Absolutely not, if we did that, we would have to tax Fd's hot air just because of the sheer volume.
The prominent risk from gas emitted by animals is due to the methane, and yes, it is far more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, however, it only lasts in the atmosphere for 10 years. This means, if we every reach a critical point in the climate change battle, we can reverse course on the proteins we are consuming and we will not have much time before the damage resulting from animals has reversed itself.
This is not the case with fossil fuel in which the prominent danger comes from CO2 which lasts in the atmosphere for 1000 years. This is the real danger.
This is not the case with fossil fuel in which the prominent danger comes from CO2 which lasts in the atmosphere for 1000 years. This is the real danger.
You can find different residency times all over the place. Basically they're not sure, but a lot of people have ideas. I assume you just gave one example of something you saw somewhere.
Professor Judith Curry collects a bunch of estimates on her blog.
Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years. This figure accounts for CO2 molecules being removed from the atmosphere by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, and other processes. However, this excludes the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the geological reservoirs, which have slower characteristic rates. Although more than half of the CO2 emitted is removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. Similar issues apply to other greenhouse gases, many of which have longer mean lifetimes than CO2. E.g., N2O has a mean atmospheric lifetime of 114 years.
The prominent risk from gas emitted by animals is due to the methane, and yes, it is far more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, however, it only lasts in the atmosphere for 10 years. This means, if we every reach a critical point in the climate change battle, we can reverse course on the proteins we are consuming and we will not have much time before the damage resulting from animals has reversed itself.
This is not the case with fossil fuel in which the prominent danger comes from CO2 which lasts in the atmosphere for 1000 years. This is the real danger.
Absolutely not, if we did that, we would have to tax Fd's hot air just because of the sheer volume.
The CO2 levels should be very high in Paris with all the hot air being spouted there.
Although that's not all bad, the French carrots and garlic will grow faster and bigger.
This is not the case with fossil fuel in which the prominent danger comes from CO2 which lasts in the atmosphere for 1000 years. This is the real danger.
You can find different residency times all over the place. Basically they're not sure, but a lot of people have ideas. I assume you just gave one example of something you saw somewhere.
Professor Judith Curry collects a bunch of estimates on her blog.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/24/co2-d ... on-thread/
Here's what Wikipedia decides for their opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Hope you don't get in trouble from the mothership though, Del. The CBC has been commanding less meat, more lentils.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener ... -1.3328327
But that may just be in anticipation of Paris. Perhaps you can go back to burgers after Gerald brings Justin home for his photo shoots.