1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    31 Aug '08 05:04
    When the arctic starts thawing out due to present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the tundra and seabeds start oozing methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than CO2. It's already starting to happen.
    This can be the killer move putting us on track to really heat up the climate
    Which may be why things go on for a while like they have now and has been proven these changes can take place in a few years or less:
    http://www.physorg.com/preview139315982.html
  2. Standard memberflexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    Chesstralia
    Joined
    18 Aug '03
    Moves
    54533
    31 Aug '08 09:501 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    When the arctic starts thawing out due to present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the tundra and seabeds start oozing methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than CO2. It's already starting to happen.
    This can be the killer move putting us on track to really heat up the climate
    Which may be why things go on for a while like they have now and has b ...[text shortened]... se changes can take place in a few years or less:
    http://www.physorg.com/preview139315982.html
    Methane is a strong greenhouse gas ... however .. it only has a half life of 7 years ... after that it becomes mostly carbon dioxide.

    Yes methane could boost the effect and make us have a 10-20 year (soon) disaster ... but after that it is simply co2 we have to deal with ... lots of it ... and for a long time (i have seen estimates of hundereds to 100s of thousands of years ... who knows!).

    This might be good - it could awaken us to what is happenning.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    31 Aug '08 14:48
    Originally posted by flexmore
    Methane is a strong greenhouse gas ... however .. it only has a half life of 7 years ... after that it becomes mostly carbon dioxide.

    Yes methane could boost the effect and make us have a 10-20 year (soon) disaster ... but after that it is simply co2 we have to deal with ... lots of it ... and for a long time (i have seen estimates of hundereds to 100s o ...[text shortened]... ands of years ... who knows!).

    This might be good - it could awaken us to what is happenning.
    I am just afraid it may be too late already, we may have already tipped the scales. You see the data about the arctic, it is heading for another record low ice year, it won't be long till there is no more ice in the arctic.
    Some people say, oh, that just means shipping will have a free hand to traverse the arctic ocean but the real danger is the trapped methane.
    Even if it lasts only 7 years, it can create a lot of havoc anyway. Anyway that is just the cycle time, if enough of it comes out of the ground or seabed the reaction will be faster than the destruction rate.
  4. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    31 Aug '08 14:52
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I am just afraid it may be too late already, we may have already tipped the scales. You see the data about the arctic, it is heading for another record low ice year, it won't be long till there is no more ice in the arctic.
    Some people say, oh, that just means shipping will have a free hand to traverse the arctic ocean but the real danger is the trapped m ...[text shortened]... of it comes out of the ground or seabed the reaction will be faster than the destruction rate.
    Where's Exxon when you need them! Get some sort of harvesting apparatus there ASAP!

    Of course the Russians might blow you out of the water with their energy mercantalism attitude, but hey, at least the Canadians are challenging them!

    http://www.chinapost.com.tw/headlines/2007/08/11/48226/Canada-announces.htm
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    01 Sep '08 03:45
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Where's Exxon when you need them! Get some sort of harvesting apparatus there ASAP!

    Of course the Russians might blow you out of the water with their energy mercantalism attitude, but hey, at least the Canadians are challenging them!

    http://www.chinapost.com.tw/headlines/2007/08/11/48226/Canada-announces.htm
    Let's see, all you need is a million square miles of saran wrap and some collection tubes....
  6. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    01 Sep '08 07:13
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Let's see, all you need is a million square miles of saran wrap and some collection tubes....
    At least you are TRYING to think up a solution.
  7. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    02 Sep '08 01:02
    The Reagan Administration funded study of the production of methane by bovines digesting grasses (my university received the funding). They called it the cow fart study.
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    02 Sep '08 01:26
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    The Reagan Administration funded study of the production of methane by bovines digesting grasses (my university received the funding). They called it the cow fart study.
    But what do you do when the EARTH starts farting?
  9. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    02 Sep '08 02:231 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    But what do you do when the EARTH starts farting?
    buy saran wrap and nose plugs!
  10. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    02 Sep '08 02:58
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    But what do you do when the EARTH starts farting?
    BEANO to the rescue?
  11. Standard memberAiko
    Nearing 200000...!
    Joined
    23 Mar '04
    Moves
    207922
    07 Sep '08 00:26
    Originally posted by sonhouse

    This can be the killer move putting us on track to really heat up the climate
    Reducing your food intake from animal products will cut down on methane production, the lesser animals the lesser methane as a by-product. So vegetarians and vegans can save the day.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    07 Sep '08 03:38
    Originally posted by Aiko
    Reducing your food intake from animal products will cut down on methane production, the lesser animals the lesser methane as a by-product. So vegetarians and vegans can save the day.
    I don't think you quite understand the issue here. It is not about cow farts.
    It is about methane which builds up from decaying vegetable matter under the tundra in the arctic and in the arctic seabed. Right now the frozen conditions keep that stuff in check but you perhaps realize methane is 20 times more potent than CO2 even if it does last only a decade in the atmosphere, it still does its dirty work. If billions of tons of methane gets released in the arctic by global warming, it would far outweigh any methane produced by the entire bovine population of the planet. You need to read these things more carefully before you make simplistic blanket statements that going veggie will somehow stop arctic methane release. Unless you were doing a pathetic imitation of humor.
  13. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    07 Sep '08 09:011 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I don't think you quite understand the issue here. It is not about cow farts.
    It is about methane which builds up from decaying vegetable matter under the tundra in the arctic and in the arctic seabed. Right now the frozen conditions keep that stuff in check but you perhaps realize methane is 20 times more potent than CO2 even if it does last only a decade ...[text shortened]... will somehow stop arctic methane release. Unless you were doing a pathetic imitation of humor.
    There are several sources of methane release: one is decaying vegetable matter in thawing tundra etc as it warms up. Another is from the bovine population. Which one will be the “greater” one is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we should eat less animal (specifically, bovine) products to reduce methane release; it doesn’t matter how much methane is released from thawing tundra etc, -this wouldn’t change the fact that methane will still be released from the bovine population and would still just make the warming even worse -whether it is the main source or not. If we are to do everything we can to minimise the quantity of methane released, we should do everything we can to deduce methane release from EVERY source -not just which ever source happens to be the “main” source.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    07 Sep '08 09:131 edit
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    There are several sources of methane release: one is decaying vegetable matter in thawing tundra etc as it warms up. Another is from the bovine population. Which one will be the “greater” one is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we should eat less animal (specifically, bovine) products to reduce methane release; it doesn’t matter how much met ...[text shortened]... e methane release from EVERY source -not just which ever source happens to be the “main” source.
    If one source is 1000 times greater than another source which is if anything, an understatement, then eliminating bovine sources won't make much difference. It would be like all the herds of bov's in the world multiplied by a thousand, which makes the effort to stop bovine methane a bit understated. Besides, the amount of veggie animals around the world must be greater than the man-made herds. Not totally sure of that but look at the all those migrating herds in africa and siberia and canada,
    Wildebeests, Ibex, and so forth.
    Well I found out the cattle population for only one country so far, Brazil, runs to 170 million head so I guess they outnumber wild wildebeest which seem to top out at about 1.5 million. So I wonder if anyone has done a quantitative study of the amount of bovine methane going into the atmosphere worldwide? There must be more than a billion head of cattle around the world, easy.
  15. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    07 Sep '08 10:591 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    If one source is 1000 times greater than another source which is if anything, an understatement, then eliminating bovine sources won't make much difference. It would be like all the herds of bov's in the world multiplied by a thousand, which makes the effort to stop bovine methane a bit understated. Besides, the amount of veggie animals around the world mus ...[text shortened]... atmosphere worldwide? There must be more than a billion head of cattle around the world, easy.
    If one source is 1000 times greater than another source which is if anything, an understatement,…

    not true:

    http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LDxHrnkt2NghJqkSVvhvcRyv03dfQssPhbcXJJxj8G42MJcFdpJ3!265817683?docId=96521409

    It states:

    “…Researchers have attributed 15 percent of global methane releases to emissions of
    methane from entericn fermentation in animals (wild and domestic). Bovines contribute approximately two-thirds of this amount…”

    …Well I found out the cattle population for only one country so far, Brazil, runs to 170 million head so I guess they outnumber wild wildebeest which seem to top out at about 1.5 million…

    I have long supported the idea that most should be culled to leave a population of just ~30 thousand wild wildebeest to reduce methane release. A population of 30 thousand wild wildebeest would certainly not be too small to cause a genetic bottleneck nor inbreeding depression and will not make them in danger of becoming extinct.
Back to Top