I must be a glutton for punishment to continue this, but I'll try one more time.

Does it refer to "14% of the AMOUNT of global warming" — Agree to Disagree

Jeez! How many times do I have to say this? Yes.

I'll try a slightly different approach. Maybe this time it will sink in.

In pre-industrial times CH4 was at roughly 722 parts per billion (ppb). CH4 is currently at roughly 1900 ppb. This increase is due to human activity. 1900 - 722 = 1178 ppb. I'll round up to 1200 to make numbers simpler. Biogenic CH4 is responsible roughly 1/2 of this = 600 ppb.

Once again, the assumption behind this thought experiment is that biogenic methane stays the same, so the concentration stays at 600 ppb. This 600 ppb is currently causing global temps to increase by 0.0224° F per decade. Divide by 10 and it is causing global temps to increase by 0.00224° F per year. Divide that by 365 to get the daily increase (I'll let you do the math on this one).

Now every day a certain amount of these CH4 molecules decay to CO2 - likely the ones that have been around the longest. Hello plants! Here's some nice CO2 for you. Yummm. No contribution to global warming by those CO2 molecules.

Meanwhile, back in the atmosphere, those CH4 molecules that decay to CO2 are replaced by an equal number of brand new CH4 molecules. How do we know it's equal? That's the assumption behind this thought experiment - the total biogenic methane stays constant. So each day, new CH4 molecules are created courtesy of the cattle industry (among others). And at the end of each 24 hours we still have CH4 at 600 ppb. And each day those nasty CH4 molecules are doing their very best to trap heat and make the earth a little bit warmer.

So after 10 years you add up the daily contributions and - once again assuming that the biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays at 600 ppb - the earth will be 0.0224° F warmer.

Your calculation of 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade is NOT based on constant emissions of biogenic methane. — Agree to Disagree

It's based on the amount of biogenic CH4 in the atmosphere staying the same, so any CH4 which converts to CO2 is replaced by an equal amount of newly created CH4. That is the plain language meaning of the phrase "biogenic methane stays constant".

Now you are saying this is incorrect, but you have not offered an explanation. If this is wrong, then you need to provide the correct answer. If biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays the same (at 600 ppb) how much warmer will global temps be due to this?

I am working on a "flow diagram" which will show the difference between biogenic methane, fossil methane, biogenic CO2, and fossil CO2. I will post it on this discussion when it is finished. It will probably take me a day or two. — Agree to Disagree

Oh Lord, give me strength. Look, knock yourself out if it makes you happy, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. So one more time. If you cannot provide a coherent answer to this question then it will clear that you simply do not know what you're talking about.

If biogenic CH4 in the atmosphere stays the same, how much warmer will global temps be in 10 years due to this biogenic CH4?

It wouldn't get any warmer if it stayed the same. — frank

So once you've put your coat on, you don't get any warmer unless you keep putting more coats on?

So once you've put your coat on, you don't get any warmer unless you keep putting more coats on? — unenlightened

Your body is a heat generator. The earth isn't.

Your body is a heat generator. The earth isn't. — frank

It is, as a matter of fact, but the warming comes mostly from the sun; but the insulating effect is comparable, particularly in the way that it takes some time for the insulation to have an effect. Stop defending the indefensible for god's sake! You keep the coat on and the heat gradually builds up. and it works the same when you insulate a planet in such a way that the radiant heat can get in, but the lower energy emitted heat cannot get out.

Okey dokey.

Okey dokey. — frank

It really isn't at all okey dokey, pardn'r. It’s a scandal, an outrage, and a looming catastrophe. And you are gaily peddling ignorant bollocks. Your vacuous posts are literally lethal, because people are already dying while your denials and prevarications continue to impede agreement.

"You try any preversions I'll blow your head off."

-- Colonel Bat Guano

"Fuck off, you self-satisfied, ignorant blow hard!"

Mickey Mouse.

Marriage Counselor: "So Micky, I hear you saying you think Minnie is mentally... unstable?"

Micky. "I didn't say she was mentally unstable. I said she was fucking Goofy."

Yes, you’ve introduced all kinds of issues— one silly thing after another, all shown to be ridiculous. But by all means continue— it’s good for others to watch new denialist “views” get debunked over and over.

But no worries chaps, carry on eating beef and flying round the world on holiday, all our politicians are very stable geniarses, and will solve the problem before anything bad happens, global oil and global meat are on the case. — unenlightened

People barely get involved with local politics unless it quite literally immediately affects them (and then not even most of the time). How do you expect people to care about anything further than that? Politics is just characters in media talking. People barely take actions that help their local communities let alone "The Climate". And that's only talking about people who agree with what the climate scientists are saying or if they do agree, who think that something can be done and it's not a foregone conclusion.

People want cheap things. Adding costs to manufacturers to try to have cleaner emissions or greener processes will not make the consumer happy, lower output, and lower profit. Then, the politicians who claim to be "pro-economy" will rail against the regulations, and the process will continue.

Not to mention the epistemological claim of how to measure progress when there are so many sources adding to the problem. The pro-economy parties will say it's a risky, untested regulation that will hamper current success. And thus, ironically, they will take a line from Keynes and say:

"In the long run, we are all dead". And that is basically the cynical view of most political actions.

How do you expect people to care about anything further than that? — schopenhauer1

I don't expect other people to care. But I care. that's all. I'm just some guy railing about what I care about. Nothing for you to concern yourself about.

I don't expect other people to care. But I care. that's all. I'm just some guy railing about what I care about. Nothing for you to concern yourself about. — unenlightened

Hey we all care about something. You are railing publicly and I am answering publicly about an issue that affects the wider public.

Hey we all care about something. — schopenhauer1

Of course we do. This thread is about climate change. Anyone else care about that? Or shall we tell a few jokes and shoot the breeze?

Of course we do. This thread is about climate change. Anyone else care about that? Or shall we tell a few jokes and shoot the breeze? — unenlightened

I thought I was directly discussing climate change- specifically, the general mechanism for the inertia you are seeing.

I thought I was directly discussing climate change- specifically, the general mechanism for the inertia you are seeing. — schopenhauer1

Oh, well in that case, you are wrong. Covid has clearly shown that most people are very willing to make quite radical changes and sacrifices as long as they feel they are doing it to help others in a time of crisis and we are all acting together. So the problem is not that people are just greedy and uncaring.

Oh, well in that case, you are wrong. Covid has clearly shown that most people are very willing to make quite radical changes and sacrifices as long as they feel they are doing it to help others in a time of crisis and we are all acting together. So the problem is not that people are just greedy and uncaring. — unenlightened

That was a crisis people perceived could immediately harm them or their relatives- as in hospitalization or death. And even then, in some countries people ignored the guidelines or actively worked against it. Climate change, no matter how much footage of ice caps melting and X phenomenon isn't perceived by people as their problem. So I don't see how any of that really counters this:

People want cheap things. Adding costs to manufacturers to try to have cleaner emissions or greener processes will not make the consumer happy, lower output, and lower profit. Then, the politicians who claim to be "pro-economy" will rail against the regulations, and the process will continue.

Not to mention the epistemological claim of how to measure progress when there are so many sources adding to the problem. The pro-economy parties will say it's a risky, untested regulation that will hamper current success. And thus, ironically, they will take a line from Keynes and say:

"In the long run, we are all dead". And that is basically the cynical view of most political actions. — schopenhauer1

I think that is what is the case. What is going on.

Believe me, brotha, I too care about something that is large in scope (antinatalism). And I too, lament how people just don't get how (in my case at least) not doing one simple thing, will prevent a future person's suffering, and will not violate their autonomy, and force them into the suffering entailed in existence. But you see, you will balk at what I say and call me a defeatist (though I take that term as a good thing), and many other things. What you think of me, many will think of your ideas on actions regarding climate change.

What you think of me, many will think of your ideas on actions regarding climate change. — schopenhauer1

People want cheap things. — schopenhauer1

That truism has no force. People also want quality things. Of course, no one wants low quality expensive anything. Of course people don't want suffering. You make a philosophy of platitudes. There is more to life than want.

Climate change, no matter how much footage of ice caps melting and X phenomenon isn't perceived by people as their problem. — schopenhauer1

Polls have shown people do care, and think governments should be doing more. There's large turnouts at protests, there's increasingly bold direct actions taken all over the world to stop drilling, new coal plants, deforestation, etc. On local levels, especially in cities, you see all kinds of innovative policies being implemented. Some will work well, others won't.

Not to mention that the media is finally starting to report on climate change more seriously. This is partly because the effects all around us are undeniable. It's no longer a future problem, or one that "other people" have to concern themselves with. The evidence is everywhere on earth, and there's no longer anywhere to hide. Even here in New England, a fairly insulated place, there are very real effects.

There's a lot of work to be done. There's some movement, but not nearly enough -- and there may not be enough time, unless there's a drastic change in political will. Right now, the obstacles are twofold: corporate and political. The fossil fuel industry has massive pull, and outright owns the "conservative" media and major political party (Republicans). Through their propaganda, campaign funding and lobbying, they've sown "doubt" among their audience and inaction among their beholden politicians.

Some of the denial you see on this very thread, including stock phrases like "nothing can be done," "it's good for the planet," "the climate always changes," "people don't want to change," etc., all serves in a minor way to divert from what we should be doing, which is acting. Not just individually, but collectively. Discussing local energy committees or public utilities commissions and ways to attend/influence them, local organizations to involve oneself in, individual actions like more efficient energy use/electrification (heat pumps, solar panels, induction stoves, community solar programs, better insulation, energy audits, available tax credits and rebates), and so on and so forth, is what should be going on. There's lots of information all around us.

Instead we're left talking about cows and how they're really not a problem because they "don't contribute any 'additional' warming". Wonderful. Meanwhile the planet is burning.

The attitude that nothing can be done because "human nature" strikes me as another useless position -- one more impediment, more dead weight.

Or shall we tell a few jokes and shoot the breeze? — unenlightened

Right, because there's no reason to be "mean" or "overthink" or be "so serious" about ...anything.

Let's just take it easy and turn every thread into the Shoutbox.

This next American election will be illuminating because you clearly have one side pushing climate change policies and the other side pushing increased fossil fuel production. I predict it will be really close again, and the fossil fuel party has a good chance of winning. The price of gas has gone up about $1.50 a gallon in the past five years, and there have been howls of despair. People want to combat climate change, but they don't want to sacrifice their standard of living while doing it.

People also want quality things. Of course, no one wants low quality expensive anything. Of course people don't want suffering. You make a philosophy of platitudes. There is more to life than want. — unenlightened

I'm not saying people don't want to do something about climate change (well, some don't but..), it's just that to get that takes sacrifices that are too much for people to really want to take that action.

Consider a working class individual/family that goes to XMart (made up), because of its dirt low prices on food and goods. They are doing what is economically what they perceive in their best interests. They can't afford better quality food/products. XMart will do. In fact, it may be more expensive in the long run because it's cheaper quality, but that's not what they are thinking about in the short term.

Meanwhile, higher the economic totem pole, is the upper middle classer going to OrganicFoods the nifty high quality organic food market. They see that all the food is marked for organic and greener food sources. The prices are higher as a result so they can afford it. Meanwhile, they are driving to these high end green food marts in their Mercedes and BMW large SUVs.

Some of the denial you see on this very thread, including stock phrases like "nothing can be done," "it's good for the planet," "the climate always changes," "people don't want to change," etc., all serves in a minor way to divert from what we should be doing, which is acting. Not just individually, but collectively. Discussing local energy committees or public utilities commissions and ways to attend/influence them, local organizations to involve oneself in, individual actions like more efficient energy use/electrification (heat pumps, solar panels, induction stoves, community solar programs, better insulation, energy audits, available tax credits and rebates), and so on and so forth, is what should be going on. There's lots of information all around us. — Mikie

Yeah one problem is the idea of separation between production and consumption. These issues of regulation affect the owners of manufacturing and agricultural enterprises. Most people are not these people. Thus, it's not "the people's problem", and thus it is left to the people that "do" care, special interests and such who wheel and deal in this kind of reform. Is it hitting someone's pocket book right now? People tend to care less.

I predict it will be really close again, and the fossil fuel party has a good chance of winning. The price of gas has gone up about $1.50 a gallon in the past five years, and there have been howls of despair. People want to combat climate change, but they don't want to sacrifice their standard of living while doing it. — RogueAI

Exactly. And that's basically what I have been saying. It's a main factor in the inertia.

If we could get fusion working that would help.

People want to combat climate change, but they don't want to sacrifice their standard of living while doing it. — RogueAI

People do things they don’t want to do all the time. It’s up to us to make it easier or harder. Bad habits, addictions, etc— I doubt many people want to continue with these things, but often times it’s simply “easier” than the alternative. It should be made harder. The reverse is true of good behavior — it should be made easier, regardless of what one thinks about it.

We can shape society through policy. Look at smoking. Or through technology — like streaming or digital music. I miss old record stores — but yet I’ve found myself defaulting to YouTube or Spotify because it’s that much easier — there’s less friction involved. Plus car (and computer) producers don’t bother selling their products with CD functions anyway.

None of that was my choice— if it were up to me, I’d go back to how it was before everything was on a phone. But things change and I go along because it’s easier or cheaper or more convenient somehow. Plus I don’t feel like it’s a major moral failing.

I suspect many Americans are in the same boat with climate change: they want a cleaner environment and a better planet for their kids and grandkids, but it’s expensive to buy solar panels and EVs— public transit either doesn’t exist or sucks, etc. Plus, not a lot is known about the best use of time.

That’s why it’s up to those who both care about and have a good understanding of the problem to educate and organize, to affect the necessary changes of economic and productive policy. The tobacco industry is a good example, but the fossil fuel industry is much more politically powerful, and more embedded in everything we use. So the task is harder.

So there’s no need to sacrifice much if we implement sensible changes. It’s a false choice. We subsidize fossil fuels right now. Going from an oil furnace to heat pump isn’t sacrificing anything. It’s actually an improvement.

Please stop talking common sense. Somebody might believe you. :grin:

Marriage Counselor: "So Micky, I hear you saying you think Minnie is mentally... unstable?"

Micky. "I didn't say she was mentally unstable. I said she was fucking Goofy." — frank

Thanks Frank. That one made my day. :grin:

If we could get fusion working that would help. — frank

If pigs could fly that would help. :grin:

A word of caution Frank. Be careful what you wish for. :pray: