Another "End of the World" scenario?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2015, 05:15 PM
Another "End of the World" scenario?
Apparently the latest panic issue is methane.....



http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/


A bit of a read - but as best I can ascertain -- it's being predicted that methane will be the end of us all.....

I suppose it's possible -- methane flash burning might effectively consume enough oxygen in the atmosphere to wipe us, and most of the rest of animal life out.......

.....
It's entirely possible it's happened before.....

............

Well shit....That kinda puts a damper on long range vacation plans, eh???

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 09:57 PM
RE: Another "End of the World" scenario?
I wouldn't get too excited about the fireball effect, no pun intended. The amount of methane required to reach the lower explosive limit (5% by volume of air) would likely have us dead due to hypoxia from displaced oxygen first. I'm more concerned about the greenhouse gas aspect, which is fairly long term, and would raise sea levels even faster. We need to grab that methane as it evolves out of the ice, burn it and sequester it as some stable form of a carbon molecule. Good luck with that, is all I can say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Fireball's post
04-11-2015, 10:16 PM
RE: Another "End of the World" scenario?
(04-11-2015 09:57 PM)Fireball Wrote:  I wouldn't get too excited about the fireball effect, no pun intended. The amount of methane required to reach the lower explosive limit (5% by volume of air) would likely have us dead due to hypoxia from displaced oxygen first. I'm more concerned about the greenhouse gas aspect, which is fairly long term, and would raise sea levels even faster. We need to grab that methane as it evolves out of the ice, burn it and sequester it as some stable form of a carbon molecule. Good luck with that, is all I can say.

Maybe we could connect all of our cattle to some sort of reverse-hookah type contraptions to collect methane.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2015, 11:49 PM
RE: Another "End of the World" scenario?
(04-11-2015 10:16 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 09:57 PM)Fireball Wrote:  I wouldn't get too excited about the fireball effect, no pun intended. The amount of methane required to reach the lower explosive limit (5% by volume of air) would likely have us dead due to hypoxia from displaced oxygen first. I'm more concerned about the greenhouse gas aspect, which is fairly long term, and would raise sea levels even faster. We need to grab that methane as it evolves out of the ice, burn it and sequester it as some stable form of a carbon molecule. Good luck with that, is all I can say.

Maybe we could connect all of our cattle to some sort of reverse-hookah type contraptions to collect methane.

OK, Captain Beef-Fart (I just love an obscure musician reference, "Captain Beef Heart" for the uniniated) Big Grin, Let's put catalytic converters on the cows! I keed, I keed. On a side note, if you study engineering, the terminology for "catalytic converters" is "catalytic reactors". I guess that the auto manufacturers thought that using the term "reactor" was probably exciting in a bad way for the driving public. "There's a Evil_monster under my car! Run away!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fireball's post
11-11-2015, 12:27 PM
RE: Another "End of the World" scenario?
(04-11-2015 09:57 PM)Fireball Wrote:  I wouldn't get too excited about the fireball effect, no pun intended. The amount of methane required to reach the lower explosive limit (5% by volume of air) would likely have us dead due to hypoxia from displaced oxygen first. I'm more concerned about the greenhouse gas aspect, which is fairly long term, and would raise sea levels even faster. We need to grab that methane as it evolves out of the ice, burn it and sequester it as some stable form of a carbon molecule. Good luck with that, is all I can say.

I second this. The warmer things get, the more the effects will compound.

We may not end up as bad as Venus, but it won't need to get nearly that bad before we're swimming with the fishies.

Changes need to be made now.

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 12:33 PM
RE: Another "End of the World" scenario?
(04-11-2015 09:57 PM)Fireball Wrote:  I wouldn't get too excited about the fireball effect, no pun intended. The amount of methane required to reach the lower explosive limit (5% by volume of air) would likely have us dead due to hypoxia from displaced oxygen first. I'm more concerned about the greenhouse gas aspect, which is fairly long term, and would raise sea levels even faster. We need to grab that methane as it evolves out of the ice, burn it and sequester it as some stable form of a carbon molecule. Good luck with that, is all I can say.

Not to mention the additional water vapor, which is also a powerful GHG ... and with warming, the reduced albedo due to smaller icecaps ...

I'm sure you understand that GW is a lot more complex than simply driving a Prius can solve, but it frightens me how many people have no idea of the recursive interactions which reinforce one another.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 02:54 PM
RE: Another "End of the World" scenario?
(11-11-2015 12:33 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 09:57 PM)Fireball Wrote:  I wouldn't get too excited about the fireball effect, no pun intended. The amount of methane required to reach the lower explosive limit (5% by volume of air) would likely have us dead due to hypoxia from displaced oxygen first. I'm more concerned about the greenhouse gas aspect, which is fairly long term, and would raise sea levels even faster. We need to grab that methane as it evolves out of the ice, burn it and sequester it as some stable form of a carbon molecule. Good luck with that, is all I can say.

Not to mention the additional water vapor, which is also a powerful GHG ... and with warming, the reduced albedo due to smaller icecaps ...

I'm sure you understand that GW is a lot more complex than simply driving a Prius can solve, but it frightens me how many people have no idea of the recursive interactions which reinforce one another.

These people (a lot, anyway, in my experience) also believe that their cars are zero emission. They just don't realize that the emissions are just moved to someplace else. Unless, of course, they have solar power at their homes, but that still requires fossil fuel infrastructure to deliver and install.

And that doesn't even address the fact that it is next to impossible to recover the rare earth elements in the batteries. That's a growing problem with battery recycling. Not actually all that green, on balance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 03:34 PM
RE: Another "End of the World" scenario?
(12-11-2015 02:54 PM)Fireball Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 12:33 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Not to mention the additional water vapor, which is also a powerful GHG ... and with warming, the reduced albedo due to smaller icecaps ...

I'm sure you understand that GW is a lot more complex than simply driving a Prius can solve, but it frightens me how many people have no idea of the recursive interactions which reinforce one another.

These people (a lot, anyway, in my experience) also believe that their cars are zero emission. They just don't realize that the emissions are just moved to someplace else. Unless, of course, they have solar power at their homes, but that still requires fossil fuel infrastructure to deliver and install.

And that doesn't even address the fact that it is next to impossible to recover the rare earth elements in the batteries. That's a growing problem with battery recycling. Not actually all that green, on balance.

When people buy their high gas mileage or "zero emissions" vehicles --- they ignore the hard math ------

Will this new vehicle that they buy - over it's lifetime - give enough of a savings to offset the energy and pollution that it takes to create this vehicle????? It's not a small effort to mine the materials needed, refine them, and then form, reform the materials (plastic, steel, aluminum, platinum, chromium, magnesium, ect) then add the shipping of these, plus the assembly and shipping of the new vehicle.

Or -- would they actually be better off - and doing a service to humanity by NOT building another new car - and simply driving their old one, while maintaining it as best possible?????

You know why they don't do this???

Two reasons. 1. The math is complicated - and takes a serious effort to prove it.

2. They want a new car.

While pretending to be doing the world a favor.

.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: