Thanks.

Right. So let's start with some common ground, ok?

There is a carbon cycle. When you eat, you take in carbon in the form of fats, carbohydrates, and protein. Your body decomposes and metabolizes these substances to create ATP. The use of ATP increases the amount of dissolved CO2 in your bloodstream, making your blood acidotic. Fairly quickly, the carbonic acid would screw up your heart and you'd die if your body didn't do something about this. In fact, it does two things: your kidneys buffer the acid with bicarb, and the CO2 dissolves out of your blood into the air in your lungs. You exhale the CO2 out and it travels around the atmosphere.

When you exhale, you're increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere by a tiny bit. The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere rises a little every time you breathe out. If it's summer time, the plants around you will absorb a fair amount of that CO2. Some will be absorbed by bodies of water and rocks. The rest will just float around.

Before we move on, do you agree with the above?

This is silly. Even if I had the time & energy (which I don't) I'm not going to take the bait and engage in this type of discussion.

You asked a question & I answered. If you disagree with me - if you feel that Mitloehne is correct then make the case and I'll respond.

Otherwise I suggest you go out to NOAA web site - they will provide the answers to all these issues.

This is silly. — EricH

Ok. Have a wonderful day.

:clap:

You mean you don’t want to get lectured about the basic physics of CO2 from a physics professor internet rando?

“No reliable source has ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas.” — EricH

No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

No true Scotsman has ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas. Because that would mean that he was not a true Scotsman.

Also, very few unreliable sources have ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas. You have introduced a red herring. Nobody is disputing that methane is (and always will be) a greenhouse gas.

I am working on a post to describe the whole situation. It takes into account the 4 types of gas that need to be considered:
- biogenic CO2
- biogenic methane
- fossil CO2
- fossil methane

The amount or concentration of methane in the atmosphere depends on both biogenic methane and fossil methane, and the fact that methane breaks down to CO2 and water vapor after about 12 years.

You mean you don’t want to get lectured about the basic physics of CO2 from a physics professor internet rando? — Mikie

Mikey, that was all stuff you should have learned in a high school biology class. I wonder about you sometimes. :confused:

Mikey, that was all stuff you should have learned in a high school biology class. I wonder about you sometimes. :confused: — frank

Mikie was participating in "School Strikes for Climate" the day that they taught that stuff. :grin:

Everybody knows that the best way to solve global-warming/climate-change is to NOT get a good education. :sad:

Everybody knows that the best way to solve global-warming/climate-change is to NOT get a good education. :sad: — Agree to Disagree

Nobody has time for education. :razz:

Nobody has time for education. :razz: — frank

Education is not needed when you already know everything. :cool:

Education is not needed when you already know everything — Agree to Disagree

True.

So this thread is now a message board for climate deniers to post whatever “thoughts” pop into their heads. :yawn:

So this thread is now a message board for climate deniers to post whatever “thoughts” pop into their heads. :yawn: — Mikie

To begin, we must doubt everything including the concept of climate. Could be an evil demon tricking us!

Heartbreaking story today in the Sydney Morning Herald - that nearly the entire brood of last year's Emperor Penguin chicks, around 10,000 in number, have drowned due to the premature break-up of pack ice in the Antarctic Ocean, largely due to the effect of global warming on the ice pack. They're not able to swim until fledged, and the ice broke up before they were ready.



:fear:

So this thread is now a message board for climate deniers to post whatever “thoughts” pop into their heads. :yawn: — Mikie

I intend to post actual news updates here from time to time. Deniers will always deny, but so what? Just another voice in the hubbub.

That is sad.

Deniers will always deny, but so what? — Wayfarer

:up:

In pre-industrial times methane was at roughly 722 parts per billion (ppb). Methane is currently at 1900 ppb. This increase is due to human activity. This additional methane from human activity contributes 14% of global warming.

The rate of warming since 1981 is 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.

0.14 * 0.32° F = 0.0448° F ( 0.025° C)

So methane is currently causing roughly 0.0448 °F ( 0.025° C) increase in global temp per decade.

The energy sector (i.e. fossil methane) is responsible for around 40% of total methane emissions attributable to human activity, second only to agriculture. Biomass burning contributes a small amount. So to make the math easy let's say that biogenic methane is contributing 1/2 of that increase: 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade.

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

Again to make the math simple, assuming that a constant emission of both biogenic and fossil methane is emitted over the next 12 years, what will the approximate methane concentration be in 2035?

A) less than 1900
B) 1900
C) greater than 1900

[EDIT]
Of course the answer is 1900 ppb. If you are emitting a constant amount of methane then that will replace the methane that is breaking down into CO2.

So a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2023 and 2035 will continue to contribute an ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) (actually a bit more since this is a 12 years not 10). And if we have a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2035 and 2047 then the biogenic methane will contribute YET ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C). And so on.

Have I finally made myself clear?

Have I finally made myself clear? — EricH

I have read your analysis carefully and there are a number of points that I disagree with. To prevent things from getting too complicated I will just point out 1 of the problems in this reply.

If you are emitting a constant amount of methane then that will replace the methane that is breaking down into CO2.

So a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2023 and 2035 will continue to contribute an ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) — EricH

You admit that emitting a constant amount of methane each year will not increase the total amount (or concentration) of methane in the atmosphere. In your example it will still be 1900 ppb.

If the total amount of methane in the atmosphere is constant then how can it be causing additional global warming?

Answer: Your calculation of an ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) of warming is not based on emitting a constant amount of methane each year. It is based on the amount of methane being emitted each year increasing.

If the total amount of methane in the atmosphere is constant then how can it be causing additional global warming? — Agree to Disagree

Sigh. I'll try one more time.

The assumption is that the amount of biogenic methane remains constant.

If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade, then that by itself is going to increase global temp by 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade - because that's what it is doing today and it's going to continue to do that (the laws of physics are not changing).

I.e., If the current global temp is X and biogenic CH4 remains constant in the atmosphere, then in 10 years (ignoring everything else) the global temp is going to be X + 0.0224° F

Again this is based on the amount of biogenic CH4 being constant. Now if the emission rate were to go down then the contribution to global warming would go down (less than 0.0224° F per decade). And if CH4 emissions were to go up even more (as seems likely) then the contribution to global warming would be even higher than 0.0224° F per decade.

I can't think of a way to make this any simpler or more obvious.

[Edit]
In case it was not clear, the biogenic CO2 is NOT contributing to global warming in this simplified scenario because it is re-cycled by plants.
[Another edit]
Perhaps the confusion here is with the word "additional". Would you agree with this sentence:

If the total amount of biogenic methane in the atmosphere is constant then it will not cause any additional warming above & beyond what it is currently causing - 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade.

Perhaps the confusion here is with the word "additional". Would you agree with this sentence: — EricH

I agree that the word "additional" makes things more confusing.

But I disagree with some of your assumptions.

This additional methane from human activity contributes 14% of global warming.

The rate of warming since 1981 is 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.

0.14 * 0.32° F = 0.0448° F ( 0.025° C)

So methane is currently causing roughly 0.0448 °F ( 0.025° C) increase in global temp per decade. — EricH

The phrase "contributes 14% of global warming" can be interpreted in different ways. Does it refer to "14% of the AMOUNT of global warming" or "14% of the RATE OF INCREASE of global warming"?

The energy sector (i.e. fossil methane) is responsible for around 40% of total methane emissions attributable to human activity, second only to agriculture. — EricH

This may be true but the overall global warming effect of biogenic methane is different to the overall global warming effect of fossil methane. Because biogenic methane breaks down to CO2 and H2O and the CO2 is taken up by plants. Fossil methane breaks down to CO2 and H2O and the CO2 is NOT taken up by plants. Your statement is about "emissions", not about "effect on global warming".

If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade, then that by itself is going to increase global temp by 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade - because that's what it is doing today and it's going to continue to do that (the laws of physics are not changing). — EricH

This statement is incorrect and I am not saying that the laws of physics are changing. If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade then that by itself will not increase the amount of global warming. Your calculation of 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade is NOT based on constant emissions of biogenic methane.

I am working on a "flow diagram" which will show the difference between biogenic methane, fossil methane, biogenic CO2, and fossil CO2. I will post it on this discussion when it is finished. It will probably take me a day or two.

14% contribution to emissions, not to mention 80% of deforestation of the Amazon (and much of the rest to grow feed) for cattle.

But there’s no reason to worry, because some guy on the internet recently learned the term “biogenic carbon cycle” from a meat-producer website.

If the Arctic permafrost abruptly melted it would put up a ginormous amount of methane and we'd all die. That could happen at any point. Like tomorrow morning.

We could all wake up dead tomorrow. Like everybody. :grimace:

I've had a full life. Getting fuller every day. Every extra day is a blessing, make the most of it.

make the most of it. — LuckyR

That's it. :up:

There is such a thing as overthinking an issue.

There is such a thing as overthinking an issue. — LuckyR

I'll have to think about that.

Good one!

(rimshot)

If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade, then that by itself is going to increase global temp by 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade - because that's what it is doing today and it's going to continue to do that (the laws of physics are not changing).
— EricH

This statement is incorrect and I am not saying that the laws of physics are changing. If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade then that by itself will not increase the amount of global warming. Your calculation of 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade is NOT based on constant emissions of biogenic methane. — Agree to Disagree

It is closer to being correct than it is to being incorrect. Greenhouse gases act like insulation. So global temperatures start to increase when the insulation effect increases, and will eventually reach a stable temperature for any stable increase. The time it will take to stabilise, and the temperature it will eventually stabilise at, are extremely difficult to model but the time-frame will be decades, if not centuries. So the assumption that warming will continue due to a steady state of greenhouse gases is very much closer to the truth, than that the planet will stop warming immediately when greenhouse gases stop increasing.

But as it happens, CO2 and CH4 levels are still increasing.

There is such a thing as overthinking an issue. — LuckyR

I am not sure. I will have to think about it. :chin:

Just don't overdo it.