Global Warming Update: Hell Freezes Over!

[pErvinalia]

Organism breath in oxygen and breathe out C02 just as you do.

No shit, Sherlock. Organisms are also built by carbon based molecules. As organisms grow, they take free carbon out of the system. Ultimately it all works down to the smallest fauna/bacteria. If the system is in perfect balance, then the amount of free carbon taken out of the system will equal the amount that is given back by the system. Cutting down forests is arguably not a balanced system. Although, in very long time scales, it obviously will be.

[pErvinalia]

Mac, burning forests isn't a solution to global warming. It adds CO2 to the atmosphere. The only benefit these biomass generators might have (if they are using the ultra high heat catalysing process that I've forgotten the name of) is efficiency. Which is a good thing, but it's not a green technology.

That's an interesting question that I tried posing to some scientists a few years ago for an article. They couldn't answer whether it's better to burn down the dead and dying forests or to allow them to decompose. My take is that since the products of decomposition, primarily methane, have 17 times the impact on high-altitude atmospheric carbon than the products of combustion, which are primarily carbon monoxide and particulates, that burning the forests would do the most to prevent GHGs from reaching the upper atmosphere. Carbon monoxide, unlike methane, is heavier than air, as are the solid forms of carbon found in ash and particulates, which quickly settle out of the atmosphere.

Hmm, I hadn't really considered the relative composition of methane to co2 in the decomposition process. I wonder what it actually is? I suppose it varies for different ecosystem types. If methane is the dominant product, then perhaps that better than biomass burning (which will produce mostly CO2 the more efficient it gets), as methane is only short lived. Don't really know how the balance would all work out there. Would have to see some figures and do some calculations. I'll leave that to the climate scientists.

[mistermack]

It's very windy out.
Windy and wet. What more proof of AGW could these deniers need?

Why don't they learn some science?

[pErvinalia]

Man, you do realise no one is laughing with you? You're starting to make ME look sane.

[mistermack]

Man, you do realise no one is laughing with you? You're starting to make ME look sane.

[pErvinalia]

Exzacary!

[mistermack]

Exzacary!

Don't you oppress me !

That's rape in Sweden !!

[pErvinalia]

You're fucking madder than me. That's an accomplishment!

[NineBerry]

"I am not afraid of no global warming. If any tsunami wants to come on my property, it's going to get to see my shotgun in action, unless those bloody liberals have taken it away from me. "

[pErvinalia]

As long as I can still get bacon in a post-warming world, things will be alright..

[mistermack]

As long as I can still get bacon in a post-warming world, things will be alright..

I'm afraid there's no chance of that. Climate scientists have shown that global warming will mean a dramatic increase in porcine-production disasters, leading to pigmeat becoming uneconomic to produce.

Why don't you learn some science?

[pErvinalia]

Well they can fucking well manufacture my bacon in a test tube then.

[mistermack]

"I am not afraid of no global warming. If any tsunami wants to come on my property, it's going to get to see my shotgun in action, unless those bloody liberals have taken it away from me. "

What would you use for Tsunami?
12 guage over-and-under?

I would personally prefer a pump action, for any water-based home invasions.

[pErvinalia]

Seth will know..

[Warren Dew]

Man, you do realise no one is laughing with you? You're starting to make ME look sane.

I'm laughing with him. Every time there's a hot day, macdoc talks about global warming, but when there's a cold or normal day, he dismisses it as a statistical outlier. It's fallacies like macdoc's that give climate science a bad name.