What is Digg?98 Comments
- Jamihabs, on 01/02/2008, -3/+30So do I. And to get even, I eat them.
- Jamihabs, on 01/02/2008, -1/+14Cows fart methane. Cows exhale CO2. They get you with both barrels!
- Jamihabs, on 01/02/2008, -1/+10Your facts and logic can't persuade me! I'm going to eat cows anyway, even if it does little to save mother Earth!
- fwc67, on 01/02/2008, -6/+15I blame the cows
- SteveCUBE, on 01/02/2008, -0/+9Canada and Mexico are on there ;)
- knobtwiddler, on 01/02/2008, -2/+9co2 is only a tiny fraction of atmospheric gas.
there are so many more dangerous pollutants to worry about than co2. i'm sick of this global warming bologna.
did you know that global temperature has been stable since 2001?
ok you can stop with the barium oxide dispersal now. kthx. - BufordT, on 01/02/2008, -3/+10FTA "only about a third of the carbon dioxide is absorbed by carbon sinks such as the soil and forests; a large portion of it ends up in the atmosphere - but that still leaves a significant amount unaccounted for."
It's hard to believe the "consensus" of scientists can't figure out where it's going. - Arrhenius, on 01/02/2008, -0/+6The submitted article would be much better if it explained what the colors meant.
Follow the links to here (which is considerably more detailed than the treehugger article).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119880485275254475 ...
And find the following description ...
"Red areas denote reduced carbon dioxide absorption in the summer of 2002 [during a drought] with blue areas showing enhanced absorption." - ftx437, on 01/02/2008, -1/+7So they don't even know where the co2 ends up? hmmmm.....
- boflaade, on 01/02/2008, -3/+8The article is where the C02 goes, not where it came from.
- ez12a, on 01/02/2008, -0/+5The map is a picture of the degree of CO2 absorption. Red being reduced, blue areas with increased absorption. California didnt change its absorption very much. A lot of the Red has to do with the drought conditions.
the map does not represent the actual amount absorbed, or how clean the air is. - thotpoizn, on 01/02/2008, -3/+8 I blame water. Conspicuously absent from all of the popular alarmist reports from the Church of Gore, is the fact that water vapor accounts for 95% of all greenhouse effects on this planet. Every other factor - CO2, Methane, and various greenhouse gasses from ALL other sources, most of them natural - ALL TOGETHER make up the other 5%.
So before you succumb to the hand waiving and teeth gnashing, look at the actual figures - ALL of them. It is profoundly dishonest to selectively represent only those statistics which will advance your political agenda (i.e. carbon tax) - and ignore or suppress the huge glaring factual anomalies (i.e. human activities represent a ridiculously minute percentage of the sum total of greenhouse effects, and it is only by completely discounting the single largest natural cause that our activities even make the smallest blip on the radar). - brad3378, on 01/02/2008, -1/+6Greg,
This map isn't showing where C02 Comes from - it is showing where it eventually ends up. - Berkana, on 01/02/2008, -0/+5That's an incredibly ignorant remark.
- boflaade, on 01/02/2008, -0/+5Perhaps I missed something here. The article gave me the impression that it was about where the C02 GOES, rather then where it came from. The article is very brief and doesn't say how the excess C02 is absorbed.
- somespecial, on 01/02/2008, -1/+6Ah, Montana Big Sky that's Blue, I get it now :)
- catalysis, on 01/02/2008, -1/+5This is not a map of carbon dioxide output, it just shows where the CO2 ends up.
- plbland, on 01/02/2008, -0/+4So is too little
- ez12a, on 01/02/2008, -0/+4It does NOT show where it ends up either.
it shows areas where CO2 absorption is reduced (red) and where it has been improved (blue). It is showing the effects of drought conditions on plant growth and their capacity to absorb CO2 in a given area.
- thesonofdarwin, on 01/02/2008, -0/+4I'm sorry to rain on the parade, but this study isn't new... we learned about this in my undergraduate ecology class 4 years ago, and it wasn't new then either. It may be improved, but it's not new. Those same red areas are most of the areas where sulfur and other acid rain emissions build up as well because of mountain ranges, wind paths, and concentrations of specific industries.
- boflaade, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3I think he/she is trying to tell us, he/she is from there. Just an excuse!
- inactive, on 01/02/2008, -1/+4There's nothing like a lot of carbon dioxide for robust, healthy trees and plants! Now available in an atmosphere near you!
- Waskonator, on 01/02/2008, -3/+6It comes to Illinois, to make up for all the places we can't smoke anymore.
:-/ - MadSquirrel, on 01/02/2008, -1/+4As a just side note. Most of the CO2 produced by man made intervention comes from deposits of oil and coal that we are using for energy production, but this trapped carbon was once a part of the biome (fossil fuels), so there is no net increase in the CO2 content from burning them. Also note that the earth at one time was able to support very large creatures, this would require a higher barometric pressure and a larger biomass.
Have fun this those ideas, just FYI. - brbeaird, on 01/02/2008, -2/+5Poor Kentucky...
- chicken101, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3It's funny how New Jersey doesn't get a lot of it. Hahah suckers!
- brad3378, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3Seems like this might make accurate global warming predictions a bit difficult. I wonder how they get around this?
- MadSquirrel, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2I'm still trying to figure out where you got your numbers?
6 CO2(gas) + 12 H2O(liquid) + photons → C6H12O6(aqueous) + 6 O2(gas) + 6 H2O(liquid)
The O2 released is from both H2O and C02, and the out put is less water and lots of O2. Plants do produce more O2 that CO2, but the real player in the O2 production department is Blue-Green Algae. - ch4os1337, on 01/02/2008, -2/+4Lol we breath out co2, according to the comments above we should all be dead right now.
- majordanger, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3I believe I can see the C02 plumes from the Navajo Coal power station in Arizona US and the larger coal power plants in southern Wyoming US .
There is also a huge plume downwind from the Tar Sands operations in Alberta CA.
But what is causing that huge CO2 concentration in the Dakotas US and southwest Oregon US? - Waskonator, on 01/02/2008, -3/+5Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
- lfroker, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2Now which two cities would that be?
- burningmanstan, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3Can someone just make this whole article and discussion go away. I usually refrain from using the word retarded but thats the first thing that came to my mind when I started reading this. The only ray of hope in this entire discussion is Arrhenius posting an article that actually explains this map.
The map shows changes in a process (called absorption) that is GOOD from a climate change perspective. The first step in understanding all of this is understanding the CARBON CYCLE.
The stuff you learned in biology or earth science wasn't totally useless, here is a refresher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle - gregakendall, on 01/02/2008, -6/+8The interesting thing about this is that the Midwest is showing the most carbon dioxide output, despite having very few major cities. The megalopolis of the east coast has almost no red above it, and neither do San Francisco, LA or San Diego. In fact, the big red areas are mostly rural and covered in farmland.
If global warming is truly a result of human activity, wouldn't the big cities be the reddest areas on the map? Or are cow farts themselves responsible for the ice caps melting? - thotpoizn, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3Minor nitpick: we breathe out SOME CO2. The gas/blood exchange in the lungs is nowhere near 100% efficiency. There is still quite a lot of "air" left in the air you exhale, including oxygen and a somewhat higher concentration of CO2 than what you took in. If we all breathed out pure CO2, then giving someone the "breath of life" wouldn't work at all (plus we'd have a heck of a lot more CO2 around, and we'd all be chock full of Nitrogen!)
- thesonofdarwin, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2If they can prove it undeniably, I suspect in the future they will. Northeastern states already do this for the pollution we cause from mine drainage and other industrial pollution that drains from our tributaries into the Chesapeake Bay. Our industries are also going to be fined heavily coming up here for not reducing pollution by the percentage they agreed upon - my homestate of PA has been slacking in particular.
So yeah, the concept isn't new to compensate the people we are polluting, but there needs to be undeniable proof of origin like there is with the Chesapeake Bay problem. - NoCt1, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3wow.
- catalysis, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3It looks like all of your CO2 gets blown to the east of the rockies where it hangs around denver and the dakotas.
- Berkana, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3Plants actually extract oxygen out of water, not CO2; the oxygen in CO2 is not converted directly into the oxygen plants release.
CO2 is pollution if it is throwing off the equilibrium of the natural carbon cycle. Introducing billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere that hasn't been in the cycle for ages makes it a pollutant, just as nitrogen fertilizer run-off can turn lakes into a soupy green mess of algae, even though the components of the fertilizer can be found in nature. - brad3378, on 01/02/2008, -2/+4Maybe the states like California should be paying states like Kentucky for all the damage they're doing?
- MadSquirrel, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2Red Algae Blooms are bad for some fishies and people, but in general plankton makes up most of the Bio Mass of the planet and is the #1 source for CO2 convention and food output. One of the many problems that the Green movement has had with simulating the global ecosystem is that they do not include enough Blue-Green Algae to their Biomes.
Just FYI. - Berkana, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2The Midwest is heavily coal powered. This map correlates well with the intensity with which coal contributes to CO2 emissions.
For comparison with another fuel, consider that nearly 100% of the molecules in coal become part of CO2 when burned. Linear octane (a component of gasoline), in contrast, contains only 8 carbon atoms, but 18 hydrogen atoms; branched isomers of octane contain more or less, but not by too much. Consider natural gas in contrast to coal as well: 4/5 of the molecular content of emissions resulting from burning methane (one of the dominant component of natural gas) is water vapor; only 1/5 of the emissions are CO2.
The map does NOT suggest that the scientists don't know what is going on; the map shows where the CO2 comes from, not where it is going; they know where it is coming from. They certainly know more than the conservative pundits who base their positions on politics rather than observations. - SamboGT, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3Well, I live under a hell-hole.
- inactive, on 01/02/2008, -8/+9Buried for being only about the U.S. Show the whole world.
- drastik21, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Poor Canada
- Berkana, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2The problem is not that it is a small fraction; the problem is that it is going out of equilibrium. See this for a thorough addressing of this issue:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165664054 ... - Brimshae, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Evidently, Seomike does not need to eat.
- boflaade, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2It's NASA's imaging so blame them.
- thotpoizn, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1I think you may have just hit upon a brilliant solution to the global CO2 crisis! We can call it "Hold your breath to save Mother Earth Day!" We can print up posters and everything... If everyone in the country would just hold their breath for 30 seconds, the drop in our combined CO2 output might have just as much of an impact on the climate as our other activities do! Liberals and most people in the "blue" states should probably increase that time to about 5 minutes, just to really show how much you love the Mother Earth. Won't anybody think of the children?
- langzaiguy, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2Anybody else surprised to see the amount of CO2 in N & S Dakotas?
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is