I don’t understand this logic or the wording. Methane = increase in Co2 Reducing methane = no effect But reducing Co2 yes? Why wouldn’t reducing methane change anything? Following your logic reducing Methane is reducing Co2, no?
The argument is that there is a set quantity of co2/methane in circulation. The meat industry supposedly isn't increasing the amount on a yearly basis. By that logic the only climate change relevant source of greenhouse gases are ones that introduce new ones into the circle, which is pretty much only burning fossil fuel. It's a pretty old argument that holds some truth, (the fossil fuels are the biggest issue) but is…
Burning fossile fuels and methane also releases lots of water vapor… Big warming.
Methane naturally turns into CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if it did increase warming more than CO2, once methane emissions reach a steady level, reducing methane emissions won't change a thing, compared to CO2 emissions. This is also similar to meat production emissions. Most of carbon emissions in meat productions are of carbon which was captured from the air as a part of the production cycle, by the plants which fee…
You make a good point about animal-based carbon emissions being a closed loop, but I don't think your conclusion that this loop doesn't accelerate the greenhouse effect is correct. Methane degrades to C02 in 1-1 proportion. So at any time, if more atmospheric carbon is concentrated as methane than as C02 then the greenhouse effect will be stronger at that time (because methane is a stronger GHG). If agriculture remov…
> I don't think your conclusion that this loop doesn't accelerate the greenhouse effect is correct
It's not like mammalian herbivores are a recent invention. If a constant amount of mammalian herbivores in the world would cause a constant acceleration of greenhouse effect then the greenhouse effect would have increased exponentially for millions of years already. That has not been the case.
If you increase the number of mammalian herbivores in the world then the greenhouse effect will increase for about a decade because of increasing levels of methane. After a decade, the methane level (and therefore the greenhouse effect) will have found a new (higher) equilibrium and no longer increase.
Climate has changed in big ways without mass extinctions. The medieval warm period, the little ice age, mid-20th-century cooling. Just three examples. The idea the climate has been stable since the dinosaurs isn't supported by the evidence.
Like all the variations you mentionned are less than 0.5° average, while we are already over 1° now. I think it's almost disengenuous to use them to say that the present warming is nothing to be worried of.
No, the changes were much larger than that, but recall from the climategate emails that they spent a lot of time trying to find ways to cover up the data around that. Look into the history of "hockey stick" graphs to see just how far they go. Historical evidence from outside their field shows there must have been changes of many degrees in the relatively recent past, e.g. bison fossils at altitudes indicating 5-6 degrees warmer than today with no runaway feedback loops and obviously, subsequent cooling.
Here's a public versions of their nature comment written by the same authors. I should have linked to that instead of the original paywalled version but all these versions are making the same argument, presumably with sightly different wording for copyright reasons: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientist... If you're claiming this material is "climate change isn't real" then look into who the au…
Alright so the ipcc makes multiple projections, with some being "hot", in the sense that they are worse than their other predictions. I think they made like 6 predictions last report. This papers is just arguing that the "hot" predictions should be less intense, because they are not very good at reproducing some specific past dataset. That has nothing to do with a problem with hot models - it's a slight modification…
The article says this: many of the models are getting hotter with time in ways that are clearly wrong, but climatologists routinely use them anyway out of some misguided belief in "model democracy" i.e. that all models are equally valuable and correct even when they disagree strongly with each other so should just be averaged together. It's pointed out that this undermines vast amounts of the supposedly settled science.
AVHRR started collecting data in the early 1980s, not the early 70s. ChatGPT is hallucinating again. I guess this is the scenario AI ethics people feared - the internet being clogged up by AI generated misinformation. If you want to take part in this debate do you own research and cite actual data. Polar bears are doing fine, by the way. https://polarbearscience.com/2023/02/23/published-field-stud...
It seems that AVHRR was launched in 1978 [0], with fairly continuous global coverage since June 1979 [1]. So it was not in early 1970s, it was in the late 1970s, and it was not in early 1980s. You both were pretty close. > Polar bears are doing fine, by the way. Good to hear. For now at least. If true. "In 2004, biologists discovered four drowned polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. Never before observed, biologists attr…
From your wiki link:
"AVHRR data have been collected continuously since 1981"
ChatGPT was off by a decade!
I hope nobody will confuse an anecdote about a handful of bears from 2004 with robust science.
Climate has changed in big ways without mass extinctions. The medieval warm period, the little ice age, mid-20th-century cooling. Just three examples. The idea the climate has been stable since the dinosaurs isn't supported by the evidence.
I mean have you looked at the charts showing the little ice age and the warm medieval period? The variation of temperature is orders of magnitude different to what we are experiencing now - I don't think that it's very relevant, is it? While climate hasn't been "stable" as in "hasn't changed", it has remained in a very narrow band of t°, of which we are slipping out of it at a much faster rate than all your examples.…
Hockey stick graphs are indeed alarming, but also fraudulent, and the IPCC has even accepted that in the past! Look into the history of these graphs, the Mann lawsuit, the work McIntyre did on showing how these graphs were manufactured etc. After it was shown how Mann did it the NAS investigated and hockey sticks vanished from IPCC reports for around 15 years. Then one snuck back in to the latest report but only in the summary! The graph doesn't appear in the actual scientific review part at all! That's the state the IPCC has degraded to: the summaries for policymakers are completely different to the actual content for scientists and introduce new claims unsupported by the cited research. The graph is still wrong and the techniques that lead to them are blatantly fraudulent (lots of cherry picking, truncating, splicing, even tipping raw data upside down to make it go up instead of down, really horrific stuff).
Did you bother changing the graph to show world population instead of just looking at the default selection? Here is the link to assist you in this: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demograp... It is a straight upwards line. But as I said, they don't care about population, only CO2 levels, which also go up in a straight line. It would indeed be a waste of time for you to argue further, because you…
(not a climate scientist) Also, for the graph showing "peaks" - it seems to me that the "pattern of peaks" is constant through your graph, but the average temperature rises continually through the peaks. If I were to guess, the peaks are things like volcanoes, currents and such, which are "constant" through time. The rise in CO2 is shown in the graph by the median not being a flat line.
If you have a step function and draw a trend line through it, the trend line will go up, but that doesn't imply a continuous process. CO2 forcing is (asserted to be) a continuous process. More co2 = higher temperature. The attempts to explain why that's observably not the case have become particularly wild in recent years, yet we are constantly told the science is settled and other untrue things.
You make a good point about animal-based carbon emissions being a closed loop, but I don't think your conclusion that this loop doesn't accelerate the greenhouse effect is correct. Methane degrades to C02 in 1-1 proportion. So at any time, if more atmospheric carbon is concentrated as methane than as C02 then the greenhouse effect will be stronger at that time (because methane is a stronger GHG). If agriculture remov…
> I don't think your conclusion that this loop doesn't accelerate the greenhouse effect is correct It's not like mammalian herbivores are a recent invention. If a constant amount of mammalian herbivores in the world would cause a constant acceleration of greenhouse effect then the greenhouse effect would have increased exponentially for millions of years already. That has not been the case. If you increase the number…
It's not new, but the number has hardly stayed constant, since at some point humanity started mass herding.
We just had a conversation the other day about climate change and methane, and some people were saying 20x as strong as CO2, and others were saying and sometimes correcting them to 28. According to this article the correct answer is 20. That’s still over an order of magnitude difference. It still doesn’t change the priorities much, it means you can leak 40% more methane from a system before it’s worse that coal, but…
Methane from organic sources is at a steady state since it oxidizes to CO2 over time. In effect, that means that keeping the same number overall of heads of cattle does not increase global warming dues to methane or CO2 since the methane they produce was fixed from atmospheric CO2. There may be global warming caused by CO2 emissions from cattle farming due to fossil fuel use, particularly feed production, but that's a function of the way that farming is done, not cattle itself. Grass-fed cattle on marginal land that's not otherwise suitable for other food production is not the same thing as industrial cattle farms fed from corn.