Saturday October 24, 2009, 11:08 am
now this is something new and shocking....

Saturday October 24, 2009, 11:30 am
Guilt...feel the guilt. Everything you do is evil, especially animal husbandry.

Why do you keep a pet? It uses as much CO2 as an SUV. Pay your carbon taxes, get sterilized and die quickly for Gaia.

Saturday October 24, 2009, 11:43 am
Wrong end; cows actually burp their greenhouse gases.

Saturday October 24, 2009, 11:51 am
Thank you, Cher--it's an often overlooked FACT, not mention we're so darn wasteful in both the rearing and consumption of animals for food. okok meat IS murder---and we will surely pay the price for it.
Namaste! xo

Saturday October 24, 2009, 12:13 pm
I see you haven't been around cows much. Gas comes from both ends, but no matter where it comes from...CO2 and methane don't change climate. The sun is the prime driver of climate and when you finally get that...you can be free of this incredible scam.

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/piers/Solar_influence_by_Piers_Corbyn-01.html

Saturday October 24, 2009, 12:26 pm
You see nothing then obviously, I wasn't going for one-upmanship I was merely relaying a fact.
I've worked in the dairy industry for several years and I know what I'm talking about; I stand by what I said. The vast majority of methane etc. eminates from their mouths.
Here in NZ where we have a surfeit of livestock; our greenhouse gases from that stock exceed those from our motor vehicles. Besides aren't you usually in denial about all this?

Saturday October 24, 2009, 12:51 pm
"Gas comes from both ends, but no matter where it comes from...CO2 and methane don't change climate. The sun is the prime driver of climate and when you finally get that...you can be free of this incredible scam."

Assuming something that is false gets you nowhere. Have you ever learned how greenhouse gases are supposed to work? Have you ever experimented to disprove the supposed heat retaining properties of greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane? If not, then you don't know what you are talking about.

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/carbon-dioxide-and-its-greenhouse-effect/

{{{Global warming denialists claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) is nothing more than a beneficial trace gas that plants need to make food, and thus the increase in it over the past few decades is nothing to worry about. Let’s look at all the relevant facts:

CO2 makes up about 380 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere.
CO2 is essential for plants to do photosynthesis.
CO2 is opaque to infrared radiation, thus making it a greenhouse gas.
CO2 makes up most of the atmosphere of Venus, which has the worst greenhouse effect.
CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air in general, thus it would tend to be lower in the atmosphere than the nitrogen and oxygen that makes up most of it.
In one cubic meter of Earth’s atmosphere at ground level the number of molecules is about ten to the 23rd power. (That’s 1 followed by 23 zero’s !!!)
Let’s do some basic math. Ten to the 23rd power divided by a million (ten to the 6th power) is ten to the 17th power. So if CO2 is indeed 380 ppm, that means there are 38 times ten to the 18th power molecules of CO2 in one cubic meter of air, or 38,000,000,000,000,000,000.

The troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere where most of its weather occures, has an average depth of about 17 km (10 miles) in the middle latitudes. A kilometer is 1000 meters. So when we multiply (38 times ten to the 18th power) by (17 times ten to the 3rd power), we get about 65 times ten to the 22nd power. Obviously, the actual amount of CO2 in a column of air 17 km tall, one meter wide and one meter long would be less, due to CO2 concentrating more in the lower levels as noted before, but this is enough to show that CO2’s designation as a “trace gas” means in no way that it cannot have a profound influence on climate. It can because the actual number of CO2 molecules is so great. Only the inability of some people to grasp huge numbers makes them think that any gas that has less than 1% of the atmosphere is therefore insignificant. So it stands to reason that ANY increase in CO2 also leads to an increase in atmospheric temperatures.

Another thing to consider is how serious the greenhouse effect of Earth’s atmosphere really is. Without it, Earth’s average temperature would be about -18 degrees C, which is about 32 degrees C different from Earth’s actual average temperature (14 degrees C). Again, people who are not scientifically trained have difficulty grasping this, since they think of temperatures below “room temperture” (18 to 24 degrees C) as being cold. But in fact, it is quite warm compared to most of the universe. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, a leftover remnant of the Big Bang, is about 2.7 degrees above absolute zero, which is itself about −273 degrees C. Thus an object recieving radiation from no other source would still have a temperature of -270.45 degrees C. The Earth recieves radiation from the Sun that by itself adds about 252 degrees C to its temperature. That’s a LOT of heat! The greenhouse effect adds only about 1/8th more heat to Earth. But that is still enough to make the difference between a frigid, lifeless planet and one with oceans filled with life.

Still another thing to consider is that it can take only one degree difference in average temperature over several decades to turn a glacier into iceless land or open water. When water ice reaches its melting point, it ALL turns into liquid, thus the loss of a glacier at a certain location would mean a profound difference there. Imagine what the melting and disappearance of an entire polar ice cap would be! It might take decades or even centuries for the polar ice caps to melt as a result of global warming, but unless it is reversed, the melting is inevitable!}}}

And yes, the same issues apply to ALL greenhouse gases, including methane.

Saturday October 24, 2009, 2:01 pm
so they eat up our food supply at one end, poison our atmosphere from the other. yet we raise more and more livestock. could say they got us coming and going. and we are the smart ones?

Saturday October 24, 2009, 2:22 pm
Ms. foot just tries to act and be smarter than anyone else...thats all..

Big gorilly Hugs

Cher the caption should have said "does this make my butt look big"...LMAO

Saturday October 24, 2009, 2:49 pm
"I Love My Carbon Dioxide" - another impecable source of "science" from Judy LMAO!!! LMAO!!! (a denialist BLOG is not science - at least in the real world)....

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

The skeptic argument...
In 2005, the BBC reported the sun was more active over the past 60 years than anytime in the previous 1150 years. Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer (Source: Sunspots reaching 1000-year high by David Whitehouse, Graph: The Great Global Warming Swindle by Martin Durkin)

What the science says...
Solar activity has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's. Consequently, any correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970's when the modern global warming trend began.

details:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

Saturday October 24, 2009, 6:15 pm
Guys does this mean we shouldnt fart????

Big Gorilly Hugs

Saturday October 24, 2009, 6:17 pm
Not in polite company at least Steph.

Saturday October 24, 2009, 6:19 pm
LOL....Just wondering...LOL

Big Gorilly Hugs

Saturday October 24, 2009, 6:30 pm
well, if there was fewer cattle, sheep etc raised, there'd be less methane, less CO2 from all the transportation and energy used to raise them, fewer rainforests cut down, less animal suffering ...

Saturday October 24, 2009, 9:47 pm
Gorilly ... your alwasy so naughty :) ...

here is a good summary of green house gasses, trends in production, and relative importance ...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Figure 4 is of particular interest since it takes into account the ammount produced and the relative forcing of each gas involved...It is clear that CO2 is the mjor culpret but NH4 (methane) is a strong contributor too...

Saturday October 24, 2009, 9:56 pm
Oh yeah, nitrous oxide from fertilizer to grow the grass or grain to feed the cattle is also a greenhouse gas.

ty Chris

Saturday October 24, 2009, 10:10 pm
or to grow the soy beans (in the cleared rainforest) for the cattle ... yes, cattle produce a lot of green house gasses (both ends) but you also need to consider the methane produced when their wastes break down anarobically too ...

Now, to be honest, I'm not a puritain on this one ... I have been cutting back on beef, but have been unable to cut it out completely... this is one area I could really inprove upon ... but I am getting better about it :)

Sunday October 25, 2009, 4:42 am
OMG...

Well, can't say to much, ya guys said to all!!!

Sunday October 25, 2009, 4:43 am
Meant to type in "IT ALL"

Sunday October 25, 2009, 9:06 am
Thannxxxx.. there are just too many cows on the planet.. this is because man is governed by his belly.. if we ate properly and curbed our appetites there would be a better balance...

Sunday October 25, 2009, 10:20 am
WOW! I knew between what we grow to feed these animals plus their waste that seeps into the soil, makes its way to our rivers, and streams, and then the gas alone.... but over 50%! We all need to keep an open mind about more fish, more soy based products, legumes, tofu, and other ways to get protein rather than consuming so much red meat, pork, and so forth. We already due to our own diet each fish, chicken, tofu, beans, turkey, and other alternative proteins, with very little red meat in our diets. We are not totally Vegan per se, but we do make a conscious effort to be very limited as far as our beef consumption goes and pork also.

Sunday October 25, 2009, 12:50 pm
Pam, it's "FLEXITARIAN", which I have been since May, 1992. Most of my protein is from beans or nuts.

Flexitarian means eat meat sparingly.

Let us consider the source. In 1992, Bill Clinton was running for president, and he ate at McDonald's, so one reporter said "that made him a 'regular guy' ".

We can all do our parts to lessen our dependence on fossil and fissile. I have made the commitment to family planning, I have no children, and plan on one child and adopt.

Sunday October 25, 2009, 2:53 pm
So tell me Judy, How is it a bad thing to have strong regulations on those massive factory farms and feed cows food they can digest better so they don't get sick and use all our antibiotics. The waste from those industries can be as much as a city but they are not processed. Also, why are my tax dollars going to subsidize cheap corn that is used to make the High Fructose Corn Syrup and fast-food burgers that I don't eat?!
As always, you seem to miss the point that making these changes would have immediate benefits to us all despite what you believe about the environment!

Sunday October 25, 2009, 6:06 pm
WELL I guess those who laugh at this article know more then the experts. and of course anyone who eats meat and doesnt care about animals is going to laugh and try to make any report that says raising animals for food is devasting to our planet sound like it is stupid and that the report is wrong.

when poeple finally start listening to our experts maybe our world will start to be a better place for all living beings. our enviroment our health and compassion for animals.

and for the religious poeple who want to say God says they can eat animals they are right. God told noah and his sons to eat animals till thier lust was filled. funny how he also told Noah that He was also shortening mankinds lifespan to 120 yrs.

EAT MEAT, LOTS OF IT. IT SHORTENS YOUR LIFESPAN. YOU ARE DOING JUST WHAT GOD WANTS YOU TO DO. THE EVIL ONES WHO EAT MEAT DIE EARLY!!!!!

Sunday October 25, 2009, 7:27 pm
Actually Julie is totally right on with this one, since my mother is a nutionist...she had never taken anything, eats veggies, salmon, etc....Meat...NO WAY...

When you start to devor another animal you devor yourself! Julie, thank you for reminding me of what we do!

Monday October 26, 2009, 12:25 am
That is something to think about. Nice informative post. thank you for sharing.


diatpillen

Monday October 26, 2009, 4:33 am
I hope this isn't going to turn into a meat-eater hating thread by vegans. Deanna: "anyone who eats meat and doesnt care about animals" "the evil ones who eat meat"
Marilyn: "when you start to devour another animal you devour yourself"

Not a little hate is it from Deanna. Rhetoric as far as Marilyn's quote.

In the end, anyone can have a viewpoint about anything. Doesn't make it true for anyone else though.

Monday October 26, 2009, 11:04 am
Michael P....the way cattle are mistreated still has nothing to do with the fact that neither CO2 or methane can change climate...and ranting doesn't make it so.

A little physicsCrap and Tax - A Lobotomy for the United States of America?

By Kevin Klees, Engineer

OK, I’ll start right off by admitting that I am a “Climate Change” Denier, Naysayer, Skeptic, Cynic, Disbeliever, Doubter, Doubting Thomas, Flat Earther, and any other phrases that you might find in your Thesaurus. There, I admit it. Do I feel guilty about the future of the planet? No, not in the least.

Why do I reach this decision?

Because, as an engineer I have extensive training on the actual limits placed on human activities by the LAWS OF PHYSICS. For more than a quarter of a century I have tried to design things that violate the LAWS OF PHYSICS. I am ashamed to admit that I HAVE NOT BROKEN ANY OF THEM YET. As an engineer I am in the FRONT LINES fighting the LAWS OF PHYSICS every day. So far the LAWS OF PHYSICS are winning, 99-0.

So, here is one of those NASTY little LAWS OF PHYSICS, it’s called the THIRD LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. It can make for a really drowsy read, but the simple version states:

“IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRAP HEAT”

Yep, that’s it, pretty simple; it means that there is NOTHING NATURE, OR A MAN/WOMAN CAN DO TO TRAP HEAT.

This LAW is demonstrated MILLIONS of times every day. When you put more insulation into the attic of your house, you are SLOWING the flow of heat from inside (umm, warm and toasty) to the outside (ugh, cold and wet). You are NOT TRAPPING HEAT.

Ask yourself this simple question; if a Greenhouse can “TRAP HEAT” why is it colder inside one in January than in August? Why can’t you “trap” the heat from August and use it during the whole rest of the year? Because of the THIRD LAW.

So, if the THIRD LAW is enforced in manmade greenhouses on the surface of the earth, why is it not enforced in the atmosphere of the earth? Simple answer, it applies equally in all locations.
read the rest
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Crap_and_Tax.pdf

Monday October 26, 2009, 6:13 pm
LMAO!!!! LMAO!!!! You quote a self proclaimed denialist who writes a NON-PEER REVIEWED BLOG ENTRY on some prapaganda site ("Icecaps") and try to pass that off as "science" - you are a TOTAL JOKE Judy LMAO!!! LMAO!!!!

Monday October 26, 2009, 6:21 pm
Um I thought she said she was a farmer???? Now shes a engineer and farmer...okay you can be both...I do admit that...but an engineer can also be sooooooooooooo wrong...my hubby is an engineer..doenst mean he slaps others in the face on what they belive in....

Big Gorilly Hugs

Thursday October 29, 2009, 1:29 am
Kevin Klees is a liar and an idiot. Greenhouse gases work by reducing the loss of heat because they are opaque to infrared radiation while also being transparent to visible light. As for the REAL third law of thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics

{{{The third law of thermodynamics is a statistical law of nature regarding entropy and the impossibility of reaching absolute zero of temperature. The most common enunciation of third law of thermodynamics is:

“ As a system approaches absolute zero, all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value. ”

Note that the minimum value is not necessarily zero,[1] although it is almost[2] always zero in a perfect, pure crystal; see the article Residual entropy for more information.

(As always, reducing the entropy of a system requires increasing the entropy of its surroundings, in accord with the second law.)}}}

That is nowhere near the same as “IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRAP HEAT”!

And since the ICECAP site was stupid enought to publish that crap, its credibility is shot to pieces! LOL!!!