European Commission document highly critical of Ireland’s response to climate change – time for government to act

by Guy Callandar Sat Jun 13, 2015 17:03

This statement made in the article above

methane contributes at least 24 times more to climate warming than carbon dioxide

Is incredibly dishonest, even by the very very low standards of honesty set by the enviro Hysterics

Methane is quite short lived in the environment (approx 12 yrs) and breaks down fairly rapidly, compared to CO2

It's current contribution to any warming is frankly hardly even worth considering

Methane is measured in parts per BILLION, which is several orders of magnitude LESS than CO2, which is measured in parts per MILLION

Whoever made that statement is just plain old lying

Why do the enviro hysteric ALWAYS resort to lying ?

Methane is unstable and breaks down quickly in the atmosphere, and even if it doubled would have essentially no impact on the greenhouse effect. In the tropics, the effect would be an increase in downwelling longwave radiation of about 0.04%.

People ranting about methane and how "dangerous" it is need to get a grip - no one with any knowledge of the subject would make such claims

Anyone could check for themselves how long Methane stays in the atmosphere by simply googling "how long does methane remain in the atmosphere?" - the very first 2 articles I got were
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/gree...n-air - which says
"Methane, by contrast, is mostly removed from the atmosphere by chemical reaction, persisting for about 12 years.
and this alarmist blog - http://www.theraceison.co.uk/blog/index.php/2012/01/19/...e-air -
which also gives a figure of 12 years for methane (CH4)

by Farmer McNamara Sat Jun 13, 2015 20:02

Don't blame cow dung emissions. Blame political farters. They generate more methane.

by Rational Ecologist. Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:55

It's the other end that creates the methane, apparently. While Methane does not persist as long as CO2, this does not diminish it's impact, as it is being emitted on a constant basis and at increasing levels. 12 years is not an insignificant length of time.
To be honest, the time for debate is long past. We are living like we need 10 planets; that cannot go on.
End of.
Change or die!

by fred Mon Jun 15, 2015 15:07

methane is up to 100 times as potent as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
It is anything but insignificant.

Are the people saying methane is insignificant working for McDonalds or something?
each cow on the planet can fart from 9 to 25 litres of methane per day. Thats a lot of methane.
some have suggested that 23-25% of greenhouse gases globally are a result of people eating meat and if we
all went vegan it would significantly slow global warming / climate change

people have also postulated that runaway methane emissions from clathrates may
be one way humanity may meet it's end.
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/103364

So methane is indeed significant. In fact it opens up a means by which ordinary people can
circumvent government paralysis and corruption by the oil industry to take real action on reducing
anthropomorphic climate change. i.e. go vegan!

But the sad truth is we are all far too selfish to do even that. We have absorbed the "every rat for himself" pathological philosophy of capitalist consumption into our very bones. We like the taste of meat, so fuck animal cruelty and fuck the planet

by Guy Callandar Mon Jun 15, 2015 15:14

Complete irrational commentary above

While Methane does not persist as long as CO2, this does not diminish it's impact

That statement is complete nonsense. The fact the MH4 is very unstable and breaks down so quickly in the environment absolutley 100% DOES diminish the impacts which you have complately irrationally claimed it will have.

the original false claim was that

methane contributes at least 24 times more to climate warming than carbon dioxide

Well, in the actual enviroment, here in the real world, it simply doesn't cause 24 time the amt of warming as CO2 - because it doesn't exist in the air in large enough quantities to cause anything like the effect you are claiming.

Since the difference in magnitutde between current, and likely future, CO2 (carbon Dioxide) and CH4 (methane) emmisions have already been explained to you, (parts per million vs parts per billion), had you actually understood the simply and accurate explanation given earlier it would be obvious exactly why MH4 emmissions cannot have the sort of effect in the environment which you are claiming it has, compared to CO2

clearly you either have not understood the straightforward plain simple explanation already given, OR you do not want to know/are not interested in the truth.

There simply is not enough CH4 being emmitted to cause 24 times as much warming as CO2 - and one wold have to increase the amount of CH4 being emmitted by several orders of magnitude (in simple terms : increase it by a F**K load) for it to have the sort of effect on climate that you and the other eco-alarmist are claiming it has.

Your claims are simply wrong. - (and about that there really is no debate to be had.)

Wether through ignorance or dishonesty you keep insisting on perpetrating this completely false claim regarding CH4 in the environment.

Clearly Truth is not a major part of your agenda.

12 years is not an insignificant length of time

In climate terms 12 years is compeltely insignificant.

That you would attempt to claim otherwise just demonstrates your lack of either knowledge or candour on this subject

To be honest, the time for debate is long past.

Fine - clearly you do not need to comment any further then, since by deliberately spreading false statements you clearly have nothing of value to add to any debate on the subject.

Simply ranting and making shrill demands for "no further debate", on a subject about which you are clearly (deliberately?) spreading false statements, suggests to me that perhaps the Science method is not something for which you have any naural affinity.

==============

Fred displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what is being said here when he claims "Methane is significant" - no one has claimed it is not "significant" - the claimis that the magnitde of the emmisions makes CH4 not significant in the environment - only if the emmissions increased by a massive amount might it have the sort of significance being currently attributed to it by the Eco-alarmists

people have also postulated that runaway methane emissions from clathrates may
be one way humanity may meet it's end.
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/103364

Actually those people made a claim that a "Methane TIME BOMB (!!!)" (run fer yer lives!!) was about to go off

That was several years back and guess what?

The people that made those hysterical claims were completely wrong

they will never admit it, but they were definitely wrong.

We know this because a Scientific expedition went to the Arctic to examine the artifacts in question, and found that, despite all the hysteria and hand-wavery, about" Methane Timebombs (!!!)" there was absolutely nothing unusual happening in that area.

Nothing at all - all the hysterics witten about it in that comment thread were just useless hysterics - as usual

by Rational Ecologist. Mon Jun 15, 2015 15:53

I've spent the last 27 years reading the science and following the "debate". I don't have the time to waste "debating" the minutiae of atmospheric chemistry with you.
If you don't accept the science, then that's your entitlement. You can disguise it in terms of my science versus your science, and again, be my guest; knock yourself out.
We live unsustainably-my senses tell me this; I know it to be true. I see concrete where there used to be forest.
I wish you well. I am going to tend to my trees and do some small bit of good.
See ya.

by Guy Callandar Mon Jun 15, 2015 18:50

but it's kind of sad that after 27 years you still don't seem to understand the basics. For a Guy that claims to understand it all and to have studied it for 27 years, that's kinda shocking tbh

I'd call that a major fail on your part

I don't have the time to waste "debating" the minutiae of atmospheric chemistry with you.

So don't

Cos there ain't no one forcing you to reply here - yo're doing that all by yourslef - which is strange behaviouur for someone that claims they have no interest in replying

But nonehteless despite all your claims to understand the science you are completely ignoring the basic maths involved.

The fact is that the methane in the atmosphere does not have 24 times the effect of CO2, as claimed by both you and the OP, simply whather you like it or not, or whether you finally fess up and admit it or not, the methne in the atmosphere is a minute fraction of the CO2 - so It's current contribution to any warming is frankly hardly even worth considering, and it would have to increase a thousand fold in order for it to have any of the effects you are currently erroneously attributing to it.

So you go tend your trees,by all means, cos that certainly will have a more beneficial effect for everyone compared to your deliberate dissemination of untrue claims about current effect of CH4 compared to CO2

by Guy Callandar Mon Jun 15, 2015 18:57

. In fact it opens up a means by which ordinary people can
circumvent government paralysis and corruption by the oil industry to take real action on reducing
anthropomorphic climate change. i.e. go vegan!

That statement is nonsense because the contribution of Animal farming to the Atmospheric methane levels is frankly so tiny as to be not worth considering - go vegan all you like, but if you are pretending that it will somehow help reduce Atmospheric methane levels which will in turn somehow magically "Save the Palnet(!!!)" then you're just fooling yourself and everyone else.

Basically you are talking about reducing a very minute fraction of a very minute fraction. - You'll end up in a never ending loop of complete ineffectuality at this rate, Fred

In fact you posting that comment probably added a lot more to Global Co2 levels than say the avg person not converting to veganism

by T Mon Jun 15, 2015 22:30

The combined contribution of greenhouse gases other than CO-2 is around about 30% and these gases are methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N20) and the various hydrofluorocarbon gases. These estimates take account of the strength of the effect and the relative amounts of the particular gas.

I think the commentator above has got too excited over the sentence above:

An interesting point in the report is the fact that although there are carbon taxes, methane and nitrous oxide emissions are not included. Methane contributes at least 24 times more to climate warming than carbon dioxide

... and has misunderstood what is meant. It refers to the fact that it is 24 times more absorbing of infra-red radiation per molecule than CO-2.

What is interesting about the report is that the government has decided to do basically nothing about lowering its emissions especially when it sees other countries like Canada, the US, Australia and many others give the two fingers to any idea of significant reductions.

by fred Mon Jun 15, 2015 22:40

who said it was just methane that was involved in livestock production. They also produce a shitload of CO2 (literally) and other greenhouse gases. There is a lot of greenhouse gases that come from the huge amounts of manure produced by 1.5 billion+ cattle. Then there's the cutting down of vast tracts of rainforest for millions of cattle for the likes of McDonalds, the growing of all that GMO soya for their feed etc etc. And so far we haven't even mentioned all the factory farms fiull of millions of pigs, chickens, etc. meat eating is very inefficient use of resources lots more land is used to produce 1kg of animal protein than 1kg of vegetable protein. Lots more water too. And it's unhealthy. Look at the looming obesity epidemics in most western countries I'm not alone in thinking eating meat is not good as regards greenhouse gases
and that it is definitely significant:

Are cows the cause of global warming?
A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2). But the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. Therefore the release of about 100 kg Methane per year for each cow is equivalent to about 2'300 kg CO2 per year.

Let's compare this value of 2'300 kg CO2: The same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is generated by burning 1'000 liters of petrol. With a car using 8 liters of petrol per 100 km, you could drive 12'500 km per year (7'800 miles per year).

World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition, clearing of tropical forests and rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year!

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world-wide (this is more than the whole transportation sector). Cattle-breeding is taking a major factor for these greenhouse gas emissions according to FAO. Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO's Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

Are cows to blame for global warming? Are cattle the true cause for climate change?

We cannot deny that farming has a major impact on global warming. Since farming is basically serving the consumer's demand for food, we should look at our nourishment. With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.

A Japanese study showed that producing a kilogram of beef leads to the emission of greenhouse gases with a global warming potential equivalent to 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2). It also releases fertilising compounds equivalent to 340 grams of sulphur dioxide and 59 grams of phosphate, and consumes 169 megajoules of energy (Animal Science Journal, DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x). In other words, a kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days (New Scientist magazine, 18 July 2007, page 15 ).

The following tables indicates the CO2 production in kg CO2 equivalents per kg of meat depending on the animal:

1 kg of meat from produces kg CO2e
beef 34.6
lamb 17.4
pork 6.35
chicken 4.57

Source:
Environmental Impacts on Food Production and Consumption. http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLi...P.pdf

Conclusion: Eat less meat and dairy products

The most important conclusion for ourselves is: Eat much less meat and dairy products. This is one of the most effective ways to reduce our personal carbon footprint and to generally reduce our personal negative impact on the environment.

source:
http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warmi...e-CO2