Archive for the ‘methane’ Category

Willi Dansgaard passes — L.A. Times botches obit

02/07/2011

The L.A. Times notes the passing of pioneer ice core scientist Willi Dansgaard but neglects to mention that the “clear link between carbon dioxide and methane concentrations and global temperatures” found in his ice cores shows that CO2 and CH4 increase follows temperature increase, not vice versa:

Willi Dansgaard, a Danish paleoclimatologist who was the first to recognize that the Earth’s climatic history was stored in the Greenland ice cap, died Jan. 8 in Copenhagen, according to the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen. He was 88.

His research, together with that of Claude Lorius of France and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland, revolutionized scientific knowledge of how the temperature and composition of the atmosphere have changed over the last 150,000 years, demonstrating a clear link between carbon dioxide and methane concentrations and global temperatures.  “Willi Dansgaard dies at 88; scientist who recognized climate record in ice cap

Dr. Albrecht Glatzle debunks livestock emissions scare

07/02/2009

“1) Except [for] the fossil fuel borne CO2-emissions by the livestock industry (production, processing and commercialization of meat and milk) and except [for] some unique biosphere borne CO2-emissions, associated with land use change (e.g. deforestation), domestic animal husbandry is totally “climate neutral” (using a controversial terminology, only justified under the assumption of any measurable effect of anthropogenic GHG-emissions on global temperature). Why? Because all the CO2 emitted by forage digestion and respiration had previously been captured from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Therefore, not a single CO2 molecule is added additionally to the atmosphere that had not been there before, recently.

2) This is also true for the methane produced by internal fermentation. Methane derives from organic substances originating from recent photosynthetic processes. And – as Richard Douthwaite from Ireland correctly points out in his letter (page 11) – methane molecules in the air are oxidized to CO2 and water at the end of their residence time in the atmosphere, closing the cycle. As a matter of fact the methane concentration has stabilized or even passed its peak just at the beginning of the new millennium. So obviously, just as much methane is oxidized in the atmosphere as is added to the air per unit of time. The resulting CO2 is available to be re-captured by photosynthesis. Therefore animal borne methane (how much its proportion ever may be among the total global methane emissions), just like CO2, forms part of a natural cycle, and not a single methane molecule is added additionally to the atmosphere by rumen fermentation that had not been there before, recently, unless livestock numbers increase.

3) The European satellite ENVISAT measured over a three years period the world wide close-to-the-surface-methane-concentrations. The average values are shown in figure 2 (source: University of Bremen <http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:80/sciamachy/NIR_NADIR_WFM_DOAS/>). Not even international organizations like the IPCC or FAO seem to have taken notice of the fact, that even the humid tropical forests do obviously emit far more methane than grazing cattle. How can the big grazing areas of the world (Australia, Southern Latin America, South and East Africa, and Western United States with hundreds of millions of cattle) and even India with the highest cattle density worldwide show such low methane concentrations? Something wrong with the theory?

4) While it is banally true that all improvements in the efficiency of livestock production reduce herbage intake and along with it GHG emission per unit of product (meat or milk), the often cited figure of 18% of anthropogenic GHG emissions originating from domestic animal husbandry, as claimed by the highly controversial FAO-Report “Livestock’s Long Shadow” <http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm> is clearly exaggerated. This document, that has done so much damage to the reputation of the livestock industry, was still proudly exposed at an international FAO symposium on the “Mitigation of GHG Emissions from Livestock”, held last month in Asunción, Paraguay:

a) How can the FAO claim that 25% of the domestic-livestock-borne CO2-equivalents originate from internal fermentation (methane), considering what has been outlined in the paragraphs 2 and 3? Just like CO2-emissions from the biosphere, animal borne methane emissions are part of a natural steady state equilibrium. So the 25% should be corrected to 0% as long as livestock numbers are constant.

b) How can the FAO claim that one third of the domestic animal borne CO2-equivalents come from deforestation (land use change), considering FAO yearbook numbers telling us that net deforestation on a world wide scale is almost zero? Close to 30% of the terrestrial surface are covered by forests and woodlands with very little change over the past 6 decades. So, once again just one scale pan of the balance has been taken into account. …

So definitely there is no need at all to be concerned about our livestock’s emissions of so called Greenhouse Gases! We won’t save the planet distorting ourselves in an effort to teach our cattle how to emit less methane. And we will not harm the planet when we go on with our cattle industry business as usual. Let’s just rebut unqualified attacks (unfortunately also originating from such prominent organizations as the FAO) on our livelihood! The sound arguments are ours.” From CCNet today. Profile of Dr. Glatzle here.

Dr. Albrecht Glatzle debunks livestock emissions scare

07/02/2009

“1) Except [for] the fossil fuel borne CO2-emissions by the livestock industry (production, processing and commercialization of meat and milk) and except [for] some unique biosphere borne CO2-emissions, associated with land use change (e.g. deforestation), domestic animal husbandry is totally “climate neutral” (using a controversial terminology, only justified under the assumption of any measurable effect of anthropogenic GHG-emissions on global temperature). Why? Because all the CO2 emitted by forage digestion and respiration had previously been captured from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Therefore, not a single CO2 molecule is added additionally to the atmosphere that had not been there before, recently.

2) This is also true for the methane produced by internal fermentation. Methane derives from organic substances originating from recent photosynthetic processes. And – as Richard Douthwaite from Ireland correctly points out in his letter (page 11) – methane molecules in the air are oxidized to CO2 and water at the end of their residence time in the atmosphere, closing the cycle. As a matter of fact the methane concentration has stabilized or even passed its peak just at the beginning of the new millennium. So obviously, just as much methane is oxidized in the atmosphere as is added to the air per unit of time. The resulting CO2 is available to be re-captured by photosynthesis. Therefore animal borne methane (how much its proportion ever may be among the total global methane emissions), just like CO2, forms part of a natural cycle, and not a single methane molecule is added additionally to the atmosphere by rumen fermentation that had not been there before, recently, unless livestock numbers increase.

3) The European satellite ENVISAT measured over a three years period the world wide close-to-the-surface-methane-concentrations. The average values are shown in figure 2 (source: University of Bremen <http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:80/sciamachy/NIR_NADIR_WFM_DOAS/>). Not even international organizations like the IPCC or FAO seem to have taken notice of the fact, that even the humid tropical forests do obviously emit far more methane than grazing cattle. How can the big grazing areas of the world (Australia, Southern Latin America, South and East Africa, and Western United States with hundreds of millions of cattle) and even India with the highest cattle density worldwide show such low methane concentrations? Something wrong with the theory?

4) While it is banally true that all improvements in the efficiency of livestock production reduce herbage intake and along with it GHG emission per unit of product (meat or milk), the often cited figure of 18% of anthropogenic GHG emissions originating from domestic animal husbandry, as claimed by the highly controversial FAO-Report “Livestock’s Long Shadow” <http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm> is clearly exaggerated. This document, that has done so much damage to the reputation of the livestock industry, was still proudly exposed at an international FAO symposium on the “Mitigation of GHG Emissions from Livestock”, held last month in Asunción, Paraguay:

a) How can the FAO claim that 25% of the domestic-livestock-borne CO2-equivalents originate from internal fermentation (methane), considering what has been outlined in the paragraphs 2 and 3? Just like CO2-emissions from the biosphere, animal borne methane emissions are part of a natural steady state equilibrium. So the 25% should be corrected to 0% as long as livestock numbers are constant.

b) How can the FAO claim that one third of the domestic animal borne CO2-equivalents come from deforestation (land use change), considering FAO yearbook numbers telling us that net deforestation on a world wide scale is almost zero? Close to 30% of the terrestrial surface are covered by forests and woodlands with very little change over the past 6 decades. So, once again just one scale pan of the balance has been taken into account. …

So definitely there is no need at all to be concerned about our livestock’s emissions of so called Greenhouse Gases! We won’t save the planet distorting ourselves in an effort to teach our cattle how to emit less methane. And we will not harm the planet when we go on with our cattle industry business as usual. Let’s just rebut unqualified attacks (unfortunately also originating from such prominent organizations as the FAO) on our livelihood! The sound arguments are ours.” From CCNet today. Profile of Dr. Glatzle here.

"Scientists baffled"

10/31/2008

Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature – and not the direct result of man’s contributions.” “MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data

Can anyone say ocean offgassing?

The 2007 increase was 10 parts per billion. Methane has 25 times the infrared absorption power of CO2, meaning that a 10 ppb increase is equivalent to a 0.25 ppm increase in CO2. Ho hum.

"Scientists baffled"

10/31/2008

Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature – and not the direct result of man’s contributions.” “MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data

Can anyone say ocean offgassing?

The 2007 increase was 10 parts per billion. Methane has 25 times the infrared absorption power of CO2, meaning that a 10 ppb increase is equivalent to a 0.25 ppm increase in CO2. Ho hum.

Insanity in Britain

10/24/2008

“New targets to cut the UK’s greenhouse emissions by at least 80 per cent will cripple agriculture in the UK, according to farmers.

The Climate Change Committee, that is advising the Government on carbon-cutting legisation, recommended last week the target be raised from 60 to 80 per cent and include all greenhouse gases.

This means that methane and nitrouse oxide, which are mainly produced by farming practices, will have to drop significantly.

Te NFU said it would be “nigh on impossible” for farming to make the cuts without a massive reduction in livestock farming – which produces methane and cultivating the land – which produces nitrous oxide.

Dr Jonathan Scurlock, chief adviser on renewable energy and climate change at the National Farmers’ Union, explained that ploughing the soil and using fertiliser produces large amounts of nitrous oxide.

He said Britain would have to stop producing its own food in order to meet the targets and rely on imports instead, which will just mean the carbon emissions are produced elsewhere in the world.” “Climate change targets could end farming as we know it – NFU

Insanity in Britain

10/24/2008

“New targets to cut the UK’s greenhouse emissions by at least 80 per cent will cripple agriculture in the UK, according to farmers.

The Climate Change Committee, that is advising the Government on carbon-cutting legisation, recommended last week the target be raised from 60 to 80 per cent and include all greenhouse gases.

This means that methane and nitrouse oxide, which are mainly produced by farming practices, will have to drop significantly.

Te NFU said it would be “nigh on impossible” for farming to make the cuts without a massive reduction in livestock farming – which produces methane and cultivating the land – which produces nitrous oxide.

Dr Jonathan Scurlock, chief adviser on renewable energy and climate change at the National Farmers’ Union, explained that ploughing the soil and using fertiliser produces large amounts of nitrous oxide.

He said Britain would have to stop producing its own food in order to meet the targets and rely on imports instead, which will just mean the carbon emissions are produced elsewhere in the world.” “Climate change targets could end farming as we know it – NFU

Monckton suggests new APS policy

08/28/2008

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities have increased the proportion of the atmosphere occupied by carbon dioxide by one-ten-thousandth part since 1750 (Keeling & Whorf, 2004, updated). This minuscule perturbation may cause a small, harmless, and beneficial warming (Monckton, 2008). Greenhouse gases also include water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas because of its volume, and methane, of which the atmospheric concentration ceased to increase in 2000 and is now declining (IPCC, 2007). Greenhouse gases are not pollutants, but occur naturally in quantities greater than those emitted from fossil fuel combustion and industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: global cooling is occurring (GISStemp, HadCRU, RSS, UAH, NCDC). Though a natural warming trend of ~0.5 °C per century began in 1700, long before humankind could possibly have had any significant effect on global temperature (Akasofu, 2008), there has been no new record year for global temperature since 1998 and, since late 2001, there has been a downtrend. The cooling between January 2007 and January 2008 was the sharpest since records began in 1880.

Therefore no action need be taken to mitigate “global warming”, for there is no evidence in the instrumental record that humankind has caused any significant increase in the 300-year-long natural warming rate, and no theoretical reason why future greenhouse-gas emissions should prove harmful.” “A scientifically accurate revision of the APS’ “National Policy” on “Climate Change”

Monckton suggests new APS policy

08/28/2008

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities have increased the proportion of the atmosphere occupied by carbon dioxide by one-ten-thousandth part since 1750 (Keeling & Whorf, 2004, updated). This minuscule perturbation may cause a small, harmless, and beneficial warming (Monckton, 2008). Greenhouse gases also include water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas because of its volume, and methane, of which the atmospheric concentration ceased to increase in 2000 and is now declining (IPCC, 2007). Greenhouse gases are not pollutants, but occur naturally in quantities greater than those emitted from fossil fuel combustion and industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: global cooling is occurring (GISStemp, HadCRU, RSS, UAH, NCDC). Though a natural warming trend of ~0.5 °C per century began in 1700, long before humankind could possibly have had any significant effect on global temperature (Akasofu, 2008), there has been no new record year for global temperature since 1998 and, since late 2001, there has been a downtrend. The cooling between January 2007 and January 2008 was the sharpest since records began in 1880.

Therefore no action need be taken to mitigate “global warming”, for there is no evidence in the instrumental record that humankind has caused any significant increase in the 300-year-long natural warming rate, and no theoretical reason why future greenhouse-gas emissions should prove harmful.” “A scientifically accurate revision of the APS’ “National Policy” on “Climate Change”