Bovine emissions 23 times more damaging than CO2

Bovine emissions 23 times more damaging than

CO2

Danny Huddleston
It appears that our efforts to control C02 emissions may be misguided, as the real culprit in global warming could be cows. The UK’s Daily mail has the story.

Argentine scientists are taking a novel approach to studying global warming – strapping plastic tanks to the backs of cows to collect their burps and farts.

Researchers say the slow digestive system of cows makes them a producer of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that gets far less public attention than carbon dioxide in efforts to fight global warming.
[...]

Berra said the researchers ‘never thought’ a cow weighing 550 kg (1,210 lb) could produce 800 to 1,000 litres (28 to 35 cubic feet) of emissions each day.

At least 10 cows are being studied, Berra said, including some in a corral whose burps are collected in yellow balloons hanging from the roof.

Greenhouse gases are widely blamed for causing global warming. Methane, researchers say, is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere and can be found in animal waste, landfills, coal mines and leaking natural gas pipes.

Not to worry, the scientists are working on a new diet for the cows which should reduce emissions by 25%.

Be sure and check out the pictures in the article, the cows look very stylish with the big pink plastic tanks on their backs.

I would file this story the same place you filed the one where Sheryl Crow proposes that everyone use only one square of tissue in the bathroom.

Posted at 10:17 AM | Email | Permalink

Global Warming: The Courage To Do Nothing

Randall Hoven
Is the scientific debate over on global warming?  Not according to the American Physical Society* in this year’s July’s issue of Physics and Society .

“With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.  Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion.  This editor invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con.  Christopher Monckton responded …”  [Emphasis added.]

 

And what did Lord Monckton say?

 

“Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained.  More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.”

 

He examined specific assumptions of the IPCC cited computer models and found that, even using the same models but with more justifiable assumptions, carbon dioxide is not a critical threat to global temperatures.

 

“Theoretically, empirically, and in the literature that we have extensively cited, each of the values we have chosen as our central estimate is arguably more justifiable – and is certainly no less justifiable – than the substantially higher value selected by the IPCC. Accordingly, it is very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration T_S will rise not by the 3.26 °K suggested by the IPCC, but by <1 °K.”

 

He concluded with

 

“If the concluding equation in this analysis is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated.  There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001.  Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.“  [Emphasis added.]

 

*According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society, the American Physical Society was founded in 1899 and is the second largest association of physicists in the world, with over 40,000 members.

Posted at 10:37 AM | Email | Permalink

Global Warming: The Courage To Do Nothing

Randall Hoven
Is the scientific debate over on global warming?  Not according to the American Physical Society* in this year’s July’s issue of Physics and Society .

“With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.  Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion.  This editor invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con.  Christopher Monckton responded …”  [Emphasis added.]

 

And what did Lord Monckton say?

 

“Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained.  More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.”

 

He examined specific assumptions of the IPCC cited computer models and found that, even using the same models but with more justifiable assumptions, carbon dioxide is not a critical threat to global temperatures.

 

“Theoretically, empirically, and in the literature that we have extensively cited, each of the values we have chosen as our central estimate is arguably more justifiable – and is certainly no less justifiable – than the substantially higher value selected by the IPCC. Accordingly, it is very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration T_S will rise not by the 3.26 °K suggested by the IPCC, but by <1 °K.”

 

He concluded with

 

“If the concluding equation in this analysis is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated.  There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001.  Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.“  [Emphasis added.]

 

*According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society, the American Physical Society was founded in 1899 and is the second largest association of physicists in the world, with over 40,000 members.

Posted at 10:37 AM | Email | Permalink