Methane and global warming - don't blame the trees 23 January 06

The key point made by Keppler is that 227 billion tonnes of CO2 is taken up by plants each year. This is over 10 times human induced emissions og CO2 from fossil fuel burning.

The only problem is that when plants decay, most of that CO2 is returned to teh atmosphere. The trick is to help nature store that CO2 permanently. One small example can be seen at www.organicbuilding.co.nz

The Guardian had to eat humble pie and print this apology in the Corrections and Clarifications column on the 16th of January, “The headline on a news feature about new research into the production of methane by plants – Global warming: blame the forests – overstated the more circumspect case outlined in the article, which said that plants emit up to 30% of the methane, a greenhouse gas, entering the Earth’s atmosphere (page 11, January 12). Scientists have just discovered this, but to conclude that it is a new cause of rising temperatures is mistaken.”

I hope they feel suitably embarrassed at making an error that is more typical of the tabloids. As for Melanie Phillips rantings they are best ignored – bad for the blood pressure. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she just self-combusted some day. She does get herself into a bit of a tizz.

In the meantime I found a couple more “glass half full” items out there. Try this at the Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/20/7194/94155 Michael Mann and colleagues being interviewed about the Hockey Stick and related matters. A useful summary of some of the key points in the debate put in more accessible “conversational” style. And there is Nicky Gavron on the London Climate Change Agency here on the Climate Group site http://www.theclimategroup.org/index.php?pid=615

Douglas Coker

makes the leaves emit more methane. So indirectly we are responsible for those extra emissions that are due to the warming.

A mature person acknowledges his/her wrong-doing & tries to mend it. Human nature makes us want to shirk our responsibilities & shift blame; we need grace & strength of character to face up to these.

Wait, let me guess. Norb logic goes like this: ‘The Guardian is written by journalists. The Guardian gets it wrong. Mark Lynas is a journalist. Therefore, Mark Lynas gets it wrong. Duuh.’

Wooah – our pet contrarian is in attack mode. Maybe he’ll self combust if we press his buttons enough.

Douglas Coker

My point was that journalism usually is advocacy rather than science. I looked at Ms. Phillips’ web site and see that her science education is approximately equal to yours – nil –, so I suspect that neither of you can claim superior technical insight. I acknowledge that in this case, your interpretation seems closer to the meaning of the research paper than does Ms. Phillips’.

I read a line in a novel that has stuck with me. I’ll paraphrase. The author allowed that everyone is expert at something and has had the experience of reading a newspaper article about the subject of his expertise and having observed that the reporting was superficial and inaccurate. He then asked, “Why does anyone believe anything that he reads in a newspaper?” You can substitute “news media” for “newspaper”.

But, more than that, I was gently needling Douglas for expressing his frustration with journalist’s ability to get the science right while fully accepting your descriptions of the same science. It implies that he has respect for the sources that support his beliefs while discounting those that do not. Moreover, what does that say about his impartiality when he reads about climate science?

I read that the rate at which the concentration of methane is increasing in the atmosphere has been decreasing, and that it is now near constant. I wonder what, if anything, that means about the rate of emission of methane by trees. Is the rate of methane emission decreasing because the concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing? Or, are the two unrelated?

I am more than happy with my ability to deal with media content thank you. I make no claim to be impartial – indeed I recall reading in my undergraduate days that “You can be so open-minded that your brains fall out”. I’ve always remembered that. I also recognise that you can be so stubborn that you just go round and round in your own, increasingly irrelevant, little circle.

I think this world could be and should be a much better place. I take this value judgement to be axiomatic. I am not a relativist.

I have a very well developed set of skills which help me judge what to believe and what to dismiss. Again, from my undergraduate days, I recall reading that having a fully functioning, well maintained “bullshit detector” is very useful. My BS detector is up and running and has been put to good use on many occasions especially in the last couple of years. I’ve learned there are some people worth engaging with and some it’s better to ignore.

For examples of how I put this approach into practice see all my posts below and pop over to Open Democracy and dig up the politics of climate change debate of last year in which I participated.

Douglas Coker

Not sure where he got it-from his geologist father, from formal education, and/or from studying on his own-but he has it.

And Mark did a marvelous thing to quit his regular journalist job to go around the world and get in depth stories about GW, from both scientists & victims of GW. Have you actually read HIGH TIDE? I imagine the research he is now doing is very immense for his new book, SIX DEGREES, which I hope comes out soon. I’ve even suggested that he doesn’t need so much science for reasonable people (not to mention that before the ink dries, new science will likely be coming out with more robust & grimmer findings, according to the trend), but I guess he’s perhaps thinking to convince the hard cases.

Luckily most solutions don’t require rocket science knowledge. Or, how many people does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent bulb? One moron. Or, three scientists. One to do the study, one to analyze and present the results, and one to screw it in. And as for the contrarians, well they aren’t able to do it, but they are writing a 700 page treatise on why it shouldn’t be done.

The effect of methane on global warming may have been ignored by government, press and environmental groups alike but it has been known about for a while.

It is largely ignored because it doesn’t tie in with the dogma of these organisations.

For those interested, an article by Duncan Graham Rowe appeared in the New Scientist 26/02/2005 titled ‘Hydro’s Dirty Secret Revealed’ highlighting the problem of methane production (in this case as a result of the ‘clean’ use of hydorelectric power).

The NS web site is v unfriendly and won’t let me access this article. Can you post the whole thing here?

Douglas Coker