Climate Bolloxolgy.

You are right on both counts, but there was no need for the but. That's a "look over there" tactic. It all needs to be addressed.

Cutting methane in livestock is a red herring as it feeds into the lobby group anti-farm, anti-rural way of thinking. Yes it needs to be reduced, yet naturally the number of livestock in Europe has being going down. Yet, we're all told the cows are killing us so we must reduce the herd. As was shown in this thread previously, methane from fossil fuels is hugely underestimated. I'm no scientist, but cow numbers down, fossil fuel use up and methane levels up does not lead the finger of blame to the cows. We need some brave soul to start testing the isotopes from the methane to pinpoint which industry it comes from.

Of, lets not forget livestock methane is part of the biogenic cycle. They aren't producing more or releasing more. Hence - cycle. The auld fracking and all that malarkey is releasing NEW methane.

And it's this sort of nonsense that annoys me, and others. It's a pick on the farmer approach cos the majority of people don't have a connection to their food, don't value their food, don't value the environmental efforts of farmers and are just told they are bastards. Yet they still want to be fed.

I feel I'm ranting now :-)

Methane and CO2 are natural gases and can be absorbed. I don’t think F (man made) gases can. Given our society how do we go about reducing our need on f gases-refrigeration, air conditioning, fire extinguishers, aerosols to name a few

I'm presuming the methane released is methane that was previously released and is being reused. Net gain = 0 over time. It's a cycle. Fracking and the like is releasing new methane that was stored millions of years ago, and is then "new".

Look at methane levels throughout history when the # of livestock was static. Then us humans come along and start fossil fuels and the amount in the atmosphere grows, exponentially.

No idea but should be targeted. Is it being targeted or is it just the cows?

My argument is that the methane they "produce", is the same methane as was there before it turned to CO2. There isn't a net gain over time - it's relatively static in line with the number of animals. Of course then, reducing the number will reduce the methane emissions. It's a cycle, and is the same level year on year. Increases in methane are driven by factors that aren't livestock.

And never said we don't need to worry about it. We need to worry about it across all spectrums and reducing the herd isn't the only answer. It's a teeny tiny part.

We've always had billions of animals in the world, but methane levels have only really risen in the last couple of hundred years. See https://www.methanelevels.org/

Global cattle numbers - https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-population-since-1990/ (see the way it's static but the methane graph is gone bananas?)

What else happened a couple hundred years ago? Mass transportation, mass production of all sorts of rubbish, mass waste of everything and mass growth in human population.

It's never the fossil fuels fault 😣

And that methane is converted to CO2, and then stored. Then released as methane, changed to CO2 and stored. Look up the biogenic cycle. Amount of methane in the atmosphere is not increasing due to ruminants. It's static, and linked to ruminant numbers. Methane has gone up in the past number of years, ruminant numbers gone down.

Correct the methane created by that cow wouldn’t be there, but if the cow didn’t eat the grass the co2 wouldn’t be consumed by the soil to produce more grass leaving more co2 in the atmosphere

As roosterman is saying there’s a cycle

Are you sure it’s 100 times? Grass will only grow to a certain level, once it hits that threshold a new blade will replace an older one.

I mean do people not produce methane, as part of our digestion cycle. So directly I guess?

300 million in 50 years? Is that additional cows or replacement of wild buffalo and the like? I can't find overall numbers. Maybe point me in the direction. Yer right though, 300 million would increase methane. They have to be fed so they eat the grass. By eating it then that stimulates more to grow. It won't grow unless it's grazed. It will eventually stop. Therefore using carbon that was previously released.

Cut down the Amazon if ya like. Just replace all the trees. Ya'll be even stephen then once the new trees start capturing carbon. Don't old trees stop taking it in after a while?

Quick win here re: methane is to stop fracking and extraction of fossil fuels. Stop adding more that hasn't been released in millions of years, not the stuff that was there 12 years ago and was converted to CO2 and then taken back into the soil. Ya know, the cycle 😁