3 ms·

Yes, this is exactly what I say in my comment. The amount of methane in the atmosphere is directly proportional to the input rate. That’s why, as I said, in ste

• littlestymaar 4y ago
  > Can you point to which part exactly is “completely wrong”? First you said: > Not really. These GHG emissions from rice are in steady state with the amount of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. And then now > That’s why, as I said, in steady state, when the we keep steady the amount of rice under cultivation, the amount of methane in atmosphere is not changing over time. These two statements are contradictory. If we assume steady state, then yeah the amount of methane is stable, but changing the way we cultivate rice is the opposite of steady state: if we reduce the methane emissions, then the amount of methane in the atmosphere will decrease that's it.
  • xyzzyz 4y ago
    There is no contradiction between these two statements. They both say the exact same thing: if rice cultivation is in steady state, the amount of CO2 and CH4 in atmosphere due to it is constant. You next say if we change the steady state, the amount of methane in atmosphere will change, but that again is not a contradiction with what I said.
    • littlestymaar 4y ago
      So you eventually agree with the statement you disagreed before, that is: > perennial rice may end up reduce GHG emissions substantially. (because that's the starting point of this conversation, and it's the opposite of steady state)