On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Ray Harrell wrote: > So is global warming real or not? > > REH
Seems kinda hard to miss, these days: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/index_en.html > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of pete > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:58 PM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: The Coming Green Wave: Ocean Farming > > > > This article is rather disinformative with its use of semi-science > terminology which is simplified to the point of being wrong > > On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, Sally Lerner wrote: > > > Sounds good all ways, but I'll be looking for the impact assessments... > Sally > > ________________________________________ > > From: Portside Moderator [[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 8:39 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: The Coming Green Wave: Ocean Farming > > > > The Coming Green Wave: Ocean Farming to Fight Climate Change > > > > by Brendan Smith > > November 23, 2011 > > > http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/11/the-coming-green-wave-ocean- > farming-to-fight-climate-change/248750/ > > > > Seaweed farms have the capacity to grow huge > > amounts of nutrient-rich food, and oysters can act > > as an efficient carbon and nitrogen sink > > [...] > > > Oysters also absorb carbon, but their real talent is > > filtering nitrogen out of the water column. Nitrogen is > > the greenhouse gas you don't pay attention to -- it is > > nearly 300 times as potent[9] as carbon dioxide, and > > according to the journal Nature[11], the second worst in > > terms of having already exceeded a maximum "planetary > > boundary[12]." > > Yipes. If this were true, life might never have started, or have > been roasted out, as on Venus, billions of years ago. After all, > nitrogen is 80% of the atmosphere. Let's see how this nonsense came > about. Reference 9: > > > http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Living-Green/2010/0113/Earth-s-growing- > nitrogen-threat > > Ah. in this article, we learn that the 300x CO2 factor belongs > to N2O, nitrous oxide, not nitrogen at all. Extraordinarily sloppy > writing, obviously a techno-illiterate. But there's more... > > > Like carbon, nitrogen is an essential > > part of life -- plants, animals, and bacteria all need > > it to survive -- but too much has a devastating effect > > on our land and ocean ecosystems. > > > > The main nitrogen polluter is agricultural fertilizer > > runoff. All told, the production of synthetic > > fertilizers and pesticides contributes more than one > > trillion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions to the > > atmosphere globally each year. That's the same amount of > > emissions that are generated by 88 million passenger > > cars each year. > > > > Much of this nitrogen from fertilizers ends up in our > > oceans, where nitrogen is now 50 percent above normal > > levels. According to the journal Science, excess > > nitrogen "depletes essential oxygen levels in the water > > and has significant effects on climate, food production, > > and ecosystems all over the world." > > OK, first we have "greenhouse gas" implicitly conflated as > "nitrogen", which is patent nonsense. And then we have > immediately following, "nitrogen" levels 50% above normal > in sea water, and depleting oxygen. Again, with nitrogen > at 80% of the atmosphere, the surface layers of the sea > must be saturated with N2 already, so this makes no sense, > but this sounds like a dire change. Well, obviously, the > nitrogen-containing pollutants from fertilizer runoff are > nitrates and nitrites, not nitrogen at all. Conflating the > two is like raising alarms after confusing the chloride in > sea salt with chlorine gas. Pity the poor chemically naive > reader trying to get a handle on these issues after reading > this befuddlement. And it doesn't stop there. > > > Oysters to the rescue. One oyster filters 30-50 gallons > > of water a day -- and in the process filters nitrogen > > out of the water column. > > That would be a good trick, if it were possible, but of course > it isn't. The N2 levels in sea water are unaffected by mollusc > metabolism. Again, it is nitrates which are being mislabelled > here. > > With this level of error in the fundamental science, I am > led to doubt pretty much everything else this guy has written > in this article, as I don't have time to go through and fact > check all the rest of his text. > > -Pete > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
