33 replies to this topic

[Kickstand27]

From over at io9


Two reasons why plants are destroying the environment
Not only are trees in the northern hemisphere making it more difficult for us to generate energy from wind power, but plants down south are releasing methane gas into the atmosphere. Have plants got an anti-green agenda?

Over the weekend, two papers published in Nature journals highlighted two reasons why saving the forests isn't always the best thing for the environment.

One study showed that winds in the northern hemisphere have slowed by 5-15 percent over the past thirty years. And simulations indicate that wind slowdown is likely due to increasing "roughness" of the landscape caused by trees and other vegetation. If the winds continue to slow, the researchers note, wind power production could grind to a halt. So do we need clearcut the north in order to keep producing green energy? Probably not the best plan. Still, this is one of the only times you'll hear that the planet has too much vegetation for comfort.


Meanwhile, in the southern hemisphere, geoscientists have discovered why tropical forests produce so much methane. According to a release about their paper:

Edzo Veldkamp and colleagues collected plants that grow on the branches of tropical trees - known as tank bromeliads - in the Ecuadorian Andes, and measured their methane emissions. All plants emitted methane, due to the accumulation of methane-producing microbes in water-filled tank-like structures at the base of their leaves.

That's right - these tropical trees and plants contain teeny pockets of water that breed methane-producing bacteria. Though scientists have long known that there's a high concentration of methane hovering over tropical forests, they didn't know why.

It seems that healthy forests and trees are our enemies when it comes to combating greenhouse gases and developing alternatives to fossil fuels. So maybe destruction of wildlife is a way of saving the planet? Yeah, that's the ticket.

[kyussfreak]

I opened this thread wondering " what the fuck is shitstand talking about"? I closed the thread wondering " what the fuck is shitstand talking about"? So tell me people, what the fuck is shitstand talking about?

[Kickstand27]

I opened this thread wondering " what the fuck is shitstand talking about"? I closed the thread wondering " what the fuck is shitstand talking about"? So tell me people, what the fuck is shitstand talking about?

well, looking at the first line, youll see its an article and that im not really saying anything, rather posting something that someone else said/typed.  

Ill assume since you couldnt get that far, me writing more here wont really help much.  

i bet if this were a thread abot quiznos, youd be an expert

[funkypunk]

I opened this thread wondering " what the fuck is shitstand talking about"? I closed the thread wondering " what the fuck is shitstand talking about"? So tell me people, what the fuck is shitstand talking about?

Something about wind and methane in the trees. Must be all those lentils he eats.

[kyussfreak]

Dude what in the fuck are you talking about?  Quiznos isn't all that good

[Kickstand27]

Dude what in the fuck are you talking about?  Quiznos isn't all that good

no shit-in fact, i believe i made a thread about it.  

children, remember meth is bad for brain cells

[kyussfreak]

Hey dick breath I think I can remember your gay little thread. All that I said is that the place isn't as bad as you made it out to be. You made it out to be worse than subway

[Kickstand27]

Hey dick breath I think I can remember your gay little thread. All that I said is that the place isn't as bad as you made it out to be. You made it out to be worse than subway

oh so you can understand what im talking about.  good.  read the article i posted without the dumbass remarks then.

[kyussfreak]

Hey dick breath I think I can remember your gay little thread. All that I said is that the place isn't as bad as you made it out to be. You made it out to be worse than subway

oh so you can understand what im talking about.  good.  read the article i posted without the dumbass remarks then.

Yeah shitstand but what you are talking about is gay as fuck

[Kickstand27]

Hey dick breath I think I can remember your gay little thread. All that I said is that the place isn't as bad as you made it out to be. You made it out to be worse than subway

oh so you can understand what im talking about.  good.  read the article i posted without the dumbass remarks then.

Yeah shitstand but what you are talking about is gay as fuck

and yet here you are.  coincidence?  

[Stickman]

C'mon, Kickstand. You aren't old enough to remember when Reagan said trees cause more air pollution than cars? Here's your proof!

[Kickstand27]

C'mon, Kickstand. You aren't old enough to remember when Reagan said trees cause more air pollution than cars? Here's your proof!

haha
thare was actually a comment on the page about that.  

[funkypunk]

Wtf was this thread about then?

[kyussfreak]

Wtf was this thread about then?

you see funks. this was some story that was in the best buy weekly employee newspaper. shitstand is the only person that knows what the fuck they are talking about. its all best buy slang

[funkypunk]

Wtf was this thread about then?

you see funks. this was some story that was in the best buy weekly employee newspaper. shitstand is the only person that knows what the fuck they are talking about. its all best buy slang

Is best buy some kind of cheap store, like Poundland in the UK?

[kyussfreak]

Wtf was this thread about then?

you see funks. this was some story that was in the best buy weekly employee newspaper. shitstand is the only person that knows what the fuck they are talking about. its all best buy slang

Is best buy some kind of cheap store, like Poundland in the UK?

i wouldnt call bestbuy a cheap store. it is an electronics store. shitstand started out as the mop boy. he then worked his way up to car installations. then he did home entertainment installation. now he is the assistant to the assistant manager

[eyes]

I don't even know why I read anything..All I need is my cunt.

[funkypunk]

Wtf was this thread about then?

you see funks. this was some story that was in the best buy weekly employee newspaper. shitstand is the only person that knows what the fuck they are talking about. its all best buy slang

Is best buy some kind of cheap store, like Poundland in the UK?

i wouldnt call bestbuy a cheap store. it is an electronics store. shitstand started out as the mop boy. he then worked his way up to car installations. then he did home entertainment installation. now he is the assistant to the assistant manager

Do you think he'll make assistant manager one day?

[xina_christina]

I don't even know why I read anything..All I need is my cunt.

i am going to take those words to heart

[Stickman]

The only thing wrong with those two Science articles are the interpretations by some knucklehead, not the data itself. It's always been known that conifers produce terpenes, the nice "pine scent" everyone loves when the put a Christmas tree in the house. That's what turpentine is made from. But the idea that trees emit more hydrocarbons than they sequester is ridiculous, it's like ignoring half of a mathematical equation. Trees take in CO2 through their stomata and store it as biomass, sometimes emitting aromatic hydrocarbons at a rate of of about 1:1000 or less to what they sequester.

This is the opposite from cows and other ruminants who both respirate CO2 and produce methane through their frequent farts. More trees, less cows, please.

[AnDi-ChRiSt]

sequester²

[funkypunk]

The only thing wrong with those two Science articles are the interpretations by some knucklehead, not the data itself. It's always been known that conifers produce terpenes, the nice "pine scent" everyone loves when the put a Christmas tree in the house. That's what turpentine is made from. But the idea that trees emit more hydrocarbons than they sequester is ridiculous, it's like ignoring half of a mathematical equation. Trees take in CO2 through their stomata and store it as biomass, sometimes emitting aromatic hydrocarbons at a rate of of about 1:1000 or less to what they sequester.

This is the opposite from cows and other ruminants who both respirate CO2 and produce methane through their frequent farts. More trees, less cows, please.

You can't make a burger out of a tree, hippy. Nor can you put tree juice in your tea or coffee.

[eyes]

i want a mini cow I can milk myself and keep in the yard like a dog....Maybe getting a goat is easier.

[funkypunk]

i want a mini cow I can milk myself and keep in the yard like a dog....Maybe getting a goat is easier.

You could have a cow, and get a little stool to sit on while you pull on her teets to get fresh milk. Fresh milk in coffee is wow!

[AnDi-ChRiSt]

funks is a cheeky, teet-puller.

[Kickstand27]

The only thing wrong with those two Science articles are the interpretations by some knucklehead, not the data itself. It's always been known that conifers produce terpenes, the nice "pine scent" everyone loves when the put a Christmas tree in the house. That's what turpentine is made from. But the idea that trees emit more hydrocarbons than they sequester is ridiculous, it's like ignoring half of a mathematical equation. Trees take in CO2 through their stomata and store it as biomass, sometimes emitting aromatic hydrocarbons at a rate of of about 1:1000 or less to what they sequester.

This is the opposite from cows and other ruminants who both respirate CO2 and produce methane through their frequent farts. More trees, less cows, please.

i didnt interpit anything from it other than the data, which the post above doesnt even relate to.  the title was just to get people in.




as for the best buy.   even if i did work there.  id rather be the guy getting commissions on PC sales than a simple delivery boy.    

[Stickman]

Don't be so butthurt, I was referring to whomever wrote, "Over the weekend, two papers published in Nature journals highlighted two reasons why saving the forests isn't always the best thing for the environment." That knucklehead was clearly interpreting methane production in the forest canopy as an ecological problem, which it isn't.

[Kickstand27]

Don't be so butthurt, I was referring to whomever wrote, "Over the weekend, two papers published in Nature journals highlighted two reasons why saving the forests isn't always the best thing for the environment." That knucklehead was clearly interpreting methane production in the forest canopy as an ecological problem, which it isn't.

no ones butthurt here.  
like i said, i posted the article because i knew it would bring some back and forth to the board.  


as for methane.  its a worse green house gas that Co2,,  Most likely less produced buy the rainforest than cattle, but thats not the point.  
i dont see it as cut and dry as thinking that since its been going on for sometime, its not an issue.  if we are going to make greenhouse gasses an issue, lets not discount other forms that occour naturally.
not when science also teaches us evolution. With the rainforests having huge swaths that are untouched, theyre a perfect place for natural evolution to occour, and a safe place for the micro-organisms like the ones that are putting out the methane to thrive, giving them the potential to effectively increase the amount of methane thats produced in the rainforest.
is it necessarily so?  no..  but thats the thing about science.  you cant overlook anything and have a realistic "modled" results.  
if we are just finding out the specifics on variables,  that changes the whole model, right?  
it should.

[hotdog]

Huh?

[Stickman]

Sorry, KS, that doesn't make any sense to me. Trees store far more hydrocarbons than they release, for a net decrease in global warming gases. Mammals give off far more carbon than they store, for a net increase in global warming gases.