Dairy Cows Not to Blame for Global Warming?

Oct 19, 2010 Full story: Science Daily 14

A new study reports that the dairy industry is responsible for only about 2.0 percent of all US greenhouse gas emissions.

Full Story
litesong

Pittsburgh, PA

#1 Oct 19, 2010
Deniers continue to make jokes about biological creatures contributing to AGW, to misdirect attention away from fossil fuels presently pumped from ~8000 feet underground & burned, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the present rate of 3 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs per century.
Blunt Mocker

Nuneaton, UK

#2 Oct 19, 2010
litesong wrote:
Deniers continue to make jokes about biological creatures contributing to AGW, to misdirect attention away from fossil fuels presently pumped from ~8000 feet underground & burned, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the present rate of 3 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs per century.
most of the gas comes from silly cows like you farting from their mouths.
litesong

Pittsburgh, PA

#3 Oct 19, 2010
Blunt Mocker wrote:
most of the gas comes from silly cows.......
.....& as such, the cows produce CO2 from the plants they eat. When the bio products are excreted, the bio products re-fertilize other plants which grow......using the atmospheric CO2 to make more plant life. Thus a nice neat cycle of life sustaining products are produced,all in the balance of nature.

What isn't in balance, is the multi-score millions of years old oil products dredged up, burned & products of combustion added to the atmosphere, completely out of balance & completely out of whack with the balance of nature.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#4 Oct 20, 2010
As usual, the whole thing is a 'straw man' of no particular value. No scientist ever said that dairy cows WERE the cause of AGW.

All that was ever said was that the methane from dairy cows contributes to the total GHGs and they admit that in the article with an estimate of 2% CO2(e) as methane emissions
Earthling

Spain

#5 Oct 21, 2010
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
As usual, the whole thing is a 'straw man' of no particular value. No scientist ever said that dairy cows WERE the cause of AGW.
All that was ever said was that the methane from dairy cows contributes to the total GHGs and they admit that in the article with an estimate of 2% CO2(e) as methane emissions
Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty makes yet another brilliant observation, telling the world that contribution is not cause.
A Nobel is certainly in the offing for him if he keeps this up.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#6 Oct 21, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
As usual, the whole thing is a 'straw man' of no particular value. No scientist ever said that dairy cows WERE the cause of AGW.
All that was ever said was that the methane from dairy cows contributes to the total GHGs and they admit that in the article with an estimate of 2% CO2(e) as methane emissions
Farmers let rip on flatulence tax
Friday, June 20, 2003 Posted: 0302 GMT (11:02 AM HKT)

"In a bid to meet Kyoto Protocol commitments, the government in Wellington is planning to slug livestock producers with a "flatulence tax."

"Along with commercial goat and deer populations, scientists estimate these animals are responsible for about 90 percent of the nation's methane emissions and more than 40 percent of total greenhouse gases produced."

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/aus...
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#7 Oct 21, 2010
Silencing the Lambs: Scientists Target Sheep Belching to Cut Methane
Reducing Gas in Livestock Could Help World Breathe Sigh of Relief Over Global Warming.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1235610399117...
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#8 Oct 21, 2010
Native wildlife on rangelands to minimize methane and produce
lower-emission meat: kangaroos versus livestock
George R. Wilson & Melanie J. Edwards

Abstract
"Ruminant livestock produce the greenhouse gas methane and so contribute to global warming and biodiversity reduction. Methane from the foregut of
cattle and sheep constitutes 11% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j....
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#9 Oct 21, 2010
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty makes yet another brilliant observation, telling the world that contribution is not cause.
A Nobel is certainly in the offing for him if he keeps this up.
Contibution is not creation. If I contribute to the Red Cross, I would have no claim to having created the Red Cross. And if a small factor adds .02% to AGW, it is silly to say that it 'caused' it and even sillier to post a 'strawman' knocking down a stupid claim that has never been made.

But you continue to go around in circles like a decapitated chicken, never making even a small contribution to the facts but whining, misleading, misreading, pushing pure BS and digressing.

Total score.-1
Earthling

Spain

#10 Oct 22, 2010
As you understand that contribution is not creation or cause, then you must admit that anthropogenically produced CO2 can only be a contributor to climate change.
All that's left for you to tell us, is exactly how much that contribution is?
-
NB: Unlike you, I don't find it necesary to round off my posts with unnecessary ad hominem.
Suffice to say, your inability to find any evidence that forty was ever spelt with a U in the last 200 years has brought about your own downfall.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
The point is that I learned 'correct English spelling' very well and will use it even if MS-word takes over the rest of the world. SOMEONE has to maintain their integrity from these 'revisonists'.
Examples for that are words you write, here's a selection:
Skeptic
meters
Portugese
theater
defense
undoubtably
polinate
consise
vapor
millenia
snear
Penninsula
labor
centers
liter
rumors
entreprenurial spirit
vigor
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#11 Oct 22, 2010
Earthling wrote:
As you understand that contribution is not creation or cause, then you must admit that anthropogenically produced CO2 can only be a contributor to climate change.
Yes. In the 2001 IPCC TAR it was clearly listed as

Solar cycle +0.2C
Aerosols -0.2C
GHGs +0.6C
----------
Total +0.6C

So GHGs a MAJOR contributor and since Aerosols and the 200 year solar cycle 'cancel out' it would not be wrong to say that MOST global warming is caused by increases in GHGs.

Another important factor is that the 200 year solar cycle IS a cycle so it will just decrease for the next century. And aerosols are limited by smog regulation and short lifetimes so their contribution is unlikely to change much. So we can expect.. in 2100

Solar cycle +0.0C
Aerosols -0.2C
GHGs +3.2C
----------
Total +3C

Roughly. In other words, the GHGs are the MAJOR contribution to AGW. That is why they are the FOCUS of the issue. It does not mean that there are no OTHER contibutions, just that they have negligeable effect overall.
Earthling

Spain

#12 Oct 23, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
So we can expect.. in 2100
Solar cycle +0.0C
Aerosols -0.2C
GHGs +3.2C
----------
Total +3C
Roughly.
You've omitted to mention one very important, albeit unknown factor, how much change in human behaviour will occur between now and 2100.
Consider daily life from 90 years ago, then try to imagine how much it 'will' change during the next 90 years.
You're more of a dinosaur than me, stuck in the 60s, when you 'believe' you learnt to spell forty with a U.
Those days are long gone, ships don't have stokers any more, the days of coal gas for light and heat ended before that, gas guzzlers are dying out.
Progress means change, hopefully for the better, neither you or I will see too much more of it, but it will happen.
-
Neither a one metre sea level rise or a 3ºC global temperature rise are going to happen by 2100, you know that as well as I do, but the difference between us, is that you don't want to admit you're wrong.
litesong

Pittsburgh, PA

#13 Oct 23, 2010
Earthling wrote:
.....much change in human behaviour will occur between now and 2100.
.... ships don't have stokers any more, the days of coal gas for light and heat ended before that, gas guzzlers are dying out.
Stokers have been replaced with......dirty bunker oil.......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...

Coal gas light is replaced with oil refinery flares.....

Gas guzzlers still keep the yearly real-world U.S. miles per gallon BELOW 20 MPG.

Despite catalytic converters, Prof. Mark Jacobson reports that increases in traffic cause increased lung, heart & neurological childhood diseases near freeway traffic, especially due to gigantic leaps in stop & go traffic & those gas guzzlers.

dirtling (always small letters) is earthling has no brain, eart hling (alien with no affinity to Earth),'injun killer'(has no love for human beings), looking to excuse the excesses of industrial & modern living.

Oh, yeah! dirtling is a filthy vile pukey proud racist pig denier piled on top of his true names.
Earthling

Spain

#14 Oct 23, 2010
He stayed up until at least 02:30 posting on Topix and is back at 09:00, the injun never sleeps.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Michigan Technological University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Most scientists agree: Humans are causing clima... (May '13) Feb '14 SpaceBlues 19
Extensive search for time travellers bragging o... (Jan '14) Jan '14 Adrian Godsafe MSc 1
Researchers fail to trap time travelers on Twitter (Jan '14) Jan '14 Walter Harold Marlin 3
Floating wind turbines could get Great Lakes test (May '12) May '12 Minwoo Kim 1
Clintonville residents brace for more booming (Apr '12) Apr '12 tony 1
Local Entrepreneurs Give Rochester a Lift (Dec '11) Dec '11 Charles 1
Peace Corps celebrates 50 years (Dec '11) Dec '11 -Persephone- 1
More from around the web