Cause of Global Warming

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 14 2006, 01:38 PM) [snapback]303066[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure. There seem to be scientific opinions on both sides, with a few in the middle. The majority seem to be in the "all human caused" camp which would appear to lend weight to the "all human caused" argument. But then again, there was a time when the majority of scientists thought the world was flat and would sharply criticize anyone who suggested it was round. It turns out they were wrong, although you wouldn't have been able to convince them of it at the time.

So, do you have an open mind? Or do you reject any possibility that there could be a natural component to global warming? Should we abandon any research into other factors, such as cosmic rays and clouds, because we already "know" the answer?

 

It would be simplistic to point to just one cause of global warming, given the many variables involved. Yes, there is a natural global warming effect, cosmic effects, humanity's contributions, etc.. I'm not in the "humans only cause global warming" camp. I do believe, however, that we tend to severely disrupt the natural order and balance of things, and I'm frankly astounded when people state that what we do has NO negative impact on our environment. We should be custodians of this planet, not abusers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Aug 14 2006, 09:07 AM) [snapback]303011[/snapback]</div>

i wouldnt be surprised if this article was one of the ones cited by Michael Pollan in his book "The Omnivore's Dilemma, The History of Four Meals". because he states the exact same thing but for a completely different reason. have grasslands (which typically can have up to 150 different species) grazed by cattle, produce better meat quality, but at the same time, a well managed field can actually support more animals than corn if the growing cycle of the pasture is maximized. because grasses always tends to balance "roots to shoots" iow, the above ground mass equals the below ground mass, each time grass is cut or eaten, an equal part of the grasses' root system dies off and turns to humus which sequesters a relatively large amount of carbon into the ground.

in places devastated by fire or flood, grasslands are by far the best and quickest method to rebuild sod and topsoil that there is and this mechanism is the reason why.

here is a quote from the book mentioned above that nearly floored me. before this, i thought myself to be pretty well informed about global warming and its causes. this statement reveals something completely different.

This productivity means Joel's pastures will, like his woodlots, remove thousands of pounds of carbon from the atmosphere each year; instead of sequestering all that carbon in trees, however, grasslands store most of it underground, in the form of soil humus. In fact, grassing over that portion of the world's cropland now being used to grow grain to feed ruminants would offset fossil fuel emissions appreciably. For example, if the sixteen million acres now being used to grow corn to feed cows in the United States became well-managed pasture, that would remove fourteen billion pounds of carbon from the atmosphere each year, the equivalent of taking four million cars off the road. We seldom focus on farming's role in global warming, but as much as a third of of all the greenhouse gases that human activity has added to the atmosphere can be attributed to the saw and the plow

i have quoted this passage in a few other posts so forgive me if you have seen it before.

 

It's an interesting concept. I wonder if it's disputed at all.

I was reading about the nutritional content of our native flowers and grasses and each has it's own protein, carb etc component so I'm not surprised that the animals are benefited by this diversity instead of residing on a monoculture diet. That, coupled with the fact that native flowers and grasses do not require as much management (irrigation, pesticides etc) as our crops, has me wondering why not many farmers have paid mind to this theory. I would think that it would be very cost effective. All other wildlife would benefit from a conversion of our farms to this method as well.

The book that you reference sounds like a good read to connect one's diet with the environment on a lot of different levels. I don't eat animals so I'm slightly removed from this equation.

 

after you read the book, you will be GREATLY removed from eating meat. SuperSize Me reduced my trips to fast food joints about 90% (still go about twice a month...better than 4-5 times week).

reading this book will make me think twice about eating any kind of processed food. but what gets me is whole foods. chickens, beef, etc. foods i thought previously to be "ok" since they had not been processed. but in reality they have, and after finding out how they are processed, you WILL definitely lose some appetite.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Aug 12 2006, 12:06 PM) [snapback]302155[/snapback]</div>

Interesting hypothesis, but you're missing a couple points: 1) cows create methane, a more potent GWG than CO2, 2) I really doubt grass keeps killing and regrowing its roots - I think it's more likely it uses energy stored in the roots to send up new shoots or add growth to existing shoots (surely this depends in part on the species involved), 3) carbon in the soil will largely be returned to the air during decomposition, ingestion by worms, bugs, and microbes.

I have heard that tall-grass prairies sequester more carbon than forests do (more plant growth). I hadn't heard the same claim about cow pastures. And still somehow this carbon needs to be buried or permanently stored somehow, otherwise it all eventually returns to the atmosphere for another plant to (hopefully) take it in. Nature is great at recycling.

I'd be interested in reading the book where you gathered this information. What is its name? It's definitely true that farming has changed the face of our land, and in a big way, so it could be affecting it. Illinois for instance has lost over 99.5% of its original prairie. I'm also not a big fan of corn - that requires a lot of resources to grow, as far as tractor runs, fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides. Definitely pasture-fed beef is better than feed-lot beef. Fruit and vegetables are better yet.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Aug 14 2006, 12:00 PM)</div>

I've seen numbers (realclimate.org, for one) that give solar variance about 10-30% factor in the current rise in temperatures. Right now we're in the middle of the 11-year solar cycle, so it should be relatively cool for a year or two. A big volcano would also change things. But you can't deny that human activity has pushed up the CO2 levels way out of whack from what we've seen in the last 400,000 years, and that higher CO2 levels are associated with higher global temperatures.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Aug 20 2006, 11:27 PM) [snapback]306591[/snapback]</div>

the book be "The Omnivore's Dilemma: The History of Four Meals" by Michal Pollan.

very good read. gives huge insight to the foods we eat what it does to us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Aug 21 2006, 01:27 AM) [snapback]306591[/snapback]</div>

I find it hard to believe that cows farting has more of a negative impact on Global Warming than human activity I.E. cars and factories. (Not counting agricultural fertilizers and corn vs. grass et al.)

How many cow farts = a year's worth of running an ICE car on average? Anyone?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 21 2006, 07:12 PM) [snapback]307244[/snapback]</div>

It may be they are speaking of cows in a broader sense. The deforestation that goes hand in hand with cattle. The vast amount of grains that are gorwn to feed cattle to produce 1/3 or less energy than would be had if we just ate the grains. Then toss in the expulsion of gas and waste. There are A LOT of cows in this world. A LOT!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 21 2006, 09:25 PM) [snapback]307257[/snapback]</div>

No. It said "cows produce methane, more potent blah blah". Nothing about side effects or contributions.

Again. How can people believe it's all the fault of cow farts and that human activity has contributed nothing to Global Warming?

BTW I think I read that the methane from cow farts is minimal compared to factories and cars/vehicles. And that would be cow farts and burps, sheep farts and burps, goat farts and burps...you get the idea. BTW cows aren't the only ones producing methane. Plenty of methane is produced from landfill, I.E. the dump. And that would be....human activity.

While it may be romantic to blame the humble cow's farts for Global Warming, my money is on the termite.

" What kind of animal has the highest worldwide output of flatus?
Believe it or not, the animal that wins this honor is the humble termite. Because of their diet and digestive processes (with more than the usual microbial assistance), they produce as much methane as human industry. Termite farts are believed to be a major contributor towards global warming."

" Is it true that cow farts contribute to global warming?
Recent research has shown that most methane produced by cows and sheep emerges from the mouth rather than the anus. So one could more accurately say that cow and sheep belches are contributing to global warming. New Zealand researchers are investigating methods of breeding methane-free sheep."

Facts on Farts

What I find is that methane is the #2 contributor to Global Warming behind C02. Cows produce 20% of the methane and methane is resposible for 20% of the Global Warming. Or something like that. The rest is Human Activity.

News forum

Reducing farts in cows, sheep and chickens.

Don't know what we can do about the termites, though.

 

Godiva, that fart facts link is hilarious!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 21 2006, 09:12 PM) [snapback]307244[/snapback]</div>

You kinda missed the point, the context was, is it better for a particular acreage to have forests, grain fields or pasture?

ICE vehicles and factories aren't on this land in question. But human activity is still an integral part of this, since forests would have little human activity associated with them, pasture has some, including the raising, transporting, feeding said cows, and grain fields has more activity (more tractor usage, applying fertilizer). The worst situation, GWG-wise, is to raise corn/grain, cut it down, process it and transport it to feedlots to feed cows packed in in unnatural conditions. You still get the fossil-fuel emissions, plus cow emissions, minus the positive of grass storing carbon to the humus, if that theory is correct. Unfortunately, that's how most beef is produced in the U.S.