A stupid idea, but could it ever work?

yeah...lets blame the trees for screwing up our atmosphere...pathetic fools

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry, who are the fools? The trees? Me?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fools are those who blame trees for the greenhouse effect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I really think that's bullshit, in an effort for corporations to gain a little favor. Many trees are hundreds of years old and global warming should have been decreasing with deforestation. Anyway plants are still the last line of defence against CO2, and assuming H3 comes from fertilizers and soil reaction I just can't figure out where these extra carbon is coming from? My guess is that there is an exess of carbon in the system. Anyone else with me?

 

Dragon, you clearly have failed to understand what is being stated. The evidence is very clear - trees emit methane. This is a wholly unexpected result. You may bury your head in the sand if you wish. Join those who deny the reality of global warming.
The fact is that this may greatly complicate the solution to controlling global warming. The fool is the one who ignores this, not the one who brings it to everyones attention. You may apologise at your leisure.

 

We'll just have to find out, but it seems to me that surely the system whereby trees emit methane and what happens to the emitted methane may be in balance, which would help explain why no one has wondered where this extra methane is coming from. But then what happens when you cut lots of trees down?

 

O,
The new energy zone theory is being discussed while researching pluto
If Pluto is moving away it should get colder right. Wrong, it got warmer.
I'm still researching but it seems that mars was located "elsewhere" in the universe then got moved, again, i'm just now researching this.
As I was reading something odd struck me. About a year ago I was
researching ancient cosmology and came across the Great year.
Since a great year is 25,920 years long equaling 2,160 years as a
great month it strikes me that possibly we are in the last "great month"
which is Biblically, possibly This Generation spoken by Jesus.
Also, oddly the Mayan Calendar with it's odd 12:60 time math ends
12/2012 and is suppose to go back to its original 13 time after the uh,
end date. (scratching head) Anyway, I just find it strange that these things
kinda mesh time wise i mean. I had wondered why nasa put a rush on to
examine mars and other planets at this particular time.

The entire solar system - not just our one small planet -- is currently undergoing profound, never-before-seen physical changes.

Sun: More activity since 1940 than in previous 1150 years, combined

Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field … for a supposedly “dead” planet

Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 30 years

Earth: Substantial and obvious world-wide weather and geophysical changes

Mars: “Global Warming,” huge storms, disappearance of polar icecaps

Jupiter: Over 200% increase in brightness of surrounding plasma clouds

Saturn: Major decrease in equatorial jet stream velocities in only ~20 years, accompanied by surprising surge of X-rays from equator

Uranus: “Really big, big changes” in brightness, increased global cloud activity

Neptune: 40% increase in atmospheric brightness

Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, even as Pluto recedes farther from the Sun

Outer Space Tornados and today's finding of a planetary disc with OPPOSING ROTATION. All oddities isnt that so?
PS/ Chandler Wobble of the earth has all but stopped for the past 3 weeks.

ps/ the Hydro-thermal Mega Plume found in 2004 deep in the indian ocean
is probably the culprit for killing the plankton in the sea. And, as we all know the last K boundry extinction event's very first clue was a loss of plankton.

 

It sounds to me like you think all trees produce methane...in fact is it the trees that emit CH3? I am sure the guys that emit CH3 are not the trees but the bacteria that might be on those trees. Anyways yes, I just cant blame nature for greenhouse...cause thats what u are trying to do here. By nature I exclude volcanoes...

 

Dragon, you seem determined to go with your preconceived ideas on this point. Based on the small number of posts of yours I have read I am surprised. You seemed to be one of the 'good guys': a person with scientific training, who was prepared to use it objectively.
You are correct on one point: we do not know if all trees produce methane. This discovery is very knew. We do know that it is not the bacteria. Part of the experimental process involved exposing the leaves to gamma radiation to kill any bacteria. The methane output was the same for the control samples as for the irradiated ones. [By the way, methane is CH4, not CH3.)

Finally, I am not trying to blame nature as you claim I am. I am saying let us look at the facts. The facts are clear: some trees, and perhaps all trees, emit methane. Therefore efforts to control carbon dioxide by sequestering it in trees may be counterproductive because of the methane these would then produce. The subject requires further investigation and thoughful consideration.

 

Remove the population of the Earth, at least as many as possible--that would make more sense. I mean, they're creating the Greenhouse Effect with their industry and whatnot. So shift, say, four thousand million off Earth (God only knows how

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) and see what effect that has. At least it will the ones who stay behind a bit more room to move around.

 

typo's dammit. I meant to type CH4, Ch3 is ethane. thanks for pointing that out.

Yes, trees do produce a small amount of methane. but they've been doing it for billions of years and the planet has not experienced greenhouse-gas induced global warming since the advent of plant life. Mst of the methane gas in the atmoshere today comes from such sources as garbage dumps, industrial by-products from such sources as oil refinement and the chemical inudstry, and domestic farm animals.

Methane can be used as a fuel. Many communities trap the methane produced by there landfills and sell it to local industries as fuel for furnaces and electricity production, thus killing two birds with one stone.

There are solutions to these problems. But as in all such things, one first acknowedge the problem before one can find a solution. There was a post here today about the excuses alcoholics make. The U.S. is doing the exact same thing with it's insistence that global warming is a myth and refusing to join the world community to resolve the problem. The psychology is exactly the same. Unfortuantely, the untimate result for continued self-deception will also be the same: self-destruction.

 

thats the biggest piece of **** I ever heard...starting with Pluto atmosphere pressure increasing 300%...Pluto doesnt have an atmosphere...

 

Actually, ethane would be C2H6. The ratios are the same, but the latter accurately reflects the molecular constitution.

I think you will find most professional paleoclimatologists will disagree with you. The Earth's temperature is at least 20 degrees Celsius hotter than would be expected at this distance from the sun, precisely because of atmospheric greenhouse effects - an atmosphere that is decidedly the product of plant life.

Exactly. And the problem is that the global warming issue is more complicated than some have thought. And the solutions to it are consequently more complicated than most have thought. And some of the apparent solutions may make the matter worse and so require further investigation.

Agreed. And here lies the root of the problem. Because you did not read what I had written properly, because you produced a knee jerk reaction, you have assumed that I do not believe in global warming and that I was using the methane producing forests as an excuse to do nothing.
You on the other hand are burying your head in the sand and pretending that these new data do not exist and are not important. Well excuse me if I take a different position. I have no intention of winning the battle over the intransigence and ignorance of the US, only to lose the war because people like you are more inclined to believe their prejudices than the data.

 

*sighs*...you and your methane...

 

Dragon,
you are a nice guy (or gal). I can tell that from your posts. But you and facts need to get to know each other better.

1) Not my methane. Our methane. It is an issue whether you wish it to be or not.
2) Most of Protostar's post is rambling, misinterpreted nonsense. However, Pluto has an atmosphere. It develops when Pluto is close to perihelion by sublimation of surface ices. One reason planetary scientists were anxious to send the New Horizons probe on its way now, rather than in a decade or twos time was so that this atmosphere could be studied.

 

If it weren't for the problems of increase in sea level, global warming would be a boon because it would lengthen growing seasons in the cooler climates. I'm not even sure how much of a problem the increase in sea level is because allegedly the Arctic is melting and I've heard no reports of flooding of lowlands caused by this.

Something that just occurred to me is that the land retains a good amount of water when there is rainfall. Could increases in the amount of water retained in acquifers help offset the increases in the amount of water in the oceans? We are talking about miles of whatever is under our feet versus a few inches or a few feet of increase in the level of the oceans.

I also wonder if global cooling isn't the culprit with the icecaps. Less heat means less precipitation. Less precipitation means less renewal of the icecaps. The march of glaciers to the sea is an ongoing process. The lowest level of the ice becomes liquid and the glaciers slide out on the liquid. If they aren't replaced they disappear because of processes that don't involve global warming. Then the seas chill further and even less water evaporates, so there is even less precipitation. Isn't that what is happening right now? I have never seen such a dry winter in my life.

 

The Arctic ice is sea ice. Melting it does not increase the sea level. It is the Antarctic ice and to a lesser extent the Greenland ice that is the problem.

Interesting idea which does not work out in practice. Subsurface metamorphic and igneous rocks have close to zero percent effective porosity. Sedimentary rocks are already water saturated below the water table. The water table itself is falling in many parts of the world because of extraction by man.

Well it could work that way, but global temperatures are increasing. That is measurable. So the idea falls by the wayside.

Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind.

 

Ophiolite, about the time you say "the idea falls by the wayside" I really wish your parents would get married to each other.

 

You put forward some ideas. I have pointed out the limitations of those ideas. Your response is a rather weak personal comment. So do you have any comments on the facts? Are you agreeing, disagreeing? Accepting, conceding, disputing?

 

I guess that NASA does not know anything about pluto eh dragon.
Pluto DOES have an ATMOSPHERE now.

Dr. Elliot and other NASA team members acknowledge that unexpected “global warming” of Pluto.

Furthermore, not only has Pluto’s atmospheric pressure increased, but it is also showing signs of weather… for the first time, as was reported by Space.com
Meanwhile, the new studies reveal what appear to be the first signs of weather on Pluto, small fluctuations of air density and temperature. Sicardy's team figures the changes, seen as spikes in the data, are caused "either by strong winds between the lit and dark hemispheres of the planet, or by convection near the surface of Pluto."
Scientists have long suspected that pressure difference in the tenuous atmosphere, created by stark temperature differences from the day side to the night side, would fuel brisk breezes.
The researchers did not attempt to estimate the strength of Pluto's apparent winds. ISNT THAT ATMOSPHERE? Why do you think that?