From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
I was sent this article from two years ago, and it is relevant to the debate on agriculture’s impact on GHGs:
The way the public and the media perceive animal agriculture’s environmental impact can, and should, change. New research from Oxford University and the University of California, Davis have recently debunked some of the most critical and long-standing myths surrounding animal agriculture. But can this breakthrough overcome animal agriculture’s bad reputation?
The current narrative about animal agriculture says that ruminant livestock animals (e.g., beef cattle, dairy cattle, etc.) produce methane. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Thus, animal agriculture is bad for the environment.
During a keynote presentation for the Alltech ONE Virtual Experience, Dr. Frank Mitloehner, professor at the University of California, Davis and air quality specialist, boldly proclaimed a path for animal agriculture to become climate-neutral.
Yes, “you heard me right — climate-neutral,” said Dr. Mitloehner. He said he would like to, “get us to a place where we have the impacts of animal agriculture that are not detrimental to our climate.”
3 myths about animal agriculture’s environmental impact debunked
Myth #1: Methane (the most common greenhouse gas, or GHG, in animal agriculture) acts just like other GHGs in the environment.
Fact: The three main greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, all impact the environment in critically different ways, especially as it relates to their source, life span in the atmosphere and global warming potential.
Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are known as “stock gases.” Stock gases are long-lived gases and once emitted will continue to build up in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, for example, has an estimated lifespan in the atmosphere of 1,000 years, meaning carbon dioxide emitted from the year 1020 may still be in the atmosphere today. Methane, on the other hand, is a “flow gas.” Flow gases are short-lived gases and are removed from the atmosphere at a more rapid pace. Methane’s lifespan in the atmosphere is approximately 10 years. This means a flow gas like methane would impact the environment for a duration that is nearly 100 times shorter than the stock gas carbon dioxide.
What causes these gases in the first place? Carbon dioxide is created by the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are used as the energy source to power most homes, vehicles and industry globally. As the graph below depicts, Dr. Mitloehner refers to stock gases like carbon dioxide as a “one-way street” because they only accumulate in the environment over time due to their long lifespan.
Methane can be produced in a variety of methods, but most commonly, it’s produced through the rumination process in beef and dairy livestock (i.e., belching). As a short-lived flow gas, “The only time that you really add new additional methane to the atmosphere with the livestock herd is throughout the first 10 years of its existence or if you increase your herd sizes,” explained Dr. Mitloehner. Methane levels do not increase if herd sizes remain constant because methane is being broken down at the same rate it is being produced.
“What I’m saying here by no means (is) that methane doesn’t matter,” he continued. “While that methane is in the atmosphere, it is heat-trapping, it is a potent greenhouse gas. But the question really is, do our livestock herds add to additional methane, meaning additional carbon in the atmosphere, leading to additional warming? And the answer to that question is no. As long as we have constant herds or even decreasing herds, we are not adding additional methane, and hence not additional warming. And what I just said to you is a total change in the narrative around livestock.”
Alternatively, carbon dioxide is created from extracting fossil fuels that are millions of years old and are trapped under the Earth’s surface.
“These long-lived climate pollutants are only emitted,” said Dr. Mitloehner. “They are put into the atmosphere, but there’s no real sink for it in a major way.”
This demonstrates that carbon dioxide and methane are very different types of gases (stock versus flow) and have very different lifespans in the environment (1,000 years versus 10 years), but what about their global warming potential?
.
Myth #2: The current method for assessing the global warming potential (GWP100) of greenhouse gases properly accounts for all important variables.
Fact: The initial method for calculating GWP100 misrepresents the impact of short-lived flow gases, like methane, on future warming. The new “GWP*” is an improved and more representative measurement.
The initial GWP100 measures produced by the Kyoto Protocol nearly 30 years ago marked a very positive step for assessing global warming. The initial documents included many footnotes and caveats to account for variability and unknown values. “But the footnotes were cut off, and people ran with (it),” said Dr. Mitloehner. “And in my opinion, that was a very dangerous situation that has really gotten animal agriculture into a lot of trouble, actually, quite frankly.”
The current GWP100 measurement generates an over-assessment of methane’s contributions to global warming. Currently, in short, GWP100 measurements are all standardized to a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. So, all non-carbon dioxide emissions are converted by multiplying the amount of the emissions of each gas by its global warming potential over 100 years value. Methane has a GWP100 value of 28, meaning it is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, this type of calculation completely omits the fact that flow gases, like methane, are destroyed after approximately 10 years and would not continue for the entire 100-year duration as described in the GWP100 formula. Additionally, it underestimates the impact that stock gases, like carbon dioxide, would have that persist in the environment for 1,000 years.
Dr. Mitloehner cited Dr. Myles Allen from Oxford University as the pioneer of a new calculation called “GWP*.” The new GWP* calculation better accounts for both gas intensity and gas lifespan in the atmosphere in its measurements of global warming. This is a new narrative to explain global warming emissions and, Dr. Mitloehner said, “you will see it will gain momentum, and it will become the new reality” soon.
Myth #3: To keep up with increasing demand and global population growth, the United States has continued to increase its numbers of beef and dairy cattle, thus increase methane emissions.
Fact: The United States reached peak beef and dairy cattle numbers in the 1970s and has reduced its number of animals every decade since, resulting in 50 million fewer cattle in total.
Over the last half-century, the United States has made tremendous progress to improve efficiency and increase productivity while also reducing total beef and dairy cattle numbers. For example, in 1950, the U.S. dairy cow herd peaked at 25 million cattle. Today, the dairy herd is approximately 9 million cows, yet it is producing 60% more milk — that’s significantly more milk with 14 million fewer cows!
Though cattle numbers have continued to increase in countries such as India and China, this means the United States has not increased methane output — thus not increasing GHG contributions from livestock — over the last five decades.
https://www.alltech.com/blog/3-myths-debunked-animal-agricultures-real-impact-environment
This first myth of the article really goes to the heart of the issue. As Dr Mitloehner explains, the global stock of methane in the atmosphere will not increase unless herds increase around the world. And even if you do away with all cattle, the reduction in methane levels is only ten years worth.
There are of course other factors not taken into account here. If we do abolish all livestock, how do we replace that food? All types of food production, whether arable or not, involve the emission of GHGs, not least in the use of fertilisers, which would inevitably increase without the availability of manure.
Given bomb studies on CO2, I really doubt the 1000 years for persistence of CO2.
Plus, the value given for methane rather omits that it is part of a real atmosphere, and one can only absorb a photon once. Most of the absorption spectrum for methane overlaps water vapor and CO2.
CO2 can only absorb one photon at a time, not just once.
CO2 will within a few nano-seconds shed that photon, either by transferring the rotational energy to another molecule via collision or by emitting the photon back out.
If it’s emitted, the direction the photon is sent will be random.
CO2 emitting a photon ? in a CO2 laser yes … in the atmosphere … afraid not …
Anything that can absorb a photon can emit one.
In the lower atmosphere emitting photons is rare because the molecule usually collides with another before it has a chance to emit.
Ummm….we all need to up our photon knowledge a bit…the CO2 in the air emits enough photons that it shows what the temperature of the N2 and O2 molecules around the CO2 is. That’s relatively low radiative energy compared to kinetic energy transfer….
https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2020/01/recent-advances-in-climate-change-research-part-ix-how-carbon-dioxide-emits-ir-photons
Temperature is a measure of average KE of gas molecules in a sample…. The GH Effect is the result of poly-atomic molecules’ ability to absorb a photon of a specific wave length at a specific resonant frequency to increase its vibrational energy….How does a collision of a molecule with “extra energy” stored in the form of vibration transfer that energy to another molecule without that extra degree of freedom (vibration) to result in increased translational (KE, ie- temperature) energy in the second molecule?
Vibration energy is kinetic energy which can be transferred to another molecule in the form of KE through collisions.
??? Does the temperature of the cueball affect the way it transfers p to the 8-ball?
You sound like Mosher. If CO2 does not emit photons, what is the origin of the IR EM radiation that is supposed to be responsible for a reduced radiative cooling rate?
https://youtu.be/ZmInkxbvlCs
After a CO₂ (or H₂O) molecule absorbs a 15㎛ IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Yes, that many nines.
Pierrehumbert 2011: ”An IR photon absorbed by a molecule knocks the molecule into a higher-energy quantum state. Those states have very long lifetimes, characterized by the spectroscopically-measurable Einstein A coefficient. For example, for the CO₂ transitions that are most significant in the thermal IR, the lifetimes tend to range from a few milliseconds to a few tenths of a second. In contrast, the typical time between collisions for, say, a Nitrogen-dominated atmosphere, at a pressure of 10⁴ Pa, and temperature of 250K, is well under 10−⁷ s. Therefore, the energy of the photon will almost always be assimilated by collisions into the general energy pool of the matter … That is how radiation heats matter in the LTE limit.”
Pierrehumbert, Raymond T. 2011. “Infrared radiation and planetary temperature.”AIP Conference Proceedings
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Reinhart 2013: “After an absorption event, the CO₂ molecule is in an excited state with an estimated lifetime, τrad = (uj / ∆uj)2 / ν ≈ 6 µs for the 15㎛ lines. This corresponds to the spontaneous radiative decay rate, Rrad = 1.7•10⁵ per second. Collisions with the dominant gases of the atmosphere lead to <b>a non-radiative decay. At sea level and T = 288K, the collision rate of all gas molecules is approximately the inverse of the mean free time between collision. Its value is 7•10⁹/s. The present CO₂ concentration amounts to CO₂ = 400㏙. This leads to a non-radiative collision rate with the CO₂ Rnon = 28•10⁵/s. The chances of radiative emission in this situation is given by Rrad / (Rrad + Rnon ) ≈ 0.06. In the Troposphere, where most of the absorption takes place, most of the absorbed energy, by the CO₂, heats the dominant atmospheric gases. This is, however, no longer the case in the Stratosphere and even higher levels, where the collision rate is dramatically decreased.”
Reinhart, F. K. 2013. “Infrared absorption capability of atmospheric Carbon dioxide.”Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/^wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Infrared_absorption_capability_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide.pdf
Profile: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/F_Reinhart
Don’t confuse the radiation-only believers with something like collision! How dare you!!
Thank you, and this is precisely why the famous Trenberth energy budget diagram would seem to grossly underestimate the effects of direct conduction/convection in warming the atmosphere. Step on the hot sand and you burn your foot. Lift it even a little and the radiation effect is minimal….While the vibrational mode of a molecule is kinetic movement internally, how much is the translational mode of the target molecule influenced by transfer of this miniscule vibrational energy, and how much of the vibrational energy actually counts towards meteorological “temperature?”…Should we be impressed by 10^7 collisions /s when there are 10^23 molecules in every 22L of air?
Surely time is an important variable in total heat transfer as well. Those interactions are taking place at a ferocious rate at even normal pressures and terrestrially low temperatures. Total heat transfer in almost all mediums on Earth is pretty rapid by human reckoning. Hence the drop in temperature at night time, which starts even before the sun is below the horizon.
How does an EMR quantum travel against the electric field potential? Electrical energy always radiates in the direction of lower potential.
I suspect you are correct about those studies. Can you supply a reference to the data/studies? This trope about‘man made’ CO2 stays in atmosphere 10K years has no basis in physical chemistry.
Omitting that methane is part of the atmosphere? Shirley, you jest?
What about CO2? The article seems to be claiming that CO2 is something alien that is ‘added’ to the atmosphere, and only comes from burning fossil fuels! It completely ignores the fact that it is a continual part of the Carbon Cycle that is essential for our continued existence!
Cows themselves, as part of this Carbon Cycle, are almost by definition carbon ‘neutral’. If the grass they eat were left to rot, even more CO2 and methane would be given off. This whole article is pure unadulterated scaremongering fantasy.
You can only imagine the damage done by dinosaurs 😉
Zig, if we got rid of cattle, what would become of the rangelands? I suspect, they would still be grazed, but by elk, deer, bison … which would emit, about the same as cattle. If the land is not grazed, it would be a fire hazard. Much rangeland is unsuitable for corn, wheat, etc. and can only be rangeland. Much land cannot support trees, due to water limitations and fire. Not all abandoned rangeland would become forest, most would remain grazed, just by different animals. Cattle have amazing EFFICIENCY in digestion; I suspect that Methane emissions per unit of “grass” or other browse, would be higher for elk, deer, etc.
So where do we see plants taking up CO2? Also why don’t we see volcanoes, particularly underwater volcanoes as being a source of CO2? I didn’t think this article was worthy of being in WUWT.
I thought that almost half the CO2 emitted absorbed by new plant growth or into the oceans.
Yes:
When carbon dioxide CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, approximately 50% remains in the atmosphere, while 25% is absorbed by land plants and trees, and the other 25% is absorbed into certain areas of the ocean.
Where do these figures come from? IPCC or where…do you have a source for us as it would be nice to be able to check them for ourselves.
Merbach, Zschaler & Schulzke 2021: “The results are: (1) The increase of the atmospheric CO₂ concentration by about 100 ppm during the last 100 years led to increased plant growth worldwide. The global vegetation cover increased by 11% to 14%, which is attributed by 70% to the increased atmospheric CO₂ content. Since 1982 the global tree population has increased by 7.1%. (2) The increase of the CO₂ content in the air (typically from 350㏙ to 550㏙) resulted in the yield increases of selected crops from 10% to more than 30%. (3) In Germany, from 1990 to 2015 the yields of wheat, barley, maize and potatoes increased by more than 30% which was partly due to the increased CO₂ content in the air. Across all crop species, the annual net CO₂ fixation in Germany is 96.3 million tons. (4) The CO₂-related yield increases are based on an increase in photosynthesis performance. They were subject to large fluctuations depending on plant species, water supply and nutrient supply (especially N and P). (5) In the case of poor nutrient availability in the soil and insufficient fertilization, the CO₂ induced yield increase can be associated with a reduction in plant nutrient and protein concentrations (mainly due to ‘dilution effects’) and thus with a reduction in quality. N (to a lesser extent also P) obviously plays a key role in this process. This can be compensated by adapted fertilization management and by breeding of drought-tolerant ‘low-input’ varieties with high nutrient utilization efficiency. (6) The CO₂ induced yield increases should be used to secure the world’s food supply and improve the income situation in poorer countries.”
Merbach, Wolfgang, Helfried Zschaler, and Dietrich Schulzke 2021.“Influence of increased atmospheric CO₂ concentrations on global vegetation development as well as yield and product quality in agricultural crop production.” Die Bodenkultur (The soil culture)
Merbach, Wolfgang, Helfried Zschaler, and Dietrich Schulzke 2021. “Einfluss erhöhter atmosphärischer CO₂-Konzentrationen auf die globale Vegetationsentwicklung sowie den Ertrag und die Produktqualität im landwirtschaftlichen Pflanzenbau.” Die Bodenkultur
https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/7409025
Donohue, Randall J., 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2013. “Impact of CO₂ fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments.” Geophysical Research Letters
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18383638/1708677228/name/grl50563.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/epdf
1. CO2 is taken up by both terrestrial plants and marine plants and some bacteria.
For example; the CO2 and ash released by the Australian fires 3 years ago were taken up by the phytoplankton in the Pacific and Southern Oceans. 60% of the worlds free oxygen is produced by oceanic phytoplankton , the remainder 40% is from all terrestrial vegetation ( including your lawn). Phytoplankton is the keystone species for all aquatic food chains, just as grasses are a big part of the terrestrial food chains.
2. CO2 dissolves in water to form a very weak acid . Minerals such as silica need to be dissolved so that they can be taken up by plants. Silica is needed for the cell walls, without it plants could not exist. CO2 +water+ calcium forms calcium carbonate which is needed for egg shells – no egg shells no birds, limestone and chalk.
3. Methane is produced by anaerobic bacteria, when carbon based anything decomposes in an oxygen free environment, such as ; oceans, lakes, dams, slow moving rivers, swamps, mangroves, rice paddies, fjords , rubbish. tips , poor compost heaps and the gut of mammals etc. ( I don’t know about birds – I’ve never heard a bird fart). Once in the atmosphere, CH4 moves toward the equator where the sun is more directly overhead and UV light breaks the molecular bonds The Carbon rebonds with O2 and the Hydrogen bonds also with Oxygen to form CO2 and H20, essential ingredients for life.
3. Methane is also produced as a byproduct of fusion in the core. Two hydrogen atoms fuse to become a helium atom. Three helium atoms fuse to become a Carbon atom. Carbon and Hydrogen bond to make a hydrocarbon ie oil and gas. This hypothesis was put forward by the Russians in the 1950’s. In 2008 International scientists at Hopkins University, had the technology to control experiments carried out at the temperatures and pressure found in the upper mantle. They used Ethane C2H6 and after a few days the ethane had become methane, toluene and graphite . The experiment was reversed and the methane became ethane.
The scientists believe that the upper mantle is full of hydrocarbons. They are not fossil fuels, they are genuine renewables.
Science has become the Tower of Babel, as scientists no longer talk to one another any more and any old rubbish gets promoted.
2014 Dec NASA NCAR Press Release: “As human-caused emissions add more Carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, forests worldwide are using it to grow faster, reducing the amount that stays airborne.This effect is called Carbon dioxide fertilization.“
https://news.ucar.edu/13659/tropical-forests-have-large-appetite-carbon-dioxide
Schimel 2015: “…CO₂ fertilisation effect on the terrestrial biosphere potentially absorbed up to 30% of CO₂ emissions from 1990 to 2007.” (see below)
Plants DO take up our excess CO₂ — and, across the planet, “primary productivity” (PP) is noted as Gross Primary Productivity (GPP) and Net Primary Productivity (NPP). We have no DIRECT way to measure either, but we can infer from observed leaf area and the noticeable colouration of Chlorophyl. Satellite observations are often used. “Flux Tower” measurements are also used.
Ainsworth, Lemonnier & Widow 2019: “The increase in atmospheric CO₂ along with the intensification of the global [Nitrogen] cycle, and extension of growing seasons with rising temperatures, have enhanced global plant productivity (Fowler 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2013; Zhu 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2016; Peñuelas 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2017). Evidence from long-term flux tower records suggests that net ecosystem production in Northern Hemisphere forests has increased over the past three decades (Keenan 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2013; Smith 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙.. 2016; Fernandez-Martinez 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2017), and satellite observations have reported widespread greening of vegetated land areas across the globe (Zhu 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2016). Greater productivity of Northern Hemisphere forests and agricultural lands in recent decades is thought to have contributed to increased seasonal photosynthetic drawdown of atmospheric CO₂, which has increased by ≈50% at 45°N since the 1960s (Graven 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2013; Gray 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2014; Zeng 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2014; Forkel 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2016).”
“… Schimel 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. (2015) estimated that the CO₂ fertilisation effect on the terrestrial biosphere potentially absorbed up to 30% of CO₂ emissions from 1990 to 2007. McGrath & Lobell (2011) used historical yield and climate records to estimate that CO₂ fertilisation increased maize and soybean yields by 9% and 14%, respectively, over the past 50 years.”
Donohue 2013: “Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the ‘CO₂ fertilization’ effect — the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO₂ levels — is yet to be established. The direct CO₂ effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO₂ (1982 to 2010) led to a 5% to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO₂ fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the Carbon cycle and thatthe fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process.”
Donahue 2013: “Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that [green vegitation] cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO₂ fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the Carbon cycle, and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process. … it has proven difficult to isolate the direct biochemical role of [increases in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations] in these trends, from variations in other key resources (such as light, water, nutrients [Field 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙., 1992]) and from socioeconomic factors, such as land use change [Houghton, 2003].”
Donohue, Randall J., 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2013. “Impact of CO₂ fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments.” Geophysical Research Letters
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18383638/1708677228/name/grl50563.pdf
Water vapor is the most important green house gas, but is ignored and left out of most discussions. This is probably because we can’t do anything about it. And yes it is condensable, etc.
But by ignoring it we lose sight of the forest for the trees; focusing on CO2, CH4 and NO species is like focusing on the 0.1, 0.04, and 0.001 and ignoring the 3.0 when the value of pi is 3.14159……
Methane is a joke 28 times almost nothing is almost nothing.
And I don’t think the 28 is right either. If you look at absorption charts most of methane absorption areas is already being blocked by water vapor. Maybe if we had no water on the planet it be 28x more potent?
Well, they did say “POTENTIAL.” You know, like that baseball prospect that can’t hit a breaking ball…
A good estimate of the annual atmospheric water cycle is 522,000,000,000,000 tonnes. So even if there was such a thing as the “greenhouse effect” contributing to Earth’s energy balance, what will a few billion cow farts a year do to alter the energy balance?
Koutsoyiannis, Demetris & Papalexiou 2017: “… the satellite-based annual precipitation in the last 35 years has varied between 956㎜ and 997㎜; the corresponding figures for the precipitation over land are 847㎜ and 942㎜. The variation from the ground data for a longer period (beginning in 1900) is much higher, 912㎜ to 1085㎜ … Remarkable are also the differences between the satellite and ground data sets for land, which raises doubts on the accuracy on the data (particularly the satellite ones).”
Global precipitation of 2.76㎜/day is assigned (in Trenberth, Fasullo & Kiehl 2009) as equivalent to 80.0W/㎡ of global annual Latent Heat (evaporation).
80.0W/㎡÷2.76㎜/day≈29W/㎡ per each one ㎜ per day of global annual precipitation.
Another measure of average annual latent heat flux is ≈88W/㎡ (by Stephens 2012) instead of 80.0W/㎡. Another measure of global annual precipitation is Brittanica dot com at 100㎝/yr.
100㎝ per year÷365 days per year ≈2.74㎜/day
which compares well to Trenberth, Fasullo & Kiehl 2009 2.76㎜ per day.
That divides out to:
88W/㎡÷2.74㎜/day≈32W/㎡ per each one ㎜ per day of global annual precipitation.
So, around 29W/㎡ to 32W/㎡; (29+32)÷2=30½W/㎡ for each one ㎜/day of global precipitation.
The number I use, that represents the supposed imbalance of the planet’s “heat” budget equation, is ½W/㎡ (such as Dean Roemmich 2015)
(½÷30.5)=0.016394.
If, globally, the annual precipitation was increased by ≈0.0164㎜/day (and nothing else changes) it would completely offset the sum total of all global warming, from all causes, that was estimated in Roemmich 2015; which was 0.5W/㎡.
Do you seriously think those ‘climate’ scientists know, exactly, how much rain falls in a year (≈1004㎜/year) and that it is not 1010㎜/year? An annual accuracy of ±0.6%? That would require that all other measures of the annual “heat budget” of the entire planet, would have to be EXACT, because all the slack would be consumed in this average annual precipitation figure.
When we make measurements to support the calculation of the entire planet’s heat balance budget, we can start with the incoming sunshine. We use special instruments in satellites, launched into space, so the measurements of sunshine aren’t affected by the planet’s atmosphere. These days, the instrument is calibrated in a US NASA facility, called LASP, in Colorado. There, they can simulate sunshine, and they claim the instrument is calibrated to 0.03% … before launch.
The TSI measurements vary, but a good number is 1,360.8W/㎡ for that part of Earf where the sun is directly overhead, and the value is taken above the atmosphere, at 1AU distance from the sun. To spread that energy evenly across the surface of Earf, pole to pole, sunlit side to dark side, (1360.8÷4)=340.2W/㎡. The albedo of Earf is ≈0.3 (reflection from clouds, surface ice, etc). 340.2(0.3)≈102W/㎡ reflected back out into space, leaving
(340.2-102)≈238W/㎡
If the planet was shedding as much heat by radiating infrared into space, as it was gaining from the sun, the planet would not gain or loose heat, and that would be (roughly) 238W/㎡ of IR into space.
…Dean Roemmich approximated how much heat is accumulating into the oceans, over a time period, and Roemmmich 2015 reported an estimated imbalance of 0.5±0.1, so, ½W/㎡.
Compare the size of the imbalance, ½W/㎡ with 238½W/㎡
(½÷238)=0.0021 or 0.21%
If Earf is warming up from retaining ½W/㎡ then the retention amounts to 0.21% of the sunshine incident upon the surface of the planet. That is a really small amount, in comparison to the strength of the sunshine. Do we really know the exact amount of yearly precipitation, so accurately, as to be sure it is not off by ½W/㎡? (No, we don’t).
Precipitation in ㎜/day, heat in W/㎡
(365.249 days per year)•(2.75㎜/day)=
80.0(heat)÷2.76(precipitation)=28.9855≈29 (heat/precipitation)
(Δprecipitation)•(heat/precipitation) = Δheat
Stephens, G.L., 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2012. ”An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations.” Nature Geoscience
Trenberth, Kevin E., John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl 2009. ”Earth’s global energy budget.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, and Simon M. Papalexiou 2017. “Extreme rainfall: Global perspective.” Handbook of Applied Hydrology
Roemmich, Dean, 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2015. “Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure since 2006. Nature Climate Change
Agriculture’s real impact has been one of stunning success. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.
It’s difficult to argue for a radically reduced population in the face of year on year record yields and harvests.
So you make it about saving the planet etc.
Rice agriculture emits about as much CH4 as ruminants. Nobody’s calling for a ban on rice, are they?
Wetlands are major CH4 emitters. US has been restoring wetlands big time for last 50 years or so. We need to put a stop to that!
There is currently a push to re-introduce beaver to suitable environments. The beaver will increase the number and size of wetlands. It is like the left hand of government doesn’t know what the left hand of environmentalists is doing.
Clyde, there are only multiple LEFT hands, and all of them are out for tax dollars for jobs in government for LIBERALS.
The BLM, land management that is, forest service etc. should only be allowed to hire people with animal husbandry, farming, forestry, mining or other similar PRODUCTIVE degrees, no environmental degrees allowed.
When the authorities cannot get their way by going one route they pivot and go another like in the Netherlands where they wanted farmers to eliminate fertilizer and the farmers protested. Now the government is talking about appropriating 600 farms.
Notice how it is either politicians or “experts” in a particular area telling others in another how they should act. Most recently the World Meteorological Association has been advising on doubling clean energy in eight years. Since when do meteorologist understand energy production, engineering and the economics of going down this route. If they cannot give us accurate predictions for a week in advance let along a month or more why should we want their advice?
I generally don’t criticize people for the “sin” of getting out of their lane. In other words there might be meteorologists who know quite a bit about energy systems and I am willing to listen to them until we reach a point where I can evaluate what they know. What I do dislike is the enormous effort put into discrediting people no matter what they know from a combination of self-study, experience and education if what they say doesn’t fit an approved narrative. It’s the approval according to narrative that is a destructive process.
Any bright intellectually curious person can educate themselves on climate, and on the various alternative systems for generating electricity. We absolutely need to encourage that. We have, anyway, the example of “Mr. Science” himself, Anthony Fauci, someone who constantly contradicts himself and promotes behaviors that fly in the face of rapidly accumulating scientific information, as evidence that highly educated individuals specializing in a very narrow discipline can be dramatically wrong. Or evil. With him I really can’t decide.
Unfortunately, most politicians are dogmatic, and not the least bit intellectually curious.
Or, ‘Professor’ Tim Flannery in Australia who is an insect ‘expert’ and essentially knows little about climate or even weather for that matter. He has a famous quote: “Even if it rains, the dams will not fill.” Almost every year since, we have had floods along the Australian east coast and dams are overflowing. 😉
” In other words there might be meteorologists who know quite a bit about energy systems…”
This comment implies way more than .001% of meteorologists have both education, training, and experience in economics AND accounting. I think you are seriously mistaken in your willingness to acknowledge knowledge where none exists.
It is unfortunate that many believe if someone can balance their checkbook (which 75% of people can’t) then they deserve an acknowledgement of a possibility of understanding of the subject which they address. What they deserve is to be summarily dismissed unless they show their thinking meets minimum standards of understanding and experience.
Of course one can agree with you about ignoring any evaluation of an arguement based on “approved narratives”, but this goes without saying, except to…well, you know. 🙂
More to the point, I sincerely doubt “meteorologists” are pushing that stupidity – that would be the leftist ass-hats appointed as the “leaders” of their “organization,” no doubt.
Worth reading: “The Vegetarian Myth” by Lierre Keith. You have to be patient with the author (a non-scientist) but this work has some brilliant insights into agricultural practices.
I read just a few pages of The Veggie Myth, and it is evident that Lierre Keith knows very little about real agriculture. Sad, to have such advanced opinions about some situation that doesn’t represent reality. Better to immerse yourself in the REAL world, and develop opinions about REALITY.
Ooops! C2O carbonous oxide accidentally got in that table.
That’s about as accurate as the rest of the twaddle in the article
I noticed that too. He must have carbon on his mind. Black Plaque Matters!
“…no sink for CO2… cow burps biggest contributor… ”
The problem with experts and specialists is, they filter their entire reality through their own interests. No matter how clever you might be, you cannot just utter truisms with no reference or relation to other realities. Like maths, and unadjusted data, or honest observation…
So far I’ve seen only one geologist here, a few fluid mechanics, one or two pneumatics engineers and the occasional astrologist. They all seem to be recognising and building upon work from all fields, often wandering off into unfamiliar territory hitherto of no interest..
The climastrologists in contrast are expert at nothing but fundraising, propaganda and …and… what do you call it when you nod and agree to everything the biggest bully in the room says, no matter what?
Next we’ll find out nitrogen is a radical Incel, and carbon lays charges against those two oxygens for spousal abuse, while secretly cavorting around with four different hydrogen hunks.
Methane will probably wait for the most inopportune moment before she raises a stink
“Raises a stink” lol I see what you did there.
Dead wrong. Over longer and longer time periods there are more and more pathways to store CO2, in the oceans specifically in its water, crust and deep sea sediments. In other words there are pathways with longer and longer time constants. CO2 does not permanently accumulate even though in the short term large releases end up being a big blip in concentration.
This exemplifies how even well intentioned efforts aid the promoters of doom. The good doctor tries to be a voice for moderation, but ends up promoting some destructive myths himself by deflecting onto a convenient scapegoat.
Speaking of sinks, methane is also absorbed by soils and (transformed in the) atmosphere :
BTW I wonder if the 10 years lifespan is correct. I read it’s more like some weeks before it’s transformed in water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere, if not absorbed and broken down in the soils.
And also the CO2 lifespan in the atmosphere is some 5 years, not 1000 :
https://youtu.be/JwCwnR9_8wk?t=612
So, as far as I know, this article seems to be mostly incorrect.
I loved the pretty diagram, Ignoring the elephant in the room. The earths ecosystem. Apparently CO2 stays forever and is not absorbed by plant life whatsoever.
Nor used by creatures to build their exoskeletons or skeletons in massive quantities.
Resulting Carbonate rock masses are on every continent in immense quantities.
There is one plausible theory that “fossil fuels” are in fact produced by those “Carbonate rock masses” combining with water under extreme pressures at depth in Earth’s crust, not by decaying plants and animals.
Another elephant in the room that was left out, all the living animals and people on the planet that breathe. They, we, all emit CO2.
Myth #4 – the true GWP of CO2 emissions can be reliably determined to differ from zero.
So there’s that.
We DO NOT KNOW that heat energy can be made to accumulate to harmful effect on land and in the oceans by what non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere.
Watch from space to visualize why this is so. The motion and the highly variable emitter output change everything about what end result to expect.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=48&dim=1
Never mind…it’s a myth forgetting the double negative…
I probably should have found a way to make my point a bit clearer.
Nitrous Oxide is NO not C2O. And given the CO2 cycle with photosynthesis the claims made by this article appear poorly formed and reasoned. If CO2 were as static as claimed we would never see low periods of concentration. Not sure what this article is really trying to do.
or seasonal variability in CO2
Actual experiments using the actual atmosphere has found that the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a decade or two. How long will the lie that CO2 hangs around for a 1000 years or more continue to be used by disreputable scientists.
What you are talking about is the half life of a specific CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. But when that molecule is absorbed at some saturated sink it will be replaced by a different molecule thus maintaining the original CO2 concentration.
Can you explain that assertion with logic and preferably numbers?
The logic is that if there is a reasonably short half life you could calculate it easily based on the values of CO2 added each year and the long term gain in the total concentration. I saw that attempted once without success.
Don, I agree that the original CO₂ concentration remains very similar, but, the specific molecule exchange represents what could be a swap with an isotopically identical CO₂ molecule, or a radically different CO₂ isotope molecule. Given that burned FF add about 4% more, each year, to the natural circulation, and that FF Carbon isotopes are, collectively, very similar, and that the ocean vents out a whole lot more that FF burning does (and the ocean sucks in, only a slight amount more than it exhales) … <b>the isotopic nature in the atmosphere represents the ocean’s contribution, way more than the FF burning, does.</b>. The oceans’s circulation patterns involve some shallow, rapid exchanges, sort of a do-si-do of CO₂ molecules in the atmosphere, in a dance with shallow CO₂ molecules dissolved in the ocean, but, also, some waters brought up from the deep, haven’t equilibrated with atmosphere for centuries. In these upwelling waters from the deep, the ¹⁴C is significant decayed, having been submerged for hundreds of years, and is of high volume … but the FF burned molecules, are from thousands of years of burial, and are nearly ¹⁴C depleted. The atmosphere is a blend, with 𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒏kind’s additional contributions to the Carbon cycle, ≈+4% each year, being strongly ¹⁴C-depleted, while the oceans vent ≈ten times more, but slightly ¹⁴C-depleted. When Dr. Suess noticed that, the radiocarbon content of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere got progressivly less, he tossed the blame on burned FF … but, each year the oceans outgas 80GtC to 90GtC, of slightly ¹⁴C-depleted CO₂, while 𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒏kind burned ≈10GtC of very strongly ¹⁴C-depleted CO₂ … who could tell the difference? WE REALLY don’t know how much CO₂ is vented, each year, by the oceans, or how much CO₂ (or carbonates) are hanging out in the oceans … we guess, 80GtC or maybe 90GtC each year, but we think the oceans absorb 82GtC or 92GtC from the atmosphere. We know, with much more accuracy, exactly how much FF we burn, because it is good business to know. But, in the science papers of Friedlingston’s Carbon budgets, 2020 vs 2021, 1000GtC just disappeared from the oceans, and what has long been known as the ocean’s circulation of 90GtC out, 92GtC in suddenly turned to 80GtC out, 82GtC in … and that missing 10GtC in that ocean circulation loop, suddenly appeared in the terrestrial (land) circulation loop. We really don’t know, we’re just guessing. There can be no CONSENSUS in the Carbon cycle, with these kinds of numbers.
It seems to me that you are implicitly assuming that CO2 that is dissolved in the oceans retains the same isotopic ratios as found in the atmosphere, and conversely, CO2 that is sequestered in the shells of calcifiers, or released to the atmosphere, retain the isotopic ratio of the ocean water. Neither assumption is justified. It is known that isotopic fractionation takes place when CO2 moves between water and air because it takes less energy to evaporate a 12C atom than a 13C or 14C atom. What we don’t know is the details of such exchanges.
Speaking of nitpicking, you said, “… but the FF burned molecules, are from thousands of years of burial, and are nearly ¹⁴C depleted.” In actuality, fossil fuels are millions of years old, and are virtually completely depleted in 14C.
What you’re missing is that the sinks aren’t saturated.
“How long will the lie that CO2 hangs around for a 1000 years or more continue to be used by disreputable scientists.”
There is nothing weaker than the human mind in the face of money!
I’ve always thought of the raising of cattle as a “zero-sum” game when it comes to methane and CO2. The cow eats some grass/hay and then farts. Methane quickly converts to CO2. Throughout its entire life and death/decay cycle, there is no increase in CO2 within that cycle. Zero-sum. In the end, there is no increase in CO2.
Kinda like those who see burning trees in power plants as a zero-sum game where the CO2 stored in the trees is released during burning, but is offset by the CO2 absorbed during their growth.
Space-borne observations show the tropics (particularly the Amazon Basin) and rice paddies in Asia to be major sources of methane. I don’t recollect seeing regions for herding cows and sheep (such as NZ) being particularly rich in methane. A lot of hand waving by excited politicians will end up crippling the economy of countries that tax those involved in animal husbandry.
SMS, consider what would happen, if suddenly (*poof*) there were no more cattle. What would happen to all that rangeland? My guess, is that we’d see an explosion of wildlife, like Elk and deer, maybe Bison. Most “rangeland” in North America is land that could not support farming (such as Corn, Wheat, etc). In the past, these rangelands hosted Bison, Elk, Deer, etc. My point is, 𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒏kind hasn’t altered the use of these lands, only the fence lines and the kind of animals on them. Either way, the ‘zero sum’ game applies. It is just that beef, tastes better, jumps less high, and respects fences better than Elk and Deer. Cattle yield more meat, too.
You are right and that is what this artical has stated.
I appeared before a select committee here in New Zealand which was hearing submissions from the public on the governments Zero Carbon Bill which has since been voted into law .
I told them that methane from livestock is a closed cycle as all forage consumed by farmed animals has absorbed CO2 and the tiny amount of methane emitted breaks down in the upper atmosphere into water vapour and CO2 in 8 to 10 years.
They did not want to know as I was telling this to a government that had already made up their minds.
Just yesterday our government made an announcement that that from 2025 all farmers will be taxed for their animals methane emissions and also for nitrous oxide emissions from artificial nitrogen fertilizer .
The facts are that New Zealand rely’s on exporting food to the world to import all those things that are needed such as cars and TV sets that are uneconomic to manufacture here.
New Zealand is the first country in the world to inflict this tax on their farmers .
I do not know when this craziness is going to end ,but at some stage food will become very dear and a lot less will be produced .
Hunger and hopelessness will force people to throw their governments out as has happened in Sri Lanka.
You’re not applying Vegan Thinking to this…it’s eating cows that they want to reduce and probably have no idea where to cows get the carbon from.
They’d probably not even be happy if you ate one of those trees instead.
“Carbon dioxide, for example, has an estimated lifespan in the atmosphere of 1,000 years.”
The reference below mentions a CO2 cycle time of 4 years. That just doesn’t add up. Of course CO2 has sinks: every green plant on earth consumes it. So CO2 would also be a “flow gas” according to your definition.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.02.009
Harde, Hermann,”Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere”, Global and Planetary Change, 152, 19-26 (2017)
Sorry but this is the lamest article I have read in WUWT. It overlooks 98% of ghg. Domestic ruminants are only a small source of methane. This crap belongs in Skeptical Science or some other made for junior high student consumption.
And the chances are very good that if the domesticated ruminants were eliminated from a range, the native wild ruminants will expand by taking advantage of the unutilized browse.
And the hits just keep coming:
“New Zealand wants to tax farmers for their cows’ burps and farts”https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/asia/new-zealand-farmers-cow-sheep-burps-climate-intl-scn/index.html
Keep watching – huge political football,widespread support in the population for farmers, amidst an increasing disdain for a Government who are perceived at being unable to actually achieve anything of value to the country, whilst trying to permeate the country with divisive, racist, elitist “co-governance” provisions into every facet of life. There is an election next year, and it is widely predicted that the Labour/Green faction will be ousted. If our center/right party, National, were actually any use, they would be wiping the floor towards a landslide victory – as it is, maybe will be close, but the trend is clear. I hope!!
The mood, as far as I can tell, is that people don’t have a great deal of confidence in any political party, and are likely to vote more against the current Government, rather than for any alternate policy direction being offered. Not so much polarized, as in the USA, as much as antagonized. New Zealand’s 2 major export earners were Tourism and Agriculture – the present Government has all but destroyed the former, and has just gone full on attack against the other. Idiocy, or malevolence? Cant decide, but I, and many others like me, have had more than enough of it.
The UN told governments not to take action against CO2 that affects food production .
What does our socialist government here in New Zealand do?
They do exactly the opposite by imposing taxes on methane from farmed animals and taxes on nitrogen fertilizer which is essential to feed the world .
It is a fact that half of the worlds population are fed by the extra food that is grown using nitrogen fertilizer ,4 billion people .
Restricting the use and banning the manufacturing of nitrogen fertilizer will be seen as a crime against humanity when famines hit the world .
Of course governments will say they were trying to save the world from global warming but the effects of their actions will be catastrophic .
With all the fuss about the 95 million cattle in the US, why is the 360 million in India ignored?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1181408/india-cattle-population/
https://petkeen.com/how-many-cows-in-us/
religious freedom for developing countries where, it is presumed, the populace is too ignorant to rapidly convert to the Church of CO2.
Can’t be touched. Literally a “sacred cow.”
I have a problem with the 1,000 years. When I look at the Mauna Loa CO2 plot, I see CO2 falls about 1% in six months. That doesn’t match a gas which resides in the atmosphere for 1,000 years.
Very good point!
However, that seasonal draw-down is principally the result of photosynthesis, which only works for about 6 months in each hemisphere. However, as I have demonstrated, there is no evidence that anthropogenic emissions have any impact on the ramp-up phase.
As one can calculate in 5 minutes or so, humans emit the equivalent of 4 ppm per year of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, while Mona Loa goes up about 2 ppm a year… so half of that 4 ppm goes into the ocean, plants and soil. On that basis, I am not aware how you might have demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions have no effect on the “ramp up”.
The question is whether or at what point the CO2 addition is dangerous. The “precautionary principle” crowd don’t want much added, but practically speaking, you could burn all our fossil fuels and only end up with a CO2 level that the planet had at some point in the past, and survived quite nicely…..( much less than tertiary Cenozoic, about 22 C average global temp, about 2800 ppm CO2)
The seasonal ramp-up phase is more like 6-8ppm; it is the net annual rise that is about 2ppm.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
Better to stop eating entirely, to be safe.
This author needs to review the work of Professors Will Happer and William van Wijngaarden. Start here https://co2coalition.org/media/methane-the-irrelevant-green-house-gas/ to understand why methane is the irrlevant greenhouse gas and why CO2 equivalencies are not useful in the real atmosphere. There is no climate crisis.
DMA, you’re right: There is NO Climate Crisis. There’s NO CONSENSUS, either.
Even though some crackpots suggest that there is a CONSENSUS, that (supposedly) most (of a selected subset of) scientists agree … but, look into the details. These same scientists (as a large group) publish interesting (conflicting) information. For as long as we could see the moon through telescopes, the consensus among scientists, was that the craters of the moon, were volcanic in origin. This false belief held sway into the 1960s. Here, back on Earf, scientists considered that the continental land masses were static, and this consensus also held sway into the 1960s. Today, “Plate Tectonics” is well accepted. So, too, is the supposed “Consensus” on “Climate Change” …
As Michael Crichton put it, at Caltech in 2003: “In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great, precisely because, they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as ‘consensus science’. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Princeton Professor Emeritus of Physics William Happer writes, in 2017: “I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the consensus on climate change and the consensus on witches. At the witch trials in Salem, the judges were educated at Harvard. This was supposedly 100 per cent science. The one or two people who said there were no witches were immediately hung. Not much has changed.”
There is NO “climate crisis” and the supposed consensus, is a bunch of misled cohort scientists, or alarmists with a hidden agenda.
The source of the energy in the “Climate Change” equation, starts with the sun. Oddly, it (TSI) is the most accurately determined energy amount, in the entire “Climate Change” equation, but, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS VALUE of that TSI, or the subsequent “solar forcing”!
Hegel & Zwiers 2011: “Estimates of solar forcing, particularly for the pre-satellite era, remain uncertain.”
Ermolli 2013: “… solar variability influences the Earth’s environment are still poorly understood … For these reasons, the quantification of solar contribution to climate change remains incomplete.”
Meftah 2014:“The actual absolute value of TSI is still a matter of debate.
Egorova 2018: “There is no consensus on the amplitude of historical solar forcing.”
One would THINK that this IPCC would have considered it ALL, but, they actually have a hidden agenda, and the IPCC LOOKS THE OTHER WAY when certain information comes to light. For example, most alarmists use the PMOD TSI data, but, there are actually (at least) SIXTEEN different TSI datasets!! Connolly, Ronan, 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2021: “This provides us with a total of 16 different TSI reconstructions.”
THERE CAN BE NO CONSENSUS ON “CLIMATE CHANGE” if we cannot agree on the incoming solar energy and solar forcing. But, there is more.
Myhre & Myhre 2003: … climate impact caused by land-use changes are highly uncertain because no consensus exists on which kind, and size of vegetation …”
There’s no consensus on the “desertification” phenomena.
Verón, Paruelo & Oesterheld 2006 :“Given the potential relevance of desertification, it is surprising that there is no consensus on the proper way to assess it. … Glantz and Orlovsky’s (1983) popular review of more than 100 definitions of ‘desertification’ speaks by itself of the vagueness and uncertainty …” Besides, the “greening” of the entire planet, outweighs the “browning” or “desertification” of certain areas. Most science publications on the subject, attribute the “greening” to the extra CO, but a few attribute the “greening” to the slightly warmer environment.
Vignesh 2020: “However, there is no consensus in general circulation models (GCMs) on whether the low-level cloud amount will increase, or decrease, in future climate projections (Klein and Hall, 2015). … and the majority [of models] continue to underestimate the low-level cloud amount (e.g., Cesana and Waliser, 2016; Zhang 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙., 2005). Added together, these problems limit our confidence in future climate projections.”
Even today, (2022), NASA says “To gain a better understanding of how hurricanes are intensifying and becoming stronger in the face of climate change,… ” NASA also notes (but correctly) that “The general name for “hurricanes” is tropical cyclones.” …. but, as Walsh 2016 states, that there is a consensus finding, overall, that tropical cyclones’ frequency of occurrence actually goes down with planetary warming. The models have been saying that since at least 2008 (Yoshimura 2006; Bengtsson 2007; Emanuel 2008; Gualdi 2008; Sugi 2009; Zhao 2009) (Jun 1, 2022, the NASA propaganda piece, titled, “Five Questions to Help You Understand Hurricanes and Climate Change” found here
Patricola & Wehner 2018: “There is no consensus on whether climate change has yet affected the statistics of tropical cyclones, …. In addition, projections of future tropical cyclone activity are uncertain, …”
Walsh 2016: “… model-simulated [tropical cyclone] frequency significantly increases in a 4K cooler climate GCM experiment, indicating that there may be more [tropical cyclones] in a glacial period, consistent with the consensus finding that overall [tropical cyclone] frequency decreases with warming⁴³ and showing that a climate with generally cooler SSTs does not imply fewer [tropical cyclones].⁴⁴” … Wow, a SIGNIFICANT increase in a 4˚C cooler simulation.
but Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, wrote: “… increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases increase the thermodynamic disequilibrium of the tropical ocean–atmosphere system and thereby increase the intensity of hurricanes.” Gee, professor Kerry, it seems that hurricanes are going down, in numbers, and intensity, not up.
Klotzbach & Landsea 2015: “Accumulated cyclone energy, [ACE] globally, has experienced a large, and significant downward trend…”
Maue 2011: “Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) … global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.” Ryan Maue maintains a web site, showing each new month and how it charts out, both in number and in ACE, in accordance with is 2011 paper.
Chand 2022: “[Tropical Cyclone] observations have improved substantially since the 1970s, but this relatively short period of high-quality data does not provide consensus on the detection of trends or on the attribution of trends to anthropogenic influences.”
Remember the plot of the movie, “The day after tomorrow” where “Climate Change” was supposed to have affected the Atlantic Meridotonal Overturning Circulation, AMOC? There’s no consensus on the future of the AMOC. The modern crop of models (CMIP6) are in complete disarray: Gong 2022: “… 7 out of the 18 CMIP6 … AMOC strengthening; … 6 models … declining; … 5 models … insignificant trends. … pronounced modelling discrepancies…”
Parker & Ollier 2021: “… the AMOC has been stable for 150 years, such as Parker (2016), Parker, Ollier (2016, 2019). … On a longer time frame, other studies such as Rossby 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. (2014) also concluded that large-scale ocean currents are perfectly stable, which is consistent with the AMOC MSL of Figure 1 and the MSL results of The Battery and Brest.”
ENSO, the cycle between La Niña and El Niño, is the most signifiant climate cycle, and there is no consensus as to how “Climate Change” will affect it, or not.
Cai 2016: “The issue has challenged scientists for decades but there has been no consensus on how ENSO amplitude and frequency may change¹⁶ ¹⁷ ¹⁸.”
Chylek 2018: “There is no consensus on whether El Niños will become more frequent under global warming (e.g. Taschetto 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2014, Xu 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2017).”
Bayr 2018: “… future projections about ENSO remain highly uncertain, …”
Bayr 2022: “There is an ongoing debate on how ENSO will change under global warming, with, for example, little agreement in ENSO amplitude change in the CMIP models (Cai 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2015, 2020b).”
There’s no consensus on the Carbon-cycle, Ocean Heat Content (OHC), the IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole), land-use changes, low-level cloud amount, no consensus on the fate of islands “drowning” due to sea-level rise, the affect of “ocean acidification” on coral, or bleaching on coral, or on the effects of “Climate Change” on forest growth. There’s no consensus value on the amount of sunshine striking the surface of the planet, and there is no signs of convergence (or consensus on the values) of the items of the Earf Energy Budget, or the magnitude of the energy at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). There is no consensus on the amplitude of historical solar forcing, either.
Are there more emissions from animals now, say, in the Great Plains with humans raising cattle or in the past when vast herds of bison roamed?
That was 35 billion bison.
I think you mean million (not billion).
I would think that the dominant ruminant would be irrelevant. The mass of the ruminants would be controlled by the available grass.
Wow, a story where everything is completely wrong. simply everything.
Takes yer breath away dunnit.
Lifespan if CO2 is 35 years not 1000.
I’ve “poo-pooed” organic farming in the past as I didn’t think it could
compete with “industrial agriculture”. That opinion was based on having
grown up on a farm where we were essentially organic but still plowed all
of our ground & planted single crops on a field. Three problems I didn’t
think organic farming could overcome were high land costs, equipment,
& fuel; getting enough fertilizer for crops; & weed control. I now realize
I probably “stepped in it- big time”, as one can do while walking through
a cow pasture!
Gabe Brown farms 5k A (~2k ha) out on the prairie east of the Missouri R.
near Bismarck, North Dakota, with 2k A in no-till crops & 3k A in pasture.
The soil’s “silty loam”, which is a overall a bit better than what we had.
His growing season & temps (~4°F hotter in summer) are akin to what we
had. The key difference of what I saw in the videos versus what I expected
was how green it was despite 8″ less precip/yr (18″ (45cm)). His organic
farming recaptured at least 1/2 to 2/3 of the difference between what I
thought it could do versus standard practices. Even though he isn’t
certified organic, his methods command the higher price they get, which
would probably mostly disappear if many more farmers used his practices.
One of his principles is to keep every square inch of ground covered with
several species of plants on the same ground that can grow well beyond the
normal growing season & capture the energy from the sun. This has raised
the organic content of his soil form 2% to 5%, essentially using mostly
“green fertilizer”. It also acts as a shield, not a conduit, for weeds &
heat stress, as well as being able to store more of the sparse rain when
it does fall.
He also raises free-range animals- cattle, pigs, chickens, bees, & wildlife-
an integral part of his plan to let them feed themselves as much as they can
versus having to feed them regularly & store feed for the long, cold winters.
This adds much-needed diversification lost in the “industrial farming” model
that relies on farmers being “gubmint dependents” of a USDA “safety net”.
Even though he’s a salesman who markets his own crops, he seems honest
about his methods as he keeps his operation open to anyone to see how he
farms. If I actually farmed or were a young teen knowing I’d farm, I’d at
least check it out & probably want to make a test plot using his methods.
I’d also want a tour of his operation, including production numbers in late
July/early August in a hot year when heat, drought, & grasshoppers take
their toll. It’d be interesting to see others, like tea & orchard growers,
who have or are trying to translate these methods into something feasible
for themselves.
Note: Chico State’s article has 3 videos that changed my mind on how
organic farming is actually feasible. Gabe started using organic methods 25
yrs ago & is still in business. He doesn’t carry crop insurance, as he’s relying
on his methods & diversification to carry him through hard times (using
no-till, no fertilizer & chemicals, & cheaper non-GMO seed, which greatly
cuts both costs & its associated risk).
https://www.csuchico.edu/regenerativeagriculture/demos/gabe-brown.shtml
https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2022/10/06/canadian-plan-reduce-fertilizer-heat
Something I never thought of that may affect crop yields is row
orientation- N/S vs E/W- as Jim Nichols claims. He also changed
his fertilizer application schedule & plants alternating strips
of corn & soybeans to increase photosynthesis. Jim’s daughter,
Dr Kris Nichols, is mentioned in one of Gabe’s videos as she did
work @ Mandan, ND. She also told Jim corn is 46% carbon, which
is something that caught his attention. You read, you decide.
https://www.inforum.com/business/old-dog-learns-new-tricks-for-increasing-corn-harvest
https://www.farmprogress.com/crop-row-direction-can-influence-yields
Unless one is farming in Kansas or the even flatter Sacramento Valley, one doesn’t have the luxury of arbitrarily choosing row orientation. One has to plow parallel to the topographic contours to minimize soil erosion.
Check out the cause of the troubles of the island nation called Sri Lanka. At the core, was a decision to suddenly change to ORGANIC FARMING. The nation went from a net exporter of rice, to people starving, in a few months.
I found this statistic interesting:
“Today, the dairy herd is approximately 9 million cows, yet it is producing 60% more milk — that’s significantly more milk with 14 million fewer cows!”
CAFO, concentrated animal feeding operations, are regulated by the US EPA including zero discharge to waters of the US. Manure can be processed into organic fertilizer.
I did a LCA on a local dairy farm CAFO and found that the organic fertilizer was 900 times better renewable energy than wind and solar.
A good point on methane and basically why its stuck at under 2ppm for a decade or more. Maybe CO2 is going to be stuck, too, without the need for intervention.
I did a back of envelope on the “Great Global Greening” and its ‘carbon’ sequestration a while back. This update points to an interesting development re future CO2 trend change (it may explain why the only palpable sign of anthro climate change, the remarkable “Greening”, gets sparse attention from the Dark Side.
Calculations I did on the NASA reporting of the greening in 2014, to the effect of a 15% increase in 35years of new forest cover were as follows. Google had counted global trees to number 3 trillion. This means 150 billion new trees with an average age of 17yrs with average C sequestration of 100Kg/tree, for a total 15Gt of C.
Meanwhile, the Harvard experimental mature forest trees were observed to have noticeably increased in girth. Apparently the larger trees can add up to 3x the amount of carbon per year as a young tree.Conservatively using double the sequestration, the total C fixed in forests comes out at 165 Gt.
Total emissions of CO2 in the 35 year period under consideration as eye-balled from the graph is ~ 840Gt. Converting it to carbon, 0.273 x 850 = 230Gt of C. This indicates that 72% of total anthropo emissions from fossil fuels is taken up by trees.
How much is taken up by other plants? NASA a few years ago also reported on a 35% increase in “leafing out, covering a area larger than the US. And how much has been taken up by plankton and other lifeforms in the sea? We were also told that half of our emissions are sequestered!
This rough analysis suggests we may be heading for a leveling off of CO2 growth in the atmosphere with no intervention necessary. Some on the Dark Side probably know this. The subject of the “Great Greening” is bathed in silence.
Check the third line in that first table –
“Gas Nitrous oxide, Molecular name C2O”
??
It’s the colors and graphic design that count more with Green readers and politicos.
Myth #4 CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 1,000 years.
Myth #5 CO2 causes warming in reality, as opposed to in theory (“all other things held equal” which they have never been, are not, and will never be).
Sorry, but while dispelling the anti-meat propaganda to some extent, does far too much lacking the shit off the boots of the Climate Fascists in the process.
It’s a pity that the “Experts” at Oxford and University of California don ‘t seem to have heard of spectroscopy as the basis of GHG or the dominant effect effect of water vapour. This crappy work was clearly never reviewed by anyone with a smattering of knowledge about GHG.
I stopped reading at “heat trapping”.
How on earth did “the molecular formula of nitrous oxide is C2O” get published? (first table)
“These long-lived climate pollutants are only emitted,” said Dr. Mitloehner. “They are put into the atmosphere, but there’s no real sink for it in a major way.”
That’s clearly wrong. Atmospheric CO2 has been rising at about half the rate of man-made emissions. There therefore has to be an effective sink or sinks.
so much of this is just plan wrong or left out. The most common green house gas is Water. The major source of methane is not beef and dairy cattle it is produced when organic matter rots . Swamp gas, leaks from natural gas deposits, organic decay in the oceans just to name 3. Where pray tell where did the billions of cubic feet of methane come from when there were no beef and dairy cattle.
Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not static it is continually consumed. CO2 portrayed at the global waring bag boy is ignorant. It is The very necessary gas, the food for all plant life with out it there would not be any of us. .
OMG “Carbon dioxide is created by the burning of fossil fuels.” Really? It’s also created by breathing. IMHO the globalists ultimate goal is to reduce CO² by reducing the number of organisms that breathe, both livestock and human.
I note that their carbon cycle graphic completely omits plants. I think they do something or other with CO2, can’t exactly remember what…
Too late in the Land of Mordor…
New Zealand plans to tax emissions from livestock burps and dung (cnbc.com)
The 800-lb gorilla of greenhouse gases is…. water vapor. Responsible for over 90%.
Anthropogenic, or course.
I think the point they make is that water vapor is not increasing so it will not produce warming. If there is warming then it is produced by other GHGs.
Schmidt 2010: “The relative contributions of atmospheric long-wave absorbers, to the present-day global greenhouse effect, are among the most misquoted statistics in public discussions of climate change.”
Schmidt 2010: “… we review the existing literature, and use the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE radiation module, [a model] to provide an overview of the role of each absorber at the present-day and under doubled CO₂. With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (≈50% of the effect), followed by clouds (≈25%), and then CO₂ with ≈20%.”
Water (vapour) 50%, but clouds, 25% (but, clouds are water, in droplet or ice form). Thus, water provides ≈75%
Schmidt 2010: “All other absorbers play only minor roles. In a doubled CO₂ scenario, this allocation is essentially unchanged, even though the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect is significantly larger than the initial radiative forcing, underscoring the importance of feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to climate sensitivity.”
Schmidt, Gavin A., 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2010. “Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
ftp://dns.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/CO2%20role%20modern%20warming%202010.pdf
Little surprised the old ‘A kilo of beef requires 200 liters of water’ lie.
Because clearly cattle never pee or perspire and any water they consume is trapped forever within the animal. Yeap.
This is what happens when you take days off school, kids.
It isn’t the gasses that are the concern. It’s what animal agriculture does to the land and environment.