Bad news 2: Runaway global warming imminent? 11 October 04

Let us look at the data from Mauna Loa and then decide if we have cause for panic. The data are available at http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/maunaloa-co2/maunaloa.co2.

When I plot the carbon dioxide concentration against time for the entire duration of the record, I find that the concentration has increased by 0.4% per year since the beginning of the record. Some years are less and some more, but the correlation is excellent, r2 is 0.99. The increase is a geometric progression; it is not an arithmetic progression. The delta from year to year should increase.

IPCC, in all of its modeling, uses an increase of 1% per year to forecast future carbon dioxide concentrations and then incorporates those concentrations into its models. The IPCC procedure (1%/year) predicts that the concentration of carbon dioxide will be 600 ppm in 2050 and 986 ppm in 2100.

When I use the historical rate of increase of 0.4% per year, I forecast the carbon dioxide concentration to be 453 ppm in 2050 and 560 ppm in 2100. The IPCC procedure estimates carbon concentrations that are 2.9 times higher than the extrapolation of the historical record in 2050 and 3.3 times higher in 2100. The extrapolation of the historical record predicts that the concentration of carbon dioxide will not reach 986 ppm until 2219, which is 119 years later than IPCC has assumed. IPCC has not explained why they exaggerate the historical carbon dioxide trend by a factor of 2.5.

By the time the concentration of carbon dioxide reaches the levels that IPCC says might cause significant warming, fossil fuels will be but a dim memory.

Another interesting factoid is that the quantity of carbon dioxide that shows up in the atmosphere is about 40% of the amount of anthropogenic emissions. The remainder apparently reports to biological sinks. Increasing crop yields and spreading forests indicate that the biosphere is putting the extra carbon dioxide to good use.

Mr. McCarthy’s article (the one that you linked) says, “Some scientists think instead that the abrupt speed-up may be evidence of the long-feared climate change “feedback” mechanism, by which global warming causes alterations to the earth’s natural systems and then, in turn, causes the warming to increase even more rapidly than before”. He does not tell us which scientists or attempt to quote them. He then goes on a flight of his own imaginative fancy to speculate what the enhanced feedback will mean to us without even pretending to know that any competent scientist has made similar predictions.

The IPCC feedback mechanism assumes that the concentration of water vapor in the air will increase as the climate warms. IPCC has no proof of that assumption. Water vapor is of course responsible for approximately 95% of the existing greenhouse-like effect. The increased water vapor concentration not the increased carbon dioxide concentration is the vector that is supposed to bring additional warming. In fact, the IPCC models predict a trivial warming from even their version of the future concentrations of carbon dioxide. The increase in water vapor concentration contributes the remainder of their outrageous claims for future temperature changes. Unfortunately, for IPCC, no evidence exists that the average water vapor content of the atmosphere has risen.

One final thought for now. Ask yourself why carbon dioxide concentrations should increase more rapidly in El Nino years than in other years. Is it possible that the warming climate is responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations? Are the oceans shedding carbon dioxide in the same way that a cold beer sheds carbon dioxide as it warms? Could increasing solar output be causing both a warmer climate and a higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Would that explain a correlation between surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration?

Now they can argue with more confidence that it is natural causes accelerating climate change (humans simply having nudged the process). I for one am not happy.

Does runaway climate change mean that each bit of GH emission we reduce will have greater or lesser impact in averting GW (than in an arithmetic, non-runaway scenario)? Or might it just be too late (& perhaps was too late even 10 years ago)?

our human GH emissions, measured at our tailpipes, do not count as much as the Mauna Loa records, and that our anthropogenic emissions are going into the sinks, and it is the earth’s natural emissions that are the ones going into the atmosphere?

GW science from Arrhens (over 100 years ago)on is based on good theory, even if the evidence has been slow in coming. We would not have a liveable world without the natural GH effect. It stands to reason our unnatural releases (or freeing up) of GH gases would have some impact. It also is reasonable to predict a runaway scenario based on ancient records of such (sort of like a quantum leap). As laypeople who live in the world, we don’t need a whole lot of evidence to start abating GW (especially through efficiency). And the more dire the possibilities, such as this runaway GW scenario, the less evidence we need.

the feedback circle is something that has happened before in the planet’s history, without human intervention. that doesn’t mean that the causes are natural this time. once upon a time all forest fires were caused naturally, now some are and some aren’t.

however, whatever the cause of global warming, every little thing any one of us ever does, to reduce carbon output, helps.

you might find that friends and colleagues respond better to the idea that the earth has got itself into trouble and now needs our help. some people get angry when they feel guilty and that makes them less likely to take action.

Arrhenius did propose that accumulating carbon dioxide concentrations might someday cause the climate to warm. He even made some preliminary calculations, which were not very accurate. Arrhenius had no idea of the magnitude of the natural carbon cycle however. Had he known that our current emissions of carbon dioxide are but 5% of the total natural emissions, he might have thought differently. Perhaps not.

You also are correct when you say that life on this planet would be at least different if it was not for the heat delaying properties of the atmosphere. The temperature at which an earth without an atmosphere with those properties would come to equilibrium with space is the object of some conjecture however. The argument has to do with the black or gray body properties of the planet and its albedo and emissivity. Estimates vary between 30 and 60 Celsius degrees lower than the temperature that we enjoy. That might not be inimical to life, but it surely would change the nature of life on the planet.

The effect is not so much like a greenhouse as it is a means of adding hysteresis to the planet’s temperature swing; the atmosphere mitigates the temperature extremes of the planet. It does this in as adobe walls mitigate the temperature swings in a house by slowing the rate at which the planet surface emits heat at night and accumulates heat during the day.

It also is true that the bulk (90% to 95%) of the heat delaying effect is the work of water vapor. Water is a wonderful substance, it enables life, and it protects us from excess heat and excess cold. Furthermore, it expands upon freezing, a property that makes ice skating and life on the planet possible. If water contracted upon freezing as do most substances, the pressure of skate blades would not melt it. In addition, the denser ice would sink to the bottom of the oceans, ultimately leaving a thin layer of liquid water on the surface, a layer that would not provide the adequate rainfall.

It stands to reason that the fossil fuels that we are burning (except perhaps methane) once were trees and dinosaurs. In a sense, we are recycling them. I realize that the preceding is a bit hyperbolic, but amusing.

It may make sense to begin conserving fossil fuels in order to delay exhausting them to the point that they become so expensive that their cost harms our ability to thrive. On the other hand, those conservation efforts that consume more energy than they save, manufacturing ethanol from food crops comes to mind, do not make much sense to me.

The history of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and climate temperatures does not indicate that a runaway scenario has occurred, and therefore I consider such a scenario unlikely.

I’m not sure who this Norbert Beeblebrox character actually is, but I advise readers not to take his comments at face value. All the statistical stuff in the first posting is just intended to mislead – read the real story from the scientists involved here. (Click Graphics button at the top of the page to see the graph showing consistent – and non-linear – rise in CO2 since 1958.) Then recall that the IPCC shows that these levels are unprecedented on Earth for probably 20 million years. Norbert also clearly doesn’t understand how IPCC-cited models represent the water vapour feedback. That isn’t our problem – he needs to read up on it. And finally – “increasing solar output” – the final resort for head-in-the-sand sceptics. Do they really think that if the sun was warming up someone wouldn’t have noticed? Solar output cannot explain the recent warming – hence the IPCC’s conclusion that human emissions of greenhouse gases are almost certainly to blame.

Well, I see that you have fallen to ridicule (i.e. Norbert Beeblebrox) and ad hominem arguments the last resort of debate losers (“increasing solar output” – the final resort for head-in-the-sand skeptics). Did I not just read an article by German researchers who attributed a much larger portion of the observed warming to solar output than IPCC had done previously? However, Mark provides little actual data and analysis in support of his position.

By the way, researchers have noticed variations in solar output and they have noticed that they can correlate solar intensity with sunspot activity. They also have noticed that the late 90s was a period of unusually high solar output in addition to the El Nino years. One researcher even correlates El Nino occurrences with the 11-year solar cycle.

I did refer back to the TAR to refresh my memory of what IPCC has said.  The summary page is at, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm.  It turns out that I have a pretty good understanding of the water vapor feedback hypothesis.  Further, if you read it carefully, it says just what I have been saying – that the GCMs predict that the upper atmosphere will warm before the surface.  It does not admit that the satellite and radiosonde balloon data have failed to find upper air warming.

The summary also made one very interesting statement, one that I had forgotten. Near the bottom, it says, “This is consistent with a positive water vapor feedback, but it still cannot be taken as a direct test of the feedback as the circulation fluctuates in a different way over the seasonal cycle than it does in response to doubling of CO2.” Taken in its context, the sentence means that IPCC has not yet established that their water vapor feedback mechanism actually occurs.

The page also contains some remarks that intimate that IPCC does not have a clue what effect the increased water vapor will have on cloud formation.  They do not know whether the increased cloudiness will be of the kind that reflects incoming solar radiation or the kind that traps it.  So, they guess.

The description of the measurement system says, “using a Siemens Ultramat 3 nondispersive infrared gas analyzer with a water vapor freeze trap”. Hmm, I wonder how they prevent the carbon dioxide from dissolving in the condensate and lowering the concentration measurement. Do you ever wonder about stuff like that?

The version of the carbon dioxide history at Mauna Loa that Mark linked showed the monthly concentrations, and the saw tooth shape. Did you ever wonder why the plot is saw toothed? It is because carbon dioxide concentrations are higher in summer because carbon dioxide is less soluble in warm seawater. Could the high temperatures be causing the higher carbon dioxide concentrations?

I analyzed the annual average data. If you do the arithmetic, the linked article says that the carbon dioxide concentration has risen about 19% in 44 years. That is an average increase of 0.42 percent per year. I used a geometric progression model, which gave me a better correlation coefficient and an annual average increase of 0.0402 percent per year. I believe that all of the calculations that I made can withstand rigorous inspection. Have a go at it.

Come on Mark; give us some technical analysis. All we have seen so far is your opinion.

We lay people do not need a lot of scientific evidence about such a serious problem as anthropogenic GW – 50% certainty would have been more than enough, and we passed that mark early on – to start dramatically reducing our GH emissions. The fact that we can make such reductions, even by three-fourths, while saving money, maintaining our living standard, and reducing many other environmental problems is a great bonus. Of course, for those connected to the fossil fuel industries, such prospects might not be so welcome. The only advice I can offer them is to start diversifying….. Maybe get into solar or wind energy, perhaps hydrogen fuel cells…. I think BP is doing something along those lines.

Okay, I apologise for ridiculing your name, norbertzangox. But is that what it really is? I find it difficult to communicate on level terms with these strange internet names that people use. You use the same name on Tech Central Station (a site I detest, for obvious reasons!).

Secondly, can I move this debate to a different level than trading information about different bits of science? My main problem is that I don’t have time to chase up every single one of your questions – I’m sorry for that too.

Really this is a matter of principle. I believe that if you have a problem or a complaint about the data collection or statistical analysis employed by one or other scientific study, you need to communicate that to the researchers and academics involved. Of course I don’t know whether CO2 is likely to “dissolve in the concentrate” of a Siemens Ultramat 3 nondispersive infrared gas analyzer with a water vapor freeze trap. I put up my hands and admit that. But if you want to take issue with the Mauna Loa study, or the ice cores or any of this stuff, you need to take it to the guys involved, not to me.

I hope this doesn’t look like a cop-out. As a layperson myself, I have no choice but to submit to the consensus on the climate issue that has been reached by people trained and competent in their fields. As the main international body, this is articulated best by the IPCC, and through peer-reviewed journals like Science and Nature. I haven’t the skill or training to pick apart every study that is published. Maybe you do – and if you succeed in getting something published in one of the relevant peer-reviewed journals, I’ll gladly take it on board.

Mark

Yes, Norbert Zangox is a nom de plume. My actual name would not tell you anything more about me than the things that I write. (Try a Google on Zangox.) I use the alias because I prefer anonymity.

I can tell you a bit about me. I am a Ph.D. registered professional engineer. My career in environmental engineering spans more than 30 years, mostly in air pollution technology. I have worked for local and state pollution control agencies, research institutes and consulting engineering firms throughout my career.

I believe that I am competent by training and experience to understand the issues of climate change.

I have communicated directly with researchers on many occasions. Some have welcomed my input, others have bristled at my temerity, and a few have ignored me. I have never held a professional position in any aspect of climate change research. I do not publish because I have nothing to add to the mass of technical information. I have had letters to the editor published in technical journals.

I do not wish to take issue with the Mauna Loa laboratory; I am certain that they have handled the water vapor problem adequately. (The issue of geometric progression vs. arithmetic progression of the carbon dioxide data does not change the conclusion that IPCC has overestimated the rate of increase by a factor of 2.5.) The condensate question was rhetorical, as are most of my questions and statements. My goal is to get you and others like you to step back and have a critical look at the IPCC, its positions, its goals, and its practices.

IPCC is a political entity. It is a portion of the UN, which is the mother of all political entities. IPCC is composed mostly of politicians from the many countries. The IPCC commissions scientists to study and report on the many technical aspects of the overall problem. Those scientists prepare technical documents that assess particular research areas. IPCC receives those documents and edits them for publication in the assessment reports.

There is no consensus of scientists; there is only an IPCC document. Many of the scientists who have contributed to those documents strongly disagree with the conclusions that IPCC has put into them. The conclusions in the technical documents always are more hedged and less positive than the conclusions that IPCC places in the assessment reports. There is no consensus of scientists totally convinced that anthropogenic global warming is fact.

Many scientists who have participated are highly critical of the assessment reports. Vincent Gray, Fred Singer, John Christy, and Richard Lindzen come to mind. These competent scientists have honest doubts about the IPCC version of the science. I have mentioned some of the questionable aspects of the IPCC version in the few items that I have posted here. They include questions about the accuracy of the historical carbon dioxide concentration data, the accuracy of the surface temperature record (I have not touched on the accuracy of the surface temperature data over the oceans.) The methods by which IPCC projects future populations, economies, and fossil fuel use rates are highly questionable.

Consider this. How are we going to increase our use of fossil fuels at four times the historical rate of increase and maintain that rate of increase for a century in the face of dwindling supplies? That is a serious question. I believe that we cannot. Yet IPCC demands that all modeling of future temperatures use the higher rate.

I see the slurs thrown at the skeptics I named and other skeptics who doubt the global warming litany of IPCC; you have seen them too. (When did skeptic become an epithet; it formerly described a person of science who pointed out the problems in the extant analysis) Accusers damn them as having sold out to the energy companies. Can we look for a moment at where the real money is in this charade?

Kyoto is an economic document. It will require the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from the western democracies to third world countries. Many of the receiving countries are dictatorships; of course, they support Kyoto. Whom, do you think will gain benefit of the money? Will it be the citizens or those who govern? Who has more incentive to exaggerate?

Full implementation of the unaltered first draft of the Kyoto protocol would have decreased the IPCC model predictions by less than a tenth of a Celsius degree. Kyoto backers now say, “Well, it is just a first step”. What is the next step and how many steps will we need? I understand that we would need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90% to satiate the IPCC computer models. We cannot do it without destroying all of our economic and social institutions; it is not possible. Ergo, my contention that our best course is to continue the research while maintaining strong economies so that we will have the resources to respond should climate change cause adverse conditions to develop.

You may be just a layman, but you have the ability to open your mind and read some of the things that the skeptics write. Try reading some of Pat Michaels’ work. Vincent Gray wrote a book called Greenhouse Delusion (find at http://www.multi-science.co.uk/greendelu.htm), which is a short and easy read. You can mull it over and decide for yourself which set of arguments makes most sense. That is what I did.

Here is a start.

Observation: the climate appears to be warming.

First hypothesis: Anthropogenic emissions (which constitute about 6% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the air) of carbon dioxide (which causes about 3% of the heat retention of the atmosphere), might retain enough heat to increase the humidity (95% of the heat retention) enough that the poles and high altitudes will have to endure less cold minimum temperatures.

Second hypothesis: The intensity of the sun is increasing; the hotter sun is warming the planet.

Remember Occam’s Razor.

(The real world is not necessarily as elegant as a mathematical theorem.) We can’t do anything about the sun, but we can do much about our emissions. I’ve written of the positive consequences of reducing GH emissions (whether or not they are causing GW). We reduced our emissions by ½ to 2/3, then went on to Green Mountain wind power for electricity, reducing our emissions much further, down to less than 1/4 of our 1990 emissions. Our living standard has actually increased and we have a net $avings from all our reduction measures. Imagine when we really get serious about GW and start sacrificing to reduce emissions. I am sure we can make it down to 1/10 of our 1990 emissions, and still have a decent lifestyle. In macroeconomic terms it does not make economic sense to run an economy well within the production possibilities frontier – and the U.S. is grossly far from that frontier, simply considering current technology and off-the-shelf efficiency and conservation measures we could be taking. Quite frankly, I think we are headed to economic disaster by staying on our current path, even without factoring in GW and its possible high costs.

I understand change is scary. It must have seemed so thousands of years ago when Greek ship builders ran out of plentiful timber; it made them use wood more efficiently, and they ended up developing a stronger ship that eventually paved the way for crossing the Atlantic. Let us bravely take that first baby step envisioned in the Kyoto treaty, or at least make changes in our own lives, if the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty. I started 15 years ago with a buying a single compact fluorescent bulb, and took it a tiny step at a time. I have a wonderful feeling that much good and a better world will come of it. You can read the works of Amory Lovins (an engineer) and the Rocky Mountain Institute, including Natural Capitalism, if you need some inspiration.

Anthropologist Roy Rappaport concluded that the environment is very complex, science is far from understanding it completely, and what we need is a religious reverence or respect for it. He also wrote about the environment as being fundamental, while the economy is contingent. We cannot reduce our biological needs for air, water, and a diversity of nutrients into monetary values, which equate all; for instance, you don’t feed the baby dirt because its cheaper, or eat diamonds because its more prestigious to do so.

therefore, we must use our energy and ingenuity to find means to deal with whatever climate change comes our way. Your premise appears based on the assumption that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a significant factor in the ongoing climate warming. I disagree and that is what this debate is about. Be that as it may, I see some other problems with your analysis.

I think that you do not have a clear idea of what your total carbon dioxide emissions are.  I seem to remember that you wrote about a high efficiency refrigerator, though I cannot find the comment now.  At the time that I read it, I wondered if you adjusted your estimate of your carbon dioxide emissions to account for the carbon dioxide emitted during creation of the extra insulation and the other differences between your device and the standard model.

In addition, the amount of carbon dioxide over which you have direct control is only a small part of the total emitted by the society in which you live.  Construction, farming, manufacture and transportation of goods, producing newspapers, production of medicines and delivery of health care, all emit carbon dioxide.  Reduction of emissions by 90% would require concomitant curtailment of all of those activities.

You may be getting wind-generated electricity at rates that compare favorably to the rates that utilities charge, but that is only true because of the huge subsidies given to wind-generated electricity.  Federal law requires that utilities purchase power from novel generators.  Some utilities offer subscribers the opportunity to pay a premium to help support the wind generators; they rarely get enough takers to offset the additional cost of the power.  The remainder the utility divides among all of its customers.  However, the cost that the utility pays for the wind-generated power is approximately half of its real cost.  The other half we pay directly to the generators in the form of tax credits, low cost construction loan guarantees and other means of transfer of the cost to taxpayers.

The concept that the prospect of change is scary is not at work here.  Reducing carbon dioxide emissions by even the 10% that Kyoto requires would cause extreme disruption in all of the world's economies.  The effect of a rapid, 90% reduction is unimaginable.  A 90% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions is in our future.  We will use fossil fuels until their cost becomes exorbitant relative to other technology and we will slowly stop using them.  I suspect that within 100 years fossil fuel use will be a subject for history classes.

I am familiar with Amory Lovins, but I do not share your enthusiasm for his work.

While it is true that we cannot live without air and water, it is not true that we must choose between those necessities and a successful economy.  If his book suggests that such a choice is necessary, he is wrong.  The converse is true; richer societies have cleaner environments.

I strongly disagree with the contention that we must have a religious reverence for our environment.  We must understand it and we must decide what level of environmental augmentation we can and will afford.

I have never tried to feed dirt to a baby, but I know that they will eat it if you don't watch them carefully.

I’m glad you raised the issue. Nearly every product and action has its GH emissions component—from resource extraction to product disposal. Water needs energy to pump & heat it. There are other GH gases to consider, etc.

There are the 5 Rs of environmentalism: use RENEWABLE energy, REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE & buy RECYCLED goods. For instance, most recycling results in net energy savings, especially aluminum; recycling aluminum also saves rainforests that would be harmed from bauxite mining. And I, for one, do have a RESPECT for God’s creation. Knowing how science operates, I realize that we don’t know it all, and that the future scientists will think this generation was pretty backwards in our knowledge about nature, not to mention lacking in wisdom.

Now, I cannot control the GH emissions of businesses and industries much. I can reduce or abstain from things I do not need, or that do not add to my happiness or quality of life. When I found out that Jewel, a grocery store chain in the Chicagoland area, had become more energy efficient, I started shopping there instead of at rival stores. They had gone on the Green Lights program, reducing lighting energy costs by 3/4 by installing new electronic ballast light fixtures with reflectors & half the number of tubes – a project which paid for itself in 1 year, and has gone on to save them $1 million per year ever since, without reducing their lighting output. There is much more businesses and industries can do (3M’s 3P-Pollution Prevention Paysand Dow’s WRAPWaste Reduction Always Pays-programs come to mind), and that is where Amory Lovins comes in to help industries drastically reduce energy use and costs without lowering productivity. He used to talk about factor 4 (saving 3/4 energy), and is now talking factor 10 in some cases by “tunneling though.” One case had to do with simply realigning pipes and going to a much smaller motor. I think you have not read his book, NATURAL CAPITALISM. He bases his projections for a better, cleaner, more energy efficient AND more productive future on actual cases around the world.

As for my SunFrost refrigerator, it is so efficient (factor 10) that within a few years its efficiency would have offset the GH gases involved in its production.

I have this futuristic vision of product tags having on them lots of info that can be scanned, including the their GH gas component. People’s inventiveness never fails to amaze me. If we can do factor 4 (and 10 in some cases) right now with off-the-self technology, imagine how much more we could do if the world (especially creative, inventive Americans) took the threat of anthropogenic global warming seriously, and were more focused on finding ways to reduce our emissions.

I keep before me a mental image of starving African Madonna and Child drought victims, whom I am harming through my GH emissions. This motivates me, perhaps as the photos of Jacabamba Glacier motivate Mark. (By the way, have you read his book??) I really do hope that the future will find me to be a silly, misguided person, because GW was just a crazy myth. I hope you and not I are right. But I’ll keep on being a fool, if that be the case, taking a cloth hanky to dry my hands in public restrooms, thinking I can reduce my harm. Mother Teresa said that it doesn’t matter how little you do to help, as long as you do it with love, because love makes it infinite. Of course, you cannot scientifically prove or disprove that, but I believe it is more true than any (ephemeral) scientific truth.

OK, for the record My name is Peter Hearnden and I’m a farmer from the UK. I put my name to what I write, right or wrong.

Right, Norberto whoever you are not prepared to say you are (I wonder why the secrecy?), please explain this: “First hypothesis: Anthropogenic emissions (which constitute about 6% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the air) of carbon dioxide (which causes about 3% of the heat retention of the atmosphere), might retain enough heat to increase the humidity (95% of the heat retention) enough that the poles and high altitudes will have to endure less cold minimum temperatures.”

Where does the 6% figure come from? 6% of what? Clearly CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 370ppm plus in the atmosphere and it’s come from somewhere (we can correct our Polish friend’s ideas and glaring errors too if you like?). The clear answer is US. Not 6% but 100% of the extra CO2 is due to us, some 90 pmm, that’s most certainly not 6% now is it! Now, I suppose you’re including all emissions, like those ‘emissions’ that must go in and out of plants each day.That’s ‘Reagan’ science that doesn’t fool me ;)

3% of the ‘heat retention’? Meaning what and say’s who and where? 95% of the ‘heat retention’ – eh, what? The truth is CO2 causes about 7C (yes, just 280ppm does this!) of the gh effect, water vapour 21C or so, ozone and other minor ghg’s the rest. We muck about with CO2 levels at our peril!

Norbert travels around the enviro blogs an sows his little seed, then moves on.

Don’t feed him and he’ll go away.

Dano

Hi Peter,

I am addicted to this site. I admire people like you from the UK. You are a farmer and someone who is knowledgeable about climate science.

I wrote a blog about reducing methane emissions and confess that my understanding is limited. It seems logical that reducing methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) by harvesting the gas instead would be a helpful idea if more fully implemented.

Lynn, who lives in Texas, responded back with a very informed response of how this is already being done. Lynn mentioned how India harvests organic methane sources on a routine basis. I even wonder how much India may have helped reduce global warming, as a nation, from their activities from the result of reducing organic methane emissions through harvesting them.

When you have the time, I would like you to read my earlier blog on Reducing Methane Emissions. I wonder if you can shed any additional insight since I am very curious about the effects of reducing methane releases from nature by using it instead. I read that methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

The effect of reducing methane emissions is what I am most curious about rather than ways of harvesting which is also an interest. By switching the source of methane we use as a fuel from deep well deposits to harvesting what would normally be organic releases appears to be more powerful than merely reducing carbon.

I fully realize that this is only part of the total solution and carbon reductions will still be required. I also think that our best efforts to reduce carbon emissions may be insufficient and we need additional ideas to successfully mitigate the effects climate change.

This idea is not new but has caught my imagination and I wonder how much it could help if more fully implemented. So, I think that your thoughts may be of benefit because you are a farmer and you may know something that would at least help quench my curiosity.

Best Regards, Dan

Ditto Lynn. I share your philosophy and I could not have given a better response. I enjoyed reading it and much of what you post.

What ever happened to Norbit?

Maybe he is digesting the food of thought provided to him by you and others.