In pre-industrial times methane was at roughly 722 parts per billion (ppb). Methane is currently at 1900 ppb. This increase is due to human activity. This additional methane from human activity contributes 14% of global warming.

The rate of warming since 1981 is 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.

0.14 * 0.32° F = 0.0448° F ( 0.025° C)

So methane is currently causing roughly 0.0448 °F ( 0.025° C) increase in global temp per decade.

The energy sector (i.e. fossil methane) is responsible for around 40% of total methane emissions attributable to human activity, second only to agriculture. Biomass burning contributes a small amount. So to make the math easy let's say that biogenic methane is contributing 1/2 of that increase: 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade.

a constant emission of biogenic methane does not cause any ADDITIONAL global warming because when it breaks down the CO2 is absorbed by plants. — Agree to Disagree

Again to make the math simple, assuming that a constant emission of both biogenic and fossil methane is emitted over the next 12 years, what will the approximate methane concentration be in 2035?

A) less than 1900
B) 1900
C) greater than 1900

[EDIT]
Of course the answer is 1900 ppb. If you are emitting a constant amount of methane then that will replace the methane that is breaking down into CO2.

So a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2023 and 2035 will continue to contribute an ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) (actually a bit more since this is a 12 years not 10). And if we have a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2035 and 2047 then the biogenic methane will contribute YET ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C). And so on.

Have I finally made myself clear?

This is silly. Even if I had the time & energy (which I don't) I'm not going to take the bait and engage in this type of discussion.

You asked a question & I answered. If you disagree with me - if you feel that Mitloehne is correct then make the case and I'll respond.

Otherwise I suggest you go out to NOAA web site - they will provide the answers to all these issues.

Thanks.

In 2019, global methane concentrations rose from 722 parts per billion (ppb) in pre-industrial times to 1866 ppb:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/

This additional methane is coming from human activity: https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/methanebudget/20/hl-compact.htm

And per the above this additional methane is responsible for at least 14% of global warming (other estimates are higher).

Now consider this statement by Mitloehne - which our friend Agree keeps quoting:

“when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs”

So think this through. The current level of concentration is roughly 1900 ppb and this contributes 14% of global warming. The plain language meaning of the phrase “when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years” is that the there is a balance between the methane converting to CO2 and new methane being generated by all sources. I.e., in 12 years the concentration of methane would still be 1900 ppb.

So Mitloehne is saying that in 12 years, even tho the level is still 1900 ppl, somehow these new molecules of methane (which replaced the ones that converted to CO2) will somehow no longer contribute to global warming. Really??? Are the laws of physics going to change in 12 years? Do the new molecules of methane have some special property that the current molecules do not have? I think not.

In a sense my statement “Of course this is false and is contradicted by the evidence from every reliable source” is not quite accurate. It would be really bizarre if a research scientist were to make the statement such as - our predictions are based on methane behaving the same in the future. That would be roughly equivalent to saying our estimates are based on the sun still rising in the east and setting in the west.

So I will re-phrase my statement: “No reliable source has ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas.”

It can be confusing trying to make sense of Agree's multiple claims & evasions. I have been narrow focusing on two of his (I assume that's his preferred pronoun) stated positions - one of which is based on the papers by Mitloehne (who we know is an industry shill) - and the other which contradicts Mitloehne.

1) Provided it does not increase, so called biogenic CH4 is not contributing to global warming
This is a claim made by Mitloehne. Of course this is false and is contradicted by the evidence from every reliable source. I have no illusions that Agree will change his mind on this - my mission here is simply to get him to acknowledge that Mitloehne is all by himself in making this claim. Of course Agree cannot get himself to do this - instead he keeps repeating the quotes from Mitloehne.

As we all know, biogenic CH4 is increasing every year, so this point is mute, but even under the counterfactual assumption of no increase it is still false.

2) We should concentrate on reducing non-biogenic CO2
Agree has repeatedly stated that it is a mistake to try to reduce biogenic CO2 and we should concentrate on reducing non-biogenic CO2. And here he contradicts his own source! Mitloehne's stated mission is to reduce CH4 production from cattle production through various means. Whatever else we may think, reducing CH4 emissions from any source is a good thing. So I am trying to get Agree to acknowledge that he is contradicting his source.

Re this second point: Of course we would be much better off if we stop raising cattle for food altogether. And you could argue the point that such reduction is insufficient AND lulls us into believing that we are doing everything we can - but again that is a separate discussion.

- a constant emission of biogenic methane does not cause any ADDITIONAL global warming because when it breaks down the CO2 is absorbed by plants. — Agree to Disagree

You keep repeating yourself by quoting the same source (which I have already read) and ignoring my questions/responses.

Two key questions that you need to answer

1. ------------
Virtually every source available (NOAA, NASA, IPCC, etc) states that methane is responsible for 14% of the total global warming and that livestock production is a significant part of that. Dr. Mitloehne seems to be denying that. So for the record are you saying that NOAA, IPCC etc are all wrong? Yes or no.

2. -------------

Biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 and methane) does not make global warming worse.

Non-biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 from fossil fuels and methane from non-biogenic sources) does make global warming worse.

For global warming it is mainly the biogenic versus non-biogenic issue which is important.

This is why we should be making major efforts to reduce non-biogenic carbon (this will be effective), and stop making major efforts to reduce biogenic carbon (this will not be effective). — Agree to Disagree

YOUR SOURCE states that reducing biogenic carbon is one of the most cost effective ways to reduce global warming and they are actively working on reducing methane production from cattle farming (details in your article). So please choose - do you agree with your source or not?

We have looped around in this back & forth 3 times now - if you have something new or different to say I will continue this conversation. Otherwise I give you the last word.

So with a constant number of cows the amount of global warming that is caused by the methane produced by the cows is constant. — Agree to Disagree

Right - it will continue to contribute 14% of the global warning - which accumulates.

To make the math simple, let's say that the current amount of methane in the atmosphere is causing mean global temp to rise by 0.01 degrees C every 10 years. So in 30 years if the amount of methane stays the same it will have contributed 0.03 degrees C rise.

But maybe I'm totally getting this wrong and Dr. Mitloehner will have an obvious explanation for his assertions. I highly doubt he will answer but you never know.

Apart from that, do you agree that what UC Davis is doing to reduce methane production is a good thing? If nothing else this will slow the rate of global warming, yes?

So first of all you should be aware that the Clear Center at UC Davis, receives almost all its funding from industry donations and coordinates with a major livestock lobby group on messaging campaigns. So we have to be very cautious about anything they might say.

As a result, when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs (Frame et al., 2018).

This contradicts virtually every other source I could locate with a 10 minute search - they all say the same thing - methane emissions (primarily from cattle production) are contribute roughly 14% of total global climate change.

But let's say for the moment that Clear Center is correct and every other source is wrong - and that methane from livestock (provided it is constant) is not contributing to global warming at all.

Even with this counter factual assumption it is still a good thing to reduce methane production - since per your source this is one of the most cost effective ways to slow down global warming. Yes?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Edit: Maybe we are misunderstanding these papers. I email'd Dr. Mitloehner from Clear Center at UC Davis. Let's see what he has to say

Dear Dr. Mitloehner,

I am a lay person who follows climate science - I am hoping you can find the time to answer a question.

I can see from the published reports that CLEAR is doing some good work on reducing CH4 emissions from livestock management.

In this paper it states that when a steady amount of CH4 is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs. However this seems to contradict virtually every other source I can find which says that CH4 production from agriculture (primarily livestock raising for meat or milk) is responsible for roughly 14% of global warming.

I fully understand the biogenic carbon cycle, I get that livestock production is net neutral with respect to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (apart from associated costs of transportation etc, etc).

However, the CH4 from 1.5 billion or so cattle is always in the atmosphere and this is well above the amount of CH4 that was in the atmosphere before we started mass production of livestock. So isn't that additional CH4 contributing to global warming (even if the concentration does not increase)?

Or put differently, would it be correct to state that when a steady amount of CH4 is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs above and beyond the contribution from the CH4. (My bold)

I am aware of the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - so thank you for being patient with these amateur questions.

Yes, but plants and animals (and fungi) are all part of a cycle (the biogenic carbon cycle). So in the long-run the negatives from the animals have the same magnitude as the positives from the plants. It is a zero sum game. — Agree to Disagree

It is a zero sum game with respect to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the methane from 1.5 billion cattle that hangs around for 12 years in the atmosphere is contributing 14% of the of the global warming.

If you had actually read the article and watched the video from U Cal that you yourself posted (which BTW is financed by the cattle industry), it's all about reducing the methane emissions from cattle farming. This in of itself is a good thing

It looks like it's saying that cattle farming is not a significant contributor. What am I missing? — frank

He's saying that in cattle production there's an opportunity to go beyond net zero to net negative. I get that. We haven't discussed that up to this point, though. We were just talking about whether or not cattle production is net zero. — frank

Firstly I should have looked a bit more closely at the source of these articles. While they are by University of CA, from what I can gather these studies are funded by our old friends the cattle industry (I could be wrong on this). So we need to be cautious.

Just to sum up, CH4 is a much more potent greenhouse gas than C02 (estimates vary between 20 times to 80 times depending on how it's calculated.) After 12 years, CH4 turns into C02. Even tho the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere is much less than CO2, it has an outsized contribution to total global warming (at least 14%) during those 12 years.

After 12 years there is no difference to the climate whether these CO2 molecules came from tailpipe emissions or from cow burps. However as an accounting issue we can separate that out since the plants that feed the cattle are re-absorbing CO2. So the phrase "net zero" is not referring to the contribution to global warming - rather "net zero" is referring to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Now just to be precise we could quibble about the "net zero-ness" of this cycle since the whole process of raising cattle creates additional CO2 apart from the CH4 - but for purposes of discussion we can ignore that.

What I have not been able to ascertain in my limited free time here is whether the CO2 emitted by 1.5 billion cattle (since they do breath in O2 and emit CO2) is factored into these calculations - but I assume that this is factored into these calculations as well.

So reducing CH4 emissions from cattle raising is a very good thing from 2 perspectives - firstly by sequestering (or reducing CH4 emission) there will be fewer CO2 molecules floating around in 12 years - and secondly by reducing the amount of nasty CH4 floating around during those 12 years we can slow global warming by some measurable amount.

Of course reducing the production of cattle would have an even greater impact.

Amen, brother. Can we please stop discussing the god damned cows! — BC

I mean, the very notion that people would sit around arguing about cows seems crazy to me. — frank

The big problem is that economies and countries and people (farmers, etc) who depend on cows (beef, dairy, etc) are being punished for no good reason. — Agree to Disagree

In a previous post, @Agree to Disagree linked to an article from the University of California that supposedly showed that cattle farming is net-zero. However this article makes the OPPOSITE point (apologies for shouting). The full impact of this article is that reducing methane from cattle farming is a cost effective way to reduce global warming - because reducing methane has a more immediate impact on the environment than reducing CO2. Go to minute 4:00 of the video where the narrator talks about steps that California is taking to reduce methane emissions.

Here is another article from the same source @Agree to Disagree linked to:
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/news/new-report-california-pioneering-pathway-significant-dairy-methane-reduction

My point is just this: his assertion is not illogical. I would need more than a vague principle to accept that cattle farming is net-zero. But if he's correct that it is, then he's right that it's not a contribution to global warming. — frank

But his own source proves that it does contribute.

Just to be clear, it is important to reduce all sources of greenhouse gas emissions - oil, coal, natural gas, etc. But that does not mean that we should ignore a cattle farming as a significant source when there are solutions. These are not mutually exclusive.

I gave you 2 other sources which are NOT meat companies. What don't you like about these 2 sources?

This one is The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle — Agree to Disagree

It appears that you have misinterpreted this source. The full impact of this article is that reducing methane is the best way to reduce global warming - because reducing methane has a more immediate impact on the environment than reducing CO2. Go to minute 4:00 of the video where the narrator talks about steps that California is taking to reduce methane emissions.

If there is still any doubt in your mind, here is another article from the same source you cited:
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/news/new-report-california-pioneering-pathway-significant-dairy-methane-reduction

Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
Cows eat the plants.
The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere. — Agree to Disagree

There are so many cows emitting atoms of carbon that there are not enough plants on the planet to consume those additional atoms of carbon.

I was reading some science fiction short stories and there was one where these people are struggling to survive the onset of an ice age, but then the protagonist wakes up and global warming is what's really happening. It was supposed to be about the psychological whiplash related to ice-age to global-warming news. — frank

You may be thinking about this episode of Twilight Zone

joking or not, it's relevant to the argument NOS is making. If NOS thinks that trump can't be guilty here because you can't prove intent without a confession, then that means a lot of crimes that involve intent are also unprovable without a confession. — flannel jesus

Of course - that's what I'm trying (in my own way) to get NOS to understand

I was being sarcastic as a passive-aggressive jab at NOS4A2's defence of Trump. — Michael

Ah - I didn't pick that up

he's specifically talking about crimes where intent matters, I guess. — flannel jesus

He was joking
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/828383

Only a confession by the accused counts as evidence of a crime. — Michael

??? is this a mis-type? Or maybe I'm not following you. You're not seriously suggesting that someone could commit murder but unless they confess then all other evidence does not count and they should be declared innocent by a jury?

It must be a quote from Donald Trump because he is the only one that can speak about his thoughts, intentions, and beliefs. If an eye witness can quote him then that would suffice for me. — NOS4A2

So if Pence testifies in court that Trump said to him “You’re too honest” - and assume for the moment that Trump does not testify - would that suffice? If not, would multiple statements by other witnesses along the same lines suffice?

Still hoping for a response on this:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/826970

I know that you're juggling a lot of different threads here, so it's understandable - but we appear to have lost track of our particular conversation. I'll try again. Here's where we are:

what evidence would convince you that Trump did the things he is accused of? Or put differently - are you open to the possibility that Trump did the things he is accused of? — EricH

You’d have to prove he did so corruptly. Any quote or admission would suffice, given proper context. Inference by projection or conspiracy theory just doesn’t cut it. — NOS4A2

Not quite following you here. Are you saying that the only thing to convince you would be if Trump himself acknowledged it he did so corruptly? Or would you be convinced if multiple direct eye witnesses testified that what he was doing was illegal? — EricH

And here's your last response where we seem to lose the thrust of my question:

The illegality of the charges is that he intended to corruptly defraud the United States or deny people their rights. No one proved he defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, and they certainly didn’t prove he did so corruptly. On top of that it isn’t up to the government to determine what is true or false, what people should believe, and what they can say about it. — NOS4A2

It looks to me that your last response was to a different question. I'm simply asking for clarity on what evidence would convince you that Trump is guilty of the charges? Just to repeat it:

Any quote or admission would suffice, given proper context. — NOS4A2

I'm looking for clarity on your response - must that be a quote from Donald Trump or can it be a quote from eye witnesses to the events?

You’d have to prove he did so corruptly. Any quote or admission would suffice — NOS4A2

Not quite following you here. Are you saying that the only thing to convince you would be if Trump himself acknowledged it he did so corruptly? Or would you be convinced if multiple direct eye witnesses testified that what he was doing was illegal?

No. I am unable to pass off someone else’s judgement with my own, especially a Washington jury. — NOS4A2

Based on the evidence available to the public so far seems quite clear that Trump is guilty - but he is allowed his day in court - and if he can present a credible defense and the jury finds him innocent I would accept that.

So what evidence would convince you that Trump did the things he is accused of? Or put differently - are you open to the possibility that Trump did the things he is accused of?

The Hawaii situation happened due to ineptitude (or incompetence or inexperience - take your pick) on the part of the Hawaiian electoral commission - perhaps inexperience is an OK explanation since this was their first time participating in national elections.

The vote was so close that they had to do a recount - but the electoral ballots had to be cast before they were able to finish the recount. Oops. So the Democrat electors held a public session in which they cast their electoral ballots for Kennedy - and as the article makes clear they had to do this on the designated date - otherwise even if the recount had showed that Kennedy had won (which he did) their ballots could not be legally counted.

While not explicitly stated in the article there is no doubt that if Nixon had won the recount then the Democrats would not have contested the results.

So it was most definitely not an attempt to subvert the legitimate vote counts - as Trump tried to do.

Or maybe there was some context there that made sense that's absent here. — flannel jesus

That is indeed the case - as the article NOS linked made clear: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/1960-electoral-college-certificates-false-trump-electors-00006186

The judge there seemed to think them legitimate. Would you call that scheme criminal? An effort to overthrow/subvert an election? — NOS4A2

Good article - well written & researched. I'm not an expert in these matters but as a lay person it seems that your article is making a pretty convincing case that the "scheme" was most definitely not criminal and in no way was it an attempt to overthrow/subvert an election

Contesting an election isn’t criminal. But criminalizing political speech is. — NOS4A2

You are half right. Contesting an election isn’t criminal and while technically not a crime in of itself, criminalizing political speech is unconstitutional.

However, attempting to subvert/overthrow the results of an election is criminal. And his false claims of a "stolen election" were part of his scheme to subvert/overthrow the results of the 2020 election. That is what he's being charged with.

The best analogy I've heard so far is that these attempts to hide behind the 1st amendment are equivalent to a bank robber claiming that his instructions to have the teller hand over money are covered under the 1st amendment.

if a car comes towards you as you are driving your car, the measured velocity relative to both of you is v..., if you knew your velocity relative to the road as being .5v, then you would say that the other car is coming towards you at –.5v....the total v will not be 0... — Gampa Dee

We may be mixing up speed & velocity. Speed is a scalar but velocity is a vector.

In your example, both cars are traveling at a speed of 0.5v relative to the road (again no direction). In order to calculate the relative velocity we need to do vector calculations (which can get complicated). In the most general situation the two objects may be moving in arbitrary directions and may or may not ever collide. In your simplified one dimensional example, the velocity of one car is .5v and the velocity of the other car is -5v. But these are vectors, so to calculate the relative velocity between the two you cannot simply add the .5v & -5v and get 0. You have to factor in the direction and do vector math. The end result will be a relative speed of v - and the vector math will show a collision between the two cars at some point in time depending on the values of v and the starting distance between the two cars.

Not only that but they’ll have to prove the statements were false. — NOS4A2

That will be trivially easy. The election was legit. His own people told him that - Pence, Barr, Wray, Krebs, etc, etc. They will testify as such in court. And there are 1000s of election officials all across the country who have stated that the election was fair - I'm sure they would be willing to testify if called upon.

It's now been over 2 & 1/2 years and yet there is no evidence of any fraud that would have altered the outcome. All Trump's lawyers have is just hand waving.

But if you have any evidence of a specific person or persons who committed a specific illegal act that would have altered the outcome of the election then you should pass this information to Trump's legal team.

Trump's only hope is to delay and hope that he (or a sympathetic Republican) wins in 2024.

They knowingly made false accusations that Trump knowingly made false claims. — NOS4A2

Actually this is almost correct - at least from Trump's perspective. Of course things can and will likely change as events take place, but for the moment it looks like Trump's defense is going to be that he "unknowingly made false statements" - i.e. that he was given bad advice. In other words he will put the blame on his advisors. Hence the unindicted co-conspirators.

But you don't have to take my word for this: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pence-trump-indictment/story?id=101953368

For the benefit of everyone in this discussion, here is the actual document in question.

What I find fascinating about this document is that (for all intents and purposes) it ignores racism. The word "racism" occurs exactly 3 times in the curriculum - and 2 are duplicates and one is in a discussion of the holocaust. While the curriculum spends a lot of time on historical facts (the details of slave trade, black contributions to society, etc) the curriculum ignores that slavery & segregation in the US were based on racism and what impact that might have on the emotional well being of both whites & blacks.

The word "reparations" is also not mentioned in the black history section.

This one is pretty "clutter free" - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/07/five-ways-ai-might-destroy-the-world-everyone-on-earth-could-fall-over-dead-in-the-same-second

I wish this were so, but the Democrats have a unique ability to undermine their own chances. If there are 19 ways to win an election and 1 way to lose, the Dems will seize that one chance out of 20. They will occasionally win because they do not correctly implement that one chance and actually win through incompetence.

Trump is the only living president who isn’t a descendant of someone who enslaved Americans. — NOS4A2

Thank you so much for this piece of information. Up to now I was convinced that Trump was a horrible person and the worst president we ever had, but you have totally changed my mind. Trump's lack of slave holding ancestors demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that he is innocent of all the nasty terrible things that the evil communist Democrat controlled justice system has falsely accused him of doing.

I asked the same question again and got no response. He (she?) has been studiously avoiding this whole topic. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they need to think it through first before responding.

So if I'm following you correctly, Trump (if he so choose to do so) could have

1) As Commander in Chief obtained the blueprints for building an H-Bomb (or the nuclear codes or a list of all foreign secret assets or etc),
2) Declared them to be his personal property,
3) Taken them with him when he left office (since they're now his personal property)
4) And then sell them to the highest bidder (or put them on Truth Social)

And all this would be perfectly legal. Am I getting this correct?

So if I'm following you correctly, Trump (if he so choose to do so) could have

1) Rquested the blueprints for building an H-Bomb (or the nuclear codes or a list of all foreign secret assets or etc),
2) Declared them to be his personal property,
3) Taken them with him when he left office (since they're now his personal property)
4) And then sell them to the highest bidder (or put them on Truth Social)

And all this would be perfectly legal. Am I getting this correct?

Mike Pence in his recent CNN town hall makes a compelling argument against Trump's indictment. It sends a terrible message to the world. Since Pence and Biden committed the exact same crimes (according to Pence), indicting only Trump undermines the U.S.A.'s enviable reputation as a place where all rich and powerful white men stand as equals above the law. — Pierre-Normand

Either Pence is lying or he is deeply ignorant of the law. OK maybe he misspoke in the heat of the moment. But either way Pence did not break any laws. Merely possessing documents is not a crime since the documents came into Pence's possession through procedural/bureaucratic error - and Pence reported the documents as soon as he became of them and immediately turned them over to the FBI.

Whether Biden committed a crime is still under investigation. As with Pence, he immediately notified the FBI as soon as he became aware of them and turned them over.

Again - there has to be intent in order for possession to be a crime.

I like xkcd's take on this: https://xkcd.com/718/

I personally know 3 trans people. 2 were born male, one was born female. Of the two who were born male, one has done full upper & lower surgery, the other only upper. The person born female has done some upper surgery and takes hormone treatments.

For all three people, they will tell you that they always knew since early childhood that somehow they were different - and that it wasn't until they were teenagers that they became aware of the trans movement and they all realized that this was who they are.

I would also add that my wife worked for years in a pre-K center (that's ages 3-5) and they had several kids who were clearly trans even at that young age.

My point here is that this is not some sort of performance/act - this is genuine.