In 12 years, all the methane will be gone, since this year we’ve completely eliminated cows. Problem solved.

—

Cows— livestock, agriculture, etc., emit greenhouse gases. That contributes to warming the planet. It’s that simple.

It doesn’t matter if the methane disappears in 12 years— it doesn’t matter if the CO2 will disappear in 100 years.

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. — Agree to Disagree

No it doesn’t.

The 2022 methane increase was 14.0 ppb, the fourth-largest annual increase recorded since NOAA's systematic measurements began in 1983, and follows record …

Emissions are going up. Cows and livestock contribute emissions. They contribute about 15% globally.

We need more sustainable agricultural and livestock production, which includes less production.

No, this is correct.

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). — 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. — wonderer1

Mikie tried to imply that I am not an adult. I simply corrected him.

Does, "Hesperus is Phosphorus", help? — wonderer1

Can you not see that reducing biogenic carbon has very different effects to reducing non-biogenic carbon?

A methane molecule is a methane molecule, and a CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule, whether it is biogenic or non-biogenic. The effect on global warming is the same no matter whether the carbon is biogenic or non-biogenic. But the effects on other things are very different

Reducing non-biogenic carbon does not require as many changes to things like the farming industry, and does not require people to change their diet (which they might not want to do). It doesn't affect the types of foods produced and the amounts of foods produced, compared to reducing biogenic carbon.

Reducing biogenic carbon is likely to meet more resistance. Fighting global warming is hard enough as it is. Why make it harder? Many people don't like tofu or meat substitutes, and many people are not willing to give up meat.

Do you want cooperation or resistance?

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? — Janus

Fruits, nuts, chickens, and crops all require transport to market.

Clearing the land and transporting things mostly uses non-biogenic carbon at the moment. So these activities should be made as efficient as possible.

One thing to consider is that not all beef and dairy production is the same. American production (and anywhere else that's been bullied by Americans) is not particularly efficient. A lot of pesticide and petroleum based fertilizer has been used. Corn production goes into beef, which again, isn't an efficient way to feed cattle. So if your local beef production is efficient, you may find that you're talking apples and oranges with an American. See what I'm saying?

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

Please read this article. Dr. Frank Mitloehner is one of the authors of this article.

Quotes from the part with the title "Methane vs Biogenic Methane":

Fossil methane impacts the climate differently than biogenic methane.

Bottom line: Fossil methane increases the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which drives warming.

As part of the biogenic carbon cycle, the carbon originally utilized by the plant is returned to the atmosphere, contributing no net gain of CO2.

Look at Figure 5 and Figure 6 on page 5.

Quotes from the part with the title "Climate Impact Potential/GWP* (GWP-Star)":

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 [added by me - new emissions of CO2 accumulate], 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 [added by me - methane emissions do NOT accumulate]. 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).

This improved understanding of how short-lived versus long-lived emissions affect climate differently is critical to addressing further global warming. Limiting climate change requires that we bring emissions of CO2 and other long-lived GHGs down to net-zero (Frame et al., 2018). For methane, however, it is possible to have steady ongoing emissions that do not result in additional warming (Frame et al., 2018).

Look at Figure 7 on page 7.

Figure 7 shows that CO2 accumulates but methane does not accumulate.

One of the problems with many articles is that they don't discuss the difference between biogenic methane and non-biogenic methane. And they talk about "emissions" (outputs), but don't talk about "influxes" (inputs").

This article talks about the difference between Fossil Methane and Biogenic Methane early in the article, but later just talks about Methane (without splitting it into Fossil Methane and Biogenic Methane).

The key points are that:
- fossil methane causes more global warming because when it breaks down it adds more CO2 to the atmosphere
- a constant emission of biogenic methane does not cause any ADDITIONAL global warming because when it breaks down the CO2 is absorbed by plants.

See what I'm saying? — frank

Yes Frank, I see what you are saying.

The country that I live in is very efficient at producing lamb and beef, I am not sure if this is totally true, but I read once that our lamb and beef has a lower carbon footprint even when it is flown to the other side of the world, than the lamb and beef produced locally there.

And our government here wants to cut back our lamb and beef production to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. They seem to think that it is better for other places to produce lamb and beef locally with a huge carbon footprint, rather than use our lamb and beef with a smaller carbon footprint.

Can you see why the problem of global warming won't get solved?

The country that I live in is very efficient at producing lamb and beef, I am not sure if this is totally true, but I read once that our lamb and beef has a lower carbon footprint even when it is flown to the other side of the world, than the lamb and beef produced locally there.

And our government here wants to cut back our lamb and beef production to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. They seem to think that it is better for other places to produce lamb and beef locally with a huge carbon footprint, rather than use our lamb and beef with a smaller carbon footprint. — Agree to Disagree

And that's just wrong. If you're very efficient, then you're a model for everyone else to follow. Not only are you helping the climate by being so efficient, your meat is healthier than what you'd get elsewhere.

Can you see why the problem of global warming won't get solved? — Agree to Disagree

It won't be solved by humans as they are now. I agree with that. We can change though. We can morph into a species that reacts intelligently. I'm not guaranteeing that will happen, I'm just saying that we have a history of being incredibly adaptable. It's possible.

methane emissions do NOT accumulate].

Yes they do, and are.



Even staying at a constant level for “12 years” is hugely problematic. We need to decrease emissions, not keep them the same and not increase them.

Try reading something other than one guy from the meat industry.

It won't be solved by humans as they are now. I agree with that. We can change though. We can morph into a species that reacts intelligently. I'm not guaranteeing that will happen, I'm just saying that we have a history of being incredibly adaptable. It's possible. — frank

The big difference between you and me Frank, is that you are an optimistic pessimist, and I am a pessimistic optimist.

The big difference between you and me Frank, is that you are an optimistic pessimist, and I am a pessimistic optimist. — Agree to Disagree

Wow! I think that's actually true about me. I accept death. It would take a while to explain why, but I'm ok with oblivion. It's from the door to oblivion that you can see how beautiful it all really is.

How are you a pessimistic optimist?

Try reading something other than one guy from the meat industry. — Mikie

Try reading what I quoted.

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).

Look at the graph that you posted and ask yourself, "has the rate of methane emissions been constant over the time period 1984 to 2022 (38 years)?".

Methane emissions do NOT accumulate if the rate of methane emissions is constant.

How are you a pessimistic optimist? — frank

I can see that there are possibilities for solving problems (like solving global warming). But I am cynical and don't believe that people will do what is required. The reasons include self interest (at many levels, individuals, groups, countries, etc), greed, hatred, ignorance, arrogance, suspicion, doubt, lack of caring for others, etc.

Somebody suggested that the reason that we have never found evidence of aliens is that all civilizations destroy themselves before achieving interstellar travel. Increasing technology usually means more powerful energy sources. Will anybody misuse it (accidently or on purpose) and destroy the world?

Murphy's law says that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

I think that Murphy was an optimist. :grin:

Murphy's law says that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. — Agree to Disagree

Good ole Murphy. But necessity is the mother of invention. I wouldn't rely on good intentions. Most good intentions are a veil behind which lies the same old greedy buttheadedness. You have to give up on the goal to finally realize the ends don't justify the means. It's a Protestant principle. Do they have Protestants where you are? :razz:

Methane emissions do accumulate and are accumulating. The graph is pretty easy to understand.

We don’t want them staying the same— we want them to decrease. Same as CO2.

The rest is just talking out our asses.

- a constant emission of biogenic methane does not cause any ADDITIONAL global warming because when it breaks down the CO2 is absorbed by plants. — Agree to Disagree

You keep repeating yourself by quoting the same source (which I have already read) and ignoring my questions/responses.

Two key questions that you need to answer

1. ------------
Virtually every source available (NOAA, NASA, IPCC, etc) states that methane is responsible for 14% of the total global warming and that livestock production is a significant part of that. Dr. Mitloehne seems to be denying that. So for the record are you saying that NOAA, IPCC etc are all wrong? Yes or no.

2. -------------

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). — Agree to Disagree

YOUR SOURCE states that reducing biogenic carbon is one of the most cost effective ways to reduce global warming and they are actively working on reducing methane production from cattle farming (details in your article). So please choose - do you agree with your source or not?

We have looped around in this back & forth 3 times now - if you have something new or different to say I will continue this conversation. Otherwise I give you the last word.

But I am cynical and don't believe that people will do what is required. The reasons include […] ignorance, — Agree to Disagree

Without any awareness of irony.

YOUR SOURCE states that reducing biogenic carbon is one of the most cost effective ways to reduce global warming — EricH

You guys aren't talking about the same thing, Eric. His source claims that there's an opportunity to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere if we reduce the methane emissions from livestock farming. He hasn't contested that. He's just saying that as it is, (probably more so in his country where farming isn't as inefficient as it is here) livestock farming is net-zero because the CO2 the cows put out is reabsorbed by the plants they eat, so it's a cycle.

You're talking about a different issue: which is that we can go beyond net-zero and make farming net-negative. The plants the cattle and sheep eat will have to absorb CO2 that's from somewhere other than farming. Like from your gas tank. See?

That's because he's a troll. When you've beaten one point to a pulp, he won't engage and simply come up with the next.

It can be confusing trying to make sense of Agree's multiple claims & evasions. I have been narrow focusing on two of his (I assume that's his preferred pronoun) stated positions - one of which is based on the papers by Mitloehne (who we know is an industry shill) - and the other which contradicts Mitloehne.

1) Provided it does not increase, so called biogenic CH4 is not contributing to global warming
This is a claim made by Mitloehne. Of course this is false and is contradicted by the evidence from every reliable source. I have no illusions that Agree will change his mind on this - my mission here is simply to get him to acknowledge that Mitloehne is all by himself in making this claim. Of course Agree cannot get himself to do this - instead he keeps repeating the quotes from Mitloehne.

As we all know, biogenic CH4 is increasing every year, so this point is mute, but even under the counterfactual assumption of no increase it is still false.

2) We should concentrate on reducing non-biogenic CO2
Agree has repeatedly stated that it is a mistake to try to reduce biogenic CO2 and we should concentrate on reducing non-biogenic CO2. And here he contradicts his own source! Mitloehne's stated mission is to reduce CH4 production from cattle production through various means. Whatever else we may think, reducing CH4 emissions from any source is a good thing. So I am trying to get Agree to acknowledge that he is contradicting his source.

Re this second point: Of course we would be much better off if we stop raising cattle for food altogether. And you could argue the point that such reduction is insufficient AND lulls us into believing that we are doing everything we can - but again that is a separate discussion.

But I am cynical and don't believe that people will do what is required. The reasons include […] ignorance,
— Agree to Disagree

Without any awareness of irony. — Mikie

I was talking about you Mikie. :grin:

:yawn:

Yeah, because of the two of us, I’m definitely the ignorant one. Now tell us more about how cattle don’t contribute to global warming…

Of course this is false and is contradicted by the evidence from every reliable source. — EricH

Could you give an example of that?

Thanks Frank, you have explained the situation better than I have. Many of the other people in this discussion are talking about a different issue to the one that I am talking about.

Thanks Frank, you have explained the situation better than I have. Many of the other people in this discussion are talking about a different issue to the one that I am talking about. — Agree to Disagree

:up:

Fruits, nuts, chickens, and crops all require transport to market. — Agree to Disagree

They are less costly to transport and process than beef cattle. Also, they can be sold locally thus avoiding the need for abattoirs and transport. Chickens can be made ready for the cooking by the famer. Of course, so can cattle on a small scale, but it is a much greater undertaking.

I am not generally in favor of large scale, monoculture cropping, in any case, and the land that is suitable for cattle may well not be suitable for crops. Are you aware of how much forest in South America is being cleared for beef cattle farming?

In 2019, global methane concentrations rose from 722 parts per billion (ppb) in pre-industrial times to 1866 ppb:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/

This additional methane is coming from human activity: https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/methanebudget/20/hl-compact.htm

And per the above this additional methane is responsible for at least 14% of global warming (other estimates are higher).

Now consider this statement by Mitloehne - which our friend Agree keeps quoting:

“when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs”

So think this through. The current level of concentration is roughly 1900 ppb and this contributes 14% of global warming. The plain language meaning of the phrase “when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years” is that the there is a balance between the methane converting to CO2 and new methane being generated by all sources. I.e., in 12 years the concentration of methane would still be 1900 ppb.

So Mitloehne is saying that in 12 years, even tho the level is still 1900 ppl, somehow these new molecules of methane (which replaced the ones that converted to CO2) will somehow no longer contribute to global warming. Really??? Are the laws of physics going to change in 12 years? Do the new molecules of methane have some special property that the current molecules do not have? I think not.

In a sense my statement “Of course this is false and is contradicted by the evidence from every reliable source” is not quite accurate. It would be really bizarre if a research scientist were to make the statement such as - our predictions are based on methane behaving the same in the future. That would be roughly equivalent to saying our estimates are based on the sun still rising in the east and setting in the west.

So I will re-phrase my statement: “No reliable source has ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas.”

I applaud your patience and explanations.

What’s frustrating is that most of this could be avoided if we just say to ourselves “Maybe when thousands of scientists around the world tell us that methane emissions from livestock are a problem, we should take that seriously.”