“Scientists Say”

“Scientists say methane emissions, as well as other greenhouse gases, must be cut to limit the average rise of global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius — a threshold for avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. Much of that methane comes from agriculture.

Data compiled by Climate Watch, a platform managed by the World Resources Institute, indicate an estimated 17 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions consist of methane. Around 40 percent of human-made methane emissions come from agriculture.”

Article misleads on effect of cow emissions on global warming

There has been almost no change in the atmospheric concentration of CH4 over the past forty years, while CO2 has increased steadily. CO2 is more than two hundred times as abundant than CH4.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

“Bill Gates has quietly become the largest farmland owner in America. At the same time, he’s become a leading voice in the push for “synthetic meat.” Here’s the story of how Bill Gates is waging a war on meat to make millions – and hiding behind “climate change” to do it.”

Thread by @cabot_phillips on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to “Scientists Say”

  1. Conrad Ziefle says:

    It’s absolutely mind-blowing. The world of universities graduates thousands of scientists each year, and these journalists act like they sat down and had coffee with every last one of them.
    Scientists say that journalists are twits.

  2. Eli the Pit Bulldog says:

    Here’s John Kerry pretending to be a scientist
    😵‍💫
    https://twitter.com/rncresearch/status/1536797759419867136?s=21

  3. Jeff Jones says:

    1) The concentration of methane which is very reactive and disappears quickly is 2PPB. Using the LA Colosseum analogy, if the 100,000 people there were gas molecules in the atmosphere, methane would be a stray cat wandering in and out of the crowd.

    2) Methane absorbs virtually the same amount of radiation as oxygen which is extremely small. If we need to get rid of methane to save the universe, we definitely need to get rid of oxygen which is thousands of times more prevalent. Science in government is dead.

  4. The absorption band for methane is already dominated by water vapour. But even that is irrelevant. ‘Greenhouse gases’, like any other absorber, obey Kirchoff’s Law. What they absorb, they re-radiate. You get attenuation along a sight line because the greenhouse gases scatter the energy out of the line of sight, not because they magically ‘block’ it. Under uniform illumination conditions, such scattering is impossible, yet people are taught as irrefutable fact that greenhouse gases actual act as a barrier. The myth is reinforced by obscuring the image of an IR source with a flask full of CO2, which only shows most people are too stupid to tell the difference between irradiance and contrast. The greenhouse effect is thermodynamic nonsense. It isn’t science, it is folklore.

    • Captain Flint says:

      Gordon

      I would really like to read up on this stuff. Can u give me any book titles, links etc to point me in the right direction?

      • Pick up any standard reference on thermodynamics such as Rogers and Mayhew, it contains all you need to know to show the greenhouse effect is bunk. If you want some pointers you could try my blog, but I only recommend that because I wrote it, there are many others out there. Piers Corbin’s Weather action is worth a look. Check out my videos on Bitchute or NewTube if you want a quick look into the material, but essentially it is a matter of reasoning from first principles. My material has been posted for several years now, and is still awaiting refutation. I am retired, and have little respect for the climate science community, so can’t be bothered to get the stuff published. Take a look, think for yourself, and take nobody’s word, including mine.

    • Conrad Ziefle says:

      Yeah, I often wondered who came up with the gas house analogy? Clearly, gas is not glass and does not have all the heat transfer limiting qualities of a glass dome. I also wondered about Kirchoff’s Law and how ε = α, for each λ was being modeled in these CO2 heat trapping models. I suppose that the gas can absorb the specific λs that it absorbs, then transfer the heat to adjacent molecules, but then we would see warming in the atmosphere that we do not see. The other thing that I wonder about is the action of clouds. Water vapor rises high in the atmosphere and, having stronger and broader absorption, would radiate large quantities of heat to space, you would think. I thought about a control volume taken around the globe at sea level, and calculate the amount of heat bled off through evaporation minus the heat returned as liquid, basically the the latent heat times the mass of all the rain fall globally.

  5. Mike N says:

    I seem to remember this cow-fart theory being debunked in the 90’s.

    If memory serves, the study concluded that termites and rotting vegetation emitted ~100x more methane, every day, than all the cows in the world.

  6. Ron says:

    I read something about people worrying about permafrost thawing and vast amounts of methane escaping.
    Something I have read is that we are technically in an ice age and it may be the higher
    levels of co2 are helping to stave off the cold. it is Better warm so plants can grow.
    I’m curious if hydrogen works out. Toyota has a wild concept on this.

    • Conrad Ziefle says:

      There are books on this Iced Age thing. I have three of them, “Frozen Earth”, “Unstoppable Global Warming”, and “The Little Ice Age”. I think, depending on point of view, we’ve had something like 9 Ice Ages, or one continuous one. In any case, the periods of warmth are short, and we currently are on schedule to start a new cold period at any time. The cold part of the cycle and the warm part have varying lengths, so it is difficult to say when that time is, but I think our current warm period is close to the average length and therefore possibly close to ending. Someone who knows more could say something about that.

  7. Daniel Smeal says:

    Brilliant idea: let’s reduce the production of food to feed the world’s 8 billion people so they will die of starvation while we protect them from climate change.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.