New research on Arctic methane

[Tech_Esq]

Thank you. I looked up and read as much as I could on the subject the other night. I read what I could about the town in Pennsylvania too. We drove through that are back in 1996 and I had asked Rod, "I wonder why this area looks so dead?" now I have a clue why.

It sure would seem regardless of the limited damage anyone would claim on such a matter that it would make sense to find a solution. I do not think God is planting new coal beds into the earth. So it makes perfect sense that it would be best to try to preserve what is there.

I know Rocks has decided that when one singular cause of pollution from one country only produces 0.1-0.2% of all human generated carbon emissions in the atmosphere it doesn't rise to a high enough level to bother with, but I disagree. China may have the worst problem, but India has a pretty bad problem too. In fact, many countries have this same problem. Australia has one that has been burning for 6,000 years.

If people are sincerely looking for solutions, they should be accepting serious wins where they can find them. But, like I said initially, if this is really just about power, control and money, they will turn their nose up at this and any other non-controversial opportunity.

 

[dilloduck]

I think we need to get something staight here. Concern about global warming has little to do with environementalism per se. It is concerned with human survival. We have over 7 billion human beings alive at present. An adrupt climate change will very adversely affect the agriculture that we depend on. Even here in the US, we have become net importers of food. A crash in food production would end the wonderful life, compared to the past, that most of us lead. I like my present ability to travel, to not worry about basics, such as food and shelter, and having access to the whole worlds knowledge. I would like to see future generations having an even better life. Unless we change how we power our civilization, that will not be.

Once again, every single scientific society on earth states that global warming is a clear and present danger, and that the burning of fossil fuel is the primary driver of that warming.

I believe I already said that

http://www.usmessageboard.com/935031-post69.html

 

[RodISHI]

I know Rocks has decided that when one singular cause of pollution from one country only produces 0.1-0.2% of all human generated carbon emissions in the atmosphere it doesn't rise to a high enough level to bother with, but I disagree. China may have the worst problem, but India has a pretty bad problem too. In fact, many countries have this same problem. Australia has one that has been burning for 6,000 years.

If people are sincerely looking for solutions, they should be accepting serious wins where they can find them. But, like I said initially, if this is really just about power, control and money, they will turn their nose up at this and any other non-controversial opportunity.

As for the problems associated with why a lot of people think it is all about power and control it is because there has been a lot of that going down throughout the world and this nation has had it's fair share.

When it comes to a place where people are not destroying one another for the greed of power, control and money that is the point people can come together and make a difference.

When it comes to science and the technical issues such as this it would be advantageous for everyone if they can understand the issues. It really does not matter who brings those issues forth or if they only understand just a small piece or portion. If people can grasp just a bit of what is happening then they can try and do their part.

 

[dilloduck]

When it comes to a place where people are not destroying one another for the greed of power, control and money that is the point people can come together and make a difference.

But isn't that the myth? People are ALWAYS competing with each other for everything.

 

[RodISHI]

But isn't that the myth? People are ALWAYS competing with each other for everything.

We'll need to take up another discussion to discuss the matter. My opinion will be from a very limited scope as I never really bought into the competition thing that is taught out there in the world very well.

 

[Old Rocks]

I know Rocks has decided that when one singular cause of pollution from one country only produces 0.1-0.2% of all human generated carbon emissions in the atmosphere it doesn't rise to a high enough level to bother with, but I disagree. China may have the worst problem, but India has a pretty bad problem too. In fact, many countries have this same problem. Australia has one that has been burning for 6,000 years.

If people are sincerely looking for solutions, they should be accepting serious wins where they can find them. But, like I said initially, if this is really just about power, control and money, they will turn their nose up at this and any other non-controversial opportunity.

In other words, get excited about maybe a single percentage of the GHGs that this produces, and ignore the 98% or so that we produce. Get real. While this is a local problem, as you pointed out, some of these fires have been burning for thousands of years, and not noticably increased the CO2 in the atmosphere. No, you doing a red herring job here. The real problem is the GHGs that mankind produces.

 

[Caligirl]

I think we need to get something staight here. Concern about global warming has little to do with environementalism per se. It is concerned with human survival.

Well in that case it doesn't concern me much. I plan to die in any event.

I thought it had to do with being responsible stewards, you know, live up to our potential, think beyond our immediate cicumstances, developing an elevated awareness, all that. If it is just down to something as crass as survival, then I don't particularly care about it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well in that case it doesn't concern me much. I plan to die in any event.

I thought it had to do with being responsible stewards, you know, live up to our potential, think beyond our immediate cicumstances, developing an elevated awareness, all that. If it is just down to something as crass as survival, then I don't particularly care about it.

The reason for being responsible stewards concerns how we affect the lives our our descendents. Far more important than some impersonal Diety. We all die. But our future lives in our children. If one believes that life is only worth living for themselves, they just as well be dead already.

 

[Caligirl]

So those who have no children have no motivation to live responsibly?

 

[Old Rocks]

So those who have no children have no motivation to live responsibly?

I have two children that are mine genetically. I have worked with the Scouting organization for over 20 years. I regard many of the boys and girls I have come into contact with as much part of the future for me as my own genetic children. If you have no children, I would be surprised if there were no children that you have not felt this way about.

I grew up in a very rural area, and most of the adults regarded all the children in the area as their charges. Makes for a very safe environment, and also one that you just can't get away with anything.

 

[Tech_Esq]

In other words, get excited about maybe a single percentage of the GHGs that this produces, and ignore the 98% or so that we produce. Get real. While this is a local problem, as you pointed out, some of these fires have been burning for thousands of years, and not noticably increased the CO2 in the atmosphere. No, you doing a red herring job here. The real problem is the GHGs that mankind produces.

Do you think man hasn't created most of this? Most of these fires were not started by lightning or magic, they were started be poor mining practices. That's why China, India and Britain have the greatest problem with it. I'm glad that somehow you think a global problem is local, by what feat of logic did you accomplish this?

But I do find it instructive that you are so dead set against dealing with something that is clearly a problem adding to the total carbon output. It's also interesting to note that these tens of thousands of fires are emitting raw coal exhaust into the air, and that only amounts to 1% of C02, but if we had 100 coal plants doing the same thing, you would think it a major catastrophe.

You are exactly the kind of person I've been railing against. This isn't about the environment at all for you this is about controlling people and power.

 

[Chris]

Do you think man hasn't created most of this? Most of these fires were not started by lightning or magic, they were started be poor mining practices. That's why China, India and Britain have the greatest problem with it. I'm glad that somehow you think a global problem is local, by what feat of logic did you accomplish this?

But I do find it instructive that you are so dead set against dealing with something that is clearly a problem adding to the total carbon output. It's also interesting to note that these tens of thousands of fires are emitting raw coal exhaust into the air, and that only amounts to 1% of C02, but if we had 100 coal plants doing the same thing, you would think it a major catastrophe.

You are exactly the kind of person I've been railing against. This isn't about the environment at all for you this is about controlling people and power.

You are projecting.

 

[Old Rocks]

Tech, what on earth are you thinking? Have you ever read about attempts to put out coal seam fires? The problem is not 100 coal fired plants, it is thousands of them. What you are saying is that you find it needful to address the most difficult 1% of a problem, before we address the much easier 99% of the problem. What kind of logic is that?

 

[garyd]

yes ladies and gentlemen we are being asked to worry ourselves sick over the possibility of a gas that is essentially less than 2 molecules in every hundred thousand in our atmosphere might manage to become slightly more than 2 molecules in each 100,000.

 

[Old Rocks]

yes ladies and gentlemen we are being asked to worry ourselves sick over the possibility of a gas that is essentially less than 2 molecules in every hundred thousand in our atmosphere might manage to become slightly more than 2 molecules in each 100,000.

Of course such a small amount of anything in that diluted situation cannot hurt. So just swallow this single gram of potassium cyanide, it cannot possibly hurt you, because you weigh so many tens of thousand of grams.

 

[Steerpike]

Of course such a small amount of anything in that diluted situation cannot hurt. So just swallow this single gram of potassium cyanide, it cannot possibly hurt you, because you weigh so many tens of thousand of grams.

This is a poor analogy.

Cyanide (or at least dangerous forms like HCN salts such as the KCN you mention) is a cytochrome c oxidase inhibitor. It is working, then, within a very small ecosystem within the mitochondria of the body. Such a minute level that you are, in fact, dealing with electron transport. It is easy to see, then, how an extremely small amount of cyanide delivered to the mitochondria will be quite dangerous.

There isn't a suitable analogy in the atmosphere.

 

[del]

Of course such a small amount of anything in that diluted situation cannot hurt. So just swallow this single gram of potassium cyanide, it cannot possibly hurt you, because you weigh so many tens of thousand of grams.

how long have you been so pathetically gullible, old man?

 

[Old Rocks]

This is a poor analogy.

Cyanide (or at least dangerous forms like HCN salts such as the KCN you mention) is a cytochrome c oxidase inhibitor. It is working, then, within a very small ecosystem within the mitochondria of the body. Such a minute level that you are, in fact, dealing with electron transport. It is easy to see, then, how an extremely small amount of cyanide delivered to the mitochondria will be quite dangerous.

There isn't a suitable analogy in the atmosphere.

Bullshit. Why don't you do minimal research and see what level of CO2 is considered 'safe' for a continuation of the very nice climate we now enjoy. Of course, you would have to refer to those danged old scientists, and everybody knows that they are all a bunch of leftists worldwide.

 

[Old Rocks]

how long have you been so pathetically gullible, old man?

How long have you been so damned ignorant? Have you ever considered remedial measures for you depth of ignorance? The net is very easy to do research on. And peer reviewed research is the best way to do the research. For, even if the conclusions are incorrect, you can be reasonably sure that the evidence and methodology is correct.

 

[Steerpike]

Bullshit. Why don't you do minimal research and see what level of CO2 is considered 'safe' for a continuation of the very nice climate we now enjoy. Of course, you would have to refer to those danged old scientists, and everybody knows that they are all a bunch of leftists worldwide.

The fact that you've provided nothing here does not amaze me.

If you believe that the climate is analogous to electron transport in the cell, then you do not understand one or both of those subjects.