More proof that global warming is pretty much a natural thing
A GROWN moose belches out methane gas equivalent to 2100kg of carbon dioxide a year, contributing to global warming, Norwegian researchers say.
That is more than twice the amount of CO2 emitted on a round-trip flight across the Atlantic Ocean from Oslo to the Chilean capital Santiago, according to Scandinavian Airlines.
"An adult moose emits about 100 kilograms of methane gas a year. But methane gas is much stronger than carbon dioxide, so to get the equivalent you have to multiply by 21,” professor Odd Harstad at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences said.
Kill them! Kill them all!
But Prof Harstad said that was no reason to begin killing off the entire moose population.
"Moose have very important functions in nature. They are ruminants that eat the grass. If we don’t have ruminants, we have too much grass and that changes the landscape and has consequences for the flora and fauna,” he said.
OK, don’t kill them. Just understand that nature happens.
However, it gets worse. Or funnier, depending on your point of view
Global warming is impacting more than the water levels in the Great Lakes. It could be the beginning of the end for the moose and wolves of Isle Royale. And if it is, a Michigan Technological University scientist places the blame squarely on the human race.
“Humans have made summers increasingly hot, which likely exacerbates moose ticks,†says John Vucetich, a population biologist in Michigan Tech’s School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science. “Both the heat and the ticks are detrimental to moose. If wolves go extinct for a lack of moose, humans will be to blame.â€
Apparently, they did not peer review their article with the moose burps researchers. Plus, they apparently have never been awake while that pesky Sun was in the sky.
But, hey, wait a minute! Perhaps Vucetich should have checked with this guy
For several years Dr. Rolf O. Peterson, who has been studying the parkÃs wolf packs since 1970, has worried that the wolves might be on a fast track to extinction. Dr. Peterson saw their numbers crash from 50 in 1980 to 14 two years later, apparently from an outbreak of canine parvovirus, a deadly new disease that had ravaged dogs on the mainland and was brought to the island on hikers boots…
Dr. Peterson, a wildlife ecologist at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, also watched moose numbers on the 210-square-mile wilderness island mount in the absence of the normally heavy wolf predation. By the winter of 1994-95, the Isle Royale moose population stood at 2,400, the biggest herd since the early 1930Ãs and far higher than any count since 1949,….
Included in the article is a chart of the moose and wolf populations since 1958, showing, yup! fluctuations of their numbers. But, you know, today’s extinction possibility could have any to do with anything other then man made global warming, which seems to be the catch all blame for everything.
On the bright side (via Hooah Wife and Friends)
Norway has some 120,000 moose but an estimated 35,000 are expected to be killed in this year’s moose hunting season, which starts on September 25, Norwegian newspaper VG reported.
So maybe do kill the moose
So you agree with the article that greenhouse gases are one of the main causes of global warming?
I am not sure what your point here is, that all of the celebreties who fly around in private jets do not cause as much damage as a moose ?
Please expalin.
Of course, Silke, I have never said otherwise. But the gases are primarily natural, and add in natural Earth forces and the Sun. For instance, massive amounts of methane are being released from mid-Atlantic ridge pockets.
Partly, John, it is meant to highlight the silliness of the whole Man is the cause of Global Warming.
Teach said: But the gases are primarily natural, and add in natural Earth forces and the Sun.
What scientific report or study do you base this on? You never answer this question. This is a very complex issue and it’s difficult to discuss it unless you are more specific.
Yes, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but from what I understand there is over 200 times more CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere than methane. CO2 levels are 380 parts per million while methane levels are 1.75 ppm. So the amount of warming methane contributes is about 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.
What’s interesting is that scientists can actually determine exactly where the added CO2 is coming. Carbon has two stable isotopes (atomic weights), C12 and C13. Plants prefer to use C12 over C13 (it takes slightly less energy to bond to C12 than to C13), so the naturally occurring ratio of the two isotopes is skewed toward C12 in plants. All fossil fuels were originally plants, and so if the C12/C13 ratio in the atmosphere is changing toward increased concentrations of C12, then the source of the new CO2 must be plants. In addition, since animal respiration isn’t enough to skew the C12/C13 ratio and simultaneously affect the concentration of CO2 and oxygen in the atmosphere, the source must be fossil fuels. You can read this for yourself in the IPCC Working Group I Report (pages 138-139): http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf
Your assertion about the sun is contradicted by direct satellite measurements that find no rising trend since 1978. In fact this study from 2007 concludes:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
Sorry for the long response. Please let me know what your sources are.
“This one’s too loose…
oh it could fit a MOOOOOOOSE!”
/Frank_Sinatra_wannabe