Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

climatenexus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 230 posts

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#221

Post by NumberWangMan »

cageface wrote: post #173
bitexploder wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll pass on the phytoestrogens, though. This doesn’t really address the fact that there are ways to still eat meat but minimize the greenhouse effects. For example, chicken and pork is dramatically less directly impactful than beef. There is still the feed efficiency problem, but America’s love of red meat is a better place to start than no meat at all. https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-m...

I find it odd people are so concerned about phytoestrogens, which have shown to actually have a lot of real benefits in the amounts people actually eat, while chugging down mammalian estrogens by the gallon in milk, which have been repeatedly shown to increase risk of cancer, premature puberty etc. Cows milk is optimized for cows.

Even more -- cows' milk is optimized for baby cows. We think it's weird to even drink human breast milk as adults, but think nothing of drinking bovine milk.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#222

Post by fungi »

louthy wrote: post #142
fungi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are going to eat red meat go Kangaroo, it's healthy and sustainable. There are a million articles on the internet arguing either way. I would start with this one for an interesting angle: https://theconversation.com/from-pests-to-profits-making-kan...

I live in th UK, I’d suggest transporting it from Australia to the other side of the world would have some ethical implications

jump across the pond :)

https://www.smh.com.au/national/kangaroos-run-wild-in-france...

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#223

Post by NumberWangMan »

bitexploder wrote: post #184
rewq4321 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The soy/phytoestrogen scare is not scientific/fact-based. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/soy/ > Results of recent population studies suggest that soy has either a beneficial or neutral effect on various health conditions. Soy is a nutrient-dense source of protein that can safely be consumed several times a week, and is likely to provide health benefits—especially when eaten as an alternative to red and…

There are too many studies that indicate either way with Soy. Maybe it is just over studied and other common sources of nutrition are under studied. Nutritional discussions devolve into a drain circling effect of studies with no one really convincing anyone else. I monitor my blood and know what keeps me healthy. Why risk it with potentially questionable nutrition?

I would recommend Nutritionfacts.org as a source of high-quality information about nutrition. Dr. Greger (the creator) and a team of researchers read everything they can about nutrition research, examine the studies with a very critical eye, and summarize everything into videos on different topics.

The thing about research is that if you look for studies to support a particular conclusion, you can always find them, usually more than one. You could probably find a study or two to support eating nothing but beef and pork, if you tried hard enough. But if you want the truth, you have to read ALL the related studies, and you have to critique and interpret them and understand their scope/limitations and relate them all together to build up as complete a picture as you can. Dr. Greger isn't perfect, but he and his team seem to be doing a hell of a job trying to find the truth.

He advocates a whole-food plant-based diet because overall, that's what the evidence seems to say is healthiest. But he's not a hard-line vegan or anything, just trying to ensure that people have can make informed choices by giving us all the information. Not just in terms of broad strokes like "eat more vegetables, don't eat so much meat", but all sorts of weird and interesting details like which sorts of lentils are healthiest, or why broccoli sprouts are amazing at fighting cancer.

And it's not an alarmist site -- here's a nuanced take on glyphsate, used on GMO soy https://nutritionfacts.org/video/gmo-soy-and-breast-cancer/

Back to the topic at hand, here's an example about Soy and prostate cancer. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-role-of-soy-foods-in-pr...

And to find a way out of the forest of conflicting info -- if you find a study and want to get a second opinion on it, search for it on nutrition facts (you probably have to use google, with a query like "site:nutritionfacts.org ").

I'm not encouraging you to blindly believe what Dr. Greger says! You should evaluate it for yourself. But I strongly believe that after watching a few videos on random topics, you'll start to see how most people have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to nutrition science, and intentionally or unintentionally spread falsehoods.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#224

Post by gwbas1c »

assblaster wrote: post #157
halfjoking wrote: post #149

Not sure how this is "unexpected." For 20 years there have been articles/studies saying that the "calthrate gun" containing all the methane stored in Siberia and the arctic is the best reason we need to keep CO2 levels below 400 ppm. Now CO2 is at 415 ppm and we're starting to see the accelerated release of methane and it's "unexpected." Why not interview one of the people who said this is exactly what was going to h…

How does CO2 level above 400 cause release of methane from Siberia? There is no established direct link between CO2 atmospheric levels and release of methane.

Good question.

Because methane is trapped in ice, and it's believed that the ice will melt, releasing more methane.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#225

Post by taneq »

mattigames wrote: post #28
spraak wrote: post #22

Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…

The only way methane from live-stock is gonna disappear is by either: 1) Lab-created meat 2) Seaweed and other techniques of reducing methane released by cows [0] 3) Less humans due birth control or fortuitous events (e.g. a plague) [0] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612452/how-seaweed-could-...

4) Afterburner.

Kidding. Well kinda... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2606956/Now-...

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#226

Post by bitexploder »

NumberWangMan wrote: post #223
bitexploder wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are too many studies that indicate either way with Soy. Maybe it is just over studied and other common sources of nutrition are under studied. Nutritional discussions devolve into a drain circling effect of studies with no one really convincing anyone else. I monitor my blood and know what keeps me healthy. Why risk it with potentially questionable nutrition?

I would recommend Nutritionfacts.org as a source of high-quality information about nutrition. Dr. Greger (the creator) and a team of researchers read everything they can about nutrition research, examine the studies with a very critical eye, and summarize everything into videos on different topics. The thing about research is that if you look for studies to support a particular conclusion, you can always find them, u…

I will take a look. Thank you for sharing. I do agree most health sites are terrible sources. Many studies are bad too. The burden is high and mostly on individuals to make good choices.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#227

Post by rapind »

manfredo wrote: post #215
rapind wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pollution is an externality of the oil industry. Might be better if today's consumer paid for that at the pump rather than future generations dealing with it in the environment. The artificially low price of oil due to postponing / offloading these external costs significantly slows free market innovation of alternatives and efficiencies. So... what's the best way to pay for these negative externals so we don't simpl…

> Pollution is an externality of the oil industry Is it? When I pour motor oil in my motorcycle, drain it 500 miles later, and have it recycled does it put CO2 in the atmosphere? Nope, at least not beyond the refining process. Burning oil is what puts CO2 in the atmosphere, and it's consumers that do that. Not oil companies. Sure, one could say that oil companies are the ones providing the fuel that consumers are usi…

How much of the oil "industry" is for producing lubricant though? I'm talking about gas, stations, fertilizer, plastics, etc. It touches everything. For the sake of skipping this minor contention, let's just not tax unrefined motor oil.

In terms of gasoline, the technology builds on itself. Infrastructure like roads and fast food, expectations like the ability to commute, etc. If cars and gasoline were prohibitively expensive, commuting would pretty quickly become obsolete. Companies that require workers to drive 2 hours a day would have a hard time hiring people... or we'd find new ways to sustain it (alternatives and / or efficiencies). The price of all goods would go up considerably too (shipping, manufacturing). We rely on it so heavily!

Obviously we can't eliminate dependence overnight, which is why being proactive (arguably not proactive enough anymore though) and gradually implementing programs to phase it out or change it are required.

The goal should be to manage the pain / cost so we don't get hammered by a massive change in the future, or maybe taking too long and getting stuck with an unmanageable situation like massively accelerating climate change. The pain WILL happen regardless, and probably already is.

Just running with it, like we're mostly doing right now, is likely to disproportionally affect less developed areas far more than the price of gas and goods (floods, fires, and apocalypse type stuff).

If you believe climate change is real and negative (I assume you do) this is one part of a potential solution. If you don't believe climate change is real and negative though, then we're just not on the same page yet, and it's too early to have this discussion.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#228

Post by dTal »

assblaster wrote: post #161
davedx wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More CO2 = more warming. The polar regions are so far seeing the most extreme temperature increases: see e.g. https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticTC1880-2010NC... Higher arctic temperatures = permafrost melts, releasing trapped methane. e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01313-4

So CO2 --> methane is an indirect link at best, and methane levels have been increasing linearly for the last thirty years. https://climatenexus.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ch4_tren... There is no magical CO2 level of 400 that suddenly causes methane to be released from permafrost.

The fear is that there is indeed a critical threshold beyond which the release of methane will form a self-sustaining feedback loop - hence the "gun". Nobody knows for sure whether this can happen, or at what level, but it's a sufficiently terrifying possibility to warrant talking in terms of thresholds we should really try to avoid. 400 is just a nice round number. The next nice round number, 500, is quite nasty even without the clathrate gun (2-3 degrees of warming).

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#229

Post by primroot »

swang wrote: post #57
bubblewrap wrote: post #48

My favorite doomsday scenario at the moment is that it may be earthworms who finally kill us: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/science/earthworms-soil-c... They appear to be venturing into new areas and releasing carbon there, furthering global warming. There are just too many scenarios of that kind. Either we really are doomed, and climate will switch into a new kind of equilibrium hostile to humans. Or, there are…

earth will survive just fine. its habitability for humans and other current life on the other hand...

I would add ... and other current life, including life on which humans depend, for which humans have already contributed to their extinction independently of climate change (see 75% loss of crop diversity in a century as posited by the FAO).

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#230

Post by assblaster »

gwbas1c wrote: post #224
assblaster wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does CO2 level above 400 cause release of methane from Siberia? There is no established direct link between CO2 atmospheric levels and release of methane.

Good question. Because methane is trapped in ice, and it's believed that the ice will melt, releasing more methane.

Methane has a short half-life, and is a small fraction of atmospheric particles compared to the other gases, and when methane decomposes it turns into carbon dioxide and water which is a less potent green house gas.

Even if you release all the methane stored in permafrost, that effect will be short lived on a geologic timescale.

Post reply on HN