3 ms·

Thank you for redoing the math I did, and confirming I was exactly correct with figures. The increase in concentration is observable, but the impact on climate

by xyzzyz 4y ago

Thank you for redoing the math I did, and confirming I was exactly correct with figures. The increase in concentration is observable, but the impact on climate is not. Again: this increase is similar to increase between 2000 and 2020. Without extremely careful and precise measurements, nobody would really be able to perceive any difference in climate between these two dates. This matters, because it is the perceived effect of climate change that is worrying, not the measured one. Modern science can measure many things with very high accuracy, but these changes only matter if they affect our lives in a way we can perceive. If the change is only seen on accurate scientific instrument, why should the society care much about it?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> If the change is only seen on accurate scientific instrument, why should the society care much about it? It’s difficult to perceive this as anything but elaborate climate denial, given it works for any incremental progress towards lower emissions.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  No, you missed the point: there is an enormous difference between methane emissions from fresh organic matter, and emission from fossil fuels. The latter accumulate, while the former do not. That’s why as we continue incrementally burning fossil fuels, the effects accumulate and affect climate over decades or centuries, but decaying weeds or (fashionable to discuss a couple of years back) cattle burps and farts do not. The point is that even if it continues over the centuries, the effect of cattle farts and weeds decaying on rice fields will only ever be observable using precise scientific instruments, whereas effect of burning fossil fuels for centuries will be very readily perceivable with very crude techniques.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > the effect of cattle farts and weeds decaying on rice fields will only ever be observable using precise scientific instruments, whereas effect of burning fossil fuels for centuries will be very readily perceivable with very crude techniques It’s a fine distinction, and I’m glad you made it, but the arguments for why it doesn’t matter don’t stick. Gross imperceptibility does work for any small amount of any emission—there is no way to feel the effect of that emission per se. There is also the case that raising the planet’s steady-state temperature is exactly what existing fossil fuel emissions have done. They’re a problem even if they’re already there.
    - codethief 4y ago
      > but the arguments for why it doesn’t matter don’t stick I'm not so sure. GP's argument was that when people say rice/cattle release so-and-so much methane into the atmosphere per year, the fact that it's a cycle and the amount of methane & CO2 in the atmosphere due to rice/cattle remains constant is usually ignored. Meanwhile, burning fossil fuel, increasing air traffic (-> water in the atmosphere), etc. actually increase the total amount of green house gases in the atmosphere, year by year. Sure, we could think about reducing the constant amount of methane in the atmosphere due to cattle/rice by reducing cattle/rice but, in light of emissions due to fossil fuel accumulating year by year, this doesn't seem to be the most pressing issue by a large margin.
lm28469 4y ago
> this increase is similar to increase between 2000 and 2020. Without extremely careful and precise measurements, nobody would really be able to perceive any difference in climate between these two dates. If that's how you work then nothing has any impact whatsoever, cars, planes, cattle, over twenty years if you split everything in sub categories they're all negligible Meanwhile we clearly already can measure the effect of it all. With your logic you're the proverbial boiled frog my friend...
- codethief 4y ago
  From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Why unnecessarily double down on this very hypothetical scenario, > Suppose we grow twice as much rice as we do now. […] Hell, let’s actually assume that all existing methane in atmosphere is from rice fields, and actually increase amount of methane in atmosphere by a factor of 2. when GP's main point was: Absorption & emissions by rice plants are in a steady state – they emit methane into the atmosphere, it breaks down to CO2 and water over the course of a few decades, and then the plants absorb the CO2 again. As a consequence, as long as the number of rice plantations doesn't increase, the amount of methane in the atmosphere due to rice will stay largely constant. There will certainly be fluctuations because, as was mentioned: > At best, growing rice and flooding fields might affect the balance between the amount of methane and amount of CO2 in the steady state, but > this is of no practical consequence, because the methane will not accumulate year over year, like the emissions from fossil fuels do and the current total amount of methane in the atmosphere due to rice (which, again, is constant) – on its own – does not have devastating effects, as outlined by GP's hypothetical argument of doubling the amount of rice in the atmosphere. Put differently, reducing the amount of rice plants in the world would not provide any leverage against global warming.

by xyzzyz 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> If the change is only seen on accurate scientific instrument, why should the society care much about it? It’s difficult to perceive this as anything but elaborate climate denial, given it works for any incremental progress towards lower emissions.

xyzzyz 4y ago
No, you missed the point: there is an enormous difference between methane emissions from fresh organic matter, and emission from fossil fuels. The latter accumulate, while the former do not. That’s why as we continue incrementally burning fossil fuels, the effects accumulate and affect climate over decades or centuries, but decaying weeds or (fashionable to discuss a couple of years back) cattle burps and farts do not. The point is that even if it continues over the centuries, the effect of cattle farts and weeds decaying on rice fields will only ever be observable using precise scientific instruments, whereas effect of burning fossil fuels for centuries will be very readily perceivable with very crude techniques.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > the effect of cattle farts and weeds decaying on rice fields will only ever be observable using precise scientific instruments, whereas effect of burning fossil fuels for centuries will be very readily perceivable with very crude techniques It’s a fine distinction, and I’m glad you made it, but the arguments for why it doesn’t matter don’t stick. Gross imperceptibility does work for any small amount of any emission—there is no way to feel the effect of that emission per se. There is also the case that raising the planet’s steady-state temperature is exactly what existing fossil fuel emissions have done. They’re a problem even if they’re already there.
  - codethief 4y ago
    > but the arguments for why it doesn’t matter don’t stick I'm not so sure. GP's argument was that when people say rice/cattle release so-and-so much methane into the atmosphere per year, the fact that it's a cycle and the amount of methane & CO2 in the atmosphere due to rice/cattle remains constant is usually ignored. Meanwhile, burning fossil fuel, increasing air traffic (-> water in the atmosphere), etc. actually increase the total amount of green house gases in the atmosphere, year by year. Sure, we could think about reducing the constant amount of methane in the atmosphere due to cattle/rice by reducing cattle/rice but, in light of emissions due to fossil fuel accumulating year by year, this doesn't seem to be the most pressing issue by a large margin.

lm28469 4y ago

> this increase is similar to increase between 2000 and 2020. Without extremely careful and precise measurements, nobody would really be able to perceive any difference in climate between these two dates. If that's how you work then nothing has any impact whatsoever, cars, planes, cattle, over twenty years if you split everything in sub categories they're all negligible Meanwhile we clearly already can measure the effect of it all. With your logic you're the proverbial boiled frog my friend...

codethief 4y ago
From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Why unnecessarily double down on this very hypothetical scenario, > Suppose we grow twice as much rice as we do now. […] Hell, let’s actually assume that all existing methane in atmosphere is from rice fields, and actually increase amount of methane in atmosphere by a factor of 2. when GP's main point was: Absorption & emissions by rice plants are in a steady state – they emit methane into the atmosphere, it breaks down to CO2 and water over the course of a few decades, and then the plants absorb the CO2 again. As a consequence, as long as the number of rice plantations doesn't increase, the amount of methane in the atmosphere due to rice will stay largely constant. There will certainly be fluctuations because, as was mentioned: > At best, growing rice and flooding fields might affect the balance between the amount of methane and amount of CO2 in the steady state, but > this is of no practical consequence, because the methane will not accumulate year over year, like the emissions from fossil fuels do and the current total amount of methane in the atmosphere due to rice (which, again, is constant) – on its own – does not have devastating effects, as outlined by GP's hypothetical argument of doubling the amount of rice in the atmosphere. Put differently, reducing the amount of rice plants in the world would not provide any leverage against global warming.