[Terrapreta] two recent articles on TP

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Michael

Michael Bailes wrote:
> It would be a lot easier if everyone ate delicious Kangaroo like Australians.
>
>  "The Kangaroo can jump incredible,
> He has to jump because he is edible,
> I could not eat a kangaroo,
> But many fine Australians do,
> Those with cookbooks as well as boomerangs,
> Prefer him in tasty kangaroomeringues."
> -Ogden Nash
>
>   

The Kangaroo digestive system does seem to be more efficient that the 
cattle system, so, on the one hand, they should require less feed input 
per pound of weight gain. On the other hand perhaps their metabolism is 
such that they burn off a higher percentage of their input nutrition 
with their greater activity.
> I had a NZ Primary Industries representative at the IAI confrence last
> year insist that burping was more important (GHG wise) than farting.
> he said it was resposnsible for 40% of NZs total emmisions.
>   

Very interesting!! If a distinction was made between "fossil sourced CO2 
and Methane" in comparison to "biomass sourced CO2 and Methane", NZ 
could show a significant change in their GHG contribution, simply by a 
"change in the evaluation criteria."
> .
> Also Tim Flannery, at the same conference, said methane levels have
> been going DOWN for the last eight years. No one seems to know why.
>   

I don't have any references for it, but I seem to recall that a few 
years ago, there was a study undertaken to show that "air over land" had 
higher GHG content than "air over ocean." The study gave the surprising 
result that the "air over water" had HIGHER GHG content. One credible 
explanation is that the ocean is warming and that it is losing its 
capability to dissolve such gases.explanation.  Is it possible  that the 
explanation of Tim's observation is as simple as average wind direction?

Best wishes,

Kevin
> Michael
>
> On 01/03/2008, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>   
>> Dear Sean
>>
>>
>>  Sean K. Barry wrote:
>>  > Hi Kevin, Michael,
>>  >
>>  > Kevin, I think you are right on point ... and it is an important
>>  > point.  Any recycling of carbon which had its original source in the
>>  > Biosphere is not the problem that needs to be addressed, as regards
>>  > its influence on the atmosphere.
>>     
>
>