read that carbon dioxide emmision reduction , only raises methane levels in the enviroment..both are climate change stimulants .... so if one is reduced and the other is made worse...whats the best solution. any help understanding this dilema would be apreciated. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/draft/section6/04.htm http://www.ece.umr.edu/links/power/Energy_Course/energy/Environment/Global%20Warming/methane.html i read these and they helped me zilch... If both are 'sorted' is their anything 'we' have no control over that will herald the great climate change.. Personaly i think we make our selves sick but don't do much too the planet ... but thats another story.
Two things to know: CH4 is like 21x efficient that CO2 in climate changes.... CO2 is metabolized by plants, but not CH4... En plus, CH4 is smelling bad. so, I assume that CH4 is dommageable more than CO2; for sure. If your reduction of about 21 unity of CO2 is causing more than 1 unity of CH4, don't do that. .
Ok I'm sorry. English is just my 3th language. (what? everybody in the world have to knows the language of business!?!) CO2 = carbon dioxide CH4 = methane If you can't try to understand wath I mean, don't work too much. Try: "CO2" "CH4" "climate changes" and "atmosphere" in google you will probably found a better view of climate chimestery that all that I can trying to explain . I'm really sorry.
I assumed you were stoned or something..not that English was not your first language ... I think i unerstand what you mean So CH4 IS 21X More damaging than CO2 because CO2 is metabolized by plants ... CH4 is more damaging because its not.. So controling CH4 should be the more important than CO2... ???? thank you very much... no I am sorry for my english arogance .
Energy from methane was mentioned recently on our forums as well. One of our members found this article: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995039 The EPA estimates that waste-to-energy technology annually avoids 33 million metric tons of carbondioxide, a greenhouse gas, that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere so it could prove quite useful.
The Magnitude of Evil Power in Flatulence: While most studies of "greenhouse gasses" focus on carbon dioxide, methane is twenty-one times (21x) more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere, a fact attributed to the larger size of the CH4 molecule. A Significant Source of Evil Flatulence: A cow can emit demonic flatulence at the rate of 280 liters of methane per day! Cattle herds in the U.S. emit approximately six million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere per year! Worldwide, livestock produces about 80 million metric tons of methane annually! [http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/03/032502t_cowpower.jhtml] In the past two centuries, atmospheric methane has more than doubled due in part to livestock flatulence. Potential Evil Effects of Flatulence: Some scientists speculate that current global warming, fueled by demonic flatulence, eventually can lead to the release of additional evil methane if the oceans warm substantially. That's because vast amounts of methane are frozen beneath the ocean floors just waiting to be released to do Satan's dirty stinking work. Once the atmosphere and oceans begin to warm, it's possible that more and more of the trapped demon methane will thaw and bubble out. Flatulent-induced Armageddon? "A tremendous release of methane gas frozen beneath the sea floor 55 million years ago was responsible for heating up the Earth by seven degrees, a study has revealed. The phenomenon could occur again and cause an acceleration of the current, pollution-related global warming process." [http://www.climateark.org/articles/2001/4th/prmegasw.htm] The additional evidence given above should serve to convince the reader that demons and evil angels are witnessed by farts as we previously have been warned. http://www.klima.ph/
actually methane is odorless and tasteless......sulfur dioxide is the gas that smells bad....alot of times people mistakenly call it methane......
