I think the first question to ask, is how is that ratio determined, and over what period of time? The time period could range from 20 to 100 years.

Over the last decade, I have seen that ratio for the 20 year time frame, be as low as methane is 25x more potent than CO2 to trap heat (US EPA), to 34X (UC Davis), to 84-87X (various environmental organizations--edf.org for example).

I think we do not want to get off the two things we love the most, natural gas and beef, so this discussion never gets started.

Thank you, Craig Carlton Dremann, for your reply to my question.

A pulse of methane in the atmosphere has a half-life of around ten years hence the huge difference in its Global Warming Potential (GWP) over various time periods.

However, the GWP is irrelevant if a relative constant supply of methane - as fugitive gas - is being inadvertently added to replace the decomposing methane. It’s the total number of molecules of methane in the atmosphere that count. And that number is consistently rising.

Sure - some individual methane molecules will only last seconds. Others will easily last a thousand years. But if the total number is constant then considerations of the “Global Warming Potential” for some unique and individual group of all those molecules doesn’t seem to make any sense.

However, some gas marketing agencies “insist” that the Global Warming Potential of a pulse of methane is the all-important consideration, especially when considering our frightening biospheric overheating. To get around that impasse I am asking; how much worse is a “pulse” of methane compared to an equal weight of carbon dioxide over a single initial ONE MINUTE time period.

I expect the true ratio to be closer to 250 to 1, methane to carbon dioxide. Maybe more? Please help me here.

(If you do know, then you’re possibly employed in the industry. If so and if requested, I would not knowing divulge your name or any of your contact details to anyone.

However, you can find out all about me. Go to YeomansConcepts.com. I am also on Wikipedia, search Allan Yeomans)

The “blame” for “Climate Change” is now being manipulatively shifted to cattle numbers. That’s just a “red herring”. A few hundred years ago millions of bison roamed the American prairies. Today the bison have been replaced by cattle. There are probably more cattle numbers but certainly not enough to suddenly start overheating the planet. So enjoy your steak.

Cooking your steak with gas was probably OK. But the big switch to “natural gas” - read methane – to power our enormous industrial societies is a gigantic jump in use, and a gigantic jump in unavoidable fugitive gas leakage into the atmosphere.

It’s frightening but now - even using the very conservative ratio of methane being 80 to 1 times worse than carbon dioxide - Fugitive Methane Gas releases already exceed carbon dioxide as the most dangerous greenhouse gas in changing the optics of our atmosphere.

Never discount the number of grazing animals that we have put on the land worldwide. The bison before humans, numbers were kept in check by carnivores, and worldwide we have eliminated that balance except in a few preserves. Also, with fencing and development of water sources with wells, we are now able to put about 10x the cow, sheep and goat biomass than what occurred before fencing and water sources. And with the feeding of protein supplement, we can add grazing animals where the natural vegetation could not support those numbers because of the lack of protein in that vegetation. We have a huge thumb on the scale, in favor of the massive numbers of our grazing animals in wild land situations.

If we are discussing grazing of unirrigated rangelands, I have been looking at that issue, hired by Nevada ranchers over the last four years. What I have found here in the Western USA, is that the take home after expenses is only $1 per hectare per cm of annual rainfall.

Whereas leaving those native grasses to grow unmolested by exotic livestock and produce Carbon Offset to sell to the coal companies, could make those ranchers 5-10X the income per hectare. And it also would allow your coal companies to sell a Carbon Neutral product to China, so they could become Carbon Neutral a lot faster.

The other issue that we found, was arid grasslands sequester carbon for a long time, when radiocarbon dating Nevada grasslands, found that the carbon in the soil remains there for at least 300 years.

Picture of the rancher helping me dig the samples to radiocarbon date.