I would like a concise explanation for why interglacial cycles end and why global warming is logarithmic
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I keep seeing statements like this that are based upon the nightmares of militant vegans and animal rights activists, and I normally just let it pass, but sometimes a reminder is in order.
You should have let it pass LOL... How about starting a new and yet another thread regarding cows, methane, and grass.
This thread is about Ice ages and hopefully there is more discussion on that (with references or let us know its just your opinion and possibly why your opinion is so valid). There is the history of ice ages which is interesting especially in the last 800K years and of course also speculation on the future next ice age and maybe it will be influenced by humans being on the planet and doing the things we do.
I had mentioned the IPCC earlier as something I wanted to look into a little more to really find out what this was about. I had posted this link earlier but this is something from the IPCC in 2018,
IPCC is a global organization (and or course this issue affects the globe). The IPCC assesses the literature, doesnt necessarily generate it but this report had 91 authors from 40 countries and they looked at 6000 studies. It is "political" but in the sense that they prepare information for policy makes.
You could read through all of that but there is a video of a presentation by Nyles Allen who is the head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department and a lead author. The video is a long but the presentation is actually less than an hour.. Worth watching if you are trying to understand. And really worth watching if you want to know the information the rest of the planet is getting.
"Even if we do run out of C02-producing materials, our livestock can still produce methane. I see global warming as, as much of a problem as I did before watching the video, if not more."
I keep seeing statements like this that are based upon the nightmares of militant vegans and animal rights activists, and I normally just let it pass, but sometimes a reminder is in order.
Short of nuclear reactions, matter is neither created nor destroyed. Cattle are not nuclear reactors. Elements are also ... elements. They do not transmute. You can't get gold from lead and alchemy. If I said that spinach grown with just water and air would supply you with enough iron to create a hammer, you would rightly call me a loony. Spinach doesn't MAKE iron, it has to uptake it from the soil. The same goes for livestock. They don't create any more carbon in products than the amount of carbon that goes into their bodies.
What these rocket science activists don't say is that if the hay eaten by ruminants was simply left in the field to rot, it would turn back into a more or less equal amount of carbon dioxide (more actually, since meat contains carbon), OR if it happened to fall in a protected wetland and land in a swamp, it would turn into methane, with something similar to cow poo left over. Also, methane decomposes in light into CO2 over the span of less than a decade.
The gullibility of the public and lack of basic understanding of conservation of mass and energy always amazes me. Explain it to the activists and give them their proper bumper stickers - BAN GRASS! BAN THE WETLANDS!
I am confused at how you got to be a moderator, given how little research you are willing to do into this topic, and how bizarrely confident you are. I am offended by your carelessness.
I typed the word "methane," not C02. Apparently, you didn't know that methane is a greenhouse gas, one more potent than C02, although it decays in the atmosphere faster...afterwards leaving behind C02. That knowledge is available pretty much anywhere.
This is one of the first articles I saw when researching this topic:
In a 2006 United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organization report, it claims that the livestock sector, most of which are cows, "generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport." According to a Danish study, the average cow produces enough methane per year to do the same greenhouse damage as four tons of carbon dioxide. So is this significantly contributing to global warming? https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-act...ing-1562144730
although that appears to have to do with their diet:
According to the United Nations, agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases and cattle are a major contributor to this figure. A Japanese study showed that one kilogram of beef produces 36.4 kilograms of CO2, while an average European car emits the same amount for every 250 kilometers it drives! In simple terms, rearing cattle causes more damage to the atmosphere*than owning a car.
However, this research has received some criticism on the basis of the sample that was used for the study. The blame is being put on industrial agriculture, which messes with the*natural diet of cattle. Feeding cattle corn to increase milk production also increases the amount of methane they emit through their burps and farts. Cows grazing on certain varieties of grass that*are more nutritious for them emit less greenhouse “gas”. Also, pastures*or animal*fodder that has been sprayed with fertilizer wreaks*havoc on their digestive system, leading them to release excess gases. https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/co...ming-cars.html
Please note that I made that distinction. You cannot generate more of either than you have carbon available.
No you didn't. The rational, educated person would conclude that you were stating that you cannot produce more methane than you have available in the environment, because of this statement of yours:
Short of nuclear reactions, matter is neither created nor destroyed. Cattle are not nuclear reactors. Elements are also ... elements. They do not transmute. You can't get gold from lead and alchemy. If I said that spinach grown with just water and air would supply you with enough iron to create a hammer, you would rightly call me a loony. Spinach doesn't MAKE iron, it has to uptake it from the soil. The same goes for livestock. They don't create any more carbon in products than the amount of carbon that goes into their bodies.
The rational person would think that, because the rational person would realize that your alternative potential meaning, that methane isn't a big deal because there's only a finite amount of C02 needed for its creation on Earth doesn't make any sense because you have yet to point out why the amount of C02, or methane, in the atmosphere, still can't rise to dangerous levels.
You need to be more skeptical of the information sources you look into, or consider the data you post more carefully.
I will re-state.
1. Carbon is an element.
2. Elements are not created or destroyed short of nuclear reactions.
3. Livestock and other animals can ingest carbon compounds two ways - by eating or breathing.
4. The carbon compounds that are MODIFIED by those same animals cannot contain more carbon (total) than was taken in.
5. The idea that greenhouse gases are "created" by animals is a literary slight-of-hand that incorrectly implies:
a. Primary or statistically significant responsibility for those gasses being in the atmosphere
b. That said gasses will remain in the atmosphere forever
c. That the absence of such animals would eliminate the effect
6. Carbon dioxide is converted back into other carbon compounds by plants and algae via photosynthesis
7. Methane degrades in the atmosphere on average over a period of ten years
8. Normal plant decay results in carbon dioxide and methane being created
9. If you completely decay the exact same amount of plant material as is ingested by an animal over its lifetime, you will get a similar total carbon conversion to carbon dioxide and methane, although proportions may vary slightly. After ten years, that is a moot point anyway
My contention is that certain groups have targeted one part of a biological loop system as being somehow evil and threatening to life on Earth. Such claims are a classic example of taking a part of a system out of context to vilify it. Our lungs exhale carbon dioxide. Are you willing to have your lungs removed to "help" the environment?
Every one of the nine points above is easily verified and when I was growing up they were taught in high school biology and chemistry classes. There is no need for me to justify axiomatic statements that are common knowledge to a tenth grader.
You are attempting to use argument by authority by citing reports from the United Nations. This is the same U.N. that also declared the Jews have no connection with Israel, among other spectacular denials of reality that only posturing politicians can aspire to.
You also attempt to discredit by a personal attack, which is irrelevant to the discussion AND a violation of your terms of service.
Show me how decaying plant matter doesn't create co2 and methane (something you won't be able to do) and we might have a debate. Until you do so, there is no need to further engage. I don't debate religion.
You are attempting to use argument by authority by citing reports from the United Nations. This is the same U.N. that also declared the Jews have no connection with Israel, among other spectacular denials of reality that only posturing politicians can aspire to
.
I guess that was intended for me and this is bottom of the barrel attempt to discredit the IPCC. Can you please show a reference that agrees with you.. Other wise we will have to assume this is just something you figured out on your own and came to some conclusion.
This is a science forum. Without references, it will get moved to the political forum where it will not be worth reading. Post here without references are already not worth reading like mine here.. just asking for references or why you are an expert and dont need references.
The graph and math are a conflation of atmosphere CO2 percentage AND black body radiation rates. The hotter a black body gets, the more energy (heat) gets radiated. The model itself is very limited and doesn't take into account other effects. From the "advanced" tab explanation:
" There is in fact a negative feedback that always tends to win out, which is the increase in planetary radiation with temperature. Positive longwave radiation feedbacks only weaken the efficiency at which that restoring effect operates. Instead of the OLR depending on T4, it might depend on T3.9, or maybe even T3 at higher temperatures; eventually the OLR becomes independent of the surface temperature altogether. "
After digging through the page and comments, the sum total of my response to the model is "You've shown that black body radiation is more powerful an energy shifter than a static chemical compound. We knew that."
To take that limited model and attempt to apply the "self-limiting" conclusion to a broader base, like climate change as a whole, is a stretch too far.
Well.. we really didnt know that.
Quote:
black body radiation is more powerful an energy shifter than a static chemical compound.
The Stefan–Boltzmann law also says that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
Radiated heat energy very rapidly increase with temperature (to the fourth power). But it also rapidly decreases with temperature at the the same rate.
At some high temperature, the blackbody radiation would dominate but at lower temperature greenhouse gas would dominate.
Harry, there must be some scientific study that takes into account temperature for your conclusion. Can you please show us what it is. Or did you figure this out on your own?
One of the key posits of M cycle theory is that the land heats more than water. One of the effects of global heating is the melting of ice, leading to rising oceans, which equates to a larger water surface and smaller land surface. Therefore, temperatures can drop. Take a look at some of the dire consequence maps showing "if all the ice melted" for an example. However..
Have not heard of this key point myself as a driver for temperature drop. I suppose if its key, it should also be easy to find a reference and would greatly appreciate seeing this. No reference.. I guess its something you figured out?
I will re-state.
1. Carbon is an element.
2. Elements are not created or destroyed short of nuclear reactions.
3. Livestock and other animals can ingest carbon compounds two ways - by eating or breathing.
4. The carbon compounds that are MODIFIED by those same animals cannot contain more carbon (total) than was taken in.
5. The idea that greenhouse gases are "created" by animals is a literary slight-of-hand that incorrectly implies:
a. Primary or statistically significant responsibility for those gasses being in the atmosphere
b. That said gasses will remain in the atmosphere forever
c. That the absence of such animals would eliminate the effect
6. Carbon dioxide is converted back into other carbon compounds by plants and algae via photosynthesis
7. Methane degrades in the atmosphere on average over a period of ten years
8. Normal plant decay results in carbon dioxide and methane being created
9. If you completely decay the exact same amount of plant material as is ingested by an animal over its lifetime, you will get a similar total carbon conversion to carbon dioxide and methane, although proportions may vary slightly. After ten years, that is a moot point anyway
My contention is that certain groups have targeted one part of a biological loop system as being somehow evil and threatening to life on Earth. Such claims are a classic example of taking a part of a system out of context to vilify it. Our lungs exhale carbon dioxide. Are you willing to have your lungs removed to "help" the environment?
Every one of the nine points above is easily verified and when I was growing up they were taught in high school biology and chemistry classes. There is no need for me to justify axiomatic statements that are common knowledge to a tenth grader.
You are attempting to use argument by authority by citing reports from the United Nations. This is the same U.N. that also declared the Jews have no connection with Israel, among other spectacular denials of reality that only posturing politicians can aspire to.
You also attempt to discredit by a personal attack, which is irrelevant to the discussion AND a violation of your terms of service.
Show me how decaying plant matter doesn't create co2 and methane (something you won't be able to do) and we might have a debate. Until you do so, there is no need to further engage. I don't debate religion.
I have reported post #18 of yours as a personal attack. If you feel I've attacked you, feel free to report my post too.
I'm not going to respond to anything you've posted here, because the answers to it are all common sense and you could have figured it out by doing more research, or thinking more carefully.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
