K4fxd
Well-Known Member
But it's a sweet dog, it loves kids.............
https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-captures-mother-saving-toddler-014449042.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-captures-mother-saving-toddler-014449042.html
Sponsored
Sponsored
OP
OP
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 28
- Messages
- 5,067
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
- Thread starter
- #242
Study quantifies the under-appreciated ways in which wildlife are part of the carbon equation (msn.com)
Hello; Did a quick read of the link. Found some things to question. I get the premise of when the wildebeest population was low due to a crossover cattle disease the grass grew too much and there were more intense fires because there was extra fuel. Followed by the idea that after the wildebeest population recovered, they kept the grass cropped (mowed) so fires had less fuel. This seems a carbon thing and seemed too narrow in scope.
My impression from the article is restoring nature/natural populations is supposed to be a way to reduce, in this case, carbon in the atmosphere. I cannot refute the findings directly but do have some observations and questions.
First an observation. The concept is about oxidation. When we "burn" something (grass in this case) there is a vigorous chemical reaction involving oxygen. The volatile compounds in the body of the grass combine with oxygen and release heat and combustion byproducts among which is Co2 (carbon dioxide). So, at first glance the authors premise sems to make sense. After the animals eat lots of the grass there is a great deal less to burn in the occasional grass fires.
There may be a catch -22 thing of sorts which may spoil the idea of more wildebeest is better for the Co2 levels in the atmosphere. That thing is the nature of how animal bodies work. Particularly warm-blooded animals, but in general all animals. When a grazing animal digests the grass there also is oxidation. Chemically similar to burning but with the heat released at a much slower rate. A way to look at warm blooded animals is our digestion + respiration is like a low burning fire. We people maintain around 98 degrees F as part of the results of that slow burning of our food. When we work hard or exercise, we "burn" more fuel and our bodies get hotter so we sweat to cool off.
My point is I do not think it makes much difference to the overall Co2 balance to have more animals eating grass. In a field of grass or a savanna the grass gets only so much solar energy (sunlight) per square foot per year. Some of that solar energy gets bound into the plant body as volatile compounds. We call them things such as carbohydrates, proteins, fats, oils and such.
Those volatile compounds can be "burned" as fuel in animal bodies. We call it food. Or those Volatile compounds can be set on fire and just burned in a grass fire when the grass is dried out. Same general chemical processes basically at much different rates.
{Side story while i think of it. I taught in public schools. Often on a cold Monday morning the school building would be cool. Even on a rainy overcast cold day without sun heating by the afternoon the building would be much warmer. We had 30 or more slow burning human furnaces in each room giving off body heat.}
So, in my thinking it will not matter overall if the grass is eaten by animals of if it is burned at some point. Each years crop of grass eventually gets "burned"/oxidized and releases Co2 into the air either by animals eating it or in a fire. I left out two things. One being decay. The other is an animal gut.
Decay is similar to digestion in that the grass is cut but not eaten by a warm blood animal. As it lays and decays fungi and decay bacteria use the volatile compounds for their life processes. I tend to think of my lawn mower as a grazing machine that cuts the grass but does not use it for fuel. My cut grass lays on yard. Dries up and slowly decays releasing some Co2. If only we had lawn mowers that used the grass as fuel. But in a way we do -goats.
The animal gut is perhaps the big flaw in this story. We are inundated with stories about how bad our cattle are because their gut makes methane in the process of digesting grass. (Technically it is trillions of anerobic bacteria in a cow's gut that makes the methane.) My question is about wild grazing animals, and I should know the answer but am not positive. I suspect wild grazers have a similar gut to domestic cattle. If my suspicion is correct, then having the grass pass thru such guts adds extra methane on top of some Co2. If the methane is put into the mix, it might be better to have fewer wildebeest and let the grass burn? I get that this is a silly question.
Maybe I am missing the point of the link. Maybe it is not a flawed premise slanted to be a climate change story.
Hello; Did a quick read of the link. Found some things to question. I get the premise of when the wildebeest population was low due to a crossover cattle disease the grass grew too much and there were more intense fires because there was extra fuel. Followed by the idea that after the wildebeest population recovered, they kept the grass cropped (mowed) so fires had less fuel. This seems a carbon thing and seemed too narrow in scope.
My impression from the article is restoring nature/natural populations is supposed to be a way to reduce, in this case, carbon in the atmosphere. I cannot refute the findings directly but do have some observations and questions.
First an observation. The concept is about oxidation. When we "burn" something (grass in this case) there is a vigorous chemical reaction involving oxygen. The volatile compounds in the body of the grass combine with oxygen and release heat and combustion byproducts among which is Co2 (carbon dioxide). So, at first glance the authors premise sems to make sense. After the animals eat lots of the grass there is a great deal less to burn in the occasional grass fires.
There may be a catch -22 thing of sorts which may spoil the idea of more wildebeest is better for the Co2 levels in the atmosphere. That thing is the nature of how animal bodies work. Particularly warm-blooded animals, but in general all animals. When a grazing animal digests the grass there also is oxidation. Chemically similar to burning but with the heat released at a much slower rate. A way to look at warm blooded animals is our digestion + respiration is like a low burning fire. We people maintain around 98 degrees F as part of the results of that slow burning of our food. When we work hard or exercise, we "burn" more fuel and our bodies get hotter so we sweat to cool off.
My point is I do not think it makes much difference to the overall Co2 balance to have more animals eating grass. In a field of grass or a savanna the grass gets only so much solar energy (sunlight) per square foot per year. Some of that solar energy gets bound into the plant body as volatile compounds. We call them things such as carbohydrates, proteins, fats, oils and such.
Those volatile compounds can be "burned" as fuel in animal bodies. We call it food. Or those Volatile compounds can be set on fire and just burned in a grass fire when the grass is dried out. Same general chemical processes basically at much different rates.
{Side story while i think of it. I taught in public schools. Often on a cold Monday morning the school building would be cool. Even on a rainy overcast cold day without sun heating by the afternoon the building would be much warmer. We had 30 or more slow burning human furnaces in each room giving off body heat.}
So, in my thinking it will not matter overall if the grass is eaten by animals of if it is burned at some point. Each years crop of grass eventually gets "burned"/oxidized and releases Co2 into the air either by animals eating it or in a fire. I left out two things. One being decay. The other is an animal gut.
Decay is similar to digestion in that the grass is cut but not eaten by a warm blood animal. As it lays and decays fungi and decay bacteria use the volatile compounds for their life processes. I tend to think of my lawn mower as a grazing machine that cuts the grass but does not use it for fuel. My cut grass lays on yard. Dries up and slowly decays releasing some Co2. If only we had lawn mowers that used the grass as fuel. But in a way we do -goats.
The animal gut is perhaps the big flaw in this story. We are inundated with stories about how bad our cattle are because their gut makes methane in the process of digesting grass. (Technically it is trillions of anerobic bacteria in a cow's gut that makes the methane.) My question is about wild grazing animals, and I should know the answer but am not positive. I suspect wild grazers have a similar gut to domestic cattle. If my suspicion is correct, then having the grass pass thru such guts adds extra methane on top of some Co2. If the methane is put into the mix, it might be better to have fewer wildebeest and let the grass burn? I get that this is a silly question.
Maybe I am missing the point of the link. Maybe it is not a flawed premise slanted to be a climate change story.
K4fxd
Well-Known Member
I'll bet one grass eating dinosaur let off more methane (fart) than a whole herd of cattle.
Before we had mega beef farms we had trillions of buffalo roaming the west.
Our schools need to teach facts (or how to think) instead of indoctrination.
Before we had mega beef farms we had trillions of buffalo roaming the west.
Our schools need to teach facts (or how to think) instead of indoctrination.
OP
OP
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 28
- Messages
- 5,067
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
- Thread starter
- #244
Hello; The dinosaur idea likely is correct. Plant parts are difficult to digest except for the parts evolved to help disperse seeds such as fruits and berries. Grasses including wheat and cor n have been cultivated to have bigger grains. In a way some plants have tricked us into taking care of them by giving us tasty stuff. Most of the plants we cannot digest.
The actual plant cellulose (grass stems & leaves) is tough to digest.
I get the concepts the global warming and climate change zelots push. I also get that Co2 and methane are considered greenhouse gases. I think some, perhaps many, either do not know or leave out the significant details of how things work overall.
I also agree schools need to teach facts and concepts rather than just pushing an agenda. I could write pages about how to "fix" public schools but would not get past two basic concepts. That social promotion is bad and discipline (punishment & consequences for bad behavior) is critical. Too many wrong headed ideas are the norm in schools now.
Last edited:
OP
OP
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 28
- Messages
- 5,067
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
- Thread starter
- #245
Hello; We likely could post stories or videos of dog attacks every day. Seems the member who was not happy about bans on some breeds has retired from the discussion.
Sponsored
OP
OP
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 28
- Messages
- 5,067
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
- Thread starter
- #246
Before China’s coal is even burned, its mines are warming the planet (msn.com)
Hello; The perils of methane. Coal is highly modified organic material. For want of a better term I say it is concentrated. The same type of organic material that eventually turned into coal long ago is laying about now. Peat may be a good example. You can dry peat and get it to burn, but the energy density is a lot lower than the coal it might become after being buried a long time.
The being buried is what allows anerobic bacteria to thrive. Many millions of years ago when photosynthesis came into being the anerobic bacteria were driven into somewhat hidden places to get away from the oxygen which began to "pollute" their world. They cannot live in the presence of oxygen.
So buried organic material without oxygen is a refugee for these bacteria. Coal beds are good habitats, as are our modern landfills. As are the layers of tundra. As is the methane hydrate in the cold & deep oceans. Even the mud at the bottom of ponds and lakes make good habitats and gives us "swamp gas".
A thing is methane is a useful gas if collected. It burns pretty clean. Some places have added sealing membranes over a land fill to trap the methane instead of allowing it to just waft into the air. I think that methane may be burned thereby making it less harmful. It can also be trapped and concentrated into tanks similar to propane and used as fuel.
I recall back in the 1970's pig farmers dumping the pig waste into large rubber type bladders. After a bit the oxygen is gone and anerobic conditions exist. The bladders would swell up with methane which could be used as fuel.
Back to the link. Finding methane seeping from coal mines is not a new thing. I will look it up to be sure but I think the miners around where i grew up may have called it "black damp". I do know the miners nowdays can carry methane detectors. Big fans are used to push air thru a mine with heavy drape like sheets of material hung to help channel that air.
I had an idea many years ago. Lots of abandoned deep mines in my area. Lots of animal waste and human waste and other organic waste from food processing. That the suitable waste and dump it into an old mine which can be sealed. Then gather and concentrate the methane which results to use ass a fuel. Perhaps the gas can be modified into a useful oil. I think Penzoil did make a motor oil from natural gas.
Note - pretty sure methane is considered to be a natural gas. If memory serves it is CH4. Somebody ought to be able to fact check that.
Hello; The perils of methane. Coal is highly modified organic material. For want of a better term I say it is concentrated. The same type of organic material that eventually turned into coal long ago is laying about now. Peat may be a good example. You can dry peat and get it to burn, but the energy density is a lot lower than the coal it might become after being buried a long time.
The being buried is what allows anerobic bacteria to thrive. Many millions of years ago when photosynthesis came into being the anerobic bacteria were driven into somewhat hidden places to get away from the oxygen which began to "pollute" their world. They cannot live in the presence of oxygen.
So buried organic material without oxygen is a refugee for these bacteria. Coal beds are good habitats, as are our modern landfills. As are the layers of tundra. As is the methane hydrate in the cold & deep oceans. Even the mud at the bottom of ponds and lakes make good habitats and gives us "swamp gas".
A thing is methane is a useful gas if collected. It burns pretty clean. Some places have added sealing membranes over a land fill to trap the methane instead of allowing it to just waft into the air. I think that methane may be burned thereby making it less harmful. It can also be trapped and concentrated into tanks similar to propane and used as fuel.
I recall back in the 1970's pig farmers dumping the pig waste into large rubber type bladders. After a bit the oxygen is gone and anerobic conditions exist. The bladders would swell up with methane which could be used as fuel.
Back to the link. Finding methane seeping from coal mines is not a new thing. I will look it up to be sure but I think the miners around where i grew up may have called it "black damp". I do know the miners nowdays can carry methane detectors. Big fans are used to push air thru a mine with heavy drape like sheets of material hung to help channel that air.
I had an idea many years ago. Lots of abandoned deep mines in my area. Lots of animal waste and human waste and other organic waste from food processing. That the suitable waste and dump it into an old mine which can be sealed. Then gather and concentrate the methane which results to use ass a fuel. Perhaps the gas can be modified into a useful oil. I think Penzoil did make a motor oil from natural gas.
Note - pretty sure methane is considered to be a natural gas. If memory serves it is CH4. Somebody ought to be able to fact check that.
OP
OP
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 28
- Messages
- 5,067
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
- Thread starter
- #247
Study Exposes the Massive Carbon Footprint of Billionaires | Watch (msn.com)
Hello; Not any real new information I guess. Maybe the details. The more money possessed means more things can be done. A reason some folks want more money/wealth is to have and do things.
Hello; Not any real new information I guess. Maybe the details. The more money possessed means more things can be done. A reason some folks want more money/wealth is to have and do things.
OP
OP
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 28
- Messages
- 5,067
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
- Thread starter
- #248
Lung and heart patients face Ulez fine for driving 50 yards to enter hospital (msn.com)
Hello; Gotta love bureaucrats.
Hello; Gotta love bureaucrats.
OP
OP
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 28
- Messages
- 5,067
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
- Thread starter
- #250
Scientists revisit Solomon Asch’s classic conformity experiments — and are stunned by the results (msn.com)
“Regarding what people should take away from the findings, the researchers remarked: “Here we like to cite Mark Twain, ‘Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'””
Hello; as I like to quote Samuel myself, I had to post this bit.
“Regarding what people should take away from the findings, the researchers remarked: “Here we like to cite Mark Twain, ‘Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'””
Hello; as I like to quote Samuel myself, I had to post this bit.
Sponsored
K4fxd
Well-Known Member
We just had a massive experiment that proves group conformity. Covid and the masks, also the Jabs. The masks were a visual. We saw very few not wearing them, I was one.
I remember the poster on every school room wall. It was 11 apples and one orange. I don't remember the exact words on them but it meant think for yourself.
OP
OP
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 28
- Messages
- 5,067
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
- Thread starter
- #252
Hello; No surprise to me that you picked up so quickly.
We start out as children thinking adults are looking out for our best interest. Children can be so trusting. As adults we have to be willing to question. A thing is if those in charge are doing their best, then our questioning ought not to be a threat. On the other hand if they merely have a set agenda then our questions must be suppressed.
Back to Twain. Clemins wrote a book titled LETTERS TO THE EARTH. A collection of short stories. In one story he compared the arrogance of humans (people) to the Eiffel tower. I will mess this up so be aware.
He, Clemins, wrote the we humans think we are so important but are to the earth comparable to the most recent coat of paint on the small ball on top of the flagpole on top of that tower.
Sorry for butchering that. Have not read that book in decades. Should have it around somewhere.
I also enjoyed his defense of smoking and drinking or other bad habits. Went something like if you go to the doctor and have a health issue, then you will have something to give up. ( I get it does not really work but for some reason has stuck with me.)
OP
OP
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 28
- Messages
- 5,067
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
- Thread starter
- #253
New York will now fine restaurants for including a common takeout add-on in their to-go meals: ‘Years in the making’ (msn.com)
Hello; The scope of these sorts of control over our lives cannot be ignored.
Hello; The scope of these sorts of control over our lives cannot be ignored.
OP
OP
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 28
- Messages
- 5,067
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
- Thread starter
- #254
Shady Car Dealers Are Going To Hate The FTC's New CARS Rule (msn.com)
Hello; Do not know much of the details as yet. I generally do not like government interference in things. This sounds OK from a quick read. Details always matter.
Hello; Do not know much of the details as yet. I generally do not like government interference in things. This sounds OK from a quick read. Details always matter.
OP
OP
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 28
- Messages
- 5,067
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
- Thread starter
- #255
Plan to stash planet-heating carbon dioxide under U.S. national forests alarms critics (msn.com)
Hello; The plan is to save the planet by concentrating Co2 and pumping it into suitable layers somewhat deep underground. An out of sight =out of mind sort of solution for a questionable problem. That those proposing this "solution" do truly believe Co2 is a dire problem is not in question. They do so believe. That discussion can be for another day.
Many decades ago dumping steel 55 gallon drums of waste materials into the deep oceans was being done. You may have already guess that this was not a good idea after all. The deep oceans contain life for one thing. The stuff was thrown away but not forever. Could this Co2 storage underground come back to haunt us with unexpected consequences?
The main idea i wish to point out is the flawed thinking, in my opinion, of this idea. Putting aside for the moment any unexpected side effects, what about the process itself. Made me think of a back and forth had months ago over the environmental footprint of these new and massive wind turbines that sometimes generate electricity. When the wind blows.
The issue boiled down to the massive carbon footprint accumulated during the manufacture and construction of one such wind turbine.
They have a massive base made from poured concrete reinforced with steel. Both cement and steel throw off Co2 in their production. In fact it is my understanding that outside of oil and coal the use of these two building materials are ones the climate activists would like to replace. There are trials going on trying to find "cleaner" ways to make cement and steel. Might be a good idea if such plans work, but old fashioned concrete and steel are being used in the rush to build new wind turbines. Then there is the fossil fuel burned during construction by heavy machinery.
One member found and posted a breakdown on the carbon and environmental footprint of just one turbine. It was massive and be found in one of the threads on this site. The counter argument by one of the "champions" was the eventually a turbine would pay off it's initial footprint and be making clean electricity from that future point on. Idea being the turbine makes electricity without Co2 emissions the way a coal power plant does.
With the massive amount of Co2 produced to build on of these turbines it ought to take a while to break even with a conventional coal power plant. A thing is many power companies went to using coal only for a baseline amount of power and have standby power generation units which run on natural gas and can be online quickly. Some went to all natural gas electric generation.
I still wonder if a turbine will ever overtake a natural gas power station in terms of Co2 emissions within the turbines working lifetime??
Hello; The plan is to save the planet by concentrating Co2 and pumping it into suitable layers somewhat deep underground. An out of sight =out of mind sort of solution for a questionable problem. That those proposing this "solution" do truly believe Co2 is a dire problem is not in question. They do so believe. That discussion can be for another day.
Many decades ago dumping steel 55 gallon drums of waste materials into the deep oceans was being done. You may have already guess that this was not a good idea after all. The deep oceans contain life for one thing. The stuff was thrown away but not forever. Could this Co2 storage underground come back to haunt us with unexpected consequences?
The main idea i wish to point out is the flawed thinking, in my opinion, of this idea. Putting aside for the moment any unexpected side effects, what about the process itself. Made me think of a back and forth had months ago over the environmental footprint of these new and massive wind turbines that sometimes generate electricity. When the wind blows.
The issue boiled down to the massive carbon footprint accumulated during the manufacture and construction of one such wind turbine.
They have a massive base made from poured concrete reinforced with steel. Both cement and steel throw off Co2 in their production. In fact it is my understanding that outside of oil and coal the use of these two building materials are ones the climate activists would like to replace. There are trials going on trying to find "cleaner" ways to make cement and steel. Might be a good idea if such plans work, but old fashioned concrete and steel are being used in the rush to build new wind turbines. Then there is the fossil fuel burned during construction by heavy machinery.
One member found and posted a breakdown on the carbon and environmental footprint of just one turbine. It was massive and be found in one of the threads on this site. The counter argument by one of the "champions" was the eventually a turbine would pay off it's initial footprint and be making clean electricity from that future point on. Idea being the turbine makes electricity without Co2 emissions the way a coal power plant does.
With the massive amount of Co2 produced to build on of these turbines it ought to take a while to break even with a conventional coal power plant. A thing is many power companies went to using coal only for a baseline amount of power and have standby power generation units which run on natural gas and can be online quickly. Some went to all natural gas electric generation.
I still wonder if a turbine will ever overtake a natural gas power station in terms of Co2 emissions within the turbines working lifetime??
Sponsored