3 ms·

No, you missed the point: there is an enormous difference between methane emissions from fresh organic matter, and emission from fossil fuels. The latter accumu

by 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.

by xyzzyz 4y ago

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.