New Research: Methane Emissions From Livestock Have No Detectable Effect On The Climate

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Agrobiologist and scientific researcher Dr. Albrecht Glatzle, author of over 100 scientific papers and two textbooks, has published research that shows “there is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate” and that the “warming potential of anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions has been exaggerated”.

Image Source: Glatzle, 2018

Glatzle, 2018

Domestic Livestock and Its
Alleged Role in Climate Change

Abstract:

Our key conclusion is there is no need for anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and even less so for livestock-born emissions, to explain climate change. Climate has always been changing, and even the present warming is most likely driven by natural factors. The warming potential of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been exaggerated, and the beneficial impacts of manmade CO2 emissions for nature, agriculture, and global food security have been systematically suppressed, ignored, or at least downplayed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and other UN (United Nations) agencies. Furthermore, we expose important methodological deficiencies in IPCC and FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) instructions and applications for the quantification of the manmade part of non-CO2-GHG emissions from agro-ecosystems. However, so far, these fatal errors inexorably propagated through scientific literature. Finally, we could not find a clear domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of mean atmospheric methane concentration.”

Key Points:

1. “In order to get the effective manmade part of the emissions from managed ecosystems, one has to subtract the baseline emissions of the respective native ecosystems or of the pre-climate changemanaged ecosystems from those of today’s agro-ecosystems (Figure 4). Omitting this correction leads to a systematic overestimation of farm-born non-CO2 GHG emissions. Scientific publications generally do not take this consideration into account, as farm-born CH4 and N2O emissions are consistently interpreted at a 100% level as an additional anthropogenic GHG source, just like fossil fuel-born CO2. As the mentioned IPCC guidelines [2007] are taken for the ultimate reference, this severe methodological deficiency propagated through scientific literature.”
2. “Dung patches concentrate the nitrogen ingested from places scattered across the pasture.  Nichols et al. [2016] found no significant differences between emission factors from the patches and the rest of the pasture, which means the same amount of nitrous oxide is emitted whether or not the herbage passes livestock’s intestines. However, the IPCC and FAO do consider mistakenly all nitrous oxide leaking from manure as livestock-born and therefore manmade.”
3. “Between 1990 and 2005, the world cattle population rose by more than 100 million head (according to FAO statistics). During this time, atmospheric methane concentration stabilized completely. These empirical observations show that livestock is not a significant player in the global methane budget [Glatzle, 2014]. This appreciation has been corroborated by Schwietzke et al. [2016] who suggested that methane emissions from fossil fuel industry and natural geological seepage have been 60–110% greater than previously thought.”
4. “When looking to the global distribution of average methane concentrations as measured by ENVISAT (Environmental Satellite) [Schneising et al., 2009] and the geographical distribution of domestic animal density, respectively [Steinfeld et al., 2006], no discernible relationship between both criteria was found [Glatzle, 2014].”
5. “Although the most recent estimates of yearly livestock-born global methane emissions came out 11% higher than earlier estimates [Wolf et al., 2017], we still cannot see any discernible livestock fingerprint in the global methane distribution (Figure 6).”
6. “The idea of a considerable livestock contribution to the global methane budget relies on theoretical bottom-up calculations. Even in recent studies, e.g., [Mapfumo et al., 2018], just the emissions per animal are measured and multiplied by the number of animals. Ecosystemic interactions and baselines over time and space are generally ignored [Glatzle, 2014]. Although quite a number of publications, such as the excellent most recent FCRN report (Food Climate Research Network) [2017], do discuss extensively ecosystemic sequestration potentials and natural sources of GHGs, they do not account for baseline emissions from the respective native ecosystems when assessing manmade emissions of non-CO2 GHGs from managed ecosystems. This implies a systematic overestimation of the warming potential, particularly when assuming considerable climate sensitivity to GHG emissions.”
7. “[W]e could not find a domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of the atmospheric methane concentration. Consequently, in science, politics, and the media, climate impact of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been systematically overstated. Livestock-born GHG emissions have mostly been interpreted isolated from their ecosystemic context, ignoring their negligible significance within the global balance. There is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate.”
8. “[E]ven LA Chefs Column [Zwick, 2018], in spite of assuming a major global warming impact of methane, came to the conclusion: ‘When methane is put into a broader rather than a reductive context, we all have to stop blaming cattle (‘cows’) for climate change.'”
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

18 responses to “New Research: Methane Emissions From Livestock Have No Detectable Effect On The Climate”

  1. Methane Emissions From Livestock Have No Detectable Effect On The Climate – Truth is difficult but essential; to find, to understand, to accept

    […] No Tricks Zone – New Research: Methane Emissions From Livestock Have No Detectable Effect On T… […]

  2. Yonason

    WHAT’S UNDER YOUR BED?

    How much H2O, CO2, and Methane are in the atmosphere? Here’s a nifty illustration.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI&feature=youtu.be

    Time for those who are fearful of CO2 and methane to grow up.

    1. SebastianH

      Another of those instances where you “feel” like a small amount of something surely has no consequence for the balance of things?

      1. Yonason

        “Another of those instances where you “feel”…”SebH

        No one wrote about feeling anything, troll.

        Keep your paws to yourself.

  3. Don from OZ

    Thanks Yonason That is a NIFTY explanation.
    Pity that David Attenborough hasn’t seen it before he has gone to a conference on Climate change where he is painting a picture of gloom and doom.
    In relation to the above post (thanks Kenneth) Glatzle (from Paraguay?) states animal growth over a number of years has increased by 100 million head. By comparison humans are increasing at 83 million/year!

    1. SebastianH

      In relation to the above post (thanks Kenneth) Glatzle (from Paraguay?) states animal growth over a number of years has increased by 100 million head. By comparison humans are increasing at 83 million/year!

      Next time don’t ignore the average life expectancy of livestock and humans.

  4. Penelope

    And even the arctic methane which would be released by hypothetical warming is not a threat:

    “Research continues on this frontier of climate science. Such as this good news, that much of the arctic tundra might absorb methane, not release it: “An active atmospheric methane sink in high Arctic mineral cryosols” by M C Y Lau et al, The ISME Journal, August 2015. Here’s an ungated copy. The Princeton press release tells the story.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/24/the-easy-solution-to-the-looming-monster-methane-apocalypse/

    It also covers methane-eating bacteria; if it warms they’ll eat 5-30 times as much. It also tells you what the IPCC says about methane. Well, 3 years ago, anyway.

  5. Skeptik

    Actually this paper is very much in line with what the “standard” GHG theory would lead one to expect. We can see this immediately if we compare the log of the “CO2 equivalent” with the log of CO2 as used in the various scenarios for the CMIP5 models. Of course, the idea of CO2 equivalent might be wrong – but it is a direct consequence of standard GHG theory.

    It seems to me that the methane alarmists simply don’t understand the theory that they claim to champion!

  6. SebastianH

    Agrobiologist and scientific researcher Dr. Albrecht Glatzle, author of over 100 scientific papers and two textbooks, has published research […]

    Do I smell an “appeal to authority”? Why else establish that this guy should be viewed as a hard working scientist?

    Don’t you find it strange that googling the name of this scientist only reveals climate skeptic websites talking about him? That alone should make you very skeptic about the validity of his research. Could it be possible that only amateur climate skeptic websites found out “the truth” and everyone else is ignoring it because it seems inconvenient? Or is it more likely that it’s the opposite? Let Occam’s razor decide 😉

  7. sasquatch

    A study which can corroborate the assertion that methane from livestock has a negligible effect on climate and climate change:

    Deforestation and methane release from termites in Amazonia

    “The changes in methane emissions from termite population change after deforestation were calculated using two approaches: “Cumulative net emissions” for the region, which measure the 10-year impact of a year’s forest clearing (e.g. 1.38·106 ha in 1990), increase by 0.0001 to 0.11 Tg CH4 in the 10 year-period in both scenarios, a negligible contribution to the increase of atmospheric methane concentrations of 45 Tg·yr−1. The “annual balance of net methane emissions” from termites in all the different landscapes existing in the whole region in a single year (1990) increases by only 0.004 to 0.33 Tg CH4 (low- and high-end scenario) because of the large proportion of old clearings (>10 years old) with low methane emission rates: Termite populations do not tend to increase as a function of the available wood mass only and therefore methane emissions from termites in cleared areas of former rain forest do not make a significant contribution to the increase of the global methane concentrations in the atmosphere.”

  8. Yonason

    For every stupid idea, there are dozens of Leftists waiting in line to embrace it.

    Take Kalifornia for instance, which has a “solution” to the methane problem.
    https://lidblog.com/california-it-anti-methane-cow-fart-bill/

    And the stupider the idea, the longer the line.

  9. walt c

    And yet, the damage has been done. There are those who will always embrace the original horror story.

  10. New Research: Methane Emissions From Livestock Have No Detectable Effect On The Climate | Land & Livestock International, Inc.

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  11. Bits and Pieces – 20181209, Sunday | thePOOG

    […] You can now eat your Big Mac without guilt: New Research: Methane Emissions From Livestock Have No Detectable Effect On The Climate. […]

  12. “Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #338 | Watts Up With That?
  13. Bestefars – Metangass brukes fremdeles av Klimamenigheten for å skremme dere. Slapp av. Den er ikke farlig. Naturen ordner opp selv.

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close