If you have nothing left to add, let the adults talk. — Mikie
Every plant (bar a very few and rare parasitic ones) is carbon negative. Every animal and fungus, by contrast, is carbon positive. — unenlightened
But we like dairy and beef. Ok, then let's have some dairy and beef, but let's not pretend that it will help to stop climate change. That's ahem, bullshit! Try not to consume bullshit. — unenlightened
Intelligence, wisdom, knowledge doesn’t correlate with age, nor degrees. — Mikie
Yes, but plants and animals (and fungi) are all part of a cycle (the biogenic carbon cycle). So in the long-run the negatives from the animals have the same magnitude as the positives from the plants. It is a zero sum game. — Agree to Disagree
Yes, but plants and animals (and fungi) are all part of a cycle (the biogenic carbon cycle). So in the long-run the negatives from the animals have the same magnitude as the positives from the plants. It is a zero sum game. — Agree to Disagree
Note that the claim that I just made does not include fossil fuels used to produce plants and animals. It also doesn't include things like nitrogen fertilizers. Fossil fuels and nitrogen fertilizers are not part of the biogenic carbon cycle. — Agree to Disagree
it's all about reducing the methane emissions from cattle farming. This in of itself is a good thing — EricH
But not as good a thing as getting rid of the cattle. — unenlightened
Indeed. A desert is carbon neutral - the environment is balanced. But for a farm, that balance has to extend beyond the farm to the community of humans it feeds. Therefore the farm itself, excluding its dependent customers, has to be carbon negative. Humans in cities are part of the biogenic cycle too, but they course do not feature in the calculations of the livestock industry. — unenlightened
The same is true of a "farm". In the long run the farm captures carbon atoms from the atmosphere (or has them delivered in other forms e.g. grains to feed the cows). It outputs carbon atoms in a variety of ways (crops, fruit, vegetables, milk, meat (processed cows), etc). The farms biogenic carbon cycle must balance. — Agree to Disagree
The whole planet's carbon cycle has to balance because of gravity. :grin: — frank
it is because of simple accounting. — Agree to Disagree
In the long run — Agree to Disagree
The long run includes all the already captured carbon in the Earth, and human exploitation of it too as part of the biogenic cycle. — unenlightened
It is a zero sum game with respect to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the methane from 1.5 billion cattle that hangs around for 12 years in the atmosphere is contributing 14% of the of the global warming. — EricH
Because CO2 emissions last in the atmosphere for so long, they can continue to impact warming for centuries to come. New emissions are added on top of those that were previously emitted, leading to increases in the total atmospheric stock or concentration of CO2. As a result, when additional CO2 is emitted, additional global warming occurs (Frame et al., 2018).
In contrast, methane emissions degrade in the atmosphere relatively quickly, after about 12 years, and do not act cumulatively over long periods of time. For a constant rate of methane emissions, one molecule in effect replaces a previously emitted molecule that has since broken down. This means that for a steady rate of methane release—as emitted by a constant number of dairy cows, for example—the amount of methane in the atmosphere (concentration) stays at the same level and does not increase. As a result, when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs (Frame et al., 2018).
Because fossil fuels have been locked away from the "living" world for a very long time they are normally considered to be non-biogenic. — Agree to Disagree
One tries to engage, but eventually one reaches the outer limits of denialism. 12 years too short, 12 million years too long, but if you look at it just so - no worries. Have a great death! — unenlightened
As a result, when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs (Frame et al., 2018).
Yeah arbitrary limits to your terms to allow your mantra to be true. One tries to engage, but eventually one reaches the outer limits of denialism. 12 years too short, 12 million years too long, but if you look at it just so - no worries. — unenlightened
Have a great death! — unenlightened
So they say that carbon dioxide is bad but methane which degrades, quickly or slowly, to carbon dioxide is not as bad? — magritte
But let's say for the moment that Clear Center is correct and every other source is wrong - and that methane from livestock (provided it is constant) is not contributing to global warming at all. — EricH
Non-biogenic methane is a different issue. — Agree to Disagree
I suspect that when I went back to university to do a 2nd degree you were probably still in nappies (or if you are American, still in diapers). — Agree to Disagree
Biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 and methane) does not make global warming worse.
Non-biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 from fossil fuels and methane from non-biogenic sources) does make global warming worse. — Agree to Disagree
So with a constant number of cows the amount of global warming that is caused by the methane produced by the cows is constant. — Agree to Disagree
Biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 and methane) does not make global warming worse. — Agree to Disagree
This is why we should be making major efforts to reduce non-biogenic carbon (this will be effective), — Agree to Disagree
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.