Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please read my post above concerning use of tractors to raise crops vs livestock. More crops will mean more emissions just to produce it, let alone transport it.
Methane is about 25x stronger than co2 as a ghg, but is present in only 1/1000th the concentration, and it is quickly oxidized to co2 anyways in our strongly oxidizing atmosphere. ….1000/25 = 40, so ch4 accounts for only 1/40th of the ghg effect as co2....co2, OTOH, accounts for only 40% of the total ghg effect, so ch4 accounts for only 1% (even if we use your "84x" figure, it's still only 3%)....H2o is weaker on a molar basis than co2, but is 52x more common in the atm and accounts for 60% of the total effect. (We won't get into the negative feed-back effect: more water vapor means more warming but also more clouds, which means less warming. There's a reason the planet has done so well for so long.)
Always do the arithmetic first before panicking.
BTW- it would do well to familiarize yourself with the concept of "extinction of absorption." Rising co2 levels above 450ppm will do almost nothing to increase their effect as a ghg.
A few points here: the global warming potential for Methane is 84 times higher than CO2 during the first two decades of its release.
Yes, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years, but it is also getting constantly renewed; the more cows, the more net methane. You need to model the full effect.
Current methane emissions in the atmosphere are responsible for about 25% of the anthropogenic global warming compared to CO2. CO2 provides 9-26%; methane 4-9% -- the ratio is about 30-40%. It's not a trivial contribution. Yes water is a greenhouse gas, but it's not really an anthropogenic contribution. We're concerned here with what humans are contributing in addition to the native processes.
BTW- it would do well to familiarize yourself with the concept of "extinction of absorption." Rising co2 levels above 450ppm will do almost nothing to increase their effect as a ghg.
No, this is another climate-denial myth. There's a simplified explanation here:
Yes, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years, but it is also getting constantly renewed; the more cows, the more net methane. You need to model the full effect.
Current methane emissions in the atmosphere are responsible for about 25% of the anthropogenic global warming compared to CO2. CO2 provides 9-26%; methane 4-9% -- the ratio is about 30-40%. It's not a trivial contribution. Yes water is a greenhouse gas, but it's not really an anthropogenic contribution. We're concerned here with what humans are contributing in addition to the native processes.
The satellite record shows we're warming 1.3*C/century since 1979 (what's really "normal"?) and even the Treehuggers admit that half of that is "natural" as opposed to co2. Then methane accounts for 1/4th of that half or 1/8th of 1.3 = 0.0016*C/yr. Do you really think any species out there is THAT sensitive to temperature, given that those living in temperate areas routinely live thru 50*C variations on a seasonal basis?
According to their explanation, if you put on enough blankets at nite, you could keep on getting hotter until you burst into flames.
I don't have the time to do your homework, but the satellite records are able to discern between the warming in the lower troposphere (where we all live) vs the stratosphere. It appears that the troposphere is getting warmer and the stratosphere cooler-- which you'd expect if co2 or something were acting to slow down the escape of heat back into outer space.....but that insulating effect gets less efficient (on a percentage basis) as the insulation increases-- just like piling on blankets-- the first one helps a lot, the second makes you warmer, but not by the same amount as the first; the third, warmer still but even less percentage of trapped heat compared to the addition of the second, etc.
You can easily find the graph of the temp effect of co2. It's a doubling time thing. The first 10deg is trapped by the first 10ppm of co2, the next 1deg by doubling the 10 to 20ppm, the next deg by the next doubling of co2 to 40ppm, etc. From 450ppm (we're at 410 or so now) we'll be at about 1 deg above what we were at 225ppm, but that next 1 deg will take an additional 450ppm. ...I did a back of envelope calculation yrs ago that showed that if ALL the known petroleum reserves were burned to co2 and there was no sequestration or additional sources of any kind, we'd only reach ~500ppm.
The problem with sorts of arguments (and computer programs) is that they try to isolate the effect of a single factor without allowing for the dynamic adjustments of other factors that are in play in Nature. ..For instance-- warming (for whatever reason) really causes more clouds which means more rain & shading and results in a negative feed-back regulation of temps. That's why [co2] levels of 6000ppm in the past could be attained with temps staying below 22*C.
Intuitive proof: why are deserts hot in the day and cold at nite?-- few clouds to shade in the day or to insulate at nite. Clouds, which are addressed little, if at all, by the computer models that are driving the quest for research funding & votes, are much more important than they are given credit for.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 08-21-2019 at 03:15 PM..
If you're just talking about North America yes "we" have added a lot of cattle but we also wiped out 60-100 million buffalo and hundreds of millions of other methane-producing creatures as part of the process. Substituting one methane producer for another doesn't increase methane. The truth is that the largest source of methane on the planet is actually the planet itself. What we call "natural gas". The fact that we are mining stores of it that would have otherwise been naturally released in the future NOW and burning it means we are robbing future generations of naturally-produced methane. Perhaps increased industrial farming is the only way to keep our planet in balance?
If you're just talking about North America yes "we" have added a lot of cattle but we also wiped out 60-100 million buffalo and hundreds of millions of other methane-producing creatures as part of the process. Substituting one methane producer for another doesn't increase methane. The truth is that the largest source of methane on the planet is actually the planet itself. What we call "natural gas". The fact that we are mining stores of it that would have otherwise been naturally released in the future NOW and burning it means we are robbing future generations of naturally-produced methane. Perhaps increased industrial farming is the only way to keep our planet in balance?
Excellent point that I haven't heard raised before.
However, I take great issue with this. Future generations are speculative only, i.e. they don't exist yet, may never exist, and IMHO, have no claim, much less a superior claim, on the resources of the earth than those actually existing on-planet. You can't rob from someone who doesn't exist, may never exist and, therefore, has no ownership rights to be robbed of.
Last edited by harry chickpea; 08-22-2019 at 08:23 AM..
Reason: Red hightlighting reserved for moderator comments on City-Data forums
According to their explanation, if you put on enough blankets at nite, you could keep on getting hotter until you burst into flames.
Err... Venus? At the surface it's hot enough to melt lead; more than enough to crispy fry your body. Sure, there's saturation going on, but the greenhouse curve doesn't flatten out that quickly. At one time Venus is thought to have been cool enough to have liquid oceans.
Err... Venus? At the surface it's hot enough to melt lead; more than enough to crispy fry your body. Sure, there's saturation going on, but the greenhouse curve doesn't flatten out that quickly. At one time Venus is thought to have been cool enough to have liquid oceans.
The situation on Venus is often held up as an example by the Warmists.
Please review the Ideal Gas Law: PV= nRT….the atm pressure on Venus is 9x that on Earth, ergo, T is 9x there compare to here. It has nothing to do with the type of gas involved.
co2 vs temp is a log relationship with temp rising in equal increments for each doubling of co2: As you can see, with Earth's temp now ~288degK and co2 ~410pp, to get another 1deg rise (if co2 is indeed that's important) co2 would have to go up to close to 500ppm.One of the problems with this calculation is that it's based on observations that may or may not hold true as co2 rises further. It's a circular argument. ...And considering the 800 yr delay in changing temps vs changing co2 levels in the ice records, it (co2) probably isn't very important.
Once the fog is so thick that you can't see the lamplight on the other side of the street, more fog won't make it any less visible. It's already invisible. Thicker fog just means the lights will be obliterated even closer to the observer. More co2 won't make more heat being trapped. It'll just be trapped in a layer of shorter height.
BTW- the GHG effect doesn't "trap heat" like the walls & ceiling of a greenhouse. A ghg just instantaneously absorbs heat, then expells it again. Half of it will be expelled up as if it had never been absorbed and the other half will be expelled back down to try to escape again, so to speak. It's kinda like the bumpers in a pin ball machine delaying the rate at which the ball gets to the bottom. They don't increase the number of balls in play, they just hold in play longer, but it will eventually escape.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 09-26-2019 at 09:12 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As you can see, with Earth's temp now ~288degK and co2 ~410pp, to get another 1deg rise (if co2 is indeed that's important) co2 would have to go up to close to 500ppm.One of the problems with this calculation is that it's based on observations that may or may not hold true as co2 rises further. It's a circular argument. ...And considering the 800 yr delay in changing temps vs changing co2 levels in the ice records, it (co2) probably isn't very important.
