Sunspot Minimum or "Is the sun going to sleep?"

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by EricH

Adam, your right cross missed ENTIRELY. You haven't heard of:
--bison
--buffalo
--water buffalo
or have you? Those are relatives of cows, are they not? That is, they are bovines. A cow is simply a domesticated bovine, is it not? Right cross meet roundhouse kick. Make sure you know the facts too.

Nope. I win. Stupid act on my part. I have no idea why I missed the EPA's website the first time. In fact if I actually interpret the EPA's data correctly (A BIG IF ON MY PART) it isn't even the biggest source of green house gasses.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html#where

Thirdly, you seem oddly focused on cows.

Eric brought them up. I know better than that.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by Molten

Thirdly, you seem oddly focused on cows. There are other animals in the world. Some of which could be contributing to global warming.

Not to mention dying organisms. CO2 is released as the bodies of organisms decompose. If you factor in all the leaves, grass, and other plant-life that decays come winter then you have a lot of CO2. Maybe not a climate change contributor, but something to keep in mind.

Something to consider: If evidence was brought forward that totally disproved human triggered global warming what would happen?

[Greg McKaskle]

Now that this thread is no longer even remotely about sunspots, let me plug an interesting documentary on this topic called "Crude : The Incredible Journey of Oil".

On the one hand, it is like the jr high science films that follow a single carbon atom around for millions of years showing the different things it does over time. This is interesting as it demonstrates some of the cycles in play.

Another interesting facet of the film is that it interviews many petroleum experts such as the man who made the initial discovery of the oil fields in Saudi Arabia. Many of the interviews discuss the projections for global oil production made by Hubbert in the 50's. It has a bias of course, but just hearing the luminaries in the field voice their opinion was cool.

It has a good summary of why the big oil fields are found where they are. The frequent algae blooms enhanced by runoff and into relatively stagnant gulfs acts as a recapture mechanism to deposit CO2 from the atmosphere and bury it over time in places such as the gulf of Mexico, the Arabian gulf, etc. The longer lived the sea, the more oil that will have collected over the millions of years.

Another element in the film is the explanation of what happens as CO2 levels increase, how the cycle eventually runs its course and eventually restarts. It describes how this has happened at other times in history, with volcanos responsible for much of the CO2 release, and it does discuss how the increased release of CO2 from industrialization indicates that we are moving ourselves along faster in this cycle.

Not being an expert in the field, I have no way of knowing its accuracy on every point, much less my accuracy in trying to summarize it. I thought it was good information accessible to reasonably educated viewers, and it covered lots of interrelated topics. It provided interesting topics for my father-in-law, a geologist and petroleum industry veteran, and myself to discuss.

Greg McKaskle

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Nope. I win. Stupid act on my part. I have no idea why I missed the EPA's website the first time. In fact if I actually interpret the EPA's data correctly (A BIG IF ON MY PART) it isn't even the biggest source of green house gasses.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html#where

So why aren't we actually focusing on the bigger sources instead of putting fees on ranchers/dairy farmers for their critters' emissions by the head (or tail) to the point that they can't make a living? (Yes, that was talked about, as recently as this spring. I'm not sure of the current status of this.)

Oh, wait--landfills are necessary because we can't come up with better ways to dispose of trash that won't be complained about. And who is dumb enough to reduce the amount of oil and natural gas we use, because then commuting gets a LOT harder (unless we go back to the horse-and-buggy days). So we have to go after the cows, who can't help it, if we want to reduce methane emissions. And yet methane is only one greenhouse gas--and relatively short-lived.

Why not just harness the energy in methane by collecting, storing, and burning it? Reduces methane emissions, allows a slowdown in petroleum/natural gas consumption, and maybe even allows time for the atmospheric methane to dissipate a bit.

Now, as to whether humans are responsible for the increase of the cow population: Remember, bison are also bovines, presumably with the same problem--and yet, man is responsible for driving them almost to extinction. Think about it.

As for Mr. Pockets' question, I can tell you: whoever brought it up would be ridiculed and the evidence would be hidden away so that nobody would believe it. See Copernicus and Galileo with the heliocentric theory vs the Roman Catholic Church with the geocentric theory. Also note that at some point, the evidence would come out and people would accept it, and then the people who now say that it is caused by humans would be remembered as opposing scientific progress.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by EricH

As for Mr. Pockets' question, I can tell you: whoever brought it up would be ridiculed and the evidence would be hidden away so that nobody would believe it. See Copernicus and Galileo with the heliocentric theory vs the Roman Catholic Church with the geocentric theory. Also note that at some point, the evidence would come out and people would accept it, and then the people who now say that it is caused by humans would be remembered as opposing scientific progress.

Yeah...it's sort of creepy to imagine what would happen if all of the scientists who currently form the "consensus" regarding global warming were remembered as "opposing scientific progress". Talk about promoting public confidence in the scientific community.

Originally Posted by EricH

So why aren't we actually focusing on the bigger sources instead of putting fees on ranchers/dairy farmers for their critters' emissions by the head (or tail) to the point that they can't make a living? (Yes, that was talked about, as recently as this spring. I'm not sure of the current status of this.)

Well if we're heading in that direction, the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor, as it is the most plentiful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere...

I figure that I should insert a little disclaimer: I'm not at all opposed to the idea of reducing pollution, increasing energy efficiency, or developing alternative fuel sources. All of those are excellent uses of time and energy. I'm just not convinced that global warming is man-driven.

[MishraArtificer]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

I figure that I should insert a little disclaimer: I'm not at all opposed to the idea of reducing pollution, increasing energy efficiency, or developing alternative fuel sources. All of those are excellent uses of time and energy. I'm just not convinced that global warming is man-driven.

I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to find it anymore, but Arthur St. Antoine in Car & Driver magazine had a very good, well-thought, and well-written opinion regarding what was then known as global warming a couple years ago. If someone finds it before I do, can you post a link?

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by EricH

Oh, wait--landfills are necessary because we can't come up with better ways to dispose of trash that won't be complained about. And who is dumb enough to reduce the amount of oil and natural gas we use, because then commuting gets a LOT harder (unless we go back to the horse-and-buggy days). So we have to go after the cows, who can't help it, if we want to reduce methane emissions. And yet methane is only one greenhouse gas--and relatively short-lived.

Three words: plasma arc gassification

[Fe_Will]

Originally Posted by EricH

Why not just harness the energy in methane by collecting, storing, and burning it? Reduces methane emissions, allows a slowdown in petroleum/natural gas consumption, and maybe even allows time for the atmospheric methane to dissipate a bit.

Methane Digesters

Coffin Butte’s landfill gas-to-energy project

Obviously some people are behind the times...

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Fe_Will

Methane Digesters

Coffin Butte’s landfill gas-to-energy project

Obviously some people are behind the times...

Like the EPA...

Before you get all huffy about that comment, they're the ones who wanted to put the tax on cattle for their emissions, IIRC.

I knew the stuff existed, or had at least been talked about, somewhere in some dark corner of my memory that I don't go to very often. If that can be tapped economically, then all I can say is, nothing like a little recycling...

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by EricH

Oh, wait--landfills are necessary because we can't come up with better ways to dispose of trash that won't be complained about. And who is dumb enough to reduce the amount of oil and natural gas we use, because then commuting gets a LOT harder (unless we go back to the horse-and-buggy days). So we have to go after the cows, who can't help it, if we want to reduce methane emissions. And yet methane is only one greenhouse gas--and relatively short-lived.

Actually, before the turn of the 20th century, there were some pretty dire predictions about the consequences of horsepower (in the literal sense of the word). While your automobile produces a good deal of CO2, you never see it it just floats away. A horse, on the other hand, produces about 22 pounds of manure, per day, that gets left on the street. It doesn't mention how many horses there were, but authorities had to pull 15,000 dead horses from the streets every year (and by law you were supposed to remove it yourself, so there were definitely more of them). They figured unless something drastic happened, New York would be rendered unlivable by 1950. Luckily for them, a German fellow by the name of Dr. Otto was busy inventing the 4 stroke engine...

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Boy! I never thought this thread would get so far off course.
just to be a candle of hope in the darkness, when I was in China last year, I visited a rural community. The people there were proud of the fact that they were using methane from their farm animals to cook and heat. It removed them from the dependence on charcoal for cooking (and the pollution).