@ Big V. I believe what you say, but you don't seriously think you're normal, do you?
I really don't think you represent the average Joe. You're smarter, more logical, more dedicated and more interested in how you and the world interact. I'll bet you hardly ever mull over whether to throw the empties out before you get to your home hood.

Sorry, xo-cubed. Should have said:

Luckily, there are other options in that I wouldn't follow Mr. Gore to the feed store, much less give his solutions (which aren't his to begin with) a second glance. I'll not sweat while he eats ice cream, and mon ami, that is that...........

I like how no one talks much about cutting back on the beef & meat industry.
Methane is 25x the greenhouse gas CO2 is.

If it is such an emergency, then get committed people... they sky is falling, right?
Go vegan... dairy does the same thing!

"When averaged over 100 years each kg of CH4 warms the Earth 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2, however there is approximately 220 times as much CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as methane."
Wikipedia

While methane is a contributor to global warming, CO2 is a much bigger contributor.

True, cows fart every 30 seconds, times millions of cattle. Termites are still number one though, right up there with swamps. Maybe we should eat termites.

"220 times as much CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as methane", but how did it get there, how fast is it increasing and why?

Termites are a little sweet with a smoky aftertaste.

Crunchy if you roast them up.
http://ars.usda.gov/images/docs/1391...7/termites.jpg

The increase in CO2 got there from fossil fuel use and changes in land use.

How fast is it changing? See graph below. The Earth was going through cycles of ice ages until the beginning of the industrial age, and then the CO2 levels just took off.

Cows and termites collect carbon from plants and release it into the air. It is eventually reabsorbed by plants, to continue the cycle.

Fossil fuels introduce more carbon into the cycle.

xoB, thank you for the fine compliment. I am honored. I really am interested, that's true.

As to the empties, heheh...I can remember traveling to other cities and landing in the airport, and having a snack including a bottled or canned beverage at one of the snack shops in the concourse. I looked, and looked and looked for the recycling bins for the bottles and cans, and for the paper, and never found them. I must have really looked the fool carrying my lunch waste from trash can to trash can searching for a place to put the "trash".

On the other hand, maybe the locals just weren't accustomed to seeing so much wool sock through my Birkenstocks.

Not carbon, methane.

True to form.....duh. Empties... dead soldiers/sailors....beer cans/booze bottles rolling around the floor of the pickum-up truck.
I honestly believe that never crossed your mind.

Didn't we go around on that before?
As I recall, cement production is as much a problem as anything.
From here, http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...imatechart.pdf

terra preta
 

Back to innovations.Terra preta is the dark rich soil that farmers used to make in the Amazon region before the advent of slash and burn agriculture. Apparently, using charcoal instead of ash builds the soil increasing fertility and sequestering carbon. This addresses the ecological disaster of burning vast areas of rainforest and feeds people. win win

Methane is made of carbon.

So is my dick, but the shade it casts makes it global warming neutral.

The shade, as well as the fact that, outside of any petroleum-based food products you've eaten, it is also made out of carbon from the normal cycle.

So are charcoal briquettes but we were discussing methane from cattle and termites, not carbon. There's a big fucking difference between co2 and methane, which was the point.

Cool thing about methane is that it naturally decreases over time on its own. It interacts with other molecules in the upper atmosphere (I can't remember which ones right now, but a Google search would turn it up) to split apart into two more benign compounds. Methane has decreased consistently over time until humans started rice farming (produces lots of methane) and animal husbandry (cow burps.) It's encouraging, because it means that if we stopped those activities (fat chance), then the methane would eventually go back to pre-industrial levels.

Wikipedia says CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O.

doh

Yes, but that equation doesn't mention that a substantial amount of energy is required to make it happen. Any reaction that adds O2 and results in CO2 and H2O is basically just the substance burning. It's not spontaneous.

I don't have the thing in front of me where I read it, but if I recall correctly, it happens in the upper atmosphere where cosmic rays (or some such) provide the energy. And while CO2 is a byproduct, and is also a warming compound, it warms less. 23 times less if I recall correctly from a post above.

Is deforestation an issue?
 

In addition to producing more CO2, isn't another part of the problem deforestation? What I am not clear about is the relative properties of plants in scrubbing CO2. If you turn a rainforest into pasture, wouldn't the grass also process CO2?

I'm not sure, but I've started revisiting The RainForest Site

Charcoal is also made from carbon in the normal cycle. There are all sorts of things that emit gasses in the normal cycle. Fossil fuels release carbon that has been sequestered since long before humanity appeared.

The normal cycle is also sequestering carbon. Those swamps that are burping methane are in the process of making coal and diamonds.

Now working with the premise we are looking for solutions, swamps and termites are the leading producers of nasty, 23 times more harmful, methane. But, cattle are a major producer that we can do something about fairly quickly. It's a solution, albeit an unpopular one, with bloody handed, sinews hanging from canines, predator eyed, meat eaters.

At the normal rate.

Meanwhile, foreigners are developing new products and markets because innovation is smarter than reading science rewritten by White House lawyers. For example, at best, maybe 40% of energy used to create electricity actually creates electricity. What happens to the well over 60%? Lost. Wasted. More global warming gases created to do nothing productive. The waste is that large.

Fiat had pioneered a solution back in the 1970s when energy prices were higher - in today’s money about $7 per gallon of gas. Their product disappeared when energy prices dropped to the lowest in the history of mankind.

SenerTec in Germany and Honda in Japan now manufacture household generators that produce electricity and then use that other 60+% of wasted energy to warm homes. This is normally done in Manhattan (NY) and in Philadelphia on a city wide scale to heat skyscrapers. Currently, the technology is cost effective in homes requiring 4000+ heating hours per year.

However White House lawyers tell us such solutions mean we must all drive Chevettes (product from a world's worst auto company) and live in dark, cold homes. Changes to the electric grid also required so that power can be purchased from what must be the new standards for household energy consumption. Nothing new here. This is simple thermodynamics. IOW innovation – not lawyers and MBAs– are required. Those who fear innovation also deny global warming solutions exist. Just another solution whose largest impediment is White House lawyers who rewrite research on global warming and stifle innovation. Notice where innovation goes to create new jobs, more wealth, etc.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4216744.html

Four scientific proposals to actively combat gw. One already started.

New fuel cell technology.

Looks good. Twice as efficient as equivalent generators.