The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 . . . 22 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1064991 - Posted: 9 Jan 2011, 17:46:19 UTC - in response to Message 1064986.  
Last modified: 9 Jan 2011, 17:46:38 UTC

Demonstratively false. Humans DO have an affect on weather. Example: The temperature in cities is frequently warmer than in the surrounding countryside, due to the heat retention characteristics of the pavement.

Weather, however, does not equate to climate. They are not the same thing.

Except in Las Vegas where the number of golf courses and water fountains has reduced the summer temperature.

not really its just increased the humidity just like here in Texas. We get more humidity overnight than during the day. Why because the slightly cooler air in the texas summer will hold the moisture without it being "burnt off" No real cooling occurs because the water in lakes is very warm and any sprinkling is usually done at times to reduce evaporation. the plain fact is when that during the summer months pavement retains its heat so well that the pavement is actually warmer than the air temperature in the mornings. This makes the heating problem worse in desert cities because the summer daytime heat doesnt get bled into the atmosphere because the Water vapor basically holds the heat in

Read the literature. Look up transpiration. Look up heat of vaporization. How many miles from Las Vegas to Death Valley? Look up the character of the soil in the Las Vegas Valley and compare it to concrete and asphalt. The world at large doesn't always work the same way as Texas.


Not even Texas works the same way as Texas. We have a large variety of areas here in Texas. Everything from old-growth deciduous hardwood forests to deserts. About the only major types we don't have in Texas are tundra (we are not in the arctic/antarctic), alpine (we don't have any really high mountains), and tropical (we are not in the tropics). When it comes to vegetation and climate, it is very dangerous to generalize when it comes to Texas. Remember, Texas is bigger than many entire nations.
ID: 1064991 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1064994 - Posted: 9 Jan 2011, 18:05:26 UTC - in response to Message 1064968.  

actually Iron seeding does work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

though controversial it seems that the primordial earth went through this phase. The atmosphere was primarily CO2 and very little life was around. the oceans were loaded with iron. the first Algaes used the iron and over millions and millions of years they brought the Earth to where O2 levels were Much Higher than even today. So its not overly far fetched to consider reseeding he oceans to get algae to do what it does best and very qiuckly, use CO2 and create O2.

The gulf die offs were not from Algae but Plankton. there is a major difference here. You'll not algae are simple plants. the use photosynthesis to respire.

Plankton on the other hand is a simple "animal" it uses Oxygen to breath and releases CO2. Farm runoff creates blooms of Plankton not algae. the plankton sufficate the other animals in the general area because it uses all the available O2. THus the animal die off. another fun part of the plankton blooms is that it kills itself and depending on the bloom can release additional toxins into the ocean killing anything that swims into the bloom


Study the literature. Source 2 on that wikipedia article, for instance.


http://marine.rutgers.edu/ebme/papers/Buesseler_et_al_Science_319_Jan_2008.pdf

It didn't work the way they thought it would. Oh, the algae grew nicely. It just didn't work the way they thought it would as far as sequestering the CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
Plankton includes a wide variety of organisms. Drifting algae are plankton.

http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envirobio/enviroweb/DeadZone.htm

Dead zone is caused by algae blooms. Read it.

Especially:

As the fresh, nutrient-enriched water from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers spread across the Gulf waters, favorable conditions are created for the production of massive phytoplankton blooms. A bloom is defined as an “increased abundance of a species above background numbers in a specific geographic region”. Incoming nutrients stimulate growth of phytoplankton at the surface, providing food for unicellular animals. Planktonic remains and fecal matter from these organisms fall to the ocean floor, where they are eaten by bacteria, which consume excessive amounts of oxygen, creating eutrophic conditions. Hypoxic waters appear normal on the surface, but on the bottom, they are covered with dead and distressed animal, and in extreme cases, layers of stinking, sulfur-oxidizing bacteria, which cause the sediment in these areas to turn black. These hypoxic conditions cause food chain alterations, loss of biodiversity, and high aquatic species mortality.


Quit talking out of your backside.

ID: 1064994 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1065016 - Posted: 9 Jan 2011, 19:08:50 UTC
Last modified: 9 Jan 2011, 19:09:15 UTC

Although the discussion has moved on a little, I saw this article and thought you'd all be interested.

Mini adventure: how far can an electric car go?
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1065016 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1065018 - Posted: 9 Jan 2011, 19:11:05 UTC - in response to Message 1064986.  

Demonstratively false. Humans DO have an affect on weather. Example: The temperature in cities is frequently warmer than in the surrounding countryside, due to the heat retention characteristics of the pavement.

Weather, however, does not equate to climate. They are not the same thing.

Except in Las Vegas where the number of golf courses and water fountains has reduced the summer temperature.

not really its just increased the humidity just like here in Texas. We get more humidity overnight than during the day. Why because the slightly cooler air in the texas summer will hold the moisture without it being "burnt off" No real cooling occurs because the water in lakes is very warm and any sprinkling is usually done at times to reduce evaporation. the plain fact is when that during the summer months pavement retains its heat so well that the pavement is actually warmer than the air temperature in the mornings. This makes the heating problem worse in desert cities because the summer daytime heat doesnt get bled into the atmosphere because the Water vapor basically holds the heat in

Read the literature. Look up transpiration. Look up heat of vaporization. How many miles from Las Vegas to Death Valley? Look up the character of the soil in the Las Vegas Valley and compare it to concrete and asphalt. The world at large doesn't always work the same way as Texas.

Somebody should have explained that to W before he was elected to any office


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1065018 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1065020 - Posted: 9 Jan 2011, 19:13:12 UTC - in response to Message 1064994.  

actually Iron seeding does work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

though controversial it seems that the primordial earth went through this phase. The atmosphere was primarily CO2 and very little life was around. the oceans were loaded with iron. the first Algaes used the iron and over millions and millions of years they brought the Earth to where O2 levels were Much Higher than even today. So its not overly far fetched to consider reseeding he oceans to get algae to do what it does best and very qiuckly, use CO2 and create O2.

The gulf die offs were not from Algae but Plankton. there is a major difference here. You'll not algae are simple plants. the use photosynthesis to respire.

Plankton on the other hand is a simple "animal" it uses Oxygen to breath and releases CO2. Farm runoff creates blooms of Plankton not algae. the plankton sufficate the other animals in the general area because it uses all the available O2. THus the animal die off. another fun part of the plankton blooms is that it kills itself and depending on the bloom can release additional toxins into the ocean killing anything that swims into the bloom


Study the literature. Source 2 on that wikipedia article, for instance.


http://marine.rutgers.edu/ebme/papers/Buesseler_et_al_Science_319_Jan_2008.pdf

It didn't work the way they thought it would. Oh, the algae grew nicely. It just didn't work the way they thought it would as far as sequestering the CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
Plankton includes a wide variety of organisms. Drifting algae are plankton.

http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envirobio/enviroweb/DeadZone.htm

Dead zone is caused by algae blooms. Read it.

Especially:

As the fresh, nutrient-enriched water from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers spread across the Gulf waters, favorable conditions are created for the production of massive phytoplankton blooms. A bloom is defined as an “increased abundance of a species above background numbers in a specific geographic region”. Incoming nutrients stimulate growth of phytoplankton at the surface, providing food for unicellular animals. Planktonic remains and fecal matter from these organisms fall to the ocean floor, where they are eaten by bacteria, which consume excessive amounts of oxygen, creating eutrophic conditions. Hypoxic waters appear normal on the surface, but on the bottom, they are covered with dead and distressed animal, and in extreme cases, layers of stinking, sulfur-oxidizing bacteria, which cause the sediment in these areas to turn black. These hypoxic conditions cause food chain alterations, loss of biodiversity, and high aquatic species mortality.


Quit talking out of your backside.


Oops I skipped a step.. the result? the same. a dead zone. nuf said


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1065020 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1065041 - Posted: 9 Jan 2011, 20:33:40 UTC - in response to Message 1065018.  


Somebody should have explained that to W before he was elected to any office


At least I can't be blamed for that one. I have NEVER cast a vote for Dubya. Not for President of the USA... Not for Gov. of Texas... I didn't like his political positions. I wasn't all that impressed with him personally either. Heck, he didn't even do all that good of a job when he was owner of the Texas Rangers MLB team.

I never voted for his daddy either. I never liked his politics or personality either.

Besides, in both their cases, about my most favorable statement I make about them is 'Yankee, go home!'.

ID: 1065041 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1065069 - Posted: 9 Jan 2011, 22:15:32 UTC - in response to Message 1065018.  


Somebody should have explained that to W before he was elected to any office


Umm.. he wasn't.
Janice
ID: 1065069 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30632
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1065150 - Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 2:20:36 UTC - in response to Message 1065069.  


Somebody should have explained that to W before he was elected to any office


Umm.. he wasn't.

Funny, when Congress counted the votes of the electoral college, he had a majority for each term. Or are you under some delusion that people directly vote for President of the United States?

I did not vote for electors pledged to vote for him.

ID: 1065150 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1065195 - Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 6:28:25 UTC - in response to Message 1065150.  
Last modified: 10 Jan 2011, 6:59:36 UTC


Somebody should have explained that to W before he was elected to any office


Umm.. he wasn't.

Funny, when Congress counted the votes of the electoral college, he had a majority for each term. Or are you under some delusion that people directly vote for President of the United States?

I did not vote for electors pledged to vote for him.


Per the US Constitution, the President (chief executive) of the Federal Government is elected by the Legislatures of the various states. While each state customarily holds a 'popular election' to decide how they are going to vote, they are NOT Constitutionally required to do so. It is perfectly acceptable for the Legislature of a State to vote amongst themselves to decide how that State's votes will be cast.

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


From http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

When Bush vs. Gore lawsuit hit the Federal Court, and it got to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled the only way it constitutionally could... It was up to the Florida Legislature and the procedure that they (the Florida Legislature) had set forth. So Bush won, and won legitimately.

There is no such thing as a national election for US President, there are (currently) 50 separate state elections. The 'National Popular Vote' total in the US Presidential election is totally without any meaning whatsoever. The only thing that does have meaning is the results of the 50 separate State Elections implemented under the rules and procedures established by the Legislature in the State in which each separate election occurred. The State Legislatures vote directly for US President through the Electoral College. The People don't vote directly for US President. They get a voice on 'election day' only insofar as currently each state separately holds an opinion poll, under the rules and procedures established separately by each State Legislature, to determine how their Legislature will cast its votes. But that opinion poll is just custom. It isn't Constitutionally required.


Edit: In the matter of the election of the US President, only the State's Legislature has standing to set the rules and procedures of the process in their own state, seperately. The State's judicial branch has absolutely no standing to interfere in the process, and the State's Executive branch is compelled to follow the dictates of the State Legislature. The Federal Court system has standing, but is compelled by Article II, Section I to defer to the State Legislature's decisions in all cases. The Executive Branch of the Federal Government has no standing to interfere in the process. The Legislative Branch of the Federal Government (specifically the House of Representatives) only has any standing in the process at all if the Electoral College is unable to reach a decision on its own due to no candidate getting the required majority. If the people in a State are unhappy with their Legislature's decisions, they are, of course, free to vote the Legislature out next election.
ID: 1065195 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1065225 - Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 13:49:17 UTC - in response to Message 1065195.  

generally speaking though. the electoral college would be making political suicide for any legislature that elected them if they chose to vote against the will of the people.

It has happened in party conventions that the electorate voted against how they were elected to vote but I can't recall this ever happening in a real election.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1065225 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1065265 - Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 16:49:05 UTC - in response to Message 1065225.  
Last modified: 10 Jan 2011, 16:53:25 UTC

generally speaking though. the electoral college would be making political suicide for any legislature that elected them if they chose to vote against the will of the people.


Generally speaking, the will of the people in a State in this matter is adequately represented by their votes for members of the Legislature in their State. As I said, if the people in a state are unhappy with their Legislature, vote them out. Why people tend to concentrate on voting in Federal elections and tend to not vote as much in or pay as much attention to the more local elections is beyond me. I consider voting in city/county/state elections to be even more important than voting in Federal ones. I vote in the off-year elections.

It is not only your right (unless you are under 18 or a convicted felon) to vote, it is your civic duty. Every election day, educate yourself beforehand on the issues and races/candidates on the ballot. Get off your backside. Go vote.

It has happened in party conventions that the electorate voted against how they were elected to vote but I can't recall this ever happening in a real election.


Huh? Oh, you mean delegates in the political party conventions. Well, those really aren't elections, merely a similar process by which the political parties choose who they are going to nominate to run in specific races. These conventions have, by and large, replaced the 'smoke filled back rooms' with which the parties used to make their choices, though the party big-wigs still have a considerable influence. Take that race in Alaska of late. The primary and convention chose to nominate one person over the objections of that party's bigwigs. The incumbent ran as an independent, and the party big-wigs supported her. She won.

As far as those elected to the Electoral College, while they are usually pledged to a specific candidate, they have not always voted that way down through history. Some have voted for a different candidate, and as recently as 2000, some have abstained from voting. However, these little protests have never made a difference in the outcome of the Electoral College.

As far as the states holding popular elections to determine the Legislature's votes in the Electoral College:

In the first couple of Presidential elections, the overwhelming majority of state legislatures just chose their electors in a vote amongst themselves. By 1812, it was down to about half, as the idea of letting the people in the various states make the choice for their state's legislature caught on. The last time a state legislature directly chose Electors without holding an election was in 1876, but we did get close to it happening again in 2000 in Florida. The Florida Legislature was constitutionally required to choose its Electors by a certain date. If the US Supreme Court had not effectively ended all the legal challenges, the Florida Legislature would have had no choice but to go ahead and make the choice directly itself. If they had not, not only would this have disenfranchised the State of Florida, but since the Electoral College would not have been able to get the required number of votes for a majority (270 votes), it would have thrown the election into the US House of Representatives.


States Legislatures have no requirement to hold an election in their State to determine their State's votes for President in the Electoral College. By custom, however, they all do, and have since 1876. Now there is some variation between the various States on exact rules and procedures, but so what?

If the voters in a State are unhappy with the job their Legislatures have done on this (or ANY other) subject, they can vote the Legislators out. In fact, it wouldn't be a bad idea to do so frequently anyway, at ALL levels of Government.

To repeat a popular saying:
Politicians are like baby diapers, and need to be changed frequently for the same reason.
ID: 1065265 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1065291 - Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 17:56:26 UTC - in response to Message 1065265.  

yes they are elected/picked to represent a party at the conventions. It starts with precinct parties which leads to county parties that leads to the state parties then the national conventions. at each level a person is selected as a delegate to represent an area. they in effect are elected by those present at the election party. This is how it works here in Texas. It may be different in other states.

If you want to participate in the precinct party Vote and then just show up at your voting precinct as the polls close. the polling people have the party materials for both major parties and in each precinct you are allowed a specific number of delegates to go to the county party depending on the number of voters for the party in the previous election cycle. the country, state and national conventions.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1065291 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1065299 - Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 18:13:22 UTC - in response to Message 1065291.  

yes they are elected/picked to represent a party at the conventions. It starts with precinct parties which leads to county parties that leads to the state parties then the national conventions. at each level a person is selected as a delegate to represent an area. they in effect are elected by those present at the election party. This is how it works here in Texas. It may be different in other states.

If you want to participate in the precinct party Vote and then just show up at your voting precinct as the polls close. the polling people have the party materials for both major parties and in each precinct you are allowed a specific number of delegates to go to the county party depending on the number of voters for the party in the previous election cycle. the country, state and national conventions.


I know how it works here in Texas. I've been to a few, including 2 State Conventions in decades past, before I left the Republican Party in disgust. But these 'primaries' are not actual elections. They are Political Party Events, run by the political parties themselves, for the purpose of deciding who that political party will nominate for what race.

They just have a surface similarity to elections, and use much of the same apparatus for the actual 'primary', frequently even being at the same time/place as an actual election for other issues. Everything else you mentioned is somewhat behind the scenes, and tends to not be widely known (or cared about) by most party members.

ID: 1065299 · Report as offensive
keith

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 10
Posts: 454
Credit: 9,054
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1065826 - Posted: 12 Jan 2011, 5:09:29 UTC - in response to Message 1065020.  

actually Iron seeding does work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

though controversial it seems that the primordial earth went through this phase. The atmosphere was primarily CO2 and very little life was around. the oceans were loaded with iron. the first Algaes used the iron and over millions and millions of years they brought the Earth to where O2 levels were Much Higher than even today. So its not overly far fetched to consider reseeding he oceans to get algae to do what it does best and very qiuckly, use CO2 and create O2.

The gulf die offs were not from Algae but Plankton. there is a major difference here. You'll not algae are simple plants. the use photosynthesis to respire.

Plankton on the other hand is a simple "animal" it uses Oxygen to breath and releases CO2. Farm runoff creates blooms of Plankton not algae. the plankton sufficate the other animals in the general area because it uses all the available O2. THus the animal die off. another fun part of the plankton blooms is that it kills itself and depending on the bloom can release additional toxins into the ocean killing anything that swims into the bloom


Study the literature. Source 2 on that wikipedia article, for instance.


http://marine.rutgers.edu/ebme/papers/Buesseler_et_al_Science_319_Jan_2008.pdf

It didn't work the way they thought it would. Oh, the algae grew nicely. It just didn't work the way they thought it would as far as sequestering the CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
Plankton includes a wide variety of organisms. Drifting algae are plankton.

http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envirobio/enviroweb/DeadZone.htm

Dead zone is caused by algae blooms. Read it.

Especially:

As the fresh, nutrient-enriched water from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers spread across the Gulf waters, favorable conditions are created for the production of massive phytoplankton blooms. A bloom is defined as an “increased abundance of a species above background numbers in a specific geographic region”. Incoming nutrients stimulate growth of phytoplankton at the surface, providing food for unicellular animals. Planktonic remains and fecal matter from these organisms fall to the ocean floor, where they are eaten by bacteria, which consume excessive amounts of oxygen, creating eutrophic conditions. Hypoxic waters appear normal on the surface, but on the bottom, they are covered with dead and distressed animal, and in extreme cases, layers of stinking, sulfur-oxidizing bacteria, which cause the sediment in these areas to turn black. These hypoxic conditions cause food chain alterations, loss of biodiversity, and high aquatic species mortality.


Quit talking out of your backside.


Oops I skipped a step.. the result? the same. a dead zone. nuf said



Deadzone. Where???



Bacteria devoured methane gas from gulf oil spill, scientists say

By Brian Vastag
Washington Post Staf Writer
Thursday, January 6, 2011; 3:19 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010603570.html

Last August, just two days into a research cruise to study methane gas spewed into the Gulf of Mexico by the Deepwater Horizon gusher, Texas A&M University oceanographer John Kessler turned to one of his colleagues and said, "Well, it looks like it might be gone. What do you think?"

The huge wallop of methane burped up from deep inside the earth was, in fact, missing.

Kessler and his colleagues now report in Science that a huge swarm of gas-gobbling bacteria swelled to consume nearly all of the estimated 200,000 tons of methane dumped into the gulf. Methane is the primary component of natural gas and is typically found packed together with oil and other hydrocarbons at drill sites. Before and during the spill, BP estimated that natural gas made up about 30 percent of the output of the Macondo well drilled by the doomed Deepwater Horizon rig.

Besides providing some good news for the gulf region, the finding has potential implications for climate change science, too. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and, as the earth warms, climate scientists worry that much more methane will be released from the oceans. "What this tells us is that natural releases of methane from the seafloor with similar characteristics will not make it up to the atmosphere, will not influence climate," Kessler says.

While the gusher was still flowing, in June, a team sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had found intense concentrations of methane in the waters near the wellhead, says David Valentine of the University of California at Santa Barbara, who helped lead that work. At the time, that team detected very few of the methane-eating bacteria that naturally live in the gulf. So Valentine and colleagues arrived at a grim - though early - conclusion. "Originally, we had expected that the methane would be consumed gradually," Valentine says. "We really thought it would be around for a year or more."

Instead, two to three months after engineers finally capped the well, the gas was gone. All of the evidence points to an explosion of methane-eating bacteria.

From mid-August through early October, a team aboard the NOAA vessel Pisces searched an area of the gulf larger than Indiana, dipping a package of sensors into the water at 207 locations. They found almost no methane. Instead, their instruments recorded huge pockets of depleted oxygen, which the microbes use to burn the gas.

"If the methane had just traveled someplace else and was hiding, we wouldn't see any reductions in dissolved oxygen," Kessler says. "But if it were consumed by microbes, we should see some reductions in dissolved oxygen, which we did."

In fact, Kessler calculated that the amount of missing oxygen almost exactly equaled the amount required by a vast cloud of microbes to consume the entire bolus of methane. "The math worked out scary good," he says.

The microbes, known as methanotrophs, were discovered about 100 years ago, and they exist everywhere in the ocean scientists have searched for them. They make a living much the same way a gas fireplace provides warmth: by burning methane and oxygen to release energy, carbon dioxide and water.

Back in his laboratory, Valentine, who was also aboard the Pisces, documented the last piece of evidence: striking genetic fragments of a robust community of methanotrophs. He also discovered DNA sequences for an enzyme the microbes deploy to break methane's chemical bonds.

"In September and October we found significant numbers of methane consumers," Valentine says. "But because there was no methane for them to eat anymore, we interpret that as being the residual population that had consumed all the methane."

Tori Hoehler, who studies methanotrophs at NASA Ames Research Center in California, said the team did a good job of ruling out the possibility that the methane had simply burbled into the atmosphere. "They didn't see any methane coming out of the water column" in June, he says. "The surprise is to see that the methanotrophs can respond in relatively rapid fashion."

By contrast, Terry Hazen, a microbial ecologist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, says he is "not surprised at all" by the voracious appetite of the microbes. Hazen spent four months on the gulf studying the giant plumes of oil and gas that initially spread from the well. "We have basically the same data," he says. In August, Hazen reported that bacteria - including several new-to-science species - were quickly reducing the giant plumes of oil. "The good news is that methanotrophs will probably help to deep clean" the gulf by continuing to degrade residual oil and gas, Hazen says.

However, Hoehler says the findings offer a double-edged lesson. "There is a built-in capacity for the ecosystem" to deal with oil and gas spills, he says. "That is in some ways a comforting thought. But if people simply have the notion that bacteria will clean up our messes for us, then there will be less of a concern about making messes in the first place. It's nice to know that [bacteria] are there to fix what we've done wrong. But it's not a crutch you want to lean on."
ID: 1065826 · Report as offensive
keith

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 10
Posts: 454
Credit: 9,054
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1065829 - Posted: 12 Jan 2011, 5:12:59 UTC - in response to Message 1064523.  
Last modified: 12 Jan 2011, 5:13:31 UTC

Step 1: get off the fossil fuels.
Step 2: balance ourselves out to carbon neutral.
Step 3: work on carbon storage, even short term until we can return to temperate levels.
Step 4: Reforestation, eliminate contaminations.

I know this is the sound of someone that loves twinkies.. but honestly I do not, nor all it implies... But planting hemp where possible (an "if in doubt" crop) to help generate oxygen into the atmosphere, really might be called for. And per acre it is very effective at that. Redwoods are also excellent, but they take some time to grow.

As I have said before, wind is the cheapest to add. Those worried about straining the grid at night realize this is off-peak time, when the grid is most able to handle it. Solar is still a great idea, in a variety of forms.

And then pray to whatever gods or whatever you hold as holy it is not too little too late.




Or, maybe we should just examine the motive...

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

Readers are encouraged to review the entire interview at GWPF or Google's slightly different translation.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy#ixzz1AnLQXKGV
ID: 1065829 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1065939 - Posted: 12 Jan 2011, 17:28:15 UTC - in response to Message 1065829.  

Step 1: get off the fossil fuels.
Step 2: balance ourselves out to carbon neutral.
Step 3: work on carbon storage, even short term until we can return to temperate levels.
Step 4: Reforestation, eliminate contaminations.

I know this is the sound of someone that loves twinkies.. but honestly I do not, nor all it implies... But planting hemp where possible (an "if in doubt" crop) to help generate oxygen into the atmosphere, really might be called for. And per acre it is very effective at that. Redwoods are also excellent, but they take some time to grow.

As I have said before, wind is the cheapest to add. Those worried about straining the grid at night realize this is off-peak time, when the grid is most able to handle it. Solar is still a great idea, in a variety of forms.

And then pray to whatever gods or whatever you hold as holy it is not too little too late.




Or, maybe we should just examine the motive...

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

Readers are encouraged to review the entire interview at GWPF or Google's slightly different translation.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy#ixzz1AnLQXKGV



I don't have a link to it anymore or a copy (lost both in a hard drive crash), but...

There was a document on the UN website from the late 80's. It was about redistributing wealth from the developed nations to the un(under)developed nations. It was suggested in this document that inventing some 'crisis' might be a way to overcome opposition to this. 'Climate change' was given as an example of a possible scheme to implement to achieve this goal.


ID: 1065939 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1065940 - Posted: 12 Jan 2011, 17:31:11 UTC - in response to Message 1065829.  

Lead, follow, or get out of the way keith.

The tired arguments of transfer of wealth pale in comparison to what fossil fuel companies have done to the economy, despite their grossly exagerated claims and conspiracy theories.
Janice
ID: 1065940 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1065943 - Posted: 12 Jan 2011, 17:54:03 UTC - in response to Message 1065940.  

Lead, follow, or get out of the way keith.

The tired arguments of transfer of wealth pale in comparison to what fossil fuel companies have done to the economy, despite their grossly exagerated claims and conspiracy theories.


What the fossil-fuel companies have done to the economy...

Ya mean 'made it possible for so many of us in the developed world to have such a high standard of living'? Because that is what they have done, alright. Without the fossil-fuels, most of us would still be trying to scratch a living out of the dirt (subsistence agriculture).
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1065943 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1065958 - Posted: 12 Jan 2011, 18:17:03 UTC - in response to Message 1065943.  

Lead, follow, or get out of the way keith.

The tired arguments of transfer of wealth pale in comparison to what fossil fuel companies have done to the economy, despite their grossly exagerated claims and conspiracy theories.


What the fossil-fuel companies have done to the economy...

Ya mean 'made it possible for so many of us in the developed world to have such a high standard of living'? Because that is what they have done, alright. Without the fossil-fuels, most of us would still be trying to scratch a living out of the dirt (subsistence agriculture).


More like inspired war after war involving fossil fuel rich environments, in the name of "protecting our interests", buying up and burying hopeful technologies that would lessen our dependance, manipulating politics to favor cheap access(to them) to resource rich public lands, and making sure they are held harmless for all the damage they do in the process, the poisoning of wells
streams and waters and destruction of life in their path....

they have a rich and colorful history. And are in the process of fighting and scratching to keep their competitive edge. Let the costs "at the pump" show the true costs, and the alternative fuels are not only economically viable, but economically imperative.
Janice
ID: 1065958 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1065982 - Posted: 12 Jan 2011, 19:55:49 UTC - in response to Message 1065958.  
Last modified: 12 Jan 2011, 19:58:26 UTC

Lead, follow, or get out of the way keith.

The tired arguments of transfer of wealth pale in comparison to what fossil fuel companies have done to the economy, despite their grossly exagerated claims and conspiracy theories.


What the fossil-fuel companies have done to the economy...

Ya mean 'made it possible for so many of us in the developed world to have such a high standard of living'? Because that is what they have done, alright. Without the fossil-fuels, most of us would still be trying to scratch a living out of the dirt (subsistence agriculture).


More like inspired war after war involving fossil fuel rich environments, in the name of "protecting our interests", buying up and burying hopeful technologies that would lessen our dependance, manipulating politics to favor cheap access(to them) to resource rich public lands, and making sure they are held harmless for all the damage they do in the process, the poisoning of wells
streams and waters and destruction of life in their path....

they have a rich and colorful history. And are in the process of fighting and scratching to keep their competitive edge. Let the costs "at the pump" show the true costs, and the alternative fuels are not only economically viable, but economically imperative.


War is the natural condition of the human species. War does not need an inspiration, it comes from within us all. The human mind sorts things into a number of sets of categories. A very basic category set is 'us' vs. 'them'. This will NOT change.

Fossil-fuels might... *might* be a convenient excuse in some cases of war, but that is it. If we didn't have the fossil-fuel excuse, we would have little trouble in finding another.

Buying up and burying useful technologies... This is business. It isn't limited to just the oil companies. See 'us vs. them' above. There is an old saying. 'Business is war'. It is true.

Cheap access to resource-rich public lands... Immigration, expansion, farming, cattle, railroads, the list goes on and on... Many have benefited, at a cost to the 'environment'. Why single out the fossil-fuel companies?

The fossil-fuel companies are run by humans. Why are you condemning them for acting like it? But then, in condemning them for it, guess what? You are acting like a human too (again, us vs. them).
ID: 1065982 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 . . . 22 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.