Global warming 'on pause' but set to resume

[danielost]

Cow farts are more of a problem because there are so many more of them because of domestication. The global warming problem would be greatly mitigated if we ate less meat.

There are far more humans than cows. Even here in the usa a single cow can feed a family of four for a year or something around that.

[danielost]

Volcano's are a constant source of CO2 so have little effect on overall net CO2 levels.

The oceans will outgas CO2 in the future - but are currently a net sink of CO2.

Each population of Cows has a different climate impact - depending on the farming method used and the land use changes it causes. I will repeat myself, In China more cows means less paddy fields which means less Methane emissions. In the USA more cows in permanent lots means more deforestation to grow soya and grain in South America with a net increase in overall methane emissions. LET ME REPEAT - THE CRITICAL FACTOR IS LAND USE NOT COW FARTS.

Br Cornelius

And yet you advocate that we do away with the gass powered car. This would result in the use of more horses, which would mean more land being cleared to feed them.

And most ranches in forested areas are free range cattle. Meaning they don't cut down trees. The only feed lots I have seen are inthe great plains. Most of the trees in this area are man planted.

[Guest]

And yet you advocate that we do away with the gass powered car. This would result in the use of more horses, which would mean more land being cleared to feed them.

And most ranches in forested areas are free range cattle. Meaning they don't cut down trees. The only feed lots I have seen are inthe great plains. Most of the trees in this area are man planted.

You are very poorly informed on both counts. The majority of beef is factory farmed with net inputs of intensive feed - this directly leads to deforestation.

I have never advocated a return to the use of horses, more efficient vehicles, more electric vehicles, more public transport, better urban planning - these are the solutions to the transport problems.

Please try not to mis-characterize what I clearly say with delusional tangents and misinformation.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

If we go straight to electric cars. It will take around one humdred years for the auto industry to make an electric car as good as a internal combustable cars. Further, most of the electricaty for those will becoming from coal powdered generaters. So you only move the tailpipe.

During that hundred years people will have a need for reliable transport the horse will be it. Farms weill shrink, no tracters, people will starve. Looks like you found a good form for population control.

I said one hundred years, because that is how long it took to get our cars to the point they are.

[danielost]

You people on the left need to think about something before demanding action. Like did six years ago on obama care I said then that insuence would sky rocket and the government would then be forced to put us on universal health care. Something the mojarty of the country does not want.

All you have to do to see it is a bad thing is look at medicade/care. To see it is bad idea to put everyone on universal health care.

As for global warming the arth has been warming up since the last ice age, ten thousand years ago and no it hasn't been cooling for eight thousand years as yo said in one of your post.

All you have to do is look at tge chart doug linked to to seethat.

[danielost]

The usa grows its own cattle feed in the plains. It is called maize(corn).

If the rain forest is deappearing as they said it was twenty years ago, there would be no rainforest today.

Those factory farms on the plains.

[MysticStrummer]

Whether cow flatulence impacts the environment or not, beef is one of the most inefficient food sources there is.

[danielost]

Just something I picked up. My understanding is that methane from cattle us a major contributor, so there you have it. And who said anything about just American cows; seems to me if one is serious one reduces meat.

One way to get ridof meat is to eat more it.

[danielost]

Whether cow flatulence impacts the environment or not, beef is one of the most inefficient food sources there is.

Except for iron. Red meat is the best source.

As for cows in china being better than rice patties, I don't buy it. Those paddies are obsorbing co2, so we need more of the paddies.

This fits in nicely with my thread, why do we cut grass. After all rice is just a grass, along wit wheat, ts, corn, barley, and any other I may have missed.

Edited July 29, 2013 by danielost

[Guest]

If we go straight to electric cars. It will take around one humdred years for the auto industry to make an electric car as good as a internal combustable cars. Further, most of the electricaty for those will becoming from coal powdered generaters. So you only move the tailpipe.

During that hundred years people will have a need for reliable transport the horse will be it. Farms weill shrink, no tracters, people will starve. Looks like you found a good form for population control.

I said one hundred years, because that is how long it took to get our cars to the point they are.

Apart from batteries - there is almost no element of an electric car which needs further refinement. Regenerative braking, direct DC drive, streamlining - all exist.

Electric cars only make sense as a buffer to soak up excess electricity from an alternatives grid, in the short term it may bring more demand for coal burning - but in the long term it will reduce overall emissions significantly.

Your ideas on these things are so obtuse that I wonder how hard you have to think before making them. If you actually did some research you would realise that practically all of your concerns are based on misinformation or pure ignorance of the state of technology. Research will set you free Danial

Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Except for iron. Red meat is the best source.

As for cows in china being better than rice patties, I don't buy it. Those paddies are obsorbing co2, so we need more of the paddies.

This fits in nicely with my thread, why do we cut grass. After all rice is just a grass, along wit wheat, ts, corn, barley, and any other I may have missed.

Rice paddies absorb CO2 but CH4 is at least 20 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2 so if the paddy field absorbs an equal quantity of CO2 to its emissions of CH4, the net effect is 19x more powerful greenhouse warming. This is basic science and if you studied a little science you would already know it.

Deforestation has slowed but still continues a pace;

25 March 2010, Rome - World deforestation, mainly the conversion of tropical forests to agricultural land, has decreased over the past ten years but continues at an alarmingly high rate in many countries, FAO announced today.

Globally, around 13 million hectares of forests were converted to other uses or lost through natural causes each year between 2000 and 2010 as compared to around 16 million hectares per year during the 1990s, according to key findings of FAO's most comprehensive forest review to date The GlobalForest Resources Assessment 2010. The study covers 233 countries and areas.

.......

South America and Africa had the highest net annual loss of forests in 2000-2010, with four and 3.4 million hectares respectively. Oceania also registered a net loss, due partly to severe drought in Australia since 2000.

Asia, on the other hand, registered a net gain of some 2.2 million hectares annually in the last decade, mainly because of large-scale afforestation programmes in China, India and Viet Nam, which have expanded their forest area by a total of close to four million hectares annually in the last five years. However, conversion of forested lands to other uses continued at high rates in many countries.

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/40893/

The main cash crop which is grown in deforested south America is soya, soya is the primary protein source for factory farmed beef, corn cannot be the sole feed source since it is to low in protein and has to be supplemented with soya.

Finally a large amount of North America's beef is imported from South American ranching operations where deforestation goes on a pace.

Br Cornelius

[MonkeyLove]

[Frank Merton]

In much of Asia meat is a condiment; a little mixed in with your veggies. In the states it is served separately in giant portions and veggies often skipped entirely. So when it comes to global warming because of methane emissions from cows, as well as other inefficiencies meat consumption introduces and the bad health effects, it seems to me the west should reform itself and let Asians have a little more meat.

[danielost]

Ladies and gentleman another case of not looking at the big picture from the liberals. If we stop eating meast tat would mean our plant intake would increase. Meaning we would still be clearing tge forest to plant food, not for cows but for ourselves.

[Frank Merton]

Failure to look at the big picture is a false accusation and one I find absurd. Big pictures are made up of smaller components and it is useful to look at each component one at a time.

[Guest]

Ladies and gentleman another case of not looking at the big picture from the liberals. If we stop eating meast tat would mean our plant intake would increase. Meaning we would still be clearing tge forest to plant food, not for cows but for ourselves.

Daniel, it takes 10 times the area of land to grow food for cattle than if you simply ate the vegetation directly. That represents a 90% loss in production in going from vegetable to meat. If we all became vegetarian we would all have access to far more food.

Of course this is an oversimplification because some area are only suitable for meat production rather than vegetable growing, but generally it could reasonably be said that man should reduce his meat consumption massively. this would increase overall productivity and improve human health. I advocate about 10% of a diet should be meat to get the balance right.

In a fully vegetarian world there would be more space for forests - not less.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

But if you only look at the small picture. You usually land some place you don't want to be. As an example take obama care. It was billed ashealth covrage for people who were to rich to be on medicaid and to poor to be able to buy insurance. Sounds great and in the small picture, helping those who couldn't get health i.nsurance get it. But, if you had looked at the big picture, you yould see health insurance going up so that few could afford it. Businesses tat were providing insurance would not be or be able to do so. Thus you end up with everyone on government paid insurance.

[Guest]

But if you only look at the small picture. You usually land some place you don't want to be. As an example take obama care. It was billed ashealth covrage for people who were to rich to be on medicaid and to poor to be able to buy insurance. Sounds great and in the small picture, helping those who couldn't get health i.nsurance get it. But, if you had looked at the big picture, you yould see health insurance going up so that few could afford it. Businesses tat were providing insurance would not be or be able to do so. Thus you end up with everyone on government paid insurance.

Not really informative to the big picture of Agriculture and climate. Its you who keeps trying to dispute climate change by looking at the small details and finding fault - you rarely consider the big climate picture.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

Ladies and gentleman another case of not looking at the big picture from the liberals. If we stop eating meast tat would mean our plant intake would increase. Meaning we would still be clearing tge forest to plant food, not for cows but for ourselves.

Ladies and gentlemen: Another case of not looking at the big picture by the conservatives. It takes 22 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. Over the course of your life you will eat about 40 acres worth of wheat. But the beef you ate, first ate 880 acres worth of wheat. We can support 22 people on the land it takes to support one cow.

Actually, the optimum mix includes a little meat. There is a lot of land that CAN'T be used to grow grain: too many rocks, too steep, etc. But it can still grow animals, goats and sheep in particular, but also cows. Some meat can be produced from these sources.

I note that my figures and Br. Cornelius' don't quite match 10 acres vs. 22 acres. If you're wondering why that is, it is because I am talking specifically about feedlot cattle as I don't have the numbers for other animals. BTW: Free range cattle don't have the feedlot methane problem.

Doug

[Guest]

My estimate is based on trophic levels and the implicit conversion factors they suggest - as such I would say that my estimate would be on the very conservative side.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

But if you only look at the small picture. You usually land some place you don't want to be. As an example take obama care. It was billed ashealth covrage for people who were to rich to be on medicaid and to poor to be able to buy insurance. Sounds great and in the small picture, helping those who couldn't get health i.nsurance get it. But, if you had looked at the big picture, you yould see health insurance going up so that few could afford it. Businesses tat were providing insurance would not be or be able to do so. Thus you end up with everyone on government paid insurance.

Since they first started to implement Obamacare, my healthcare costs have gone down. And Obamacare has not been fully implemented yet. I admit that's "the little picture." But I can't be the only one out there, so "the little picture" is a lot bigger than you think.

Have you actually kept track of your healthcare costs over the last several years so that you know what is going on, at least in your own case?

Doug

[danielost]

No sir you have me mistaken for soomeone else. I have been looking at the ten thousand year picture. You know the one that shows the ice age ending then, and the start of global warming. Humans were using camp fires then. You are tge one looking at thesmall picture as long as it says what you want it to say.

Br

[danielost]

Since they first started to implement Obamacare, my healthcare costs have gone down. And Obamacare has not been fully implemented yet. I admit that's "the little picture." But I can't be the only one out there, so "the little picture" is a lot bigger than you think.

Have you actually kept track of your healthcare costs over the last several years so that you know what is going on, at least in your own case?

Doug

No sir I am one of those on medicaid. Those benefits are being reduced and medicare benefits are being reduced to medicaid benefits. Due to obama raiding medicares funds to fund obama care. Did you notice ne health care insurance company is now selling auto insurance.

[Guest]

No sir you have me mistaken for soomeone else. I have been looking at the ten thousand year picture. You know the one that shows the ice age ending then, and the start of global warming. Humans were using camp fires then. You are tge one looking at thesmall picture as long as it says what you want it to say.

Br

I have talked about the period from the last ice age to now. I have looked at Paleoclimatology to see the drivers of ice ages. I have looked at the biggest picture appropriate to understanding the climate.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

No sir I am one of those on medicaid. Those benefits are being reduced and medicare benefits are being reduced to medicaid benefits. Due to obama raiding medicares funds to fund obama care.

A compromise needed to get it past Republican ideology - voodoo economics. It would be better to finance affordable health care independently and increase/streamline medicare/Medicaid. Use the government's massive purchasing power to solicit competitive bids, for openers.

Did you notice ne health care insurance company is now selling auto insurance.

Insurance is insurance. It's all a bet between the insurance company and its customers.

Doug