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.

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:

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.

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:

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:

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).

It doesn't seem to require much intelligence to be a propaganda parrot. — wonderer1

Please don't talk about Mikie like that.

I mean, the very notion that people would sit around arguing about cows seems crazy to me.
— frank

Amen, brother. Can we please stop discussing the god damned cows! — BC

In the country where I live beef, lamb, and dairy are very important industries. The government and the farmers have been arguing for at least 6 years about whether agriculture should be brought into our country's Emissions Trading Scheme (and how it should be brought in). The government and the farmers keep making deals and then breaking them.

There is an election very soon, and this has become an election issue.

We've pissed away the last 30 years, and now have about 10 years left. — BC

They have been saying that we only have 10 years left for the past 40 years.

Have you heard about the boy who cried "wolf".

I presently have an immortal fish with whom I have a troubled relationship. — frank

Get a divorce and split things 50/50. :grin:

I think that you and I agree on about 99% of what we are talking about. But that doesn't make for an interesting discussion, so I am going to concentrate on the 1% where we disagree. Also, I don't like tofu. :grin:

If you don't think we can do anything about climate change, it doesn't really matter if cattle farming is net-zero, does it? — frank

The big problem is that economies and countries and people (farmers, etc) who depend on cows (beef, dairy, etc) are being punished for no good reason. Economies and counties and people are being damaged financially. Countries that are damaged financially have less money to fight fossil fuels, and are wasting resources that could be used to fight fossil fuels.

I may have given people the impression that I thought that there is nothing that we can do about global warming. I think that this is probably true short-term. Part of the reason for this is that people don't understand the real situation and are concentrating on the wrong solutions. They are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as the Titanic slowly sinks.

I think that there is something that we might be able to do about global warming long-term. If we concentrate on the right solutions. Even then, it will be difficult and take a long time. I favor a slow move away from fossil fuels. But not so fast that it creates big problems.

... and make the ludicrous assumption that “if” we keep the numbers the same, eventually things would stabilize. Yeah, no shit. Since that isn’t close to reality, why you choose to harp on it is pretty telling. — Mikie

You don't seem to realize that if the number of cows has already been approximately constant for the last 12 years then the situation is already stabilized. The current number of cows won't cause any additional global warming. The total methane level from cows is already constant in the atmosphere.

I said it doesn’t address the problem of livestock emissions. It doesn’t address the problem at all, in fact. — Mikie

It talks about livestock emissions and whether these emissions are actually a problem.

The "problem" is that you won't look at anything that you don't agree with.

if livestock numbers stay the same, eventually (in about 12 years), the methane produced by livestock will not contribute additional global warming.

From “goodmeats.”

Clue: the keyword here is “if.” — Mikie

IF you look then you will see that not all of the sources are meat companies.

IF you read the sources then you might learn something.

IF you can do the maths then you would see that the claim is true.

Clue: the keyword here is “IF”

What don't you like about these 2 sources?
— Agree to Disagree

That they have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem of emissions from livestock, which is significant. — Mikie

The first source from The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle
This webpage address actually has "biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle" in the address.
You obviously haven't read it because it is about emissions from livestock

The second source from CSIRO: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein
This webpage has a section on methane

You’ve repeatedly quoted a meat company. — Mikie

I gave you 2 other sources which are NOT meat companies. What don't you like about these 2 sources?

This one is The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle

This one is CSIRO: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is an Australian Government agency responsible for scientific research.
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein

Thus, it’s a cycle and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere. — Mikie

The carbon in fossil fuels accumulated over a long time and has been locked away from the atmosphere for a long time. Burning fossil fuels adds carbon to the atmosphere and this carbon accumulates because it stays in the atmosphere for a long time. Fossil fuel carbon is not part of the biogenic carbon cycle.

But yeah, keep quoting the “good meats” company website. Solid (and apparently only) source.

Try broadening your horizons. It won’t help your denial, but it’ll at least inform you a little more regarding your obsession with cows. — Mikie

I gave you 3 sources in total. The other 2 are NOT meat companies

This one is The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle

This one is CSIRO: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is an Australian Government agency responsible for scientific research.
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein

Have you tried doing the maths?

Which points can you prove are wrong?

Please read this webpage to see information about your points (a) and (c)

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein

Look especially at the sections about
- grain-finished versus grass-fed
- Inedible feed to edible protein
- Not competing for land

Grass-fed cows digest their food by fermentation; a by-product of this fermentation is methane, which the cows belch in large quantities, Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. — BC

https://www.goodmeat.com.au/environmental-sustainability/biogenic-carbon-cycle

Cows (and other ruminant animals like sheep) are often linked to climate change because they emit methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG).

But the fact is, this methane is part of a natural – or biogenic – carbon cycle, in which the methane breaks down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water after about 12 years. Grass then absorbs the CO2 through photosynthesis, cows eat the grass and the cycle continues.

The next 2 paragraphs are counter-intuitive, so take time to think about them

With stable livestock numbers, the amount of methane produced actually balances the methane that breaks down from the atmosphere.

The next paragraph is my summary of the situation:
With stable livestock numbers the total amount of methane in the atmosphere from cows remains at the same level. This is because the amount of methane added to the atmosphere each year equals the amount of methane removed from the atmosphere each year (by breaking down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water). So if livestock numbers stay the same then the methane produced by livestock does not cause additional global warming (the methane from cows is not increasing).

Is this serious? I’ll assume it is.

Yes, there is. There’s an increase in greenhouse gases. — Mikie

Please explain how cows increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.

It is a cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows.

Remember that carbon atoms are not being created or destroyed. So they are easy to account for.

How did the livestock issue end up on your radar? Are you a farmer? — frank

Not a farmer. I was a computer programmer / software tester for about 40 years.

I had been reading about how cows are very bad for global warming because they emit greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2 and methane).

I wondered how many cows there are in the world. There are just under 1 billion (about 1 cow for every 8 humans).

I thought that 1 billion cows must be causing a huge problem. But then I researched further and found that CO2 and methane from cows are part of the biogenic carbon cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows (in the long-run).

Most people are spending a lot of time and resources trying to reduce emissions of GHG's from cows. It is a total waste of time and resources. As I said earlier:

- Reducing biogenic carbon won't reduce atmospheric CO2 in the long-run, because it is a cycle.

- Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon is a waste of time and will hurt many country's economies. If a country's economy is hurt then the country will have less resources to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.

- Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon wastes the resources that could be used to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.

It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows.

Cows (primarily, of all livestock) produce 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, mostly in the form of methane. — Mikie

Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
Cows eat the plants.
The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.

It is a cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows.

The problem of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the use of fossil fuels, not cows.

If we reduce the number of cows, all sorts of things would be better, but I agree that fossil fuels are what we need to focus on. — frank

The following 3 articles show that there is a very positive side to cows.

Here are some highlights:

- Methane emitted by ruminants like cattle, sheep and goats is recycled into carbon in plants and soil, in a process known as the biogenic carbon cycle. It’s an important natural cycle that’s been happening since the beginning of life.

- 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?

- beef cattle turn low-quality feed into lots of high-quality protein for human nutrition.

- Grazing of pastures by livestock helps remove GHG from the air by stimulating more plant growth, which accelerates the absorption of CO2 from the air, turning it into carbon in plants and soil.

https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle

https://www.goodmeat.com.au/environmental-sustainability/biogenic-carbon-cycle

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein

Thoughts for the day:

Reducing biogenic carbon won't reduce atmospheric CO2 in the long-run, because it is a cycle.

Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon is a waste of time and will hurt many country's economies. If a country's economy is hurt then the country will have less resources to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.

Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon wastes the resources that could be used to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.

Then i realised that the extremes of the seasonal temperature variation take place on land, and most of the land is in the N. — unenlightened

There IS a planet "B".

It is called the Southern Hemisphere :grin:

Wow, that's fascinating. — frank

Have a look at how many locations never even get "warm" (e.g. London, Vancouver, San Francisco, Stockholm, plus many many more)

Could you explain what you think this data shows? — frank

I have just found the most amazing website which shows "The Weather Year Round Anywhere on Earth"

It has incredible temperature maps which show the average temperature for a large number of locations by time of year and time of day

The website is called
https://weatherspark.com

Here is the home page

Sent to you

You were lying here when pretending you weren't aware this data was on the website you used for your min-max temperatures, which is what I was referring to. — Benkei

Do you realise how many webpages there are on the NOAA website?

How can I be expected to know about all of them? I probably only know about less than 1% of them.

while ordering 26,000 datapoints across 216 countries - except... checks notes... there are only 195 countries in the world recognised by every other country — Benkei

Why didn't you ask me where I got 216 countries from, rather than accuse me of lying.

As well as the 195 countries that you mentioned I also calculated data for these 28 locations
American Samoa (US), Anguilla (UK), Aruba (NL), Bermuda (UK), British Virgin Islands (UK), Cayman Islands (UK), Channel Islands, Cook Islands, Cote d'Ivoire, Curacao, Faroe Islands (Denmark), French Guiana, Gibraltar (UK), Greenland (Denmark), Guadeloupe, Isle of Man (UK), Macedonia, Martinique, Moyotte, New Caledonia (France), Northern Mariana Islands (US), Puerto Rico (US), Reunion, Saint Helena (UK), Swaziland, Turks and Caicos Islands (UK), U. S. Virgin Islands, Wallis and Futuna (France)

I didn't have any data for these 7 locations
Andorra, Eswatini, Ivory Coast, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Palestine, Romania

Note that 195 + 28 - 7 = 216

I had to use the locations that were already in the raw data that I processed.

The climate scientists aren’t telling people about the data YOU “discovered” — Mikie

You don't seem to understand. The data that I showed people was compiled by scientists/climate scientists. I didn't compile the data.

If you are casting doubt on this data then you are casting doubt on the scientists/climate scientists who compiled this data.

Are you suggesting that we can't trust scientists/climate scientists?

I have never claimed to be a statistician, but I have done a number of mathematics and statistics courses at university. I am very proficient with Microsoft Excel and I normally use Excel for calculating statistics.

When dealing with record maximum temperatures and record minimum temperatures there are only 2 datapoints per year per state. 2 datapoints is all that is needed. If you don't understand that then you need to do a mathematics or statistics course.

It is great that you have looked on the internet and found the webpage on statewide time-series. I haven't had time to look at it yet but I will try to look at it in the next day or two.

“Just asking questions.” How about this: take 10 seconds and ask the following QUESTION: “Have I just discovered something climate scientists the world over have missed, or am I just deluding myself?” — Mikie

I have taken 10 seconds and here is my answer.

The data that I showed people was presumably compiled by scientists (possibly climate scientists). All that I did was bring it to people's attention. So I am not deluding myself.

If you are surprised by the data that I pointed out then you should take 10 seconds and ask the following QUESTION: “Why haven't climate scientists told people about this data?".

A second QUESTION: "Is this data an inconvenient truth?".

I distinctly get the impression you're not arguing in good faith. — Benkei

I am not arguing.

All that I did was show people some data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

I didn't say what I thought the data means. I just asked, "What do people think that this data means?".

"Earth Just Had Its Hottest Month Ever. How Six Cities Are Coping." — RogueAI

I have been looking at temperature data for the USA on the internet. There is a lot of interesting information. For those who are open-minded enough to have a look, here is just one example (there are many more).

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/scec/records/all/tmax

This webpage has data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). For each state the webpage shows the state name, the element, the value, the date, the location, etc. Note that near the top of the page it says "August U.S. Release: Mon, 11 Sep 2023, 11:00 AM EDT". Ignoring the fact that "Mon, 11 Sep 2023" is in the future, we can assume that the data on this webpage is recent.

For each state have a look at the record maximum temperature and the date that it occurred on. To make things easier to understand there is a Wikipedia webpage showing the same data. The advantage of the Wikipedia webpage is that you can sort on any of the columns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes

The table lists the highest and lowest temperatures recorded in the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 inhabited U.S. territories during the past two centuries, in both Fahrenheit and Celsius.

Go to the table a little way down the page. Click on the "sort" control in the Date column for "Record high temperatures (the 3rd column in). Click on the "sort" control again to sort the dates into descending order.

Now count the number of states that had their record high temperature AFTER 1970. For those who don't want to do the counting, the answer is 20.

Now count the number of states that had their record high temperature BEFORE 1970. For those who don't want to do the counting, the answer is 36.

8 states had their record high temperature between 1911 and 1929.

24 states had their record high temperature in the 1930's. The 1930's were very hot in America.

What do people think that this data means?

I agree with you. I assume your point is that if the average person doesn't limit consumption, that makes your efforts to do so meaningless? — frank

Yes, it is almost totally meaningless. And it is totally negligible. Why should I limit my consumption for something that is totally negligible.

It also does not seem like "justice" that I make an effort when most other people don't.

You're off the hook for climate change. :up: — frank

Help !!!

I am not sure if I have fallen into a universe of recursive sarcasm.

I was being sarcastic when I said "It is Big Oil's fault, not mine".

Now I am not sure if you thought that my comment was sarcastic and you have given me a sarcastic reply, or if you thought that my comment was genuine and you have given me a genuine reply.

To make it clear (with no sarcasm), I believe that people need to take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint.

If Mikie and other people like him won't take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint, then why should I.

Oil companies just supply us with what we demand. We are "oil addicts" who are blaming the suppliers for giving us what we want. I blame supermarkets for making people fat (warning - this comment may be sarcastic).

Well that was easy Agree to Disagree

What's your next trick? — frank

I am not sure what you mean by that Frank.

Please explain it to a foolish old man.