Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
oren tal

cow , car and CO2

Recommended Posts

no. i don't think so. cars emit a heck of a lot of CO2 compared to animals. theres also a lot more of them. the problem with cows is the methane they produce which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a start, cars emit carbon monoxide (CO) in quite large amounts whereas cows scarcely produce any.

If you are talking about CO2 then you have to think about another aspect of it. Cows (an people too) produce a fair amount of CO2. On the other hand, all the CO2 a cow produced was CO2 in the atmosphere recently. Then it was turned into grass by photosynthesis and some of it was subsequently released, in the long run, all that CO2 will end up back in the atmosphere.

The car on the other hand is producing CO2 that was locked away from the atmosphere millions of years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

insane_alien and John Cuthber Thank for your answers.However I found a few scientific article that claim that cows release more CO2 than cars.Here is the link: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

I will very thank if you tell me if it is lie or true.I just don't trust on every thing I read.You supplied excellent answers , especially John Cuthber. I will be very thanks if you will answer consider that article and if it is wrong (the article).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the article is valid. but it only mentions cows producing 18% of greenhouse gases without being specific to CO2. It also looks as if it has been adjusted to include the potency of the gases emitted as well.

 

It is actually quite difficult to estimate what fraction of greenhouse gases come from which sources as you would have to analyse a large percentage of livestock world wide and car usage. It's some where in the ball park anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

less than 1 % of the atmosphere is CO2. mankind is said to produce about 5% of that one percent or .05 of the total. nature, which cows are included in produce 95% of that 1% or .95% of the total. 77% is nitrogen, 21% oxygen and all others two, which in the worst of times CO2 is 1%...

 

the latest counter to GW, presented by Mr. Limbaugh, is that termites produce far more harmful elements into the air than all mankind. keep in mind some one has figured out by weight, there are also more ants on the planet than man.

 

many things in total produce more harmful things into the air, than man kind and many things that seem harmful are not harmful at all. CO2 of all things is the least harmful to anything and provides the ingredients for plant life to produce the oxygen we breath. since oxygen is 21% and CO2 is one percent, i fail to understand any problem...i am not a plant which that 22% oxygen is very toxic to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

umm the arths atmosphere only has 0.04% CO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_atmosphere) and cows do NOT produce 95% of that. humans breathing probably puts out a similar amount of CO2 as cows (we out number them 6:1) and then theres all our cars and stuff.

 

oh and 96.34% of jackson33's statistics are made up on the spot with no data :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and 96.34% of jackson33's statistics are made up on the spot with no data :P

 

But don't worry, he uses Dr. Rush Limbaugh as his fact checker, so you know they're kosher. After all, we all know that he's a certified environmental scientist without an agenda. [/sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the best you all can do? Poke fun of a misguided poster instead of straightening him out with courtesy and science?

 

Try again, please. Insane Alien started in the right direction in the first paragraph of post #7. Please continue in that vein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know more about how can we solve the climate change and if cow more responsible than us to the release of CO2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that the best you all can do? Poke fun of a misguided poster instead of straightening him out with courtesy and science?

 

Try again, please. Insane Alien started in the right direction in the first paragraph of post #7. Please continue in that vein.

 

It would be a courtesy to provide sources for statistics.

 

I don't understand the condescending attitude, Pangloss... Don't tell me you've never poked fun at another poster before.

 

And, if anything, my post was making fun of Rush Limbaugh as a source, not the original poster. So, please don't make a big deal out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I would like to know more about how can we solve the climate change and if cow more responsible than us to the release of CO2"

We could stop farming cows but, since cows (and sheep etc) can eat grass which we cannot eat, there might be a problem feeding the world. Also, I like beef and I don't own a car so I'd obviously rather give up cars than cattle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I would like to know more about how can we solve the climate change and if cow more responsible than us to the release of CO2"

We could stop farming cows but, since cows (and sheep etc) can eat grass which we cannot eat, there might be a problem feeding the world. Also, I like beef and I don't own a car so I'd obviously rather give up cars than cattle.

 

Or a better option... burn off the methane produced by cows to generate the electricity to run the farms.

 

Also, to make this point YET again, in terms of biology, cows don't produce any significantly different amount of CO2. They do produce more methane than humans, which is NOT Co2, though it is also a greenhouse gas. Methane is actually a better greenhouse gas than CO2, in the sense that is can trap more heat. However, there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane, so it would not be very useful to curb methane emmisions for the sole purpose of stopping global warming. Relatively speaking, CO2 is still more 'important' than methane.

 

Actually, I beleive the strongest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, because of it's ability to trap heat, and it's high content in the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"However, there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane, so it would not be very useful to curb methane emmisions for the sole purpose of stopping global warming."

 

Erm? Isn't that a good reason for limiting release of methane (and the CFCs too).

There's lots of CO2 in the air. IR at any wavelength where CO2 absorb meets lots of CO2, so little gets through. A bit more CO2 doesn't matter so much because it is already absorbing all the IR that it could absorb.

Methane is much less common so the absorbtion of the sun's IR isn't so nearly complete. More methane means more absorbtion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"However, there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane, so it would not be very useful to curb methane emmisions for the sole purpose of stopping global warming."

 

Erm? Isn't that a good reason for limiting release of methane (and the CFCs too).

There's lots of CO2 in the air. IR at any wavelength where CO2 absorb meets lots of CO2, so little gets through. A bit more CO2 doesn't matter so much because it is already absorbing all the IR that it could absorb.

Methane is much less common so the absorbtion of the sun's IR isn't so nearly complete. More methane means more absorbtion.

 

True, but is methane release significant enough for this to apply? I'd have to see some numbers, but I didn't think it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
umm the arths atmosphere only has 0.04% CO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_atmosphere) and cows do NOT produce 95% of that. humans breathing probably puts out a similar amount of CO2 as cows (we out number them 6:1) and then theres all our cars and stuff.

 

oh and 96.34% of jackson33's statistics are made up on the spot with no data :P

 

well, cows are part of nature (which i did say) and nature produces 95% of all that .004% which is in the atmosphere. your elaborating my point. your might have noted the fluctuations in CO2, are the highest of what constitutes this atmosphere. at least the troposhere....

 

no my statistics are as general as any ones. i make up none, am occasionally wrong but rarely far off. think thats what bugs you...

 

Ecoli; Rush, only relays what he reads or discusses what a caller mentions. he has 20 million people, who will correct him in seconds. i do use some of what he says and will continue. in my opinion, his views are much better than the overall public media, which gets things wrong much more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ecoli; Rush, only relays what he reads or discusses what a caller mentions. he has 20 million people, who will correct him in seconds. i do use some of what he says and will continue. in my opinion, his views are much better than the overall public media, which gets things wrong much more often.

 

your original quote

 

"the latest counter to GW, presented by Mr. Limbaugh, is that termites produce far more harmful elements into the air than all mankind. keep in mind some one has figured out by weight, there are also more ants on the planet than man. "

 

I don't mean to discount Rush's stats simply because he's Rush Limbaugh... but this statement has lead me to believe that the ideas you are presenting (and claiming are his) are bs. First of all, what are these elements that termites are producing, and why are they more harmful than humans. And, why do you seem to refer to ants and termites and being the same insect?

 

Also, you need to make a distinction between the CO2 produced my man, biologically (which, I'd be willing to believe is less than ants produce) and CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels (which I'd have difficultly believing is less than what ants produce biologically).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to insanes reference, any amount of methane, is called a trace and CO2 is .004...dont know why any one would need figures however, since a drive by at the local feed lot, would give you a hint...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ecoli; the statement R.L. made and what i quoted, was harmful elements, not specifically CO2. he does, give a source, when reading an article but frankly i don't copy down each reference. you will find any information i offer as his, on his site. he is often quoted in your media, rarely correctly and never with the source he give. i pretend to be no better then that media.

 

for some reason you seem to be nit-picking general discussion. i am sure if you like, a google search will get some breakdowns in how much of each chemical, each member of any family can, does or is estimated to produce.

to me its of no importance, nature has means to cope with it and we or mankind's efforts are creating no additional problems.

 

i am compelled to mention, that i do not oppose conservation or the concept that man could live a little better way with regards to nature. what this leads to however is government dictation or mandates which i do oppose adamantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ecoli; the statement R.L. made and what i quoted, was harmful elements, not specifically CO2. he does, give a source, when reading an article but frankly i don't copy down each reference. you will find any information i offer as his, on his site. he is often quoted in your media, rarely correctly and never with the source he give. i pretend to be no better then that media.

 

for some reason you seem to be nit-picking general discussion. i am sure if you like, a google search will get some breakdowns in how much of each chemical, each member of any family can, does or is estimated to produce.

to me its of no importance, nature has means to cope with it and we or mankind's efforts are creating no additional problems.

 

However, in this case, you are making this claim and you have to provide the evidence directly.

I would like to see this study RL is basing his opinions off of.

 

to me its of no importance, nature has means to cope with it and we or mankind's efforts are creating no additional problems.

this statement is very far from being proven, and the exact opposite seems likely to be thecase, according to literature I have read. Please provide the info which you are basing this claim on.

 

i am compelled to mention, that i do not oppose conservation or the concept that man could live a little better way with regards to nature. what this leads to however is government dictation or mandates which i do oppose adamantly.

I never said that you didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im new here, and I can see that the liberal minds have already started to change the debate away from the facts about Climate and Co2. Ive found that it really helps when people stick to the science on this topic.

First of all, all we are talking about is a .06 C degree warming over the last 100 years. That is what the "global warming" side has claimed and I'll just agree for now.

As far as the green house effect that has made the planet livable, without it we would have a frozen planet with virtually no life. The greenhouse "effect" is made up of 95% water vapor, 3.62% of Co2, .360% methane, .950% of Nitrous Oxide,

and .072% of other gases.

Each gas has its own properties and ability to do its job as a greenhouse gas. Next we apply the % of potency to each gas. Such as methane is 21 times more effective than Co2, nitrous oxide is 310 times the potency of Co2.

This is the properties of each gas (heat retention potency)

 

Co2 with a value of 1 = 72.369% of 5%

Methane with a value of 21 = 7.199% of 5%

Nitrous oxide with a value of 310 = 19.000% 0f 5%

(Other gases with variable values) =1.432% of 5%

 

The man made contributions to the greenhouse gasses are:

Water Vapor 0.001%

Co2 3.225% of all Co2

Methane 18.338% of all Methane

Nitrous oxide 4.933% of all nitrous oxide

Other gases 65.711% ofall other gases

Then you must figure man's actual contribution to the "effect"

If you can figure this out great, or look over the graphs and info here:

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon; Although I am not affiliated with this forum and an occasional poster at best, please accept my warm welcome to the forum...Your above site and your *profile site* are both good reading material, for both the pro and con, man caused GW campers.

 

Water vapor, no doubt has played a large role in global weather cycles over time. As mentioned on other threads, the problem is factually justifying an argument with out some statistical record. There is none and even today its hard to express an opinion, where 70% of the planets weather activity is over oceans. Tree cores do offer some (growing seasons) indication, or should, but I have yet to find an analysis.

 

Anyway hope you hang around awhile and give us few MMGW skeptics a little help on these issues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Jackson, I have an opinion about the cow and car and C02..sort of....as some have pointed out Cows put out more Methane than C02. They are part of man's Co2 in the figures up above, but is not enough to change weather like the hot southern summer this year. Only the jet stream was changed. That is because of deep water in oceans coming up to the surface which causes El Nino. However, last year El Nino went farther north and may have left more warm water behind as it left. Or the POD Pacific Decadal Oscillation is at work. http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ and has been part of this. This would have pushed the jet stream farther north and other areas got more precipitation and clouds than the South. My opinion is that this warmer water causes some of or most of the Arctic melting. We will see some of the Arctic come back during winter. But it has been changing forever, melting then the ice comes back. The Arctic cover of ice isnt very thick. So nature has changed it often over million of years. Since the Arctic air temps are too cold to melt ice, most melting comes from water temps. Also you can imagine if the Arctic melts thru we will have a new big ocean that has a another weather system that flows down thru the northern hemisphere, not only causing more snow and ice cover it eventually fills and covers the whole Arctic again. But we may end up with another little ice age over the northern Hemisphere when this whole natural process takes place. That may be sooner than you think.

Okay back to Car Co2, its just not a pollutant like they want to claim. It's one of the elements! Without it life would not exist. The small amount man puts into the upper atmosphere can only have caused .0017 of one degree of warming in the last 100 years. But one natural event would wipe that .0017 degree out in just one of those 100 years. We cannot effect the climate temperature unless we control the sun. oceans, and clouds. One thing I have to warn too...climate is a collection of at least 30 years. It is not one summer in one year in one small area of one country. It isnt a 5 year trend or a 10 year trend. It isnt drought conditions. We found that the temperature is quite level if we collect 100 years of record. So dont be thinking you can chnge the summer to winter by changing to an electric car. Its good to be conservative with resources we use, but it won't change the climate so dont be fooled by the claims of Al Gore and his followers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans breath out and the total CO2 is no more than 6% of that total, according to Britannica. Cows I am assuming may produce more poundage, but the rate probably not much more. As you indicate, Methane in the atmosphere is more efficient in heat retention, but does degrade at a much faster rate, than CO2. (8years vs 100year). Cars or anything using crude oil based fuels, produce 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon burned, under normal circumstances.

 

Last Thursday, Jason Lewis (filling in for Limbaugh) read an article from some newspaper telling of an impending Global heat wave, as the North pole was melting, where snow was is now rock and dirt. On Friday Limbaugh read another article, much along the same line. Lewis's article was written in the late 1890's and Limbaugh's in 1929. El Nino, may well play a role in temporary conditions above the Arctic Circle, however there is probably more involved than the water temperatures off the west coast of North America. For instance early snow falls will still force temperatures down further south, even with a Nino condition, IMO.

 

You might like reading some of Dr. Roy Spencer's work on moistures and the GW issue. His current thoughts, which I question, are on the lack of Hurricane/Cyclone activity which he feels will lead to "Super Cyclones", based on lack of circulation of warm waters, which these storms create. Water is naturally cooled from below as water temperatures drop off by depth. At least this is my opinion. Spencer is with the University of Alabama.

 

With my cyclical view of weather and atmospheric conditions, I tend to lean toward natural causes. That is nature evolved to what are current conditions. These conditions have cycled to extremes in the past, from a total Ice planet 7-800 million years ago to a virtual tropical planet, some say during the Dino period 240-65 million years ago. With extremes or cycles much greater than today and up to about 55 million years ago. From there the extremes have decreased to what has allowed humans/animal/plant life to thrive. This should not IMO be totally based on Solar Activity, Electro magnetic fields or anything which the outer three atmospheres could handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, all we are talking about is a .06 C degree warming over the last 100 years. That is what the "global warming" side has claimed and I'll just agree for now.

 

0.6º C, perhaps?

 

 

As far as the green house effect that has made the planet livable, without it we would have a frozen planet with virtually no life. The greenhouse "effect" is made up of 95% water vapor, 3.62% of Co2, .360% methane, .950% of Nitrous Oxide,

and .072% of other gases.

Each gas has its own properties and ability to do its job as a greenhouse gas. Next we apply the % of potency to each gas. Such as methane is 21 times more effective than Co2, nitrous oxide is 310 times the potency of Co2.

This is the properties of each gas (heat retention potency)

 

Co2 with a value of 1 = 72.369% of 5%

Methane with a value of 21 = 7.199% of 5%

Nitrous oxide with a value of 310 = 19.000% 0f 5%

(Other gases with variable values) =1.432% of 5%

 

The man made contributions to the greenhouse gasses are:

Water Vapor 0.001%

Co2 3.225% of all Co2

Methane 18.338% of all Methane

Nitrous oxide 4.933% of all nitrous oxide

Other gases 65.711% ofall other gases

Then you must figure man's actual contribution to the "effect"

If you can figure this out great, or look over the graphs and info here:

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

 

I'll assume the rest of these numbers are correct, since the important point is that they are being used to answer the wrong question. It's certainly true that with no greenhouse effect (no atmosphere) the earth would be a lifeless mass, colder on average, and with huge temperature differences between night and day. But nobody is advocating getting rid of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect gives us something like a 30 ºC increase in average temperature, along with a moderation of temperature extremes, and we need that. But global warming is not synonymous with the greenhhouse effect. GW refers to a change in the magnitude of the greenhouse effect.

 

One has to make the comparisons with a baseline value (for temperature and CO2 concentrations) for global warming, because "warming" is a relative term, and you need to define, "relative to what?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.