/sci/ - Science & Math

tell ur mom to lay off the beans bro lmao

>>11217617
in parts of what per billion?

>>11217624
kek

>>11217632
Read the fucking chart.

>>11217617
No.

>>11217624
Toppest kek.

>>11218038
>Read the fucking chart.
"methane gas in parts per billion"
what the fuck does that even mean you moron? parts of what? per billion of what? 1900/1b of what unit? g/m^3 of air? m^3/m^3 of air? potatoes/plumbs? what is the unit?

>>11218178
parts

>>11218207
hmmm... very inteligent reply!

>>11218229
i'm blushing, anon

>>11218207
is it part of air, part of ice from which measurement was taken, part of universe, part of ocean, part of your anus

>>11218238
it's parts of methane

>>11218249
1 part methane / 1 billion parts of x

what is x?

>>11218252
that's a good question, anon

>>11217624
u think this is f*cking funny, twerp?

>>11218178
Lmao, why the fuck are you even on this board if you don't know basic chemistry, no, that's beyond basic chemistry, literally middleschool level.

gtfo

>>11218268
hmmm... chances that you ever read a scientific paper

>>11218273
For every 1 billion molecules composed of nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 in their "normal" percentages of the atmosphere, there are X molecules of methane.

>>11218178

Hahahahahaha

Do you ask the about maps scales too?

>1:25000 map? 1 what?

It doesn't matter - it's a ratio.

>>11218178

Hahahahahaha

Do you ask the same about maps scales too?

>1:25000 map? 1 what?

It doesn't matter - it's a ratio.

>>11217617
methane is a greenhouse gas so yes, it is a problem

>>11217617
Why not just put pilot lights around factory cow farms? If the greenhouse equivalent of 1mol methane is 25mol CO2, then why not burn 1mol natural gas with 1mol methane to produce only 2 mol CO2?

>>11220051
CO2 is worse than methane

>>11218178
>what the fuck does that even mean you moron?

Do you really not know anything about atmospheric concentration measurements?

It means, for every billion molecules in the atmosphere, 1800 are methane. My god.

>>11220051
Ban eating cows. It’s evil and sick to kill other sentient beings to eat them

>>11220077
Why? They're an extremely efficient potentially low impact way to convert non edible vegetation and byproducts into high quality food.
default livestock are essential, luxury livestock are a waste of resources.

>>11220085
chicken and pigs are more efficient

>>11220090
No, chicken and pigs are less efficient.

>>11217617
earth is overpopulated with niggers

>>11220097
I'll expand on this a little,
Pigs and chickens are monogastric, we can directly eat much of what they are fed on or the land used to feed them can be used to grow other crops that humans can eat.
ruminants on the other hand have an inbuilt fermentation vat hat allows them to digest huge amounts of otherwise inedible vegetation growing on poorly cultivatable land types

>>11220109
it will get worse

>>11220085
All meat is luxury, except perhaps chicken bought in bulk.

>>11220085
All livestock are the opposite of efficient. They literally consume more crops than we do. It’s irrelevant anyway since it’s morally wrong on its face.

>>11220114
>>11220115
You guys are really ignorant on this subject aren't you.

>>11220062
How so?

>>11218602
Yes. The ratio would be 1 centre meter :125000 kilometres retard

>>11218252
Other gasses

Going all in:
Home Saturday Night

Home Monday Early

>>11217617
Why methane does not oxidized?

>>11220231
it does but the rate of methane production is higher now.

>>11220120
They aren't entirely wrong only a small fraction of beef, at least in countries like the US graze. The vast majority are fed grain on feedlots, which is absurdly inefficient.

>>11220370
strangely enough when you treat a ruminant like a monogastric it's inefficient.