[removed]

For all intents and purposes, no. This is roughly the dose rate of simply being on a plane at cruising altitude. There are plenty of bacteria that can survive living in radiation environments substantially worse than that indefinitely.

For context the standard dose for sterilizing medical devices is ~25 kGray or 2.5 million rad which is very roughly (neglecting for this back of envelope calc the difference between absorbed dose and effective dose) 2.5x10^10 microsieverts. So I mean if you wanted to wait a couple hundred thousand years...

11-cis-retinal has several conjugated ("neighboring") double bonds, which makes it easier to absorb photons in the visible range. The double bonds can share their electrons, which means there's a longer system for absorbing longer-wavelength (in this case visible) photons efficiently.

Once you add all this energy, the 11-cis double bond gets flipped into the trans conformation (the process is called photoisomerization). That removes the bend in the retinal molecule, which pushes on the protein, rhodopsin, around it to change its shape. With its new shape, the rhodopsin can bind to and activate a trimeric (three subunits) G protein. The trimer falls apart, and one part called G_alpha goes on to bind and activate a phosphodiesterase enzyme that destroys cyclic GMP. This affects ion channels that are opened by cyclic GMP.

What if the bacteria/fungus in the starting sample were unable to propagate in the liquid? Either no food or maybe even frozen for the duration of the "treatment"?

It will not sterilize your sample since the dose rate is far too low. It will kill a few bacteria but most will survive and produces a new generation. It might lower the overall population a little for a short time but considering the adaptibility of bacteria to their environment it wouldn't take long for them to adapt.

[removed]

[removed]

I believe it mostly oxidizes turning into water vapor and carbon dioxide.

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

What becomes of the methane after the its lifetime?

I would say that they didn't understand what the mechanism or exact rules were that influence inheritance, but they certainly understood the basics. There have been texts about parentage and selectively breeding livestock well before Darwin. Darwin helped to put the micro-generation scope in line with the macro-generation scope.

[removed]

I in general am in completely agreement, because fault zones are not energy buckets that get filled and must be emptied by earthquakes. Nor can we stimulate the system to release a specific amount of energy. That is not how this works.

But just if we assume hypothetically that it was an energy bucket that gets filled constantly, and we would be able to trigger events of a specific magnitude, it would be beneficial economically (in repair cost) to trigger Mw 4.0 to 6.4 events regularly instead of waiting for the inevitable 8+ event.

I am just arguing a mathematical hypothetical, nothing more ;)

Just look at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

It is always important to look at the time scale. Methane has a lifetime of 12 years. This means for a a longer time frame (most of the time we are looking at a 100 year time scale), the effect of methane shrinks as it does nothing for 88 years, but a lot in 12 years.

[removed]

Do you know any good websites containing information about rc helis?

[removed]

Just a side point that I think is relevant to this discussion: It's almost impossible to accurately measure the massive amounts of GHGs from any single source, much less from ALL of them. This is not to say that they shouldn't be approximated and they could end up being pretty accurate percentage-wise, but the exact measurements are assuredly wrong just because the system we are trying to measure is so HUGE and dynamic. Science is never settled, but this is currently the best guess based on other observed principles.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

No, they really are different. It's a smaller difference than voiced vs unvoiced, known as fortis and lenis. Voiced consonants in English are fortis, and are pronounced more forcefully, and unvoiced consonants in English are lenis, and are pronounced less forcefully.

It's the right idea, but wrong numbers. Methane has a much higher immediate impact than CO2 (~84x CO2). As it breaks down over time, the reduces to same as CO2.

The comparative effect over 100 years is approximately 25x CO2

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/oil-gas-and-coal/methane-emissions_en