By P Gosselin
The impact of ruminants on climate has been overestimated by a factor of 3 to 4, according to Prof. Dr. Dr. habil Wilhelm Windisch of the Technical University of Munich.
Going without beef burgers is not going to impact the climate anywhere near as much as some like to claim. This is even confirmed by the IPCC (see below).
Climate alarmists and closet vegetarians like to claim that methane produced by cows plays a huge role in climate change, and so people need to eat much less beef and other meats from ruminants. Bill Gates even wants people to turn to fake, “synthetic meats”. But it’s all mostly hype and hysteria.
Near 5%, not 20%
According to Prof. Windisch, as reported by the Bavarian Agricultural Weekly News of November 25, 2021, “The role of ruminants with regards to climate protection has up to now been overestimated by at least a factor of 3 to 4. An enormous climate contribution to climate warming has been falsely attributed to ruminants: 15 to 20%.”
That means in reality the so-called contribution is closer to just 5%.
Moreover, according to the Klimaschau, the number of ruminants in Germany has not risen, data show. In 1873, Germany had a total of 16 million ruminants. But in 2010, that number was down to 13 million.
Also, whatever methane that cows do emit ends up getting broken down in a matter of just a few years, the Klimaschau reports. Thus the system remains in equilibrium and so there’s little impact on climate.
Confirmed by the IPCC 6th Report
According to gvf Agrar: “It often goes unmentioned that the climate gases from agriculture come from balanced biogenic cycles and not from fossil fuels that transport additional CO2 into the atmosphere. This was also stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the first volume of the sixth IPCC Assessment Report.”
Munich Professor: Role of Methane from Cows on Climate Exaggerated by A Factor Of (3 or 4)^2
Now it makes sense, but the New Zealand’s ‘fart-tax’ would not make much money.
What I would like to see is the “climate sensitvity” of methane like we have for CO2, that is the temperature rise at the top of the atmosphere for a doubling of CO2 (about.1.1C). Also is it is a log function like CO2 (any doubling causes the same temperature rise)? Methane is a strong absorber, but only over a narrow band of the wave lenghts involved.
…. and it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere too long, a decade at most, so whatever methane is emitted now regardless of its source a very little if any will be around in 2032.
If the world does actually warm up, that will hasten the breakdown of methane.
Not even a decade. Usually less than two weeks and even just 2pm in 30% of the world. Remember that methane starts oxidizing at 6°C if there is any radiant energy input into the environment. That it literally comes from anywhere that isn’t exposed desert rock and it is impossible to prove what its exact source is downwind. Paved Roads cause methane release.
The more circulation and turbulence you have from rising air carrying methane into direct sunlight, the faster it oxidizes.
So in the end, it’s barely more than a CO2 and two water molecules – the water from it has more effect than the methane ordinate.
Methane has no measurable effect on the climate:
Richard, Search on Happer and Wijngaarden to find their line by line spectroscopic analysis of all greenhouse gasses including water vapor, CO2 and methane. They found a minute effect from a theoretical doubling of methane from today’s level, about +0.001C, because the IR frequency bands where methane operates are near completely saturated by existing water vapor and CO2. There is simply nothing left of the outgoing earth IR for methane to operate on. Methane is not a problem.
My goodness! Does the IPCC know this? Lol
Methane emissions from farmed livestock was introduced by activists at the Kyoto Climate Accord in 1997.
At last we have an honest scientist who has looked into the claims and can see that methane from livestock was a bogus lie right from the start.
I have been arguing for 25 years exactly what this scientist has discovered although it was obvious to any one who wanted to see .
The claims made at Kyoto were accepted without any scientific examination because it suited the alarmist global warming lies .
I seem to be a lone voice in the wilderness fighting scientific corruption .
I have been saying for years that enteric methane is a cycle as all fodder consumed by farmed animals has absorbed CO2 and the small amount of methane released is broken down in the upper atmosphere in 8 to 10 years into CO2 and water vapour .
Not one additional atom of carbon is emitted to the atmosphere.
Our government here in New Zealand is doing its best to destroy our farming by introducing taxes ( called levies ) on farmed animals methane emissions
The lunatics are in charge of the asylum .
New Zealand depends on our agricultural exports ,with out them New Zealand would be a third world country .
The government could not care less if the science regarding methane warming is accurate. Their focus is the collection of revenue. If bad science results in increased revenue all the better.
Our stupid government helped by our even dumber news media are trying to reduce New Zealands so called carbon emissions to look good on the world stage .
This government is going for zero carbon and because of the way carbon emissions are calculated 50% of our greenhouse gases are calculated to come from our farming via methane .
We are the only country in the world that is going to introduce a carbon levy on our farmed animals .
The UN issued a report that stated “that no country should take actions to curb carbon emissions that affects food production ”
New Zealand has a population of just over 5 million and we export food to other countries to feed another 30 million people .
Any reduction in New Zealands food exports that are replaced by other countries will lead to a rise in emissions globally as our emissions per tonne of produce is the LOWEST in the world including the freight to the other side of the world .
99% of our beef is raised on pasture and all our dairy herds have access to pastures .
Our sheep are generally raised on hill country with beef cattle.
Deer farming is quite common and a lot of venison is exported .
“It often goes unmentioned that the climate gases from agriculture come from balanced biogenic cycles and not from fossil fuels that transport additional CO2 into the atmosphere.”
Cows don’t eat coal or other fossil fuels. The plants they eat have absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere, and the cows return it. Then the cycle begins again. If cows didn’t eat the grasses and other plants growing in the pasture, the plants would still decay (or burn) and return greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. But even if you could convince the green crowd that cows are part of a natural, short-term cycle, they would still look for a reason to force us all to eat bugs. That’s just the way they are.
You are 100% right Louis.
Our government has passed a Zero Carbon bill .
Before they did they called for submissions from New Zealanders to submit their concerns to a select committee that moved around the country .
That is exactly what I told the Committee that methane from farmed animals was a closed cycle and also that the UN had stated that no country should take action that reduced food supplies .
They ignored every word and are now the only country in the world to impose levies ( TAXES ) on their animal farming .
What I would like to see is the “climate sensitivity” of methane like we have for CO2,
Here’s an article that says CH4 “Climate Sensitivity is 0.06K:
International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures
…climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively.
Notwithstanding this finding, however, the methane from climate change zealots is so far grossly understated.
But the zealots are exempt…from all laws of man and nature…they get a free ride….everybody knows this….John Kerry giggles like a little girl.
That also ignores rice farming. No one will ever mention termites.
Insects are good, cattle and sheep have to go
maybe sun baked termites will become a going thing.
mmmm! Termites… Crispy and crunchy! 🤢
Slight correction – dehumanizing food sources are good; foods that bring joy to people have to go, except for the special elites, of course.
If insects are so nutritionally good there must have been no famines that resulted from locust plagues?
hmmmmm… No wheat crop to eat because of the locusts? Eat the locusts!
Yeah, ummm no. You’re right, another ian. That never seemed to work.
6 legs good, 4 and 2 legs bad!
Actually, the methane produced by both termites and ruminants is due to bacteria in their gut, breaking down the hardy cellulose of the plant stuff they eat.
Exactly Tom. Rice farming in paddy fields produces large amounts of methane (and increasing with population growth) which is rarely discussed; only those nasty cow farts and burps produce ‘bad, nasty’ CH4! Termites also produce a large percentage of total CH4.
Agree. Rice paddies and termites are among the top producers of methane according to the US Geological Survey.
Over half the world’s population is dependent on rice as a staple food and over 90% of rice is produced and consumed in the Asia – Pacific region. More than 56% 0f the world’s population live in this region and there is a considerable unmet demand for rice. Every year over 50m more rice consumers are added to the demand.
Methane? Cows? Natural? I was watching a special report about the NASA mission to Saturn, with the satellite named Cassini (partly provided by European Space Agency), to study the rings and other surface features. The satellite detected large lakes of liquid methane at both Saturn polar regions. Cows? I don’t think so. Alex, I’ll take “Natural” for a million smackeroos (OK, because of bidenflation make it 2 million). Thanks.
You are probably thinking of Titan, not Saturn. I’m pretty sure we can’t see the surface of Saturn, assuming it has a solid surface. Jupiter doesn’t.
Are you trying to argue that since there is methane elsewhere in the solar system, that this proves cows don’t fart/burp methane?
MarkW, you’re right about Titan. My suggestion is that methane is a very natural compound found all over the solar system and trying to isolate a very minor amount of it is a fools errand, and additionally, I would prefer to have cows and live with the very small possible (not likely) amount of additional heat.
I’m surprised the eco-worriers haven’t suggested reducing the human population – after all, humans fart, too! But give them time…
“But give them time…”
Why? (Unless it’s 20-30 years before parole).
The WEF has a plan for that.
The Optimum Trust has a plan for that
They have been recommending reducing human population. It’s just that the media rarely covers those lectures.
Some of the more extreme ones want to reduce human population to less than 100 million.
It’s called Eugenics and it has not gone way. Procedures such as forced sterilisations are legal and still practiced. So now all we need is a good enough social reason to enforce it. Maybe like a “climate emergency”. Scary stuff when you think about it.
But the eco-worriers know that theirs are green hydrogen
“Munich Professor: Role of Methane from Cows on Climate Exaggerated by A Factor Of 3 To 4!”
And the rest.
I would very much like to hear why the disappearance of the ultra-massive buffalo herds from the American plains shouldn’t have noticeably reduced the atmospheric CO2 between say 1850 and 1900 – if ruminants are indeed ultra-guilty of generating it.
You mean methane don’t you
Methane does rapidly break down into CO2.
Here in France the cow is king, (or queen), it’s been that way for centuries.
Let Billy boy come here and explain to the farmers why the cow is bad… I dare you. 😡
la Vache qui rit?
Why does my inoffensive joke about the French dairy brand of “the laughing cow” require approval?
Then try India.
This is hopeless, just beyond lost…..
Quote from translation:”Climate change coincides with industrialization and not with the methane emissions from animal husbandry, says Prof. Windisch and gives specific figures: “According to the Federal Environment Agency, around six percent of the total emissions of CO2 equivalents per year are due to methane, of which around two percent
Thus: He is a squillion miles away from knowing what cows eat, why they eat it and what happens to what they ‘waste’
Cows ‘waste’ huge amounts of grassy material (the stalks & seed-heads of the grass plants) and via their big plodding feet and generous (spellcheck suggested erogenous?!?!) ‘pies’ – cows actually capture large amounts of organic material and it gets sucked into (buried) in the soil by critters, bugs and all sorts of wildlife.
What they do is create extremely good fertile soil as exactly the Bison/Buffalo did out on the Great Plains before they were systematically murdered.
Via an almost magnetic (actually electrostatic) attraction, that organic ‘stuff affixes water, water which then modulates the weather and thus the climate.
As was discovered in the wake of the Buffalo.
John Deere’s all steel plough, used in the production of mind & body destroying sugar ‘disapeaered’ all the organic matter (it became CO2) that the buffalo created and a Dust Bowl resulted.
No, The Climate didn’t change and create the dust bowl, the Dust created its own Bowl and climate followed it down the pan.
At least there is A God, one with a GSOH otherwise how did a Prof Windyish get onto the subject of burps and farts.
But I ain’t laughing, This Is Serious
Wrong, Peta. Once again. The dust bowl didn’t have anything to do with CO2.
CO2 rose at about the same rate during the dust bowl years (1930 to 1936) as it rose throughout the whole period from 1900 to 1940. CO2 started rising at a higher rate following 1940 but the earth cooled from 1940 to 1970.
Some of the dust was certainly caused by poor farming practices but the heat, drought, and winds of the early to mid 1930s was caused by other factors. Farming practices didn’t magically change in 1937.
CO2 at 554 ppm 4th of August 1944, Black Forest, Germany. Recorded science. Utterly ignored because it completely blows the warmist narrative out of the water.
By their logic they average away the precise cases that disprove the narrative, there are places that should be at over 140°F in the afternoon a little down-wind of a city that just never get as warm as the city.
100% of global warming/climate change is bad sensor placement and destruction of environment.
I do agree that many temperature sensors are badly placed and have undergone serious fudging. However, I don’t agree that CO2 measurement stations are badly placed. Mauna Loa is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with prevailing breezes that usually don’t go over any non-natural source of CO2 and, at 420 ppm now, it’s usually within 5 to 10 ppm of the CO2 concentration measured at the South Pole. CO2 in the atmosphere is well mixed.
I could find no evidence of the measurement you referred to. However, I suppose it could be correct if it was taken downwind of a German city that was firebombed. You can see large variations in CO2 concentrations from place to place and even at different times of the day/night, but that doesn’t mean that the averages taken at the well-placed measurement stations are inaccurate.
I saw an interesting documentary the other day about the Dust Bowl.
The tv program was about mysterious discoveries (made by satellite) and one of the things they found was a strange grid-type pattern in the way trees were configured all over the central United States.
It turns out that the orderly arrangement of trees over thousands of square miles was a result of a government program in the 1930’s, to plant trees in the Dust Bowl areas in hopes of preventing Dust Bowl weather in the future.
The plantings seem to have done some good.
It’s kind of amazing looking down on the regular grid pattern of planted trees from orbit. You see the pattern for miles and miles and miles. On the ground, you can’t see this forest for the trees. 🙂
Actually it is overestimated by factors of hundred. The whole methane thingy is one big nonsense based on a total lack of understanding of radiative transfer of heat in the atmosphere.
I told some ruminants in my neighborhood, “We humans have some very smart thinkers that say your methane emissions are bad for the climate.”
They said, “We can eat grass and turn it into nutritious milk for your very smart thinkers. Circle back to us when they can do that for themselves.”
Oddly, my simple comment above went into moderation. I received at email telling me that it had been approved.
Thanks to whomever at WUWT approved it.
Seems the automated moderation system has developed an aversion to words from non-English languages.
Moooo is English.
I thought it was bovine.
About 50 miles southeast of here in upstate NY are Bovina and Bovina Center. The bovine dialect might have originated there. 🙂
It seems several cows were offended by your remark, Bob, and they moonlight as factcheckers for google.
You’re lucky the cows didn’t cancel you.
The hills are alive, with the sound of moosic.
Before the “very smart thinkers” came along we had mother’s milk and, pre-FJB, baby formula. And now the “very smart thinkers” are trying to get rid of mother’s milk, especially from men-that-can-get-pregnant. And we can’t even get national security, much less mother’s milk, out of our female admiral that suffers from male-pattern baldness.
Methane and CO2 are grossly misrepresented by the nonscientific scientist alarmists. No gas at any concentration can warm the climate as they have no way to trap heat. The absorption spectra of these gases are pathetic and full of massive holes. In addition, the half-lives of these gases in the atmosphere are about 5 years, which means a rapid turnover and NOT long-term accumulation. Solar and oceans cycles drive the climate.
This is all about junk science being propounded as fact. A true scam of the highest order. This is why they say the science is settled, because they know it cannot stand up to real examination. So, they push for programs to combat a nonexistent problem.
Thank you for your learned opinion, Charles. Tell us again which university granted your PhD in atmospheric physics.
add or expand, no insult and mockery
Some WUWT commentors give skeptics a bad name by insisting there is no GHG effect. They cling to such unscientific drivel despite overwhelming scientific evidence. It is an overreaction to CliSciFi’s exaggeration of the GHE impacts on temperatures. I’m fed up with their pseudo science.
That this “professor” even comments on the “fart factor” tells me all I need to know about him and his education. Total garbage.
Next somebody will be studying the effects of dinosaur flatulence on the Jurassic Period, or whatever it was, and why it was a contributing factor to their extinction.
We are definitely living in interesting and weird times.
It’s all BS. The small amount of ruminants sit at the apex of an ecosystem which produces methane at all levels. Always did. Always will, even if you killed every cow on Earth.
And the atmospheric methane IR window is already pretty much closed by water and other ‘greenhouse’ gases.
This is just pandering to the militant vegetarians.
“Militant Vegans” for the win!
The above article includes what has got to be the world’s record for the longest URL link ever published anywhere.
They had to make it look important somehow..
Cows and other creatures have been doing it since long before the industrial revolution. Leave it to liberals to take something natural and turn it into the contributing cause of a fake disaster. Good for the professor.
Bill Gates owns a lot of farmland and it is only natural he would want to sell his products. Since there is already a market for food his replacing meat is a bit over the top and a little nutty.
And then there’s this:
Using measurements of hundreds of thousands of individual “line strengths” of the major greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, they show that methane (CH4) is nearly irrelevant to global warming.
The policy implication of the paper is that methane emissions should not be regulated because of any concern about global warming. Cows and pipelines can rest easy.
The role of methane as a greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere has been overestimated by factors much greater than 3 or 4, and that’s not due to overestimating the number of cows or underestimating the rate of biological breakdown of methane.
Most studies look at methane absorbing LWIR radiated from Earth’s surface by just considering its radiation absorption characteristics as if it were an isolated gas at its current tropospheric concentration level of about 1.7 ppmv, with projected study variations around this point.
However, as shown in the accompanying graph, the IR absorption bands for methane are totally enclosed within the broader absorption bands of water vapor. Over the range of pressures and temperatures and absolute humidities typical of the lower troposphere, water vapor has concentrations in the thousands to tens of thousands of ppmv, 3-4 orders-of-magnitude higher than the concentration of methane.
Note only that, but water vapor is a superior absorber of infrared radiation compared to methane because the water molecule has a significant permanent dipole moment whereas the methane molecule does not.
So, water vapor alone is the predominate absorber of IR energy being radiated by Earth’s surface, and whether methane existed at 1/10th or 10 times its present atmospheric concentration level would matter little considering the overwhelming IR absorptance capability of water vapor as normally exists in the lower troposphere.
5%, 20% of NOTHING = NOTHING.
Methane in parts per BILLION is a complete non-factor, no matter the alleged source.
And cows eat grass which would otherwise die and decompose, releasing…CO2.
IOW, from any angle, the anti-meat propaganda, like all the other ‘climate’ bullshit, holds no water.
Ummm . . . methane’s current concentration level in Earth’s atmosphere is commonly cited as 1.7 parts per million by volume (ppmv) . . . but one could equally assert it is at 1,700 parts per billion by volume.
What is knows as the logical fallacy of a “distinction with a difference”.
1700 sounds a lot worse
at ground level, yes… in the weather no.
Ummm . . . weather does not occur at ground level?
“But it’s all mostly hype and hysteria.” That is true for the entire Climate Change agenda perpetrated upon the world. Forty (40) years of this misinformation campaign and there is still no positive proof. It is and has been an economic GLOBAL ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION from the beginning.
The CC Cult has followed the same program as the DDT Cult. I am 80 years old, my Brother is 79 and my sister 78. From the late forties we played in the yard and would chase after the truck spraying DDT driving down the city street. Even when we stayed in the yard the spray covered us like the misters at Ls Vegas. Forget when the city discontinued this but it was still happening when I graduated from HS. We are all still alive, have had no cancer or significant illnesses. The only time any of us have been in the hospital was for a joint replacement. Even COVID has not affected us, to date, even as much as the common annual flu.
To this date, even though the US has banned DDT in 1976, all the CDC has to say about DDT is “Although we provide evidence to suggest that DDT and DDE may pose a risk to human health, we also highlight the lack of knowledge about human exposure and health effects in communities where DDT is currently being sprayed for malaria control. We recommend research to address this gap and to develop safe and effective alternatives to DDT.”
But, what is known about the DDT ban is that millions of poor people throughout the world suffered, and died from malaria and other diseases transmitted by insects when DDT ceased to be available. While the over-use you describe had some adverse impact on the environment, simply restricting the use to more targeted spraying of the cheap insecticide would have saved lives with no measurable impact on the environment. However, with a cheap insecticide first synthesized in 1874 available, what company could make money by inventing more dangerous, but patented chemical insecticides?
it is absolutely known that the cheaper carrier material for DDT is toxic to wildlife when mixed with river effluent – not the DDT, the oil it was mixed with to spray it
you know, back when “waste oil” contained PCBs
I just found out that national parks have their roots in white nationalism.
Who knew that Teddy Roosevelt was a closet Nazi?
Wilson caused Vietnam.
I have no doubt that Scottish-American John Muir would take extreme umbrage with your sophomoric statement.
Some relevant excerpts from Wikipedia’s bibliography of John Muir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir ):
— John Muir is know as “Father of the National Parks”
— The Sierra Club, which he co-founded, is a prominent American conservation organization
— Biographer Donald Worster says he believed Muir’s mission was “saving the American soul from total surrender to materialism”
— By the age of 11, the young Muir had learned to recite “by heart and by sore flesh” all of the New Testament and most of the Old Testament
— Muir came to believe that God was always active in the creation of life and thereby kept the natural order of the world. As a result, Muir “styled himself as a John the Baptist” . . . “whose duty was to immerse in ‘mountain baptism’ everyone he could”. Williams concludes that Muir saw nature as a great teacher, “revealing the mind of God”, and this belief became the central theme of his later journeys and the “subtext” of his nature writing.
Does any of the above sound even remotely aligned with the core beliefs of white nationalism or the Nazi Party of WWII???
BTW, since when is Fox News a reliable source of information?
You “just found out” based on a single source?
Gordon, I think you totally missed MarkW’s sarcasm.
EVERYTHING is rooted in “white nationalism”, white supremacy, or racism, haven’t you got the memo?
Did you happen to catch that Fox was only reporting what VICE wrote?
A new piece from liberal outlet Vice exposed the alleged “deep roots” that “White supremacy groups” have in the U.S. National Parks system and argued that modern-day white supremacists are re-committing to “embracing the great outdoors.”
Yes, I read the Fox News piece . . . twice!
Other than the following single paragraph, Fox News did nothing to dispute or demolish the claims of Vice writer Tess Owen:
“Her report is the latest attempt from the liberal media to attach nefarious right-wing origins and/or designs for seemingly apolitical aspects of American life, including motherhood and exercise.”
Meanwhile, Fox News gives 15 other paragraphs to discussing what Owen wrote without challenge or rebuttal. This even went so far as to include a photo of “Neo-Nazi, white supremacist and white nationalist groups” seen in Charlottesville, Va and a photo of Nazi Germany officials marching in a parade, apparently taken around the time of WWII.
It is hard to understand that if Fox News really believed the Vice article was “nefarious” they would then give it the column-inches they did without also including further objection to Owen’s claims.
Separately, if MarkW intended his comment that preceded his link to the Fox News article to be sarcastic, his gave no indication of such and thus opened himself to misinterpretation.
But in fairness, if MarkW intended his comment to be sarcastic, I do apologize to him for misinterpreting his intent.
I’m no fan of Fox, but it looked to me like they were simply reporting on what Vice was reporting. Just presenting it without comment. Lazy reporting at best, but not original (is there a difference?)
As for MarkW, his comment history is what made his sarcasm clear to me – it’s not like he’s new around here!
edit: I see what you’re saying about the rest of the piece. GOOD reporting would have done more research and produced additional information. Like I said, lazy.
All part of the agenda. Meat for the elite, and the herd can be fattened on grain and insects. The professor had better be careful, as he is showing early signs of thinking for himself (wrongthink), and if he continues too far along those lines, the re-education camps may not be far off.
He had to have some bad news – the 5% contribution just to get published.
The atmosphere’s methane break down capacity in a year is 580 Megatons, but 600 Megatons are emittet, so 20 Megatons are accumulated (0.007 ppm).
as the concentration increases, more is also broken down – that’s how it works. So there isn’t any accumulation, just a carry-over
so the % they claim is carried over is only a small portion of their really bad math and failure in statistics and lack of understanding of how gases work
There is no such thing as a “break down capacity”.
I remember decades ago when the smarty pants experts proclaimed “butter is bad for you” and “margarine is good for you”. But nobody seemed to notice that it was only a single solitary study that came to that conclusion and then endorsed by the government food cops, and guess which industry group paid for that study? The corn producers, or course, whose corn oil was the basis of margarine production. As it turned out a vast number of studies in the last decade came to a very different conclusion: margarine is still fat and is no better than butter.
Related to the margarine over butter scam is what doctors and scientists told us for decades, that cholesterol in your diet is bad for you and will give you a heart attack. Dishes like fettucine alfredo were condemned as “a heart attack on a plate”. Egg consumption was widely condemned.
Except, the real medical research proved decades later that people have high cholesterol not because they eat too much cholesterol, but because their own livers produce the excess cholesterol. And that over production is a matter of other factors like heredity, body weight, exercise, etc. Eat all the eggs you want, as long as you don’t overeat in total, and it’s not going to give you a heart attack.
Same thing with saturated fats, which we all were told for decades were very bad for us … and yet again, the actual medical research proved that a low fat diet actually lowers human life expectancy, because, guess what! our bodies need fat in our diets. So forget all the low fat crapola we were fed for decades.
Take every single human health risk study with many grains of salt. Because sooner or later it will be overturned. Too many are simply too simple, not recognizing all the complexities in responses that result from operation of very complex systems, be they the Earth’s climate or the human body.
Off topic, but better late than never
The Guardian: Polar bears found thriving despite lack of sea ice offer hope for species.
Polar bears have become the furry face of the climate crisis, with experts suggesting the animals could be all but extinct in a matter of decades as the Arctic sea ice they hunt from melts away.
But now researchers say they have found a group of them in south-east Greenland who are surviving despite a lack of sea ice for much of the year.
I agree that it is mathematically possible for something to “impact climate change” to an extent, but when that climate change is so very very slow and benign I refuse to worry about it, and so should everyone else!
Cows graze or eat hay and grain supplied to them. In the many millions of years before there were extensive cattle herds for human consumption, what ate those grasses and grains, or whatever grew in their place? Did those creatures not produce methane? Bison and antelope in N.A. or the multiple grazing species of Asia and Africa? Not to mention smaller animals like prairie dogs and insects.
Its actually more like “half-life of methane in open atmosphere exaggerated by more than 1700%” as it oxidizes pretty quickly and a large portion of the “detected atmospheric methane” comes from local sources to the sensors and is amplified by assumptive BAD statistics to represent a cow 800 miles away.
It will take one molecule of CO2 extracted from the atmosphere to produce each molecule of CH4 generated by ruminants. Since CH4 is much lighter than most of the other atmospheric gases – the same as water vapour – then it will rise rapidly through the atmosphere.
I don’t think a factor of 3-4 is the whole story.
Just please keep the brown cows, I really like chocolate milk.
And the small ones…I like cream.
Business as usual, how much is methane projected to run up global temperature by the end of the century?
That question is never answered by Climate Science, never asked by the press, and ignored by policy makers.
What’s sad is that in some rural communities, local youth, often drunk and bored, will find a cow and push her. Once the poor cow reaches a tipping point it’s often very hard to save her.
However, the calculations should reflect that once the cow has tipped, it probably won’t be producing any more methane.
More like zero. Its absorption band is saturated by water vapour.
And in more warm fuzzy news it seems some poley bears may escape the dooming due to Donald Trump and Scott Morrison-
Scientists find new population of polar bears in sea-ice free region (msn.com)
Providing the bears don’t fart or burp too much of course.
So you’re saying it is MOOt?
This overestimation is just another cover for the globalists intention to increase their herds, on their massive US land, after they’ve completely removed meat from our tables and forced their fake meat as the only alternative. It’s not rocket science to understand this when they tell us in our face every day what their plan are.