http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2062484.ece

Does this mean that we should start calling vegetarians green?

 

It makes you think...I don't mind spending extra money for a hybrid model and it just makes since to drive efficiently, but give up hamburgers, etc?

No me gusta as you say in Spanish.

 

It means "ignore the man behind the curtain," the transfer of fossilized carbon to the atmosphere. Cattle are cycling plant carbon and don't add anything to atmospheric carbon. In contrast, burning fossilized carbon materially increases the atmospheric carbon load.

Bob Wilson

 

By definition, every animal on the planet generates CO2, and thus cattle do increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but that article says that CO2 is not the problem and given that trees need CO2 to survive, I completely agree.

I really do not believe all of this talk about global warming in the capacity that we are responsible for it, especially since scientists were predicting global freezing a few decades ago. I also do not believe the idea that carbon dioxide is a problem, as while carbon dioxide is not good for us, trees cannot live without it and we cannot live without trees, so promoting the idea that carbon dioxide is bad for the environment is a dangerous idea.

I think that the real environmental problem is that our vehicles produce nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide emissions, but neither of the two contribute to the natural cycles that people mistake for man-made phenomena and both have been significantly reduced through better refining of fuels and the three-way catalytic converter.

Back to the topic, the articles cites "more than 100" other gases that cattle produce as being responsible for global warming. However, the only one cited in that article is ammonia, which is involved in acid rain and not global warming. I wonder if that UN report is available on the internet.

 

One can believe anything but science and engineering have to use a different standard based upon empiricism and the scientific method. Heck, even religion seems to have the occasional revelation and so too does science advance.

The data clearly shows we humans have been converting fossilized carbon to CO(2) through combustion and the rates of atmospheric CO(2) increase correspond with our use of carbon fuel sources. Furthermore, there is some evidence that increases in mean temperature may release even more CO(2) and methane with thawing of frozen arctic bogs, higher soil biological activity and potentially release of some sea bed methane deposits. Short of the seas becoming better carbon fixers, there isn't a whole lot of hope we'll see a leveling off of CO(2) loading without figuring better ways to live on this planet.

Bob Wilson

 

I believe that the greenhouse gas produced by ruminants is CH4 (methane), which is a significant factor in "global warming". Living near a farm, I can safely say that they produce more methane than CO2.

Quote from Wiki, "Methane is a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential over 100 years of 23.[1] When averaged over 100 years each kg of CH4 warms the Earth 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2."

 

Yeah.....I'm sorry man

 

The science that explains the mechanism by which increases in co2 and methane seems pretty well understood. What doesn't seem so clear is the ultimate consequence with feebacks from other drivers.

Here is a recent example of uncertainty. The soon to be release UN IPCC report has reduced it's prediction of the maximum estimate of sea level rise from 34 inches to 17 inches over the next 100 years. That the worst case scenario with half of that or less more likely.

Now where did Al Gore get the 20 feet that was so important to his graphics showing billions of refugees and massive land loss? 240 inches vs 17 inches, quite a spread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...C-new_10122006

 

However, methane has a relatively short life span in the atmosphere (12 years or so). Sunlight breaks it down fairly quickly. This was the reason for the big hubub not too long ago of atmospheric methane being found on Mars. Since it breaks down so quickly, it would need a source of constant replenishment (life).

This is quite different from CO2. It's life cycle is considerbaly longer (approximately 150 years). It's a very stable molecule, and it does not break down in sunlight.

So while methane may be increasing in the atmosphere, CO2 is increasing more quickly as it is not reabsorbed as quickly by the environment.

~X~

 

From the melting of the arctic ice (the ice on land, not already in the ocean).

The 17 inch rise is what is projected based on mostly the increase in oceanic temperatures (heating expands). What that figure is not including is the rapid increase in glacier movement/melting.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...akobshavn.html

There's enough land based ice that if all of it were to melt, ocean levels would rise 200-300 feet. Of course, that would take an incredible amount of energy and a good chunk of time to occur.

A 10% melt would be enough to raise ocean levels by 20 feet. That looks like it could happen, depending on how fast the rest of the world industrializes.

~X~