versus not verson

Please substantiate your claim.

Comparing apples to apples, the US populationof cattle as of 2009 was <97 million. In the 15th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle), it is estimated there was more than 60 million bison. So an increase in the US of 65% in cattle over 500 years. Even if we take out the first 350 years before cattle ranching became popular, it doesn't explain how the increase has been since the industrial revolution and more specifically the Gilded Age.

My citation was for the US cattle popultaion in 2009. Misplaced the in-text citation.

Draug says: "60 million of one breed in the US verson all bovine in the world? You are comparing apples to a fucking orange grove? "

I was under the impression that we were talking about the Bovine family.

Draug said earlier: : "Actually, the decimation of the Bison (a Bovine species of which the female are cows and the male are bulls) has left fewer Bovine in the world now than during the conquest of what we now call the USA. "

As I pointed out there are 1.3 billion cattle in the world today. Since at their peak Bison numbers in North American were only about 60 million. Doesn't it seem a tad unlikely that there are fewer Bovine today because of a reduction in numbers of North American bison? As a proportion of the total number of bovine today - even had bison become extinct it would still only be a tiny dint in the total population of bovine today.

It would be an interesting fact if it were true. Maybe there is something that I have missed, but Draug you could clear it up by providing a link that substantiates your claims.

I should have said in the US, my apologies. I can't speak to other species found aroudn the world, but it should be pointed out that Cattle have been ranched and herded for more than 10,000 starting in Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle)

I posted this earlier, but I'll repost it again just in case anyone missed it. It would be nice if the OP would admit that he was wrong and that the link he posted had zero credibility.
The Australian newspaper and the Mail on Sunday (the source of opening post) have both admitted that they were wrong and have printed retractions:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3854782.htm

This is really a simple question. How many bovine were in the US in the mid to late 1700s (when the territory of the now-USA was fully conquered by Europeans)?

I looked for that but to no avail. I'll try searching some more.

How about stop making aggressive statements that have no substantiation. That would help.

But here is an interesting article...

http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/cattle-population-in-us-smallest-since-1958?news=842152

The US cattle population is the smallest it has been in nearly 60 years. I can't speak for the world total in that same time comparison, buyt assuming this is fairly representative, it would seem cattle isn't responsible for any climate change.

+1 draug for "You are comparing apples to a fucking orange grove"

I'm totally stealing that one!

I found something that helps a little bit...

http://www.dickinsonlonghorn.net/longhorn_info/index.cfm

" In 1890, the United States Department of Agriculture estimated the nation's cattle population at 60 million head, mostly containing Texas Longhorn Blood. "

Now, IIRC, the population of bison had damn near been eliminated (just a few thousand head left) at this time, so in roughly 125 years, cattle have increased about 35% in the US. And in the 6 years leading up to 2011, cattle had decreased every year.

Mind, I'm not denying some kind of climate change is happening. I'm saying nothing other than, assuming the US is representative of the world, it ain't cattle that's to blame. :-)

And thank you for prompting me to reaserach this. It's good practice for me.

"I can't speak for the world total in that same time comparison, buyt assuming this is fairly representative, it would seem cattle isn't responsible for any climate change."

No. You'd have to show a secular decline in cattle inventory from 1958 to the present. A one low just shows that the cattle inventory has been particularly low this year due to the bad weather of last year.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Cattle/inv.asp

"Now, IIRC, the population of bison had damn near been eliminated (just a few thousand head left) at this time, so in roughly 125 years, cattle have increased about 35% in the US. And in the 6 years leading up to 2011, cattle had decreased every year."

First, Bison are not "nearly eliminated". I can go to the local market and get fresh bison meat (depending on the season). About 1/2 million are currently in North America.

Second, the number of cattle shot up quite a bit from the 1930s until the 1970s. Nearly 140 million at the peak level. 6 years is nothing and says nothing about the overall trend.

"I'm saying nothing other than, assuming the US is representative of the world, it ain't cattle that's to blame. :-)"

And you have no basis with which to say that, based on the information you have so far provided.

*Misread comment about "had been nearly eliminated". Disregard response to bison comment.

why the fuck are you talking about cattle, who gives a shit, they produce methane, yes, but that's made all around the world by bacteria just simply from decomposing matter, they barely have an impact on global warming.
THIS shit is whats causing it
http://www.thegwpf.org/china-india-building-4-coal-power-plants-week/

Also, permafrost is beginning to melt in the north, causing huge quantities of trapped methane to escape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release

Let me ask this question Putin (and you are forgiven for misreading on the nearly been eliminated, it happens to all of us), when did climate change begin? For approximately 500 years, there have been between 60 million and 140 million head of cattle or bison in the US. Admittedly, that means the peak was more than twice what it was in Columbus' day and even in the late 19th century, but the human population which produces a "shit ton" (pun intended) or waste that decays into methane as well as farts of their own has more than doubled from 3 billion in 1960 to over 7 billion today. Who do you think produces more methane from bodily functions? A couple billion cattle or 7 billion people?

Cattle population, at least in the US, is falling. By 2045, it is estimated the global population will be 10 billion people (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg).

"why the fuck are you talking about cattle"

Putin33 made a remark about the sum of all human activities, including cattle farming, as contributing to emissions. Valid. Draug responded with aside (that would have been interesting if it were true) there are fewer bovine today than before Europeans colonized North America, and almost eradicated the bison. My guess is is that this might be something that Draug vaguely recalls reading somewhere and perhaps the facts have become distorted (fair enough, happens all the time to the best of us). This started a mini-debate about whether Draug's claim was in fact true. It is not central to the question of the validity of AGW theory.

"when did climate change begin"

That is an interesting question. Some scientists have speculated that possibly human impact on climate started with the advent of agriculture. I don't think anyone knows for sure, but it is an interesting thought. I have a vague recollection of reading about this idea in New Scientist a few years ago (I can't find a link though for that). But I have found another link to story which talks about such a theory:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/aug/17/early-farmers-climate-change

"why the fuck are you talking about cattle, who gives a shit, they produce methane, yes, but that's made all around the world by bacteria just simply from decomposing matter, they barely have an impact on global warming."

@ ILN

I never said cows were a primary agent of Co2 emissions, only that cow waste has increased due to human consumption of meat, so this can't be written off as non-human contributions to climate change. This was challenged by Draugnar, hence the discussion.

"Who do you think produces more methane from bodily functions? A couple billion cattle or 7 billion people?"

Cattle.

An average (1,000 pound) cow produces 60 pounds of manure per day. Because they are fed 25+ pounds of food per day in order to gain around 3 pounds per day. Humans do not have such production.

http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/environment/intensive-livestock/cattle-feedlots/managing-environmental-impacts/manure-production-data

"Who do you think produces more methane from bodily functions? A couple billion cattle or 7 billion people?"

If we are just talking bodily functions I am going to hazard a guess and say a couple of billion cattle (something to do with the type of food they eat and how their digestive system works). I recall reading somewhere that most people don't emit methane when they fart (hence not everyone can light their own farts).

But imagine all that toxic baby poop as it decays. Ever seen a toxic waste dump diaper? Man, some kids can really produce it. And their diet is closer to the cows.

Thanks, Putin. That was very enlightening. So maybe as we approach 2045 and the 10 billion people mark we will become the big bodily methane producers or maybe we should be looking at other uses of cow dung.

So let's look for a solution (even if you don't think there is a problem).

Let's pass a law that all cattle has to be kept in doors 24 hrs a day, (in a moootel). All the methane is extracted and burnt to produce energy. Burning methane produces about 2.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide per tonne burnt, but methane is supposed to be 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

So question is if we had a law that kept all bovines indoors, what would be the nett effect?

Why would you keep cattle indoors, what would you feed them, corn? Corn that ruins their intestines and makes them dependant on antibiotics? And it would be much better to just attach some device to their ass. Also, cattle are completely insignificant when it comes to tons and tons of methane released every year from the melting permafrost.

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/?wpmp_tp=3

@ILN i believe that cows burp methane, though i don't recall the source on that...