COW GAS! New Solutions for Earth's Oldest Line of Bacteria

Im a BM wrote:
COW GAS!

The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.

Im a BM wrote:
Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote: Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Too late to edit first post of thread, this is a bit more.

If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today.

On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has probably already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they arrive in force.

Rather than rely on an established population in situ, which can only outcompete methanogens for a generation or two while they have them totally outnumbered...

A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. They can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them.

At some point I'll pull up the article from The Washington Post that reports on it.

Im a BM wrote:
FUN FACT: Which end of the cow does the cow gas come out of?

Im a BM wrote:
COW GAS!

The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.

Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

Why do cows emit methane?

Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.

Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.

Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?

But that's where some different little critters some in.

Methanogenic bacteria.

Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.

They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.

So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.

I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.

But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.

One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.

Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.

Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.

Im a BM wrote:
Most people have never really studied science. They don't know enough basic biology, etc. to know that cows BELCH methane, it is not flatulence.

Im a BM wrote:
Most people have never really studied science. They don't know enough basic biology, etc. to know that cows BELCH methane, it is not flatulence.

People can be forgiven for being ignorant.

It's not so easy to forgive the pig-headed stubborn who REFUSE TO LEARN that cow gas is NOT flatulence, no matter how many times it is explained to them.

Or maybe they just get off on having an excuse to use the word "fart"?


FULL DISCLOSURE - The Washington Post article cited does NOT describe the addition of microorganisms to the feed.

Indeed, the scientists involved are most enamored with the idea of genetic engineering of the microorganisms.

Alter the genes so they don't generate hydrogen gas in the cow guts that can be used to form methane, among other examples.

Based on the general microbial ecology principles, it is my own twist to suggest continuously feeding the cows the kind of 'probiotics' that could capture all the hydrogen before any methanogens convert it to methane.


---------------------------------------------
Here it is:

August 25, 2024 The Washington Post

Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright

----------------------------------------------------------

COW GAS!

The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.

All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)

Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.

Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

Why do cows emit methane?

Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.

Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.

Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?

But that's where some different little critters some in.

Methanogenic bacteria.

Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.

They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.

So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.

I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.

But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.

One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.

Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.

Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.

------------------------------

The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.

So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.

If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.

Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.

If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.

On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.

Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.

A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.

As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.

This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Most people have never really studied science. They don't know enough basic biology, etc. to know that cows BELCH methane, it is not flatulence.

People can be forgiven for being ignorant.

It's not so easy to forgive the pig-headed stubborn who REFUSE TO LEARN that cow gas is NOT flatulence, no matter how many times it is explained to them.

Or maybe they just get off on having an excuse to use the word "fart"?


FULL DISCLOSURE - The Washington Post article cited does NOT describe the addition of microorganisms to the feed.

Indeed, the scientists involved are most enamored with the idea of genetic engineering of the microorganisms.

Alter the genes so they don't generate hydrogen gas in the cow guts that can be used to form methane, among other examples.

Based on the general microbial ecology principles, it is my own twist to suggest continuously feeding the cows the kind of 'probiotics' that could capture all the hydrogen before any methanogens convert it to methane.


---------------------------------------------
Here it is:

August 25, 2024 The Washington Post

Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright

----------------------------------------------------------

COW GAS!

The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.

All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)

Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.

Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

Why do cows emit methane?

Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.

Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.

Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?

But that's where some different little critters some in.

Methanogenic bacteria.

Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.

They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.

So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.

I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.

But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.

One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.

Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.

Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.

------------------------------

The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.

So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.

If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.

Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.

If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.

On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.

Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.

A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.

As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.

This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.

You farted again. Again you want all the cows killed because they fart too much for your liking. Well if you are going to kill the cows you will also have to kill all the Bison as well, and more important you will have to outlaw all active volcanoes as well. I bet you were a riot in 3rd grade last year

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Most people have never really studied science. They don't know enough basic biology, etc. to know that cows BELCH methane, it is not flatulence.

People can be forgiven for being ignorant.

It's not so easy to forgive the pig-headed stubborn who REFUSE TO LEARN that cow gas is NOT flatulence, no matter how many times it is explained to them.

Or maybe they just get off on having an excuse to use the word "fart"?


FULL DISCLOSURE - The Washington Post article cited does NOT describe the addition of microorganisms to the feed.

Indeed, the scientists involved are most enamored with the idea of genetic engineering of the microorganisms.

Alter the genes so they don't generate hydrogen gas in the cow guts that can be used to form methane, among other examples.

Based on the general microbial ecology principles, it is my own twist to suggest continuously feeding the cows the kind of 'probiotics' that could capture all the hydrogen before any methanogens convert it to methane.


---------------------------------------------
Here it is:

August 25, 2024 The Washington Post

Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright

----------------------------------------------------------

COW GAS!

The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.

All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)

Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.

Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

Why do cows emit methane?

Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.

Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.

Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?

But that's where some different little critters some in.

Methanogenic bacteria.

Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.

They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.

So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.

I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.

But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.

One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.

Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.

Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.

------------------------------

The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.

So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.

If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.

Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.

If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.

On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.

Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.

A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.

As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.

This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.

You farted again. Again you want all the cows killed because they fart too much for your liking. Well if you are going to kill the cows you will also have to kill all the Bison as well, and more important you will have to outlaw all active volcanoes as well. I bet you were a riot in 3rd grade last year

Well, I know how kids are, and how much they just LOVE to use the word "fart".

Tee hee hee!

But SO MANY PEOPLE seem to think that cow gas is flatulence. It is NOT.

Cows BELCH out the methane gas from the FRONT end of their bodies.

Oh, Swan, you're so silly!

Thanks for coming to play on the cow fart thread.

The insights you contribute are invaluable for elucidating the issue as it relates to climate.

I have seen a whole lot of Swan posts.

Most of them are about as on topic for climate as farts.

But it is possible for someone to selectively skip past a Swan fart without even having to smell it.

The foot long signature is a dead giveaway. Twelve inches of the exact same stupid shit at the bottom of every Swan fart makes it easy to ID it and quickly scroll past.

The big US flag that Swan defiles with every fart marks the TOP, and foot long conspiracy signature marks the bottom.

Thank you again for your questions and comments about methanogenesis and microbial ecology in the ruminant gastrointestinal... FART! tee hee!

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Most people have never really studied science. They don't know enough basic biology, etc. to know that cows BELCH methane, it is not flatulence.

People can be forgiven for being ignorant.

It's not so easy to forgive the pig-headed stubborn who REFUSE TO LEARN that cow gas is NOT flatulence, no matter how many times it is explained to them.

Or maybe they just get off on having an excuse to use the word "fart"?


FULL DISCLOSURE - The Washington Post article cited does NOT describe the addition of microorganisms to the feed.

Indeed, the scientists involved are most enamored with the idea of genetic engineering of the microorganisms.

Alter the genes so they don't generate hydrogen gas in the cow guts that can be used to form methane, among other examples.

Based on the general microbial ecology principles, it is my own twist to suggest continuously feeding the cows the kind of 'probiotics' that could capture all the hydrogen before any methanogens convert it to methane.


---------------------------------------------
Here it is:

August 25, 2024 The Washington Post

Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright

----------------------------------------------------------

COW GAS!

The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.

All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)

Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.

Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

Why do cows emit methane?

Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.

Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.

Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?

But that's where some different little critters some in.

Methanogenic bacteria.

Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.

They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.

So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.

I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.

But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.

One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.

Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.

Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.

------------------------------

The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.

So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.

If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.

Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.

If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.

On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.

Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.

A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.

As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.

This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.

You farted again. Again you want all the cows killed because they fart too much for your liking. Well if you are going to kill the cows you will also have to kill all the Bison as well, and more important you will have to outlaw all active volcanoes as well. I bet you were a riot in 3rd grade last year

Well, I know how kids are, and how much they just LOVE to use the word "fart".

Tee hee hee!

But SO MANY PEOPLE seem to think that cow gas is flatulence. It is NOT.

Cows BELCH out the methane gas from the FRONT end of their bodies.

Oh, Swan, you're so silly!

Thanks for coming to play on the cow fart thread.

The insights you contribute are invaluable for elucidating the issue as it relates to climate.

I have seen a whole lot of Swan posts.

Most of them are about as on topic for climate as farts.

But it is possible for someone to selectively skip past a Swan fart without even having to smell it.

The foot long signature is a dead giveaway. Twelve inches of the exact same stupid shit at the bottom of every Swan fart makes it easy to ID it and quickly scroll past.

The big US flag that Swan defiles with every fart marks the TOP, and foot long conspiracy signature marks the bottom.

Thank you again for your questions and comments about methanogenesis and microbial ecology in the ruminant gastrointestinal... FART! tee hee!

So once again you are advocating that 250 species of cattle all be eliminated. Do you still have your Jew skin lampshades?

Calling you a moron would be a compliment

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Most people have never really studied science. They don't know enough basic biology, etc. to know that cows BELCH methane, it is not flatulence.

People can be forgiven for being ignorant.

It's not so easy to forgive the pig-headed stubborn who REFUSE TO LEARN that cow gas is NOT flatulence, no matter how many times it is explained to them.

Or maybe they just get off on having an excuse to use the word "fart"?


FULL DISCLOSURE - The Washington Post article cited does NOT describe the addition of microorganisms to the feed.

Indeed, the scientists involved are most enamored with the idea of genetic engineering of the microorganisms.

Alter the genes so they don't generate hydrogen gas in the cow guts that can be used to form methane, among other examples.

Based on the general microbial ecology principles, it is my own twist to suggest continuously feeding the cows the kind of 'probiotics' that could capture all the hydrogen before any methanogens convert it to methane.


---------------------------------------------
Here it is:

August 25, 2024 The Washington Post

Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright

----------------------------------------------------------

COW GAS!

The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.

All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)

Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.

Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

Why do cows emit methane?

Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.

Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.

Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?

But that's where some different little critters some in.

Methanogenic bacteria.

Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.

They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.

So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.

I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.

But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.

One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.

Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.

Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.

------------------------------

The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.

So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.

If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.

Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.

If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.

On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.

Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.

A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.

As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.

This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.

You farted again. Again you want all the cows killed because they fart too much for your liking. Well if you are going to kill the cows you will also have to kill all the Bison as well, and more important you will have to outlaw all active volcanoes as well. I bet you were a riot in 3rd grade last year

Well, I know how kids are, and how much they just LOVE to use the word "fart".

Tee hee hee!

But SO MANY PEOPLE seem to think that cow gas is flatulence. It is NOT.

Cows BELCH out the methane gas from the FRONT end of their bodies.

Oh, Swan, you're so silly!

Thanks for coming to play on the cow fart thread.

The insights you contribute are invaluable for elucidating the issue as it relates to climate.

I have seen a whole lot of Swan posts.

Most of them are about as on topic for climate as farts.

But it is possible for someone to selectively skip past a Swan fart without even having to smell it.

The foot long signature is a dead giveaway. Twelve inches of the exact same stupid shit at the bottom of every Swan fart makes it easy to ID it and quickly scroll past.

The big US flag that Swan defiles with every fart marks the TOP, and foot long conspiracy signature marks the bottom.

Thank you again for your questions and comments about methanogenesis and microbial ecology in the ruminant gastrointestinal... FART! tee hee!

So once again you are advocating that 250 species of cattle all be eliminated. Do you still have your Jew skin lampshades?

Calling you a moron would be a compliment

And WHEN did you STOP beating your wife?

Don't forget that you are under oath, and perjury is a felony.


If you had the tiniest interest in the topic...

I am not aware that ANYONE is advocating for 250 species of cattle to all be eliminated.

I'm not surprised if you were unable to grasp this, but this is about BACTERIA and the kind of gases they consume or produce.

It MAY TURN OUT that among those 250 species of cattle, one or ten of them has some mutation that enables another bacteria to more effectively out compete the methanogenic bacteria for available hydrogen in their guts.

MY DREAM would be to have enough cattle to provide billions of people with animal protein, WITHOUT contributing massive quantities of methane gas to the atmosphere to further aggravate global warming.

My dream of a home on the range comes with a major caveat.

We must waste no cropland growing feed for cattle.

If they can eat some of the crop by products we wouldn't want for ourselves, okay.

And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches, go ahead and use corn and soybeans to make the cow treat crackers.

Speaking of crackers...

You display you true colors with the "lampshades" reference.

Not very pretty.

Im a BM wrote:
COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions.


August 25, 2024 The Washington Post

Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright

----------------------------------------------------------

COW GAS!

The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.

All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)

Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.

Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

Why do cows emit methane?

Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.

Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.

Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?

But that's where some different little critters some in.

Methanogenic bacteria.

Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.

They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.

So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.

I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.

But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.

One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.

Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.

Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.

------------------------------

The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.

So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.

If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.

Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.

If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.

On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.

Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.

A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.

As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.

This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.

Additional thoughts:

My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people.

WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming.

AND with an important caveat.

We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle.

If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream.

And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions.


August 25, 2024 The Washington Post

Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright

----------------------------------------------------------

COW GAS!

The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.

All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)

Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.

Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

Why do cows emit methane?

Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.

Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.

Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?

But that's where some different little critters some in.

Methanogenic bacteria.

Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.

They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.

So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.

I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.

But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.

One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.

Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.

Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.

------------------------------

The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.

So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.

If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.

Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.

If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.

On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.

Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.

A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.

As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.

This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.

Additional thoughts:

My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people.

WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming.

AND with an important caveat.

We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle.

If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream.

And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria.

Must have been far worse with 500,000,000 Bison belching for millions of years

You may now resume wanking

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions.


August 25, 2024 The Washington Post

Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright

----------------------------------------------------------

COW GAS!

The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.

All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)

Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.

Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

Why do cows emit methane?

Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.

Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.

Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?

But that's where some different little critters some in.

Methanogenic bacteria.

Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.

They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.

So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.

I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.

But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.

One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.

Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.

Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.

------------------------------

The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.

So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.

If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.

Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.

If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.

On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.

Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.

A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.

As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.

This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.

Additional thoughts:

My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people.

WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming.

AND with an important caveat.

We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle.

If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream.

And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria.

Must have been far worse with 500,000,000 Bison belching for millions of years

You may now resume wanking

I never STOPPED wanking!

Like your answer in court.

"So, WHEN did you STOP beating your wife?"

Come on, I NEVER "stopped beating my wife"!

I find the number dubious, but there may have been 500,000,000 methane belching bison at some time.

One tenth that, about 50,000,000 is closer to the forty million figure most often tossed around.

But let's make it half a BILLION belching bison.

Those were PRE industrial times.

Humans weren't doing all the things we do now to provoke concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide to INCREASE in the atmosphere.

The half billion belching bison blew a bunch of bad breath...

And all that methane did what methane does regarding infrared radiation.

But ruminants weren't that big a percentage of Earth's animal population in those days.

Indeed, the vast majority of animal species on Earth do NOT belch methane.

Bison biomass wasn't as big a percent of total animal biomass then, compared to cattle today.

You might say it was a kind of "straw the broke the camel's back" thing.

Biological activity made methane both before and after the Industrial Revolution.

Human activity caused the amount of methane produced by biological activity to increase.

All those natural mechanisms that remove methane from the atmosphere continue to operate, but they are up against higher rates of methane emission than before. Consequently, atmospheric concentration of methane increases.

Swan, I know you can't possibly make heads or tails of this, IQ = 130 notwithstanding.

But YOU are NOT the target audience for any environmental science I present.

You wouldn't be here doing what you do if you were teachable.

Im a BM wrote:Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.

What science did you say shows this? I mean, surely this isn't merely silly religious dogma that you are regurgitating, right?

Im a BM wrote:
COW GAS and Fire Breathing Dragons

In the post directly above this, cow gas is discussed in the context of applied microbiology to reduce the amount of hydrogen that gets transformed into methane by methanogenic bacteria in ruminant guts.

However, for more background gases generated in cow guts, and to drive home the fact that cattle belch methane out of their MOUTHS, rather than than the orifice most folks seem to think "gas" implies.

The myth of the fire breathing dragon.

Cows belch methane. Methane is flammable. With some kind of spark present, the cows burp could light up. Seen at night in the distance, such a thing would appear to be a fire breathing SOMETHING.

However, this just doesn't happen much. We've had a lot of cows around for a long time, and if their belches were flaming somewhere... Somebody would have caught it on camera by now.

The origin of the fire dragon myth may yet have been a belching cow, but it would have taken more than just methane to make it happen.

And it theoretically very plausible that this could have happened by having the explosively flammable gas PHOSPHINE present along with all the methane in the cow belch.

Start with the methane.

Cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions where a variety of different microorganisms engage in a feeding frenzy.

Some of those microorganisms produce hydrogen gas.

That hydrogen gas is then used by methanogenic bacteria to make methane.

H2 + CO2 = CH4 The hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide to make methane.

These bacteria are among the oldest line of living organisms on earth.

Fire breathing dragon?

If a cow were to inadvertently eat something exceptionally rich in phosphate, with right kind of anaerobic bacteria present (phosphate reducers), phosphine gas could be produced in the cow guts.

Phosphate, P(V) PO4(3-) gets reduced to phosphite, P(III) PO3(3-)

Phosphite can be further reduced to phosphine

PO3(3-) P(III) becomes H3P P(zero)

Phosphine, H3P, is extremely flammable and can spontaneously ignite upon contact with 21% oxygen atmosphere.

With some phosphine, H3P, to set off the methane, CH4, in the cow's belch...

There is a very real possibility that some cow somewhere may have provided the sight that inspired the myth.

And now, there is a very real possibility that applied microbiology will tip the scales of microbiological ecology in cow guts, so that methanogenic bacteria don't make so much methane out of hydrogen.

Im a BM wrote:
I've tried unsuccessfully in the past to help IBdaMann understand basic concepts like what "gram per gram" means.

Im a BM wrote:
But even the UNITS are too much for him to make sense of.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann insisted that ALKALINITY is reported as "ppm" (WTF?)

Im a BM wrote:
Parts per million, ppm, is based on MASS. Milligrams per kilogram.

Im a BM wrote:
How many MILLIGRAMS of "alkalinity" does a KILOGRAM of sea water have?
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Well, how much does "alkalinity" weigh, IBdaMann?

How do you weigh it?

Is it based on DRY WEIGHT? How on earth could it be measured, as MASS?

Im a BM wrote:
I could mix up a solution with 1000 ppm "alkalinity" with just ONE GRAM of the stuff.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps IBdaMann has a recommended product for when I go the the chemistry store and purchase a gram of "alkalinity". PURE "alkalinity", if they have it. Not the cheap Chinese shit.

IBdaMann stuck to his guns and insisted that the problem way MY lack of knowledge about how REAL scientists measure and report alkalinity. It's ppm.

Im a BM wrote:
And if you just repeat it a thousand times it becomes GOSPEL TRUTH.

Im a BM wrote:
I could ONCE AGAIN refer "Mr. Chemistry Genius" to published scientific literature about how greenhouse gases absorb infrared light.

Im a BM wrote:
But "Science is not a publication", and there is no way IBdaMann would be willing to understand it anyway.

Im a BM wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the physicists have already proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, how infrared absorption properties unique to so-called greenhouse gases make them "greenhouse gases".

Im a BM wrote:
Comparing the infrared absorption properties of the different gases, and estimating their mean residence time in the atmosphere, it is possible to come up with numbers such as methane with 20-30 times, and nitrous oxide with 200-300 times as much global warming potential, gram per gram, compared to carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
I'm not the first scientist that tried to explain this to IBdaMann.

Im a BM wrote:
A member here who called himself "climate scientist" provided IBdaMann with eloquently written explanation of the science that IBdaMann REFUSES to even ATTEMPT to understand.

Im a BM wrote:
I KNOW IBdaMann isn't so stupid that he COULD not understand.

Im a BM wrote:
But due to the religious dogma of Thermodenial, IBdaMann REFUSES to understand.

Im a BM wrote:
And I won't waste time repeating and repeating what the physicists have already proven.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, if you have nothing intelligent to say about the CHEMISTRY, which you don't, maybe you shouldn't bother saying ANYTHING.

Im a BM wrote:
You can invent your own version of thermodynamics to your heart's content without trying to reinvent chemistry as well.

Im a BM wrote:
Otherwise you'll have to invoke "exponential effects" and "change to the acid" to support some ABSURD assertion you make about a "magical" acid's "more pronounced" impact on sea water compared to pure water.

Im a BM wrote:
You know how many pages you'll have to write. DON'T DO IT!

Swan wrote:
Cows are natural and normal and are a fully symbiotic part of a healthy environment, and their poop grows great tomatos. So we need more cows and less dumbass people

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I've tried unsuccessfully in the past to help IBdaMann understand basic concepts like what "gram per gram" means.

Gram means 'gram', Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
But even the UNITS are too much for him to make sense of.

You are describing yourself, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann insisted that ALKALINITY is reported as "ppm" (WTF?)

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Parts per million, ppm, is based on MASS. Milligrams per kilogram.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
How many MILLIGRAMS of "alkalinity" does a KILOGRAM of sea water have?
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Well, how much does "alkalinity" weigh, IBdaMann?

How do you weigh it?

Is it based on DRY WEIGHT? How on earth could it be measured, as MASS?

You are only making fun of yourself, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
I could mix up a solution with 1000 ppm "alkalinity" with just ONE GRAM of the stuff.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps IBdaMann has a recommended product for when I go the the chemistry store and purchase a gram of "alkalinity". PURE "alkalinity", if they have it. Not the cheap Chinese shit.

IBdaMann stuck to his guns and insisted that the problem way MY lack of knowledge about how REAL scientists measure and report alkalinity. It's ppm.

True Scotsman fallacy. Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
And if you just repeat it a thousand times it becomes GOSPEL TRUTH.

You are describing yourself again.

Im a BM wrote:
I could ONCE AGAIN refer "Mr. Chemistry Genius" to published scientific literature about how greenhouse gases absorb infrared light.

All materials absorb infrared light. ...So?

You cannot heat the warmer surface using a colder gas, Robert. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:
But "Science is not a publication", and there is no way IBdaMann would be willing to understand it anyway.

Understand what? Void authority fallacy. Complexity fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the physicists have already proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, how infrared absorption properties unique to so-called greenhouse gases make them "greenhouse gases".

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
No gas or vapor has the capability to heat something that is warmer than itself. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:
Comparing the infrared absorption properties of the different gases, and estimating their mean residence time in the atmosphere, it is possible to come up with numbers such as methane with 20-30 times, and nitrous oxide with 200-300 times as much global warming potential, gram per gram, compared to carbon dioxide.

You cannot create energy out of nothing, Robert. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:
I'm not the first scientist that tried to explain this to IBdaMann.

You are not a scientist. You deny theories of science.

Im a BM wrote:
A member here who called himself "climate scientist" provided IBdaMann with eloquently written explanation of the science that IBdaMann REFUSES to even ATTEMPT to understand.

Climate is not a branch of science. You deny and discard theories of science.

Im a BM wrote:
I KNOW IBdaMann isn't so stupid that he COULD not understand.

Mantra 1a.

Im a BM wrote:
But due to the religious dogma of Thermodenial, IBdaMann REFUSES to understand.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
And I won't waste time repeating and repeating what the physicists have already proven.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone. Science has no proofs. Science is an open functional system. Proofs are only available on closed functional systems, like mathematics or logic (both of which you also deny and discard).

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, if you have nothing intelligent to say about the CHEMISTRY, which you don't, maybe you shouldn't bother saying ANYTHING.

You aren't discussing any chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
You can invent your own version of thermodynamics to your heart's content without trying to reinvent chemistry as well.

IBDaMann did not write the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is not chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Otherwise you'll have to invoke "exponential effects" and "change to the acid" to support some ABSURD assertion you make about a "magical" acid's "more pronounced" impact on sea water compared to pure water.

Acid is not alkaline, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
You know how many pages you'll have to write. DON'T DO IT!

Hallucination.

Im a BM wrote:
"Alkalinity is not a chemical" - Into the Night

Always with the "not a chemical" evasion.

Im a BM wrote:
I KNOW that I never posted any claim equivalent to "alkalinity is a chemical".

Im a BM wrote:
If alkalinity were a CHEMICAL, it COULD be reported as "ppm".

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann is the one saying that alkalinity is a chemical, reported as ppm.

Im a BM wrote:
As for myself, I told you within hours of my first post how alkalinity is reported as MOLES or EQUIVALENTS of hydrogen ion that can be neutralized, per liter.

Im a BM wrote:
Either that or they translate that number into "calcium carbonate equivalents".

Im a BM wrote:
"Calcium carbonate equivalents" can be "milligrams per liter", but that is FAR from the same as "ppm alkalinity". Calcium carbonate equivalents of alkalinity are 50x as much as moles hydrogen ion per liter (alkalinity) because 50 grams of calcium carbonate can neutralize one mole of hydrogen ion.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann has offered "ppm" as the units HE believes are used to report alkalinity, as if it were a CHEMICAL.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night has offered "unit error" as the only unit HE understands to be used in relation to alkalinity.

Im a BM wrote:
The constant repetition of "You cannot acidify an alkaline" suggests that ITN might believe pH units are used for alkalinity, but he won't say exactly.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night says "alkalinity is not a chemical" in this post, at least a few times.

Im a BM wrote:
It was MORE impressive all the many times ITN simply asserted "there is no such thing as alkalinity".

Im a BM wrote:
Now you don't have to evade admitting you have NO IDEA what units are used to report alkalinity.

Im a BM wrote:
You don't even have to say "unit error".

Im a BM wrote:

"There is no such thing as alkalinity." - Into the Night

How can you report something that doesn't even exist as "ppm", IBdaMann?

Im a BM wrote:
The post directly above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS.

This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma.

Im a BM wrote:

No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission.

Im a BM wrote:

And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it.

Im a BM wrote:

If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no".

Im a BM wrote:

If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas".

Im a BM wrote:

In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The post directly above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS.

This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma.

Still infatuated with cow farts.

Im a BM wrote:

No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission.

A cow is not a branch of science. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:

And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it.

Methane cannot warm the Earth.

Im a BM wrote:

If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no".

You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Methane cannot warm the Earth.

Im a BM wrote:

If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas".

Methane has no capability to warm the Earth.

Im a BM wrote:

In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU ignoring theories of science and the laws of thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:Who ELSE is willing to rise to the challenge and write that sentence "Carbonate is not a chemical" HUNDREDS OF TIMES for the cause?"

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Who ELSE is willing to rise to the challenge and write that sentence "Carbonate is not a chemical" HUNDREDS OF TIMES for the cause?"

Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical

There, 200 times. I wish I had thought of simply copy-pasting it all instead of typing each and every letter, but it did me good to reflect on the wisdom of the wisdom.

Im a BM wrote:
In the name of Science, I beg you to respond with intellectual honesty.

Im a BM wrote:
Is carbonate ION a chemical? (I sure hope you notice it says "ion")

Im a BM wrote:
Because if you assert that carbonate ion, CO3(2-) is NOT a chemical, you got some splaining to do.

Im a BM wrote:
You could pull a Parrot and just pretend that "ion" is irrelevant and was never associated with the "carbonate" term that had to be denounced in a "Carbonate is not a chemical" crusade. Ion is just a buzzword anyway. We do not see it.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In the name of Science, I beg you to respond with intellectual honesty.

You deny theories of science, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and most of chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Is carbonate ION a chemical? (I sure hope you notice it says "ion")

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Because if you assert that carbonate ion, CO3(2-) is NOT a chemical, you got some splaining to do.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Random letters is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
You could pull a Parrot and just pretend that "ion" is irrelevant and was never associated with the "carbonate" term that had to be denounced in a "Carbonate is not a chemical" crusade. Ion is just a buzzword anyway. We do not see it.

Carbonate is not a chemical.