California Passed Law to Regulate Cow Farts

longknife

Diamond Member
Sep 21, 2012
42,221
13,088
2,250
Sin City
43937045_303.jpg


So dairy farmers are seeking way to reduce them. A lot of government money gets spent at US, Davis and they come up with a bright idea – feed them seaweed!

The idea that seaweed might contribute to methane reduction in cows first came to light last year in Australia. Laboratory tests there indicated that cattle feed containing 2 percent seaweed could slash methane emissions by 99 percent.

To read the rest, shaking your head in wonderment, go to Seaweed may reduce cow burps and methane emissions | DW | 26.05.2018
 
Like I said in another form a couple of days ago.....

Leave it to California to show the rest of the nation how it's not done. Almost on a daily basis something completely absurd comes out of California.:ack-1: For a conservative it's like winning the lotto every day.... the more progressive the better. :2up:
Go...go. has anybody else noticed that the stuff they do in California is not found in virtually any other place in the country:21::21::21: These st00pid morons are still paying other states to buy their glut of solar power.:laughing0301:
 
I'm a conservative and my main bigotry is against jerks like Crick.

So, you admit that the feelings you have towards me constitute bigotry. Are you as proud of them as you are of your vote for Trump*

* The stupidest human being to ever occupy the Oval Office.
 
I'm a conservative and my main bigotry is against jerks like Crick.

So, you admit that the feelings you have towards me constitute bigotry. Are you as proud of them as you are of your vote for Trump*

* The stupidest human being to ever occupy the Oval Office.

My thoughts towards you have nothing to do with sex, race, or religion. I dislike you because you are ignorant and never seek an honest dialogue with those who disagrees with you.
 
I'm a conservative and my main bigotry is against jerks like Crick.

So, you admit that the feelings you have towards me constitute bigotry. Are you as proud of them as you are of your vote for Trump*

* The stupidest human being to ever occupy the Oval Office.

My thoughts towards you have nothing to do with sex, race, or religion. I dislike you because you are ignorant and never seek an honest dialogue with those who disagrees with you.

Dude....that guy spends half his life on one of those green ships floating around in some ocean in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of science dweebs putting shit in test tubes. The level of naive is understandable.!!:113:
 
43937045_303.jpg


So dairy farmers are seeking way to reduce them. A lot of government money gets spent at US, Davis and they come up with a bright idea – feed them seaweed!

The idea that seaweed might contribute to methane reduction in cows first came to light last year in Australia. Laboratory tests there indicated that cattle feed containing 2 percent seaweed could slash methane emissions by 99 percent.

To read the rest, shaking your head in wonderment, go to Seaweed may reduce cow burps and methane emissions | DW | 26.05.2018
another reason california needs to simply drop off into the ocean

fuck em
 
Wait, does this mean Pelosi and Maxine Waters are not allowed to speak anymore?
 
The Methane bogeyman rears up once again because there are too many ignorant warmists to feed:

"The idea that seaweed might contribute to methane reduction in cows first came to light last year in Australia. Laboratory tests there indicated that cattle feed containing 2 percent seaweed could slash methane emissions by 99 percent."

CH4 is a negligible ghg, with a much smaller than the already very small IR window absorber of CO2.
 
Really? Have you run that by our resident atmospheric physicist? Because, as seems to so often be the case, you haven't a fucking clue.

Sun2.jpg


and

Understanding Global Warming Potentials | US EPA
Understanding Global Warming Potentials
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the Earth by absorbing energy and slowing the rate at which the energy escapes to space; they act like a blanket insulating the Earth. Different GHGs can have different effects on the Earth's warming. Two key ways in which these gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency"), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their "lifetime").

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.

  • CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years.
  • Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years (Learn why EPA's U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.
  • Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 265–298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average.
  • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are sometimes called high-GWP gases because, for a given amount of mass, they trap substantially more heat than CO2. (The GWPs for these gases can be in the thousands or tens of thousands.)
 
.
Anal retentive Democrats .. sounds about right .. :lol:
.

.. even cows can't fart around them.... :cow:. :cow:.. :cow: ..
 
Really? Have you run that by our resident atmospheric physicist? Because, as seems to so often be the case, you haven't a fucking clue.

Sun2.jpg


and

Understanding Global Warming Potentials | US EPA
Understanding Global Warming Potentials
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the Earth by absorbing energy and slowing the rate at which the energy escapes to space; they act like a blanket insulating the Earth. Different GHGs can have different effects on the Earth's warming. Two key ways in which these gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency"), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their "lifetime").

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.

  • CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years.
  • Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years (Learn why EPA's U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.
  • Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 265–298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average.
  • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are sometimes called high-GWP gases because, for a given amount of mass, they trap substantially more heat than CO2. (The GWPs for these gases can be in the thousands or tens of thousands.)
Again using a graph that does not prove AGW or any portion of the premise... Its spectral output.... Same old Bull Shit every time....

Gawd the shear duped crap you try...
 
Really? Have you run that by our resident atmospheric physicist? Because, as seems to so often be the case, you haven't a fucking clue.

Sun2.jpg


and

Understanding Global Warming Potentials | US EPA
Understanding Global Warming Potentials
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the Earth by absorbing energy and slowing the rate at which the energy escapes to space; they act like a blanket insulating the Earth. Different GHGs can have different effects on the Earth's warming. Two key ways in which these gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency"), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their "lifetime").

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.

  • CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years.
  • Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years (Learn why EPA's U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.
  • Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 265–298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average.
  • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are sometimes called high-GWP gases because, for a given amount of mass, they trap substantially more heat than CO2. (The GWPs for these gases can be in the thousands or tens of thousands.)
It is YOU who doesn't have a clue since the warm forcing potential for CH4 is very low as MODTRAN shows:

LINK

"Dr. Tom, a most interesting post. I never considered that.
Of course, being a man who checks everyone, I went to MODTRAN to check your assertions. I found the following increases in longwave absorption if we double the methane concentration. Here’s how absorption increases when you double the methane.
Clear Sky Tropics +0.75 W/m2 from doubling of methane
Clear Sky US Standard Atmosphere +0.69 W/m2
Clear Sky Subarctic Winter +0.34 W/m2
Note that these are reduced somewhat if there are clouds. On a global average, then, it seems that a doubling of methane would lead to an increase in absorption of somewhere around half a W/m2 … color me totally unimpressed.
So your claim is upheld by MODTRAN, my congratulations … always more for me to learn, thanks for schooling me on methane."

Heck your own chart make it clear that it is trivial contributor as two of the three bands are in the very low energy part of the IR window, while the third one is partially covered by water vapor.
 
Here are the actual spectral analysis of Water Vapor, CO2 , CH4

LINK

"Cross sections for CO2 in cm^2 per molecule
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm
Cross sections for CH4 in cm^2 per molecule
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/ch4pnnlimagesmicrons.htm
Cross sections for H2) in cm^2 per molecule
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/h2opnnlimagesmicrons.htm
For well mixed atmospheric gas constituents, the fraction of beam absorption per meter of gas column by each type of molecule at a given wavelength will be proportional to the molecule’s cross-section at that wavelength and also proportional to the number of molecules of that type. These have to be summed over the earth surface thermal emission bands in order to see which molecules absorb the most energy. Water vapor, because of its great numbers of molecules is dominant, but there is significant absorption by both CO2. The low numbers of CH4 result in much less energy absorbed by it. It has a fair sized cross-section but very low numbers."
 
Ken Gregory writes:

LINK

"The climate sensitivity of CH4 is about (_0.11)C° per doubling in the atmosphere.
The climate sensitivity of CO2 you gave of 1.2 C per doubling is the no-feedback response. The IPCC models give an average feedback multiplier of +2.75. The CERES data suggests the feedback multiplier is 0.4.
The IPCC WII TS page 52 says CH4 increased from 722 ppb in 1750 to 1803 ppb in 2011. The report claims this results in a direct forcing of 0.48 W/m2. Therefore, a doubling of CH4 would cause a forcing of 0.36 W/m2, calculated by 0.48 x ln(2)/ln(1803/722). The Planck response is 3.2 C/W/m2. Therefore, the no-feedback climate sensitivity of CH4 is 0.11 C, (0.363 W/m2 /3.2W/m2/C). This assumes you wait a thousand years of oceans to reach equilibrium. The transient climate response based on AR5 Table 9.5 would be 56% of that, or just 0.062 C. However, at the current CH4 growth rate of 0.2% per year, you would have to wait 347 years to double methane."
 
Really? Have you run that by our resident atmospheric physicist? Because, as seems to so often be the case, you haven't a fucking clue.

Sun2.jpg


and

Understanding Global Warming Potentials | US EPA
Understanding Global Warming Potentials
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the Earth by absorbing energy and slowing the rate at which the energy escapes to space; they act like a blanket insulating the Earth. Different GHGs can have different effects on the Earth's warming. Two key ways in which these gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency"), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their "lifetime").

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.

  • CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years.
  • Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years (Learn why EPA's U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.
  • Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 265–298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average.
  • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are sometimes called high-GWP gases because, for a given amount of mass, they trap substantially more heat than CO2. (The GWPs for these gases can be in the thousands or tens of thousands.)
Light a match.

:abgg2q.jpg:
 
Again using a graph that does not prove AGW or any portion of the premise... Its spectral output.... Same old Bull Shit every time....

Gawd the shear duped crap you try...

The purpose of the graph was to show that Methane participates in the greenhouse effect. Are you rejecting the greenhouse effect? That must wow the fuck out of your remedial 7th grade science tutor.
 

Forum List

Back
Top