Dr Mahli.
Some mysteries remain: how and why plants produce methane is unclear. Dr Keppler's team said the search for an answer is likely open up a new area of research into plant biochemistry.
Other surprise results
Tree planting
Researchers in North Carolina found that planting trees to soak up carbon dioxide can suck water and nutrients from the ground, dry up streams and change the soil's mineral balance
Aerosols
A recent study in Nature found cutting air pollution could trigger a surge in global warming. Aerosols cool the Earth by reflecting radiation back into space. Scrapping them would have adverse consequences
According to a study published today, living plants may emit almost a third of the methane entering the Earth's atmosphere.
The result has come as a shock to climate scientists. "This is a genuinely remarkable result," said Richard Betts of the climate change monitoring organisation the Hadley Centre. "It adds an important new piece of understanding of how plants interact with the climate."
Methane is second only to carbon dioxide in contributing to the greenhouse effect. "For a given mass of methane, it is a stronger greenhouse gas, but the reason it is of less concern is that there's less of it in the atmosphere," said Dr Betts.
But the concentration of methane in the atmosphere has almost tripled in the last 150 years, mainly through human-influenced so-called biogenic sources such as the rise in rice cultivation or numbers of flatulent ruminating animals. According to previous estimates, these sources make up two-thirds of the 600m tonnes worldwide annual methane production.
Frank Keppler, of the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, who led the team behind the new research, estimated that living plants release between 60m and 240m tonnes of methane per year, based on experiments he carried out, with the largest part coming from tropical areas.
David Lowe, of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, said the new work, published in Nature, is important for two reasons. "First, because the methane emissions they document occur under normal physiological conditions, in the presence of oxygen, rather than through bacterial action in anoxic environments," he wrote in an accompanying article. "Second, because the estimated emissions are large, constituting 10-30% of the annual total of methane entering Earth's atmosphere."
Yadvinder Malhi, a specialist in the relationship between vegetation and climate at Oxford University, said the plant source of methane had probably been missed in the past because scientists have a poor understanding of the way methane circulates in the atmosphere. "There are a variety of sources and sinks of methane and there are huge error bars on those terms," he said. "What's been uncertain is where the methane is coming from and where it's going. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane is much more dynamic; it lasts about 10 years in the atmosphere."
Biogenic methane has traditionally been assumed to come from organic materials as they decompose in oxygen-free environments. But Dr Keppler found plants emit the gas even in normal, oxygen-rich surroundings: between 10 and 1,000 times more methane than dead plant material. When the plants were exposed to the sun, the rate of methane production increased. "Until now all the textbooks have said that biogenic methane can only be produced in the absence of oxygen," Dr Keppler said. "For that simple reason, nobody looked closely at this."
The discovery sheds further light on the complex relationship between greenhouse gases and the environment. "If you're after predictions of global average temperature, it won't make a huge amount of difference," said Dr Betts. "But it shows how complicated it is to exactly quantify reforesting or deforesting in comparison with current fossil fuel emissions."
It will also intensify debates on whether targets in climate change treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol should be based entirely on carbon emissions, which are easily measured, or also take sinks into account, which remove carbon from the atmosphere but are more difficult to measure.
For climate scientists, the new work clears up a few unexplained features in the environment.
"The rate of methane increase in the atmosphere has slowed down in the last 10 years and there was no really convincing explanation of why that's been going on," said Dr Mahli. "This paper argues that tropical deforestation may be a factor there."
In addition, the new research could help to explain the source of plumes of methane observed by satellites over tropical forests. "The sheer biomass of the forest may be a factor there," said Dr Mahli.
The fact that plants produce methane does not mean that planting forests is a bad idea, however. "Putting a tree where there was no tree before locks up a lot of carbon and this [new research] perhaps reduces the overall benefit of that by a fraction," said Dr Mahli.
Some mysteries remain: how and why plants produce methane is unclear. Dr Keppler's team said the search for an answer is likely open up a new area of research into plant biochemistry.
Other surprise results
Tree planting
Researchers in North Carolina found that planting trees to soak up carbon dioxide can suck water and nutrients from the ground, dry up streams and change the soil's mineral balance
Aerosols
A recent study in Nature found cutting air pollution could trigger a surge in global warming. Aerosols cool the Earth by reflecting radiation back into space. Scrapping them would have adverse consequences
317537
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 939
Maybe that fresh forest air I breath at night cap national park isnt as good as the city smog that nearly made me faint every day.
Maybe forests are rotting because they are dying from the heat increase because of carbon emissions. Global warming is a symptom to a bigger thing it is not the thing. Trees are giving up the ghost. Maybe increased methane is a result from thermal induction of a gas that would normaly behave less volatile in a cooler, climate when you warm things containing methane they give out more methane than whe cooler. this is why I say its to late its triggered. Maybe I am just stupid and the the absesnce of a PHD after my name cant see pay off science reference when I read it.
Who cares about Al Gore anyway he only came into the conservation scene recently.
Maybe forests are rotting because they are dying from the heat increase because of carbon emissions. Global warming is a symptom to a bigger thing it is not the thing. Trees are giving up the ghost. Maybe increased methane is a result from thermal induction of a gas that would normaly behave less volatile in a cooler, climate when you warm things containing methane they give out more methane than whe cooler. this is why I say its to late its triggered. Maybe I am just stupid and the the absesnce of a PHD after my name cant see pay off science reference when I read it.
Who cares about Al Gore anyway he only came into the conservation scene recently.
liveforphysics
100 TW
http://www.physorg.com/news9792.html
liveforphysics
100 TW
317537 said:
Speaking of Al Gore, lets not forget to provide some sources for that statement
"Gore's home uses more than 20 times the national average
Last night, Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient
Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the
Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a
gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville,
consumes more electricity every month than the average American
household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric
Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to
conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh)
per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore
devoured nearly 221,000 kWh-more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh-guzzling more than
twice the electricity in one month than an average American family
uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's
average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption
has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to
18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill.
Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080
per month last year.
"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore
has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it
comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research
President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and
natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006."
Similar threads
