10 ms·

That article seems highly motivated to marginalize the effects of livestock. Quoting a section: While methane is 28-times more heat-trapping than carbon di

That article seems highly motivated to marginalize the effects of livestock. Quoting a section: While methane is 28-times more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide, methane’s lifespan is just a decade, while CO2 — known as a long-life pollutant — remains in the atmosphere for 1000 years. After ten years, methane is broken down in a process called hydroxyl oxidation into CO2, entering a carbon cycle which sees the gas absorbed by plants, converted into cellulose, and eaten by livestock. In the first paragraph, it says methane isn't so bad because it lasts only 10 years, unlike CO2 which lasts 1000 years. In the very next paragraph it says the methane is broken down into CO2 which is then absorbed by plants and recycled. Wait, you just said it lasts 1000 years. The next two paragraphs say that livestock accounts for 33% of the total methane released and blithely states that it all gets broken down and reused. If no additional animals are introduced, then net release equals net absorption. That is not very insightful -- eventually an equilibrium will be reached. This glosses over the real data that CO2 levels are rising, it is having measurable consequences, and is pushing control loops to new, worse states. Citing one article written for the "Farm Business" trade publication isn't as conclusive as you seem to state.

Doji 5y ago
There is a certain amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and a certain amount of carbon in the ground. When you burn oil, you take carbon from the ground and introduce it into the atmosphere. This increases the total amount of carbon resident in the atmosphere. When you grow plants, you take carbon out of the atmosphere. When you eat it, you release it back into the atmosphere. The total amount of carbon resident in the atmosphere does not change. Grass grows more vigorously when regularly pruned, for example by a grazing animal. Farms also make a point of planting thing which grow quickly and efficiently. Thus it's reasonable to expect that farming could increase the rate of carbon turnover in the atmosphere, which would create the appearance of increased carbon emissions without a corresponding increase in the amount of carbon resident in the atmosphere. In practice, farms regularly use synthetic fertilizers. They might cut down trees to clear fields for animals. They use heavy, oil burning equipment. These, and many other practices, actually increase atmospheric carbon, and for that reason should be discouraged. But the cow itself only causes a short lived, fixed increase in atmospheric methane and an increased rate of carbon turnover.
- wumpus 5y ago
  > When you grow plants, you take carbon out of the atmosphere. When you eat it, you release it back into the atmosphere. So the electricity and diesel that are involved in growing plants come from the atmosphere? That's new to me.
  - y4mi 5y ago
    They didn't say that. > In practice, farms regularly use synthetic fertilizers. They might cut down trees to clear fields for animals. They use heavy, oil burning equipment. These, and many other practices, actually increase atmospheric carbon, and for that reason should be discouraged. I cannot say anything wherever cows really are inconsequential wrt the warming effect, but it definitely goes against what's generally said by climate scientists.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - wumpus 5y ago
      I suppose you could grasp at that straw, but the reality is that grain farms always use diesel and electricity, not just "heavy, oil burning equipment", no matter how much you might think they don't, and that's multiplied by a factor of 10 when you feed that grain to a cow.
      - y4mi 5y ago
        You're clearly misunderstanding what I wrote, which is likely because of my poor phrasing. To phrase it differently: Climate scientists generally think that cows are an issue, but I do not have the qualification to judge wherever Dojis claim (that they don't matter) has any truth to it, as I'm not informed enough to form an opinion on the matter. Doji did not claim that modern agriculture isn't harmful, they just addressed cows specifically.
- cjblomqvist 5y ago
  I've always thought along the same lines. But whatabout methane being 10 times the pollutant?
tuatoru 5y ago
When measured over 100 years, methane has about 21 times the global warming potential of CO2. When measured over 10 years, it's more like 81 times. So the "28 times" already allows for the fact that it's mostly only there for 10 years. https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-carbon-dioxide-a-greenhouse-gas-showdown/ https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-c...
- Jensson 5y ago
  But it means that the meat we eat today just warms the earth for 10 years in the future. Global warming isn't a catastrophe in 10 years, so eating meat today is a non issue. When global warming becomes an issue we can kill all the cows and stop eating meat and that way quickly cool the earth.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Why was this downvoted? The 28 times figure only applies if you average for when the activity continues for 100 years. Meaning if we stop and most of the warming is in the first 10 years, we'd see a huge global cooling from stopping such a massive effect. This would serve as a great way to quickly reverse global climate change once it gets critical, and once it get critical people can no longer say that it isn't a problem so you'd have the whole world on your side, so not sure why we would waste that opportunity by using it now rather than when the whole world understands the problem?
dnautics 5y ago
I feel like I'm being gaslighted. In advanced physical chemistry we took IR spectroscopy of methane and CO2 and CO2 definitely had much, much more absorption than methane on account of the dipole difference between Carbon and oxygen (IR absorption depends on stretching modes between atoms of different electronegativity, carbon is very close to methane). At the time, it was explained to us young chemistry students that methane was more potent GHG because it lasted in the air longer (CO2 is scrubbed by plants). Am I missing something? How can methane be a more potent GHG if it has lower IR absorption AND a shorter lifespan? Edit: found spectra here (not the data that i took, obviously): https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/methane_absorption_spectra.png?w=720 https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/methane_... CO2 has a big fat band that blows out the absorption at 4.5 um in a region untouched by water (and one that is overwhelmed by water); methane has two spiky bands both of which are partially occluded by water.
- mongol 5y ago
  Could it be something like how it is distributed in the atmosphere?
  - dnautics 5y ago
    I'm curious and hoping someone can explain it to me
    - adrianN 5y ago
      I'm just guessing: a) We don't have enough water in the atmosphere that the overlap with Methane meaningfully reduces net absorption, b) in the bands Methane absorbs there is more radiation available to absorb than in the CO2 band. If both are true that would explain the bigger effect of Methane.
- agilebodyshoppe 5y ago
  the greenhouse effect is about internal reflections basically. its the same effect that makes cloth appear darker when its wet even though water is basically colorless. greenhouse gases bend light slightly, making it more likely that a light ray will hit the ground multiple times.
anovikov 5y ago
No contradiction. It's 28x more heat trapping and turning into CO2, it becomes 1x.

Doji 5y ago

There is a certain amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and a certain amount of carbon in the ground. When you burn oil, you take carbon from the ground and introduce it into the atmosphere. This increases the total amount of carbon resident in the atmosphere. When you grow plants, you take carbon out of the atmosphere. When you eat it, you release it back into the atmosphere. The total amount of carbon resident in the atmosphere does not change. Grass grows more vigorously when regularly pruned, for example by a grazing animal. Farms also make a point of planting thing which grow quickly and efficiently. Thus it's reasonable to expect that farming could increase the rate of carbon turnover in the atmosphere, which would create the appearance of increased carbon emissions without a corresponding increase in the amount of carbon resident in the atmosphere. In practice, farms regularly use synthetic fertilizers. They might cut down trees to clear fields for animals. They use heavy, oil burning equipment. These, and many other practices, actually increase atmospheric carbon, and for that reason should be discouraged. But the cow itself only causes a short lived, fixed increase in atmospheric methane and an increased rate of carbon turnover.

wumpus 5y ago
> When you grow plants, you take carbon out of the atmosphere. When you eat it, you release it back into the atmosphere. So the electricity and diesel that are involved in growing plants come from the atmosphere? That's new to me.
- y4mi 5y ago
  They didn't say that. > In practice, farms regularly use synthetic fertilizers. They might cut down trees to clear fields for animals. They use heavy, oil burning equipment. These, and many other practices, actually increase atmospheric carbon, and for that reason should be discouraged. I cannot say anything wherever cows really are inconsequential wrt the warming effect, but it definitely goes against what's generally said by climate scientists.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wumpus 5y ago
    I suppose you could grasp at that straw, but the reality is that grain farms always use diesel and electricity, not just "heavy, oil burning equipment", no matter how much you might think they don't, and that's multiplied by a factor of 10 when you feed that grain to a cow.
    - y4mi 5y ago
      You're clearly misunderstanding what I wrote, which is likely because of my poor phrasing. To phrase it differently: Climate scientists generally think that cows are an issue, but I do not have the qualification to judge wherever Dojis claim (that they don't matter) has any truth to it, as I'm not informed enough to form an opinion on the matter. Doji did not claim that modern agriculture isn't harmful, they just addressed cows specifically.
cjblomqvist 5y ago
I've always thought along the same lines. But whatabout methane being 10 times the pollutant?

tuatoru 5y ago

When measured over 100 years, methane has about 21 times the global warming potential of CO2. When measured over 10 years, it's more like 81 times. So the "28 times" already allows for the fact that it's mostly only there for 10 years. https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-carbon-dioxide-a-greenhouse-gas-showdown/ https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-c...

Jensson 5y ago
But it means that the meat we eat today just warms the earth for 10 years in the future. Global warming isn't a catastrophe in 10 years, so eating meat today is a non issue. When global warming becomes an issue we can kill all the cows and stop eating meat and that way quickly cool the earth.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Why was this downvoted? The 28 times figure only applies if you average for when the activity continues for 100 years. Meaning if we stop and most of the warming is in the first 10 years, we'd see a huge global cooling from stopping such a massive effect. This would serve as a great way to quickly reverse global climate change once it gets critical, and once it get critical people can no longer say that it isn't a problem so you'd have the whole world on your side, so not sure why we would waste that opportunity by using it now rather than when the whole world understands the problem?

dnautics 5y ago

I feel like I'm being gaslighted. In advanced physical chemistry we took IR spectroscopy of methane and CO2 and CO2 definitely had much, much more absorption than methane on account of the dipole difference between Carbon and oxygen (IR absorption depends on stretching modes between atoms of different electronegativity, carbon is very close to methane). At the time, it was explained to us young chemistry students that methane was more potent GHG because it lasted in the air longer (CO2 is scrubbed by plants). Am I missing something? How can methane be a more potent GHG if it has lower IR absorption AND a shorter lifespan? Edit: found spectra here (not the data that i took, obviously): https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/methane_absorption_spectra.png?w=720 https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/methane_... CO2 has a big fat band that blows out the absorption at 4.5 um in a region untouched by water (and one that is overwhelmed by water); methane has two spiky bands both of which are partially occluded by water.

mongol 5y ago
Could it be something like how it is distributed in the atmosphere?
- dnautics 5y ago
  I'm curious and hoping someone can explain it to me
  - adrianN 5y ago
    I'm just guessing: a) We don't have enough water in the atmosphere that the overlap with Methane meaningfully reduces net absorption, b) in the bands Methane absorbs there is more radiation available to absorb than in the CO2 band. If both are true that would explain the bigger effect of Methane.
agilebodyshoppe 5y ago
the greenhouse effect is about internal reflections basically. its the same effect that makes cloth appear darker when its wet even though water is basically colorless. greenhouse gases bend light slightly, making it more likely that a light ray will hit the ground multiple times.

anovikov 5y ago

No contradiction. It's 28x more heat trapping and turning into CO2, it becomes 1x.