3v0

Do not overlook the impact of greenhouse gasses generated by volcanoes.

Blueteeth

OOoo thats one of the idea's discussed in a recent news report we had here. Not being a cause, but a cure!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Although, whilst volcano's indeed produce vast(!!!) quantities of gases that alledgely contribute to climate change, a few scientists are thinking about recreating the effects to actually cool the earth down! Of course, who knows, at least idea's are flowing now, even the radical ones, whether they're about prevention (form man-made sources that is, if its natural, we're screwed) or countering them.

Good point man, volcano erruptions have changed the planet far more than we ever have.

Blueteeth

__________________
Inconsistency is the key to flexibility!

Roff

Dairy farmers have had milking machines for years. Why not farting machines?

__________________
Ron

Hero999

Interestingly after the initial period of cooling after the eruption I can't remember hearing about a warm period been recorded after it. Volcanic winters are well documented but I've never heard of a volcanic summer funny that considering the amounts of greenhouse gasses released from eruptions.

__________________
What's so bad about Microsoft?

Get Opera it's simply a superb browser.

ericgibbs

hi RonH,

Would you believe in a recent short form catalog from Maplin, they advertised an electronic farting machine!!!.

I usually find a couple of pints and a hot curry is just as effective and its organic and eco-friendly.!!!

Regards
Eric

I couldn't find a bio-hazard smiley.

EDIT: Just found the catalog, its a Radio Controlled Fart Machine
Ive got the part code # if anyone wants it.

3v0

Yup I was thinking about their impact on the ozone layer (pick a problem any problem). Which also seems to be bunc but..

It turns out that volcanoes do emit CO2 but not enough to matter.

INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:

Oznog

Actually volcanoes are interesting in that they also produce a lot of sulfur dioxide. Now sulfur dioxide is a pollutant and creates aerosols that later fall to earth as acid rain, which generally kills stuff.
However, the aerosols have a significant cooling effect while airborn. They reflect sunlight.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants has been reduced and is slated for further reduction. Due to its inevitably forming destructive acid rain, that's a good thing. But from a global warming perspective, whether from volcanoes, power plants, or car exhaust sulfur dioxide cools the earth.

__________________
I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.

Hero999

So it turns out that volcanoes aren't as polluting as I thought.

Well most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is generated by microbes in the sea anyway.

If golbal warming is caused by human activity (and in my opinion there isn't enough evidence to say that it is) then why can't we just release non-toxic reflective compounds in to the atmosphere?

Another interesting thing is that although CFCs are greenhouse gases they ozone they destroy is an even stronger greenhouse gas so their net effect isn't global warming.

__________________
What's so bad about Microsoft?

Get Opera it's simply a superb browser.

Blueteeth

I tihnk theres still some confusion over 'climate change causes'. Hero, you're right about the main debate being about whether it IS human activity, or just the natural cycle of thhe planet, or some combination of the two (in which case, just how much of an effect we have). But climate change is merely the warming of the earth and the associated effects, caused by certain gasses. Although CO2 isn't the most potent greenhouse gas, its by far the largest by-product of our lifestyle. Everything produces in abundance, all living matter included.

The gases that 'freinds of the earth' and other oganisations try to curb are generally harmful to humans and animals, NOT the planet as a whole, we just don't produce enough of them. Those are the 'polutants', CO2 isn't particularly toxic compared to them. Volcanoes produce more pollution than anything else, I have no idea why you said otherwise...just because the secondary effects of an erruption cool the earth, doesn't make them any less polluting....

My personal take on the subject is that we have simply destabalised the carbon cycle. Its a basic idea that we were taught in school from an early age. If you look at the graphs for long term atmospheric carbon concentrations....its virtually a sine wave, waxing and waning as the earth heats up, causes forest fires..lets more CO2 into the atmosphere blocking out the sun, cooling it down, then plants can grow again, taking up all the CO2 they love. I >vaguely< remember reading about the damping constant of that graph, and how it only takes a very small addition (or removal) of CO2 to set it off.

So I guess its really a case of reducing atmospheric CO2 at the cost of producing much more toxic substances, but in vastly smaller quantities, or stop the polutants, at the cost of more CO2. Ultimately: Enviromental damage (affects most animals/trees), OR climate change (affects everything). The above ultimatum is a bloody good argument for nuclear power

Blueteeth

Ps. Although it probably goes without saying, I'm just ranting and spouting opinions/idea's here. I have little evidence to back up anything, so as always, biiig pinch of salt with my posts.

__________________
Inconsistency is the key to flexibility!

Hero999

I knew that volcanoes are the worst polluters on the whole but I got confused with their CO2 emissions.

One thing that interestes me is that the anthropogenic emissions of methane seem pretty high considering the amount you would think it produced naturally.


One thin I question is has some of the natural methane emissions been replaced by anthropogenic emissions?

Suppose a huge area of wetland is cleared in Cina and used for rice cultivation. Previously the methane emissions would have been classed as natural but now they are classed as anthropogenic because it resulds from agreculture.

__________________
What's so bad about Microsoft?

Get Opera it's simply a superb browser.

Blueteeth

Hey,

I must say I didn't even begin to think about methane...and that does look like a LOT of man made gh-gase. The only thing I can think of is (in the west) is refuse landfills , when they decay it produces god knows how much polution, and the ones that are gaseous of course just go into the atmosphere. Burning it is an option to sustain power requirements, gah I wish i could remember the process, something like 'plasma injection' (completely burns all refuse maximising energy output) . But that would still produce CO2, in the same, if not higher levels, just little else. As for less developed countries, could be any number of things, and while the west produces the majority of CO2, I'm willing to bet that its the less developed coutries kicking out the methane. Be it from agreculture or non-regulated chemical/manufacturing processes, because the west has greater restrictions for emissions deemed harmful to the enviroment (CO2 NOT being one of them).

I *assumed* methane was produced in such low levels as to not make much of a difference, but I know it occurs everywhere in nature at the most basic level, I honestly didn't realise that we were kicking out that much!

As for the cultivation thing? I guess this would venture into 'definitions' and pigeon holing the sources of emmissions. 'Natural' emmissions, although considered part of the cycle of life, could be curbed by intervention. Although......assuming (big 'if' here) if the emmissions are similar after cultivation, then from a emissions point of view, nothing has changed, except maybe a from a legal point of view (not that china will introduce laws like that any time soon).

I know the interest in this has gone up a gear in the past few years, I still can't find any original reports by researchers though...just second/third/forth hand accounts and sparse figures from the media, over simplified to the point of being ridiculous. If anyone has a link to a recent research paper, I'd be very interested.

Cheers for that hero999 Always good to discuss this sort of thing, and I'm sorry to the OPfor waffling on about general 'climate change' when its really just about new Solar Panels

Blueteeth

Blueteeth

__________________
Inconsistency is the key to flexibility!

Hero999

We are producing loads of CH4 compared to the proportion of CO2 emissions. There again methane isn't as stornger greenhouse gas as CO2 so it's not to bad really.


Methane oxidises to CO2 in the atmosphere over time but looking at pie charts can be misleading, methane is insignificant to CO2 which is negligible compared to H2O.

Another source of methane in developed countries is waste water treatment. Some methane is burnt as a fuel but unfortunately most sources are fairly dirty so it can't be used as a domestic fuel but it is burned in special boilers in power stations if enough of it is available to be worth the effort.

I'm an environmentalist but I hat greenpeace. I think they have some moronic ideas. They bitch about people burning fossil fuels but then whine when alternatives such as wind power and energy from incinerating waste; we need to get our energy from somewhere!

__________________
What's so bad about Microsoft?

Get Opera it's simply a superb browser.

Blueteeth

I tip my hat to you sir for both the above statement. And frankly I don't think I need to add anything to it Except to say that 'animal rights activists' are generally the same way.

-Blueteeth

__________________
Inconsistency is the key to flexibility!

jemch72

I have done many work with solar power specially in remote mountains to repeat radio signals for data and voice, a very high tech thing and expensive as solar panels are not masive sales..., but I also did a real solution that lower my bill a lot...my home has a electric water heater, at the beginning I installed a timer and adapted to 220vac, it low the bill right away making the heater work for short periods of time like 6 times a day, but then, I installed a panel on the roof and conected to the water source, i mean not a electric panel, I built with cooper pipe a radiator, put it inside a black box, installed on the roof and isolated with a window , add a tank just for holding water ,then the water output goes to the electric heater inside my home and now, the water coming from the roof is so hot that the water heater thermostat never calls for power, even in cold days..may be sound complex for now, but is quite simple, actually the hard part for me was play plumber, I am electronic to the bone...
For now , i am working to make a a/c work by high pressure air, as air at high pressure from a scuba tank circulate thru a stainless steel high pressure pipe, the pipe get cold and even freeze, the the fan blows the cold air as the normal A/c, but have some issues with check valves(they act like diodes) because this is close circuit, the runs to a second scuba tank, then I am trying to make the cycle with out using much a compressor and lower the use of electric power...and fighting to lear to program pics, when i went to the university z80 and 8031 processors was top of the line, no I can't belive a pic come with a/d conv, self oscillator, etc....I was working on industrial instrumentation and control for many years in minery and never updated my mcu knowledge..but well I am back heating my brain like the panel on the roof...

Hero999

You shouldn't have bothered, turning down the thurmostat would've had the same effect.

What's the cimate like where you live?

Does it freeze and snow in winter?

Those solart panels won't work in winter in colder areas and without anti -freeze they'll freeze solid.

Have you thought about water cooling the air conditioning?

You use water to cool the air con then pass the water thorugh the solar pannels so you'll be using the waste heat to heat the water.

__________________
What's so bad about Microsoft?

Get Opera it's simply a superb browser.