Global warming???

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

Aw, come on now! 50%?? Where did you pull that from? Even if you add up the methane emissions from their rear ends, the methane emissions from ours after heating a burger, the exhaust from the ranchers truck, the shipping truck, the packing fatory exhausts, the delivery truck, etc, and the hot air from the auctioneer at the sale ring.....you are still several magnitudes off from 50%. Seems like I heard that your friends and ours, the termites, produce more methane than cattle.
Give up our burgers?!? No way!!

This is from Earth Save.org.

Methane and Vegetarianism
By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.

Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands-the primary natural source of methane.

With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planet's human-induced warming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and landfills-but the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture. Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year. And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating. About 85% of this methane is produced in the digestive processes of livestock, and while a single cow releases a relatively small amount of methane, the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animals worldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massive "lagoons" used to store untreated farm animal waste, and already a target of environmentalists' for their role as the number one source of water pollution in the U.S.

The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by going vegetarian (or, strictly speaking, vegan), , , we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.

Well, we are not ready to go vegan or even to eliminate all meat, but we have pretty much eliminated beef particularly hamburger. Hamburger is nasty stuff anyway, often contaminated with salmonella.

[The Conquistador]

Randolph. I'm pretty sure that you seen the cracking towers at an oil refinery right? The flames that jutt up from the tops of the towers are burning off methane as there is just way too much of it to be captured and be effectively stored. They are burning 24/7, 365 days a year and it is logical that they empty more methane into the air than cow doodie.

Natural gas(Methane) is being used as fuel to power vehicles, heat homes and is considered to be alot more environmentally "friendly" than gasoline.

If anything, eating more beef would result in less cattle. Just like if you leave an animal population alone, it explodes. Therefore, harvesting more of them will result in a decrease of the animal population.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Randolph. I'm pretty sure that you seen the cracking towers at an oil refinery right? The flames that jutt up from the tops of the towers are burning off methane as there is just way too much of it to be captured and be effectively stored. They are burning 24/7, 365 days a year and it is logical that they empty more methane into the air than cow doodie.

Natural gas(Methane) is being used as fuel to power vehicles, heat homes and is considered to be alot more environmentally "friendly" than gasoline.

If anything, eating more beef would result in less cattle. Just like if you leave an animal population alone, it explodes. Therefore, harvesting more of them will result in a decrease of the animal population.

I love your amazing logic! Your joking of course.

[The Conquistador]

No I was not joking.

The whole cow poo affecting the climate thing is preposterous. It is just a ploy by vegans to make others feel guilty for eating beef by claiming that the beef that they eat somehow contributes to GW.

[randolph]

Here are a few of the websites pointing out the contribution of agricultural methane to global warming.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by randolph

Stop eating beef (50% of greenhouse gases).

It has an effect, but even the entire, no matter it comes from, methane in the atmosphere can't be 50%.
CO2: 385 ppm; least 120 years
Methane: 1,75 ppm; least 9-15 years (I found it has a 25 times bigger effect than co2.)

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

If anything, eating more beef would result in less cattle. Just like if you leave an animal population alone, it explodes. Therefore, harvesting more of them will result in a decrease of the animal population.

This had to be a joke.



But if cattle don't eat the grass, something other will do. And in the end it's bacteria that decompose it, no matter if they live in earth, in cattle, in termites, or what else. That's part of the natural circles.
More problems occur in perma frost soil and methane hydrate stores that release methane every bit it gets warmer. And indirectly by over fishing, that end up in more released methane on the sea ground.

The problems occur when we don't act in circles like the entire nature. We are releasing gases that don't belong in the present circles and producing waste that can't be decomposed by nature or even harm nature. And we are violating the ecological balance. So the environment/climate will change, and not to our benefit.

[randolph]

What I meant was that the effect of methane in the atmosphere is near 50% of the warming contributed by greenhouse gases not the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

From The Telegraph UK.
"Methane is mostly emitted by agriculture, most famously from cows burping Photo: PAUL WINTER/GETTY IMAGES

Already, scientists consider methane as the second most damaging greenhouse gas produced by human activity after carbon dioxide. It is mostly emitted by agriculture, most famously from cows burping but also from ploughing soil and allowing vegetable matter to rot. Landfill is also a major cause of methane and the burning of coal and natural gas.

Before it was thought every tonne of methane was around 25 times more damaging to the atmosphere than every tonne of carbon dioxide.

Related Articles

*
EU summit: climate change and presidency top agenda
*
Britain will not sign up to a weak deal at Copenhagen
*
Putting biomass into the equation
*
Obesity threat to individuals and planet
*
Amazon rainforest at risk of ecological 'catastrophe'
*
Barack Obama 'must act now' to tackle climate change

However a new study by the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies has found methane is 33 times more damaging if the effects of interaction with other airborne pollutants is included.

The report, published in Science, found that the warming effects of methane are increased through its interaction with aerosols like sulphate molecules.

The finding has implications for any climate change deal decided by the UN in Copenhagen in December.

At the moment targets are focused on cutting carbon dioxide but scientists are now arguing for more emphasis on cutting other greenhouse gases as well -especially because methane breaks down more quickly in the atmosphere so cuts will have a more immediate effect.

Dr Chris Huntingford, of the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, said the study could influence climate change negotiations."

"This is an excellent analysis demonstrating that methane emissions have the potential to add more future warming than hereto realised. This new research complements the well-established result that carbon dioxide emissions have been responsible for a large fraction of the global warming observed since pre-industrial times," he said.

"There is a requirement to distil this more complete understanding of how the many different atmospheric gases interact, both between themselves and with humans. Policy decisions must account for such interactions and links to emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and atmospheric aerosols."

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Here are a few of the websites pointing out the contribution of agricultural methane to global warming.

Those websites are pandering to the GW theory, not legitimate scientific sources.

[randolph]

OK you want to get technical?

"Ann. Zootech. 49 (2000) 231-253

Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming

Angela R. Mossa - Jean-Pierre Jouanyb - John Newboldc

aADAS Nutritional Sciences Research Unit, Alcester Road, Stratford Upon Avon, Warwickshire CV37 9RQ, UK
bINRA, Centre de Recherches de Clermont-Ferrand-Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
cRowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB21 9SB, UK

(Received 15 November 1999; accepted 5 April 2000)

Abstract:
The aim of this paper is to review the role of methane in the global warming scenario and to examine the contribution to atmospheric methane made by enteric fermentation, mainly by ruminants. Agricultural emissions of methane in the EU-15 have recently been estimated at 10.2 million tonnes per year and represent the greatest source. Of these, approximately two-thirds come from enteric fermentation and one-third from livestock manure. Fermentation of feeds in the rumen is the largest source of methane from enteric fermentation and this paper considers in detail the reasons for, and the consequences of, the fact that the molar percentage of the different volatile fatty acids produced during fermentation influences the production of methane in the rumen. Acetate and butyrate promote methane production while propionate formation can be considered as a competitive pathway for hydrogen use in the rumen. The many alternative approaches to reducing methane are considered, both in terms of reduction per animal and reduction per unit of animal product. It was concluded that the most promising areas for future research for reducing methanogenesis are the development of new products/delivery systems for anti-methanogenic compounds or alternative electron acceptors in the rumen and reduction in protozoal numbers in the rumen. It is also stressed that the reason ruminants are so important to mankind is that much of the world's biomass is rich in fibre. They can convert this into high quality protein sources (i.e. meat and milk) for human consumption and this will need to be balanced against the concomitant production of methane.


Keywords: methane / ruminants / global warning / reduction strategies "