Diagram: What ‘Fixing’ the Atmosphere Looks Like
Simplified graphics often get across a scientific message better than thousands of words of complex explanations. Above is a simple illustration to demonstrate the relative difference between leaving our atmosphere alone and removing all those ‘deadly’ greenhouse gases.
The yellow section are non ‘greenhouse gases’ while the darker square represents the proportion of CO2 and methane, include methane from ‘cow farts.’
The elimination of farting livestock does not reduce the amount of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere because the vegetation consumed by the animals would decay into CO2 or Methane even if it was not eaten. What has happened is that the balance of methane and CO2 has changed.
The cost of this change is no milk, butter, cheese, ice cream, beef, pork, ham, bacon, lamb, mutton, wool, goats, horses, mules, bacon, reindeer, donkeys or other domestic animals
The elimination of 1.6 black squares is the result of zero emissions of man-made CO2 with the rest being a result of volcanoes, gassing from the oceans, respiration by animals, decomposition of organic mater.
The cost for this change is the elimination of petroleum for fuel for cars airplanes, boats and other means of transportation, heating, chemicals, plastics, synthetic cloth, industrial production, manufacturing, mining.
For those who want to eliminate the 1.6 percent CO2 produced by man they must eschew the lifestyle resulting from the use of these products and adopt the hunter gatherer lifestyle prevalent centuries ago, where the agriculture was done without the aid of domestic animals. Life would be about the continuous effort to provide the necessities for survival with little time for anything else.
For myself, this unachievable goal is not worth the cost since I don’t believe that a cooler Earth to be a benefit or that the resulting miniscule change will have any effect. So I will use the benefits provided by technology and the utilization of these resources, to drive my car to a store to buy bacon and ice cream so in my leisure I can eat them as I use my computer to protest against the increasing tidal wave of idiocy currently occurring.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
James McGinn
| #
Hi Herb,
This is the best article on global warming ever, anywhere. Within the first half sentence I got your point, well before I got to the climax–ice cream!!!
I will recommend this article to everyone I know. Some of them–the less bright amongst them–may spend an inordinate amount of time staring, trying to find the deeper meaning of your graphic. But all of them understand the meaning of ice cream and bacon.
Big thumbs up!!!
James McGinn
President of Solving Tornadoes
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, James, and hopefully PSI readers,
Herb, your text begins: “Simplified graphics often get across a scientific message better than thousands of words of complex explanations.” And James, you endorse this.
PSI Readers, question this. For the fundamental foundation of SCIENCE is actual observations and/or measurements. If you want to believe this, you should ask: What was SCIENCE before graphics? Only you, a reader, .can answer this question for yourself.
In the next paragraph, Herb you make the common argument: “The yellow section are non ‘greenhouse gases’ while the darker square represents the proportion of CO2 and methane, include methane from ‘cow farts.’ ” Big vs. Little or Little vs. Big. I ask: How many dissolved oxygen molecules are there in stream, lake, or ocean water relative to the number of water molecules in these waters? So, should we conclude, via this Big vs. Little argument, that these few oxygen molecules relative to the many water molecules, are not important to some life as we know it?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Protestant
| #
Brilliant graphic by Herb Rose. Absolutely brilliant.
Reply
Mike O'Meara
| #
Majority of cow emissions is surely the burp not the fart
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mike,
Some of text was edited by PSI staff, for which I thank them. I did not use the term “cow farts” but methane and even though the term is not precisely accurate for ruminants, as you point out, I think it is more appropriate for the article.
There are supporter of GHGT who have little factual knowledge of the atmosphere and little ability to think about it. For those believers the use of scince and reason in a discussion is useless. What you need to use in arguments with them is colored pictures and terms like “cow farts” in order to show them a threat more imminent and horrible than some nebulous climate change, like the loss of bacon and ice cream.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mike and Herb,
When Mike wrote–“Majority of cow emissions is surely the burp not the fart” and you reported how your submission had been edited I questioned what was the gas composition of a burb because two obviously different ends of the cow was involved.
So I Googled my question and this what I read as an answer: “When cows eat grass the microbes in the rumen break down and ferment it making methane gas as a by-product.” Now I ask you both, since when is methane a by-product of fermentation?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rosr
| #
Hi Jerry,
A cow has a four chambered stomach. The grass initially goes into the ruminating section where microbes break it down anaerobically (fermentation) producing the swamp gas. The cow belches the gas and part of the contents back up where the content is re-chewed as a cud to be swallowed into another section of the stomach for further digestion where further anaerobic decomposition produces farts..
Have a good day,
Herb.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefully PSI Readers,
“The number and type of bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract vary dramatically by region. In healthy individuals the stomach and proximal small intestine contain few microorganisms, largely a result of the bacteriocidal activity of gastric acid; those that are present are aerobes and facultative anaerobes. One interesting testimony to the ability of gastric acid to suppress bacterial populations is seen in patients with achlorhydria, a genetic condition which prevents secretion of gastric acid. Such patients, which are otherwise healthy, may have as many as 10,000 to 100,000,000 microorganisms per ml of stomach contents.
“In sharp contrast to the stomach and small intestine, the contents of the colon literally teem with bacteria, predominantly strict anaerobes (bacteria that survive only in environments virtually devoid of oxygen). Between these two extremes is a transitional zone, usually in the ileum, where moderate numbers of both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria are found.” (vivo.colostate.edu)
These people seem to disagree with what you just wrote.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
They are talking about people’s stomachs not cows.
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: One interesting testimony to the ability of gastric acid to suppress bacterial populations is seen in patients with achlorhydria, a genetic condition which prevents secretion of gastric acid.
James: Wow. This is kind of random, but I actually have this condition. The only treatment that I have been advised involves drinking apple cider vinegar before every meal. It does kind of work but it isn’t a cure by any means. I have come up with a treatment that does work better though. Jerry, if you or somebody you know has this condition and you are interested in my treatment send me an email and I will email it to you. Here is my email:
jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
See what informative informations you might get by reading PSI comments.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefully PSI Readers,
I accept that what I wrote only applies to humans. And I must acknowledge the fact that regardless of whether cow belch carbon dioxide and/or methane; both gases are greenhouse gases.
Thank you, Herb,for the conversation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply