|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 14 new of 33 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 20 of 33:
| 
Mar 19 02:34 UTC 2006 |
apparently there have been three seperate articles about this process in the
Discover magazine, and writeups in Fortune and the National Geographic. The
one article disputing the article that I found apparently misunderstood aprt
of what the article said, mistaking it as saying it would turn steel into oil,
it didn't. it just said you could chop up anything, including a car, adn it
would be able to run thru the process. It would turn the plastic parts into
oil, and the steel woudl come out the other end basically stripped.
|
gull
|
|
response 21 of 33:
|
Mar 20 03:31 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:19: On the other hand, some theories suggest that global warming
may cause an uncontrolled release of that stored methane. My
understanding is that methane has an even higher ability to trap heat
than CO2.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 33:
|
Mar 20 06:49 UTC 2006 |
There is evidence from ice cores that at the time of the last thermal maximum
that the seabed methane had not released. The evidence lies in the isotopic
signature of the methane in the gases trapped in the ice. But it is true,
molecule for molecule, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas. There is
just more CO2.
|
gull
|
|
response 23 of 33:
|
Apr 1 08:46 UTC 2006 |
I saw the figure yesterday that burning one gallon of gasoline produces
20 pounds of CO2.
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 33:
|
Apr 1 22:00 UTC 2006 |
Methane is 20 times more powerful at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
Levels of atmospheric methane have risen 145% in the last 100 years.
Methane is derived from sources such as rice paddies, bovine flatulence,
bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel production. Most of the worlds rice, and
all of the rice in the United States, is grown on flooded fields. When fields
are flooded, anaerobic conditions develop and the organic matter in the soil
decomposes, releasing CH4 to the atmosphere, primarily through the rice
plants.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 33:
|
Apr 2 07:00 UTC 2006 |
You omitted the first sentence from the web page, which reads "... carbon
dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas".
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 33:
|
Apr 2 12:12 UTC 2006 |
Methane.s relatively short atmospheric lifetime, coupled with its potency as
a greenhouse gas, makes it a candidate for mitigating global warming over the
near-term (i.e., next 25 years or so).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 27 of 33:
|
Apr 3 15:39 UTC 2006 |
Methane makes a secondary, and decreasing, contribution to global warming,
but it would be of some use to control it. But how can natural methane
production be controlled?
|
klg
|
|
response 28 of 33:
|
Apr 3 16:12 UTC 2006 |
Is that a scientific fact, or just your opinion?
|
tod
|
|
response 29 of 33:
|
Apr 3 21:07 UTC 2006 |
re #27
No more rice
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 33:
|
Apr 4 05:01 UTC 2006 |
Not practical. How about no more gasoline?
|
tod
|
|
response 31 of 33:
|
Apr 4 05:31 UTC 2006 |
You mean petroleum? Like no more pesticides, plastics, nor lubricants for
machinery? Yea, good luck with that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 33:
|
Apr 4 05:34 UTC 2006 |
Like, no more food for Asians? Yea, good luck with that. (And I did say
g a s o l i n e. Dont know how you thought that started with a p.)
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 33:
|
Apr 4 17:56 UTC 2006 |
re #32
I guess we're doomed by China then. ;)
|