tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post4915396873083698834..comments2023-08-08T10:25:47.529+01:00Comments on McCabism: Methane and contradictionsGordon McCabehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151162643523937086noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post-54229976966546107982011-08-05T19:14:29.574+01:002011-08-05T19:14:29.574+01:00This might help provide an explanation: http://blo...This might help provide an explanation: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/14/plants-may-not-be-methane-spewing-climate-criminals-after-all/aaaackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029904259006373262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post-67694354088437768702011-08-05T19:09:39.060+01:002011-08-05T19:09:39.060+01:00Have read that carbon dioxide generally remains in...Have read that carbon dioxide generally remains in the air for 500 years, whereas methane is usually broken down into water and carbon dioxide within 8 years by hydroxyl interactions. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But if a tree consumes, (throwing out a random number because I don't know what the ratio really is) say, 100 molecules of carbon dioxide for every methane it exhales, it might be worth planting trees for the net effect.(I was searching for plants that consume methane when I ran into your blog by accident.)aaaackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029904259006373262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post-76943771535349271972007-07-15T11:53:00.000+01:002007-07-15T11:53:00.000+01:00Excellent point, John.Excellent point, John.Gordon McCabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09151162643523937086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post-91026381186299369342007-07-15T10:51:00.000+01:002007-07-15T10:51:00.000+01:00I have just read the article you are talking about...I have just read the article you are talking about, and am interested by your response to it. I agree with your point that they seem confused about the effect that their findings have on the global warming argument, but something else struck me. <BR/><BR/>The authors removed the existing methane from the air in the experiments, before they started, so they could measure the amounts of methane given out (as the amounts are very small). But most processes in plants are equilibrium processes, so the emission of methane observed is quite likely to be a feedback effect. Maybe if the methane levels get too high, plants would <I>absorb</I> methane. I don't think their experiments provide proof that this effect is part of the cause of global warming, and would recommend more tests before they publish articles like this in publications like scientific american.<BR/><BR/>What are your thoughts on this? Have I missed the point? (I'm a materials' scientist rather than a biologist)<BR/><BR/>JohnGrinnyguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08660699369923586004noreply@blogger.com