Most Important Greenhouse Gases

[Madclicker]

Which gas contributes the most to the "greenhouse effect"? (Alphabetical order)

[sdantonio]

There was a big Brittish study published a couple of months ago saying the number 1 producer of greenhouse gases in the world were cows.

Beano sales should skyrocket, buy your stock early.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by sdantonio There was a big Brittish study published a couple of months ago saying the number 1 producer of greenhouse gases in the world were cows. Beano sales should skyrocket, buy your stock early.

I sometimes wonder about the people who write these articles. Are they deliberately being misleading or are they just totally ignorant. The same applies to people who claim that forests produce the oxygen we need and remove carbon dioxide from the air.

What do cows feed on? Grass.

How does grass grow? It uses sunlight, water, carbon dioxide and a few minerals to make carbohydrate, a little bit of protein and releases oxygen in the process. This is how all plants grow.

So when a cow eats grass it is eating carbon dioxide that has been removed from the atmosphere by the grass as it grew.

So when a cow releases greenhouse gases it is just putting back what has been removed.

Cows are not a net producer of greenhouse gases. Provided the cow stays alive and has not decomposed away it is a NET remover of greenhouse gases. Only when the cow expires and rots away is the carbon dioxide it was responsible for removing finally released back into the atmosphere; and at that point the NET contribution of the cow is ZERO

In fact all living creatures are NET removers of CO2 for their individual metabolic requirements; so long as they are alive. Then when they die and rot away all they do is put back what they briefly used. Humans fall into a unique category because by burning fossil fuels we are releasing back into the environment CO2 that was removed by plants millions of years ago.

The idea that we need trees to produce the oxygen we need is idiotic; the oxygen we need is produced by growing the plants that we eat. It doesn't make any difference whether we eat the plants directly or whether they are first turned into meat by living animals; food is essential to use trees are not.

In reality mature intact forests whether they are along the Amazon River or anywhere else in the world are completely neutral with regards to carbon dioxide removal and oxygen production. In a mature forest the death and decay of plant mass matches the rate of growth. When a mature forest is logged there is a net release of CO2 but like the dead cow this is only what it had removed in the first place.

Planting a tree does initiate net removal of CO2, very slowly. And it is also possible to figure out a 'barrels of oil equivalency'. On a dry weight basis wood contains about as much carbon as petroleum oil. "About as much" means it is within a factor of two. So the 'dry weight' of the annual growth of a tree is about equal to the weight of petroleum oil that tree has compensated for. Obviously a little sapling an inch or so in diameter is only going to compensate for a few pints of gasoline consumption. In a hundred years time when the tree that was planted as a result of your carbon offset credit is fifty feet high and two or three feet in diameter it may have accounted for a few hundred gallons; and most of that CO2 removal will have taken place during the last fifty years of the hundred not the first.

[11bravo]

I think the biggest cause of the "greenhouse" effect and global warming is all the hot air (or is it hot CO2?) that the "humans are destroying the world!" crowd are blowing where my sun don't shine.

[dertsap]

i think it must be cigarette smoke , the way people react to it these days is to the extreme,

so now i smoke twice as much just to piss em off

[sdantonio]

Geof,

I have been trying to think up an argument for what you have said and it finally dawned on me, and the answer was so simple.

You argument is based on conservation of matter, one of the most fundamental laws of physics. And as far as your argument goes it is correct. The earth has a finite amount of carbon and thus a fixed amount of carbon dioxide. This amount hasn’t changed appreciably in 4.7 billion years and still isn’t changing. And it does get constantly recycled from one form to another as you pointed out.

However, taking a large amount of carbon, and turning it into CO2, as with the burning of fossil fuels, which is then dumped into the atmosphere, puts an unusually large amount in a place where it doesn’t belong all at one time. As you pointed out it will eventually get recycled out. However, there is still more than the normal amount in the atmosphere.

Let’s take Aristotle’s argument that a stone sinks in water because it is made of earth and it’s proper place is with other things made of earth and extend it to the human body. You (all of us actually) are approximately 98% water. Having 98% of the stuff in your blood vessels being water is a good thing. The water is where it’s supposed to be. Now lets put 98% water into your lungs, not a pleasant experience (having fallen off a dock as a child before I learned to swim I can vouch that it is not pleasant). There has to be some moisture in the lungs for them to work properly, but nowhere near 98%. Likewise, the excessive CO2 in the atmosphere could be detrimental. Or it could be part of a natural warming cycle.

I’m still in the camp that says we don’t have enough information to tell how much global warming is due to the natural cycle and how much is due to the extra stuff we have caused to be in the air, but there is no harm in being careful about it. The extremists on one side say we are (or have already) pushing the planet past the point where it can recycle and recover. Extremists on the other side say there is no such thing a global warning.

So, just to be safe, I think we should round up all the cows we can get our hands on and have one heck of a CNCzone barbeque.

[Geof]

Steven; I guess by quoting your post I gave the impression I was commenting on or criticising something you had expressed; this was not my intent...the focus of my comments was the British Study saying cows were greenhouse gas producers. This is nonsense and that is what I was getting at.

Life on Earth is carbon based; that is a fact.

For land based life all the carbon that makes up their tissues has been obtained by fixing atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. For most water based life this is also the case but it is Carbon Dioxide that has dissolved into water and some of this comes from carbonates in rocks so it is not absolutely correct to make the same general statement as for land based life.

Therefore all life removes the greenhouse gas Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere by virtue of its very existence. This Carbon Dioxide stays removed until the lifeform dies and decays...there is no net effect.

Cows cannot be the number 1 producer of greenhouse gases; the claim is patently absurd.

I was not expressing any opinion on whether Global Warming is or is not occurring or what the cause is if it is occurring. I was stating that there is a lot of rubbish and misconception about the production or removal of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

For completeness I had to include the statement that humans in using fossil fuels are releasing back into the atmosphere Carbon Dioxide that was removed by living organisms a long time ago.

[sdantonio]

Geof,

I was just pointing out that you were right in 98% of your argument (probably closer to 100% right). I didn't take the quote personally at all. Your argument is very solid and it took me a few days to figure out a counterargument around it.

Physicists fall into 2 groups. Those who rely exclusively on the mathematics behind what they’re doing, and those of us who are not as good mathematically, who go into the philosophy of what it all means. Sometimes I’ll argue a point to see it this old brain can still think like it did in grad school. You always put together solid points and it’s always great to see if I can counter them. Sometimes I disappoint myself (like this last post which I’ll admit is a flimsy argument based on Aristotle’s 2500 year old argument… but it’s all I could think of). When I see a “scientific” study like the British one I figure I can quote it until is is disproved, no matter now absurd it may sound on face value.

For me, arguing like this is my version of chess or warcraft. And I hate to admit it, but you may be better at this type of argument than I am. There is an old saying “use it, or loose it”. Your probably single handedly doing more to keep me from going senile than anything else I’m doing.

[MPCRice]

I don't mean to pick on any one in particular, especially the survey writer but:

To me, this survey is all to typical of how the media is handling the "Global Warming" issue. Lets vote on the reason - Let popular opinion decide the matter.

How about objectively looking at the data and I mean all of the data that is available and come up with sound conclusions. Perhaps I am asking too much.

My opinion is that the data does show the climate is warming slightly, but we don't understand enough about the causes to be sure it is human caused. I haven't seen enough data to even say it is likely caused by human activity.

[riverrat]

I ate waaaaaaaay to many beans last night.
It's my fault, sorry guys.
Seriously though, everything boils down to two things, money, and power.
Who stands to profit from this whole global warming discussion?
Al Gore and others stands to make a fortune.
Big oil stands to loose a fortune "along with George and Cheney"
We are gonna pay either way.
This whole cows causing global warming garbage is one of the stupidist things
I've ever heard. There used to be millions upon millions of buffalo
roaming the prarie before any white man stepped foot on this continent.
I believe global warming does exist, it's been slowly warming since
the last ice age.
BTW, this was one bitter cold winter, thank god for global warming.
we might have froze to death.
thank you for reading my rambelings.
never could write.

[alexccmeister]

Originally Posted by riverrat BTW, this was one bitter cold winter, thank god for global warming. we might have froze to death.

Typical of anyone living in the cold countries to make a statement like this. Think about those living in the hot countries. Imagine if the north gets to be as hot as the equator (May or may not happen) where will the people go to live comfortably?

[riverrat]

Originally Posted by alexccmeister Typical of anyone living in the cold countries to make a statement like this. Think about those living in the hot countries. Imagine if the north gets to be as hot as the equator (May or may not happen) where will the people go to live comfortably?

DUDE!!!!!!!
I live in Missouri, far from the north country.
you might thank your lucky stars you didn't freeze to death in the
1970's,,,,,, or did you forget we were supposed to have another
ice age.

never, under any circumstances, underestimate the power of the media.
WAKE UP ALEXCCMEISTER!!!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!!
YOU MY FRIEND HAVE SUCCOMMED TO PROPOGANDA!!!!!

don't let the media think for you, dig a little for the truth.

da riverrat