Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought • Hacker News Board

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#111

Post by bjoli » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 6:12 PM UTC

flavius29663 wrote: post #71

KennyBlanken wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't just natural gas leaking out of the distribution system. It's also the enormous methane output of the cattle industry. There are thirty million cows in the US alone. Each is producing 150 to 300lb of methane per year.

How many buffalo were in the US before industrialization? I get 30 to 60 million.

In a circular ecosystem that sustained that population. Any co2e they produced would be offset by natural processes (and in some cases they would store co2). They moved over almost all of the US and a large chunk of Canada in a system that had evolved to accommodate them.

It is not comparable to the current system with domesticated animals at all.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#112

Post by galangalalgol » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 6:16 PM UTC

verdverm wrote: post #105

throwaway09223 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the problem is that meat consumes approximately 25 plant calories to produce 1 meat calorie. It's a reducing function, which means calorie for calorie meat produces 25 times as much greenhouse gas simply from the costs involved in plant production. This isn't universally true - some meat is grown by grazing "free" plant calories. But it is true for grain fed cattle -- for most US industrial meat production.…

There are nutrients and amino acids only found in meat. Where do you get the replacement for this, what does that process look like, are they even metabolically equivalent?

There are no amino acids only found in meat. B12 is mostly only found in animal products, but some fungi have it.

As to metabolic equivalency, that is a very good question, studies so far indicate the accessibility of amino acids in plants to the human metabolic pathways varies within our species somewhat widely.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#113

Post by slibhb » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 6:17 PM UTC

altacc wrote: post #82

shrubble wrote: post #40

This is exactly what the "deniers" have been saying - that the mathematical model is not fleshed out enough, and the data is not present in sufficiently accurate quantity, for the climate models to be accurate. This research shows that the mechanism of action was misunderstood all this time. What else hasn't been researched enough and has simplistic assumptions baked into the climate models? That shockingly simplisti…

This sounds like a prelude to a simplistic "the models aren't accurate, so climate change probably isn't really a problem". However the problem with that is that the overwhelming majority of observations and models, many of which are far from simple and use large amounts of data, point to climate change being real, unusually rapid and anthropogenic. Using the argument that these models aren't accurate ignores the fac…

> However the problem with that is that the overwhelming majority of observations and models, many of which are far from simple and use large amounts of data, point to climate change being real, unusually rapid and anthropogenic

I think climate change is a problem (not a crisis) but it's important to note that if a scientist questions climate science, he becomes a pariah. In such an environment, it's hard to know how much confidence we should have in consensus.

> Models have for a long time shown that the overall global temperature will rise and observations over the years have proved the models reflect reality. Are all models 100% correct with predictions? No, but the trend the models show is proven, even if there is a margin of error which is typically always acknowledged during modelling.

My understanding is that we observe some climate trend over N years and then select the best model proposed in the past. This is where the "oil companies knew about climate change!" accusation comes from. But it's much harder to select the model before taking the measurements and climate models have obviously performed much worse at that.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#114

Post by least » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

throwaway09223 wrote: post #97

kvgr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All plants we eat are fertilized. We can stop fertilizing and all die.

Yes, but the problem is that meat consumes approximately 25 plant calories to produce 1 meat calorie. It's a reducing function, which means calorie for calorie meat produces 25 times as much greenhouse gas simply from the costs involved in plant production. This isn't universally true - some meat is grown by grazing "free" plant calories. But it is true for grain fed cattle -- for most US industrial meat production.…

> Yes, but the problem is that meat consumes approximately 25 plant calories to produce 1 meat calorie.

Why is this a problem? Animals also produce higher quality protein with higher bioavailability, have a better amino acid profile that better suits what humans require, and provide nutrients that people cannot get from plants.

That's on top of the fact that a lot of those plant calories aren't even consumable by humans.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#115

Post by bleuchase » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

Loquebantur wrote: post #67

shrubble wrote: post #40

This is exactly what the "deniers" have been saying - that the mathematical model is not fleshed out enough, and the data is not present in sufficiently accurate quantity, for the climate models to be accurate. This research shows that the mechanism of action was misunderstood all this time. What else hasn't been researched enough and has simplistic assumptions baked into the climate models? That shockingly simplisti…

The reason your comment is bad isn't you pointing out some "truth". The reason is your comment being misleading. You pretend, the accuracy of climate models was insufficient for any relevant conclusions to be made. That is just nonsense. The interesting part is people clinging onto anything calling that impending climate catastrophe (or its human cause) into question. Individual subjective short-term benefits outweig…

Well, Climategate happened. So there is legitimate reason to be skeptical of dire claims. And yes, I’m aware all of those involved in the scandal were cleared of wrongdoing. That’s like the FBI investigating itself and finding nothing wrong.

Anyways, the fundamental assumption of most models—-that humans are behind climate change—-has not been sufficiently evaluated or tested. I find starting with that assumption unscientific.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#116

Post by bjoli » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

caeril wrote: post #80

KennyBlanken wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't just natural gas leaking out of the distribution system. It's also the enormous methane output of the cattle industry. There are thirty million cows in the US alone. Each is producing 150 to 300lb of methane per year.

Cattle are no different from any other herbivorous ruminant in terms of methane production, and the wild population is larger than our own herds. Do you also propose we exterminate every wild deer, elk, moose, buffalo, hippopotamus, elephant, giraffe, etc?

I think you are VASTLY underestimating the amount of pigs cows and chicken.

The domesticated chicken is, for example, by far the most common bird with a population about 15 times larger than the second.

Humans make up between 30-40% of land mammal biomass, wild animals around 4% and domesticated animals make up the rest.

We have altered the ecological balance to an insane extent. Animal husbandry use almost 80% of arable land.

The wild animals are also a part of a circular ecosystem. They are, in contrast to domesticated animals, carbon neutral in most cases.

I am writing this on a slow GPRS connection, so I can't provide you with sources, but they are readily available. Both papers and news coverage. I managed to get into this page, but that is all: https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#117

Post by myshpa » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #90

myshpa wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> climate in 2023 is not significantly different than the climate in 2005 'Devastating' melt of Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657570 This was here just yesterday. You may not feel it "on your own skin", but Earth does. And what exactly will happen when we'll lose all ice, we simply do not know. We just know it won't be pretty. > stopping all methane emitting activities w…

> How? I smell bullsh*t. Actually no, I don't think you would because raising/using cattle would not be allowed if we stopped all methane emitting activities. Also your farts can contain methane, so you'd have to hold them in ... forever. If you've ever had to do that during a long meeting, you should know it is negative to human fluorishing. Giving up hamburgers and farting is not the only thing we'd have to do. I g…

(ChatGPT) There are several human sources of methane, including:

- Livestock farming: Methane is produced during the digestive process of ruminant animals such as cows, sheep, and goats. Therefore, animal agriculture is a significant contributor to methane emissions.

- Energy production: Methane is the primary component of natural gas, which is commonly used for heating and electricity generation. Methane can also be released during the extraction, transportation, and distribution of natural gas.

- Waste management: Methane is produced during the decomposition of organic waste in landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and manure management systems.

- Fossil fuel production: Methane can be released during the extraction and processing of coal, oil, and gas.

- Biomass burning: Methane can be produced during the incomplete combustion of biomass, such as wood or crop residues.

- Agricultural practices: Methane can be emitted during rice cultivation, as well as through the use of fertilizers and manure in agriculture.

Ok, so let's stop using fossil oils and animal agriculture (let's ignore human farts for a moment).

How could that be detrimental for human flourishing, I ask? Are the burgers essential for humans to flourish? I don't think so.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#118

Post by Maursault » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 6:26 PM UTC

verdverm wrote: post #105

throwaway09223 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the problem is that meat consumes approximately 25 plant calories to produce 1 meat calorie. It's a reducing function, which means calorie for calorie meat produces 25 times as much greenhouse gas simply from the costs involved in plant production. This isn't universally true - some meat is grown by grazing "free" plant calories. But it is true for grain fed cattle -- for most US industrial meat production.…

There are nutrients and amino acids only found in meat. Where do you get the replacement for this, what does that process look like, are they even metabolically equivalent?

> There are nutrients and amino acids only found in meat. Where do you get the replacement for this, what does that process look like, are they even metabolically equivalent?

Supplements are an easy solution, but I think what you're missing is that you don't necessarily need the massive amounts of those nutrients that is reflected by the meat industry. We certainly do not need to eat as much meat as the meat lobby wants us to eat. In fact, even by your nutrient argument, we need hardly any meat. In fact, of all the things we eat, the most amount of meat we'd need to eat, if we needed it at all, would be the smallest quantity amoung all those things. And really we don't necessarily need meat at all. Using a nutrient argument to support the eating of meat is a bad argument.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#119

Post by phpisthebest » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 6:31 PM UTC

kvgr wrote: post #66

orev wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plants that feed the cattle are overwhelmingly fertilized using fertilizer derived from petroleum products, so it’s not an accurate picture that the feed plants are carbon capture methods.

All plants we eat are fertilized. We can stop fertilizing and all die.

[flagged]

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#120

Post by slackfan » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 6:33 PM UTC

brookst wrote: post #33

slackfan wrote: post #8

[flagged]

I realize you're just trolling, but science is quite settled that anthropogenic climate change is a real ting. Minutae about whether methane is 28x as bad as co2 or merely 20x as bad remains to be settled. Please don't exploit people's good faith interest in getting the exact truth to advance bad faith claims.

I am being pedantic, but there is no such thing as settled science. No matter how solid a theory is, no matter how well-proven, it will remain unsettled in perpetuity.