I wrote a post last night at a somewhat ridiculous hour, and looking back on it, I'm not really sure that I said what I meant to say. I'm not entirely certain that I'll get it out now, but at least I have a better chance, with both some sleep and my excellent procrastination skills on my side. My eloquence has been at an all-time low lately though, so if you'd try to read more for content than style, I'd be much obliged.
After a strange experience last night, I feel compelled to make the following assertion: I'm certain that the vast majority of people are beautiful inside. You are, much, if not all, of your family is, your neighbors even - but people hardly ever wear their hearts on their sleeves. To take the unrepresentative exterior and assume that it applies to the person within is an incredibly ridiculous assumption. While our brains are wired to help us recognize threats and such in facial expressions and attitudes of other people, some of this instinct has also been altered by society. Some of the nicest people I've ever met have been people society deems dangerous and irrational - like the scraggly wild-haired man who discussed brass quintet music with me in one of NYC's music stores, or the homeless woman at Porter Square who asked me to watch her things for a few minutes. If I knew these people better, I might not necessarily be best friends with them (although, who knows?) - but just because I don't know them at all doesn't mean I should be rude. Or pretend that they don't exist.
It's like that saying people are always quoting: 'Don't judge a book by its cover' - you can't possibly know anything at all about a person based on what they look like at this one moment of their lives except for what they look like at this exact moment. Yes, I suppose you can extrapolate and make assumptions, but really, what purpose does that serve? I can't help but feel like in our world, every wall we throw up between ourselves and the next person is another brick in the wall between ourselves and the world. Because really, what is the world? People. Animals, nature, yes, definitely, absolutely. But our entire world (where by world I suppose I mean society and structure and world on a day-to-day basis) is made of and by people just like you and me. People who could use a genuine smile from a stranger on the T after a long day. People who could use a hand, or a connection, a thank you, some small interaction to see that others do care. A moment of time to say 'yes, you are alive, and so am I. Isn't it wonderful?'
I'm not saying go out and be stupid. Don't wander dark alleys looking for strangers to smile at. But don't keep your head down and your hood up as you blunder through the crowds. Notice the people you're traveling through time with. Take a moment for the street musicians. Give someone you love a hug. Smile at a stranger. 9 times out of 10, they'll smile back. I know.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
[not a] fail
I was working on the methane question during italian (shh) and I realized that the math I was doing at midnight is pathetic. I'll fix the post later - suffice it to say that actually, methane ends up holding 2.5 times as much radiation as carbon dioxide when it's all said and done.
Oops.
Added around 5:15 later the same day:
Ok, so the final findings (according to me and my very limited research into the subject) are thus - initially, CH4 absorbs 2.5 times the radiation as CO2, but because of the different residence times, there comes a point where both gases flatline - and at that time, carbon dioxide is absorbing 4 times the amount of infrared radiation as methane.
With a change in time of 10 years, you get something like this (table of relative absorptions):
CH4 CO2
25 10
25 20 <- point of flatline for CH4
25 30
... ... [skip a few years]
25 80
25 90
25 100 <- point of flatline for CO2
In this very limited view, I'm saying that the same amounts of methane and carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere basically once ever 10 years. Iffy, unrealistic, but it shows some interesting things. Anyway, because methane has a residence time of only 10 years, you're starting from scratch at every new entry on the table. CO2, however, has a much longer residence time, and it builds up - only falling out of the atmosphere at the second flatline point.
I just really needed to clarify that. When I find out the actual answer to this puzzle (on Thursday), I'll do my best to post it in a timely fashion. It'll be interesting to see!!!
Oops.
Added around 5:15 later the same day:
Ok, so the final findings (according to me and my very limited research into the subject) are thus - initially, CH4 absorbs 2.5 times the radiation as CO2, but because of the different residence times, there comes a point where both gases flatline - and at that time, carbon dioxide is absorbing 4 times the amount of infrared radiation as methane.
With a change in time of 10 years, you get something like this (table of relative absorptions):
CH4 CO2
25 10
25 20 <- point of flatline for CH4
25 30
... ... [skip a few years]
25 80
25 90
25 100 <- point of flatline for CO2
In this very limited view, I'm saying that the same amounts of methane and carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere basically once ever 10 years. Iffy, unrealistic, but it shows some interesting things. Anyway, because methane has a residence time of only 10 years, you're starting from scratch at every new entry on the table. CO2, however, has a much longer residence time, and it builds up - only falling out of the atmosphere at the second flatline point.
I just really needed to clarify that. When I find out the actual answer to this puzzle (on Thursday), I'll do my best to post it in a timely fashion. It'll be interesting to see!!!
When I don't feel like working...
I, unfortunately, tend not to. I am becoming a master procrastinator. Becoming? I suppose I have always been this way. It is unfortunate. Anyway!
I was just looking up some stuff about methane burning, because my geo101 professor asked us whether it would be better for the environment (in terms of climate change) to burn methane gas, or to let it escape into the atmosphere. On the one hand, by burning the methane you do make energy, which we all need - but on the other hand, by burning methane, you do the following:
CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O + energy
The biggest problem with this is that it puts CO2 into the atmosphere, which absorbs infrared radiation and is the whole thing we're trying to avoid. Interestingly, letting the methane just escape into the atmosphere as it is puts molecules that absorb infrared radiation 25 times more effectively than CO2 out there - which seems, at first glance, to be a problem. But then I found out that CO2 has a residence time of 100 to 110 years, while CH4 has a residence time of 9 to 10 years. Soooo, you get 25 times more absorption, but for only 1/10th the time.
The crazy thing about this question is that there are a whole bunch of things that I can't seem to find (or don't recognize them in the very scientific ways they may be presented in) like - would the amount of energy produced by methane burning be greater than or less than the energy produced by the infrared radiation blocked by methane molecules through solar panels? Actually, I guess that question doesn't even matter in light of the actual question, which is about environmental benefits. I'm just curious about the numbers.
In other news, I just had pretty much the best break in the world. That may have been because technically, it was my first break this whole semester, since I went to Maine with the geo department during my fall break, but it was just really, really nice. I *didn't* do my homework (which is why I'm in the rocks lab at o-dark-thirty), but I spent some really nice quality time with my family, including the newest addition: Farrah. She's kind of insane. Well, mostly she's very energetic. Sometimes she does thing that I did when I was younger, and it's really, really weird to be on the other side of that. Mostly it's just really weird suddenly having a (for all intents and purposes) little sister like this, all of a sudden. My mom said to take it as a life experience; things like this are what make life so rich, and I guess she's right. Part of me would still rather I have a perhaps less-enriched life with my family remaining as it is, but another part of me, the part of me that is incredibly, ridiculously delighted with new relationships and the wonderful people in my life, is ok. And also the teeeensy part of me that always wanted a sister is pretty happy, hahaha.
Speaking of new relationships, I can quite honestly say that I have never been this happy in my entire life. I don't even know. Every time I try to express myself, the words that usually float around in my head all vanish and these things that I want to express manifest in colors and this thing called language that is supposed to make me (well, humans) so special becomes rather useless. Because if I walked around going 'blue! gold! a little bit of yellow, right there, and some fantastic maroon blending into scarlet' (I think that loosely translates to I now know someone who is so wonderful that I'm beside myself in amazement half the time, and the rest of the time, I don't even know. Aqua. Sunlight shining through the ocean.), well, it would be interesting, but not really convenient. Which is kind of unfortunate, because I think that colors are a really interesting mode of expression. One of these days - well, when I get home for break, I think - I'll sit down with some paint and try to put it onto canvas.
In the meantime, I think I should probably go back to my room, and then curl up with my pillows and perhaps dream up something for Sognante. Or (if it's just colors) maybe just for me :).
I was just looking up some stuff about methane burning, because my geo101 professor asked us whether it would be better for the environment (in terms of climate change) to burn methane gas, or to let it escape into the atmosphere. On the one hand, by burning the methane you do make energy, which we all need - but on the other hand, by burning methane, you do the following:
CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O + energy
The biggest problem with this is that it puts CO2 into the atmosphere, which absorbs infrared radiation and is the whole thing we're trying to avoid. Interestingly, letting the methane just escape into the atmosphere as it is puts molecules that absorb infrared radiation 25 times more effectively than CO2 out there - which seems, at first glance, to be a problem. But then I found out that CO2 has a residence time of 100 to 110 years, while CH4 has a residence time of 9 to 10 years. Soooo, you get 25 times more absorption, but for only 1/10th the time.
The crazy thing about this question is that there are a whole bunch of things that I can't seem to find (or don't recognize them in the very scientific ways they may be presented in) like - would the amount of energy produced by methane burning be greater than or less than the energy produced by the infrared radiation blocked by methane molecules through solar panels? Actually, I guess that question doesn't even matter in light of the actual question, which is about environmental benefits. I'm just curious about the numbers.
In other news, I just had pretty much the best break in the world. That may have been because technically, it was my first break this whole semester, since I went to Maine with the geo department during my fall break, but it was just really, really nice. I *didn't* do my homework (which is why I'm in the rocks lab at o-dark-thirty), but I spent some really nice quality time with my family, including the newest addition: Farrah. She's kind of insane. Well, mostly she's very energetic. Sometimes she does thing that I did when I was younger, and it's really, really weird to be on the other side of that. Mostly it's just really weird suddenly having a (for all intents and purposes) little sister like this, all of a sudden. My mom said to take it as a life experience; things like this are what make life so rich, and I guess she's right. Part of me would still rather I have a perhaps less-enriched life with my family remaining as it is, but another part of me, the part of me that is incredibly, ridiculously delighted with new relationships and the wonderful people in my life, is ok. And also the teeeensy part of me that always wanted a sister is pretty happy, hahaha.
Speaking of new relationships, I can quite honestly say that I have never been this happy in my entire life. I don't even know. Every time I try to express myself, the words that usually float around in my head all vanish and these things that I want to express manifest in colors and this thing called language that is supposed to make me (well, humans) so special becomes rather useless. Because if I walked around going 'blue! gold! a little bit of yellow, right there, and some fantastic maroon blending into scarlet' (I think that loosely translates to I now know someone who is so wonderful that I'm beside myself in amazement half the time, and the rest of the time, I don't even know. Aqua. Sunlight shining through the ocean.), well, it would be interesting, but not really convenient. Which is kind of unfortunate, because I think that colors are a really interesting mode of expression. One of these days - well, when I get home for break, I think - I'll sit down with some paint and try to put it onto canvas.
In the meantime, I think I should probably go back to my room, and then curl up with my pillows and perhaps dream up something for Sognante. Or (if it's just colors) maybe just for me :).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
