From Joe-6-Pack at http://geosciblog.blogspot.com/...
"Crude Oil and Methane... The Original Bio-Fuels"
and my contribution...
"Oil and Gas... the OTHER Solar Energy!"
Citizens don't seem to understand that bio-fuels and oil and gas are merely different forms of solar energy converted to and stored in a form that allows us use it with incredible efficiency AND the timing for which to use it, kind of like organic batteries. The only physical difference between Bio-Fuels and Oil and Gas is the BTU efficiency of each (how many BTU's do we spend to get a BTU? If it is more thatn one, it is a NOT a source of energy. if it is less than one, it is) and turn-around manufacturing time... millions of years versus several months.
So, our self designated energy ethicists have created two dimensions of "goodosity". One axis is carbon footprint, and the other a nebulous and undefinable term called "sustainability". Prior to the last decade, the carbon footprint axis didn't exist. It is still a very open debate as to whether this is an appropriate axis for "goodosity".
If we could create oil and gas from turkey carcasses or landfills, which WE ALRADY DO, that would be defined in this two dimensional ethical structure as GOOD Oil and Gas in the "sustainable" axis because we can create a lot of landfills and kill a lot of poultry in a timely fashion. The methane from landfills is "good" on both sustainable and carbon axis. Of course, we can take this construct, and we can add more axis... more dimensions, which equals more dementia. If we are vegans, then the turkey carcass oil plots very badly on that axis. It doesn't take too many of these ethical axes before you are plumb out of "appropriate" energy altogether at any price. Physical laws don't respect human laws, and when human rules contradict physical laws, I don't need to tell you which ones prevail.
So, lets examine the "sustainability" ethic. Exactly how much fossil supply do you need before you become "sustainable"? For instance, the sun is finite and fossil, but we have billions of years of it in the future, so not something we should concern ourself with. For our purposes, it is sustainable. Given that we, as a species, has been around 200,000 years, I would feel comfortable saying a 200,000 year supply is "sustainable". Given the developments of the last Century, ie commercial flight, nuclear power, incredible increases in manufacturing and agricultural output, ad infinitum, I would be willing to say that a couple of hundred years means "sustainable". Does anyone really think we will have gasoline powered vehicles in 2150? If oil and gas have a 200 year supply, is it not "sustainable"?
Funny how this histrionic debate is really only about a TIME scale!
"Funny how this histrionic debate is really only about a TIME scale!"
You are correct with respect to both axes, even the one that you seemingly automatically write off. The question is not "carbon footprint" as you state, but "adding carbon from a *much* longer carbon cycle" (i.e. millions of years vs. a few years), *and* any impact that the *added* carbon from that longer cycle may have on the climate.
I would say that your dismissal of the carbon cycle axis as one comparable to one of "vegan-anity" is also not quite so deft. The vegan outlook is mainly one of "personal" choice -- the benefits and/or downsides of vegan vs. non-vegan deal simply with outcomes on a personal level. In some cases, the vegan outlook can also rise to "mistreatement of animals."
The question of AGW does not even comapre with the "vegan goodness" that you try to compare it to. The question of AGW *could* (note the word "could") have pretty massive ramifications for the ecosystem *at large* and on global scale. Your comparison and dismissal of the "goodness" of the carbon-cycle goodness is, for that reason, among others, not wholly valid.
If you *truly* believe your paean to the question of AGW ("It is still a very open debate") (which I sincerely believe is somewhat lip-service), then there is no way that you could compare the question of carbon cycle length questions to "veganosity". I do not think that you could even begin to compare the "might be" effects of AGW to even the slightest "might be" effects of veganism to the world at large.
Btw, nice edits to your post of yesterday. I notice that you have beefed up your postr somewhat dramatically...... perhaps you may want to indicate if and when you edit your own blog.
Posted by: C02Confused | August 18, 2007 at 01:34 PM
Uh, we are debating about an atmospheric component that measures about 380 ppm (0.038%).
As fellow geologists, we have an understanding that what happens now has probably happened many times before, without our influence.
I am not discounting honest concerns over pollution, but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a byproduct of animal and bacterial respiration and of aerobic combustion of organic materials. It is emitted from the oceans and from volcanoes. There were probably measureable amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before there was free oxygen.
All of this carboniphobia is designed to mask an ongoing governmental power grab, on a worldwide basis.
Posted by: joe-6-pack | August 18, 2007 at 04:45 PM
"Uh, we are debating about an atmospheric component that measures about 380 ppm (0.038%)."
Nice little bit of misdirection. The debate is not just over the *amount* of C02 present, it is over the forcing potential of that amount. Your argument is directly akin to someone saying: You should have no problem breathing that air with nerve gas in it, since the nerve gas is only .0001% of the air (by weight or by volume). As a trained geologist (per your post), you should know that your statement is a complete non-starter in any discussion of the potential of AGW.
"There were probably measureable amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before there was free oxygen."
Again, a non-argument on the question of AGW.... I will readily concede that fact. That fact has no impact on the present day issue.
"we have an understanding that what happens now has probably happened many times before, without our influence."
Another non-argument. The cyclical nature of climate due to solar variability, rotation wobble, orbit perturbation is *not* being disputed. And, I will readily cede your (soon in coming) point about the LIA and MWP; they *probably* did occur. That point is moot and immaterial to the discussion (unless you happen to be Al Gore who proudly displays the hockey stick, or Mann who sticks to his guns about that.) The point is whether access and freeing of carbon that has been locked away for tens of millions of years (and longer) is increasing the forcing effect above and beyond those natural cycles that you refer to.
Posted by: C02Confused | August 18, 2007 at 07:06 PM
Hey CO2confused... glad to see you back here. Let's discuss the carbon cycle a bit and your concerns about fossil CO2 releases into the atmosphere.
I think you and I would agree that the now atmospheric CO2 molecule itself doesn't care if it is the progeny of short cycle or long cycle CO2. Only humans care. My point being that the "fossil" derived CO2 molecule is not exempted from taking part in the short carbon cycle as well as the long carbon cycle.
We also know that plant growth accelerates when CO2 concentrations increase. I think the hot house experiments show 50% growth increase in particular plants and a several fold increase in new plant generation at 1000 ppm CO2 relative to ambient concentrations. We also see similar increases in phytoplankton phostosynthesis and expanding planktonic population growth... thus the "cycle" nomenclature. There doesn't exist a "fixed" amount of carbon that can be taken up in short cycle or long cycle carbon sequestration. More bricks mean more buildings that can be built.
I think that is why the other commenter here, a geologist as well, stated what he did. We learned early and often about the correlation between C02 concentration and increasing biota. What was once long cycle carbon gets incorporated into the short cycle. When the climate cools, the short term carbon cycle slows, the short cycle stuff dies and gets buried on its way to becoming fossil carbon... and enters the long cycle, in other words.
Let's talk about anthropogenic fossil C02 releases we worry so much about... about 6.1 gigatonnes per year out of a total estimated atmospheric load of some 800 gigatonnes... I gave you all the references on this ome time back in a post.
Volcanism, which is a non-anthropogenic releaser of fossil CO2 releases as background only about 200 megatonnes per year with "normal" volcanism, or equivalent to a single year's industrial output every 30 years. However, every 50 years, we have an eruption that releases 3 gigatonnes... 1/2 the annual industrial fossil release. Of course, it is only every 50 years.
Here is where it gets interesting. Up until this point, the natural CO2 contribution is of a scale and timeframe similar to that of steady state industrial contribution. Every 100 years, we have an eruption that puts out 30 billion gigatonnes, or 5 years industrialization... from a point source and in a matter of days. Every 1000 years, one that puts out 50 years worth, and every 10,000 years one that puts up 500 years worth. The earth has to adjust to these sucker punches constantly. All we do is add a bit more weight every year instead of dropping a 500 lb barbell on its head every 100 years, which mother nature does in her infinite wisdom.
So lets think about that. Humanity will have cycled substantively out of the hydrocarbon age in the next 100 to 150 years, and the overall impact we will have had on atmospheric CO2 content and released fossil co2 in exchange for all the benefits of industrialization will be less than a single 10,000 year volcano, or, more tellingly, by "integrating" under the fossil volcanic releases curve, about 1,000 to 2,000 years of natural activity that does not occur as a steady state contribution, as we have done, but as a series of jabs right at the climate's face.
Earth adjusts to these kinds of "environmental catastrophes" quite well. Thus, it is the term "anthropogenic" that must be considered bad. Mankind=Evil. This ethic is tantamount to a human death cult at its most sinister interpretation, and Mankind=Fools at its best. Mankind, seeking to create some sort of mandated stasis on a naturally dynamic system, will fail. Absolute wasteful folly.
As a geologist your are imbued with how dynamic the nature of earth is. In the last century, we have manufactured an integrated trade, financial, and political infrastructure that can be completely rendered apart that depends on things being the way they have been for the last 100 years. Now THAT is a poor foundation. While Leo DiCaprio worries about CO2, well informed people would do well to worry how humans and our society will respond to the myriad of minor geological and extraterrestrial perturbations that occur on 100 to 10,000 year cycles that we can GUARANTEE will have a catastrophic effect on all of us instead of the power grab masked as environmental concern being effectively promulgated by many today for an issue that doesn't even stand in the TOP 100.
In My Opinion, though the overall evidence taken seems pretty incontrovertible. If you were a betting man betting with your own resources and you had to choose.
Every species causes environmental forcings along all manners of axes, to varying extents. However, it is only humans that feel guilty about our place on top of the food chain...
Posted by: Open Choke | August 18, 2007 at 08:28 PM
By the way, I found this interesting link...
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Posted by: Open Choke | August 18, 2007 at 08:29 PM
"Nice little bit of misdirection. The debate is not just over the *amount* of C02 present, it is over the forcing potential of that amount. Your argument is directly akin to someone saying: You should have no problem breathing that air with nerve gas in it, since the nerve gas is only .0001% of the air (by weight or by volume). As a trained geologist (per your post), you should know that your statement is a complete non-starter in any discussion of the potential of AGW."
How does such a small component "force" such a large, complex system? Influence and forcing are two different things. (Can an ant really move a rubber tree plant - versus an elephant?)
We do not know all of the inputs that affect the Earth's climate. There may be other reasons for what we see.
As for the nerve gas analogy, if the MCL (or other threshold value) for that gas is 0.01%, then breathing 0.0001% may not be harmful, or at least in the short run. Or perhaps no more harmful than some of the other things I have experienced.
Posted by: joe-6-pack | August 19, 2007 at 09:14 AM
"By the way, I found this interesting link...
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html"
I would agree that "interesting" is the right word. Too bad that it is quite erroneous in a number of ways.....
First, from GISS GCM (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/) and from Ramanathan and Coakley (1978), the total forcing of CO2 has been found to be between 9 and 26%.
Granted that H20 is a significant component of longwave radiation capture (most estimates peg it at between 36% and 66% of the total GH effect, see the last cites, among others), the main difference between H2O and CO2 vis a vis radiative effects is the long life of CO2 vs H20 in the atmosphere (10 days vs many tens of years or potentially over a century).
Second, H20 is primarily a feedback driver. The humidity of the lower atmosphere is in fedback with the lower atmosphere and troposhpere temperature. In this sense it is not a forcing mechanism. When surface temperatures change (whether from CO2 or solar forcing or volcanos etc.), you can therefore expect water vapour to adjust quickly to reflect that. To first approximation, the water vapor adjusts to maintain constant relative humidity.
Third, the "webpage study" you cite only looks at the atmosphere as a single blob. The majority of the effects of H20 are resident (and have been resident) in the lower atmosphere. It neglects that the atmosphere is a column, where H20 effects are greatly and primarily only in the lower atmosphere.
When one place anthropogenic components into the areas where there is a paucity of water, accordingly, the water effects are minimal. Only the stratosphere is dry enough and with a long enough residence time for the small anthropogenic inputs to be important. In this case those additions can be considered a forcing.
Finally, H20 and C02 longwave re-radiation spectra are different. Thus, some of the wavelengths that pass relatively unimpeded through H20 are those that are absorbed and re-radiated by C02.
So, in effect, I have seemed to respond to both choke and joe on this. The "web page" (which I also found at joe's site as evidence of the "non-issue" of C02 forcings) really doesn't seem to cut the mustard against the other published sources I have found, for a number of reasons, some of which are stated above.
Joe, pardon me for using the word "forcing". Apparently it really is a term that is used in the climate studies community and I thought that you would understand it that way. Compared with the atmospheric water mechanism, perhaps you can see why it is used that way. Granted, in normal English the term would only be used in conjunction with the sun and solar effects (as you have appropriately and correctly named as "solar fuel” or such….)
But, to answer your second post, choke, you are correct that the web site evidence is “interesting”, albeit not necessarily in line or in agreement with any cited work, and, in fact, stands in opposition to peer-reviewed studies and the GISS methodology when it attempts to quantify or belittle the CO2 factor in forcings.
In answer to your post, joe, in this case, the “small amount” of C02, given its place in the atmosphere seems to play a very significant factor in the GH effect – in most scientific circles it is generally agreed that the physics and the columnar effect of the components give CO2 a far greater effect on the thermal re-radiation than its .38% constituent ratio that you seem to look to.
With all due respect, from the sources that I see, your argument that "its only .38% of the atmopshere" argument just doesn't stand. Further, with all due respect, the "interesting site (cite)" provided really doesn't seem to be supported by the available published science on the issue, and seems to overlook some very basic ideas present in the are.
Posted by: CO2Confused | August 19, 2007 at 01:46 PM
CO2Confused... Aren't you getting off track here? The substance still remains that the volume of CO2 that is anthropogenic is small on a comparitive basis, that the error bars for the all in carbon cycle is so large, because it is so tough to measure, that it dwarfs the human contribution, which is much easier to measure. Said another way, our contribution is within the NOISE level! And yet we should treat this as a meaningful contributor!
The forcings argument is akin to a being in a boat that is sinking, and worrying that it will be the next teaspoon of water that will cause it to capsize, and making sure no one spits when there is a huge hole in the hull.
So, not only should we worry about spitting, we need to adopt as "right" a very narrow range for CO2 concentration that is not evident at all in the geological record. Again, an accurate analogy is like someone mandating it should ALWAYS be April 10, 2007, at 8:00 a.m. as far as temperature and air concentrations indices are concerned.
Your meme if you are an acolyte can be one fo two things... Man is omniscient and all powerful, and thus should stop tectonic and geological processes, or that MAN=Bad, NATURE=Good.
Maybe throwing some virgins into a super volcano will plug it up enough to keep the Gods from punishing us for angering the Gods! I wonder how many virgins it would take to "solve" global warming and its corollary, the human population "problem"? One thing for sure, we ain't going to find enough in the Western world. Maybe China.
With regards to your comments on your beliefs being backed by peer reviewed studies, so are mine. This is not a "supersitious natives" versus the "smart scientists" debate, and, as a well informed person, you are aware of that. I... uhhh, don't have peer reviewed support for my virgin hypothesis though. I expect it shortly. MY peers are always looking to review studies on virgins. By the way... as a general warning... this blog is not peer reviewed, so readers that randomly browse here should not pay any attention to what is said within it, you should sneer at it's content, as is only worthy anything on the internet.
Science stops where Ontology begins, and this is an ontological discussion, amigo.
Posted by: Open Choke | August 19, 2007 at 02:11 PM
Choke,
sorry about not addressing your long post. I was first addressing the common point that you and joe seemed to have in common. (As well as addressing the really bad "cite" first.) My apologies for getting your gander up for that. Given the shortcomings with the "interesting site" (which obviously has *nothing* to do with the discussion, per your comment...), are we in agreement that the "interesting site" really does have some shortcomings?
You are correct that my post on the "interesting site" did not address the main substance of the issues that you bring up, but since it was made part of the discussion, it is perfectly proper to respond to it.
In your longer post, however, I think that there are some items that you state that are correct, and some that are not quite so. I will endeavor to respond to them. (that is if you feel the ability not to come to some somewhat gross and presumptive mischaracterizations about me or my viewpoint, as is evidenced by your need to address what I say in a somewhat knee-jerk fashion as "MAN=Bad, NATURE=Good in [my] meme", or the supposed "ontological" discussion.)
It really does not behoove a frank discussion of objective science and results to engage in those types of somewhat ad-hominen attack in your post. Would you not agree?
I personally think that modern transportation systems are great, I enjoy reading books made out of (horrors) cut timber, run a microwave a lot, and thoroughly enjoy many advantages of modern man-made civilization (incuding beef farms, Big Macs, Ho-hos, Ding dongs, and beer.) Not that we have hopefully put those mischaracterizations to rest, shall we continue?
btw, I have noticed that you, as a hydrocarbon geologist, many times gripe about the broad labels cast upon you for being such. It is somewhat suprising to see you act in exactly the same manner that you complain of when you (somewhat blindly) accuse me of being "ontological" in this discussion, or that I subscribe to a "Man=bad, Nature=good" meme. As far as I have seen I did nothing more than proffer rebuttal to the "interesting site" (in the "the dog doesn't bite" defense side) aside that you brought up.
Now, on to your main post:
"We also know that plant growth accelerates when CO2 concentrations increase. I think the hot house experiments show 50% growth increase in particular plants and a several fold increase in new plant generation at 1000 ppm CO2 relative to ambient concentrations. We also see similar increases in phytoplankton phostosynthesis and expanding planktonic population growth"
I assume that you are attempting to state that the net effect of any GW will be more plants, and that these plants will completely offset or cycle the excess CO2 emissions. However, there are some tru shortcomings in this "even if the dog bites it won't hurt" scenario.
IIRC, the Free Carbon CO2 Enhancment studies tended to, in fact, show faster growth. However, they also revealed that that any productivity rise would be short-lived and unlikely to significantly offset any gradual, long-term increases in co2 due to human activity. Mainly, this is due to other limitations on growth, such as other nutrients.
Second, your assumptions about plant growth tend to overlook the fact of changes in land-use and the reduction or arable land for such flora. (Sorry, this isnt meant to be a man=bad argument, as there are certain benefits to such land use change. However, it is a fact that such a reduction is taking place.)
Next, you state that the carbon respiration load is on the order of 800 Gtons/ yr. You are correct that you gave me the cites for human respiration, but I do not recall getting the cite for "overall" respiration. If you could please repost that would be wonderful.
Next you compare the AGHG output as equivalent to "about 1,000 to 2,000 years of natural activity that does not occur as a steady state contribution". Your analogy is wholly incorrect, since AGHG lack many of the components of volcanism. You specifically draw an direct analogy to eruptions which, iirc, produce both CO2 *and* ash. Interestingly enough, these vuclan events produce *offsetting* influences vis a vis warming; the ash effectively precludes solar radiation from hitting the earth, which then reduces the amount of re-radiated longwave radiation that would be absorbed and reemitted by CO2. But, the enhanced C02 produces a larger re-radiatiion effect on what *is* radiated by the Earth.
AGHG do not operate on both sides of the equation like this. AGHGs (for the most part) simply add to the re-radiation effect of the upper atmosphere (but, apaprently not at the "interesting site" that you brought up.) I state for "the most part", since there is some (but to be honest not a lot) of evidence for a global dimming effect due to jet contrails.
Finally, you state that the contribution is within the noise level. Specifically, there have been a number of studies that tend to show that *in the recent rise* (i.e. the last 50 years), the primary causation of CO2 in the atmosphere is fossil fuel burning. This goes back to your statement of "that the now atmospheric CO2 molecule itself doesn't care if it is the progeny of short cycle or long cycle CO2." While the effect of that molecule after being "aerosolized" is a "don't care" in the long-term or the short-term carbon cycle, its history *can* be traced through C13 studies. For example, Sabine in 2004 published in Science a study that showed observations of carbon, oxygen, nutrients and CFCs combined to remove the mean imprint of biological processes.
Finally, the IPCC 4, Chap 2 has a telling graph (derived from other portions of IPCC) detailing the concentrations of GHG for the last 2,000 years.
If, in fact, your assertion that the output of AGHG is within the noise levels of everything, then presumably the atmospheric concentrations would bear that same relationship over that period of time. Your statemnt is (and correct me if I am incorrect) that "C02 output is within the noise level of all outputs". Accordingly, the C02 concentration should be as well. This (and various isotope studies) do not bear your assertion out.
Posted by: CO2Confused | August 19, 2007 at 05:20 PM
Btw, I did notice again your massive "beefing up" of your post between this morning and the present time.
Good for you for changing the assertion that "MAN=good NATURE=bad is [my] meme" to the more conditional and more oblique representation of it....
You also made some other significant additions to your comment between the time I copied it to my word processor and when I posted, so please do not accuse me of "ignoring" your comments, as you are putting out a somewhat dynamic target.
Posted by: C02Confused | August 19, 2007 at 05:35 PM
Choke, now that I have completely read your reworked reponse to my post, I think I can answer your question a little more fully.
"The substance still remains that the volume of CO2 that is anthropogenic is small on a comparitive basis"
Two items can be used to parse this. First the concentration rise in the last 150 years (from 260ppm to 380ppm) has to some from only a limited number of sources: a) biomass; b) volcanism; c) anthropogenic sources; d) the ocean.
First, the vulcanism can be easily assessed. There is no evidence that a rise of CO2 due to volcanic activity can be attributed to anything more than a part of the carbon load that goes into the rise of the concentration.
Second, CO2 levels in the ocean are rising, not falling. This does a good job of eliminating oceanic sources of CO2 rise, and the telling dip in the ratio of C13:C12 puts an absolute nail in this as a source.
Finally, this puts the uptick mostly on respiratory and/or anthropogenic sources. In this vein, look at the timeline of the net uptick in concentration which shows up and coincides with the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Let's go with your assumption and suggest that nature has somehow decided to start increasing the CO2 flux.
Let's turn this around: what evidence exists that would suggest this is happening, and why?
CO2 concentration is a dynamic system. You are correct that it would not be constant even without human influences. CO2 is continually leaving the ocean and entering the atmosphere. CO2 is entering the atmosphere from biomass sources. However, we can identify fossil-based C02 due to the absence of C14 isotopes. The C14:C12 and the C14:C13 ratios are all falling, enetering new lows that we can record in the biologic history. The distributions can give a fairly good picture of *where* the sources are: and the reduction of the C14 ratio in the atmospheric content points squarely at fossil fuels as a significant source of atmopheric C02.
So, the items seem to be
a) CO2 began to rise when we starting producing it in earnest,
b) its isotopic signature and ratios demonstrates it comes from fossil fuels, and
c) such an increase has not happened in at least 800,000 years as far as we can tell.
I would invite you to use these points for a counter-argument.
Posted by: CO2Confused | August 19, 2007 at 06:39 PM
CO2 Confused...
Do you really think it necessary we rehash the science here? Since you are apparently familiar with the scientific process and the review process, is it necessary for me to cherry pick MY peer reviewed papers to counter yours? Hasn't his been done ad nauseum here and elsewhere? Maybe we can just link readers to those boards that hash it out, don't you think?
I can spend the next hour writing about the very real criticisms of your points... the fallacy that we do not have sufficient nutrients to support sustained biomass growth, the detailed response towards atmospheric ash effects and timeframes, versus volcvanic CO2, the non-uniformity of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, that low c14 concentrations are NOT unique to hydrocarbons, that the feedback loops seem a hell of a lot more robust than originally thought...
Why don't we leave it at...
The "sky is falling" catastrophe predicted over a decade ago has been consistently revised downwards,
The hockey stick diagram was scientific misrepresentation at its worst, I fail to see how it was not parsed in a way designed to obfuscate,
That, lacking a catstrophe component, which is where the vector of the peer reviewed "consensus" is going, this ceases to be a political issue,
That heretofore the solutions provided as 'needed' by the political/policy community have scientific consensus that they will have little or no effect on CO2 concentrations anyhow,
That the proposed solutions until now have called for an up to 3% GDP capital redistribution for no effect other than a capital redistribution,
You would have to agree that this entire issue INVITES skepticism, especially when those proposing it are largely the recipients of some part of that capital redistribution. The fact that the science has provided plenty of fodder for the skeptics, that the overstatement of consequences has been causing many climate professionals to step back, that new data in solar effects and water vapor have caused many climate scientists that previously embraced this to re-evaluate... I will find the quote of the fairly prominent fellow who, when questioned about hiws about face, said "I changed my conclusions when I was presented the data that undermined my previous conclusions. What do YOU do?"
I am certain that this is not a satisfactory response in your mind, but it will suffice for here. If you want to post links to advocacy discussions here, feel free to do so. As is quite apparent, I don't limit or edit others comments. I should say "yet" because I probably would in certain cases. It's good to be King, if only in an $89.00 per year kingdom.
Posted by: Open Choke | August 21, 2007 at 08:22 AM
Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching
From Der Spiegel
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html
It is in English.
Posted by: Jano | August 21, 2007 at 08:24 PM