Earth's methane emissions are rising and we don't know why

Tennease

Legend
Earth's methane emissions are rising and we don't know why
ENVIRONMENT 24 May 2019

gettyimages-976360120.jpg

Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide
Gary Greenberg/Getty
By Adam Vaughan

Levels of a powerful greenhouse gas jumped again last year, continuing a surge in the past few years that researchers still cannot fully explain.
Atmospheric concentrations of methane climbed by 10.77 parts per billion in 2018, the second highest annual increase in the past two decades, according to provisional data released recently by US agency NOAA.
Methane is a shorter-lived but much more powerful greenhouse than carbon dioxide. The amount finding its way from human and natural sources, which can include everything from oil and gas wells to wetlands, has been rising since 2007. The rate has accelerated in the past four years.


Researchers warned earlier this year that if methane levels keep increasing at current rates then the Paris climate deal’s goals – of limiting global warming to 2°C and pursuing efforts to keep below 1.5°C – would be very difficult to meet.

Read more: Methane apocalypse? Defusing the Arctic’s time bomb

Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway University of London says researchers are very worried about the latest rise. Perhaps even more concerning is the fact no one is entirely sure what is driving the trend.

“The disturbing aspect is, we do not know which processes are responsible for methane increasing as rapidly as it is,” says Ed Dlugokencky of the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Keith Shine at Reading University echoes that view. “The fact that growth rates in the atmospheric concentrations of methane are approaching the levels we saw in the 1980s, after a period of relatively slow growth, is deeply concerning. The fact that we don’t understand the reasons for this surge deepen that concern.”
One possibility is that a warmer world is causing more methane to be released from wetlands in the tropics, fuelling even more warming. That would suggest a feedback loop is underway. “I’m not sure but it looks as if the warming is feeding the warming,” says Nisbet. More evidence is needed to prove the idea though.

methane_010619.jpg

Rebecca Fisher of Royal Holloway University of London says: “We still do not know whether the growth is primarily an increase in ‘natural’ emissions, such as from warmer or wetter wetlands, or increased anthropogenic emissions such as rice agriculture or fossil fuels.” It could also be a change in the atmospheric sinks of methane or, she says, most likely a combination of reasons.

The methane surge gains added significance from the fact researchers have been discovering in recent years that the gas has a more powerful warming effect than previously thought. In the first report by the UN climate science panel, in 1990, 21 tonnes of methane was considered to have the same global warming potential as one tonne of carbon dioxide. That was upgraded to 28 tonnes of methane in the most recent major report, and could rise as high as 35 tonnes in the next big assessment in 2022.
 
Sureshs farting

heard of aussie cows farting contributes 1/4 or 1/3:?))) something meth released to air..............................just thinking we actually can use it as free energy source as it's much much better than coal. also only 1:2 co2:h2o left after burning as both'r environmental friendly:love::love::love::love::love::love:......................
 
D

Deleted member 763024

Guest
heard of aussie cows farting contributes 1/4 or 1/3:?))) something meth released to air..............................just thinking we actually can use it as free energy source as it's much much better than coal. also only 1:2 co2:h2o left after burning as both'r environmental friendly:love::love::love::love::love::love:......................

Wouldn’t it be poetic if humanity perished because of cows farting?
 
http://www.eniscuola.net/en/argomento/natural-gas1/methane-hydrates/methane-a-clean-fuel/

Methane: a ‘clean’ fuel
Among fossil fuels, currently methane seems to be the one that will be exploited more and more in the near future, thanks to its relative abundance and thanks to the fact that it is relatively ‘clean’. Its molecule is made up of 4 atoms of hydrogen and one of carbon (CH4): on burning, it is the hydrocarbon that releases the smallest amount of carbon and it is for this reason that it is less harmful for the environment. Its CO2 emissions are 25% lower than petrol, 16% lower than Liquid Propane Gas, 30% lower than diesel and 75% lower than carbon. Its capacity to form ozone is 80% less than petrol and 50% less than diesel and Liquid Propane Gas. Moreover, the combustion emissions do not contain carbonaceous residues, benzene and microscopic dusts (PM10), contrary to petrol and diesel oil. Among all the fossil fuels, methane is surely the most ‘ecological’. The use of methane is expected to increase greatly in the near future.
The natural gas reserves that are of ‘geological’ origin are estimated to be sufficient for 60-70 years and they are mostly concentrated in the areas surrounding the Persian Gulf.
Much smaller amounts are currently obtained from waste products of zooculture, with the use of anaerobic digesters that enable the production of methane from animal sewage. Other small quantities can be obtained from self-produced methane in abandoned carbon mines; here, this naturally produced gas is tapped and at the same time is prevented from dispersing in the surroundings.
Immense reservoirs
Methane hydrates could be the energy source of the future. A cubic metre of methane hydrates can contain from 160 to 180 m3 of methane gas. It has been calculated that beneath the ocean floor and in areas of permafrost more than 100,000 million billion cubic metres of methane are present, trapped in the form of hydrates. Some estimates state that the ‘reservoirs’ contained in the permafrost of Alaska and Siberia are 5 x 1013 m3 while those contained beneath the ocean floor are 5-25 x 1015 m3.
The amount that can be exploited could be at least two orders of magnitude greater than the amount of methane present on the planet and could supply about twice the amount of energy that can be obtained from all the fossil fuel deposits known to date.
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
All the time except 2004-06 as you can see on the graph

He was on a diet of humblepie then..

Hasn’t looked back since.
Those were years when The Nadal won zero or one slam and fedr won eight total so you may be on to something.

What you have definitely proved is that Poobwin’s Law is infallible...later or, in your case, sooner all Internet discussions revert back to some issue involving our Grand Poobah.
 

Legend of Borg

G.O.A.T.
things are looking more grim by the day

i dont think humans will be able stop global warming in time before the weather apocalypse hits

no one todays gonna be around but this might be the nail in the coffin, not nuclear wars or an asteroid
 
D

Deleted member 763024

Guest
things are looking more grim by the day

i dont think humans will be able stop global warming in time before the weather apocalypse hits

no one todays gonna be around but this might be the nail in the coffin, not nuclear wars or an asteroid

Not for all of humanity. Even if a small number survives and adapts, they can take the species forward.

Exactly what happened at the dawn of humanity when Sapiens were reduced to about 10000 around Cape Horn during an extended period of climate change.

The capitalists and rulers might scoff today but when such a big shift happens 'the meek shall indeed inherit the earth'
 
Wouldn’t it be poetic if humanity perished because of cows farting?

nuh, we humans are far far smarter than that n here u go:
invention of this yr's a mask like storage device collecting cow's farting then the gas powers the milking machine attached.......unmanned self-sufficient dairy farm. after-burn co2 n h2o are perfect for plants to grow n generate o2:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D........................
 
Last edited:

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Earth's methane emissions are rising and we don't know why
ENVIRONMENT 24 May 2019

gettyimages-976360120.jpg

Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide
Gary Greenberg/Getty
By Adam Vaughan

Levels of a powerful greenhouse gas jumped again last year, continuing a surge in the past few years that researchers still cannot fully explain.
Atmospheric concentrations of methane climbed by 10.77 parts per billion in 2018, the second highest annual increase in the past two decades, according to provisional data released recently by US agency NOAA.
Methane is a shorter-lived but much more powerful greenhouse than carbon dioxide. The amount finding its way from human and natural sources, which can include everything from oil and gas wells to wetlands, has been rising since 2007. The rate has accelerated in the past four years.


Researchers warned earlier this year that if methane levels keep increasing at current rates then the Paris climate deal’s goals – of limiting global warming to 2°C and pursuing efforts to keep below 1.5°C – would be very difficult to meet.

Read more: Methane apocalypse? Defusing the Arctic’s time bomb

Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway University of London says researchers are very worried about the latest rise. Perhaps even more concerning is the fact no one is entirely sure what is driving the trend.

“The disturbing aspect is, we do not know which processes are responsible for methane increasing as rapidly as it is,” says Ed Dlugokencky of the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Keith Shine at Reading University echoes that view. “The fact that growth rates in the atmospheric concentrations of methane are approaching the levels we saw in the 1980s, after a period of relatively slow growth, is deeply concerning. The fact that we don’t understand the reasons for this surge deepen that concern.”
One possibility is that a warmer world is causing more methane to be released from wetlands in the tropics, fuelling even more warming. That would suggest a feedback loop is underway. “I’m not sure but it looks as if the warming is feeding the warming,” says Nisbet. More evidence is needed to prove the idea though.

methane_010619.jpg

Rebecca Fisher of Royal Holloway University of London says: “We still do not know whether the growth is primarily an increase in ‘natural’ emissions, such as from warmer or wetter wetlands, or increased anthropogenic emissions such as rice agriculture or fossil fuels.” It could also be a change in the atmospheric sinks of methane or, she says, most likely a combination of reasons.

The methane surge gains added significance from the fact researchers have been discovering in recent years that the gas has a more powerful warming effect than previously thought. In the first report by the UN climate science panel, in 1990, 21 tonnes of methane was considered to have the same global warming potential as one tonne of carbon dioxide. That was upgraded to 28 tonnes of methane in the most recent major report, and could rise as high as 35 tonnes in the next big assessment in 2022.
The contributors of the Sureshs thread, we know about this.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
Atom Heart Mother?
Yes, the one with her head above the others is the Atom Heart Mother. Should we blame PF for promoting these methane machines?

The title and album cover comes from a newspaper headline "Atom Heart Mother." They didn't have a title for the album, but needed one when BBC Radio 1 aired some of it. The album's producer Ron Geesin had Roger Waters look through the newspaper The Evening Standard to find a title, and he came across the story about a pregnant woman who received an experimental pacemaker. The cow on the cover had nothing to do with the story - Pink Floyd chose the cow because it was the least psychedelic thing they could think of.

 
D

Deleted member 763024

Guest
I’m seriously considering giving up meat, at least for a while.

We as humans can reduce our consumption of factory farmed animals, even if not completely eliminate it.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
I’m seriously considering giving up meat, at least for a while.

We as humans can reduce our consumption of factory farmed animals, even if not completely eliminate it.

Noble idea. This should be easier to do in the very near future. Vegan Impossible 'Meat' is already a reality. Impossible Whoppers have been introduced at BK in St Louis (and other areas?).

Lab-grown (in vitro) meat is also a reality. It should eventually become reasonably priced and accepted by consumers. Real meat w/o having to kill an animal. Might take consumers a while to get past the 'Frankenstein' factor tho. As in vitro meat becomes readily available and accepted we should be able to significantly reduce the population of methane-belching (& farting) cows/cattle.

The current world population of cows is estimated to be something like 1.5 billion with B. That's quite a bit more than the population of dogs on the planet. And possibly 3x the number of common (house) cats alive. The only mammals with larger numbers than cattle are humans and rats/rodents.

That's a lot of methane-producing cows. I believe I read that methane is 14x more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2
 
Last edited:

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Earth's methane emissions are rising and we don't know why
ENVIRONMENT 24 May 2019

gettyimages-976360120.jpg

Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide
Gary Greenberg/Getty
By Adam Vaughan

Levels of a powerful greenhouse gas jumped again last year, continuing a surge in the past few years that researchers still cannot fully explain.
Atmospheric concentrations of methane climbed by 10.77 parts per billion in 2018, the second highest annual increase in the past two decades, according to provisional data released recently by US agency NOAA.
Methane is a shorter-lived but much more powerful greenhouse than carbon dioxide. The amount finding its way from human and natural sources, which can include everything from oil and gas wells to wetlands, has been rising since 2007. The rate has accelerated in the past four years.


Researchers warned earlier this year that if methane levels keep increasing at current rates then the Paris climate deal’s goals – of limiting global warming to 2°C and pursuing efforts to keep below 1.5°C – would be very difficult to meet.

Read more: Methane apocalypse? Defusing the Arctic’s time bomb

Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway University of London says researchers are very worried about the latest rise. Perhaps even more concerning is the fact no one is entirely sure what is driving the trend.

“The disturbing aspect is, we do not know which processes are responsible for methane increasing as rapidly as it is,” says Ed Dlugokencky of the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Keith Shine at Reading University echoes that view. “The fact that growth rates in the atmospheric concentrations of methane are approaching the levels we saw in the 1980s, after a period of relatively slow growth, is deeply concerning. The fact that we don’t understand the reasons for this surge deepen that concern.”
One possibility is that a warmer world is causing more methane to be released from wetlands in the tropics, fuelling even more warming. That would suggest a feedback loop is underway. “I’m not sure but it looks as if the warming is feeding the warming,” says Nisbet. More evidence is needed to prove the idea though.

methane_010619.jpg

Rebecca Fisher of Royal Holloway University of London says: “We still do not know whether the growth is primarily an increase in ‘natural’ emissions, such as from warmer or wetter wetlands, or increased anthropogenic emissions such as rice agriculture or fossil fuels.” It could also be a change in the atmospheric sinks of methane or, she says, most likely a combination of reasons.

The methane surge gains added significance from the fact researchers have been discovering in recent years that the gas has a more powerful warming effect than previously thought. In the first report by the UN climate science panel, in 1990, 21 tonnes of methane was considered to have the same global warming potential as one tonne of carbon dioxide. That was upgraded to 28 tonnes of methane in the most recent major report, and could rise as high as 35 tonnes in the next big assessment in 2022.

Why are cows emitting so much methane? We should look into the cow diet.
:unsure:

65zpKvH
65zpKvH.jpg


Where does the methane come from?

The plant diet of cows and other ruminants is high in cellulose, which cannot be digested by the ruminant itself. However, ruminants have a symbiotic relationship with colonies of microorganisms, called methanogens, which live in their gut and break down the cellulose into carbohydrates.. These carbohydrates provide both the microbial community and the ruminant with an energy source. Methane is produced as a by-product of this process.

A common misconception is that the cow’s rear end emits methane, however the vast majority is released orally. Researched carried out by Grainger et al. in 2007 found that 92-98 % was emitted orally.

xvYVx99
 
Last edited:

stringertom

Bionic Poster
Why are cows emitting so much methane? We should look into the cow diet.
:unsure:

65zpKvH
65zpKvH.jpg


Where does the methane come from?

The plant diet of cows and other ruminants is high in cellulose, which cannot be digested by the ruminant itself. However, ruminants have a symbiotic relationship with colonies of microorganisms, called methanogens, which live in their gut and break down the cellulose into carbohydrates.. These carbohydrates provide both the microbial community and the ruminant with an energy source. Methane is produced as a by-product of this process.

A common misconception is that the cow’s rear end emits methane, however the vast majority is released orally. Researched carried out by Grainger et al. in 2007 found that 92-98 % was emitted orally.

xvYVx99
Change dat srshs emoji to reflect this research!
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
Why are cows emitting so much methane? We should look into the cow diet.
65zpKvH

Where does the methane come from?

The plant diet of cows and other ruminants is high in cellulose, which cannot be digested by the ruminant itself. However, ruminants have a symbiotic relationship with colonies of microorganisms, called methanogens, which live in their gut and break down the cellulose into carbohydrates.. These carbohydrates provide both the microbial community and the ruminant with an energy source. Methane is produced as a by-product of this process.

A common misconception is that the cow’s rear end emits methane, however the vast majority is released orally. Researched carried out by Grainger et al. in 2007 found that 92-98 % was emitted orally.

xvYVx99
I took a look at a study from Chris Grainger and others that appeared to indicate that 99% of the CH4 from cows were expelled thru the nostrils and mouth whereas only 1% of their methane came from the other end.

PDF file: Reducing CH4 Emissions from Dairy Cows
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Earth's methane emissions are rising and we don't know why
ENVIRONMENT 24 May 2019

gettyimages-976360120.jpg

Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide
Gary Greenberg/Getty
By Adam Vaughan

Levels of a powerful greenhouse gas jumped again last year, continuing a surge in the past few years that researchers still cannot fully explain.
Atmospheric concentrations of methane climbed by 10.77 parts per billion in 2018, the second highest annual increase in the past two decades, according to provisional data released recently by US agency NOAA.
Methane is a shorter-lived but much more powerful greenhouse than carbon dioxide. The amount finding its way from human and natural sources, which can include everything from oil and gas wells to wetlands, has been rising since 2007. The rate has accelerated in the past four years.


Researchers warned earlier this year that if methane levels keep increasing at current rates then the Paris climate deal’s goals – of limiting global warming to 2°C and pursuing efforts to keep below 1.5°C – would be very difficult to meet.

Read more: Methane apocalypse? Defusing the Arctic’s time bomb

Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway University of London says researchers are very worried about the latest rise. Perhaps even more concerning is the fact no one is entirely sure what is driving the trend.

“The disturbing aspect is, we do not know which processes are responsible for methane increasing as rapidly as it is,” says Ed Dlugokencky of the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Keith Shine at Reading University echoes that view. “The fact that growth rates in the atmospheric concentrations of methane are approaching the levels we saw in the 1980s, after a period of relatively slow growth, is deeply concerning. The fact that we don’t understand the reasons for this surge deepen that concern.”
One possibility is that a warmer world is causing more methane to be released from wetlands in the tropics, fuelling even more warming. That would suggest a feedback loop is underway. “I’m not sure but it looks as if the warming is feeding the warming,” says Nisbet. More evidence is needed to prove the idea though.

methane_010619.jpg

Rebecca Fisher of Royal Holloway University of London says: “We still do not know whether the growth is primarily an increase in ‘natural’ emissions, such as from warmer or wetter wetlands, or increased anthropogenic emissions such as rice agriculture or fossil fuels.” It could also be a change in the atmospheric sinks of methane or, she says, most likely a combination of reasons.

The methane surge gains added significance from the fact researchers have been discovering in recent years that the gas has a more powerful warming effect than previously thought. In the first report by the UN climate science panel, in 1990, 21 tonnes of methane was considered to have the same global warming potential as one tonne of carbon dioxide. That was upgraded to 28 tonnes of methane in the most recent major report, and could rise as high as 35 tonnes in the next big assessment in 2022.
you don't know why ??????? LOL. everybody knows why. it is melting of ice and it is releasing methane that was trapped under the ice for millions of years. Sea levels are rising due to global warming. in 20-30 years which is pretty soon, 1/2 of florida as well as many coastal cities will be under the Sea. These are facts but we all act like we know nothing about it and go on our everyday lives. because we have bills to pay Tomorrow, so I guess Trageties that will affect ALL of us in 20-30 years, we care not.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
One of the biggest misconceptions of all time.

News to me too. There is a horrible stench whenever I pass by the cattle ranch. Thought it must be methane from the cow's back end. But now I know it must be just the cow manure.

Apparently methane is burped out from cows. And is completely odourless. :)

Would it apply to Srshs, too?

Alas, Soureshs' emissions are definitely not odourless. Used as a deadly WMD on court. :(

65zpKvH
65zpKvH.jpg
 
Last edited:

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
I’m seriously considering giving up meat, at least for a while.

We as humans can reduce our consumption of factory farmed animals, even if not completely eliminate it.

There are about 1.3 billion cars in the world and 1.0 billion cows. But one cow arguably has far more climate impact than one car.

What would the population of cows be if they were no longer used for beef consumption? :unsure:

As far as greenhouse gases go, methane is in some ways more concerning than carbon dioxide — a 2014 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said methane traps heat 28 times more than CO2.​
Mitloehner pointed out, however, that methane only stays in the atmosphere for about a decade. CO2, on the other hand, stays up there for 1,000 years or more. In a hypothetical scenario, Mitloehner said, if you operated a dairy with a steady herd of 1,000 cows over 50 years, after the first decade, "you're not adding new, additional methane to the atmosphere."​
Researchers have been looking at a number of ways of reducing methane on farms — such as feeding cows seaweed — but Mitloehner said their impacts are still being studied.​
 
Last edited:

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
There are about 1.3 billion cars in the world and 1.0 billion cows. But one cow arguably has far more climate impact than one car.

What would the population of cows be if they were no longer used for beef consumption? :unsure:

As far as greenhouse gases go, methane is in some ways more concerning than carbon dioxide — a 2014 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said methane traps heat 28 times more than CO2.​
Mitloehner pointed out, however, that methane only stays in the atmosphere for about a decade. CO2, on the other hand, stays up there for 1,000 years or more. In a hypothetical scenario, Mitloehner said, if you operated a dairy with a steady herd of 1,000 cows over 50 years, after the first decade, "you're not adding new, additional methane to the atmosphere."​
Researchers have been looking at a number of ways of reducing methane on farms — such as feeding cows seaweed — but Mitloehner said their impacts are still being studied.​
The estimates that I seen put the cow count closer to 1.5 billion. But I don't know how many infernal combustion engine vehicles there are on the road.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
Stand corrected. Cow population is 1.5 billion.
Let's say beef consumption dropped 50% (no change in dairy, leather or other usage), how would that affect the cow population?
I don't have any idea what % of cows are raised for beef consumption and how many are raised for other purposes. In the short run, a drop in beef consumption might not have much effect. But in the long run, I'd expect the cow population to drop significantly as demand decreased.
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
I don't have any idea what % of cows are raised for beef consumption and how many are raised for other purposes. In the short run, a drop in beef consumption might not have much effect. But in the long run, I'd expect the cow population to drop significantly as demand decreased.
This is one dilemma ‘Murica cannot be blamed for...we have less than 10% of the world bovine population. More than 60% of the global bovine community reside in India, Brazil and China.
 

Pistol10

Professional
Earth, is a market, everybody is trying his best to get the most of it.

Seriously, blaming one part on any earth trouble issue is a very stupid idea!
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
YOU ARE ALL DISCUSSING AN ERROR. COWS ARE NOT THE BIG PROBLEM. ANIMALS ONLY CONTRIBUTE 3.9% OF AMERICAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WHEREAS TRANSPORTATION EQUALS 28%:

A healthy portion of meat’s bad rap centers on the assertion that livestock is the largest source of greenhouse gases worldwide. For example, a 2009 analysis published by the Washington, D.C.-based Worldwatch Institute asserted that 51 percent of global GHG emissions come from rearing and processing livestock.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the largest sources of U.S. GHG emissions in 2016 were electricity production (28 percent of total emissions), transportation (28 percent) and industry (22 percent). All of agriculture accounted for a total of 9 percent. All of animal agriculture contributes less than half of this amount, representing 3.9 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That’s very different from claiming livestock represents as much or more than transportation.
Why the misconception? In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organizationpublished a study titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which received widespread international attention. It stated that livestock produced a staggering 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The agency drew a startling conclusion: Livestock was doing more to harm the climate than all modes of transportation combined.
This latter claim was wrong, and has since been corrected by Henning Steinfeld, the report’s senior author. The problem was that FAO analysts used a comprehensive life-cycle assessment to study the climate impact of livestock, but a different method when they analyzed transportation.
For livestock, they considered every factor associated with producing meat. This included emissions from fertilizer production, converting land from forests to pastures, growing feed, and direct emissions from animals (belching and manure) from birth to death.
However, when they looked at transportation’s carbon footprint, they ignored impacts on the climate from manufacturing vehicle materials and parts, assembling vehicles and maintaining roads, bridges and airports. Instead, they only considered the exhaust emitted by finished cars, trucks, trains and planes. As a result, the FAO’s comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock to those from transportation was greatly distorted.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Yes, I read that this would occur some time ago, especially with respect to melting of the permafrost.

Using a combination of computer models and field measurements, Walter Anthony and an international team of U.S. and German researchers found that abrupt thawing more than doubles previous estimates of permafrost-derived greenhouse warming. They found that the abrupt thaw process increases the release of ancient carbon stored in the soil 125 to 190 percent compared to gradual thawing alone. What's more, they found that in future warming scenarios defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, abrupt thawing was as important under the moderate reduction of emissions scenario as it was under the extreme business-as-usual scenario. This means that even in the scenario where humans reduced their global carbon emissions, large methane releases from abrupt thawing are still likely to occur.

you don't know why ??????? LOL. everybody knows why. it is melting of ice and it is releasing methane that was trapped under the ice for millions of years. Sea levels are rising due to global warming. in 20-30 years which is pretty soon, 1/2 of florida as well as many coastal cities will be under the Sea. These are facts but we all act like we know nothing about it and go on our everyday lives. because we have bills to pay Tomorrow, so I guess Trageties that will affect ALL of us in 20-30 years, we care not.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
This is one dilemma ‘Murica cannot be blamed for...we have less than 10% of the world bovine population. More than 60% of the global bovine community reside in India, Brazil and China.

I don't have any idea what % of cows are raised for beef consumption and how many are raised for other purposes. In the short run, a drop in beef consumption might not have much effect. But in the long run, I'd expect the cow population to drop significantly as demand decreased.

Maybe not. India has very little beef consumption but is overrun with cows.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Are those cows primarily wild or farm-raised? It should be noted that India and Australia are the two largest exporters of beef. They account for some 40% of beef exports, I believe. They are ahead of the US and Australia in beef exports.

https://www.mla.com.au/news-and-eve...an-carabeef-exports-set-to-increase-in-2018/#

Wow. Surprising that India is a top beef exporter. So much for the Holy Cow.
:(

Although Wiki says export of beef is currently prohibited.
:unsure:

According to UN's Food and Agriculture Organization and European Union, India beef consumption per capita per year is the world's lowest amongst the countries it surveyed. Under the current trade laws of India, the export and import of beef (meatof cow, oxen and calf) is prohibited.
Cattle slaughter in India - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India
 

GBplayer

Hall of Fame
How many bovine were killed by humans before we farmed them?

For example we slaughtered vast herds of bison in Europe and USA plus wildebeest in Africa.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Earth's methane emissions are rising and we don't know why
ENVIRONMENT 24 May 2019

gettyimages-976360120.jpg

Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide
Gary Greenberg/Getty
By Adam Vaughan

Levels of a powerful greenhouse gas jumped again last year, continuing a surge in the past few years that researchers still cannot fully explain.
Atmospheric concentrations of methane climbed by 10.77 parts per billion in 2018, the second highest annual increase in the past two decades, according to provisional data released recently by US agency NOAA.
Methane is a shorter-lived but much more powerful greenhouse than carbon dioxide. The amount finding its way from human and natural sources, which can include everything from oil and gas wells to wetlands, has been rising since 2007. The rate has accelerated in the past four years.


Researchers warned earlier this year that if methane levels keep increasing at current rates then the Paris climate deal’s goals – of limiting global warming to 2°C and pursuing efforts to keep below 1.5°C – would be very difficult to meet.

Read more: Methane apocalypse? Defusing the Arctic’s time bomb

Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway University of London says researchers are very worried about the latest rise. Perhaps even more concerning is the fact no one is entirely sure what is driving the trend.

“The disturbing aspect is, we do not know which processes are responsible for methane increasing as rapidly as it is,” says Ed Dlugokencky of the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Keith Shine at Reading University echoes that view. “The fact that growth rates in the atmospheric concentrations of methane are approaching the levels we saw in the 1980s, after a period of relatively slow growth, is deeply concerning. The fact that we don’t understand the reasons for this surge deepen that concern.”
One possibility is that a warmer world is causing more methane to be released from wetlands in the tropics, fuelling even more warming. That would suggest a feedback loop is underway. “I’m not sure but it looks as if the warming is feeding the warming,” says Nisbet. More evidence is needed to prove the idea though.

methane_010619.jpg

Rebecca Fisher of Royal Holloway University of London says: “We still do not know whether the growth is primarily an increase in ‘natural’ emissions, such as from warmer or wetter wetlands, or increased anthropogenic emissions such as rice agriculture or fossil fuels.” It could also be a change in the atmospheric sinks of methane or, she says, most likely a combination of reasons.

The methane surge gains added significance from the fact researchers have been discovering in recent years that the gas has a more powerful warming effect than previously thought. In the first report by the UN climate science panel, in 1990, 21 tonnes of methane was considered to have the same global warming potential as one tonne of carbon dioxide. That was upgraded to 28 tonnes of methane in the most recent major report, and could rise as high as 35 tonnes in the next big assessment in 2022.
@sureshs
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
We can't eat cars so I suggest halving the car population, starting with obsolete ICE vehicles.

There are about 1.3 billion cars in the world and 1.0 billion cows. But one cow arguably has far more climate impact than one car.

What would the population of cows be if they were no longer used for beef consumption? :unsure:

As far as greenhouse gases go, methane is in some ways more concerning than carbon dioxide — a 2014 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said methane traps heat 28 times more than CO2.​
Mitloehner pointed out, however, that methane only stays in the atmosphere for about a decade. CO2, on the other hand, stays up there for 1,000 years or more. In a hypothetical scenario, Mitloehner said, if you operated a dairy with a steady herd of 1,000 cows over 50 years, after the first decade, "you're not adding new, additional methane to the atmosphere."​
Researchers have been looking at a number of ways of reducing methane on farms — such as feeding cows seaweed — but Mitloehner said their impacts are still being studied.​
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
We can't eat cars so I suggest halving the car population, starting with obsolete ICE vehicles.
Most efficient would have been to half humankind population to ensure Earth survival, and I don’t even know if it would have been enough.
Covid failed miserably, regardless.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The population is trending down almost everywhere and we can't interfere with people's reproductive rights.

Most efficient would have been to half humankind population to ensure Earth survival, and I don’t even know if it would have been enough.
Covid failed miserably, regardless.
 
Top