California regulates cow farts

[betsy]

Quote

The nation's leading agricultural state is now targeting greenhouse gases produced by dairy cows and other livestock.

http://www.fox5ny.com/news/220448846-story

 

 

Hahahahaha

 

I mean........what an insane world we live in!  

 

It's hilarious.....except for the fact that it's the loonies who are running the show! 

Edited December 1, 2016 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

Quote

Livestock are responsible for 14.5 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, with beef and dairy production accounting for the bulk of it, according to a 2013 United Nations report.

I'm not sure what is so crazy about this.  Did you read the facts ?  I'm sad that you don't take these things seriously, and that you are so easily manipulated by FOX 5's dupe, including a goofy graphic.  There are others on here who would probably be against such regulation but would at least take it seriously.

[TimG]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not sure what is so crazy about this.  Did you read the facts ?  I'm sad that you don't take these things seriously, and that you are so easily manipulated by FOX 5's dupe, including a goofy graphic.  There are others on here who would probably be against such regulation but would at least take it seriously.

The issue is not the facts. (Methane is technically a GHG). The problem is methane is part of the natural process of decomposition and produced by an ruminate including caribou, elk and moose. More importantly, if the vegetation is just left to rot instead of being fed to ruminates it still produces methane. So the question in my mind is whether such regulations could possibility result in a net reduction in methane and would that reduction be large enough to justify the cost of regulation. Given the track record of ideology driven eco-policy it is reasonable to assume the answer to both questions is no.

[betsy]

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not sure what is so crazy about this.  Did you read the facts ?  I'm sad that you don't take these things seriously, and that you are so easily manipulated by FOX 5's dupe, including a goofy graphic.  There are others on here who would probably be against such regulation but would at least take it seriously.

Just because some folks believe Al Gore's bs.....it doesn't mean a thing.

 

Whose gas emission are the loonies going to regulate next?  Chickens?   Elderlies?

 

This is all about control.   They didn't call it green for nothing.  They want you to stop eating meat!

Edited December 1, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

In the Trump era, people will be proud of their ignorance and mock and bully those who take any time to learn anything. 

[betsy]

9 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

In the Trump era, people will be proud of their ignorance and mock and bully those who take any time to learn anything. 

 

At least you recognize what movement  Trump had put forth.

In the Trump era - people will be standing up and call out idiocy when they see it!  They'll call a spade a spade!

 

It will snowball.  Just wait and watch.

Edited December 1, 2016 by betsy

[TimG]

20 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

In the Trump era, people will be proud of their ignorance and mock and bully those who take any time to learn anything. 

IOW you are saying that people will  act like climate alarmists have been acting for years. 

[BubberMiley]

It's telling that here is no logical refutation as to why it is ridiculous that extreme amounts of methane gas in he atmosphere would have an effect. It's important to remain as uninformed as possible in order to make as many fart jokes as possible. Would you like to counter that Betsy with a scientific explanation of why it is "idiocy", or are you going to link to some alt-right blog and expect me to do that for you?

[TimG]

44 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

It's telling that here is no logical refutation as to why it is ridiculous that extreme amounts of methane gas in he atmosphere would have an effect.

It's telling that alarmists keep trying to avoid the real issue and spout meaningless platitudes. The real questions that need to be answered is whether efforts to reduce methane from cows will have any material effect given that a long as cows eat they will produced methane and that as long as uneaten plant matter rots it will produce methane. This implies that scope for real reductions is very small and this should be weighed against the real costs of these measures. Pissing into a hurricane is an apt analogy here. 

[BubberMiley]

2 minutes ago, TimG said:

It's telling that alarmists keep trying to avoid the real issue and spout meaningless platitudes. The real questions that need to be answered is whether efforts to reduce methane from cows will have any material effect given that a long as cows eat they will produced methane and that as long as uneaten plant matter rots it will produce methane. This implies that scope for real reductions is very small and this should be weighed against the real costs of these measures. Pissing into a hurricane is an apt analogy here. 

It's telling that deniers keep trying to avoid the real issues by denying any changes are taking place and, when faced with evidence that change has already happened, then take to denying human involvement in those changes and, when faced with evidence that humans are very likely involved in those changes, go back to denying any changes are taking place.

[TimG]

 

8 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

It's telling that deniers keep trying to avoid the real issues by denying any changes are taking place and, when faced with evidence that change has already happened, then take to denying human involvement in those changes and, when faced with evidence that humans are very likely involved in those changes, go back to denying any changes are taking place.

Do you have a read comprehension problem? Where did I say that changes were not happening or that humans have an effect? What I said is it is unlikely that regulations to control cow farts could be justified is terms of their real net effect on these emissions and the entire effort is an example of how ideologically driven alarmists use GHGs as a excuse to attack industries they do not like (in this case meat production). Your inability to under the nuance in my argument illustrates how you don't really care about facts or logic and GHGs are just a religion to you.

Edited December 1, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

Surprise, surprise, surprise...

betsy, Fox news, and many others simply don't read the legislation and make 100% false claims

The regulation has absolutely nothing to do with cow farts, that is complete bullshit.

[TimG]

9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The regulation has absolutely nothing to do with cow farts, that is complete bullshit.

The regulation requires farmers to reduce methane emissions from manure to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030. Calling manure cow farts is not precisely accurate but it is more accurate than most of the nonsense spewed by climate alarmists.

The fact that you call this 'fake news' illustrates how the 'fake news' meme has become just another vehicle used by left wing activists to suppress opinions that they disagree with.

Edited December 1, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, TimG said:

Calling manure cow farts is not precisely accurate but it is more accurate than most of the nonsense spewed by climate alarmists.

Not precisely? Try completely, 100% false. It is no more accurate than any compete 100% lie.

Yes, there are climate alarmists out there, and those that make false claims get to be called out. Making up your own compete, 100% lies and spreading them is not payback it is lying.

[TimG]

19 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Not precisely? Try completely, 100% false. It is no more accurate than any compete 100% lie.

What is difference between capturing methane from cow manure after it leaves the cow and capturing methane from manure before it leaves the cow? That is difference we are talking about. Not precise but it is no lie. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by TimG

[BubberMiley]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

What is difference between capturing methane from cow manure after it leaves the cow and capturing methane from manure before it leaves the cow? That is difference we are talking about. Not precise but it is no lie. 

Bacteria in the cow's stomach produce the methane. It's not in the grass before they eat it.

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

What is difference between capturing methane from cow manure after it leaves the cow and capturing methane from manure before it leaves the cow?

It is the difference between a colostomy bag and a municipal wastewater treatment plant. In other words extremely different.

Also note that capture of methane from organic waste is only one strategy, reducing methane production through more efficient feed in ruminants is also an import strategy being examined. The production of excess methane represents an energy intake loss from incomplete nutrient digestion. 

[Guest]

There is something written somewhere that says that forcing the entire planet to eat vegetarian, turning over all agricultural land to crop raising, and stopping completely the rearing of animals for food would put a dent in the greenhouse gas concentrations similar to something else that would be very significant indeed. I wish I could remember what.

It's like every other attempt to stop AGW.  Baby step, that will make people feel good but won't do much.

I eat meat, but if everyone else was willing to stop, why, I would too.  No bugs though.

[OftenWrong]

Bug meat has the highest protein per gram, up to 60%, and they are low in cholesterol and saturated fat. Only problem is the legs and feelers would get stuck between you're teeth. In other news, leftists will soon be identified as those having hoses stuck up their arse for collection of methane.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Bug meat has the highest protein per gram, up to 60%, and they are low in cholesterol and saturated fat. Only problem is the legs and feelers would get stuck between you're teeth. In other news, leftists will soon be identified as those having hoses stuck up their arse for collection of methane.

I think I would balk even if it were ground up and mixed with truffles.  If I knew it was in there.

 

[The_Squid]

It's amazing how ignorant people are that they will fall for such a stupid headline.... "cow farts".   Yeah.... ok...

[Omni]

20 hours ago, betsy said:

http://www.fox5ny.com/news/220448846-story

 

 

Hahahahaha

 

I mean........what an insane world we live in!  

 

It's hilarious.....except for the fact that it's the loonies who are running the show! 

I suggest go learn a little science before you jump into a discussion you apparently know nothing about. Here's a hint......look up what methane is and how it contributes to GW and where a lot of it comes from. Then get back to us.

[betsy]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

I suggest go learn a little science before you jump into a discussion you apparently know nothing about. Here's a hint......look up what methane is and how it contributes to GW and where a lot of it comes from. Then get back to us.

Perhaps, it is you who should do MORE reading.  Your so-called knowledge shouldn't just stop right there - what methane is, and how it contributes to GW! 

Before you go suggesting putting tax on our own farts........read more about it!  You're not only being like  chicken little, but it seems you're also like a panicked  little chicken running around with your head cut off!

 

Quote

 

While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes. Here is a graph of the various forcings that influence climate (methane is CH4, right above CO2).

The good news is since the early 1990's, the trend in increasing methane has slowed down and even leveled off in the last few years (Dlugokencky 2003).

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm

 

 

 

Quote

 

Ground beneath our feet is poised to make global warming much worse, scientists find

 

This, in turn, may mean that even humans' best efforts to cut their emissions could fall short, simply because there's another source of emissions all around us.

The very Earth itself.

 

http://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/ground-beneath-our-feet-is-poised-to-make-global-warming/article_f88d5ae6-b752-11e6-8414-b7838e99bb70.html

 

 

Quote

 

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t cut methane emissions – there remain many other reasons for doing so, including climate-related ones. For instance, if gas drilling operations in the U.S. cut down on accidental releases of methane then they will have more natural gas to sell in electricity markets — and if that natural gas displaces coal, overall carbon dioxide emissions will go down.

 

But it does mean, Pierrehumbert argues, that we need more clarity when it comes to what we are actually dealing with when it comes to methane — and this is an inherent problem when you’re comparing what his paper calls a “cumulative” greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, with one that is “short-lived,” like methane.

 

The concept of global warming potential, Shindell says, was “proposed originally as an example of how difficult it is to compare things, and then it becomes the thing that everybody uses and nobody really understands.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/02/why-were-still-so-incredibly-confused-about-methanes-role-in-global-warming/?utm_term=.b0b3696b0dee

Edited December 2, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

16 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I eat meat, but if everyone else was willing to stop, why, I would too.  No bugs though.

 

Not so fast.

If we all become vegetarians.....the same alleged problem will only get worse!  Vegetables causes flatulence!

Edited December 2, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

 

Not so fast.

If we all become vegetarians.....the same alleged problem will only get worse!  Vegetables causes flatulence!

I don't think so. I think cow physiology is different from ours.  But I don't know that for sure.