Nitrous oxide (N2O) is mostly emitted via agriculture. It also is an aerosol propellant, rocket oxidiser/propellant, and as nitrous auto performance boosting system.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y2780E/y2780e01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide

http://carbodat1.jrc.it/ccu/pweb/leip/home/GHG_inventories.html

If we use the manure/droppings of the animals we raise for CH4 production, perhaps we can capture, exploit, and reduce the amount of N2O, CO2 and CH4 (GHG) released.

Diddo for human waste (sewage and decomposable garbage).

Just another symptom of overpopulation.

Choose which exactly ecosystem damaged by global warming we should worry about (from ONE degree Fahrenheit global temperature increase over a century):

I choose the Nepali Himalayas with 1*Celsius temp. increase since 1970, 3*C by 2100. Mountains are the world’s water towers feeding the rivers and lakes upon which all life depends. If the glaciers continue to retreat at the rates being seen in places like the Himalayas, then many rivers and freshwater systems could run dry, threatening drinking water supplies worldwide.

I am concerned more about climate change. If global warming causes drought in food producing areas, we will wish we had the good old days back once again.

Robert Schwartz wrote: We had steak for dinner last night. It was delicious. All you vegans out there can choke on your tofu burgers.

Robert, why the hate? Are you threatened by people who don't eat meat?

“1* Celsius temp. increase since 1970, 3*C by 2100.”

I believe Andrey was talking about average earth temperature measured from the present, back 100 years, not a particular location or a computer programmer’s estimate going 90 years in the future. The Weather channel has a hard enough time predicting next week’s weather.

In the meat consumption versus per capita income chart, was the curve of best fit caluclated by giving each country-specific data point equal weight, or by differentially weighting each country's data point by population? I imagine that they two methods would yield different results, and that the latter method would be more accurate.

Lucas:
Funny language (and a lot of curious facts) describing flatulence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatulence

Allen Z:

US generates about 100 lb of sewage sludge per capita per year. It is universally digested at anaerobic digesters at sewage plants, and generated biomethane is used to generate electricity and heat-up the digesters. Addition of plant residue rich in carbon would vastly improve digestion process, which is suffering from too high nitrogen content. Collected urban garden wastes (generally the grass we move from our lawns, about 250 dry lb per urban capita per year) is obvious candidate.

FyiCO2:

Glaciers live their own life, with extremely wide variations from general climate trends. Local long-term weather patterns, especially precipitation, are by far the major factors of these variations. For example, Greenland peripheral glaciers are melting, but core ice sheet is growing by about 6cm per year:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/03/15/greenlands-secret/

Antarctic continent is, actually, cooling, except for Antarctic peninsula (2% of arctic glacier), which is dramatically melting down due to current weather patterns. Continental ice in Antarctica is growing with whopping rate, compensating for ocean level rise due to thermal expansion of ocean water:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html

Interesting data is presented about history of Alps glaciers, which argues that at Roman times there were no glaciers at all:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,357366,00.html

SJC:

Comprehensive scientific data point out that warmer climate actually produces more moisture and precipitation, and combined with carbon fertilizing effect result in measurable higher harvest yields and increased food production. Talk about why China and India do not want to reduce their carbon emissions.

I'm vegan so I'm doing more for the environment than a Prius driver. Go me.

Andrey, your argument against global warming is quite circular - you want local examples of global warming but then insist that the circumstances are due to localized factors without regard to global warming.

"Continental ice in Antarctica is growing with whopping rate"

Note: computer-generated simulations arrived at this result. In 2005, NASA was still HOPING that in the future they'll be able to verify with real data through a long-term ice thickness measurement campaign.

"Comprehensive scientific data point out that warmer climate actually produces more moisture and precipitation, and combined with carbon fertilizing effect result in measurable higher harvest yields and increased food production."

I'm sure they're waiting for the all-you-can-eat-banquet in the growing deserts of Africa and the Middle East.
Selected references are certainly not universal.

FuyCO2:

Selected references? Computer models?

Hell no.

Data for Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (containing 98% of ice on Earth) are actual satellite measurements published by NACA. I provided the links.

Increased rate of biomass growth are officially reported numbers for such “local” places as Amazon rainforest, standing tree biomass for US, and Siberian taiga.

Try to base your arguments on scientific publications, not on newspaper headlights.

Andrey,
Satellite pictures do not gauge the thickness of ice,
computer models are required for that.

Here is the 2002 data which confirms your selective NASA inference> www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1806

Here is the 2005 data (same source) which refutes the old inference
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6962

Try to base your arguments on more current scientific publications, not old headlights or headlines, whichever the case may be.

Here's some NASA 2006 info:

^ Stephen Cole, "Greenland Ice Sheet on a Downward Slide", National Aeronautics and Space Administration, October 19, 2006

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/greenland_slide.html

Articles you are quoting specifically indicate COASTAL ice melting in Greanland and in Western Antarctic PENINSULA. It is well known fact, that Arctic region is warming faster than Earthy as a whole, and Antarctic is, actually, cooling, at least for last 35 years. I indicated these facts in my post.

However warming, according to satellite altimeter measurements of Norvegian scientists, internal parts of Greenland actually accumulate ice with rate 6 cm per year for the period of study from 1992 to 2003. Decade averaged data is way more reliable than “last year” observations:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/esa-eas110405.php

Measurements of thickness of Antarctic ice were carried out by three different satellite-based short wavelength radiometers and radars. The whole picture for Antarctica for last decades is presented here (scroll down to the end of article):

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H

In more detail results of NASA study which concluded that Antarctic ice mass was growing during period of their study from 1979 to 1999 (two decades!) could be find here:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H

And lets our anticipated readers to decide which data is more comprehensive and representative.

"without the aid of the modern world you would not be very healthy as a vegan."

Go tell that to the Jain people who have been vegan for many hundreds of years!

having pretty to ramble crashing down and one day, were punished names. my misguided my first