Global warming???

[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."

[Tread]

What I wanted to say is that there is 225 times more co2 in the atmosphere than methane. Methane has 25 times greenhouse effect of co2. Methane can't reach the co2 effect and if methane would causes 50% we had far over 100%.

But it is a significant factor in the atmosphere beside steam, co2, n2o (laughing gas), Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and aerosols.

[randolph]

This quote might give a better idea of the contribution of various gases to warming. As shown, the contributions of methane relative to co2 is highly variable. 50% methane contribution is to high based on this data, ranging from 34% to 44% compared to co2

From Wikipedia.
"The contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is about eight times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide[6], but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[7]

* water vapor, which contributes 36-72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9-26%
* methane, which contributes 4-9%
* ozone, which contributes 3-7%

It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases.[8][7] The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases."

[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 "

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by 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 "

Haha! The thought that cows produce more methane than an oil refinery is laughable. Decomposition of organic materials(bodies, vegetation etc.) produces more methane for the simple fact that necrosis covers the whole earth compared to the small area of a cows insides where enteric fermentation takes place!

[Jenae LaTorque]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Haha! The thought that cows produce more methane than an oil refinery is laughable. Decomposition of organic materials(bodies, vegetation etc.) produces more methane for the simple fact that necrosis covers the whole earth compared to the small area of a cows insides where enteric fermentation takes place!

Consider that there are only 150 operating oil refineries in the US and there are on average over 100 million cattle in the US. So we have some 670, 000 cows for every refinery. Now let's look at other countries. India has over 250 million cows and less than 30 refineries. Worldwide we are looking at about 1.2 billion moo cows. Now to be honest, there are other places besides refineries that have flare stacks, such as; treatment plants, pumping stations, production centers, etc. The important point is that the gas is mostly being burned there and most of what is released to the atmosphere is not methane but rather CO2 and water vapor. Both, of course, are greenhouse gases and thus contribute to global warming.

Have we all lost sight of the fact that the same gases and the global warming effect they produce is what keeps this planet livable for us. If we didn't have them, it would be a damn cold place on this old dirt ball.