Whale **** prevents global warming

[Skipper]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/specieswhalesclimateoffbeat

PARIS (AFP) – Southern Ocean sperm whales are an unexpected ally in the fight against global warming, removing the equivalent carbon emissions from 40,000 cars each year thanks to their faeces, a study found on Wednesday.

The cetaceans have been previously fingered as climate culprits because they breathe out carbon dioxide (CO2), the commonest greenhouse gas.

But this is only a part of the picture, according to the paper, published in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

In a heroic calculation, Australian biologists estimated that the estimated 12,000 sperm whales in the Southern Ocean each defecate around 50 tonnes of iron into the sea every year after digesting the fish and squid they hunt.

The iron is a terrific food for phytoplankton -- marine plants that live near the ocean surface and which suck up CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.

As a result of faecal fertilisation, the whales remove 400,000 tonnes of carbon each year, twice as much as the 200,000 tonnes of CO2 that they contribute through respiration.

By way of comparison, 200,000 tonnes of CO2 is equal to the emissions of almost 40,000 passenger cars, according to an equation on the website of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The whales' faeces are so effective because they are emitted in liquid form and close to the surface, before the mammals dive, said the paper.

Industrialised whaling not only gravely threatened Southern Ocean sperm whales, it also damaged a major carbon "sink," the scientific term for something that removes more greenhouse gases than it produces, it added.

Before industrial whaling, the population of this species was about 10 times bigger, which meant around two million tonnes of CO2 were removed annually, said the paper.

The Southern Ocean is rich in nitrogen but poor in iron, which is essential for phytoplankton.

The scientists suspect that because sperm whales cluster in specific areas of the Southern Ocean there is a clear link between food availability and cetacean faeces.

This could explain the "krill paradox," they believe. Researchers have previously found that when balleen whales are killed, the amount of krill in that sea area declines, which thus affects the entire food chain.

The study is lead-authored by Trish Lavery of the School of Biological Sciences at Flinders University in Adelaide.

The EPA's website, on the basis of a calculation made in 2005, says that a passenger car that is driven for 20,000 kilometers (12,000 miles) a year yields annual emissions in CO2 or its equivalent of just over five tonnes.

The future of sperm whales and other species comes under scrutiny next week in Agadir, Morocco, where the International Whaling Commission (IWC) discusses a plan to relax a 24-year moratorium on commercial whaling.

[Trouble 45-70]

Amazing, a vehicle that is driven 12,000 miles per year produces 5 tons of CO2.

How is that possible?

A vehicle that gets 20 mpg, and is driven 12,000 miles will burn 600 gallons of fuel which weighs about 7.6 pounds per gal. which comes to 4500 pounds of fuel.

Question, how does 4500 pounds of fuel generate 10,000 pounds of CO2 which will be consumed by the grasses and trees along the route driven, then through the action of photosynthesis will be converted into plant sugars and O2. Too much concrete where the scientists live? We have something called weather which distributes air around the world and is the only reason that Washingtonians haven't succumbed to CO2 poisoning since the place was built.

[dbrodin]

A carbon dioxide molecule is approximately 3.7 times heaver than a single carbon atom. If you assume for the sake of simplicity that ALL the gallon of gas is carbon, which it obviously is not, you get approximately 28 lbs of carbon dioxide per gallon, or over 16,000 lbs for your 12,000 mile trip. As gasoline is actually made up of carbon,hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, and assorted minor components, you get the 10,000 lb number.

This bothered me too until I did some playing with atomic weights and ratios one day and decide the numbers were realistic.

Dale

[Bobitis]

Dale, I can't argue your facts based on molecular weight. Atom 'x' with an addition of any other atom obvilously weighs more.

The problem lies in the lies. There is no more carbon emmitted in the combustion of the petrol. The extra weight is created by the addition of oxygen. In effect, we are being punished by adding oxygen to the mix.

What if someone invented a device that could take CO2 and convert it back to carbon and oxygen? Could you install it on a vehicle and it would run for free? The laws of thermodynamics are fixed. You simply cannot create more energy by consuming it.

Take CO2, use energy to separate the atoms and create more carbon and oxygen than the energy consumed to do it? Ain't gonna happen.

There is no perpetual motion machine for a reason.

I have to ask why 'carbon' is a bad thing? Who says so and why?
The earth has a finite amount of resources available. They have always been here. There will be no more or less available. It's a symbiotic relationship. Without CO2 the planet would die.

Are we creating CO2? Yes. Can the earths oceans assimilate it? Yes.
The problem lies in the fact that we mere humans think we can control the laws of the physics and the universe. We can't. We can't control the tides, much less the sun. How arrogant can we be?

[dbrodin]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

What if someone invented a device that could take CO2 and convert it back to carbon and oxygen? Could you install it on a vehicle and it would run for free? The laws of thermodynamics are fixed. You simply cannot create more energy by consuming it.

That's why I shudder every time I hear about hydrogen being the wave of the future for clean energy. Where is the hydrogen going to come from? 99.9% of the hydrogen in the world is tied up in either water or various hydrocarbon compounds. It takes as much energy to split hydrogen out as you get back, so what are you gaining?

[graehaven]

Bob hit it on the head.

The bottom line is, the arrogance and greed of those purporting the global warming myth. These people need to be prosecuted and punished for what they are perpetuating on the people.

Global Warming is a myth. It's already been proven to be a myth. The lies generated by greedy subsidy-seeking scientists are irrefutable. Climate change, the new buzz word, is a naturally occurring event. You CANNOT stop it, change it, manipulate it. What they CAN do, is tax you concerning it.

And that is what they are going to do.

[Terry_P]

Originally Posted by dbrodin

That's why I shudder every time I hear about hydrogen being the wave of the future for clean energy. Where is the hydrogen going to come from? 99.9% of the hydrogen in the world is tied up in either water or various hydrocarbon compounds. It takes as much energy to split hydrogen out as you get back, so what are you gaining?

Exactly the hydrogen vehicles that use fuel cells are zero emissions if you exclude the hydrogen production. The hybrid gas electric vehicles use less fossil fuel if you exclude the fossil fuel used to generate the recharge of the batteries. A baloney sandwich isn't bad for you if you exclude the fat and chemicals.

I don't know which is a bigger myth the normal cycles of the earth being caused by man or that they can be fixed by returning us economically to the stone age.

[bcj1755]

Whale crap prevents global warming huh? Well, why is this the first I've heard about Al Gore being at sea?