If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discover)   Here's a question you probably haven't spent enough time wondering about: Do camel farts contribute to global warming? And if so, how much?   (blogs.discovermagazine.com) divider line 104
    More: Strange, global warming  
•       •       •

1401 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Apr 2014 at 1:03 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-10 01:59:43 PM  
Every lawn in America.
 Every golf course.
Every industrial lawn.
 Each and every time you mow it, you put that grass somewhere. You can't feed it to animals. It goes somewhere and becomes methane. We just never collect it.

Imagine if there was a drop off for grass clippings, dog poo notwithstanding, in every community. where it got dropped into a methane harvester and the gas was bottled and the mulch returned to the donors,  Prorated by weight donated. . . and you got back some prime mulch for your usage.

too logical. too clean
too smart
 
2014-04-10 02:01:54 PM  

ElLoco: GungFu: [www.inhabitat.com image 537x358]

Science, biatches! Humanity will survive the Methane Apocalypse.

I... ok. I'm intrigued. What's happening there?


Well, I could shove my head up a cows ass to find out, but I'd rather just trust the picture.
 
2014-04-10 02:02:18 PM  
Do NOT feed the camels Beef-a-reeno

26.media.tumblr.com


/Rusty!
 
2014-04-10 02:04:23 PM  

vudukungfu: Every lawn in America.
 Every golf course.
Every industrial lawn.
 Each and every time you mow it, you put that grass somewhere. You can't feed it to animals. It goes somewhere and becomes methane. We just never collect it.

Imagine if there was a drop off for grass clippings, dog poo notwithstanding, in every community. where it got dropped into a methane harvester and the gas was bottled and the mulch returned to the donors,  Prorated by weight donated. . . and you got back some prime mulch for your usage.

too logical. too clean
too smart


HEY!  Our university built a biodigester 2 years ago.  Bastard stinks like all hell.
 
2014-04-10 02:06:22 PM  
becausemollysaidso.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-04-10 02:07:24 PM  
i527.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-10 02:11:14 PM  

HighZoolander: MooseBayou: unfarkingbelievable:

What about moose farts? They must be ear-splitting and quite the knockout.

We call that "Trumpeting"
[img.fark.net image 256x197]
It feels great.

For you or the moose?


Yes.
 
2014-04-10 02:11:48 PM  

blatz514: HEY!  Our university built a biodigester 2 years ago.  Bastard stinks like all hell.


Are they collecting all the clippings from the median strips being mowed?
/doing it wrong.
//also, it shouldn't smell
///Perhaps someone who already knows how to run one should look into it, and I don't mean some lame assed prof who thinks he knows.
 
2014-04-10 02:11:51 PM  

All Latest: [i527.photobucket.com image 399x436]


queef?
 
2014-04-10 02:12:07 PM  

special20: More toe, less farts.


FEWER, Goddamnit!
 
2014-04-10 02:12:20 PM  

vudukungfu: Every lawn in America.
 Every golf course.
Every industrial lawn.
 Each and every time you mow it, you put that grass somewhere. You can't feed it to animals. It goes somewhere and becomes methane. We just never collect it.

Imagine if there was a drop off for grass clippings, dog poo notwithstanding, in every community. where it got dropped into a methane harvester and the gas was bottled and the mulch returned to the donors,  Prorated by weight donated. . . and you got back some prime mulch for your usage.

too logical. too clean
too smart


Some communities do have these types of composting programs.  Some start up companies are starting their own private initiatives - build biogas facility, go pick up vegetable waste from people for free, compost it, capture the fuel, sell the compost.  Everybody wins.  I watched a ted talk about it but apparently there have been many
 
2014-04-10 02:14:32 PM  
Pretty sure any animal farting is a mousefart in comparision to the greenhouse gases humans are belching out.

Oh well, guess they had to know for sure.
 
2014-04-10 02:20:48 PM  
Fools! Humans cause global warming!

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-10 02:21:40 PM  

vudukungfu: Every lawn in America.
 Every golf course.
Every industrial lawn.
 Each and every time you mow it, you put that grass somewhere. You can't feed it to animals. It goes somewhere and becomes methane. We just never collect it.

Imagine if there was a drop off for grass clippings, dog poo notwithstanding, in every community. where it got dropped into a methane harvester and the gas was bottled and the mulch returned to the donors,  Prorated by weight donated. . . and you got back some prime mulch for your usage.

too logical. too clean
too smart


These dudes can help you with that
 
2014-04-10 02:22:19 PM  
www.badmovienite.com
 
2014-04-10 02:23:39 PM  

whidbey: Pretty sure any animal farting is a mousefart in comparision to the greenhouse gases humans are belching out.

Oh well, guess they had to know for sure.


But, you see, cattle are a human-produced source of greenhouse gases. To cattle, we are the Borg. Cattle are so domesticated that they serve no ecological purpose, but only to provide food and other products for humans. They can no longer exist in the wild and are 100% dependent on man for survival. There are some 1.5B cattle in the world and they produce a lot of methane and CO2. Maybe not as much as many of our other activities, but a significant amount.
 
2014-04-10 02:27:02 PM  

Carn: Some communities


some
 
2014-04-10 02:28:24 PM  
My 100 lb chocolate lab contributes greatly, I'm sure. When he rips one off, it smells like a truck stop with a Taco Bell in it exploded
 
2014-04-10 02:29:12 PM  
Yes but animals are carbon neutral because the CO2 they release come from plants that had taken the CO2 from the air in the first place.
 
2014-04-10 02:29:58 PM  
Camel farts are only a problem if a significant fraction of the yield is from fission.
 
2014-04-10 02:30:06 PM  

JackieRabbit: whidbey: Pretty sure any animal farting is a mousefart in comparision to the greenhouse gases humans are belching out.

Oh well, guess they had to know for sure.

But, you see, cattle are a human-produced source of greenhouse gases. To cattle, we are the Borg. Cattle are so domesticated that they serve no ecological purpose, but only to provide food and other products for humans. They can no longer exist in the wild and are 100% dependent on man for survival. There are some 1.5B cattle in the world and they produce a lot of methane and CO2. Maybe not as much as many of our other activities, but a significant amount.


Don't forget delicious
 
2014-04-10 02:31:33 PM  
I doubt it's as much as the British bean farts from yesterday's thread. Or the unmanaged cows of Indian, which shiat all over the place.
 
2014-04-10 02:34:30 PM  

vudukungfu: blatz514: HEY!  Our university built a biodigester 2 years ago.  Bastard stinks like all hell.

Are they collecting all the clippings from the median strips being mowed?
/doing it wrong.
//also, it shouldn't smell
///Perhaps someone who already knows how to run one should look into it, and I don't mean some lame assed prof who thinks he knows.


Clippings from the campus and all the shiat the city mows.  Plus, they burn all the discarded food from the commons.
 
2014-04-10 02:36:26 PM  

JackieRabbit: There are some 1.5B cattle in the world and they produce a lot of methane and CO2. Maybe not as much as many of our other activities, but a significant amount.


Oh I'm not doubting the need to regulate agricultural sources of greenhouse gases, but if someone's trying to use that as an argument to counter the emissions produced by cars and the burning of fossil fuels, they're going to sound silly.
 
2014-04-10 02:55:50 PM  

mark12A: Chart Time?

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 555x456]



Yowch. I haven't seen this one before, but your critical thinking alarms should be going off at this point. What should be immediately visible to someone with some background knowledge:

- comparing model runs which predict surface temperature with mid-tropospheric temperature is very misleading.
- not including any sort of error measurement for either data set or models completely ignores the range of values inherent in all three, rendering any judgement of meaningful differences between them impossible.
- setting a single point in time as a baseline makes an a priori assumption about the accuracy of the data at that one point, and would misleadingly increase any difference as this would conflate any sought-after potential difference with differences due to short-termvariability.

I know this is just an overview, but we can get more into any of these points if you're interested.


Whomever made that graph is trying to lie to you. It looks like it was made for a non-scientific audience and they seem to be assuming the intended audience wouldn't know any better. I suggest extreme caution in dealing with information from that source in future.
 
2014-04-10 02:59:31 PM  

JackieRabbit: But, you see, cattle are a human-produced source of greenhouse gases. To cattle, we are the Borg. Cattle are so domesticated that they serve no ecological purpose, but only to provide food and other products for humans. They can no longer exist in the wild and are 100% dependent on man for survival. There are some 1.5B cattle in the world and they produce a lot of methane and CO2. Maybe not as much as many of our other activities, but a significant amount.


You know how we know you're "talking through your ass"?

/fart puns rule!
 
2014-04-10 03:11:42 PM  
Have you learned nothing over the years, everything contributes to global warming.

And it MUST BE REGULATED
 
2014-04-10 03:19:59 PM  

vudukungfu: Carn: Some communities

some


*shrug* better than nothing I guess.  I have a compost pile and I've managed to recruit one friend into giving me her veggie scraps.  I'm trying to get more on board.
 
2014-04-10 03:22:47 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: mark12A: Chart Time?

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 555x456]


Yowch. I haven't seen this one before, but your critical thinking alarms should be going off at this point. What should be immediately visible to someone with some background knowledge:

- comparing model runs which predict surface temperature with mid-tropospheric temperature is very misleading.
- not including any sort of error measurement for either data set or models completely ignores the range of values inherent in all three, rendering any judgement of meaningful differences between them impossible.
- setting a single point in time as a baseline makes an a priori assumption about the accuracy of the data at that one point, and would misleadingly increase any difference as this would conflate any sought-after potential difference with differences due to short-termvariability.

I know this is just an overview, but we can get more into any of these points if you're interested.


Whomever made that graph is trying to lie to you. It looks like it was made for a non-scientific audience and they seem to be assuming the intended audience wouldn't know any better. I suggest extreme caution in dealing with information from that source in future.


Well, with a source like that, you don't even need to say it.
 
2014-04-10 03:26:36 PM  

mark12A: Chart Time?

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 555x456]


Do you mind providing the DOI of the peer reviewed paper that chart was published in?

I mean, it's not like you would use a bullshiat graphic from some whack-off denialist blog that relies on dishonest averaging together of different data types, a cherry-picked baseline, ignores all internal variability in the system, etc. to give the impression that models and obs are in disagreement, and imply that model sensitivity is too high, right?

I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that actual model-obs comparisons using surface temperature data don't show anywhere near that level of divergence, right? And that obs are entirely consistent with mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity, right?

i.imgur.com

Observational data from Cowtan and Way, 2013. Climate model data from the CMIP5 project, via KNMI Climate Explorer.
Feel free to plot them yourself. I used a 60 month running mean to preserve decadal variability but keep the comparisons readable. Baseline is standard 1961-1990.
 
2014-04-10 03:37:43 PM  

MooseBayou: special20: More toe, less farts.

FEWER, Goddamnit!


I suppose you're more or fewer right about that grammar.
 
2014-04-10 03:38:32 PM  

Joe Blowme: JackieRabbit: whidbey: Pretty sure any animal farting is a mousefart in comparision to the greenhouse gases humans are belching out.

Oh well, guess they had to know for sure.

But, you see, cattle are a human-produced source of greenhouse gases. To cattle, we are the Borg. Cattle are so domesticated that they serve no ecological purpose, but only to provide food and other products for humans. They can no longer exist in the wild and are 100% dependent on man for survival. There are some 1.5B cattle in the world and they produce a lot of methane and CO2. Maybe not as much as many of our other activities, but a significant amount.

Don't forget delicious


But, of course....

whidbey: JackieRabbit: There are some 1.5B cattle in the world and they produce a lot of methane and CO2. Maybe not as much as many of our other activities, but a significant amount.

Oh I'm not doubting the need to regulate agricultural sources of greenhouse gases, but if someone's trying to use that as an argument to counter the emissions produced by cars and the burning of fossil fuels, they're going to sound silly.


I don't think anyone is trying to do that, but we must recognize that there is far more to our greenhouse emissions problem than just cars and fossil fuels. We almost never hear anything about rapid deforestation contributing to increased atmospheric CO2, but it is a major source, especially when that deforestation is by the slash and burn method.

Stone Meadow: You know how we know you're "talking through your ass"?

/fart puns rule!


I'm a ventriloquist!
 
2014-04-10 04:02:02 PM  

Jon Snow: mark12A: Chart Time?

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 555x456]

Do you mind providing the DOI of the peer reviewed paper that chart was published in?

I mean, it's not like you would use a bullshiat graphic from some whack-off denialist blog that relies on dishonest averaging together of different data types, a cherry-picked baseline, ignores all internal variability in the system, etc. to give the impression that models and obs are in disagreement, and imply that model sensitivity is too high, right?

I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that actual model-obs comparisons using surface temperature data don't show anywhere near that level of divergence, right? And that obs are entirely consistent with mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity, right?

[i.imgur.com image 850x508]

Observational data from Cowtan and Way, 2013. Climate model data from the CMIP5 project, via KNMI Climate Explorer.
Feel free to plot them yourself. I used a 60 month running mean to preserve decadal variability but keep the comparisons readable. Baseline is standard 1961-1990.


You don't trust a chart from a website created and maintained by someone with only a high school diploma?!?  Elitist snob.
 
2014-04-10 05:16:28 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: Jon Snow: mark12A: Chart Time?

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 555x456]

Do you mind providing the DOI of the peer reviewed paper that chart was published in?

I mean, it's not like you would use a bullshiat graphic from some whack-off denialist blog that relies on dishonest averaging together of different data types, a cherry-picked baseline, ignores all internal variability in the system, etc. to give the impression that models and obs are in disagreement, and imply that model sensitivity is too high, right?

I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that actual model-obs comparisons using surface temperature data don't show anywhere near that level of divergence, right? And that obs are entirely consistent with mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity, right?

[i.imgur.com image 850x508]

Observational data from Cowtan and Way, 2013. Climate model data from the CMIP5 project, via KNMI Climate Explorer.
Feel free to plot them yourself. I used a 60 month running mean to preserve decadal variability but keep the comparisons readable. Baseline is standard 1961-1990.

You don't trust a chart from a website created and maintained by someone with only a high school diploma?!?  Elitist snob.


I'm actually impressed that Anthony Watts has even a high school diploma. I wouldn't have guessed from his website.
 
2014-04-10 06:12:28 PM  

JackieRabbit: But, you see, cattle are a human-produced source of greenhouse gases. To cattle, we are the Borg an extremely effective mechanism for enabling cattle-reproduction.


Cows: most successful animal species on Earth as measured by biomass. We're just their puppets.
 
2014-04-10 06:21:16 PM  
No. Only Calf. Cows do; as we americans are expected to pay $100 bucks toward each cow's methane production; whilst China, India and everywhere else gets a Pres Clinton/ Pres Obama pass. So, or course the science doesn't make any sense; hell, it's only your money; not ALgore's.

/Don't piss off any volcanoes in Ecuador, Sicily or Japan; as they might just stop spewing gas!
//God/ god/ dog/ FSM needs to cough up his penalty payments for causing all this!
///No  Prescribed Burns as they cause too much pollution; but hell to pay when Yosemite or Yellowstone burns!
/V Time to Legalize Marijuana, because I wanna sue my pusher for lung cancer!
 
2014-04-10 07:07:00 PM  

Swampmaster: ALgore


*chug*
 
2014-04-10 07:14:05 PM  

Swampmaster: whilst China, India and everywhere else gets a Pres Clinton/ Pres Obama pass.


I wasn't aware Clinton and Obama could dictate what happens overseas. Also, I noticed you seem to be skipping over a president that was in office between Clinton and Obama.
 
2014-04-10 07:31:41 PM  
Did somebody say chart thread?

laterallineco.com
 
2014-04-10 08:26:39 PM  
Does something contribute to something that isn't happening? Probably not.
 
2014-04-10 08:35:18 PM  

Jon Snow: Baseline is standard 1961-1990


Way to cherrypick the baseline, hockey teamer.

Hide the hiatus.
 
2014-04-10 08:40:31 PM  

SevenizGud: Jon Snow: Baseline is standard 1961-1990

Way to cherrypick the baseline, hockey teamer.

Hide the hiatus.


Alright, I'm calling Poe's Law on his entire posting history. There is no way someone can be this deliberately ignorant after as long as he has been around.
 
2014-04-10 08:52:32 PM  

SevenizGud: Way to cherrypick the baseline, hockey teamer.


Because changing the baseline (i.e. adjusting all of the datasets up or down by the same amount) would do what exactly to the model-obs comparison? Go on, I'll wait.

SevenizGud: Hide the hiatus.


What a "hiatus" might look like:

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-10 09:21:30 PM  

Jon Snow: What a "hiatus" might look like:


Wow, look at 1998. What an outlier!
 
2014-04-10 11:32:03 PM  
Global warming is so last millennial. It's now "climate change".
 
2014-04-11 01:53:32 AM  

SevenizGud: Jon Snow: Baseline is standard 1961-1990

Way to cherrypick the baseline, hockey teamer.

Hide the hiatus.


Dude, stop lying. All you ever do is shiat up threads with the same disinformation that you get called on posting EVERY FARKING SINGLE TIME.

Why you're not permabanned here is beyond me.
 
2014-04-11 02:25:27 AM  

SevenizGud: Jon Snow: What a "hiatus" might look like:

Wow, look at 1998. What an outlier!


It's not necessarily an outlier, but a relatively high value, which, as you well know, gives a misleading trend if you cherry-pick that period to start from.
 
2014-04-11 09:39:13 AM  

whidbey: Why you're not permabanned here is beyond me.


For the same reason you aren't banned for trolling nuclear power threads and Zafler isn't banned for trolling women's rights threads.

If we banned all the trolls, Fark would be a ghost town.

Only the trolls who ascend to the point of receiving their own M:TG summoners card get banned.
 
2014-04-11 09:39:46 AM  

SevenizGud: Way to cherrypick the baseline, hockey teamer.


Jon Snow: Because changing the baseline (i.e. adjusting all of the datasets up or down by the same amount) would do what exactly to the model-obs comparison? Go on, I'll wait.


Still waiting, champ...
 
2014-04-11 10:04:59 AM  

Feepit: whidbey: Why you're not permabanned here is beyond me.

For the same reason you aren't banned for trolling nuclear power threads and Zafler isn't banned for trolling women's rights threads.

If we banned all the trolls, Fark would be a ghost town.

Only the trolls who ascend to the point of receiving their own M:TG summoners card get banned.


No, you're wrong. No one is banned because there are no trolls on Fark. Duh.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report