On Nov 26, 1:14 pm, john fernbach wrote:
On Nov 26, 11:15 am, LiquidSquid wrote:



natural wetlands remain the single largest source of methane emissions,
accounting for about one third of the global annual total from the Earth..
I propose we destroy all wetlands.

Hey, its a good thing we drive cars around rather than horses/cows/
donkeys etc. Otherwise think of all of the methane! Fart city. I
wonder if anyone has correlated localized "global warning" with any
festivals like beer-drinking or chili cook-offs.

Seriously I think the research on the felled trees and their
contribution to global warming is like a zit on the ass of an
elephant. It will just go unnoticed in the grand scheme of things.
What make this research a real waste? OMFG, they grow back! And
perhaps now that a bunch of homes are ruined and people have moved
elsewhere, more trees will take their place and absorb even more CO2
fertilizer. Whats even more crazy about this poor science is the fact
that by the time these felled trees are fully rotted, young saplings
will already be absorbing/scrubbing the air of CO2 at (a wild guess
here) a similar rate at which is is being released. Unless of course
we decide to turn all of those trees into a parking lot or a series of
1 million mowed lawns instead.

Of larger impact is the various large fires around the world this
year, which pumped an immediate surge of heat and CO2 into the
atmosphere. Still a zit, but a larger one than a bunch of felled
trees. However, they will grow back too, and with proper land and
forest management, may have a significant effect on removing the CO2
and heat they produced in the near future. Young forests, not mature
forests, are the best absorbers of CO2.

-LS

LS - I don't really know the science on CO2 absorption/emissions and
trees.
But your comments here are ignoring the whole questions of the 320
million dead and rotting trees giving off methane, aren't you?

And isn't methane a greenhouse gas that's some 20 times more potent
than CO2? So that the young saplings you're talking about would need
to be absorbing about 20 times more CO2 as they grow to maturity as
the dead trees will be giving off in methane as they decay?

Methane does not exist very long in the atmosphere, it is broken down
into CO2 and water via interaction with UV and oxygen. Essentially a
slow burn. It does take a while (a lot of factors such as temperature/
pressure/etc), but considerably less time than CO2 can stay in the
atmosphere. Well, that doesn't equate well, since CO2 can stick around
a very long time, but it does break down quickly. Someone more
knowledgeable about the half-life of Methane in the atmosphere could
chime in here... It may be in the order of days, not years. It is a
decay process however, so dump in a lot of Methane, it takes a lot of
time to go back down to 1% of the original amount.

When you burn the wood, it just speeds the process considerably. Goes
straight from wood to CO2 water and other trace stuff. Keeps my feet
toasty.

-LS

On Nov 26, 1:30 pm, LiquidSquid wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:14 pm, john fernbach wrote:



On Nov 26, 11:15 am, LiquidSquid wrote:

natural wetlands remain the single largest source of methane emissions,
accounting for about one third of the global annual total from the Earth..
I propose we destroy all wetlands.

Hey, its a good thing we drive cars around rather than horses/cows/
donkeys etc. Otherwise think of all of the methane! Fart city. I
wonder if anyone has correlated localized "global warning" with any
festivals like beer-drinking or chili cook-offs.

Seriously I think the research on the felled trees and their
contribution to global warming is like a zit on the ass of an
elephant. It will just go unnoticed in the grand scheme of things.
What make this research a real waste? OMFG, they grow back! And
perhaps now that a bunch of homes are ruined and people have moved
elsewhere, more trees will take their place and absorb even more CO2
fertilizer. Whats even more crazy about this poor science is the fact
that by the time these felled trees are fully rotted, young saplings
will already be absorbing/scrubbing the air of CO2 at (a wild guess
here) a similar rate at which is is being released. Unless of course
we decide to turn all of those trees into a parking lot or a series of
1 million mowed lawns instead.

Of larger impact is the various large fires around the world this
year, which pumped an immediate surge of heat and CO2 into the
atmosphere. Still a zit, but a larger one than a bunch of felled
trees. However, they will grow back too, and with proper land and
forest management, may have a significant effect on removing the CO2
and heat they produced in the near future. Young forests, not mature
forests, are the best absorbers of CO2.

-LS

LS - I don't really know the science on CO2 absorption/emissions and
trees.
But your comments here are ignoring the whole questions of the 320
million dead and rotting trees giving off methane, aren't you?

And isn't methane a greenhouse gas that's some 20 times more potent
than CO2? So that the young saplings you're talking about would need
to be absorbing about 20 times more CO2 as they grow to maturity as
the dead trees will be giving off in methane as they decay?

Methane does not exist very long in the atmosphere, it is broken down
into CO2 and water via interaction with UV and oxygen. Essentially a
slow burn. It does take a while (a lot of factors such as temperature/
pressure/etc), but considerably less time than CO2 can stay in the
atmosphere. Well, that doesn't equate well, since CO2 can stick around
a very long time, but it does break down quickly. Someone more
knowledgeable about the half-life of Methane in the atmosphere could
chime in here... It may be in the order of days, not years. It is a
decay process however, so dump in a lot of Methane, it takes a lot of
time to go back down to 1% of the original amount.

The reaction that removes CH4 from the atmosphere is with the hydroxyl
radical which gives an atmospheric lifetime of ~10 years, however OH
is only present at low concentrations so a sudden increase in CH4
could lead to a much longer lifetime due to a deficiency in OH.
Some CH4 makes it to the stratosphere where it reacts to form H2O,
it's believed to be a major source of the increase in humidity in the
stratosphere.





When you burn the wood, it just speeds the process considerably. Goes
straight from wood to CO2 water and other trace stuff. Keeps my feet
toasty.

-LS

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:42:52 -0800 (PST), "Phil."
wrote:

snip
The reaction that removes CH4 from the atmosphere is with the hydroxyl
radical which gives an atmospheric lifetime of ~10 years, however OH
is only present at low concentrations so a sudden increase in CH4
could lead to a much longer lifetime due to a deficiency in OH.
snip

I imagine, though I cannot say if I've actually read a report on it,
that CO from incomplete combustion since humans started using fossil
fuels on a large scale has also competed for atmospheric hydroxyls,
which exist in small quantities (I would guess -OH is created by photo
disassociation of H2O or from lightning and similar discharges.) If
so, the CO competition for hydroxyl scrubbing might also contribute to
that longer lifetime of CH4.

Jon

--
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled
with the entrails of the last priest. [Denis Diderot]