Scientific Forums

  Replying to Global Health_2
Unregistered User Info
Enter your Name
Code Buttons
 Guided Mode
 Normal Mode
  Close all Tags

Open Tags:   
Enter your Post
Clickable Smilies
smilie  smilie  smilie 
smilie  smilie  smilie 
smilie  smilie  smilie 
smilie  smilie  smilie 
smilie  smilie  smilie 
Show All

Confirm security code
Post Options  Enable emoticons?
 Enable signature?
Original Post to Quote
You may edit the post you are quoting here
Post Icons                                 
  [ Use None ]


Last 10 Posts [ In reverse order ]
yor_on Posted on Feb 21 2009, 10:27 AM

Who said I'm Swedish?
I may confirm it, but then I'll have to selfimplode:)

IAMoraes Posted on Feb 21 2009, 01:03 AM
QUOTE (yor_on @ Feb 20 2009, 07:13 PM)
But we still have our tropical rainforest's, don't we

20% of the Amazon jungle has disappeared without a trace and no one knows as little as where the money is. Gone.

(Man! I didn't know you are Swedish!)
yor_on Posted on Feb 21 2009, 12:11 AM

You wrote
"is not "locked" in the moderator sense, but is read-only"

'Locked' then?
Is that when it's gone in its entirely.

Sorry, I don't get the 'difference' here?
But it's ok, I guess I might learn:)
yor_on Posted on Feb 20 2009, 11:13 PM
  So are we fooled by some conspiracy of scientists?
Wanting to make money(?) and fame?

Not according to this.

According to 3,146 scientists it is. a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of a "vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."

"Research carried out at the Climatic Research Unit at the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA) demonstrates for the first time that anthropogenic climate change is responsible for warming at the Arctic and Antarctic."

How about those wildfires in Australia then. Shouldn't the environmentalists take some blame for those?
They don't want us to cut down trees, right, wasn't it all those trees that worsened those fires? The Times (Monday, Feb. 09, 2009) has an article discussing the probable causes for those fires at,...1878220,00.html

According to a study "by the U.S. Geological Survey and involving the University of Colorado at Boulder and Oregon State University as well as other research institutes indicates tree deaths in the West's old-growth forests have more than doubled in recent decades, likely from regional warming and related drought conditions." and forests in the pacific northwest are dying twice as fast as they were 17 years ago according to

But we still have our tropical rainforest's, don't we. This study gives us new facts about the importance of them. It says that "Tropical forest trees are absorbing about 18 percent of the CO2 added to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels, substantially buffering the rate of climate change."

So how are we handling this planets rainforest's then? Here are some facts. "If deforestation continues at current rates, scientists estimate nearly 80 to 90 percent of tropical rainforest ecosystems will be destroyed by the year 2020. This destruction is the main force driving a species extinction rate unmatched in 65 million years."

Ok, but we must have reduced some CO2 in the atmosphere by now, I mean with all this 'scare propaganda' from those 'bought' scientists and scaremongers. So even if CO2 was to blame in some way we are reducing it, right. Here is a recent update (4-Feb-2009) for our CO2 emissions by the American Geophysical Union. " Worldwide man-made emissions of carbon dioxide -- the main gas that causes global warming -- jumped 3 percent 2007 "

And our oceans? How is it with them then? They are our primary 'heatsinks' for taking up CO2, aren't they?
You did notice this little paragraph in it? "the model does not take into account the effect of methane released by ocean sediments as the water warms. Methane reacts with oxygen and removes it from water. So it's possible, he says, that the "oxygen depletion would be much worse." Here is a study from from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. They state that "oxygen-poor regions of tropical oceans are expanding as the oceans warm, limiting the areas in which predatory fishes and other marine organisms can live or enter in search of food."

I'll finish with the newest approach to human folly. Nuclear powerplants, seen as the 'final' solution to CO2 for many. How come that we always are looking for that 'sword' to cut the gor(d)ian knot (a metaphor for an intractable problem, solved by a bold stroke)? and here we have a short description of how different countries try to solve their 'disposal' problems.

Just to bring some facts into that discussion. Did you know that "the time required for half of the atoms in any given quantity of a radioactive isotope to decay is the half-life of that isotope. Each particular isotope has its own half-life. For example, the half-life of 238U is 4.5 billion years. That is, in 4.5 billion years, half of the 238U on Earth will have decayed into other elements. In another 4.5 billion years, half of the remaining 238U will have decayed. One fourth of the original material will remain on Earth after 9 billion years. The half-life of 14 C is 5730 years, thus it is useful for dating archaeological material. Nuclear half-lives range from tiny fractions of a second to many, many times the age of the universe." And we don't as yet have any storage facilities that will hold even a hundred years. Here is a 'wiki' and here is a physics professors view.

What you have to remember reading about nuclear waste handling is that we have had it since the second world war, and that the pros and cons still are being debated. Those trusting in it puts their trust in technologies, still to come, for reprocessing the wastes. "In West Germany, 124,000 containers of low-level waste and some 1,300 containers of intermediate-level waste were disposed of in the Asse mine. Similarly, East Germany used the Morsleben mine for the disposal of its non-heat-generating waste. Both are located in a salt-dome and have been mined for decades for rock salt and potassium chloride. However, rock instabilities caused by extensive mining activities have led to problems of mechanical stability. Another major safety problem at Asse is that since 1988, 12 cubic meters of salt water has entered the mine daily--an amount that could change in the future. No matter the amount, the incoming brine will be lifted to the surface and discarded at a different facility." And In Sweden our plans for deposing our nuclear wastes in so called 'parent rock' (Bed rock) known as some of the most stable geological formations in the world is under questioning again as the copper capsules meant to contain the nuclear waste down in the 'mines' might decompose in only fifty years."During 2008, and highlighted in articles this past week, there has been statements that the maximum rate of corrosion of copper in pure water may be higher than anticipated. This is important to the nuclear issue because copper is one of the four barriers of the Swedish Nuclear Fuel And Waste Management Company (SKB) method of storing nuclear waste:"
(Only Swedish, sorry about that)

And in America they tried to dilute the waste first and then cast it in solid glass capsules, but the glass became brittle due to heat and 'isotopic decay'.

All of the western countries have tried to deport their wastes, but nowadays no country will take it any more. With the possible exception of dictatorship third world countries where the indigenous population gets no vote. And in Russia they already have some of the worst radioactively contaminated regions in the world Slawomir Grunberg made a documentary film about that one.

And there have been accidents elsewhere too, not as serious as Chernobyl but dangerous enough, both in the States and in Europe.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue researching nuclear power as one of the alternatives, but it is not 'the' solution that some want you to believe. The best would be, as I see it, a lot of small scale projects involving wind, sun, water, geothermic energy and so on. Created by people on the 'spot' where they need it and adapted to that region. Nuclear plants should only be seen as a solution when all else already have been tried.

As everything else I've observed under my time on this Earth it seems mostly as a shortsighted struggle about whose is the 'power' to decide.
And 'they' expect us to 'adapt'.

But this time it will be somewhat more difficult than what they expect, I think.
bukh Posted on Feb 17 2009, 06:43 PM

"Thank you! That is more than I ever knew about kelp in my life!"

Also more than I know - simply stolen from Wiki saying: "Kelp has a high rate of growth and its decay is quite efficient in yielding methane, as well as sugars ---"

As to your concern, I think that there is no reason for unduly worry thanks to the Gaia Hypothesis.

Or put differently - Mother Earth have been faced with a long line of similar problems over billions of year - and homeostasis would seem to be maintained every time.

IAMoraes Posted on Feb 17 2009, 05:52 PM
QUOTE (bukh @ Feb 17 2009, 05:36 AM)
methane is a natural decay product of kelp - and as such a high kelp turnover releases a lot of methane. So high methane output is just a healthy sign of ocean production efficacy.

Thank you! That is more than I ever knew about kelp in my life!

But I think backwardsinsideoutupsidedown blink.gif , and didn't state my case clearly enough, in fact I said the opposite of what I meant.

There is a chance that during a mass extinction of sea life the **surviving** sea organisms would adapt to the font of energy that becomes more abundant, methane. The methane release would only last for a few years while a life form would be evolving towards the use of a new energy source. That organism -whose existence is hypothetical, of course- may be a further cause for a a massive sea extinction later on: the sea would become poisonous!

as noted in the original post, which was what made me go into this detour)

Would that be a possibility?
bukh Posted on Feb 17 2009, 09:36 AM

"Is the kelp dying? "

As I read it, methane is a natural decay product of kelp - and as such a high kelp turnover releases a lot of methane. So high methane output is just a healthy sign of ocean production efficacy.
rpenner Posted on Feb 17 2009, 07:39 AM
  Technical note from your moderator. Global Health, the original thread, is not "locked" in the moderator sense, but is read-only and hidden since it is on a forum that was created as part of a partnership with, a news site. We aren't their partners anymore, so we had to sit around alone on Valentine's Day and then WGN showed Somewhere in Time to add insult to injury.

Sorry for the inconvenience.
IAMoraes Posted on Feb 17 2009, 05:07 AM
QUOTE (yor_on @ Dec 8 2008, 12:02 PM)
Let's take a closer look at methane:)
This is Methane hydrates
"Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common.
Significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth"

(Hi, YorOn.

Off-topic 1: Take a quick look at iodomethane:

Off-topic 2: Is the kelp dying? Are deep-sea microorganisms dying off in great numbers? What about the floating "population" of microorganisms, dying off too?!?! I am thinking in that direction because if there is a source of energy there is a good chance someone else already got to it before us. I am betting it's the dying microorganisms.)
Quatermass Posted on Feb 13 2009, 11:03 AM
  The so-called Bermuda Triangle sinkings are believed to be down to methane release where bubbles in huge numbers and size have meant ships are no longer buoyant and sink suddenly and without warning. Warmer waters will mean that oceans can hold less of such gases, so pumping more greenhouses gases into the atmosphere, so starting a cycle.
Terms of use