Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vulcan on January 11, 2006, 09:31:35 PM
-
Scientists find plants cause global warming
12 January 2006
LONDON: German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.
The culprits are plants.
They produce about 10 to 30 per cent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.
The scientists measured the amount of methane released by plants in controlled experiments. They found it increases with rising temperatures and exposure to sunlight.
"Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed ... in the laboratory and in the field," Dr Frank Keppler and his team said in a report in the journal Nature.
Methane, which is produced by city rubbish dumps, coal mining, flatulent animals, rice cultivation and peat bogs, is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in terms of its ability to trap heat.
Concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere have almost tripled in the last 150 years. About 600 million tonnes worldwide are produced annually.
The scientists said their finding is important for understanding the link between global warming and a rise in greenhouse gases.
It could also have implications for the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for developed countries to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
Keppler and his colleagues discovered that living plants emit 10 to 100 times more methane than dead plants.
Scientists had previously thought that plants could only emit methane in the absence of oxygen.
David Lowe, of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, said the findings are startling and controversial.
"Keppler and colleagues' finding helps to account for observations from space of incredibly large plumes of methane above tropical forests," he said in a commentary on the research.
But the study also poses questions, such as how such a potentially large source of methane could have been overlooked and how plants produced it.
"There will be a lively scramble among researchers for the answers to these and other questions," Lowe added.
-
Dag nabbit where is that damn power cord. I knows its around here someplace. Danged scientist are on to us now.
-
Pave south america, equatorial africa and maylasia.
wallah!
... a whole lotta world problems solved.
-
Save the Earth: cut down a tree.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Save the Earth: cut down a tree.
The Forest must be destroyed:t
(http://www.nc3r.org/tuppermhsl/images/lumberjack.gif)
-
The obvious answer to this newfound plant problem is for the United States to consume less petrolium.
-
(http://www.krabach.info/AlaskaWebPage/reduced_size/031_Antique_steam_engine.jpg)
so its bact to these?:confused:
-
No, we're all fat, so we should walk everywhere. We should also bury our guns deep underground to keep from hurting ourselves with them.
-
the planet needs to lose about three billion humans and soon.
Maybe Islam will be more useful then we first thought.....
-
damn generation X. we need another Vietnam, thin out their ranks a little. then we need to nuke china, india and san marino, I ****ING HATE THOSE Golly-geeN SAN MARINANS!! BLOODY FREELOADERS!!
-
Nukes make alot of noise and a big mess. That idea is SO 20th century.
Use the nerve gas.
-
It is all self adjusting... as we get more populated the chance for catstophic war or a super plague become allmost 100%.
Nothing to worry about.
lazs
-
vulcan,link source?
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm
Anyone remember when Regan said the same thing, how he was laughed at? :D
Any one KNOW the most damaging of all the greenhouse gasses? ;):D
-
Originally posted by MrBill
[url]
Any one KNOW the most damaging of all the greenhouse gasses? ;):D
let me take a stab at it, could it be hillaryfunk?
-
Originally posted by MrBill
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm
Any one KNOW the most damaging of all the greenhouse gasses? ;):D
I'm going to go out on a limb and say water vapor.
-
This quote from the BBC article sums it up.
The study highlights, however, the extreme complexity of the relationship between the biological processes of the Earth and the chemistry of our atmosphere - and how much there is yet to discover.
I stopped believing that the current warm spell is entirely man made some time ago. There are simply too many inconsistencies in the whole plot. But it's got like a religion now and it is sacrelige to doubt any part of the mantra.
One example: Apparently the melting ice cap will release fresh water into the sea near the arctic. This will divert the warming gulf stream to the south which will cause the weather here in the British isles to more closely resemble that of Canada. Meaning the winters will be long and cold with lots of snow. My problem with that theory is that if the snow is melting in the arctic and Canada is warming up. Then why would it snow more here?
The other problem I see is that people can't tell the difference between environmentally friendly and ecologically friendly. Recycling glass for example. Glass is sand. If you bury it in a hole in the ground. That's environmentally unfriendly but it does no harm other than being unsightly. So it's recycled which I like to point out is ecologically unfriendly. Any manufacturing or remanufacturing process uses energy and causes greenhouse gases to be released. It's the same with paper. Paper is made from trees commercially grown for that very purpose. Recycling paper cause more releases of greenhouse gases and reduces the number of forests planted to produce paper.
Recycling certain things makes sense, but others simply contribute to the problem.
Global warming is one of those myths we will all laugh about in the future.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Global warming is one of those myths we will all laugh about in the future.
From what I've read, global warming is hardly a myth. In the past 100 years, the global increase in temperature was about 0.6 degrees C. Since 1958, carbon dioxide has risen 15 percent.
The questions are... have we humans contributed to these changes and will these changes become catastrophic?
The first question is moot. The second is too soon to tell, IMHO.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm going to go out on a limb and say water vapor.
:aok
Now if mankind could just figure out how to stop evaporation in all the bodies of water in the world they would have some, extremely small, chance to stop the natural heating and cooling processes of the planet. ;)
If it is true that the eruption of Krakatoa put more junk into the atmosphere than mankind has in the entire 200 years since the industrial revolution ... then mankind impacts the planet at the rate of 72 minutes per century. Or on an individual basis, each person has .000144 seconds of environmental impact in his/her lifetime.
I for one think that we should all panic as soon as possible. :D:D:D
-
The questions are... have we humans contributed to these changes and will these changes become catastrophic?
I believe only many hundreds of years of deep weather records could determine this.
Even then, Nature could still throw a curveball at us.
-
What is a "deep weather record"?
The thermometer was invented in the 16th century.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What is a "deep weather record"?
The thermometer was invented in the 16th century.
You realize that science today can tell what the weather temperature was 1,000,000 years ago, right?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You realize that science today can tell what the weather temperature was 1,000,000 years ago, right?
I doubt that very much.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I doubt that very much.
Welcome to the 20th century.
http://www.tidepool.org/archives/brook.html
http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/News____9220.aspx
-
I heard that the gases given off by burning scientists is benificial to the ozone layer.
lazs
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
This quote from the BBC article sums it up.
I stopped believing that the current warm spell is entirely man made some time ago. There are simply too many inconsistencies in the whole plot. But it's got like a religion now and it is sacrelige to doubt any part of the mantra.
One example: Apparently the melting ice cap will release fresh water into the sea near the arctic. This will divert the warming gulf stream to the south which will cause the weather here in the British isles to more closely resemble that of Canada. Meaning the winters will be long and cold with lots of snow. My problem with that theory is that if the snow is melting in the arctic and Canada is warming up. Then why would it snow more here?
The other problem I see is that people can't tell the difference between environmentally friendly and ecologically friendly. Recycling glass for example. Glass is sand. If you bury it in a hole in the ground. That's environmentally unfriendly but it does no harm other than being unsightly. So it's recycled which I like to point out is ecologically unfriendly. Any manufacturing or remanufacturing process uses energy and causes greenhouse gases to be released. It's the same with paper. Paper is made from trees commercially grown for that very purpose. Recycling paper cause more releases of greenhouse gases and reduces the number of forests planted to produce paper.
Recycling certain things makes sense, but others simply contribute to the problem.
Global warming is one of those myths we will all laugh about in the future.
Now you've gone and done it....common sense can make liberals light headed and neausious. Be very careful
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Welcome to the 20th century.
http://www.tidepool.org/archives/brook.html
http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/News____9220.aspx
Evidently... 400,000 or 740,000 = 1,000,000
You may find this site (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html) interesting.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Evidently... 400,000 or 740,000 = 1,000,000
You may find this site (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html) interesting.
whats a couple hundred thou when you're discussing historic global temperatures?:huh
-
26-60% depending on your math skills. :)