If you have nothing left to add, let the adults talk. — Mikie

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).

Intelligence, wisdom, knowledge doesn’t correlate with age, nor degrees. You’re a prime example.

Like I said, let the adults talk. Go back to reading meat industry propaganda. Or do you still have something stupid to say?

Every plant (bar a very few and rare parasitic ones) is carbon negative. Every animal and fungus, by contrast, is carbon positive. — unenlightened

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.

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.

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

However cow shit IS a part of the biogenic carbon cycle. And so is bullshit. :grin:

Intelligence, wisdom, knowledge doesn’t correlate with age, nor degrees. — Mikie

Are you saying that young people (with little life experience) usually have more intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge than older people?

I used to think that when I was young. :grin:

Or do you still have something stupid to say? — Mikie

Are you saying that young people (with little life experience) usually have more intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge than older people? — Agree to Disagree

I guess you did have something stupid left to say. Cool.

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

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.

If you had actually read the article and watched the video from U Cal that you yourself posted (which BTW is financed by the cattle industry), it's all about reducing the methane emissions from cattle farming. This in of itself is a good thing

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

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.

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

Indeed. You don't actually have to teach anyone here the basic science. It is indeed the burning of stored carbon that is the maincause of the problem, and that includes not only the obvious fossil fuels, but notably the limestone and chalk used to make concrete and to neutralise acidity in the soil of farms.

And as you imply, intensive farming is problematic. In order for a farm to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, it needs to be carbon negative after the consumption of all its edible produce. It needs to be storing carbon in the soil, or else producing non-consumable wood products or the like.

Farming practice needs to move in two directions at once. Frstly towards a true hydroponic factory farm, of multi-layered artificially lit growth powered by electricity. A sterile controlled environment to maximise the production of food; and similar bacterial and fungal production units. Secondly, to a lower intensity farming of the land that prioritises environmental concerns for biodiversity, resilience, and carbon capture over maximising human food production. In either direction, there is going to be less meat.

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.

But not as good a thing as getting rid of the cattle. — unenlightened

That sounds too much like a final solution. :scream:

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

Yes, all humans everywhere (not just cities) are part of the biogenic carbon cycle. Humans also use non-biogenic carbon (e.g. from fossil fuels like oil, coal, and gas).

Consider a spherical cow (or a spherical human). Every carbon atom that comes out of the cow must have at some point gone into the cow. The cow does not create carbon atoms or destroy carbon atoms. All that the cow does is change the form of the carbon atoms (e.g. from cellulose to milk, muscle tissue, bones, dung, CO2, methane, etc).

Some of the carbon atoms that come out of cows go into humans (we drink milk, eat meat, etc). So both cows and humans are part of the same biogenic carbon cycle. You can consider the biogenic carbon cycle of just cows, or the biogenic carbon cycle of just humans, or the combined biogenic carbon cycle of cows and humans together. Every biogenic carbon cycle must "balance", no matter which organisms (or combinations of organisms) is considered.

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.

The farm can also act as a temporary store of carbon atoms as well. But in the end the farms biogenic carbon cycle must "balance".

This is why biogenic carbon is not an overall contributor to global warming.

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:

The whole planet's carbon cycle has to balance because of gravity. :grin: — frank

Many a true word is spoken in jest.

The whole worlds biogenic carbon cycle must balance. It is not because of gravity, it is because of simple accounting. Ask your bank manager. :nerd:

it is because of simple accounting. — Agree to Disagree

I don't know, accounting is pretty complicated. :razz:

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. the question is whether humans are going to be in it for the long run or are going to be a temporary disruption. the whole cycle of life on Earth can stop and still be in balance. So no worries eh?

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

Fossil fuels were formed over a very long period of time from what used to be biogenic carbon. The process of turning biogenic carbon into fossil fuels removes it from the biogenic carbon cycle.

Because fossil fuels have been locked away from the "living" world for a very long time they are normally considered to be non-biogenic.

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

This article explains the relationship between biogenic methane and global warming.

https://clear.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7876/files/inline-files/CLEAR-Center-Methane-Cows-Climate-Change-Sep-2-20_6.pdf

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).

Why it helps to have a weak sense of identity:

You know how there was this American missionary who decided to bring the faith to a small island off the coast of Africa? It was an area where there were no police, there was no government, and no law. People told the missionary not to go because the natives would kill him.

He was like, "No, I have love in my heart, and these people will see into my soul and understand that I'm coming to help them. He was practically glowing with his bright pearlescent halo as he set out alone in a canoe to save some souls.

They killed him.

It's good to try to look at the world through other people's eyes, but if you find that you don't have the experiences necessary to do that, at least recognize that the basic trust necessary for human interaction is not built by beaming your righteous heart out at the world you want to save. Sometimes you have to notice what other people need in order to trust you. If you're too bound up in your ego to look outward, you may end up destroying any chance of trust (like by insisting that in your flesh and bones you believe the ends justify the means, that's a bowling ball into trust.)

, that's roughly the story of John Chau in 2018, just not Africa but the Sentinelese. So, not hypothetical.

methane emissions degrade in the atmosphere relatively quickly, after about 12 years, and do not act cumulatively over long periods of time.

So they say that carbon dioxide is bad but methane which degrades, quickly or slowly, to carbon dioxide is not as bad?

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

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. Have a great death!

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

But…Biogenic carbon cycle?

that's roughly the story of John Chau in 2018, just not Africa but the Sentinelese. So, not hypothetical. — jorndoe

I think that's the guy I was thinking of.

Bacteria that decompose methane into fertilizer and tofu.

Just kidding, it's not tofu, it's some kind of edible sludge.

So first of all you should be aware that the Clear Center at UC Davis, receives almost all its funding from industry donations and coordinates with a major livestock lobby group on messaging campaigns. So we have to be very cautious about anything they might say.

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).

This contradicts virtually every other source I could locate with a 10 minute search - they all say the same thing - methane emissions (primarily from cattle production) are contribute roughly 14% of total global climate change.

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.

Even with this counter factual assumption it is still a good thing to reduce methane production - since per your source this is one of the most cost effective ways to slow down global warming. Yes?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Edit: Maybe we are misunderstanding these papers. I email'd Dr. Mitloehner from Clear Center at UC Davis. Let's see what he has to say

Dear Dr. Mitloehner,

I am a lay person who follows climate science - I am hoping you can find the time to answer a question.

I can see from the published reports that CLEAR is doing some good work on reducing CH4 emissions from livestock management.

In this paper it states that when a steady amount of CH4 is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs. However this seems to contradict virtually every other source I can find which says that CH4 production from agriculture (primarily livestock raising for meat or milk) is responsible for roughly 14% of global warming.

I fully understand the biogenic carbon cycle, I get that livestock production is net neutral with respect to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (apart from associated costs of transportation etc, etc).

However, the CH4 from 1.5 billion or so cattle is always in the atmosphere and this is well above the amount of CH4 that was in the atmosphere before we started mass production of livestock. So isn't that additional CH4 contributing to global warming (even if the concentration does not increase)?

Or put differently, would it be correct to state that when a steady amount of CH4 is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs above and beyond the contribution from the CH4. (My bold)

I am aware of the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - so thank you for being patient with these amateur questions.

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

Can you see the difference between 12 years and 12 million years?

Have a great death! — unenlightened

I am doing my best to have a great life !!!

And before you accuse me of being selfish, I want everybody to have a great life.

So they say that carbon dioxide is bad but methane which degrades, quickly or slowly, to carbon dioxide is not as bad? — magritte

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.

For global warming it is mainly the biogenic versus non-biogenic issue which is important.

This is why we should be making major efforts to reduce non-biogenic carbon (this will be effective), and stop making major efforts to reduce biogenic carbon (this will not be effective).

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

I think that the problem here is the phrase "contributing to global warming at all". It should be "contributing any additional global warming".

Methane causes global warming:
- if you increase the amount of methane in the atmosphere then you get more global warming
- if you decrease the amount of methane in the atmosphere then you get less global warming
- if the amount of methane in the atmosphere stays constant then the amount of global warming from the methane stays constant (it doesn't make global warming any worse or better)

A constant number of cows produces a constant amount of methane each year. Because methane has a finite lifetime (about 12 years) this means that the total amount of methane in the atmosphere from cows is constant. So with a constant number of cows the amount of global warming that is caused by the methane produced by the cows is constant.

Non-biogenic methane is a different issue.

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

Seems kind of silly to think that matters much in this discussion, when you are constantly demonstrating that you are a pretender to scientific understanding. Does, "Hesperus is Phosphorus", help?

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

How are you going to farm the cattle without clearing land or using land that is already cleared that could otherwise be planted with trees, ideally fruit or nut-bearing trees, or grow more efficient animals, such as chickens, or crops, and how will you transport the cattle to market without using fossil fuels?

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

Right - it will continue to contribute 14% of the global warning - which accumulates.

To make the math simple, let's say that the current amount of methane in the atmosphere is causing mean global temp to rise by 0.01 degrees C every 10 years. So in 30 years if the amount of methane stays the same it will have contributed 0.03 degrees C rise.

But maybe I'm totally getting this wrong and Dr. Mitloehner will have an obvious explanation for his assertions. I highly doubt he will answer but you never know.

Apart from that, do you agree that what UC Davis is doing to reduce methane production is a good thing? If nothing else this will slow the rate of global warming, yes?

Biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 and methane) does not make global warming worse. — Agree to Disagree

It absolutely does.

This is why we should be making major efforts to reduce non-biogenic carbon (this will be effective), — Agree to Disagree

But there are no solutions, remember?

“Tell me a solution and I’ll shoot it down.”