Hey Agree: I hope that you will now review Mitloehner's article from U Cal that you referenced and reconsider your opposition to reducing biogenic methane emissions. — EricH

I have looked at Mitloehner's article from U Cal again and I can see 2 statements that misled me. These are:

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

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. — Dr. Frank Mitloehner

The first statement says that fossil methane is bad. This is correct and the same applies to fossil CO2.

The second statement says that biogenic carbon is not bad because it is part of a cycle. I assumed that biogenic carbon meant both CO2 and methane. While it is true that biogenic methane is part of a cycle, the amount in the atmosphere at any particular time can make the amount of global warming bigger or smaller.

Farming practices (e.g. farming efficiency, feed crop yields, veterinary care, sustainable feed practices, animal nutrition, etc) affect the amount of methane in the atmosphere. The number of cows also affects the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

So reducing the number of cows would lower the amount of biogenic methane in the atmosphere and lead to less global warming.

However, reducing the number of cows has some possible negative effects.

Cellulose content is particularly high in grasses and shrubs found on marginal lands, which are places where grains and other human edible crops cannot grow. Two-thirds of all agricultural land is marginal, full of cellulose dense grasses that are indigestible to humans. But guess who can digest cellulose? — Samantha Werth, CLEAR Center at UC Davis

They [cows] turn low-quality proteins [crops] from a human nutritional perspective into high-quality protein [beef and dairy] with a more balanced amino acid profile. — Pamela Tyers at CSIRO

Many people want to eat beef and drink milk. These may become more expensive if supply is limited.

Many people will lose their jobs and have to retrain. Some people will not be happy about that. Farmers are obviously affected but there are many other associated jobs.

In the end the decision on the number of cows we should have is a compromise based on many factors.

Your random, fatuous questions are irrelevant. — Mikie

I thought that efficiency of fossil fuel use was relevant to a discussion about global-warming/climate-change.

Adults are talking. — Mikie

It is appalling that you are using ad hominem on The Philosophy Forum.

You are implying that I am not an adult. That is ironic, since compared to me you are a baby.

Why don't you address the issues that I have raised rather than try to insult me?

In any case, we’re talking about making production better by not having it controlled by a handful of elites. — Mikie

In 2022 there were just over 40,000 McDonald's restaurants in the world. Which do you think is more efficient in terms of fossil fuel use? McDonald's, or 40,000 small independent hamburger restaurants?

↪schopenhauer1 Small is Beautiful. — unenlightened

What about economies of scale?

Economies of scale also apply to the cow industry (sorry Mikie :grin: - you can substitute any other industry if you don't like cows). Raising a few cows in a barn is probably much less efficient (in terms of fossil fuel per kilogram of cow) than bigger scale cow raising techniques.

Not all of the something-industrial complex are purely evil. ;) — jorndoe

What I am about to say will upset a lot of people. Don't worry Mikie, it is not about cows. :grin:

Big Oil is not purely evil. What do you want oil companies to do? Starve people of fossil fuels?

Starving people of fossil fuels will harm a lot of people. Especially poor people and developing countries. That is why we need to move away from fossil fuels slowly enough to avoid creating big problems.

Well off people may think that global-warming/climate-change is the biggest problem in the world. But some people are struggling just to afford food, shelter, warmth, energy, etc. For these people global warming is not their primary concern. Oil companies are supplying these people with what they want and need.

How odd that it’s this one issue — cows — that you want to dwell on, and yet repeatedly get wrong. — Mikie

Okay. I promise not to talk about cows until the next time that I mention them. :grin:

Now you are saying this is incorrect, but you have not offered an explanation. If this is wrong, then you need to provide the correct answer. If biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays the same (at 600 ppb) how much warmer will global temps be due to this? — EricH

Okay, I have thought carefully about what you are saying and I think that I can see what you mean.

I have been talking about the theoretical situation where the Earth is at its equilibrium temperature. In that case having a constant emission of methane does not cause global warming.

But the Earth is not at its equilibrium temperature at the moment. The equilibrium temperature is higher than at present (because of the current levels of CO2 and methane). So the current levels of CO2 and methane are causing global warming even if the emissions of biogenic methane were constant.

Am I describing what you are saying correctly?

If we could get fusion working that would help. — frank

If pigs could fly that would help. :grin:

A word of caution Frank. Be careful what you wish for. :pray:

Marriage Counselor: "So Micky, I hear you saying you think Minnie is mentally... unstable?"

Micky. "I didn't say she was mentally unstable. I said she was fucking Goofy." — frank

Thanks Frank. That one made my day. :grin:

Please stop talking common sense. Somebody might believe you. :grin:

How odd that it’s this one issue — cows — that you want to dwell on, and yet repeatedly get wrong. — Mikie

I have also introduced sheep and goats. They are all ruminants and 3 billion ruminants must produce a hell of a lot of methane. Not to mention the methane from their dung.

What do you want to do about this?

If two idiots agree, that doesn't mean they're right.
— Benkei

Thank you for saying what we’re all thinking. — Mikie

So Mikie and Benkei agree with each other. What were you saying about two idiots agreeing? :joke: :joke:

What I want to say to agree to disagree is that we are on the hook, and we won't be getting off the hook through reinterpretation. Only by altogether stopping greenhouse gas production can we avoid getting cooked. — BC

When you say "altogether stopping greenhouse gas production" are you including emissions of biogenic methane?
- there are just under 1 billion cows in the world
- there are over 1 billion sheep in the world
- there are about 1 billion goats in the world (this has increased by more than half in the last four decades)

Would killing all cows, goats, and sheep (all of which are Ruminants) help to solve the problem of global warming in the long-term?

Would killing all cows, goats, and sheep (all of which are Ruminants) help to solve the problem of global warming in the short-term?

Of course the actual picture is more complicated, but does that help in understanding why the two statements under discussion aren't contradictory? — wonderer1

Yes, that does help. Thank you for the clear explanation.

Try reading what was said. — Mikie

From your link:

Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries. Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.

I was not aware that there was previous work saying that "Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly".

The quote does indicate that "the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries".

I had read that climate scientists said that a certain amount of global warming was "locked in" even if we stopped emissions today.

started rethinking this issue.
— Agree to Disagree

No they haven’t. — Mikie

Are you saying that the climate scientists at NASA are wrong?

Here is a simple flow diagram showing the Carbon Cycle ignoring Fossil Carbon. I would like to find out what people think of it.

It is meant to be a starting point for discussing the full Carbon Cycle including Fossil Carbon. I will post a picture of the full Carbon Cycle including Fossil Carbon soon.

That's new. They used to say the lag was a century or more. :up: — frank

Being a cynical old man I wondered if they made this up because they knew that people wouldn't bother fighting global warming if the effects were centuries away. :scream:

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. — unenlightened

You make a very interesting point. This is the view that most climate scientists believed and they have told the public about this.

However, some climate scientists has started rethinking this issue. See the following NASA webpage:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change

However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it, but that lag is less than a decade.

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

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

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.

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.

Nobody has time for education. :razz: — frank

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

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:

“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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).