Page 53 of 111 FirstFirst ... 343484950515253545556575863103 ... LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,060 of 2209
  1. #1041  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Dear samkim, as you may know by now, I am very, very, VERY rarely wrong, and certainly not this time.
    Sorry, but 'wrong' is your default setting.

    Also, I would never, ever confuse carbon with CO2.
    Umm...

    As most people know, the carbone atom C in the methane molecule CH4 is, like the vast majority of organic carbon, ultimately derived from atmospheric CO2. Burning the methane CH4 simply releases the CO2 again. It is a closed circle, hence no net addition of CO2 into the atmosphere.
    There's no net addition of carbon into the atmosphere. There's most certainly a net addition of CO2 from burning methane. They call it carbon neutrality for a reason. Carbon stays the same, while CO2-levels change.

    Burning methane from renewable sources (such as manure) or breathing do not result in net addition of CO2 because that CO2 has been removed from the atmosphere only weeks or so before, and it will be taken up by plants again in a short time - it is a closed circle, CO2 is just recycled (assuming biomass is constant, which is more or less the case because crops, from which the manure is derived from, are grown at a more or less constant rate).
    Manure contains methane, which is released when the manure decomposes. Methane can stay methane in the atmosphere for many years. Capturing and burning the methane from manure reduces methane, increases CO2, is carbon neutral, and reduces the greenhouse effect.

    Got it now?
  2. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1042  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Manure contains methane, which is released when the manure decomposes. Methane can stay methane in the atmosphere for many years.
    Methane has up to 1/3 the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Capturing and burning the methane from manure reduces methane, increases CO2, is carbon neutral, and reduces the greenhouse effect.
    The increase of CO2 in burning methane is only a partial greenhouse gas net reduction, due to methane being more potent. Trading for a slightly lesser evil is the sole result and due to its potentially more limited life, may net a zero reduction.

    As a percentage, what contribution to the greenhouse effect does manure/landfill waste makeup of methane production worldwide? How do you propose we capture and burn the other primary sources of methane?
  3. #1043  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Methane has up to 1/3 the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Great.

    The increase of CO2 in burning methane is only a partial greenhouse gas net reduction, due to methane being more potent. Trading for a slightly lesser evil is the sole result and due to its potentially more limited life, may net a zero reduction.
    As usual, I don't know what you're trying to say.

    As a percentage, what contribution to the greenhouse effect does manure/landfill waste makeup of methane production worldwide? How do you propose we capture and burn the other primary sources of methane?
    I don't know why you're asking me this.
  4. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1044  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I don't know why you're asking me this.
    Work the problem, sport.
  5. #1045  
    I can't help you with your problems. Try Google.
  6. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1046  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I can't help you with your problems. Try Google.
    You wear avoidance like a fine tailored suit.

    Have a pleasant day.
  7. #1047  
    pot calling kettle . . .
  8. #1048  
    sport
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1049  
    ^ Another swwwwwing and a miss, lil slugger.
  10. #1050  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    There's no net addition of carbon into the atmosphere. There's most certainly a net addition of CO2 from burning methane. They call it carbon neutrality for a reason. Carbon stays the same, while CO2-levels change.
    Clearly the concept of the cycle CO2-CH20-...-CH4-CO2-CH20-...-CH4-CO2-(and so on) still isn't understood in your case. Never mind, I give up, case closed.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #1051  
    Carbon stays the same while CO2-levels change. Carbon neutrality.

    There is no basis to claim that a given amount of CO2 will cycle back into the same amount of CO2 at a later point in time. "CO2 neutrality" is a common misnomer.

    Your claim that there's no net CO2 added to the atmosphere from burning methane is flat-out wrong - quite simply because when you burn methane, you add CO2 to the atmosphere. And your claim of CO2 neutrality is flat-out wrong, even in the long run. It's carbon neutrality.

    You very, very, VERY rarely admit you're wrong. And certainly not this time.
  12. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1052  
    ^ How long have reflective surfaces been outlawed where you live?
  13. #1053  
    Interesting thread....

    I'm not here to profess my intellect on the subject. However, from the outside looking in I do find it interesting how some like-minded folks from one extreme of the politcal spectrum can justify a half-trillion dollar war because there were suspicions (read: not 100% reliable information) of nuclear weapons in Iraq. You know the whole, "...if we don't act now then it may be too late when the proof is in the form of a mushroom cloud".

    So here we have a solid majority of scientists claiming that global warming is real, largely man made, and will likely....but not 100% postively....result in a global catastrophe and that same extreme of the political spectrum wants 100% proof that global warming is real and will result in very bad things.

    So from a 30,000 foot view - basically it comes down to the threat of 300MM people by "mushroom clouds" and shoddy evidence at best to justify the prevention of that threat vs. a scientifically well founded premise that (read: much better evidence than what led us into war in Iraq) could spell the demise of 6B+ people.

    So....why are you all arguing about this again?
  14. #1054  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    ...........So....why are you all arguing about this again?
    I am reminded of the student who, in the 60s, asked me why we were spending money to go to the moon when we had not solved "the problem of the cities." My answer was that we knew how to go to the moon.

    One answer to your question is that "we know how to start a war." A better one might be "leadership." Leaders make choices. We followed George Bush into war. Is there any doubt that if he had different priorities we would have followed him on energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse emissions?
  15. #1055  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    So from a 30,000 foot view - basically it comes down to the threat of 300MM people by "mushroom clouds" and shoddy evidence at best to justify the prevention of that threat vs. a scientifically well founded premise that (read: much better evidence than what led us into war in Iraq) could spell the demise of 6B+ people.
    1. Saddam didn't cooperate with UN weapons inspectors as required by the UN Resolutions. Nothing shoddy about that evidence.

    2. What scientists say about global warming is often not the same as what many people claim scientists say about global warming.

    3. The IPCC doesn't claim that global warming will likely lead to the demise of 6B+ people.

    4. Most people, including journalists, don't distinguish between views of the scientific consensus and views of individual scientists, including individuals associated with the IPCC.
  16. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1056  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    1. Saddam didn't cooperate with UN weapons inspectors as required by the UN Resolutions. Nothing shoddy about that evidence.
    That course of action, given your standard for evidence, is an exception to the Bush/Cheney rule of preemptive manipulation and liberation [read: Project For The New American Century], it seems, when highly tangible threats exist elsewhere. How inconvenient.

    2. What scientists say about global warming is often not the same as what many people claim scientists say about global warming.
    Clearly, methane-man.
  17. #1057  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    1. Saddam didn't cooperate with UN weapons inspectors as required by the UN Resolutions. Nothing shoddy about that evidence.
    Actually my recollection is that UN inspectors were on the ground prior to the war and while they were having difficulties, not one of the inspectors wanted to abort the inspections nor did they back invading Iraq. The majority of the planet did not believe us and did not want us to invade....turns out the world was right and the White House was very very wrong. And what did the White House say when they realize there were no WMDs? They blamed the intelligence and went on all of the news shows justifying their moral perogative to pre-emptively strike Iraq based on the best information they had in hand at the time. Read: the best guess on whether Iraq had WMDs was good enough - yet - the best guess on whether a large majority of scientist that claim global warming is very real is not. In fact, the White House instead has intentionally doctored reports to suit their political agenda with respect to global warming.

    2. What scientists say about global warming is often not the same as what many people claim scientists say about global warming.
    OK, well I think a lot of people claim that a lot of scientist are saying the planet is getting warmer and people are a principal cause. Can we agree that there are more scientist that think global warming is real vs. those that disagree?

    3. The IPCC doesn't claim that global warming will likely lead to the demise of 6B+ people.
    Since I prefaced that comment with a "at 30,000 feet" that meant I was speaking figuratively not literally. You know very well the point I was trying to make but just to play along....will global warming result in 300MM deaths? how about 1B? The point is that if it is a real threat global warming will likely result in vastly more deaths than a dirty nuclear bomb. And since it is clear to me that there is vastly more evidence of this possibility it would seem we ought to be collectively figuring out how we change course and fast....but then I know some of you on the right have trouble with that whole "change course" thing.

    4. Most people, including journalists, don't distinguish between views of the scientific consensus and views of individual scientists, including individuals associated with the IPCC.
    Well I'm sure that individual scientists do have differing opinions in some regards. But the point is that they have achieved consensus on the following: the planet is getting warmer and we've reach a tipping point; we're the ones causing it; we're the ones that can change course before it's too late; and it will be a very bad thing for all of us if we don't change course.
  18. #1058  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Actually my recollection is that UN inspectors were on the ground prior to the war and while they were having difficulties, not one of the inspectors wanted to abort the inspections nor did they back invading Iraq.
    Iraq violated the UN Resolutions. They were given a last chance to come clean, and they didn't. Saddam thought that his bribes to France or Russia would be enough to protect him. He miscalculated.

    What the inspectors thought we should do after Saddam didn't cooperate isn't relevant.


    The majority of the planet did not believe us and did not want us to invade....turns out the world was right and the White House was very very wrong.
    The world thought that Saddam didn't violate the Resolutions? They thought that letting him get away with defying UN inspectors set a good precedent for Libya, Iran, and North Korea? If so, I think they were wrong.

    In fact, the White House instead has intentionally doctored reports to suit their political agenda with respect to global warming.
    I'm aware of a White House staffer making sure that a report didn't overstate the confidence level of scientific knowledge. I'm unaware of "doctored reports." I suspect you're exaggerating. Please cite. Thanks.


    OK, well I think a lot of people claim that a lot of scientist are saying the planet is getting warmer and people are a principal cause. Can we agree that there are more scientist that think global warming is real vs. those that disagree?
    Global warming is real.


    Since I prefaced that comment with a "at 30,000 feet" that meant I was speaking figuratively not literally. You know very well the point I was trying to make
    The point is that your exaggeration is not the exception, but the rule. Virtually everyone overstates the confidence level and the expected consequences of global warming.

    but just to play along....will global warming result in 300MM deaths?
    No. The fact that you even suggest it underlines the problem.

    how about 1B?
    Hell no.

    The point is that if it is a real threat global warming will likely result in vastly more deaths than a dirty nuclear bomb.
    And even more than a car bomb. But a biological attack has the potential to wipe out 6B people. No exaggeration. And terrorists with three nuclear weapons have the power to kill millions of people, hold the world hostage, dismantle our government, and end our way of life (freedoms, capitalism, education, etc.). This is their goal.

    As for global warming, I think we'll adapt fine. But many animals (easily billions) will disappear.

    And since it is clear to me that there is vastly more evidence of this possibility
    There's a vast amount of evidence that the world is warming, and that we may be contributing to it. But predictions about the future are based on untested models.


    Well I'm sure that individual scientists do have differing opinions in some regards. But the point is that they have achieved consensus on the following: the planet is getting warmer and we've reach a tipping point; we're the ones causing it; we're the ones that can change course before it's too late; and it will be a very bad thing for all of us if we don't change course.
    problematic language in bold
    Both minimize the uncertainty.
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1059  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Iraq violated the UN Resolutions. They were given a last chance to come clean and they didn't.
    Failure to come clean to what specifically? Regional sabre-rattling? Nuclear Israel is guilty of more.

    You and yours refused to listen to, and took calculated measures to muzzle the prior UN Chief Weapons Inspector, former US Marine, Scott Ritter. Well, isn't that special.

    Saddam thought that his bribes to France or Russia would be enough to protect him. He miscalculated.
    The same Saddam whom the US hand-picked and placed into power via assassination in the 1950's?

    Keep running, sport.
  20. #1060  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Iraq violated the UN Resolutions. They were given a last chance to come clean, and they didn't. Saddam thought that his bribes to France or Russia would be enough to protect him. He miscalculated.

    What the inspectors thought we should do after Saddam didn't cooperate isn't relevant.


    The world thought that Saddam didn't violate the Resolutions? They thought that letting him get away with defying UN inspectors set a good precedent for Libya, Iran, and North Korea? If so, I think they were wrong.

    I'm aware of a White House staffer making sure that a report didn't overstate the confidence level of scientific knowledge. I'm unaware of "doctored reports." I suspect you're exaggerating. Please cite. Thanks.


    Global warming is real.


    The point is that your exaggeration is not the exception, but the rule. Virtually everyone overstates the confidence level and the expected consequences of global warming.

    No. The fact that you even suggest it underlines the problem.

    Hell no.

    And even more than a car bomb. But a biological attack has the potential to wipe out 6B people. No exaggeration. And terrorists with three nuclear weapons have the power to kill millions of people, hold the world hostage, dismantle our government, and end our way of life (freedoms, capitalism, education, etc.). This is their goal.

    As for global warming, I think we'll adapt fine. But many animals (easily billions) will disappear.

    There's a vast amount of evidence that the world is warming, and that we may be contributing to it. But predictions about the future are based on untested models.


    problematic language in bold
    Both minimize the uncertainty.

    You're quite possibly correct that there isn't any certainty in the effects of global warming. Anymore than there was certainty that Saddam had WMDs. But here is where my own analogy falls apart - unlike global warming, Iraq and the supposed threat it posed was surrounded - as in, we managed to get our arms around the threat. Sadly enough we do not have our arms around the threat of global warming.

    Most telling in your replies was the matter-of-fact manner in which you accept the possibility that a billion animals may die because of global warming and your expert opinion that 300M people won't die because of global warming. Honestly you talk in circles - you're certain that a majority of scientist cannot make reasonable guesstimates as to how the planet and life on that planet will be affected by global warming but quick to assure me that your expert opinion is that we'll be just fine....unless you're an animal I guess.

    In any event, this is something reasonable people can change. Oil is to blame for many things and it needs to go. Someone has to have the courage - like Brazil did - to ween America off of oil. This is a crisis that is manageable and I know that we have the smarts and resources to do it if we want to do it and don't let the oil companies and the DC cronies convince us otherwise.

    I'm not sure how true this story is, but I once heard that during WWII the Japanese occupied all of the islands from which we got our rubber - rubber that was needed for tires on our airplanes. Do you know what happened then? We suddenly crapped synthetic rubber. We've reached that crisis point in history with oil - whether the impetus be global warming or extremist wack jobs in the middle east - we can and should move to alternative fuels as aggressively as we can.

Posting Permissions