“DirkH says: To get a realistic view they should be incorporated in an energy/wavelength graph -blackbody curve. Steve Fitzpatrick says: Rainwater removes CO2 from the atmosphere and puts it in the crust, and volcanic action releases CO2 from the crust and puts it back in the atmosphere. He keeps saying this and no amount of correction will get him to think why that is obviously wrong. What’s your objective in asking? Unfortunately for the hopefuls that grass fed will fix the problem of methane and cattle, this which is little more than a theory, has now bee debunked. It is best you use your name to publicize yourself. We’ve all seen this so many times; something threatens the original theory, so someone comes up with a totally different theory predicting the same result. The molecule is opaque to all other energy bands. Longer grass does hold a bit more carbon, but real carbon sink is in the soil. Congrats to the bulldog. We’re sceptical of everybody and everything. CH4 concentrations are forecast by the IPCC to increases at 1.34%/year by 2050 in the RCP8.5 scenario. What about stopping irrigating golf courses in Arizona? Much of the cattle industry has bred cattle for todays market that are more suited to fattening in a specific amount of time on a diet primarily of grain. The IPCC WII TS page 52 says CH4 increased from 722 ppb in 1750 to 1803 ppb in 2011. Dr. Tom, a most interesting post. *As promised, quotes from your two replies to me that were attacks on me: And you continue to deny what Dr. Sheahen clearly said, without even addressing my evidence that he said it. The deep water formation near the poles is analogous to the heating of a non-GHG atmosphere near the equator. http://wp.me/a1uHC3-hc It has a fair sized cross-section but very low numbers. Methane (CH4) by its physical properties has only two narrow absorption bands at 3.3 microns and 7.5 microns in the overall broad electro-magnetic spectrum from which it can absorb energy. Strap an inflatable bladder to the backs of cows and attach a hose with a w. Oh dear willis, we are not at university compiling a paper on this subject. I assume it almost instantaneously returns to its non-excited state and releases energy at an even lower wavelength. MikeB says: But I insist that you quote EXACTLY what you disagree with, so we can all understand what has you breathing so hard. Ah, well. The climate sensitivity of CH4 is about (___)C° per doubling in the atmosphere If you don’t quote what has your knickers in such a twist, how is anyone supposed to be clear about what you are going on about? “Moreover, both of its bands occur at wavelengths where H2O is already absorbing substantially. Desertvoke, explanation accepted. w. Willis: That’s why Ross Garnaut suggested farmers turn to farming kangaroos instead of sheep and cattle. I just can’t see how any computer model even has the scope to account for all of the factors involved, and the biggest limiting factor is that people are inputing the data/variables of system’s that are not fully understood. It is redshifted when leaving Earth’s gravity well! “How would the solar-heated surface of the earth be -18C with an atmosphere on top of it that could be heated through conduction/convection (with the energy (and thus the temperature profile) distributed upwards along the ALR up to the tropopause) but NOT adequately cool to space via radiation?” Ron C. says: April 12, 2014 at 7:45 pm” You may also use the Bill Me option and pay $17.95 for 6 issues. The range in the video @5:11am shows half the escaping radiation occurring outside the range of the graph in this article. loses heat by radiation to the sky, and gains heat which are both demonstrably wrong and so full of kludges and doubtful assumptions that their temperature projections are risible. Apparently you didn’t notice, or didn’t believe me upstream when I said to you (emphasis mine): I’m not asking anything of anyone that I’m not asking of myself. April 11, 2014 at 6:58 am This is because it takes the cow longer to digest grass (less calories), and they also grow slower so that they emit for a longer time before they're ready for slaughter. I told you. As I noted above, in a convective fluid, the adiabatic lapse rate dominates. Now U.S. dairy producer Stonyfield Farm is piloting a program in Vermont, adjusting grain feed to include alfalfa, flax, and other plants high in omega-3s. What is important is the radiative forcing caused by methane. Blair M says: ps. I’m just trying to point out the consequences of that choice. For permission, contact us. That’s NOT what I was talking about, and was not relevant to a discussion on the nature of gasses. When they added omega-3-rich grasses to their feed year-round, the cows not only released less methane, but also produced about 10 percent more milk. Ron C. says: For example, if I had read over your post and found a grammatical error, I could not say that the text of your post was “grammatically correct”. How would this explain the fact that the earth hasn’t warmed for over 17 years as CO2 & methane kept rising? You are also very confused about Kirchoff’s law and what it means. Doesn’t it then proceed upwards through the “greenhouse” gases? I am overjoyed to be published here, it’s a superb site. Too much of anything in one place will create an issue until we find a way to close the loop and find uses for all by-products. While that basis of argument has been deployed, the current tactic used by the scaremongers is that methane will cause warming, lots of warming. The only purpose for quotes is to make sure everyone involved in the discussion knows what the person you are replying to actually said. However, in the sense that all photons in CO2’s absorption range are highly likely to get absorbed, this is true, but not just because of CO2. I didn’t say this, the vegan diet tends to be very low in B.12. Fine with that, There are a LOT more molecules of water in the air and with a broader IR absorption range than CO2, “Isn’t it the non-IR active gases, O2 and N2 that delay the cooling by capturing heat from the IR-active gases and then cannot radiate, but only rise and cool according to the lapse rate?” so where the air becomes thinner in the upper troposphere it changes to Radiation. Direct GHG forcing would lead to ~1.1C to ~1.2C of warming for a doubling of CO2, which is clearly not enough to worry about. Doesn’t the IR radiation originate from the surface if the earth, as it is baked by the sun? The fact is if you post under a false name, then what an anonymous bushbunny might like or dislike has little weight, and rightly so. April 14, 2014 at 8:35 pm Not in a scientific discussion.. A scientific graph, a proper one, is a graphical representation of facts with an estimate of their error. “It has always been whether it causes enough warming to be a problem” (Miriam O’Brien aka slandering “Sou” from Hotwhopper, that means you.). One, the rumen, houses microbes that can digest grass. What’s next, if history is any guide, is some revolutionary new theory that shows methane As the efficiency of an energy source depends on the temperature difference, they’re pretty low grade. It is not quite that easy. But Phil, can do the honors. I’ll get my coat. So a moister atmosphere partially cancels the greenhouse warming near the surface (i.e. REPLY: go ahead and work that up then, and we’ll add it as an addendum – Anthony More fun comparisons: New York's Central Park, which is 3.41 km^2, could support 3410 people with just the grass.