Carbon dioxide biggest player in thawing permafrost

June 13, 2016, University of Exeter
Carbon release is caused by permafrost thaw in the Arctic, but depends on soil moisture. Credit: Dr Iain Hartley

Carbon dioxide emissions from dry and oxygen-rich environments are likely to play a much greater role in controlling future rates of climate change caused by permafrost thaw than rates of methane release from oxygen-poor wetlands in the Arctic, according to research by a scientist at the University of Exeter.

Dr Iain Hartley, an associate professor in the department of Geography, and his co-authors found that both temperature and soil conditions affected the quantity of released from thawing . A 10 °C increase in soil temperature released twice as much carbon into the atmosphere, but even more importantly, drier, oxygen-rich soil conditions resulted in more than three times more carbon release than wetter, low oxygen soil conditions.

The study published in Nature Climate Change and led by Northern Arizona University assistant research professor, Christina Schädel, analysed 25 Arctic soil incubation studies and discovered that the majority of that carbon emitted was in the form of even in the , with only five per cent of the total anaerobic products being methane.

This means that even though methane packs 34 times the climate warming punch of carbon dioxide, methane fluxes were not high enough to compensate for the smaller total quantity of carbon released under low oxygen conditions in wet soils.

Dr Hartley said: "In different boreal and arctic ecosystems, permafrost thaw can expose previously-frozen organic matter to very different soil conditions. The results of our study indicate that where the soils remain dry there is much greater potential for large amounts of carbon to be released to the atmosphere and for there to a positive feedback to climate change."

Scientists in the international Permafrost Carbon Network that Schädel co-leads with Northern Arizona University professor of ecosystem ecology, Ted Schuur, provided much of the data.

Dr Schädel said: "Our results show that increasing temperatures have a large effect on carbon release from permafrost but that changes in soil moisture conditions have an even greater effect," says Schädel. "We conclude that the permafrost carbon feedback will be stronger when a larger percentage of the permafrost zone undergoes thaw in a dry and oxygen-rich environment."

As the permafrost thaws, microbes wake up and begin digesting the newly available remains of ancient plants and animals stored as carbon in the soil. This digestion produces either carbon dioxide or methane, depending on . Scientists want to understand the ratio of carbon dioxide to methane gas released by this process because it affects the strength of the permafrost carbon feedback loop: greenhouse gases released due to thawing permafrost cause temperatures to rise, leading to even more thawing and . Furthermore, the Arctic permafrost is like a vast underground storage tank of carbon, holding almost twice as much as the atmosphere. At that scale, small changes in how the carbon is released will have big effects.

The current study zeroed in on two factors: temperature and the availability of oxygen. Soils in the lab were incubated at a range of warmer temperatures projected for the future. The availability of oxygen is important because it determines how microbes digest carbon. Oxygen-rich, or aerobic, conditions are found in dry soils and produce carbon dioxide. Oxygen-poor, or anaerobic, conditions are found in wet soils and produce both carbon dioxide and methane. Lab incubations mimicked these two conditions.

The question of whether wet or dry soils will dominate the future Arctic permafrost zone remains. This study highlights the need to monitor changes in wetness associated with , changes that will ultimately determine how much carbon will be released from across the Arctic landscape.

Explore further: Biomass offsets little or none of permafrost carbon release

More information: Potential carbon emissions dominated by carbon dioxide from thawed permafrost soils, Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3054

Related Stories

Biomass offsets little or none of permafrost carbon release

March 30, 2016

Scientists who study climate and ecosystems in the Arctic have weighed in on future changes in the region affecting soils, streams and wildfire, which will be releasing greater amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse ...

Researchers clarify impact of permafrost thaw

May 12, 2015

As the Earth's climate continues to warm, researchers are working to understand how human-driven emissions of carbon dioxide will affect the release of naturally occurring greenhouse gases from arctic permafrost. As the perennially ...

On warmer Earth, most of Arctic may remove, not add, methane

August 17, 2015

In addition to melting icecaps and imperiled wildlife, a significant concern among scientists is that higher Arctic temperatures brought about by climate change could result in the release of massive amounts of carbon locked ...

Recommended for you

Gauging the effects of water scarcity on an irrigated planet

April 20, 2018

Growing global food demand, climate change, and climate policies favoring bioenergy production are expected to increase pressures on water resources around the world. Many analysts predict that water shortages will constrain ...

45 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rodkeh
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2016
CO2 has nothing to do with climate and opinion and consensus have nothing to do with science!
clarkmagnuson
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2016
CO2??? Scientific method would require a working model of climate [which does not exist] before making the over stated case in the headline.
Shame on you!
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2016
So the real question is how quickly will the land exposed by retreating permafrost dry out?
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2016
rodkeh claims
CO2 has nothing to do with climate
Wrong - ding !

CO2 has everything to do with climate but,you *need* an education in Physics to appreciate its path, start with
1. Radiative Transfer (RT)
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Inexorably leads to
2. Radiative Forcing (RF)
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Both are based on very simple irrefutable Physics:-
3. "All atoms radiate & absorb light all the time"
Which is linked the underlying Physics also that
4. "Everything moves all the time"

All above completely settled

Learn that climate is weather integrated over an accepted period of 30yrs then tell us how adding an extra 1.5W/m^2 to Earth's heat balance should *not* affect climate ?

Tell us why average temps over last 30 yrs have risen despite less Insolation ?

rodkeh says
and opinion and consensus have nothing to do with science!
No. See 1-4 above, Physicists are in *agreement*, doh

ie Learn Physics !
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2016
@clarkmagnusson
Further to my last post directed at rodkeh, now also directed at you:-

To understand why your comment & claim is not just facile but, obfuscates the whole process and is thus disingenuous you obtain education in Physics of heat:-
https://en.wikipe...iki/Heat

Which *requires* a good understanding of:-
5. https://en.wikipe...of_gases
and is closely related to:-
6. https://en.wikipe...echanics

Climate reflects weather integrated over 30years, weather at its heart involves chaotic movements of gas, heat, fluids, effect of Insolation etc, but you & rodkeh don't understand its all Integrated, especially re my point/link 6

Its clear from your comment you have no such education or understanding !

Raises the question, why do nicks like you make facile off hand challenging comments designed to denigrate when they have no understanding of the subject, its causes, the combinatorial complexities etc

?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2016
Da Schneib offers a question
So the real question is how quickly will the land exposed by retreating permafrost dry out?
Indeed, especially so if the Water Activity reduces sufficient to quell bacterial growth
ie From studies in microbiology
https://en.wikipe...activity
although a factor relevant to those in the cross discipline field of food science, its also at the heart of microbiology re nutrient cultures & one of the many factors affecting bacterial growth along with energy & media affecting DNA mutation rates etc.

If not dried out & likelihood there's comparatively large mass of old DNA at various stages of denaturing/recombination & knowing bacteria easily exchange genes we might well find those regions could be very fertile ground for onset of new strains even new species..

Further, if the climate improves for human habitability re suburbs those new strains could find a great opportunity to adapt further & means to spread globally...
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2016
CO2 has nothing to do with climate and opinion and consensus have nothing to do with science!

Consensus of whom? Consens of people who know nothing about science: you're right there. That doesn't count for diddly-squat.
Consensus of the people who work on climate science based on conclusion they have drawn INDIVIDUALLY from their work? You betcha that counts.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2016
Scientific method would require a working model of climate [which does not exist]

Such a model exist - or do you require a fully atomic model of the atmosphere?

To make this more clear:
If 19 out of 20 doctors say that smoking causes lung cancer - do you require of them a fully molecular simulation of how the lung works and cancer forms before you believe it? Of course not.

And our climate models are a LOT better than our cancer models.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2016
Also for the AGW Climate Change deniers who simplistically claim CO2 is plant food so more is better, might want to re-consider what they think they know about plant biology & biochemistry especially as we may face major changes in food production levels even assuming we can address one poison at a time in the various food crops some rely upon:-

Australian ABC Network Catalyst program Video
https://www.youtu...CNcqJ3Ww

Rice production falling due to warmer evenings re O2 respiration energy etc
http://www.bbc.co...10918591

Effect of higher CO2 on insect pests in USA re Corn
https://news.uns....sts.html

And worst as it can seriously affect food for fish which a large part of the world depends upon
http://www.nature...268.html

and article on phys.org
http://phys.org/n...ere.html
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2016
"A new scientific study published in April in the journal Nature reveals that between 25% up to possibly 50% of Earth's vegetated lands have shown significant greening over the last 35 years. Moreover, the study says that the greening is largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

But let's tax respiration to give Jacob Rothschild more power as planet landlord
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2016
Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, blabbers.
Mutterin' Mike prefers his "science" from fiction rather than facts.
http://themigrant...eme.html
kochevnik
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2016
Dumb shits downvoting Nature journal LOL! Maybe they should stop adding to the CO2 with their useless breathing
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2016
Dumb shits downvoting Nature journal LOL! Maybe they should stop adding to the CO2 with their useless breathing

No dumdum, they are downvoting your stupid comment about taxing respiration or whatever dodderng stupidity you were on about.

Try following the discussion dough-boy, might bring you some enlightenment.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2016
kochevnik claims
Dumb shits downvoting Nature journal LOL!
No. Selectively pasting from a scientific journal does NOT help anyone at all. There's also been a pattern of cherry picking which the uneducated emotionally bound deniers use to try to drive mere opinion. ie They want to 'convince' you, to place a belief but, cannot touch on many of the complexities in the study of Science, Physics is where you must start as that is the base of chemistry. Then you have bio-chemistry & plant biology etc

So be smart & a genuine participant kochevnik to address the importance of this issue and not try so hard to appear as a narrow emotionally driven binary thinker ?

Please paste a link to the whole paper as a start ?

AND
Read my recent posts, offer any refuting Scientific Papers re the issue of plant equilibria & cyanogens ?

You might want toreview plant biology, as CO2 is easier for plants to get, might this affect lignin density re structural issues in trees ?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2016
"A new scientific study published in April in the journal Nature reveals that between 25% up to possibly 50% of Earth's vegetated lands have shown significant greening over the last 35 years. Moreover, the study says that the greening is largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
Great it makes it better for plants. Meanwhile, it makes it worse for humans. Maybe you forgot.

Also, according to late evidence, only for a little while- then the effects on moisture kick in. Plants need water as well as CO₂. Maybe you forgot that too.

Dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duhhhhh.

Guy_Underbridge
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 15, 2016
As much money as the coal industry makes, you'd think they could buy more articulate sockpuppets for their denial campaign...
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2016
Da Schneib offers
Plants need water as well as CO₂
Indeed, otherwise their biochem can't fulfill same equilibrium criteria re production of starches/proteins now as it did when CO₂ was lower

Recently spoke to old E.Eng friend runs Radio Frequency test lab with a synthetic anechoic chamber (WAISS state govt grant I arranged circa 2000) & used to be stickler on Experiment at more rigorous level than I

Mentioned my post-grad re food science, he lurched off into diatribe how we *must* have higher CO₂ asap for plant sugars so we survive !

Reminded him higher CO₂ must mean higher H₂O for same biochem equilibria maintenance so proteins not disturbed but, got an angry blurt I was very WRONG !
He claimed vociferously higher CO₂ obviously meant lower water - huh, huge chem fail ?

Reminding him sugars are carbo"hydrates" ie CO₂ AND H₂O but, was met with blank look & a hand-wave of "doesn't matter" !

The most strident & sad example of emotional hypnosis ever :/
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2016
As much money as the coal industry makes, you'd think they could buy more articulate sockpuppets for their denial campaign...

Seems that the only thing that is keeping the coal industry afloat is subsidies. And when your profit margings tank the only way to go for more PR. Stabdard approach.

I pity them a bit. Because the only people willing to make PR for them are total sellouts and the brain-dead...and neither make particularly convincing PR agents. So it's money down the drain.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2016
They run substandard mines that kill the miners.
Their mining activities foul the environment.
Mining it releases methane, contributing to global warming.
Burning it produces acid rain and other air pollution.
It's the primary contributor to global warming.
Even that doesn't end the problem, disposing of the ash fouls the environment again.
To top it all off it turns out they've opposed doing anything about any of the problems their product causes for decades, and bought as many legislators and as much PR as they can get.

It's time for this practice to go the way of slavery, monopoly, insider stock trading, and piracy.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2016
Selectively pasting from a scientific journal does NOT help anyone at all.

Well, it certainly does not help the Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast and neither does those 2 Wikipedia links that you cannot read, far less comprehend.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2016
Also, according to late evidence, only for a little while- then the effects on moisture kick in. Plants need water as well as CO₂. Maybe you forgot that too.

Da Idiot brays. Give us a link to that evidence.
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2016
kochevnik claims
Dumb shits downvoting Nature journal LOL!
No. Selectively pasting from a scientific journal does NOT help anyone at all. There's also been a pattern of cherry picking which the uneducated emotionally bound deniers use to try to drive mere opinion. ie They want to 'convince' you, to place a belief but, cannot touch on many of the complexities in the study of Science, Physics is where you must start as that is the base of chemistry. Then you have bio-chemistry & plant biology etc
Have you published in Nature? How is an entire article in one of the most prestigious scientific journals on Earth "cherry picking"? You sound like any religious brainwashed cult member endlessly reciting the tautological mantras
Mining it releases methane, contributing to global warming.
Yes and methane is much more potent greenhouse gas as well as nitrogen, if I remember correctly. But global warmers clump all gasses together, as if the moon is some yardstick
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2016
"A new scientific study published in April in the journal Nature reveals that between 25% up to possibly 50% of Earth's vegetated lands have shown significant greening over the last 35 years. Moreover, the study says that the greening is largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
Great it makes it better for plants. Meanwhile, it makes it worse for humans. Maybe you forgot.

Also, according to late evidence, only for a little while- then the effects on moisture kick in. Plants need water as well as CO₂. Maybe you forgot that too.

Dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duhhhhh.

Too many humans. That is one possible cause of global climate change. If people want more children let them do it on other planets

Rainforests create their own moisture, as many children already know
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2016
kochevnik asks
Have you published in Nature?
No, wrote a paper for Curtin University, have you written any & why is it relevant ?

kochevnik asks
How is an entire article in one of the most prestigious scientific journals on Earth "cherry picking"?
Because you *ONLY* pasted one SMALL part of it, you Failed to paste the link to the WHOLE article !

Do you not understand that IMMENSE Difference ?

ie You didn't notice I asked you "Please paste a link to the whole paper as a start ?"

Do you need me to restate ".. to PASTE the link to the WHOLE paper..", then you can't be accused of cherry picking, capisce' ?

kochevnik seems to be drunk
You sound like any religious brainwashed cult member endlessly reciting the tautological mantras
Beg Pardon, no, read my posts ?

Look at Physics, leads to biochemistry, I did & as part of my Post Grad 2010 Food Science (included microbiology) @ Curtin University, Western Australia, student no 7602128, go check...
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2016
kochevnik utters
..methane is much more potent greenhouse gas as well as nitrogen, if I remember correctly
Rather than relying on memory despite there are less than a handful of atmospheric gases to be concerned about - why not actually check, easy & avoids further embarrassment ?

ie Read my link 2 of post Jun 14, 2016
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

If you had read it & free of confirmational bias & intellectual laziness you'd see that nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas. Its the larger slightly more complex molecules that have more degrees of freedom with more mass which means their vibrational states are at lower frequencies such as Infra Red (IR).

Nitrogen like Oxygen mostly transparent to Sol's visible light, do you understand the significance of that - the atmosphere allows it in with its huge energy gets converted to IR when it encounters sea & land.

IR journeys up but, some re-emitted back by greenhouse gases, so simple - that's it !
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2016
It's time for this practice to go the way of slavery, monopoly, insider stock trading, and piracy.

Probably want to phrase that differently, as these four practices are alive and well.

In the end they should just kill all subsidies to the coal industry. It's had centuries to get on its feet of its own. If something can't be self sufficient (including costs of all negative side effects) in all that time then it certainly has no place in modern economics.
kochevnik
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2016
If you had read it & free of confirmational bias & intellectual laziness you'd see that nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas
"With an overload of fertilizer, soil microbes on farms may belch unexpectedly high levels of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas with 300 times as much heat-trapping power as carbon dioxide. " https://www.scien...expected

Only off by a factor of 300! But keep whining about CO2
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2016
kochevnik (KO) didn't discriminate Nitrogen & Nitrous Oxide (N₂O)
.. a greenhouse gas with 300 times as much heat-trapping power as carbon dioxide
Great, for a change KO follows advice & links directly to the article but, still not to that one in Nature :/

Your link also has:-
https://www.scien...de-rises

KO says
.. off by a factor of 300!
So, why show us you haven't read my link, did you notice the bar graph ?

LOOK at it again
2. https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Note: Bar graph right hand side 3rd way down, see 1st two columns; CO2 on left, next along has N₂O, rather smaller than CO₂ yah think ?

KO says
keep whining about CO2
No. Its Physics, See CO₂ - is it bigger than N₂O ?

To be genuine re N₂O (or any others) comparatively with biggest of CO₂ best thing to do is find a paper on global mass emissions of last ~100yrs & trend line projections ?

Over to you
kochevnik
1 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2016
kochevnik (KO) didn't discriminate Nitrogen & Nitrous Oxide (N₂O)
Why is that even worth mention? Again potency of nitrogen is 300 times that of CO2 in greenhouse effect. Plants are thriving in lush ecosystem afforded by abundant CO2, and rainforests collect and retain their own water. Eras of CO2 correspond to lush fauna. I do not see the problem. Only problem is retarded sapiens have large families and overtax resources of Earth

It makes sense you do not read Nature, or your thoughts would be more coherent. At least your are not yank, so I assume you will quickly catch up
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2016
kochevnik (KO) asks
Why is that even worth mention?
Nitrogen (N₂) is **NOT** the same as Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) under **any** circumstances EVER !!!!

Please READ links a. & b.
a. https://en.wikipe...Nitrogen
Versus
b. https://en.wikipe...us_oxide

Can you do it so you don't mislead audience with more unhelpful uneducated claims that can't improve base of knowledge ????

Please check independently as a true ethical & mature researcher in Science/Chemistry/Physics would do so, so as to NOT mislead or embarrass themselves before present audience & those to come ?

KO claims
.. nitrogen is 300 times that of CO2 in greenhouse effect
NO, completely Wrong they are DIFFERENT compounds !

Please learn IMMENSE difference between Nitrogen versus Nitrous Oxide - links a. & b. ?

Can you FIRST do that please fully & completely to be accurate as that is correct protocol ?

AND

Where is link to the whole Nature article please ?
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2016
Meanwhile, on Earth, the supposed theory that rainforests make their own rain (it's actually still a hypothesis) hit the street in about 2009. And it's ridiculous if you think about it; water runs downhill and underground, and so no rainforest can possibly catch it all.

That they affect the rainfall over them, yes; that there's a positive feedback loop, yes. But input moisture has to come from evaporation in the direction the prevailing winds blow from. So I'll go along with, rainforests make rain more likely where they are; but "make their own rain?" Nope. Try again. This time don't try to pretend a hypothesis is a theory, don't try to pretend they teach hypotheses no one's even tried to test in science in schoolrooms, and don't read 1% of an article and pretend you know it all.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2016
Typical Chicken Little.
http://www.calaca...kes-rain
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2016
LOL, @antig thinks water doesn't flow underground, and that it appears in the atmosphere out of nowhere.

That article is at about 2nd or 3rd grade level; just about your speed.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2016
That article is at about 2nd or 3rd grade level; just about your speed.

And, way above yours. As I said, typical Chicken Little.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2016
kochevnik (KO) didn't discriminate Nitrogen & Nitrous Oxide (N₂O)
Why is that even worth mention? Again potency of nitrogen is 300 times that of CO2 in greenhouse effect. Plants are thriving in lush ecosystem afforded by abundant CO2, and rainforests collect and retain their own water. Eras of CO2 correspond to lush fauna. I do not see the problem. Only problem is retarded sapiens have large families and overtax resources of Earth

It makes sense you do not read Nature, or your thoughts would be more coherent. At least your are not yank, so I assume you will quickly catch up


Yes, all us weirdos who read Nature and are therefore close-minded about this great nitrogen GHG miracle and the rainforests "making" their own water.

I am personally going to stop reading Nature and start reading Unicorn: The Magic of Rainbow Farts instead. It sounds more fun.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2016
Since it doesn't mention ground water or the positive feedback loop or where the water vapor comes from in the first place or the fact it's only a hypothesis, you're just playgrounding.

Next time don't post a link to 2nd grade material on the science site. It makes it obvious you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2016
@koch
Again potency of nitrogen is 300 times that of CO2 in greenhouse effect.
Ummmwut? But that's not you can't it doesn't I don't even.

Nitrogen is not a GWG. Period. Nitrogen makes up over 70% of the Earth's atmosphere; if it were a GWG we'd be cooked. This is almost as dumb as @antig's second-grade article on rainforests with water that appears out of nowhere and doesn't flow underground.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2016
@koch
Again potency of nitrogen is 300 times that of CO2 in greenhouse effect.
Ummmwut? But that's not you can't it doesn't I don't even.


But it's hilariously nonsensical. Like that time the Food Babe claimed the airlines were trying to save money by putting "up to 70% of nitrogen" in their plane air and you needed to sit at the front to get the good oxygen. Admittedly I'm only laughing to stop from crying... but I'm still laughing
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2016
Since it doesn't mention ground water or the positive feedback loop or where the water vapor comes from in the first place or the fact it's only a hypothesis, you're just playgrounding.

Next time don't post a link to 2nd grade material on the science site. It makes it obvious you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

That was already obvious.....

Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2016
@koch
Again potency of nitrogen is 300 times that of CO2 in greenhouse effect.
Ummmwut? But that's not you can't it doesn't I don't even.

Nitrogen is not a GWG. Period. Nitrogen makes up over 70% of the Earth's atmosphere; if it were a GWG we'd be cooked. This is almost as dumb as @antig's second-grade article on rainforests with water that appears out of nowhere and doesn't flow underground.

He's confusing Nitrogen (n) with Nitrous Oxide (NO2). I think it's funny he doesn't know the difference :)
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2016
It's time for this practice to go the way of slavery, monopoly, insider stock trading, and piracy.

Probably want to phrase that differently, as these four practices are alive and well.
Well, at least they're illegal most places.

In the end they should just kill all subsidies to the coal industry. It's had centuries to get on its feet of its own. If something can't be self sufficient (including costs of all negative side effects) in all that time then it certainly has no place in modern economics.
Meanwhile, aren't all those the same people who are soooooo worried about bums getting free food? Suckin' at the public trough, and harder than most. Typical.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2016
Again potency of nitrogen is 300 times that of CO2 in greenhouse effect.
Ummmwut? But that's not you can't it doesn't I don't even.

Nitrogen is not a GWG. Period.

He's confusing Nitrogen (n) with Nitrous Oxide (NO2). I think it's funny he doesn't know the difference :)
Not exactly Mr. Chemistry, eh? All those little atomy things, they're real hard to keep track of. Not that that is particularly surprising, most deniers couldn't find their way out of a paper bag with a map and a flashlight. That's why they're deniers.
katesisco
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2016
Did you ever wonder how much CARBON MONOXIDE WAS THE ORIGINAL GAS BEFORE IT CHEMICALLY ALTERED INTO CARBON DIOXIDE?
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 18, 2016
katesisco says
Did you ever wonder how much CARBON MONOXIDE WAS THE ORIGINAL GAS
What do you mean "original" ? what does that mean ?

Are you implying Carbon Monoxide (CO) purposely "created" before Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as if its a progression step from a Monoxide to a Dioxide & that there will be a Trioxide - really ?

CO a product of partial combustion, CO2 a product of full combustion. If you ignite CO in air then it will burn to form CO2.

Combustion equilibria favours the path through to CO2 in presence of sufficient oxygen Eg even if enough N2O etc depends on combustion dynamics etc

katesisco says
.. BEFORE IT CHEMICALLY ALTERED INTO CARBON DIOXIDE?
Are you implying someone/something "did it", please look up these links asap:-
https://en.wikipe...mbustion

AND
https://en.wikipe...monoxide

AND
https://en.wikipe..._dioxide

AND whilst at it, check out
https://en.wikipe...trioxide
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2016
@kate
Are you drunk?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.