Want To Fight Climate Change? Stop Cows From Burping

sciencehabit writes: A simple supplement to a cow's feed could substantially decrease a major source of methane, a planet-warming greenhouse gas, a new study suggests. Each year worldwide, the methane produced by cud-chewing livestock warms Earth's climate by the same amount as 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a little more than 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity. That makes cows tempting targets for methane reduction efforts. In a new study, researchers added the chemical 3-nitrooxypropanol, also known as 3NOP, to the corn-and-alfalfa-based feed of 84 milk-producing Holsteins and monitored their methane production for 12 weeks—the largest and longest such trial of its type in lactating cows, the scientists say. For cows whose feed included 3NOP, methane emissions dropped, on average, by 30%.

Comments

Climate change is for cows

[Anonymous Coward]

Mooooo

Re:Climate change is for cows

[Shirley Marquez]

Sadly, I have no mod points to move this back up. This post should not have been modded down.

There has been a spate of cow posts here on Slashdot recently, usually as part of a first comment attempt. But this one is different for two reasons: it's not the canonical MOOOOO post, and the OP is ACTUALLY ABOUT COWS. So it should have been modded up as a comment on the cow meme, not modded down.

Burping *is* for cows!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are all cows! Cows burp. BUUUUUUUURP! BUUUUUUURP! Buurp cows BUUUUURP! Burp say the cows. YOU BURPING COWS!!

Re:Burping *is* for cows!

[homey of my owney]

Sure. That smell is from them burping.

Re:Burping *is* for cows!

[ArcadeMan]

For once it's actually on-topic and funny.

Re:Burping *is* for cows!

[Sarten-X]

That comment is the only reason I clicked on this story.

Re:Burping *is* for cows!

[techno-vampire]

Hooray, hooray, it's a lovely day,
For I have found my cow!

Re:Burping *is* for cows!

[Anonymous Coward]

That AC waited six years for a story like this so he could get modded up instead of down.

Re:Burping *is* for cows!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if we could just get humans to stop farting, we would save another 20% of greenhouse gas emissions (just a WAG - wild-ass-guess - but probably not far off). :-)

Re:Burping *is* for cows!

[lightbounce]

Technically they don't burp the methane. It gets transmitted in their bloodstream from their guts to their lungs where it is simply exhaled like CO2.

What did friday come late or early ?

[Crashmarik]

I'll go for late seeing as this information is at least 30 years old if not older.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[cascadingstylesheet]

I'll go for late seeing as this information is at least 30 years old if not older.

And yet we still think that just blaming 1. Republicans, and 2. people who aren't me, is a better overall strategy, over finding reasonable and workable mitigation measures.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[Crashmarik]

If you look at the raw temp data for the U.S. we have been in a cooling trend for the past 115 years

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da...

If you compare the adjustments to the trend the adjustments are actually bigger than the error bars and larger than the raw data's trend.

What is it we are supposed to be mitigating ?

Re: What did friday come late or early ?

[radl33t]

People who don't understand heat transfer and thermodynamics and have not even studied the methodology from pretending they can interpret complicated temperature measurements?

Re: What did friday come late or early ?

[Anonymous Coward]

People who don't understand heat transfer and thermodynamics and have not even studied the methodology from pretending they can interpret complicated temperature measurements?

ya! what he said!

Re: What did friday come late or early ?

[datavirtue]

Complicated? It is a number line.

Re: What did friday come late or early ?

[Gavagai80]

The temperature of the USA is largely irrelevant, as there's no significant long term land ice in the USA, nor permafrost except in Alaska.

Re: What did friday come late or early ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every point on the line is a number. How did they get that number? That's the complicated part.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[riverat1]

If you look at the raw temp data for the U.S. we have been in a cooling trend for the past 115 years

Of course the US covers less than 4% of the Earth's surface so that's a relatively meaningless statistic even if it were true.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[cascadingstylesheet]

If you look at the raw temp data for the U.S. we have been in a cooling trend for the past 115 years

Of course the US covers less than 4% of the Earth's surface so that's a relatively meaningless statistic even if it were true.

OK, if we're so small and meaningless, then we'll just not take any mitigating measures and let the rest of the world deal with it.

Re: What did friday come late or early ?

[Crashmarik]

Ok Mr. Smaht guy why don't you set up the PDEs and show me how I am wrong. Demonstrate your superior knowledge of transport theory.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[riverat1]

We may cover less than 4% of the Earth's surface but the US is still directly responsible for about 15% of the worldwide emissions of CO2 (as of 2013). Plus you really should include the indirect emissions of other countries that are driven by US demand for the products they produce.

2013 estimates for CO2 emissions by country

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[Trax3001BBS]

I'll go for late seeing as this information is at least 30 years old if not older.

Think we both read about it at the same time.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[pepty]

Why look at raw data from just the USA instead of global when the topic is a global phenomenon?

Re: What did friday come late or early ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What percent of that 33 C does the US account for?

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I came here to say the same thing. There's a 9 year old documentary called Burping Bovidae on the topic.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[strikethree]

What is it we are supposed to be mitigating ?

Regardless of the global warming and anti-global warming whackos, we are supposed to be mitigating pollution. Air should be breathable and water should be drinkable. Other organism on this planet should be able to survive in our output as well.

Very respectfully,
Dave

Re: What did friday come late or early ?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet alarmist extremists like yourself keep deregulating environmentally destructive industries such as Monsanto and Haliburton who now have complete legal immunity even in cases where people are getting sick and because of them.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[Crashmarik]

Really cow farts and termite farts are pollution ?

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[dywolf]

no matter how many times you say, it still wont be true.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[randallman]

Hmm. Who is better at interpreting NOAA data sets. Crashmarik on slashdot or NOAA https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni... ?

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[hucker75]

Your sig is wrong. Farmers feed plants CO2 in polytunnels to make them grow bigger. That's why people talking to plants have better plants, they breath on them. Besides, global warming is a crock of shit, we're in for a bloody ice age shortly, we WANT global warming!

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[Crashmarik]

Hey ad hominem when you got nothing else

::golf clap::

Points for trying.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[Crashmarik]

no matter how many times you say, it still wont be true.

Ironic considering your signature

http://www.nature.com/scitable...

Current evidence suggests that that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 predicted for the year 2100 will have major implications for plant physiology and growth. Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use

Just how many ways do people need to point out to you that you are lying ?

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not ad hominem - it's argument from authority (or lack thereof).

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[Crashmarik]

Actually it's both. He is calling me a nobody, and appealing to NOAA as a neutral authority.

The numbers are there anyone who wants to can look at them and draw their own conclusions.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[MercTech]

Meh, bovine gastric gases are part of the natural cycle and would make no impact on the carbon dioxide loading in the atmosphere.

Returning fossil carbon to the atmosphere changes the balance back to what it was eons ago. It makes the atmosphere more insulating so the mean temperature goes up. But, before it settles out to a new equilibrium; there will be wild cycling effects on the weather while things try to achieve a new balance point.

Things that have no effect at all on global warming.
Burning wood
Making paper
Cow farts
Burning bio-diesel

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the raw temp data for the U.S. we have been in a cooling trend for the past 115 years

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da...

Even if that were true - you are ignoring the fact that most station observations in the US were moved from the afternoon (when it is warm) to the morning (when it is not). If you ignore this change, all you have shown is that the mornings in the US are now as warm as the afternoons were 115 years ago.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's both. He is calling me a nobody, and appealing to NOAA as a neutral authority.

The numbers are there anyone who wants to can look at them and draw their own conclusions.

And the reason why NOAA are the authority, while you are a numbskull are given in the link. And the fact that you still refuse to see the facts further prove it.

This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the reason why giving raw data to "sceptics" is a futile endeavour - they'll still cherry-pick all the data they like and ignore everything that hurts their point.

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[Crashmarik]

I'll trade that against bad surface stations

http://www.surfacestations.org...

Re:What did friday come late or early ?

[Crashmarik]

Glad you have people that do your thinking for you.

So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[gweihir]

And if you take into account the problems of implementing this, then this becomes one of the most stupid ideas to reduce greenhouse emissions...

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

Because all the 1.2% savings that can be made add up to make a large difference. If we find eight ways to make 1.2% savings across different areas then that is nearly a 10% reduction in the human generation of greenhouse gases. The human race isn't limited to finding just one method to solve the climate change problem. If we make small savings across the board with cost-effective, manageable solutions then we don't have to solve the problem with a single grand gesture that ends up costing a lot of money.

And what are the problems that you envisage implementing this? The article says:

Larger tests will be needed to see if detrimental effects crop up over the long term

I find it interesting that you have already found out what the problems are before scientists have managed to do any studies.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Because all the 1.2% savings that can be made add up to make a large difference. If we find eight ways to make 1.2% savings across different areas then that is nearly a 10% reduction in the human generation of greenhouse gases. The human race isn't limited to finding just one method to solve the climate change problem. If we make small savings across the board with cost-effective, manageable solutions then we don't have to solve the problem with a single grand gesture that ends up costing a lot of money.

What, you mean behaving reasonably might work better than just demonizing political opponents? You may be on to something there.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[gweihir]

The scientists are looking for potential negative effects. I am saying getting farmers to implement this will be problematic. If you cannot distinguish the two, then you have no business commenting.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, how else should the propaganda artists fallaciously link climate change with the eating of meat? They want us all to be eating insects someday, after all. Of course, by 'all' they mean us commoners. I am sure the wealthy elite ruling class will still have their steak, regardless of party and regardless of country.

Last century, we tried the national socialist we're-better-than-everyone-else tact to cajole people into slavery. Now we're going for the self-loathing, guilt tripping INTERnational socialism that replaces educated, intelligent, successful and free societies with masses of uneducated, easily indoctrinated, socially dependent, easily enslaved immigrants! Hurrah Comrades! Now eat your mealworms and like it. Those who resist must check their privilege.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.nature.com/scitable...
http://www.newsweek.com/why-en...
etc ad nauseum

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

And yet making unsubstantial allegations and spreading FUD is exactly what we need around here. If you can't make a statement without explaining yourself then you have even less business commenting here than I have.

Believe it or not, farmers are concerned with climate change because it directly affects them. Here in Australia, our farmers often cooperate with the CSIRO (and other institutions) to study various aspects of climate change and methods to combat it. Also, any government that wants to make a cheap demonstration that they are doing something to meet their greenhouse gas emission targets could easily subsidise the addition of a single chemical into the feed of cows and other animals.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man, don't be such a naysayer. Any solution that lets us burn more coal is a good thing!

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Crashmarik]

You realize you are trying to discuss rationally the administrative problems of a policy with people who have no trouble with the idea of setting up an Orwellian police state to enforce those policies, and with no real concern about the ostensible goal.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

What, you mean behaving reasonably might work better than just demonizing political opponents? You may be on to something there.

Judging by the way that the OP responded to my post, I think that we still have a long way to go before the demonising is done. Not only did he or she demonise the farmers by saying that they wouldn't voluntarily do anything to help in reducing greenhouse gases, but also I managed to get a serve because I didn't magically know that this was the vague "problems of implementing" the addition of a chemical into the cows' feed.

But seriously, I think that there is plenty of work going on behind the scenes to find solutions to climate change (like this story for example). Unfortunately, these sorts of studies tend to go unreported while the public endlessly debates what Al Gore said in a film back in 2006 or what happens to solar power plants after the sun goes down.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[gweihir]

The demonising is all yours. I did not say anything about the will of the farmers to help at all.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Mr D from 63]

Because all the 1.2% savings that can be made add up to make a large difference.

That appears to be the theoretical maximum. But like the OP says, if you think about what it would take to implement this, which you clearly didn't, you would have realized that likely a much lower outcome even with great expense. The answer to reducing global warming gasses is not 'do everything', particularly in the near term, because we can't afford to 'do everything'. The smart approach is do what makes sense

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[gweihir]

Getting a change of this nature implemented globally is exceptionally difficult and may well be impossible. If you believe anything else, then you are boundless naive.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

Oh look, it's another person making wild allegations without a shred of evidence. Nobody but you mentioned governments forcing farmers to do anything. Only you seem to think that adding 3-nitrooxypropanol to the feed is for any reason other than to reduce the greenhouse gases from cows. You have simply made up a claim to belittle someone who has a different opinion to you. It is exactly the sort of thing that cascadingstylesheet was complaining about.

Is that really what you consider to be a rational discussion?

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

Then what is this about:

I am saying getting farmers to implement this will be problematic.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[MrL0G1C]

It's going to take a lot more than small changes across the board to fix our OC2 output, it requires complete changes.

And it's pointless complaining about economic cost when the cost of doing nothing is likely 20 times as much.

People in western countries have gotten used to living lifestyles that are completely unsustainable and worse many have gotten it into their thick heads that they are somehow entitled to these lifestyles like they are royalty or something. Just suggesting that people need to live their lives differently causes them to get angry and spout complete stupid crap and excuses. Humans forget, they are an animal and depend on the rest of the ecosystem to exist.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

But like the OP says, if you think about what it would take to implement this, which you clearly didn't, you would have realized that likely a much lower outcome even with great expense.

Since you have obviously put the thought into this topic, exactly how much is it going to cost to implement this? How does it compare to the costs to get the same savings from other sources? You say that the smart approach is what makes sense, but why is this not the smart approach?

If the conclusion of this study was that some feed energy not lost as methane was used by the cows to retain body weight that would have otherwise been lost in early lactation, isn't this a win/win solution for the farmers? They can combat climate change and make their feed more effective. How is that not a smart approach?

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent discourse left Slashdot years ago.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Crashmarik]

Nobody but you mentioned governments forcing farmers to do anything

LOL sure, and the use of government force never happens on these issues.

Pull the other one.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[no-body]

And if you take into account the problems of implementing this, then this becomes one of the most stupid ideas to reduce greenhouse emissions...

Actually, on stupidity, I like the theory - or ”research“ result that a mini- or little ice age is around the corner, so actually nothing to worry about, all is fine, much better.
One wonders how much money changed hands on that one.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your major malfunction? Why are you so aggressive?

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

This chemical makes the feed more effective, and more of the nutrients gets digested by the cows. Why would farmers not want a more effective feed? How is that naive?

All the complaints here are predicated on the idea that this will cost a lot of money and that farmers will not be willing to pay for it so the it will have to be mandated by a government decree. Nobody has provided any evidence of these claims.

The scientists say that more studies need to be done on this subject, and that they still don't have all the answers. I don't claim to have all the answers. But the people who are against the idea seem to have all the answers; enough to judge this idea as unworkable and call anyone who wants them to justify their claims as naive, irrational, thoughtless and have no business commenting.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Mr D from 63]

I don't know the cost, but I, unlike you, can see the challenges in getting 100% of the cows in the world eating diets that 100% have 3NOP. You need to manufacture enough for starters, then distribute to every farm on the planet. And you need cooperation from all parties involved, including government, farmers, etc.

You'll have to fend off legal action from those that oppose it, including the 'organic' food crowd.

Then you have to deal with the little problem that a huge number of cows are range fed, not grain fed (oops, did you think of that?).

If the conclusion of the study were that cows shitted gold bricks after eating this, then yes it might get adopted faster. I don't think weight management is a game changer, why would it be? Is that something that is a big problem? Why do you think the study will come to that conclusion?

The smart approach makes sense from a an implementation standpoint, and yields significant results for reasonable investment, and while the data on this one is yet to be seen, a little common sense in bit of critical thinking help us to understand the challenges that such a solution will face. The challenges you simply blow off in your mind as irrelevant.

And BTW, domestic cows only make up a part of the total 'cud chewing bovine' population that contribute 'up to' 4% of the methane, so the upside is smaller than you thought.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Imrik]

1.2% is far greater than the total emissions of my state but that doesn't stop politicians from trying to tax carbon emissions.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

Governments have done a lot of things over the years, but that is not what we are talking about. You made a specific claim about me:

You realize you are trying to discuss rationally the administrative problems of a policy with people who have no trouble with the idea of setting up an Orwellian police state to enforce those policies, and with no real concern about the ostensible goal.

I have not argued for or against an Orwellian state. You made that up. And you pretended that you were being rational while you did it. You were not making an argument, you were simply being abusive.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[khallow]

Nobody but you mentioned governments forcing farmers to do anything.

It's not a huge stretch to expect that something new gets forced on farmers when a lot of stuff already gets forced on them.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Carewolf]

Well said. Posting to undo wrong moderation.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

I think that you are getting fixated on the exact numbers here. Yes, it might not add up to 1.2%, it might be less. If the calculated figure had been 0.7% I would have simply said that it would take 14 projects of a similar savings to make an overall 10% reduction. Any savings that it produces will still contribute to the overall reduction in greenhouse gas emission.

But does that make it cost effective? Since nobody knows what this will cost (or indeed if it will actually save money), then it is far too early to state that this is "one of the most stupid ideas to reduce greenhouse emissions" as the OP stated or that we cannot afford to implement this plan (and that this was not the smart approach) as you suggested.

Now I'm not presupposing what any study into this topic will conclude. It may be that has problematic side-effects or that it is not cost-effective for the benefits. We will just have to wait and see, but if that is the case then we should not bother with it. I am willing to do what makes sense, but everyone I ask here who is against this can't justify why this is not the thing that makes sense. It is simply too early to make the call.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Mr D from 63]

It is too early to make the call, but it is not too early to talk about the potential challenges of rolling out such a solution. Those must be kept in mind as we move forward, ignoring them could lead to waste.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

One wonders how much money changed hands on that one.

I would say none. The actual study said that the we were coming in a period of exceptionally low sunspot activity (a Maunder Minimum), as was last seen during the mini ice age. It did not claim that this would cause the mini ice age (in fact it happened long after the period started), nor did it say that it would cause one now.

But all they needed to do was mention the two events in the one document and it was enough for the media to go into overdrive reporting that another ice age was coming. I'm sure that a lot of people reported it because they had a right-wing agenda to push, but I imagine that a lot of the misreporting was done out of ignorance. But I doubt that any underhanded payments were made because of it.

For a good summary of what happened, you can watch or read the story made by Australian TV's Media Watch.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is too early to make the call, but it is not too early to talk about the potential challenges of rolling out such a solution.

It would be nice if all of the people talking of potential challenges talked about actual potential challenges, instead of some abstract notion that there must be some that doesn't add anything to actually keep in mind.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[pipingguy]

"If we find eight ways to make 1.2% savings across different areas then that is nearly a 10% reduction in the human generation of greenhouse gases."

You don't suppose all these dozens and dozens of 1.2% tiny savingses added up will require oodles and gobs of new governmental regulations and spending, do you?

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[datavirtue]

The scientists say that more studies need to be done on this subject,

I wish they would study a way to convert the damn gas into something that is not debatable instead of running around getting everyone worked up so they can do more studies.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

That's a very cynical attitude. There are programs that extract the methane from the waste products of farm animals, but there isn't an easy way to capture a burp. Therefore the focus is on reducing the output rather than harvesting tiny gas emissions.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gavagai80]

Farmers are easily convinced to do anything with tax incentives. They already get paid to take their land out of production when necessary.

Re: So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people will defend anything they say to the end regardless of whether it is right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle. I have found that it is often best to just ignore this type of person.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

So we should stop trying then? There is nothing yet to suggest that this idea will cost the government oodles of money nor a lot of regulation. As I have said, if a company offers farmers a more efficient feed and it happens to reduce the methane output of the cows then this will naturally happen without government intervention.

Other initiatives will require the government to get involved. Tough. If we the public are not going to take responsibility for our impact on the environment then i guess someone has to do it. Yes I know that some people here will accuse me of advocating for a police state (and they pretty much have done), but I don't think that it is too unreasonable to have to use a low wattage light bulb.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[ancientt]

Lets say, just hypothetically, that this is implemented at a federal government level. Further, lets take as a given that this supplement makes cows healthier, happier and cheaper to feed. Additionally, lets assume that we want this enough to subsidize this for farmers to the point that they're actually paid slightly to implement it. I'd call this set of givens the ideal situation.

Even if we had such an ideal situation, there will be a lot of ranchers and farmers who don't trust the government's plan (my father will probably be one of them) and people in that group won't implement the change. Then there will undoubtedly be the "organic" beef people who demand 3NOP free labeling and some farmers and ranchers will target that market and not implement. Other countries won't necessarily follow suit. Some will, but some certainly won't.

However, knowing that some people will resist change isn't a valid reason to avoid considering whether change needs to happen. Civil rights, the abolition of slavery, freeing jews in internment camps... all are changes that every normal person now would agree needed to happen. There was resistance at the time and there are still people who don't like the changes even now, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have put the effort in.

Change is bad. Not changing is bad. No matter how elegant and beneficial a solution is, no matter how bad the problem is, there will always be some struggle implementing the solution. Even knowing leaded gasoline is bad, and having some idea how bad, there are still quite a few engines (small planes jump to mind) which still use it. Changing to unleaded gasoline was beneficial and a struggle, and it was worth it. (Do some reading if you are unfamiliar with how significant that change was.)

My point is that we can acknowledge there will always be issues with implementing big changes without weakening the argument that change is good and needed.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[phantomfive]

This chemical makes the feed more effective, and more of the nutrients gets digested by the cows.

If that's true, then the bovine nutritionists at the dairies will already be considering it. They take efficient feeding very seriously.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[HiThere]

Farmers also operate on a thin budget, so if it increases their expenses they're likely to give it a pass, even if they approve of the idea.

OTOH, if this is cheap and easy to add, then it may be successful. Depending. How many farmers still grow their own feed? How many buy commercial feed? (OTOH, why are dairy cattle being fed corn? That's generally a bad idea. It's usually reserved for beef cattle being held in feed lots to put on fat.)

That said, my grandfather often added molasses to the alfalfa he fed his dairy cattle while milking them. So if it could be mixed into a formula of molasses, this stuff, and various other minerals it could easily be added, if not too expensive.

OTOH, my grandfather was operating on quite a small scale. (3 cows is the most I remember.) Perhaps the problems/benefits are different for larger operations.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[pipingguy]

"...our impact on the environment..."

But that's the whole contention on the subject; what is the impact and how much is the impact (yes, yes, I know thousands of examples will be cited, all provided by people with a vested interest in there being "a crisis". Remember never to let a good crisis go to waste, and the best crisis is one that you've created yourself). I don't trust much in alarmist predictions from people who effectively gain from making alarmist predictions. 97% of the climate scientists who are making alarm noises and saying we must drastically change our economic system etc. are on the receiving end of government funding and the IPCC is a branch of the UN (also, of course, government funded, known to have some of the best bureaucrats available who are interested in expanding the power and reach of the UN) whose mandate is to study man's impact on climate - AND NO OTHER CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

I suppose now The True Believers will show up as usual with their ad homs, standard talking points and pitchforks.

Re: So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[jedidiah]

Except fascism and communism don't generate better outcomes. They just lead to more corruption and less effective outcomes.

This is why American had guns and butter and the Soviets just had guns.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

No, that is not the whole contention on the subject. This subject is simply about reducing the methane output of cows. The whole argument of saying that it is a bad thing because of the guvment is just off-topic nonsense. And now you are going further off topic by saying that it is all one giant conspiracy; that the scientists are making alarm noises and saying that we must change the economic system.

But look at the article. Do you see anyone saying that we need to change the economic system? No, they simply want to make cow feed more efficiently digested. Are they wrong to want this? Does it matter that you don't believe the hype? Will you lament to your grandchildren of how you miss the days when cows farted and burped?

Before today, did you know that these scientists were studying how to make cows burp less? I doubt it. But your ignorance didn't mean that they weren't studying this topic. Similarly, your claim that the IPCC doesn't study anything but man made climate change shows that you haven't read the IPCC reports where they discuss both man-made and natural causes of climate change. But again, your ignorance of the subject doesn't mean that they don't do it.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[pipingguy]

Meh. Some people just don't know when they're being conned. Carry on groupthinking, there's safety in numbers.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

It's a good thing then that we have free thinkers like you to tell us that all the scientists in the world have joined up in the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind, that vaccines cause autism, that the halocaust was a lie, that aliens landed at Roswell, that all of Shakespeare's works were actually written by another person who was also named Shakespeare, that we didn't land on the moon, and there really was cake.

Keep the faith!

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[riverat1]

Because all the 1.2% savings that can be made add up to make a large difference. If we find eight ways to make 1.2% savings across different areas then that is nearly a 10% reduction in the human generation of greenhouse gases. The human race isn't limited to finding just one method to solve the climate change problem. If we make small savings across the board with cost-effective, manageable solutions then we don't have to solve the problem with a single grand gesture that ends up costing a lot of money.

In the long run reducing methane emissions by livestock doesn't make any difference. The methane they emit comes from carbon that was already in the active carbon cycle when the plants they eat absorbed it from CO2 in the air. Methane breaks down to CO2 in a relatively short time scale (20-100 years) in the atmosphere and so gets recycled back into the plants eventually with no net change to the amount of carbon in the active carbon cycle. The only real long term answer is to stop adding additional carbon by stopping the burning of fossil fuels. Anything else is just putting lipstick on a pig.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[riverat1]

Only you seem to think that adding 3-nitrooxypropanol to the feed is for any reason other than to reduce the greenhouse gases from cows.

But who wants 3-nitrooxypropanol tainted milk and beef? /sarc

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[pipingguy]

It's not a good thing that there are people in the world who assume that anyone opposed to massive economic restructuring based on flimsy evidence also believes in, according to you:

"vaccines cause autism, that the halocaust was a lie, that aliens landed at Roswell, that all of Shakespeare's works were actually written by another person who was also named Shakespeare, that we didn't land on the moon"

I'm betting that you also bought in to the "97% of scientists..." assertion as tweeted by Obama.

But you're sort of right about one thing, just replace your word, "conspiracy" with the word, "fraud" or parhaps, "scam".

Keep on misrepresentin'!

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[tinkerton]

Or the new chemical just gets added to one of the other additives the farmers are already giving to the cows. That doesn't sound too hard. The approach could even make sense economically in the short run.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

All the reports and studies that have been published regarding climate change, and the only thing that you talk about is a tweet by a non-scientist. You worry about the lack of evidence, and yet make claims of fraudulent behaviour on a massive scale without a shred of evidence. With all the leaked emails and all the hundreds of thousands of participants involved you think that we would be swimming in a deluge of frank admissions from people who are disillusioned with that their choice of profession turned out to be one big lie.

But no, there is nothing except heated debate about the choice of specific words, oft-repeated but long-debunked "holes" in the theories, and vague idea that we should follow the money - but only for those scientists that you don't agree with (because you don't need to concern yourself with the brave scientists who dare to challenge the establishment, but who just happen to have links to mining industries or conservative think-tanks).

So feel free to keep saying "fraud" and "scam" of often enough and it might easily replace the need to back up your ludicrous claims with evidence. Like Nero, you can keep fiddling while Rome burns.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[pipingguy]

We'll see what happens in Paris and the Mann vs. Steyn trial.

Keep on believin' and feeling good about yourself because you really care about the planet but I suggest you start looking for an out - we're already seeing people claiming "pre-traumatic stress disorders" because evil deniers like me refuse to believe their tales of coming gloom and doom. Oh, the humanity.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

The great thing is that I don't have to pick and choose what to believe. If someone makes a discovery that blows the current climate change theories out of the water then I can celebrate. I will consider it a win that would be well, and will happily cheer alongside you. You can say that you told us all so to your hearts content, but since you cannot now actually give a reason why you think that it was wrong that doesn't mean much.

And that's the problem. This is not about winners and losers in a side. This is about those who seek the truth no matter where it takes them, and those who will deny any truth but the one that they want. It is you and your fellow deniers who are wedded to a particular outcome, and you make the mistake in assuming that all those you call alarmists must be similarly rigid in their stance; that they want global warming to be real.

If I say that the sky is blue, while you insist that it is actually green, then I can happily report when the sky changes colour and that it is now red...and black...and gray. And if by some miracle the sky turns green then I will say that it is green. You will keep your head in the sand while you insist that it is green, and then once it becomes green you will see that as proof that it was green all along. No matter what I see, I will be right, but you can only be right if the world changes to be like your preconceived viewpoint. There is no stress in being right all the time. It seems to me that it must be stressful to have to keep constantly rejecting reality. If you are always searching the sky for green airplanes to so that you can stare at that and claim that the rest of the sky is also green then you have to put a lot of energy into blocking the parts of the sky that you don't want to see.

I do not feel stress for you. I feel sorry for you.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Copid]

Those government grants are *huge* money when compared to the pittance the oil and gas industry will pay you to do research that supports them, right? Those scientists really chose the gravy train on that one. Clever bastards.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

You can't be serious! If you are willing to lie about science then there is a HUGE fortune to be made selling your services to energy companies and conservative think-tanks.

There is a reason why the same people keep cropping up shilling for the large corporations with their anti-climate messages. Often those scientists turn out to be talking outside their fields of expertise, like physicists and geologists (hmm, what are the chances that a geologist works for a mining company?). In fact, some have managed to become "experts" in climate change now after having also been "experts" in health back in the days when they would attempt to debunk the links between smoking and cancer.

This whole unfounded notion that climate scientists are just greedily in it for the money is just a lazy way lobbyists attempt to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. You can't argue with the science, so you attack the scientists. Seriously, what has it got to do with a story about additives for making feed more efficiently digested by cows. Farmers are very serious when it comes to any improvements to how they can make to how they do their business. Would you have belittled the scientists if this has simply been a story about feed efficiency to reduce the amount that you need to feed cows and improve nutrition? Why is it only because this has an aspect regarding climate change that you cynically paint those involved a greedy liars out to suck taxpayer dollars.

When this story never mentions costs or government involvement at all, why is the most prominent response from the climate change deniers about "oodles and gobs of new governmental regulations and spending"? It is simply the usual denier FUD that gets trotted out when they have nothing useful to say about the science. It's pathetic!

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Copid]

You can't be serious! If you are willing to lie about science then there is a HUGE fortune to be made selling your services to energy companies and conservative think-tanks.

That was the joke. Unfortunately, I meant to aim that reply at the post you were responding to.

These folks seem to have a model in their head where the climate scientists all get together and say, "Yeah! We got those cows eating that new additive! It's all going according to our master plan! Government money, here we come!" The reality is that if you're a climate scientist who wants to make tons of easy cash by promoting bullshit, it's a lot easier to get on the Exxon payroll than to battle for government grant money.

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[MrL0G1C]

Wow, some people can't face the truth or debate, troll mod should be removed the people who use it are devoid of the ability to construct a solid argument.

Why Bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no runaway global warming so why do we care about any of this?

Re:Why Bother?

[Opportunist]

And the parrot is not dead, it's ... resting.

Re:Why Bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh ffs stfu.

Cue the smug vegetarians

[TheRaven64]

If we all went vegetarian and killed off the domesticated cattle, then we'd make a huge difference! Kill a cow today!

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[Anonymous Coward]

But if we culled all the vegetarians, wouldn't that have a bigger impact on greenhouse gas emissions?

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[Carewolf]

If we all went vegetarian and killed off the domesticated cattle, then we'd make a huge difference! Kill a cow today!

I will do my pat by eating a large steak tonight.

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[AthanasiusKircher]

If we all went vegetarian and killed off the domesticated cattle, then we'd make a huge difference! Kill a cow today!

Well, to look at it from a different perspective, it's the vegetarians who are the problem. The vegans don't consume animal products, but most vegetarians consume large amounts of dairy -- milk, cheese, etc. -- as sources for protein and various nutrients.

So, the vegetarians of the world are forcing us to keep a bunch of cows alive to support them, cows that are belching out their greenhouse gases daily. Meanwhile, the meat-eaters are doing their part against global warming by killing cows every day for some juicy steaks. It's not their fault that the cows seems to keep reproducing and making more cows -- that just means we need to eat MORE steak to fight global warming!

It's the meat-eaters who should be smug -- it's those pesky vegetarians who are the problem!

[/sarcasm]

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm all you want but a lot of people start out as vegetarians and then go full vegan.

Vegans are the superior race! Assimilate all vegetarians!

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[jedidiah]

Even if I were a normal healthy person, all veganism would get me is a nutritional deficiency.

Although I'm with the guy that rightly pointed out that these cows would still be a problem if we left things "au naturel" since bison covered the states that now grow corn for cattle feed.

The vegans are advocating genocide of one form or another.

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm always amazed at human's need to justify themselves, even if through
sarcasm and deflection even when the comment wasn't directed at them.

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[heretic108]

I am one of these "smug vegetarians" to which you refer. In fact, apart from the most occasional bits of cheese, I am mainly vegan. All I will say here is that MEAT IS THE NEW TOBACCO. Almost as addictive, and just as much denial. A willingness to play Russian Roulette with one's future for the sake of that pleasant oral sensation now.

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[Anonymous Coward]

If we all went vegetarian and killed off the domesticated cattle, then we'd make a huge difference! Kill a cow today!

Well cow-meat does have a relatively large carbon footprint. It makes sense to use chicken or pork instead.

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Consider the vegan athletes- Scott Jurek comes to mind, World famous ultra-marathon runner, victories in nearly all of ultrarunning's elite trail and road events, including the historic 153-mile Spartathlon, the Hardrock 100, the Badwater 135-mile Ultramarathon, the Miwok 100K, and—his signature race—the Western States 100 Mile Endurance Run, which he won a record seven straight times. The Washington Times named him one of the top runners of the decade, Runner's World awarded him a Hero of Running and Ultrarunning Magazine named him Ultra-Runner of the Year three times. In 2010, he set a new US all-surface record in the 24-Hour Run with 165.7 miles—6.5 marathons in one day—for which he was named USA Today's Athlete of the Week.

All without any animal products in his diet. No meat, no dairy, no eggs.

Veganism can be a healthy human diet, and can be substantially healthier for your than the standard American diet.
(I'm using "can be" since, technically, a potato chips and coke diet would be vegan, and some twit will intentionally conflate that with a sensible meal and dairy free meal)

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh, as a vegan myself I can assure you if you work out a proper diet you don't get any deficiencies. I run 10km 3 times a week, work 40 hours for the bills, work another 30 developing my next commercial game, while studying math to finish my degree. Doesn't feel like I'm out of energy, or constantly tired.. I don't actually tell anyone I'm vegan in real life, most find out by surprise when we eat together, so I'm not smug, I went to a birthday party at an all-you-can-eat meat joint, was a great time. Any poor diet can be deficient.

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[Cthulhu's Physicist]

So eat protein made from grasshoppers! Someone up thread bemoaned a general lack of understanding of thermodynamics... it's even worse if you don't grasp Ecosystem Thermodynamics...

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Bovine population is kept artificially high by forced breeding of cattle. End the demand, and that practice goes away.

Re:Cue the smug vegetarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if I were a normal healthy person, all veganism would get me is a nutritional deficiency.

Repeating a lie over and over does not magically turn it into truth. Care to provide some study corroborating this statement of yours? Nutritional deficiencies can appear in any diet, meat or no meat.
Besides the fact that most vegans are healthy and show no deficiencies, there are numerous studies contradicting your statement, not the least from the American Dietetic Association. From the abstract:

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

The vegans are advocating genocide of one form or another.

But of course... I suggest that, instead of embarrassing yourself by making things up, you document yourself on what vegans actually advocate, and stick to debate on that.

Re:This is a song about cows.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Except that cows give milk from their *udders*. Otherwise, nice job.

Oh sacred cow.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ask me

India is the place to be

There cows are sacred

none are objects of hatred

There cows roam free

like Povich, Maurey

but are not married to Connie Chung.

A sonnet for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

The wide expance of fields--bovine Eden
Landscape off my moo, moo dreams calls to me
Thoughts of childhood cows gets my heart bleedin'
I want to graze the sky so set me free.
The Cow God looms in prophetic vision
Mooing of life, of death, of fields to come
Moment of bovine, heavenly fission;
Moo, moo parts will not equal moo, moo sum.
I am a child who yearns to graze with cows,
I am a man who seeks to herd with love
While Farmer Death prepares, readies his plows
To churn another plot, 'neath sun above.
We graze, he churns, but soon he'll get to us
To squeeze our milk or squeeze our very life.

True love

[Anonymous Coward]

A milkmaid called Maisy was milking the cow,
She'd filled seven buckets and then fed the sow,
The farmer came out and he gave her the sack,
So she turned the cow round and she poured the milk back

A purple cow?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen a purple cow,
I never hope to see one,
but I can tell you anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one!

It's haiku time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Beautiful Holstein,
Whose milk helps give life to all;
a true dairy queen.

Another haiku

[Anonymous Coward]

My Bovine hero,
from high atop the mountain,
strong and wise and proud.

Roses are red

[Anonymous Coward]

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
if I'm a cow,
what's that to you?

Oh gentle cow

[Anonymous Coward]

The Gentle Cow she gives us milk
Her skin is smooth and soft as silk
She walks about the field all day
about what she thinks I cannot say perhaps she thinks it is not right
That every morning and every night
She gives us milk and never get paid for what she gives us twice a day

Cow

[Anonymous Coward]

Loosing this battle.
Hoping I don't catalyze.
Found myself mooing in meditation.
Lost in space...

Cow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching an ink-spattered bovine,
I picked up a pen and began to chew
Green slivers of idea, pulping them into cud,
Digested, dragged up and turned over again,
Testing the taste in the mouth.
The hum of distractions and complications
Are batted away with lazy tail-flick.
The cow stands in the field, taking her sweet time.
Take the fresh milk, and churn it into cream, or butter, or cheese.

Re:How do you...

[Opportunist]

If our war on any other imaginary enemy is any indicator, by eliminating freedom.

Cow grass

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss cow grass
The kind they can actually chew on when hungry
The kind you can dig your feet in and feel
Relief.

I miss horse clouds
The steamy breath as they pull their people through the snow
The kind that smells like hay and feels
Warm.

I miss home
Not a house or a place
But a people I don’t know
Anymore.

Moooo

[Chris Johnson]

I for one am eating them as fast as I can, but think going after power stations, industry and transportation fuels is gonna be more effective.

As far as mitigation goes, increasing forest biomass is good. As far as managing what we've already got, the key factor is chaos theory, which I strongly recommend reading up on: it's fascinating.

Basically we're gonna get progressively more insane weather events because climate's a chaotic system. It's never just 'everything smoothly gets five degrees hotter', instead you get killing frosts in June and droughts that wipe out entire crops for the year or turn states into dust bowls, heat waves akin to the surface of Mars etc. More than that, you get increased chaos and violence of the system, so you want to watch for not average behaviors, but the rapidity and unpredictability of change.

Chaotic systems being what they are, and the climate being a chaotic system quite literally, what we see is the range of possible event opening up. The maximum observable behavior on a number of fronts goes way past expectation. Tornadoes, hurricanes, possibly even earthquakes as the whole thing ramps up, and of course insane brief torrential rains and such. This is what chaos looks like, and it will continue to increase faster than expected.

Re:Moooo

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong actually. The pollution of cattle if far greater than fuels, and then on top of that you have to take into account that all that meat does not particularly move itself over the planet to be sold.

And also, you know; cars, jets, freight liners,

[Anonymous Coward]

coal power, Chinese dirty industry, heavy metal mining, wars... but no, the cows are the real problem.

Re:And also, you know; cars, jets, freight liners,

[Anonymous Coward]

American coal power, Chinese dirty industry, heavy metal mining, wars... but no, the cows are the real problem.

Here, I fixed that for you. If you are going to assign national blame, do it everywhere. Otherwise I totally agree; the best way to fight climate change is to start killing Chinese and American. Those two nation are the top greenhouse gas producer and general polluter on earth, reducing their population will do lot more then wasting time with cows. #KillAllAmerican #KillAlllOfChina #SaveTheCows #Moooo

The stray cow

[Anonymous Coward]

there was a little cow her name was daisy may
she had wandered from her field and she began to stray
she had lost direction and had lost her track
and for the little cow there was no way back
the little cow was sad with teardrops in her eye
noticed by a crow who was gently flying by
crow he asked the cow why did she start cry
i have lost my way she said from where i used to be
i will take you back said crow just you follow me
crow he was clever he could sense her smell
where the cow had come from he plainly tell
he led her to the field where she was before
cow she shut the gate and never wandered anymore

The sleepwalking cow

[Anonymous Coward]

there was little cow he was black and white
and he used to sleep walk whenever it was night
he wandered all around walking in his sleep
all around the meadow then in among the sheep
he wandered through the dale and all along the glen
then he would turn around and walk back home again
back in to his bed the little cow would creep

Their master plan at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Cows produce methane!

Methane causes global warming.

Global warming destroys the human race

Cows live happily ever after!

Result

But ... but ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... this measure doesn't involve:

• -hating Republicans, or
• -making people who aren't me give up stuff

So how is that any fun, I ask you?!?

Would they explode?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the cow don't burp, the methane could build up to danger pressure and one cattle prod hit and you have a shower of hamburger meat! Seriously, when (not if), the Sibrean permafrost melts, cows will be overwhelmed as a methane source and it is game over for most of humanity. And, I bet that the cows would just vent the methane from the other end.

Re:Would they explode?

[riverat1]

While I agree with you about the permafrost cows really do burp more methane than they fart. The reason for that is when cows are out grazing they are doing minimal chewing and just passing it to the first of their four stomachs, the rumen. In there the grass is microbialy fermented which is what produces the methane. When the cows upchuck the fermented grass to chew their cud they burp the methane.

If you're wondering why the cows need the fermentation it's a process that breaks down the cellulose in the grass they eat into more nutritional things like sugars that the cows can digest.

What is the result?

[Rob Lister]

For cows whose feed included 3NOP, methane emissions dropped, on average, by 30%.

And what will that reduction mean in terms of temperature reduction? Is the answer zero?

What about cows farting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just burping...

But seriously, this "story" looks like an ad for 3NOP.

Re:What about cows farting?

[nikkipolya]

Ya seriously. Conservation of gas would mean all those failed burps get rear ended.

Re:What about cows farting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just burping...

But seriously, this "story" looks like an ad for 3NOP.

It does seem to be well-targed, looking at how many slashdot visitors have cows in their backyard...

Re:What about cows farting?

[CanadianMacFan]

Just an excuse to keep feeding cows an unnatural diet of corn.

Re:What about cows farting?

[antdude]

They should just ban farts and burps from EVERYTHING!

Re:This is a song about cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.kjsmile.com/music/A...

Not Taken Seriously.

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly cannot take any of these types of concerns seriously, whats so ever.
It's completely fucking negligible to any desired outcome one may hold.
I really don't care what you think, it's a fucking joke.

Re:How do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

You start with fighting human stupidity and ignorance. In order to contribute to that, please go kill yourself now.

Citation Please.

I've known all along

[Anonymous Coward]

This global warming stuff has been mainly bullshit.

Re:How do you...

[MacTO]

Uh, sure. The thing is that we're actually talking about Bovineogenic Climate Change.

I would try making my point in more sensible terms, except you are either:

a) Denying the existence of greenhouse gasses. We know that there are greenhouse gasses since the Earth would be much colder otherwise. This is basic math that can be performed by a high school student.

or

b) Denying that human activity produces these gasses. Since we know that human activity produces greenhouse gasses, it is hard to deny.

The only real debate is the magnitude of this problem. To that end, I'd much rather trust the findings of researchers who devote their life to studying climate to the opinion of a person who denies that something doesn't exist when it verifiably does exist.

Re:I'm a black & white cow.

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are outstanding in your field.

Being that there seems to be no serious messages

[jellomizer]

Global warming is a complex issue, with many factors and no easy answer. Because of this complexity it makes it easy for someone to just not believe it is true, because the complexity it too much for any one person to handle. It is more complex than switching to solar panels, and electric cars, and stopping cows from having gas.
Fixing these issues requires changing culture, which is hard, and will create a lot of people resistant to changes, they will hire a lot of people to make their point across, to convince others.

We have a lot of science, and we need more... However I think one thing is needed isn't finding a silver bullet, is to counter the destructive marketing with more counter marketing. Many of the colleges and universities who are doing a lot of science on the topic, also have business schools and programs. Get a handful of those MBA and Public relation majors onto your grant, to help spread the information to help change the culture.

I have seen major cultural changes happen due to effective marketing. From 2004 - 2015 where there was talk to make a constitutional amendment to ban Gay marriages, to it being legal in all states. The rise of smart phones and mobile connectivity...

Marking isn't always bad and trying to sell you products, it is also used to explain ideas. They are actually a lot of MBA students who are not about being money grubbing capitalists, but are about trying to make the world better. (MBA with considerations in not-for-profit is a popular track). These grant for science, should also be allocated to students who are trained to sell the ideas to the general population.

Showing a graph doesn't have impact on those who don't know how to read graphs.

kill kill kill

[Anonymous Coward]

yes thanks for giving americans and everyone a reason to just kill em all...oh wait your talking about cows not fat chicks?

The downside?

[squiggleslash]

When you try to cut into a steak from these new cows, it explodes and the entire restaurant then smells of methane.

Re:The downside?

[reboot246]

Funny, but methane is odorless.

Re:The downside?

[squiggleslash]

Well technically that's true but the products most mammals generate with methane are anything but...

Correct me if I'm wrong here

[Intrepid imaginaut]

But aren't the cows just returning carbon that the plants had recently sequestered back into the atmosphere? It's not as though the cows are digging up coal and eating it.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong here

[GreyLurk]

Generally, yes, but Methane has a far stronger Greenhouse Effect (IR Radiation absorption rate) than Carbon Dioxide. If we can convert the methane into CO2, that's actually probably going to reduce overall global warming.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong here

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. This story come from either the heavy industry conspiracy that try to lure off away from the real issue, or idiot PETA type that try to ban all meat. Either way it is garbage. Next they will come up with a story about killing all human, minus a few select minority because social justice, to save the planet.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong here

[whit3]

Methane has a far stronger Greenhouse Effect (IR Radiation absorption rate) than Carbon Dioxide. If we can convert the methane into CO2, that's actually probably going to reduce overall global warming.

Not an economically feasible treatment. Methane in the atmosphere turns into CO2 when it 'decays', so the advantage is only for the decay time duration. If the methane decays in 3 months, for instance, then you've only gained a single step advantage in the amount of 3 months of atmospheric (methane minus CO2) load, and THAT REMAINS CONSTANT. It doesn't accumulate. But, the cost of feed additives DOES accumulate.

To solve greenhouse gasses by carbon sequestration (taking carbon from biosphere + atmosphere and inserting into lithosphere) has a net cumulative effect. To do that, it might be economic to do something that has accumulating costs.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong here

[Anonymous Coward]

Both parent and grandparent are correct.

By the way, the methane will eventually decay to CO2 and its effect as a GHG will decline as a result. And that CO2 is still part of the short-term carbon cycle, so it will be removed by photosynthesis (although that removal is affected by land use changes, so land use change is a more important long-term climate change driver). If the population of cattle were held constant, then we should expect an equilibrium to be reached. Increase the cattle population and the equilibrium point will move higher (via a long time constant). Assuming the population responds in proportion to human demand, the eventual effect of cow methane is a proportional one. Contrast this to the mass transfer of carbon from the long carbon cycle to the short carbon cycle via fossil fuel burning, which is a cumulative effect -- so grandparent's point is more relevant than parent's...

Re:How do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

please go kill yourself now.

Why are you global warming worshipers so fucking bloodthirsty? What the fuck is WRONG with you?

Dumb Article

[Anonymous Coward]

No. I don't want to stop more CO2 getting into our atmosphere. We already have too much O2.
This is a distraction issue. Pay attn to geo-engineering and weather manipulation for crony capitalist purposes and population management (famines).

Its probably so many things

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a planet expanding over the thousands of years in all kinds of ways. Not only people, but animals as well to feed all those people. Not to mention all
the decaying wastes (AKA garbage). One thing I have accepted which climate change people cannot. Its that the World is constantly changing and have evolved over many times depending on its conditions that affect it. Nobody can say for sure or make changes the for sure will keep it just like it is. Becoming obsessive
with something is to become closed minded as to the realities around you. In other words, change will come no matter what you do.

Re:How do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would try making my point in more sensible terms, except you are either:

tsk tsk tsk name calling. I am also surprised that you didn't invent a statistic.

Cretaceous–Paleogene Fartocalypse killed din

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, now we have another potential cause of dinosaurs extintion:

They farted, sorry, burped and got global warming, but had no brilliant politicans and activists as we do to stop it, so they went extinct.

Anyway - this is a serious contender for both IgNoble and Noble prize.

Re:How do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation

Oh, Well That's Easy

[Greyfox]

Stop eating cows and bovine dairy. Down side of that, no more steaks. Everyone gets pissed off until you bring up the possibility of Coldstone Creamery Human Breast Milk Shakes!

30% of 4% is 1.2%

[vortex2.71]

30% of 4% is 1.2%. 1.2% is not worth writing a story about.

Re:30% of 4% is 1.2%

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know whether it's worth writing about, it's definitely worth doing something about. If you can manage over a period of time to find 10 actions like that then you're 12% of the way through your problem. Looking for a 100% solution won't necesarily get you as far...

Re:How do you...

[JustOK]

...In order to contribute to that, please go kill yourself Cow.

ftfy

Bullshit

[Karmashock]

1st. Cow burps are only relevant to the extent that cow burps are fueled by sequestered carbon... if you're feeding them with grain that is produced with petro chemical fertilizers then an argument can be made there. However, if the cattle are not getting their food from those sources then whatever the cattle are doing is not relevant.

2nd. Methane has a short life in the atmosphere... really CO2's life is over estimated but methane's is quite a bit shorter.

3rd. Which meat are we going to shift to instead? And I'll noted that cattle, pigs, chickens all eat different things and properly employed can be raised in very different environments. Look at Australian cattle. Try to raise chickens on that.

Frankly I smell the yeasty scent of the anti meat progressive lobby in this... take your hacky sacks... and fuck off.

Do you know what percentage of vegetarians admitted to eating meat in the last 24 hours in recent polls? Over 70 percent. And that's in 24 hours... and that's what they admitted to... lets just drop the pretenses here... humans eat meat.

Move on.

Re:Bullshit

[Gadget_Guy]

You are quite right. That was a lot of bullshit!

It does indeed matter what cows are doing. While methane is short lived in the atmosphere, it has 34 times more effect on the temperature than CO2. Fortunately the entire point of this study is to reduce the methane produced by cows so that we can still eat our lovely meat. They are not trying to turn you into a vegetarian. If you can smell an anti meat progressive lobby then you must have trod in it before you came in.

Keep moving on.

Re:Bullshit

[Karmashock]

34?... I saw the other guy citing 20... which of you is wrong?

As to methane being 34 times more effective... that is by mole.

given that methane is an absurdly tiny trace gas what you're saying is 34 times 0 is important... I disagree.

34 times 0 is 0. There's so little in the atmosphere that 34 times potency is meaningless.

The entire issue is stupid. At best this is a whine for government funding for some make work project... possibly the politicians will look at this and think they can get some cheap green publicity to baffle the peasants.

That's all that is going on here. I'm not a peasant so I am not fooled by it and neither am I a sophist so I don't find the issue for duping retards.

I will keep moving on... imperiously... because this shit is beneath me.

Re:Bullshit

[pipingguy]

So much of the blather coming from those who feel compelled to impose their beliefs on others is essentially virtue-signalling and an inner tendency towards authoritarianism. Of course, being sufficiently self aware to realize that authoritarianism doesn't sell too well, these people wheel out and prop up some other fashionable and remotely plausible cause as cover for the rude behavior and the attempted forcing of government to compel others to comply with their wishes.

Whoops, OT there a bit.

Re:Bullshit

[pD-brane]

I agree that this study does not suggest to become a vegetarian. However, less meat consumption (and other animal products, to a lesser extent) would help as well, of course.

I am a vegetarian to offset anthropogenic climate change. Others should join me, or decrease their meat production at least. First a warning: there might be potential side effects like you eat more healthy or animal welfare. Some people feel comfortable being a vegan. I don't ask people to do something that would make them unhappy. But they can try to do something. Really try it, and then decide what would be best for both you and the rest of us.

I will probably be modded down by the "pro meat conservative lobby".

There will always be cows, so I also encourage these kind of studies as well.

Re:Bullshit

[Karmashock]

no... it's valid. A lot of these people basically just want other people to give them money and power... because "reasons".

What I find depressing is that their reasons are so often stupid and I don't understand why so many people fall for it.

Do some fucking research you fucking ignorant peasants.

Methane? Give me a fucking break... literally... the people making this argument should drop and make a face like a donut.

Re:Bullshit

[Gadget_Guy]

34?... I saw the other guy citing 20... which of you is wrong?

Who cares? You are more wrong than either of us. At first I thought that you might have been trying to be funny with your original post. It turns out I was being optimistic. If the messages that you managed to read from the article was that they were trying to convert you to vegetarianism AND whine to the government for funds, then I think that it is probably good that you are moving on.

Re:Bullshit

[Gadget_Guy]

I applaud you for having the courage of your convictions. I'm afraid the thing that is encouraging me to reduce my meat intake is the awareness that my arteries contain more cholesterol than blood.

Re:Bullshit

[Karmashock]

So you don't care if you're off by a 1/3rd?

Okay... we'll just continue from there.

wikipedia says: 1800 parts per billion is the atmospheric concentration.

So that is 0.00018% of the atmosphere.

Can you please give me a fucking break with this bullshit.

Re:Bullshit

[Karmashock]

Eat what you like. If you want to be tired and suffer from malnutrition that is your own business.

I am a homo sapien. I am an opportunistic omnivore. I need a varied diet to remain healthy. A cow can sit there and eat grass all day and he's happy. Some bird can eat nuts all day and he's happy... wolves or sharks etc can eat nothing but meat and be happy.

I can't do that. I have to eat a little of everything.

And I will. You are welcome to do what you want. But don't come between the thinking ape and his meat... especially if you're tired and malnourished.

Re:Bullshit

[Gadget_Guy]

The problem is that it isn't evenly spread throughout the entire atmosphere as it rises to the top layer, so your figure is misleading. And for someone who values accuracy and correctness, doesn't it seem strange that the people who study this all their lives are worried about methane while you with your reading of the Wikipedia page know enough to say that they are all wrong? With your history of getting the wrong message from reading articles, you should be concerned.

Re:Bullshit

[Karmashock]

... okay... more of this apparently...
http://www.democraticundergrou...

As you can see from the second graph mean concentrations by altitude... its actually not that different. It is more concentrated in the northern hemisphere than the southern... but so what...

As to the political argument you're now making of "shouldn't you be concerned if X is concerned?"...

Lets extend that question to other things. Lets say a military figure says "I'm worried about the Iranian nuclear weapons program"... does that mean you're worried about it?

If a general says "I want to nuke china" which was something McCarther wanted... you know the guy that ran the campaign against Japan during WW2... well respected military guy.

Don't like the military question... okay... so lets talk economics a lot of economists are worried about debt or tax rates or other various economic things that conflict with your politics... are you going to change your politics because the economists want to do X?

Here you might say "but this is science"... perhaps but you're not making a scientific argument. You're saying "this PERSON cares so you should care" that's a political argument and not a scientific one.

The point I'm trying to make to you here is that I don't really care if someone else finds something important. I want to know WHY they found it important, I want that information, and then I'm going to judge for myself.

Here you might say "but you're not competent to make that judgement"... neither are you. And what you're asking me to do then is write someone a blank check and just trust whatever they say.

You wouldn't do that. If all the scientists flipped around and said we have to emit more green house gasses to avoid an ice age... would you be on board for that? I rather doubt it especially if it meant a massive industrial expansion to pull it off.

Lets be real here... this is a polluted issue. There are subtexts in it and we can dance around each other all you like. You'll find I know all the moves. But I don't really see the point. I'm not your enemy here, pal.

I'm your neighbor. And if you think counting cow farts is going to save the world... you can do that on your own time.

My vote which is equal to yours... is that it is stupid. I vote no. I am not even remotely convinced this is a real issue.

The issue sounds like bullshit and the more I look into it the more it looks like bullshit.

Re:Bullshit

[dywolf]

Sure is proud of his ignorance isn't he.

Re:Bullshit

[dywolf]

Oh here comes the bit about "its not a problem cause it such a tiny piece of the whole" .

Re:Bullshit

[Karmashock]

All questions are relative and contextual.

Suggesting absolute standards be held or be taken seriously is impractical.

Re:Bullshit

[Karmashock]

and what ignorance would that be? Did you have something to contribute of any intelligence or merely mindless gainsaying, sarcasm, and snark?

I find it interesting that people like you presume intellectual superiority when you haven't the first idea how to actually form either thoughts or arguments.

Re: How do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't climate "scientists" have a personal bias invested in a certain outcome? And in the scientific community, the standard is: the more sensational the claim, the more evidence is required. And climate "science" has made some pretty sensational claims that have a history if not coming true.

Do grassfed cows produce as much methane?

[jonwil]

Do cows fed on the diet they evolved over 1000s of years to eat, namely grasses and similar plant species, produce as much methane as cows fed on GMO cereal grains and such do?

Oh wait, if you fed cows what evolution designed them to eat, you couldn't sell $1 hamburgers at the golden arches...

Re:How do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation

a coupe to you sir!

CO2: Cows v. Electricity Generation

[cmholm]

• 30.6 gigatons: 2010, estimated CO2 output for global electric power generation.
• 2.2 gigatons: cattle.

Based on a range from 1.6 to 3.5 gigatons: 1.3b cows * [50|110kgCH4] * 25kg CO2 GHG effect (beef = 50kg, dairy = 110kg)

Cowburp

[Dr. Evil]

This is methane, not CO2, so sequestering carbon isn't relevant.

"Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period."

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

FTA: "And because 3NOP boosted the digestibility of nutrients in the feed, the cows that received the supplement actually gained more weight than cows that received none. "

It might actually be useful in meat production. Headline is misleading. Meh.

Re:Cowburp

[Karmashock]

Actually it is relevant because it doesn't build up in the atmosphere.

Methane totally degrades in the atmosphere in under 12 years and half of it is gone in 7.

it is also a very very very very very very very very very very very minor trace gas in our atmosphere.

20 times 0 is 0. And that's basically how much methane we have in our atmosphere.

Don't just look at some biased numbered by the smelly dread lock crew... actually put the numbers into perspective.

20 times more powerful than CO2?... so what? there's basically none in the atmosphere. It breaks down entirely in about a decade... and the only relevance of it is if the chemicals it breaks down into build up in the atmosphere.... well... if you're not feeding the cows with sequestered carbon then what is going to build up?

Methane breaks down into CO2 and H2O... so... which of those are we worried about here? Neither really... the contribution of either to the atmosphere by methane is irrelevant and the CO2 component is only relevant to the extent that we're getting sequestered carbon released... And even then... irrelevant quantities from this source.

Re:Cowburp

[Dr. Evil]

Hmph. Not worth discussing anything anymore on this site.

Posts are politically loaded and mods seem the same. Anyone want to buy a 4 digit UID?

Re:Cowburp

[Karmashock]

My posts are no more loaded than yours... and as to the mods... who gives a flying fuck what they think? I'm always baffled by the people that care about mod points.

I tell people to go fuck themselves with a rake in one post and get modded down because the special snowflakes don't like it when people are meanies. And then I get modded up in another post where I talk about something no one finds controversial.

Net result... excellent karma rating.

I don't care. Its so fucking easy to get an excellent rating. Anyone that has a low rating either is only participating in controversial discussions or is a troll.

Who cares either way. All I ask of people is that they login. If you log in so I at least know who I'm talking to then I'm good.

If you don't want to have a discussion with someone that disagrees with you... m'kay... go back to your hug box. I don't see where I'm supposed to care.

Re:Cowburp

[Dr. Evil]

"My posts are no more loaded than yours"

That was my first post on the site in weeks and it contained nothing but facts and links to reputable sources.

You're the one who referred to the EPA as a "dread lock crew." It's an argument which would give you an F in grade 9 science class. Mods like it though.

Re:Cowburp

[Karmashock]

The EPA is a political organization every bit as much as the US State Department. Every branch and department of the US government is subject to politics. Suggesting otherwise is naive.

What is more, I wasn't referring to the EPA specifically as the dread lock crew but rather the people attempting to gin up alarmism on the issue of methane.

To conflate a given position an organization might make with anything the organization might say is not valid.

A reputable newspaper can have a writer that is an idiot post a stupid article. And a government entity subject to politics is going to have elements in its nature that service the interests of various lobbying groups.

Can you possibly be so naive as to not know that?

As to insulting a government agency meaning I fail at science... actually you fail at science. Having an unfavorable position of a government entity is not scientific either way. To suggest it is means you don't know what science means.

From wikipedia:
""
Science[nb 1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 2] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to this body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. Ever since classical antiquity, science as a type of knowledge has been closely linked to philosophy. In the West during the early modern period the words "science" and "philosophy of nature" were sometimes used interchangeably,[2]:p.3 and until the 19th century natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a branch of philosophy.[3]

In modern usage "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature. Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist began to be applied to those who sought knowledge and understanding of nature.[4]

Modern science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations.[5] Disciplines which use science like engineering and medicine may also be considered to be applied sciences.[6]
""

Please show where my statement got an F for science.

As to mods liking it... mods are awarded based on popularity mostly... they are political in nature. They always have been and always will be. Its funny how so many people don't understand what is and is not politics. Why is this confusing? I suspect you'd be perfectly happy with things being judged politically so long as they were judged according to YOUR politics. Which really just means you're whining because you can't gin up a hate mob against anyone that says stuff you find threatening to your world view.

Suck it. Why should I care?

Re:Cowburp

[Dr. Evil]

"...you're whining because you can't gin up a hate mob against anyone that says..."

Get a grip man. Try reading what I wrote rather than inferring stuff.

Re:Cowburp

[Karmashock]

I did... you're complaining about mod points.

Re:Cowburp

[Dr. Evil]

The mods, not the mod points.

Re:Cowburp

[Karmashock]

... and the distinction in this context is zero.

Look... you can either get on topic and have a point... or whine... or run away.

I don't really care. But whatever you do... make up your mind.

Re:Being that there seems to be no serious message

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't that complex. The theory is that greenhouse gasses rise into the atmosphere which causes heat to be trapped which raises the temperature of the Earth. Like a greenhouse. The solution is to reduce those gasses.

See, not too complex?

Re: How do you...

[radl33t]

I think you missed the point, the industrial production of beef using unnatural feed appears to be teo of the central problems here. Cows exist in large numbers to feed an industrious man.

Re: And also, you know; cars, jets, freight liners

[radl33t]

Not a great plan in long run. Chinese are also building the industrial base to put Terra watts of wind and solar on the grid. It's going to be a great amusing world, when solar and wind are multi trillion dollar industries, exceeding coal potentially matching oil and China lords thier green industrial might over the worl, and Crack pots in the #2 US maybe #3 will still prattle on about freedom and mankind's ,US ?, dominion while continue hastening US irrelevance. 20 to 30 years out.

Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

if you want to stop climate change, stop EATING cows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlTBC91L-x0

Eat more cows

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to help the environment as fast as I can, but I can only eat so many steaks at once.

Blame the vegetarians.

Asinine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of getting rid of fossil-fueled cars, or nuclear power plants, or poorly regulated industrial complexes, or any of the other thousands of heat-producing factors, we're going to fuck with nature. Typical human behavior at it's finest.

Sexy cows

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.faptube.com/videos/... (Needless to say it's NSFW with that domain name)

because china's industry is so clean

[FudRucker]

and all those cargo ships china sends all over the world are so clean, i am not even going to read the article because just by the title i can tell it is a pile of shit, the bankers and industrialists that that run wallstreet and other financial centers around the world have conveniently hidden all their dirty factories in china and other third world nations where the citizens they hire have no human rights so they are basically slaves that work for just enough money to feed themselves

the global economy is slavery-2.0

Re:How do you...

[gweihir]

You seem to be humor-impaired. Or maybe functionally illiterate. It is really implausible that you have missed the first half of that sentence.

Cows should not be eating corn

[Anonymous Coward]

They should study the methane production of cows with a grass-based diet vs corn-based diet. Corn was not a normal food source for cows, causing them to be prone to illness, which then gives reason for agribusiness to pump them full of antibiotics.

non-nitrooxypropanol cows sold here

[thinkwaitfast]

Grass fed, gluten and cage free, non-GMO, etc, etc, etc.

Re:Cretaceous–Paleogene Fartocalypse killed

[thinkwaitfast]

Mesozoic: Average temperatures were also higher than today by about 10C.

In related news ...

[PPH]

... the population of spherical cows postulated by some physicists is increasing.

Re:In related news ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Worthy Farnsworth quote... Great news everyone, our new 3NOP cow milk and beef products allow: ...prolonged product shelf life for business; lowers blood pressure and increases sexual performance for our elderly population...and... ...priapism for our younger male population

Re: And also, you know; cars, jets, freight liners

[Bing Tsher E]

and Crack pots in the #2 US maybe #3 will still prattle on about freedom and mankind's ,US ?, dominion while continue hastening US irrelevance

So you're saying the triumph of totalitarian industrial states over freedom-loving states will please you?

Obligatory XKCD

[Gavagai80]

Why cows matter: https://xkcd.com/1338/

Corn

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we feed cows corn to start with anyway?
How if we only feed them alfalfa?

One small step... [Re:How do you...]

[Geoffrey.landis]

The whole idea that cow burps could produce enough carbon to destroy the planet is why so many people deny even the possibility that emitting industrial quantities of carbon can change the climate. It just makes the whole issue sound ridiculous. Methane may be 20 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2, but because of its reactivity it does not persist in the atmosphere in the same way.

There's some insight in that comment-- compared to the 40 trillion kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by combustion of coal, the amount of warming by cows is small. However, although it is smaller effect, it is not negligible contributes. According to the original article:

Each year worldwide, the methane produced by cud-chewing livestock warms Earth’s climate by the same amount as 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a little more than 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity.

So, here's a way to affect 4% of the problem (not solve, but affect), with no effect on standard of living whatsoever-- it's a small step, but with essentially no cost: cow methane production is of no economically value.

What bothers me, however, is that the article is talking about burps, while the problem is cow emissions. Not all cow methane emissions are burps.

Re:One small step... [Re:How do you...]

[mspohr]

Much better to just stop eating beef. It's really not very healthy to eat (cardiovascular disease and cancer) and it's bad for the environment. Some people are also upset by the way cows are treated.
The amount of greenhouse gas from the production of the beef you eat is greater than that from driving your car. Would you rather drive your car or eat beef?

Re:One small step... [Re:How do you...]

[riverat1]

What bothers me, however, is that the article is talking about burps, while the problem is cow emissions. Not all cow methane emissions are burps.

The majority of the methane a cow produces is burped up rather than coming out the other end. That is from the microbial fermentation that takes place in the cows rumen.

The uppermost area of the rumen, the headspace, is filled with gases (such as methane, carbon dioxide, and, to a much lower degree, hydrogen) released from fermentation and anaerobic respiration of food. These gases are regularly expelled from the reticulorumen through the mouth, in a process called eructation.

I'm not particularly concerned about the methane released by cows and other ruminants because that is carbon from plants they eat that originally drew it from the air in the first place. So it doesn't add to the total carbon in the active carbon cycle like burning fossil fuels does which is the real problem. If all we were getting was some increased methane from raising more livestock it would be a minor problem that would hardly be worth worrying about if CO2 levels were still around 280 ppm. Far more concerning to me is the methane being released from organic matter in the permafrost and methane ices under the sea that's been sequestered from the active carbon cycle for a long time.

Re: One small step... [Re:How do you...]

[paulzeye]

The reason to worry about methane from cows is because that carbon started as CO2 and was converted to methane, a more potent green house gas. Methane is short lived in atmosphere, but the issue is more nuanced than just saying the cows are releasing carbon not sequestered in petroleum. Also need to consider petro based fertilizers used on the cows feed

Re: One small step... [Re:How do you...]

[riverat1]

The way we raise cows is an issue but fixing the problem of methane released by ruminants will not fix the problem of AGW. It will just make a slight reduction in the warming.

Re: One small step... [Re:How do you...]

[Anonymous Coward]

This. How does cows producing methane pose a huge problem? They eat plant matter and form part of the carbon cycle. Have they started feeding them coal or oil?

I'm calling BS propaganda.

Re: One small step... [Re:How do you...]

[riverat1]

You didn't read my whole response, did you? I said I didn't think methane from livestock was a big problem.

Re: One small step... [Re:How do you...]

[Eythian]

... which makes it a good reason to try this. Along with other things, of course.

Re:One small step... [Re:How do you...]

[randallman]

You're referring to methane as part of the carbon cycle, but methane has it's own cycle (global methane cycle) that behave differently from CO2. Unlike CO2, methane is neutralized in the atmosphere by OH. I don't know what the state of methane's affect of warming is, just saying maybe it shouldn't be lumped in with CO2.

Re:One small step... [Re:How do you...]

[delt0r]

Cows are not for eating. They turn grass which you can't eat into milk which you can.

Re: How do you...

[Applehu Akbar]

Bison once roamed over vast stretches of the country now occupied by farms and cities. Make up your mind, people: is man killing off all the large animals or promoting too many animals?

Wrong, and wrong [Re: How do you...]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Don't climate "scientists" have a personal bias invested in a certain outcome?

No. That's the argument made over and over again, but it isn't actually the way science works. In the long run, scientists gain kudos by getting the right answer. Despite the arguments of deniers, scientists aren't idiots.

And in the scientific community, the standard is: the more sensational the claim, the more evidence is required. And climate "science" has made some pretty sensational claims

Again, wrong. In some ways, the problem with actual climate science (not what's in the press, real science) is that the effect isn't sensational. The climate scientists are claiming that anthropogenic carbon dioxide has warmed the planet by on the order of one degree-- far too little for anybody to actually personally notice, although well measurable on a statistical basis. That's only a few percent of the natural greenhouse warming (which is well understood, and not at all controversial, even though it's exactly the same physics).

The reason that denial is so easy is that the effect is so small. Over the long term, of course, it does built up-- but that's brings in the argument "why should we do anything for posterity? What has posterity ever done for us?"

that have a history if not coming true.

Again, wrong. I've been tracking the predictions to data for several years now, and climate modelling still seems to be pretty good; tracking to well within statistical error. The only people who say it isn't are saying so by cherry-picking data that isn't statistically significant.

But we knew that: if the greenhouse effect didn't exist, the Earth would be a frozen snowball.

Re:Wrong, and wrong [Re: How do you...]

[frovingslosh]

No. That's the argument made over and over again, but it isn't actually the way science works.

That argument would have a lot more weight if we didn't see how Professor Peter L. Hagelstein has been treated by M.I.T. for even taking an interest in the process called "cold fusion" (also called low-energy nuclear reactions) and trying to determine where the excess heat was coming from. Clearly there are more politics and less science in the real world that you would have us believe.

Similarly for different but related technology termed "E-CAT", which has had its patent applications rejected because it seems in conflict with existing (old) understanding to nuclear technology.

Once again, politics and the status-qua and funding for big money expensive projects (although they have yet to produce any worthwhile results) take precedent over trying to learn the truth.

Re:Wrong, and wrong [Re: How do you...]

[delt0r]

Don't climate "scientists" have a personal bias invested in a certain outcome?

No. That's the argument made over and over again, but it isn't actually the way science works. n the long run, scientists gain kudos by getting the right answer.

Why do people say this. You clearly don't work in science. You have some lofty idea of how science works, and how honorable we are and stuff. And i tell you as a scientist, that its bullshit.

Just try publishing something unpopular. Or getting reviewed by that guy in your field you know hates you. That is science. Some twisted version of desperate house wives.

Kudos for the right answer indeed. What a tripe of wishful thinking.

Re:Wrong, and wrong [Re: How do you...]

[jwhitener]

These Anonymous Coward's and others that constantly post in these climate threads with blatant misinformation, outright lies, etc.. I've decided must just be industry schills.

How can someone in 2015 still disbelieve the scientific evidence? Either some ideology is causing them to be willfully ignorant of the facts, or they have an agenda that isn't related to the truth.

Re: How do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

the production of beef using unnatural feed

This ^^^.

Feed them *grass* instead of grain and let's reevaluate. Feeding them grain is akin to a shovelful of sugar--now they want to add the medicine so it all stays down...

I for one welcome 3-nitrooxypropanol laced beef!

[iamacat]

I have been lately very concerned that, even between all the pesticides, hormones and antibiotics, I am not getting enough foreign chemicals in my burgers. Maybe this one will finally do the trick and help me mutate into green and 2-headed superior species!

Trollololololol

[Anonymous Coward]

The elimination of cattle farming is a far cry from genocide. There will still be wild cows in the world.

A proper vegan diet does not result in nutritional deficiency, just ask any of the world's many healthy vegans that have lived their entire lives that way.

Go vegan

[walterbyrd]

As I understand it, that would do way more to prevent greenhouse gasses than anything else you could reasonably do.

Re:Go vegan

[Shados]

we'll just run out of fresh water source instead from everything going to almonds and stuff.

Unless we all stick to a small subset of vegan food...a small subset of a small subset...may as well shoot ourselves at that point. But then we'll need billions of bullets...ugh.

Mod parent up.

[walterbyrd]

Excellent video.

Did you ever consider ... ?

[pedz]

170+ comments about cows burping.

What about 7 billion humans farting?

[koan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Hydrogen, carbon dioxide and methane are all produced in the gut and contribute 74% of the volume of flatus in normal subjects.[17]

Worthy Farnsworth Quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great news everybody, our new 3NOP milk and beef products allow: ...prolonged product shelf life for business ...lowers blood pressure and increases sexual performance in our elderly population
and ...priapism in our younger male population

No. The impact is negligible.

[Chalnoth]

Methane may be a powerful greenhouse gas, but it doesn't last very long in the atmosphere. Within 10 years most of the methane emitted is gone (typically due to chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere). Carbon dioxide emissions, on the other hand, elevate atmospheric CO2 concentrations for hundreds of years.

So reduce the methane emissions permanently and you reduce the total greenhouse gas levels by a tiny amount: in 30 years, the effect will be the same as it will be in 5-10 years. Reduce CO2 emissions permanently, on the other hand, and the impact is cumulative: in 30 years the impact of the reduction will still be growing. In the long run, CO2 always wins out over methane as a greenhouse gas. The only way around this would be if there was a sudden large increase in methane emissions that triggered a positive feedback loop (this may occur from methane outgassing as the permafrost thaws in Siberia, but it won't occur due to cattle).

Re:No. The impact is negligible.

[Chalnoth]

To add: there is a large CO2 impact for all animal production, and cattle is worse than poultry. So there is a significant GHG impact, but it's not from burps (or farts).

Wanna stop climate change?

[Anonymous Coward]

Move to the Moon.

The climate always changes.

Re: How do you...

[riverat1]

Don't climate "scientists" have a personal bias invested in a certain outcome?

Even if there weren't anthropogenic global warming there would still be a climate to study. It would still be a subject of considerable interest to us so climate scientists would have plenty of work to do understanding it.

As Geoffry Landis point out the effects of AGW are small on the time scales most humans are aware of. It's a slow motion disaster that's easy to ignore until the effect build up and you wake up one day and ask "Wha' happened?" By then it's too late to fix it except on the slow motion time scale that it happened in the first place.

Re:Cows with guns

[riverat1]

Here's the link.

Finally! I can relax!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that you had suddenly decided to stop posting Climate Change (TM) FUD propaganda. Glad to see you guys are still hard at work keeping the masses indoctrinated.

Re: How do you...

[Catamaran]

I agree. Switching to a vegan diet is about the most effective thing that one can do to save the planet. Ending the horrific suffering of billions of fellow creatures is an added bonus.

Keeps getting more ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Are people really buying this? Are we seriously expected to believe that cows belching is hurting the planet? These are all-natural creatures, doing an all-natural thing. If nature is killing the planet (which I don't believe it is) is there really any point to try saving it? Who are we to step in and decide that cows should not be allowed to burp? I suppose next we should push for in increase in seal clubbing, because I bet if you study it hard enough you can find evidence that seals farting is killing the planet. I'm no scientist, but considering that the planet has been around for a few billion years, I'm pretty convinced that nature isn't going to hurt it.

Vegans make methane too

[frovingslosh]

So I switched to a vegan diet, not for myself but to save the world. With no meat in my diet I started eating a lot more beans. Now there is just as much methane as the cows would have made, and I've lost friends. And it isn't coming out as burps.

Re:Being that there seems to be no serious message

[tinkerton]

Ik think there already has been a lot of marketing, in the sense that activism got ahead of science. The countermovement may be associated with ruthless businesses that put financial gains above all else, but there has also been a backlash from overselling, which reduced the credibility. And a backlash from discrediting skepticism in general, which is also not very good. We need less marketing and less partisan attitudes.

Re: How do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes 100 pounds of grain to make one pound of meat. Meat also takes what? I think like 100 times more water to produce.

And then, yes, having a society in which humans are not inured to the suffering of sentient beings has a lot of positive effects.

Okay then

[dave-man]

Beano for cows.

umm

[evil9000]

Or just ignore the AGW conspiracy machine and accept that CO2 is plant food and the sun controls the climate. Which was what 400 years of evidence makes you conclude when you realise that you cant afford $78 trillion dollars to 'fix' the climate. And maybe the weather right now, on average, over time, is the new average - ie be ready for man made global cooling. Time for this theory to go the way of the Ecosystem Theory and Man made global cooling.

Bart sez

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a cow man! Eat my shorts!

you have to be right [Re:Wrong, and wrong.]

[Geoffrey.landis]

That argument would have a lot more weight if we didn't see how Professor Peter L. Hagelstein has been treated by M.I.T. for even taking an interest in the process called "cold fusion" (also called low-energy nuclear reactions) and trying to determine where the excess heat was coming from.

As I said.

Scientists get kudos from getting the right answer.

In 25 years of trying, cold fusion researchers haven't managed to have demonstrate a reproducible phenomenon.

You don't get kudos merely because you're working on something that isn't popular. You also have to be right.

Re:you have to be right [Re:Wrong, and wrong.]

[frovingslosh]

In 25 years of trying, cold fusion researchers haven't managed to have demonstrate a reproducible phenomenon.

Large amounts of excess heat have been reproduced many many times. Just because some naysayers have failed to reproduce these results is not a valid reason to dismiss the entire field and blackball and label crackpots those who are pursuing it, although that has been happening.

Re:you have to be right [Re:Wrong, and wrong.]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Nope.

Confirmation isn't confirmation if only true believers can see it. The way science works is, everybody has to be able to see result.

How does it works?

[manu0601]

What is the mechanism at work? TFA just says 3NOP increase digestibility. How?

Measurement device

[BlogTheHaggis]

I mean how did they measure the methane output.

I'm imagining a bunch of confused cow wearing expandable latext nappies.

Just sayin...

Re: How do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash ...40% of produce is shopping markets is disguarded into landfills and release mass amounts of methane as they rot. But so do forests but most of it is consumed by bacteria before it can do anything...You Alarmist extremists are so adorablely stuipid.

Re: How do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

A slow motion disaster according to wildly inaccurate climate models using cherry picked data sets all of which have never aligned with emperical evidence...

Ag methane limitation and biochar

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are investigating limiting agricultural methane production, you have to take into consideration the fact that plant material breaks down, whether you run it through a cow or not, and it is broken down by the same general classes of bacteria with the same outputs in either case. The major difference is that it happens faster in the warm, moist environment of an animals intestinal track and the byproducts are contained and then released in noticeable and easily measurable amounts. Therefore, I would say that if you want to do something here that makes a difference, you have to do two things: a) immobilize a significant portion of the methane produced for a lot longer than the time it takes to get through a cow and b) do it in a way that is good for the cow, so that the farmers will want to implement it.
Biochar does both of these things. At this time about 90% of the biochar produced in Europe is feed to livestock and/or applied to their bedding. In either of those two applications it limits methane by absorbing it and, later, making it available to plants after being incorporated into the soil. In the rations, it improves the health of the animals, supports the internal biome, improves feed efficiency. Finally, in the soil it provides a structure soil carbon content can build on.
Biochar's main limits at this time are availability, cost and practical experience in it use. At this time, it is getting fairly wide experimental use in Europe but in the U.S. it is mostly a few individuals. Making changes like this to agricultural practice never happens overnight but biochar could be a viable intervention and should be pursued.

Corn vs Grass

[foghelmut]

How do the methane emissions compare between cows who are given corn to eat vs eating grass like they should?

Re: How do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bison once roamed over vast stretches of the country now occupied by farms and cities. Make up your mind, people: is man killing off all the large animals or promoting too many animals?

An estimated 20 to 30 million bison once dominated the North American landscape from the Appalachians to the Rockies, from the Gulf Coast to Alaska. - http://www.defenders.org/bison/basic-facts

Cattle inventory (as of Jan 1, 2015): 89.9 million, up 1% from Jan. 2014. - See more at: http://www.beefusa.org/beefind...

Re: How do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't climate "scientists" have a personal bias invested in a certain outcome? And in the scientific community, the standard is: the more sensational the claim, the more evidence is required. And climate "science" has made some pretty sensational claims that have a history if not coming true.

Since it's the deniers who constantly want more proof, it's all their fault, you say?

Remeber When

[Anonymous Coward]

So, who prevented the untold millions of bison that roamed the continental US, before 'civilized' people showed up from burping? Why wasn't global warming a big deal then?

Re: How do you...

[dywolf]

Should we start with the problems of equating wild bison with domesticated cattle?
Or maybe the disparity in population (~25million bison over entire continent vs 90million cows in the US alone*)?
Perhaps the difference in their feeding habits (enough to live vs enough to be fattened for consumption)?
Maybe the type of feed (wild grasses vs grains also agriculturally produced)?
Difference of lifestyle (nomadic vs sedentary/penned)?

So tell me.
Just which ignorant part of your ignorant statement should we start with?

*BTW, that's just the number of cows raised for meat, and ignores those from dairies

Re: How do you...

[dywolf]

its 40% of all food in the us, not just produce.

and there are lots of sources of methane.
just because source A exists is not a reason to not work to reduce B, especially when B is one of the biggest sources in existence.
rather, it's best to work to reduce all of it, and in truth, there is also work being done to reduce methane from landfills too.

Re:

[dywolf]

the carbon in plants doesn't come from fertilizers.
it comes largely out of the air.
the plant matter then, when ingested by a cow, ferments in its gut, reconverting the carbon back into Methane and CO2.
Methane is shorter lived, but the thing is it when decomposes it turns into CO2. so its not like it goes away and you get to ignore it.
why switch to any meat? the best way to reduce the emissions from livestock (14% of all human activity) is to reduce the amount of livestock.
yes humans eat meat, but does it have to as much as we do?
theres little health benefits and quite a few drawbacks to the large amounts of it we do eat
you essentially turned your post into an anti-vegetarian and anti-progressive screed...for some reason.
even though vegetarians come from all sides.

you picked an apt topic name. only its not so much an accusation, as a description of the content of your post.

oblig XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1338/

Re:

[Karmashock]

1.Your point about fertilizers not contributing to CO2 in plants means that the methane from cows is not a net increase in atmospheric green house gases.

2. As to methane turning into CO2 after it breaks down... yes... but then we're talking about CO2 again and not methane... and the contribution of to atmospheric CO2 from human live stock methane emissions breaking down into CO2 is so tiny as to not be worth talking about.

3. I eat meat. If you don't like that, then populate the world with a different species of sapients. This species... mine... eats meat.

4. As to vegetarians coming from all sides... not in the west. The vegi lobby is progressive hacks in the west. Your defense of them is frankly an amusing bit of evidence in that vein since you don't comment to anything I say unless I poke progressives... then there you are.

Hello there. I see you. ;-)

It's already stopped.

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you missed the memo "global warming" stopped 15-18 years ago. The 2 satellite systems (RSS & UAH) both show more than 18 years with no statistically significant warming or cooling. In that time CO2 has risen 10%. So much for CO2 being the "control knob" of the Earth's climate.

So the question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate becomes:
                How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?

Oh and don't bother with citing Karl et al and their bastardization of temperatures to make the "pause" go away. They adjusted the ARGO bouy network date UP to match the known contaminated ocean ship engine intake temperatures. To do that is unjustifiable and has been thoroughly lambasted by other climate scientists.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/
"I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."

Here are the 7 steps to get rid of the pause:

1) Use a weak test: p 0.1, not the usual significance. Bit desperate.
2) Use assumptions and apply large adjustments to sea surface data. Don’t use the best dataset for sea-surface temps (ARGO). Ignore the satellites.
3) Create Arctic sea surface temperatures by extending data from land measurements. The ocean there is covered in ice. There aren’t many land measurements to go from. What could possibly go wrong?
4) Don’t mention the eighties or nineties. The fastest recent global warming occurred in the 1980s and1990s. Obviously the 2000s are red-light bad news for the alarm-us camp, because that was when CO2 emissions increased dramatically but the warming slowed. The worst possible thing is to compare those decadal trends to the previous ones.
5) Cherry pick the time frames! Karl et al carefully choose a long trend — all the way back to the 1950s – in order to find a weak long term warming trend that the recent decade can outdo. Back in the 50s and 60s, the world was cooling, so wrapping in and averaging the long cooling and then warming cycle, they can come up with a small warming trend number.
6) To find warming in the sea surface during the pause, it helps to adjust the late 90s sea surface temps down and the recent measurements up, thus increasing the trend in the last 15 years, but not affecting the trend across the whole period. Check.
7) Ignore contradictions like: why can’t we find a hot spot? If the surface warmed more than we thought, the upper troposphere should have warmed even faster. This means the missing hot spot is more missing than before.

This is a very good start on the problems with Karl et al
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick_comments_on_karl2015.pdf

"The mind boggles; If the buoy data was more reliable then why adjust it particularly to the more unreliable ship data as acknowledged by Karl et al ?
I’m not sure anybody could make this stuff up but Tom Karl and etc sure found a way to do that. "

Termites are the largest biological contributor...

[servant]

This has been known for many years. But doing away with them or their 'high fiber' diet isn't practical either.

eet mor chikin

[Anonymous Coward]

nuf said

Re:This is a song about cows.

[lott11]

Actually if you really want to reduce emissions lets star with the real problem. Lets say oil companies or soda, or even the DOW best of all coal let go to prime factor the banking industry. This are the ones that cause most problems, But no this is so called progress, the shaker the mover of all lies. Or better known ass the greaser of political society. You get your daily dosage of BS 3 times a day. It Starts at 6 to 7 morning then 5 to 7 afternoon and latter night 10 to 11 just for the hell of it. Ho yes the programing is pounded in, just for there message to be reinforced every day every where. Till you are 71 of age and then have nothing to say. Ho you have screwed up, I listen to all of there lies. i was wrong all the way. They are the cause of all that is wrong!! But no it was in the news, you will always justify there actions. who pays for all the wars and industries and then who makes it legal. What a bunch, https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: How do you...

[sda1950]

If we would stop feeding the cows rich, for them, grain, and give them the grass they were designed to eat, they would not have this problem.

Harness it

[Anonymous Coward]

Methane is a fuel. Don't we have some kind of fuel crisis looming?

Couldn't we just eat more steak?

[wardrich86]

I mean, everybody loves steak. Maybe we should have Steak Week - like shark week, but more delicious.

gweihir = computing ability impaired mere menial

[Anonymous Coward]

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!)

APK

P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

gweihir = a boundlessly limited mere menial

[Anonymous Coward]

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!)

APK

P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

gweihir you opened your mouth, I shut it

[Anonymous Coward]

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!)

APK

P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

Gweihir facing challenges is problematic

[Anonymous Coward]

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!) - you can't live up to my challenge to SAVE YOUR USELESS LIFE, troll... you don't possess the skills, in your being a MERE MENIAL techie!

APK

P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

gweihir, YOU are extremely limited & weak

[Anonymous Coward]

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!)

APK

P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

LMAO: Gweihir can't implement this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!)

APK

P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk