Possible refutation of human influence on climate change

[bobalot]

Dude, did you even read my post? I even pointed out that agriculture does produce a significant amount of methane.

I did read your post. And I don't disagree with your point of view. What I meant is that methane should not be overlooked because, while cattle farming may not contribute in a meaningful way to CO2 emissions, it does produce a lot of methane, which -metric ton by metric ton- contributes far more to global warming than the same amount of CO2. And, as you point out, other sources do produce more methane than cattle farming. Which is bad, like "on-top-of-all-that-CO2 bad".

I was trying to point out that a tax on the production of meat would have a limited effect on the amount of overall emissions.

I'm not directly disputing this, It's only that if methane is 72 times worse than CO2 in the first 20 years, then it's apparently true that even if human-caused methane output is much less than CO2 human caused output, it's still worthy of taking special measures, since its effect is greater than that of carbon bioxide. That's all.

I never said it should be overlooked. I said focusing only on methane emissions from agriculture is a rather limited approach. The U.S Energy Information Administration puts all emissions in Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide equivalent (So they appear to take into account that methane is far worse than carbon dioxide).

The U.S emits 5990 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide. The U.S emits the Carbon Dioxide equivalent of 737 Million Metric Tons of Methane*. Now agriculture makes up 30.5% of methane emissions [225.0 Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide equivalent].

Using these figures, 225/(5990+737-225) = 3.5%.
Agriculture makes up approximately 3.5% of total emissions. I really don't see what targeting agriculture would do in the big picture.

*I know, my older post figures had 737 Million Metric Tons of Methane, it was a mistake. It is the Carbon Dioxide equivalent. See Link

[Akkleptos]

Agriculture makes up approximately 3.5% of total emissions. I really don't see what targeting agriculture would do in the big picture.

Precisely! And, with your input, I can still eat beef and pork without remorse. Thanks!

Energy, on the other hand, has to turn either green (as in renewable) or nuclear.

[Darth Wong]

On methane vs CO2: one of the reasons CO2 is considered particularly important is that it tends to be the dominant effect in the upper atmosphere, and the upper atmosphere is ultimately the gatekeeper.

Think of it this way: suppose the lower atmosphere is so full of greenhouse gas that it actually blocks 100% of IR going spaceward. One might think this makes the upper atmosphere irrelevant, right? Well, not exactly. If the lower atmosphere blocks 100% of IR, then it will re-radiate energy itself, some of which will go to upper layers, and the process will repeat until you get to the highest layers. The highest layers ultimately regulate how much will escape into space, even if you achieve 100% blockage at lower layers.

[Akkleptos]

On methane vs CO2: one of the reasons CO2 is considered particularly important is that it tends to be the dominant effect in the upper atmosphere, and the upper atmosphere is ultimately the gatekeeper.

Think of it this way: suppose the lower atmosphere is so full of greenhouse gas that it actually blocks 100% of IR going spaceward. One might think this makes the upper atmosphere irrelevant, right? Well, not exactly. If the lower atmosphere blocks 100% of IR, then it will re-radiate energy itself, some of which will go to upper layers, and the process will repeat until you get to the highest layers. The highest layers ultimately regulate how much will escape into space, even if you achieve 100% blockage at lower layers.

Ah, I didn't know! I wonder if the GWP scales takes this into account. If not, then they are in dire need of an urgent revision.

Also, is it posible for some layers to re-radiate back to the Earth's surface? If so, increasing the potential of these layers to re-radiate heat back to the surface cannot be good, can it? Even though the ultimate tap is on the outmost layers. Just worrying here...

[Surlethe]

On methane vs CO2: one of the reasons CO2 is considered particularly important is that it tends to be the dominant effect in the upper atmosphere, and the upper atmosphere is ultimately the gatekeeper.

Think of it this way: suppose the lower atmosphere is so full of greenhouse gas that it actually blocks 100% of IR going spaceward. One might think this makes the upper atmosphere irrelevant, right? Well, not exactly. If the lower atmosphere blocks 100% of IR, then it will re-radiate energy itself, some of which will go to upper layers, and the process will repeat until you get to the highest layers. The highest layers ultimately regulate how much will escape into space, even if you achieve 100% blockage at lower layers.

Ah, I didn't know! I wonder if the GWP scales takes this into account. If not, then they are in dire need of an urgent revision.

Also, is it posible for some layers to re-radiate back to the Earth's surface? If so, increasing the potential of these layers to re-radiate heat back to the surface cannot be good, can it? Even though the ultimate tap is on the outmost layers. Just worrying here...

Mike will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that you treat each layer as a thin equilibrium blackbody of a certain transparency which radiates in both directions. If you write down the math, I think you should get a set of coupled PDEs for temperature and radiation. Practically, you'll get the total hitting the ground and the total reradiated into space by solving the system numerically. Vary the model geographically and take weather patterns into account, and you'll have something I'm reasonably that all those supercomputers at NASA do all the time.

[Ethereal235]

Without getting into the political aspects of the climate change debate, I feel it's important to point out one simple thing; most natural forcings on climate haven't increased in any substantial way over the time period in which most of the warming has occurred.

For instance, a common claim is that solar variation is responsible for much of the warming, but if you look at the data itself, this is a bizarre claim:


The general trend in solar is slightly downward for the last three decades. Similarly, Aerosols released by volcanoes have been mostly constant except for spikes following the Pinatubo and El Chinchon eruptions, and these reduce temperature rather than increase it:

(this data didn't go past 2001, so the dashed line is a projection. There weren't any large eruptions until quite recently, so it was probably fairly constant)

ENSO doesn't show any real trend either:


Conversely, temperature has increased substantially:


Specific variations within global temperature correlate with these various natural forcings, but they can't explain the general upward trend in average global temperature. I won't demonstrate it here, but with the exception of volcanic aerosols, natural factors largely wouldn't impact stratospheric temperatures; the decline in stratospheric temperatures is best explained by a decrease in outgoing infrared radiation due to greenhouse gases and the depletion of the ozone layer, both of which have largely anthropogenic origins. It's unrealistic to believe that anthropogenic factors don't influence global climate.

[Akkleptos]

It's unrealistic to believe that anthropogenic factors don't influence global climate.

Ineed. All of the evidence seems to point that way.

[K. A. Pital]

Hmm... shall I speak in defence of Iosef for once?

He has potential. And yes, the board is biased a little. We tend to dismiss not only wrong factual statements (sorry, Iosef, but you've made few statements on facts, not opinions which were flat out wrong). We do dismiss more elusive things like a matter of opinion as well.

Now, as for Iosef himself... Accusations of bias are meaningless, of course, and will only earn their maker a short trip to the HOS if he continues screaming "bias, bias, bias". If you have a point that rests on facts (and not your own opinion), do make it, Iosef. But if it rests on wrong facts, as it often happens to be, then don't scream bias when people don't suddenly go "Oh, you're right!" Try to stick it simple and factual. Statements like "preaching ideology" to "a crowd of Catholics" are only provoking a useless discussion without a single fact in it. You shouldn't preach ideology. You should show facts that demonstrate your point. Putting lots of smilies, one-liner rejections of the argument, one-liner remarks one considers to be funny or something, writing with ALL CAPS and other types of emotional argument on the net are, sadly, not facts. They're low-grade posting, in fact.

I also think, however, that Iosef is not fighting any "uphill battle" (unlike, say, Knobbyboy when he was still around). He usually gets involved in 1-on-1 debates with a particular person, all others usually ignore or add to some single point in a debate.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't know why Iosef is being so ridiculous and dogmatic. I've always taken the time to pick apart his arguments and explain what I disagree about each point piece-by-piece. I always enjoy because one-way-or-another, it improves my debating skills against dogmatic propertarians. But in no such case did I dismiss his arguments ipso facto because he's a class enemy or some shit, or apologist or some other ridiculous ad hominem. I like Stas, hope he can at least pull it together, but as of late he seems to abandoned his early substantive debating in favor of name calling.

Oh, and as I'm sure Stas would support, the idea that defending aspects of and keeping a nuanced historical line on the USSR or the PRC is so welcome on this board is positively preposterous. Stas has defended the Soviet Union in an uphill battle more than once. And my politics are so rare, obscure, and alien I have to provide defining criteria half the time I mention them. I know most people think my politics are probably wrong, and if the revolution were to come, I imagine most of the people on the board, judging by history and their political stance, would be helping the police find me and shoot me.

[Coyote]

If it isn't too late here... instead of taxing meat to help fight greenhouse gases, wouldn't it actually make more sense to just... end the subsidy of meat producers instead?

And even if global warming/climate change is a natural phenomenon, so what? Fighting pollution and controlling harmful emissions still makes a better world. The economy won't be ruined, it'll just have to adapt. The way buggy-whip makers and horse-poop shovelers had to adapt when the automobile came.

[Samuel]

Yes, ending the subsidies would be faster and easier to sell to the public, but it would be easier for an interest group to fight against. Sometimes the optimal solution is sppreading the damage over as many people as possible because the damage you do to them is too low for them to notice. I'd make a joke about democracy, but this occurs in non-democratic regimes as well.

[bobalot]

If it isn't too late here... instead of taxing meat to help fight greenhouse gases, wouldn't it actually make more sense to just... end the subsidy of meat producers instead?

And even if global warming/climate change is a natural phenomenon, so what? Fighting pollution and controlling harmful emissions still makes a better world. The economy won't be ruined, it'll just have to adapt. The way buggy-whip makers and horse-poop shovelers had to adapt when the automobile came.

Don't most of these subsidies go to big business anyway? You would be killing two birds with one stone by targeting corporate welfare as well.