21 Nov 19
2 edits
Another way to cut down methane emissions is for everyone to go vegetarian (like me) or at least go red-meat-free.
Yet another way is to have all the rice that is grown be hill rice because hill rice can be grown on dry land rather than in paddies.
Yet another way is to eat less beans but I guess that would have only a tiny effect unless you have an unusual flatulence problem and keep farting like a cow.
21 Nov 19
@humy saidThey are both greenhouse gasses in a box. There isn't any evidence they are in the atmosphere. The claim one is the main problem over the other is a mere guess. There isn't really any science to back up that hypothesis. Lots of false rumors, but no actual science to confirm it.
So are you now saying there doesn't exist other greenhouse gasses i.e. that are NOT CO2?
I though earlier you admitted CH4 was a greenhouse gas?
21 Nov 19
@wolfe63 saidHe is only saying that because I exposed him for lying. He simply doesn't want you to see how badly he lied and embarrassed himself.
Thanks for the warning.
The inanity of science denial continues.
You should read at least the first 2 pages to get caught up. It will give you an idea what is science as opposed to false rumors.
21 Nov 19
@deepthought said"Between them they account for 4% of greenhouse forcing gases"
If it were just a matter of the oceans and the atmosphere and some orbital forcing then what you are saying would be true. However, it doesn't work quite like that because we're pumping large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So there is an additional source.
Also, what you are saying about methane is not right. On a per molecule basis it is a more p ...[text shortened]... nvironmental_impacts
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_fermentation#Experimental_management
That is merely a guess and nothing more. You should not rely on wikipedia. Any moron can change it to say what they want. If an ape could operate a computer he could rewrite the theory of evolution. Give that some thought.
21 Nov 19
@sonhouse saidNatural gas extraction is a major source of methane emissions. A carbon tax would increase that since NG is low carbon. The sick irony is that a carbon tax would worsen methane emissions, a fuel that could be burned instead of wasted.
@DeepThought
So methane emissions are cut down by simply not cutting into coal seams?
21 Nov 19
2 edits
@metal-brain saidWhat the hell are you talking about now? There is PLENTY of evidence that CO2 and CH4 are in the atmosphere!
They are both greenhouse gasses in a box. There isn't any evidence they are in the atmosphere.
And what kind of "box" are you talking about here?
And NOW at last you admit CO2 is a greenhouse gas? -You seem to keep changing your position all over the place.
21 Nov 19
@humy saidThere isn't any evidence CO2 or CH4 causes warming in the atmosphere. It causes warming in a box inside a lab, but a box is not the atmosphere. One is not proof of the other. That is real science, are you going to deny the science now?
What the hell are you talking about now? There is PLENTY of evidence that CO2 and CH4 are in the atmosphere!
And what kind of "box" are you talking about here?
And NOW at last you admit CO2 is a greenhouse gas? -You seem to keep changing your position all over the place.
21 Nov 19
2 edits
@metal-brain saidIt wouldn't necessarily worsen CH4 emissions because much of the CH4 emissions come from oil and coal extraction. So switching from oil and coal extraction to more natural gas extraction would mean less CH4 emissions from the former and more CH4 emissions from the later and the net resulting emissions would be unclear because it just depends on how each is extracted and what measures, if any, are put in place to minimize CH4 emissions and wastage via leaks etc.
Natural gas extraction is a major source of methane emissions. A carbon tax would increase that since NG is low carbon. The sick irony is that a carbon tax would worsen methane emissions, a fuel that could be burned instead of wasted.
And what do you mean by "a fuel that could be burned instead of wasted." thus implying Natural gas extraction is a GOOD thing STRAIGHT after implying Natural gas extraction is a BAD thing because it would "worsen methane emissions"? You cannot have it both ways. Are you saying its a GOOD thing or a BAD thing?
21 Nov 19
@humy saidThe methane is being leaked. If it can be captured before it leaks into the atmosphere it can be burned as a low carbon fuel. That would cost more money though. Exxon/mobile has no incentive to do that. They just want coal out of the way so they have less competition. Coal is too cheap for them to compete with and the US has a lot of it.
No, it wouldn't necessarily worsen CH4 emissions because much of the CH4 emissions come from oil and coal extraction. So switching from oil and coal extraction to more natural gas extraction would mean less CH4 emissions from the former and more CH4 emissions from the later and the net result would be unclear because it just depends on how each is extracted and what measures are ...[text shortened]... en methane emissions"? You cannot have it both ways. Are you saying its a GOOD thing or a BAD thing?
21 Nov 19
2 edits
@metal-brain saidSo the laws of physics in the lab are different from the laws of physics outside the lab. Got it.
There isn't any evidence CO2 or CH4 causes warming in the atmosphere. It causes warming in a box inside a lab, but a box is not the atmosphere.
One problem; That's BS.
Why would the physics of CO2 inside the lab be different from outside the lab? What mysterious force would be at work here to make the two different?
The two have NEVER been observed to be different.
And infrared satellite data and other sources have directly measured and observed the expected infrared absorption spectrum OUTSIDE the lab thus providing evidence that the relevant laws of physics inside the lab ARE the same as outside the lab.
21 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidThe information the Wikipedia page gives for enteric fermentation is from this document [1], see table ES-2, taking the figure from 2009 we have 139.8 million metric tonnes (Tg) CO_2 equivalent, dividing by the figure for the total amount of 6,633.2 Tg equiv. we get: 2.1%. If we include carbon sinks, the net emissions were: 5618.2 Tg equiv. for a percentage of 2.49%. So that figure comes from the EPA. See also [2].
"Between them they account for 4% of greenhouse forcing gases"
That is merely a guess and nothing more. You should not rely on wikipedia. Any moron can change it to say what they want. If an ape could operate a computer he could rewrite the theory of evolution. Give that some thought.
The figure for rice comes from a document from the World Resources Institute [3].
I see no reason to doubt any of these figures.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110816211500/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads11/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Executive-Summary.pdf
[2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20130502154909/http://www.wri.org/image/view/11147/_original
21 Nov 19
@humy saidMy weight fluctuates between 8 and 8 1/2 stone. I am six foot tall. Stopping eating meat is not a live option for me.
Another way to cut down methane emissions is for everyone to go vegetarian (like me) or at least go red-meat-free.
Yet another way is to have all the rice that is grown be hill rice because hill rice can be grown on dry land rather than in paddies.
Yet another way is to eat less beans but I guess that would have only a tiny effect unless you have an unusual flatulence problem and keep farting like a cow.