Study shows enteric methane has no impact on atmosphere

It’s been raining consistently in the North for a few days. This is great news and I assume the drought has broken for now. David Carter attributed the drought to climate change. I don’t know what this rain says about climate change, we’ll have to wait and see what David Carter says, he’s the expert.

A study which was presented by Dr Bryce Buddle, an AgResearch scientist and Peter Hutton, a Massey University lecturer produced this graph which demonstrates that despite accelerated increases in ruminant numbers there has been no equivalent increase in global methane concentrations.

They explain “the link between atmospheric methane and ruminant population growth seems to have broken down” Further they say   ” it does suggest a need to reassess the contribution of livestock production to the entire process (global warming).”

This is what we at PFCR have been calling for all along.

David Carter and his fellow climate geniuses at MAF have argued that ruminant livestock have contributed to changes in atmospheric concentrations of methane. The evidence they put up to support this claim is the correlation between increasing livestock numbers and an increase in atmospheric methane is proof

Not only was this evidence circumstantial and flimsy, it has now evaporated on them. The link they thought existed does not. They now have no evidence whatsoever that increasing ruminant livestock numbers increase the concentration of atmospheric methane.

(I should not be so hard on Carter, he is not the only fool, Nick Smith is another.)

No scientist anywhere has disputed what we say that steady state emissions of enteric methane have no effect on the concentration of methane in the atmosphere. It is physical impossibility for it to do so, and this it seems is universally accepted. Steady state enteric methane accounts for 97-98% of all enteric methane produced in NZ.

While it is physically possible for the other 2-3 % of enteric methane, which is produced from increased output, to have an effect this has never been established, it has only ever been assumed.   Well now this evidence produced by Dr Bryce Buddle and Peter Hutton not only questions the assumption, it indicates that the fairer assumption we should make is that there is no correlation between them and that livestock methane, whether steady state or not, has no effect on the atmosphere whatsoever.

Even the role of fossil sourced methane is being questioned. This is because the concentration of atmospheric methane is not increasing as was predicted. It is constant and therefore methane can not be causing global warming, it is a physical impossibility.

The climate scientists can not explain why methane is stable in the atmosphere. They know very little about methane so they usually just guess. It seems what little they know is decreasing even further every day, just like the atmospheric concentration of methane. They are indeed climate chumps. The two explanations they offer are that the Trans Siberian gas pipelines used to leak so badly prior to the fall of the Soviet Union and now the leaks have been fixed. The second explanation is that deforestation is reducing the methane output of the rainforests and other forestry. (funny I thought they were telling us that forests were carbon sinks not a methane sources.)

Both explanations fail to impress me.

Research physicist Dr Tom Quirk M.Sc., D.Phil., M.A. (Oxon), SMP (Harv.), a former University lecturer, fellow of three Oxford Colleges, and a board member of the Australian based Institute of Public Affairs, said in a report about atmospheric methane.

“Measurements over the last fifteen years show only natural variability. They provide no justification for any attempts to reduce methane from industrial or agricultural activity.”

“Already the assumed adverse future consequences of atmospheric methane increases are called into question. In fact, measurements over the last fifteen years fail to indicate a reason why action relating to methane from industrial or agricultural activity is justified.”

He also questions why Government policy to deal with global warming even includes methane in the first place. There is certainly no justification for it and it should be removed from Kyoto forthwith.

I can not think why any farmer supports their levy money being spent researching ways to reduce livestock emissions of methane when it has never been established that they need reducing. What is more, all the evidence indicates they do not need reducing. If I was paying levies to Dairy NZ or Beef and Lamb I would object to them wasting my money!

There is no justification for one more cent being spent on this fruitless research until the role livestock play in the concentration of atmospheric methane is established. I think that is a reasonable request, that is what PFCR seeks and it seems Dr Bryce Buddle of Agresearch and Peter Hutton of Massey University support this.

We want to drive this message home to the Government this year, I can’t do it alone, you are helping immensly by being members in PFCR but we do need more, thousands more, your neighbours and your friends becoming involved is the only way we are going to achieve success. We need many thousands of dollars to make the impact we need to, even with the science behind us, this is a political battle and that takes money. Just $50 from everyone and we will get the Government to back down and desist with the nonsense. When faced with the science they will have no choice as long as enough pressure is put on them through the media. That’s where the money and the strength of our membership comes in. You can help with that, pass this newsleter on.