Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
ace:
True, the increased percentage of methane gas is much higher than carbon dioxide. And it's warming capacity per particle is higher. But the answer to why Carbon Dioxide matters more is in your own post.
CO2 accounts for 375 ppm
Methane accounts for 1800 ppb
CO2 is a significant part of our atmosphere while methane remains a trace gas.
Methane gas is also a product of industrial and agricultural pollution. It's increase is not entirely a product of 'natural' cycle.
Our over-use of fertilizers, landfills and natural gas extraction contribute to the methane rise.
Also, the average global temperature rise of 0.5C is a global average. The poles actually are warmed approx 1.5 to 2C while the equator sees virtually no temperature rise at all. This is important because of the delicate balance we are seeing tipped for our polar ice.
Without greenhouse gases, the earth would be uninhabitable. They are a good thing. But then, too much of a good thing can kill you. Oxygen is a caustic gas. It is just in a small enough quantity that it helps us thrive. Nitrogen makes up 78% of our atmosphere. At 90% a spark would set this entire planet on fire.
The planet will spring back from all the gasses we pump into it's atmosphere. The question is, will it happen while humans still have a future?
|
The important question is one of policy. If we reduce CO2 by x% and reduce methane by x%, no one knows what would happen or what the most efficient balance is between the two numbers. Other factors include re-forrestation and other natural occurances that control greenhouse gases. Also, given current conditions in the world and developing nations wanting to industrialize and improve agriculture, how do you strike a balance between what we currently have and what other nations want? For example if a developing nation wants to destroy a rain forrest to raise cattle should they be allowed to. Should coal be banned for use in creating electricity, should we use nuclear?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nimetic
What the hell !
That law applies to forces (eg pushing against a boat) not temperature. Go read a book on thermodynamics.
|
So you can create energy, rather than transfer or convert energy? If you can or know how it is done, wouldn't that solve our problems?
When i took physics temprature was related to kinetic energy. The law of forces governed kinetic energy. I admit, it was about 25 years ago. Perhaps there have been some new developments, if so I am interested in knowing more.