Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Gizmodo)   Old MacDonald had a farm, E-I-E-I-O. And on this farm he had some methane-producing animals contributing a lot more to global warming than we initially estimated, E-I-E-I-OMG   ( gizmodo.com) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

4232 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Sep 2017 at 5:20 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-29 06:03:52 PM  
If I have to ask them to hold the steak when I order filet mignon to save the planet all I'll have to eat is bacon.

Chessteak, libmustards!
 
2017-09-29 06:09:35 PM  
Gee, it's almost like there is more than one cause of climate change, and they are all interrelated in a very complex and synergistic way that will require a very complex and careful plan to fix it.

Who would have thought it was not as easy as just ignoring it?
 
2017-09-29 06:09:58 PM  
I guess that will have to kill off more elephants in order to balance things out.
 
2017-09-29 06:12:30 PM  
Dearest headline submitter person,

+1 LOL aside...
(can't believe I'm the first)
img.fark.net
 
2017-09-29 06:16:05 PM  
I hate myself a little bit every day for not being a vegetarian because I know for a fact that it's one of the single greatest things I could do to reduce my impact on the environment.  I'm still going to eat salmon or chicken for dinner

/cull the herd (of humans)
 
2017-09-29 06:16:22 PM  

Richard Saunders: Dearest headline submitter person,

+1 LOL aside...
(can't believe I'm the first)
[img.fark.net image 320x240]


Probably because that's so old, that it's from just after the Tracy Ulman show, but before the animation was done by a Korean company. Like, 1991 at the latest.
 
2017-09-29 06:17:34 PM  

gregscott: I wonder how the cow population in the USA compares to the former bison population. I'm guessing that they are much the same.

Yet another case of hyper-alarmist rants, journalistic fear mongering. But of course, I didn't click the link. I'll come back and correct myself if I am wrong about this.


Not by a long shot. Peak bison = 20-30 million. There's 92 million or so cattle just in the US currently, with an estimated 1.4 billion worldwide.

Add the fact that the cattle are fed high-test grain grown by intensive agriculture, and...
 
2017-09-29 06:17:58 PM  
That's what happened to Mars. They farted themselves to extinction.
 
2017-09-29 06:18:11 PM  

gregscott: I wonder how the cow population in the USA compares to the former bison population. I'm guessing that they are much the same.

Yet another case of hyper-alarmist rants, journalistic fear mongering. But of course, I didn't click the link. I'll come back and correct myself if I am wrong about this.


First, there were an estimated 20 million bison, compared to about 40 million cows today.

Second, it wouldn't matter if the cow population was equal, as the diets may be different enough to make such equivocation meaningless.

Third, it STILL doesn't matter even if bison produced more methane than cattle, as we are discussing the cumulative effects in global warming and how we can change them today.

X+y+z+q=T, where T is higher than we want it, is not a formula that gives a crap whether the X or the y is the newcomer to the party.

"I'm getting fat, I should consume fewer calories"
"Well, don't stop drinking soda. You've always drank that and you weren't fat before" said nobody ever.

Livestock are worth looking into for a host of reasons, as they are particularly easy to adjust in terms of human behavior relative to telling people not to have kids, not to drive to work, not to use AC, etc. There are also multiple methods of addressing methane from livestock without dramatically reducing production. Diet, potential capturing systems, who knows?

Hell, identifying a thing as a contributor is useful whether or not we even change it as a variable, because we still want to fully complete the overall picture.
 
2017-09-29 06:27:55 PM  
THE USUAL SUSPECTS Old McDonald
Youtube OMvbKBTyV64
 
2017-09-29 06:30:20 PM  
Peer reviewed article in Nature by the team that does the carbon budgets for the IPCC assessment reports concluded that models overestimate anthropogenic forcing/feedbacks and they adjusted the carbon budget accordingly. Basically they say with more realistic numbers for the anthropogenic component of the models they calculate that the conventional wisdom that we will add 2 degrees C to the temperature should be adjusted down to 1.5 degrees C.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html

Of course the alarmist went into a tizzy immediately questioning the science... Deniers are they? The irony was delicious.

And of course Fark wouldn't greenlight a link to real science or articles about it. Hell, their filter won't even let the link above work. LOL
 
2017-09-29 06:31:30 PM  

madgonad: This is a red herring.

Methane from livestock has zero impact on climate change. Methane in the atmosphere only last a few years before breaking down into CO2. Carbon moving back and forth between atmospheric CO2 -> carbohydrates in plants -> methane -> atmospheric CO2 has no impact.

Digging up more entombed carbon and adding it to the cycle DOES have an impact.


Except CO2 in the atmosphere has a dwell time of decades to centuries. We're pumping it out several orders of magnitude faster than it can be taken back up, so it builds up.

Sure, over the course of centuries it's neutral, but we're overloading the cycle.
 
2017-09-29 06:35:34 PM  

stirfrybry: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html


I don't think that article says what you're trying to claim.

" Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2-2.0°C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5°C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250GtC and unlikely greater than 540GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5°C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. "
 
2017-09-29 06:41:14 PM  

NutWrench: Farts are serious business.


Pre-diarrhea FTW! Or loss.
 
2017-09-29 06:41:34 PM  
Everybody farts.
 
2017-09-29 06:42:37 PM  
You should never be surprised when things are much worse than the press release.
 
2017-09-29 06:43:39 PM  

farkstorm: ThrobblefootSpectre: We've known for a while that a meat based diet contributes to greenhouse gasses more than transportation or industry.  And it's dumb that we keep ignoring the real problems.Go meatless 3 7 days a week before your next spittle flying rant about someone else who should be solving the problem for you.


No.
 
2017-09-29 06:44:10 PM  
DAVE MATTHEWS SAYS FARTS ARE DESTROYING ENVIRONMENT
Youtube OZ8c96NoI_g


Old news
 
2017-09-29 06:47:43 PM  
The 40ish million cows currently in the US, more or less replace the 30 to 60 million bison that were hunted to near extinction.
 
2017-09-29 06:55:46 PM  
With a

i.pinimg.com

And a


sillycowadventures.files.wordpress.com

There
 
2017-09-29 06:57:48 PM  
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/01/27/fair-oa​k​s-dairy-farm-manure-fuel/%3Fsource=dam

Fair Oaks Farms in Indiana converts the methane from the animal waste to CNG to fuel their tanker trucks. They have 42 power units that run an average of 500 mi. per day each. That's a lot of cow farts.
 
2017-09-29 07:01:16 PM  
But  but - organic farming's supposed to be good for the environment! Where will we get the fertilizer without octupling the livestock population???
 
2017-09-29 07:01:38 PM  

Ker_Thwap: The 40ish million cows currently in the US, more or less replace the 30 to 60 million bison that were hunted to near extinction.


Bison population at peak = 20-30 million.

Current US cattle population per the USDA = 92 million. (PDF)

Worldwide cattle population = 1.4 billion.

Bison were a mere fart in a whirlwind compared to current cattle production. They also lived off of prairie grass and weren't fed intensively-grown corn and soy.
 
2017-09-29 07:01:59 PM  
In a shocking turnaround, eating meat will be viewed as having been more repugnant than slavery or ten Holocausts
 
2017-09-29 07:04:30 PM  

Dumski: I smell a conspiracy.
Always remember that when you pass through a fart you are inhaling aerosol shiat.


Not with HEPA underwear.
 
2017-09-29 07:06:27 PM  

SwiftFox: But  but - organic farming's supposed to be good for the environment! Where will we get the fertilizer without octupling the livestock population???


Actually, a lot of dairy farms are setting up methane digesters to make natural gas to heat their barns. It's a win-win, they don't have to truck in natural gas to heat the barns in the winter, and the resulting sludge makes great fertilizer.

I saw a number of setups like that in India and Nepal as well.
 
2017-09-29 07:09:55 PM  

bigdanc: Of course - why hasn't anyone invented a way to capture this methane?  There has to, at least, be enough produced to power a generator.


But to collect the methane to power one generator, you have to send up a huge balloon fleet of nuclear-powered gas separators.
 
2017-09-29 07:12:20 PM  

maxheck: SwiftFox: But  but - organic farming's supposed to be good for the environment! Where will we get the fertilizer without octupling the livestock population???

Actually, a lot of dairy farms are setting up methane digesters to make natural gas to heat their barns. It's a win-win, they don't have to truck in natural gas to heat the barns in the winter, and the resulting sludge makes great fertilizer.

I saw a number of setups like that in India and Nepal as well.


Interesting - though it doesn't cure the organic fertilizer shortage if the world is to be fed.  OTOH, I suppose the methane from cow manure could be used for making more synthetic fertilizer, too.
 
2017-09-29 07:12:43 PM  
Old MacDonald headline?  Good thing I had this open in another tab:

Bill Bailey sings Old Macdonald
Youtube bFiUyfbyjbA
 
2017-09-29 07:14:18 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-09-29 07:16:19 PM  

stirfrybry: Peer reviewed article in Nature by the team that does the carbon budgets for the IPCC assessment reports concluded that models overestimate anthropogenic forcing/feedbacks and they adjusted the carbon budget accordingly. Basically they say with more realistic numbers for the anthropogenic component of the models they calculate that the conventional wisdom that we will add 2 degrees C to the temperature should be adjusted down to 1.5 degrees C.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html

Of course the alarmist went into a tizzy immediately questioning the science... Deniers are they? The irony was delicious.

And of course Fark wouldn't greenlight a link to real science or articles about it. Hell, their filter won't even let the link above work. LOL


http://www.fark.com/comments/9738177/Were-not-doooooomed-by-climate-c​h​ange-were-only-doooomed-Soooory-about-that-We-gooood#new
 
2017-09-29 07:21:36 PM  
Yeah, but does are powered by vegetables.

Chessmate, vegans!
 
2017-09-29 07:24:44 PM  

SwiftFox: maxheck: SwiftFox: But  but - organic farming's supposed to be good for the environment! Where will we get the fertilizer without octupling the livestock population???

Actually, a lot of dairy farms are setting up methane digesters to make natural gas to heat their barns. It's a win-win, they don't have to truck in natural gas to heat the barns in the winter, and the resulting sludge makes great fertilizer.

I saw a number of setups like that in India and Nepal as well.

Interesting - though it doesn't cure the organic fertilizer shortage if the world is to be fed.  OTOH, I suppose the methane from cow manure could be used for making more synthetic fertilizer, too.


No, it's not 100%, but it's certainly better than just making mountains of poop and letting it compost the way we usually do. That produces just as much natural gas, but it all ends up vented to the atmosphere to be wasted, and the poop just runs off into streams and rivers. There's a lot less waste with digesters.

The local water and sewer company actually sells bags of "ComPro," which is a fertilizer made from digested human poop.

The technology is dead simple too... I've seen one design that was just a 55 gallon drum for the digester, some tubing, and a tractor inner tube to store the gas. It was enough to run a small cookstove and some lamps.
 
2017-09-29 07:49:23 PM  

WelldeadLink: bigdanc: Of course - why hasn't anyone invented a way to capture this methane?  There has to, at least, be enough produced to power a generator.

But to collect the methane to power one generator, you have to send up a huge balloon fleet of nuclear-powered gas separators.


Interestingly, the Navy is getting 1.9Mw for one of their bases from waste methane from a local landfill.
They're also using the waste heat for steam.
 
2017-09-29 07:51:05 PM  

maxheck: Ker_Thwap: The 40ish million cows currently in the US, more or less replace the 30 to 60 million bison that were hunted to near extinction.

Bison population at peak = 20-30 million.

Current US cattle population per the USDA = 92 million. (PDF)

Worldwide cattle population = 1.4 billion.

Bison were a mere fart in a whirlwind compared to current cattle production. They also lived off of prairie grass and weren't fed intensively-grown corn and soy.


I said ish.  I just googled how many cows, I wasn't preparing for a thesis.  I'm also fairly sure that most cattle are fed mostly on pasturage, crop residues and fallows.  I limited my statement to the US, so we could compare apples to apples.    The numbers are worth considering, even if it's one factor among many.
 
2017-09-29 08:08:19 PM  
Still no word on sports game farts
 
2017-09-29 08:11:12 PM  

kbronsito: So republicans were right... it's not humans causing global warming, it's animals. Chessmate, libtardos.


Yeah, 99% of the scientific community is wrong. I guess that means the earth is flat too.
 
2017-09-29 08:14:56 PM  

gregscott: I wonder how the cow population in the USA compares to the former bison population. I'm guessing that they are much the same.

Yet another case of hyper-alarmist rants, journalistic fear mongering. But of course, I didn't click the link. I'll come back and correct myself if I am wrong about this.


Part of the issue is diet. The big cattle operations feed the cows a fark ton of corn which if I remember correctly makes them fart more.
 
2017-09-29 08:21:14 PM  
With a toot toot here and toot toot there
 
2017-09-29 08:21:40 PM  
Talk to this guy, he knows how to deal with this shiat.
img.fark.net
 
2017-09-29 08:21:50 PM  

Ker_Thwap: maxheck: Ker_Thwap: The 40ish million cows currently in the US, more or less replace the 30 to 60 million bison that were hunted to near extinction.

Bison population at peak = 20-30 million.

Current US cattle population per the USDA = 92 million. (PDF)

Worldwide cattle population = 1.4 billion.

Bison were a mere fart in a whirlwind compared to current cattle production. They also lived off of prairie grass and weren't fed intensively-grown corn and soy.

I said ish.  I just googled how many cows, I wasn't preparing for a thesis.  I'm also fairly sure that most cattle are fed mostly on pasturage, crop residues and fallows.  I limited my statement to the US, so we could compare apples to apples.    The numbers are worth considering, even if it's one factor among many.


Yes.

And you were still wrong.

Also, there were a maximum total of 30 million bison. There were not 30 million bison at one time. There are at least that many cows, steers, bulls, and calves in the US at any given time. Also, you are wrong about cows being fed on pasturage. Beef cattle are kept on pasture for no more than 12-18 months; after that, they go to finishing feed lots for another 9-12 months to be fed on corn. Dairy cattle, of course, are kept in lots and almost exclusively fed hay and corn.

This is, of course, only the gas emitted by the farting cattle. The methane given off by piles of manure has to be factored in, and anyone who thinks that is negligible ought to go out to Coalinga, CA, and stand downwind of the huge feedlot out on the 5. You'll want to take an SCBA and some supplemental 02.
 
2017-09-29 08:37:55 PM  

germ78: If most Americans went meatless once or twice a week and ate more beans* and vegetables, our impact on GW would likely decrease.

/* even accounting for the increase in farting caused by eating more beans and lentils


Ok. I'll bite.

I hate beans (except for garbanzo - which is just kind of "meh ok"). I love beef.

Should folks who hate beans and love beef just kill themselves? I'm not sure what the alternative is here for us.

/i prefer chicken over beef when given the choice
 
2017-09-29 08:44:03 PM  

casual disregard: Should folks who hate beans and love beef just kill themselves?


img.fark.net
 
2017-09-29 08:45:08 PM  

casual disregard: i prefer chicken over beef


Wheee!

i.pinimg.com
 
2017-09-29 08:45:40 PM  
Screw that. Global climate change is happening. There are lots and lots of contributing factors. There is no way all the countries around the world are all going to band together and agree to implement anything other than the most trivial of changes in an attempt to mitigate it. May as well accept it.

So we should eat our steak and enjoy it, the Titanic is already sinking.

Of course you can go without meat however many days a week you like if it makes you feel better, just don't expect me to.
 
2017-09-29 08:51:50 PM  

Ker_Thwap: maxheck: Ker_Thwap: The 40ish million cows currently in the US, more or less replace the 30 to 60 million bison that were hunted to near extinction.

Bison population at peak = 20-30 million.

Current US cattle population per the USDA = 92 million. (PDF)

Worldwide cattle population = 1.4 billion.

Bison were a mere fart in a whirlwind compared to current cattle production. They also lived off of prairie grass and weren't fed intensively-grown corn and soy.

I said ish.  I just googled how many cows, I wasn't preparing for a thesis.  I'm also fairly sure that most cattle are fed mostly on pasturage, crop residues and fallows.  I limited my statement to the US, so we could compare apples to apples.    The numbers are worth considering, even if it's one factor among many.


Wasn't trying to jump on you, just wanted to clarify, people have been quoting stuff all over so I thought I would look this up.
 
2017-09-29 08:57:39 PM  

Nidiot: Screw that. Global climate change is happening. There are lots and lots of contributing factors. There is no way all the countries around the world are all going to band together and agree to implement anything other than the most trivial of changes in an attempt to mitigate it. May as well accept it.

So we should eat our steak and enjoy it, the Titanic is already sinking.

Of course you can go without meat however many days a week you like if it makes you feel better, just don't expect me to.


... and instead even attempting the bailing of water we are drilling more holes in the hull here in the United States.
 
2017-09-29 09:16:59 PM  

Dragonflew: casual disregard: i prefer chicken over beef

Wheee!

[i.pinimg.com image 500x333]


Well done.

Prepare my steak....well done!!!

img.fark.net

/the finger to palm thing is a myth btw
//the only way to determine cookedness is with a meat thermometer (which will always tell you how overdone it is) or by cutting
///i'd rather cook my own than trust a "professional"!
 
2017-09-29 09:26:34 PM  

AquaTatanka: .. and instead even attempting the bailing of water we are drilling more holes in the hull here in the United States.


A great deal more needs to be done.  But lies on either side don't help.  U.S. emissions heave been decreasing for years as we transition away from coal, and are now at a 25 year low.  In fact some sources report we are leading in emissions reduction.  Yes, Trump is an eco-idiot, and wants to increase coal use.  But he hasn't done anything successful other than talk about it.  And anyway that doesn't mean the whole United States is actively making things worse.  We aren't.  We are improving.  (And yes, I know that makes some people very angry.)

Note:  All of this progress was in the energy (power) industry, and making some headway in the agricultural sector would help a lot too.
 
2017-09-29 09:29:12 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Also, there were a maximum total of 30 million bison. There were not 30 million bison at one time.


Ah, wat?  You think there were only 30 million bison over history?  I suspect there are some fudge factors in this, but I suspect that each spring when calves were born the population jumped a bunch, then on the average dropped back considerably to about the same number until the next calving season.

Scientific research?  Googling first gets "Methane emissions from bison-An historic herd estimate for the North American Great Plains",

Abstract
Enteric methane (CH4) emissions were estimated from 30 M bison (Bison bison) across the North American Great Plains before contact with European settlers. We compiled the first historic emissions inventory using an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 2 method. The emissions were governed by the energy requirements for grazing, growth and reproduction. A sex/age distribution accounted for the net effect of births, development and deaths. The CH4 yield was based on calorimeter measurements. The average bison's weight, feed (dry matter, DM) intake and emissions were 411 kg, 3.4 t DM head−1 year−1 and 72 kg CH4 head−1 year−1, respectively. The historic herd's emissions were 2.2 Tg CH4 year−1. On 1 January 2008, 36.5 M cattle were located in 10 American states occupying the historic bison range. Cattle emissions were 2.5 Tg CH4 year−1, estimated using an IPCC Tier 1 method, adjusted by comparison with a mechanistic model and food gathering energy required by 77% of the cattle fed by grazing.

I note that the rest of the USA contains considerably more cattle than those 10 states, just thought some non imagined numbers might help someone.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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