[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;18105869]Are you just retarded or a troll?[/QUOTE]
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
methane, when reacting with sunlight, turns into a bit of water and a big amount of carbon dioxide
ergo, methane is basically a greenhouse gas
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18105886]Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
methane, when reacting with sunlight, turns into a bit of water and a big amount of carbon dioxide
ergo, methane is basically a greenhouse gas[/QUOTE]
True story, bro.
CH4.
[QUOTE=Psycho0124;18105877]It's got an approximate half-life of 7 years out in the atmosphere. Some scientists say it's too heavy to make it up into the upper atmosphere as methane so it can't do anything to accelerate global warming (until it decays).[/QUOTE]
7 years isn't very long at all
and having a half life of 7 years means that it continually breaks down, releasing water and carbon dioxide (having been oxidized). It releases half of it's mass [b]over the course[/b] of 7 years, not at the end of it
[editline]08:34PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;18105900]True story, bro.
CH4.[/QUOTE]
it becomes oxidized in the atmosphere
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18105886]Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
methane, when reacting with sunlight, turns into a bit of water and a big amount of carbon dioxide
ergo, methane is basically a greenhouse gas[/QUOTE]
That has nothing to do with my question. You're not exactly helpful if you know jack shit of what you're talking about. Also, the reaction between oxygen and methane leaves double as much water as it leaves carbondioxide:
[IMG]http://ssis-chem.wikispaces.com/file/view/511natgascombust.jpg/30072708[/IMG]
The problem I presented was that methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas itself than carbondioxide, which is why it's considered environmentally friendly to eat less cow meat and more vegetables or, for example, chicken meat. My question was why it's considered a problem when methane is broken down in the atmosphere, making it just as "harmless" as carbondioxide (and even completely harmless, considering it's environmentally neutral carbondioxide). Maybe I'm wrong about something, I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking.
[editline]04:48AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18105928]it becomes oxidized in the atmosphere[/QUOTE]
Do you even know what "oxidized" means?
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;18106153]
The problem I presented was that methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas itself than carbondioxide, which is why it's considered environmentally friendly to eat less cow meat and more vegetables or, for example, chicken meat. My question was why it's considered a problem when methane is broken down in the atmosphere, making it just as "harmless" as carbondioxide (and even completely harmless, considering it's environmentally neutral carbondioxide). Maybe I'm wrong about something, I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking.[/QUOTE]
ok, here is the deal, I did not have all the info. Methane isn't a greenhouse gas because it eventually breaks down into carbon dioxide. It's a greenhouse gas all on it's own. And it still leaves carbon dioxide behind after it does.
It traps sunlight in the earth's atmosphere just like carbon dioxide does. However it is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is. So, while it does eventually break down, it still has a very big impact before it breaks down.
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;18106153]Do you even know what "oxidized" means?[/QUOTE]
I think canuhearme was saying that methane (CH4) could not break down into water (H20) and carbon dioxide (CO2) because it does not have contain any oxygen. I was saying to him that it doesn't need to have oxygen in it's structure, it oxidizes from the atmosphere.
I'll just point out that the Copenhagen meeting is happening in about a month.(Successor of the Kyoto protocol fyi)
Canada and the US seem to be stalling, saying we should wait and have this meeting later, which is just bullshit.
[QUOTE=Psycho0124;18105724]Yeap. They're not born with bacteria in their gut (how the fuck could they get in there? You expect the fetus to just 'create' them somehow?). [/QUOTE]
waaaa?
[QUOTE=Psycho0124;18105724]You're a 3rd grader. Your little opinions don't matter yet. Sorry.[/QUOTE]
huh
[QUOTE=Psycho0124;18105724]Wrong. Cows don't have enzymes that can break down cellulose.[/QUOTE]
cellulose?
[QUOTE=Psycho0124;18105724]Wrong again. Sorry dude, these bacteria are all over.[/QUOTE]
what
You stopped making any sense, first you say bacteria isn't born with the calf (fucking obvious, i've never made that statement), then you insult me, then you say cows cannot break down cellulose (again fucking obvious, but cellulose is completely unrelated), then you say that one strand of bacteria lives in some humans, which doesn't mean anything.
This is just terrible and it just convinces people that you don't really know what you are talking about. Sorry, you need to read a book.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;18106848]I'll just point out that the Copenhagen meeting is happening in about a month.[/QUOTE]
All that means to me is that my region is going to be devoid of police because politicians are more important than peasants, apparently.
The Peasants are Revolting!
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;18107205]All that means to me is that my region is going to be devoid of police because politicians are more important than peasants, apparently.[/QUOTE]
Pfff, don't be such a Moanarchist.
What a fascinating and insightful addition to this thread.
[QUOTE=thisispain;18107199]
cellulose?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=thisispain;18107199]but cellulose is completely unrelated[/QUOTE]
GTFO. If you don't know what cellulose is, you've got nothing of value to add to this debate.
Stupid...
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]Cellulose is the structural component of the primary cell wall of green plants, many forms of algae and the oomycetes. Some species of bacteria secrete it to form biofilms. Cellulose is the most common organic compound on Earth.[/QUOTE]
Digesting cellulose is the primary source of CO2 (and secondary CO2 through methane breakdown) emissions from cows asses.
Again, it doesn't mean shit because that CO2 was pulled outta the air in the first place when the plants were growing. It's a CLOSED LOOP driven by photosynthesis and sunlight. Doesn't matter how big it gets, it can't create any new CO2 in the system (unless cows start doing fucking fusion in their guts or we start feeding them coal).
Enviro-pricks like to lie with stupid graphs that show only part of the picture. Like that graph up there with the cow emissions. It ignores the CO2 intake from growing their food. Western cows eat more so they emit more. More plants must be grown to feed them so more CO2 is pulled from the air as well.
[QUOTE]then you say that one strand of bacteria lives in some humans, which doesn't mean anything.[/QUOTE]
It means the bacteria exist in nature, which makes what you said here:
[QUOTE](the bacteria) cannot live in nature[/QUOTE]
look pretty dumb. How the fuck can you expect to debate anything if you're too dense to realize your assertions have been disproven?
Cellulose breaks down into glucose though hydrolysis. You really believe that cows need sugar and that's it? The smell from cows and most of the "gaseous substance" comes from the fact that they get their amino-acids from substances high in nitrogen. They also completely rely on the fact that bacteria dies in their stomach, they then digest this bacteria which produces some very necessary nutrients.
Plus you said GTFO which completely invalidates everything you say.
tl;dr: Everyone is freaking out about something minor as fuck, UN has already proved that if the polar icecaps begin to melt, sea levels will only rise about two maybe three inches.
[QUOTE=thisispain;18114006]Cellulose breaks down into glucose though hydrolysis. You really believe that cows need sugar and that's it? The smell from cows and most of the "gaseous substance" comes from the fact that they get their amino-acids from substances high in nitrogen. They also completely rely on the fact that bacteria dies in their stomach, they then digest this bacteria which produces some very necessary nutrients.
[/QUOTE]
Only the carbon and its oxide are important in this discussion since nitrogen is NOT a greenhouse gas.
The processes and compounds involved in biological growth (what you're talking with your amino-acid synthesis) are meaningless when compared to the scope of fueling the organism through respiration processes (which make CO2 (and are actually pertinent to the discussion)).
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Photosynthesis.jpg/350px-Photosynthesis.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]Glucose is a ubiquitous fuel in biology. It is used as an energy source in most organisms, from bacteria to humans. Use of glucose may be by either aerobic respiration, anaerobic respiration, or fermentation. Carbohydrates are the human body's key source of energy, through aerobic respiration, providing approximately 3.75 kilocalories (16 kilojoules) of food energy per gram.[6] Breakdown of carbohydrates (e.g. starch) yields mono- and disaccharides, most of which is glucose. Through glycolysis and later in the reactions of the citric acid cycle (TCAC), GLUCOSE IS OXIDIZED to eventually form CO2 and water, yielding energy sources,[/QUOTE]
Think about a car. It takes maybe 3000 pounds of material to build one. Now, during it's operating life, it may use up to 37,200 pounds of fuel, dwarfing the measly 3000 lbs that went to build the thing.
It's the same with cattle (and other organisms). Most of what they eat goes to fuel (both for the cow and for the bacteria), not growth. It's the fueling process (mostly for the digestive bacteria) that generates greenhouse gasses.
Again.. It doesn't matter because everything still comes from the plant. The plant got it from the air. It's still a closed loop. Worrying about cow farts is still an utter WASTE OF TIME unless you can come up with some source of carbon that doesn't ultimately come from the air.
[IMG]http://www.themainmeal.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/F88ED793-17EB-441E-84DB-101211D84FEB/0/Cattleandthecarboncycle.jpg[/IMG]
Whee! I found a cute little picture you can use to figure it out!
Fuck global warming. It'll give us a tropical state in sweden. I have nothing against tropical heat. As a fact I'd kill for any heat above 28 degrees celsius right now.
[QUOTE=Eken;18116752]Fuck global warming. It'll give us a tropical state in sweden. I have nothing against tropical heat. As a fact I'd kill for any heat above 28 degrees celsius right now.[/QUOTE]
It will also murder your eco-system, good luck.
Since earth always make changes, I think that this is a minor problem in todays society.
[editline]10:14PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Psycho0124;18056126]Heh.. You must not live near big industry. I'm about 300 yards from the gulf of mexico and can see all those oil rigs. Also the smoke plumes of the big refineries to the north stretch miles off into the distant sky. I've seen active volcanoes putting out less soot and C02 than our refinery complex.
Still, it doesn't matter. The planet is a self-correcting system. Even if we raise the temp a few degrees or fiddle with the atmospheric gasses, it'll sort itself out pretty quickly. More C02 means faster plant and algae growth which will bring the levels back down pretty quick. Water levels might rise a few feet, some areas might get a little drier, some a little wetter, people will adapt just like they always have. All these hysterical fools and their doomsday predictions about climate change are no different than the apocalypse loons and their crackpot theories. Best to just ignore the dumb people.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this man!
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;18107205]All that means to me is that my region is going to be devoid of police because politicians are more important than peasants, apparently.[/QUOTE]
What an ironic statement. You're the one who wants to fuck everyone who isn't the upper class business owners over by a completely unregulated market.
At any rate, global warming is not a hoax just to make some random evil entity lots of cash. It's a real issue, and should be explored further.
The only problem I have with environmental awareness is the concept of carbon credits. The basic idea is that you pay to fund ecological work to counteract your negative impact, but the best that can do is neutralize what you do and not help fix anything.
[QUOTE=WecksyRex;18117771]What an ironic statement. You're the one who wants to fuck everyone who isn't the upper class business owners over by a completely unregulated market.[/QUOTE]
When did I ever say such a thing?
[quote=theanarchist;18117821]when did i ever say such a thing?[/quote]
no minimum wage
save economy
I'm glad to see that my passing comment has caused so much shit.
Also, I'm pretty sure that even if excess amounts of CO2 caused greater plant growth, which I'm relatively sure it doesn't(much in the same way that you can drown a plant in water), I'd like to know how much new plant growth would be required to counteract our massive fossil fuel industry.
[editline]08:53PM[/editline]
Also, psycho is a jackass.
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;18117821]When did I ever say such a thing?[/QUOTE]
Remember?
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;17761477]Generally I've seen a lot of people not even questioning state intervention, and a post by evilking1 in the 'Lisbon 2.0' thread about minimum wage inspired me to make this thread.
Hopefully I will obliterate the myth of minimum wage. Please ask questions (even if you're a keynesian)! Here we go...
Imagine an employer. He has x amount of money, he's going to hire labor, and he has to pay "minimum wage". Now he will have to hire less people than he otherwise would. As a consequence, his employees will be paid more, BUT unemployment will be higher and his firm will produce less.
[u]Less value will be produced[/u]. Let's think about that for a minute. Forget about money, inevitably there will be less actual value to 'improve standards of living' in society as a whole.
Now that he's producing less value, he's going to have less income than without minimum wage. Less income -> less money to pay wages -> less employees -> less value -> less income.
No, this does not mean it's going to create a black hole that swallows the entire economy, but simply that employers will find a lower equilibrium for their production, essentially [i]lowering[/i] the standard of living.
[b]Concluded consequences of minimum wage:[/b] Less value produced, higher prices and higher unemployment (relative to increase in wage).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;18134977]I'm glad to see that my passing comment has caused so much shit.
Also, I'm pretty sure that even if excess amounts of CO2 caused greater plant growth, which I'm relatively sure it doesn't(much in the same way that you can drown a plant in water), I'd like to know how much new plant growth would be required to counteract our massive fossil fuel industry.[/QUOTE]
Here's an article released by the University of Illinois back in Feburary.
[QUOTE]Understanding how the respiratory pathway responds when plants are grown at elevated CO2 is key to reducing this uncertainty, Leakey said.
His team used microarrays, a genomic tool that can detect changes in the activity of thousands of genes at a time, to learn which genes in the high CO2 plants were being switched on at higher or lower levels than those of the soybeans grown at current CO2 levels. Rather than assessing plants grown in chambers in a greenhouse, as most studies have done, Leakey’s team made use of the Soybean Free Air Concentration Enrichment (Soy FACE) facility at Illinois. This open-air research lab can expose a soybean field to a variety of atmospheric CO2 levels – without isolating the plants from other environmental influences, such as rainfall, sunlight and insects. Some of the plants were exposed to atmospheric CO2 levels of 550 parts per million (ppm), the level predicted for the year 2050 if current trends continue. These were compared to plants grown at ambient CO2 levels (380 ppm).
The results were striking. At least 90 different genes coding the majority of enzymes in the cascade of chemical reactions that govern respiration were switched on (expressed) at higher levels in the soybeans grown at high CO2 levels. This explained how the plants were able to use the increased supply of sugars from stimulated photosynthesis under high CO2 conditions to produce energy, Leakey said. The rate of respiration increased 37 percent at the elevated CO2 levels. The enhanced respiration is likely to support greater transport of sugars from leaves to other growing parts of the plant, including the seeds, Leakey said. “The expression of over 600 genes was altered by elevated CO2 in total, which will help us to understand how the response is regulated and also hopefully produce crops that will perform better in the future,” he said.[/QUOTE]
It seems to me like plants may already be prepared to throw it in high gear if more atmospheric carbon dioxide becomes available. Switching dormant genes on and growing much faster. Makes a lot of sense if you think about it; they encountered high CO2 levels many times as they evolved and would do well to take advantage of it.
I did a high school science fair project on exactly this thing. I was using green beans and St'Augustine grass (for monocot and dicot comparison). Had a control group in normal terrariums and a test group in terrariums that were given a measured amount of dry ice each day (frozen CO2 (set it in a corner and let it sublimate)). Both test groups grew like mad, more than doubling the size of the control group in just a couple weeks!
Oh, and don't get me wrong. I definitely agree that this fossil fuel shit is a problem. CO2 is going to cause changes which are going to be a problem for people in the long run. Also there's all the other crap that goes into the air to consider (they found crazy high levels of benzine in the soil in a neighborhood near the refineries out here this week). It's just not worth going all tree-hugging nuts over.
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;18134977]Also, psycho is a jackass.[/QUOTE]
Haha.. Sorry man.. Is there some other way to get your point across on FP?
[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;18117644]Since earth always make changes, I think that this is a minor problem in todays society.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't usually make drastic changes over a few years that destabilize entire ecosystems all over the planet
I don't care there is going to be another ice-age in 10,000 years.
Hey you guys should watch [url=http://www.home-2009.com/us/index.html]home[/url], since it's related to the subject
weather balloon
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Meme reply" - TH89))[/highlight]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
