quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:
How does this compare not just to the last 100 years, but the entire history of the earth?

Yes yes Bucky climate has been different in the past and will be different in the future. The point is, the RATE OF CHANGE, the rate of change we are currently experiencing is UNPRESIDENTED in the last 800,000 years spanning four major named glacial/interglacial periods.

The type of climate change we would normally expect given past climate history, as seem in reconstructions of past cycles, at this point in a typical interglacial period, in particular as highlighted by polar ice cap melting, would typically have taken many hundreds of years and more likely thousands of years to occur, if not driven by the excess anthropomorphically generated CO2. We are experiencing it in, decades, not in thousands or even hundreds of years, but decades, orders of magnitude faster.

So here is at broad strokes a picture of what the timing of glacial/interglacial climate looked like going back about 800,000 years with ppm co2. The highest co2 concentration noted in the past seems to be about 300. We are currently at about 395 ppm co2; I have to say that the word unprecedented does seem to apply in this case, given the data shown below.

[1]

[1] Data sets used in production of graph

If you feel this graph and the data behind it are in factual error please do provide specifics as to which dataset(s) used in the production of the graph are erroneous and by how much and for what reasons as well as providing alternative reasons and explanations for these errors.

quote:

So here is at broad strokes a picture of what the timing of glacial/interglacial climate looked like going back about 800,000 years with ppm co2. The highest co2 concentration noted in the past seems to be about 300. We are currently at about 395 ppm co2; I have to say that the word unprecedented does seem to apply in this case, given the data shown below.

Them darn cows, when they **** look what happens. Larry, how is that hoax coming. You still making a good living off the Al Gore sky is falling line?

Thanks Larry. You understand that I look at these claims with a sceptical eye. If we simply look at the graph and nothing else, we see that we are at the beginning of a regular cylical episode with the rate of rise and the amplitude looking thus far in the graph about the way it has during the beginning of the most recent upward cycle 100,000 years ago. The level that you mention in your text is obviously above the levels on the graph, and it would be interesting to see that graph updated with current levels with data taken consistant to the way the data was taken for the rest of the graph.
I think a good number of people would like to see a reduction in the amount of fossil fuels being consumed these days for various reasons. The question is and has been: How urgent is the problem? Followed by: What can we realisitically do about it if we indeed are creating a measurable portion of the problem. Most scientists even in the field when presented with the question of how much of the increase humans are responsible for respond that it is really hard to say with any accuracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike English:

quote:

So here is at broad strokes a picture of what the timing of glacial/interglacial climate looked like going back about 800,000 years with ppm co2. The highest co2 concentration noted in the past seems to be about 300. We are currently at about 395 ppm co2; I have to say that the word unprecedented does seem to apply in this case, given the data shown below.

Them darn cows, when they **** look what happens. Larry, how is that hoax coming. You still making a good living off the Al Gore sky is falling line?

Like many right-wing extremists, particularly those inhabiting this little bit of the web; you seem completely incapable of any discourse more profound than that of a highly ignorant garden verity troll. My profound sympathies to you.

Would you care to discuss the contribution made by ruminants, in particular bovines, to climate change, as regards their production of methane?

Here are a couple of nice articles ( Article 1 Article 2 ) you might wish to read, or are these hoax's as well?

Once again my sympathies on your profound ignorance.

quote:

Once again my sympathies on your profound ignorance.

Thank you and I see you still suffer from Al Gore

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath: Like many right-wing extremists, particularly those inhabiting this little bit of the web; you seem completely incapable of any discourse more profound than that of a highly ignorant garden verity troll. My profound sympathies to you.

Would you care to discuss the contribution made by ruminants, in particular bovines, to climate change, as regards their production of methane?

Here are a couple of nice articles ( Article 1 Article 2 ) you might wish to read, or are these hoax's as well?

Once again my sympathies on your profound ignorance.

Larry,

Either you are not reading what you link to thoroughly or your reading comprehension is suffering. You are being duped by bogus studies that have no historically significant data to support their assertions. The idea that cattle account for any significant increase in the levels of atmospheric methane is so devoid of facts that it's laughable.

From your own link:

quote:

The presence of methane in the atmosphere has been known since the 1940’s when Migeotte [90] observed strong absorption bands in the infra-red region of the solar spectrum which were attributed to the presence of atmospheric methane. Numerous measurements since have demonstrated the existence of an average temporal increase of atmospheric methane during the period 1980–1990 of about 18 ppbv (parts per billion per volume) per year [119]. The current rate of increase in atmospheric methane concentration has subsequently slowed to about 10 ppbv per year [129], but the reason for this is uncertain [152].

So we have data from all the way back to 1940 and the increases have been measured in Part Per Billion. And never mind that the biggest source of methane is from natural wetlands... by a substantial margin! Gee, I wonder what impact the green movement's active attempt to increase the amount of "wetlands" around the North America has had on atmospheric methane. Nah, it's the cows' fault! I guess those millions of buffalo that roamed the central plains as late as the 19th century must of had a profound effect too!?

quote:

So we have data from all the way back to 1940 and the increases have been measured in Part Per Billion.

I have witnessed some far ts that could probably bump the needle regionally. I will never pull that finger again.

quote:

Originally posted by stanman:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath: Like many right-wing extremists, particularly those inhabiting this little bit of the web; you seem completely incapable of any discourse more profound than that of a highly ignorant garden verity troll. My profound sympathies to you.

Would you care to discuss the contribution made by ruminants, in particular bovines, to climate change, as regards their production of methane?

Here are a couple of nice articles ( Article 1 Article 2 ) you might wish to read, or are these hoax's as well?

Once again my sympathies on your profound ignorance.

Larry,

Either you are not reading what you link to thoroughly or your reading comprehension is suffering. You are being duped by bogus studies that have no historically significant data to support their assertions. The idea that cattle account for any significant increase in the levels of atmospheric methane is so devoid of facts that it's laughable.

From your own link:

quote:

The presence of methane in the atmosphere has been known since the 1940’s when Migeotte [90] observed strong absorption bands in the infra-red region of the solar spectrum which were attributed to the presence of atmospheric methane. Numerous measurements since have demonstrated the existence of an average temporal increase of atmospheric methane during the period 1980–1990 of about 18 ppbv (parts per billion per volume) per year [119]. The current rate of increase in atmospheric methane concentration has subsequently slowed to about 10 ppbv per year [129], but the reason for this is uncertain [152].

So we have data from all the way back to 1940 and the increases have been measured in Part Per Billion. And never mind that the biggest source of methane is from natural wetlands... by a substantial margin! Gee, I wonder what impact the green movement's active attempt to increase the amount of "wetlands" around the North America has had on atmospheric methane. Nah, it's the cows' fault! I guess those millions of buffalo that roamed the central plains as late as the 19th century must of had a profound effect too!?

Another nimrod dips his oar into the waters, paddling in tight little circles as always.

Why indeed wetlands are the largest single "natural" contributor of CH3 to the atmosphere as of the writing of this article at 265 Teragrams per year. Shall we tote up all the "man made" or man induced contributions of CH3 to the atmosphere?

Rice 110Tg
Oil and gas drilling 95Tg
Digestion in domestic animals 75Tg
Biomass burring 40Tg
Landfills 40Tg
Coal mining 35Tg

If my woefully inadequate math skills haven't failed me entirely those anthropogenic sources total 395Tg, which is significantly more, 67% more than, the wetlands contribution, be that as it may. Apparently your selective use of the data as provided in this paper allows you to on the one hand come to the conclusion that a source is insignificant even when that source is almost 30% as large as the source you yourself site, apparently as highly significant, and on the other hand dismiss the article as a whole as having "no historically significant data to support it." You can't have it both ways dipstick.

The article states the following,

"The current global average atmospheric concentration of methane is 1720 ppbv, more than double its pre-industrial value of 700 ppbv [8]. The concentration of methane in the Northern hemisphere is about 100 ppbv more than in the Southern hemisphere, indicating either greater source or lower sink strength in the Northern hemisphere [152].

The rising concentration of methane is correlated with increasing populations and currently about 70% of methane production arises from anthropogenic sources and the remainder from natural sources."

So apparently your statement that "And never mind that the biggest source of methane is from natural wetlands" is a bit of a prevarication designed to support your position even though the text of the article clearly states that all of the anthropogenic sources are indeed significantly larger, than natural sources.

As to the bald faced statement that "cattle" do not contribute significantly, it is ludicrous on the face of it. That was Mike English's attempt at humor I suppose, he apparently not knowing that most of the CH3 produce in ruminates is not via flatus but eructate. The article speaks of "digestion of domestic animals" i.e. cows, pigs, and horses, and I believe as I otherwise specified ruminants. This does not even take into consideration the CH3 produced as a result of other animal waste, another 25Tg.

As a little aside that some might find amusing, some people have put forth the hypothesis that the mythical English dragons of yore might have come into popular being when some middle age fool, the likes of Greg or Mike, was out in a pasture one night and one of his cows belched near his torch. Woof! Methane powered flaming horned monsters, and dragons were born into the human mind.

Finely only two dimwits like Greg and Mike would suggest that ruminates (cattle) were anything other than one of the many components of the overall picture of climate change.

P.S. Mike I think it is you who "suffers from Al Gore", seems that is your one and only response to everything. Maybe you should seek professional help for this obsession you seem to have with Mr. Gore.

i think i,m gonna got out to the shop and release some frustrations . its amazing how well freon will cool a hot beer . heck a 25lb bottle will almost keep a 12 pack cold

quote:

dirtpimp
DRR Sportsman
Picture of dirtpimp

Posted July 09, 2012 07:22 PM Hide Post
i think i,m gonna got out to the shop and release some frustrations . its amazing how well freon will cool a hot beer . heck a 25lb bottle will almost keep a 12 pack cold Ice Cream

You have stolen my heart with this post!

Just released by NOAA....the last 12 month period was the hottest ever recorded from July 2011 - June 2012.

Every state in the lower 48 (except Washington) had an average of a 3.2 degree increase in that 12 months.

cv , i,m thinkin of a new invention . ever seen the hats that hold a drink on each side of your head with a long straw ? thinkin of modifying one side for a can of freon and running a stainless line from the can to a nitrous spray bar that will be directed toward the drink can . cold drink and cool head . kinda need a cool head when shooting off the potatoe cannon with hair spray .

here ya shortman fixed it for ya :

If you feel this invention and the data behind it are in factual error please do provide specifics as to which dataset(s) used in the production of the invention are erroneous and by how much and for what reasons as well as providing alternative reasons and explanations for these errors

quote:

Originally posted by announcer:
Just released by NOAA....the last 12 month period was the hottest ever recorded from July 2011 - June 2012.

Every state in the lower 48 (except Washington) had an average of a 3.2 degree increase in that 12 months.

LOL. Remarkable.

What Larry the "intellectual giant" fails to realize is that neither I nor Mr. English are disagreeing with the idea that cattle add to the quantity of methane in the atmosphere.

What I'm stating in my educated opinion is that the effect of cow rumen is inconsequential. And there is no long term historical data to substantiate that it is consequential.

Larry the "intellectual giant's" own link proves this by noting that the data only goes back to the 1940's, yet it claims pre-industrial age data. Wasn't the pre-industrial age prior to 1900 at a minimum? This FACT leaves the hypothetical figures used to be suspect. At least to a person using any reasonable thought process and not sucking from whatever global warming alarmist teat is shoved in their mouth. And never mind the fact that the data that is provided shows that rice production is as large a source as both domestic animals and animal waste combined. Also never mind that those figures are for ALL domestic animals and ALL animal waste. What percentage of these figures do cows actually account for?

Not only are these studies at least 13 years old with data that's over 20 years old, but Larry the "intellectual giant" completely ignores my quoted statement about the unexplained reduction in the rate of increase by nearly half. A fact that is glossed over completely by the one study in an effort to proceed with its agenda.

Larry, where is the data from the 1940's that details the percentage of atmospheric methane attributable to cow rumen? Or better yet, what was the consequential effect of increasing the amount of atmospheric methane from 0.8 parts per million by volume to 1.72 parts per million by volume? I can't seem to find where the direct effect of methane on global warming is detailed in the studies you linked.

In closing, I will state (for the umpteenth time) that I believe we should be good stewards of the planet and do all we can to minimize our impact. But running off a cliff because some "scientist" with an agenda and needing grant money publishes a report based on dubious hypothesis and data is the act of lunacy.

My question to Larry is: What should we be doing as a nation to avoid the problems you observe? Will those actions help much without the rest of the world participating? What is the solution you propose?

quote:

Originally posted by announcer:
Just released by NOAA....the last 12 month period was the hottest ever recorded from July 2011 - June 2012.

Every state in the lower 48 (except Washington) had an average of a 3.2 degree increase in that 12 months.

Surely couldn't have anything to do with the massive increase in solar flare activity on the sun!? Nah, it's all man's or cows' fault.

Greg, keep in mind that the "Giant" posted on here that he was making money off the global warming hoax.


He also needs some humor in his life.... But then again, He believed Al Gore.

Larry the would-be "intellectual giant" is the poster child for being a product of his environment. He swallowed the liberal higher education institution hyperbole hook line and sinker. And he can't shake his original religious experience regardless of the realities of the real world. He would rather argue manipulable charts and numbers as opposed to focusing on valid solutions. i.e. Bucky's latest, and repeated, request to focus on a workable solution. Sorry Larry, an observation to blatant to ignore.

These whack job greenies are a hoot!
Apparently they've still never heard of the East Anglican E-mails that totally exposed the sham and scam the "man-made global warming hoax" is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Surely couldn't have anything to do with the massive increase in solar flare activity on the sun!?

Man causes solar flare activity.


Wind farms cause climate change. There's no such thing as free energy. Studies have conclusively shown that the turbines of wind farms slow down winds, disrupting the natural patterns of isobars, creating greater disparities between high and low pressure systems, which generates a cycle of high temperatures and droughts that are only pushed out by increasingly violent storms.