My evidence is based upon statistical thermodynamics:

The equilibrium constant for the reaction CH4+ 2O2 -> CO2 +2H2O is given by

K= ( q(H2O)^2 q(CO2)/ (q(CH4)q(O2)^2) ) exp(-E/kT)

where q(x) is the partition function of species x and E is the energy difference between reactants and products

now it turns out that the various values of q mostly cancel each other out to within one order of magnitude in this case (I did a rough calc and got ~0.5 resulting), but you see that little exponential term sitting ominously in the back? It gives a huge value:

E=(-889E3 +2*41E3 J mol-1) (ie the heat of combustion minus 2xheat of vapourisation for water)

Lets be generous and take T=300K (in reality its gonna be a bit lower than 25C as we move a bit higher in the atmosphere where methane is, so this is a highly conservative calculation)

So plugging the numbers we get
K ~10^140!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
using to extract the equilibrium concs by simple algebra
K =[CO2][H2O]^2/([O2]^2[CH4])

[CO2]/[CH4]=K *[O2]^2/[H2O]^2

Now [O2] is >> [H2O], and K is fucking huge, the equilibrium ratio of CO2/CH4 is going to alot more in favour of CO2 than the present value of ~200 that grizz was so happy to give us.

Thus methane is not in chemical equilibrium; in that regard there is an enormous excess of methane present.

Here’s the thing Toad, Methane has a half life of 7 years. It is oxidised to CO2. Then that CO2 is recycled through photosynthesis then cows etc. The net effect of cows on atmospheric methane is therefore nil.

Lets look at it another way. Wetlands, like swamps and rice paddy fields also produce methane gas in large quantities. Arguably plants have been around a lot longer than cows. Probably billions of years. If the methane they produced did not decompose in the atmosphere to CO2 which plants then used for energy and growth, the atmosphere now would be mostly methane gas and we would have an environment similar to Venus.

If Methane gas levels in the atmosphere are rising it is from anthropogenic emission, not because of Old Gert regurgitating her feed between stomach chambers.

Please Toad, fill me in on how this is even remotely defensible considering all the Greens bleating about global warming.

Actually, it isn’t. It’s just that the frequencies that CO2 traps are nearly saturated with atmospheric trappers already.

I agree that methane from activities such as coal mining are a proble. A far bigger problem is is the frozen methane trapped under the polar permafrost ends up in the atmospehere in any significant quantities due to thawing. But I don’t understand you reasoning as to why agricultural methane is not a problem. Surely increased concentrations of methane are a problem, whatever their source. Sure, each molecule of agricultural methane emitted into the atmosphere is offset by a molecule of carbon dioxide fixed from the atmosphere, but the vastly greater greenhouse potential of methane compared to carbon dioxide makes this offset minimal.

And there we have it. Facists.

So does China. WTF have they done to deserve it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/5977599/India-attacks-British-and-Western-hypocrites-over-cutting-emissions.html

How the fuck all you Greens know about running a business or understand economics ? Who in the Greens is economically literate or have run big businesses to know these things ? None! All you do is to stifle business growth in this country by protesting about everything and anything that may help businesses to grow. Here is a suggestion, how about you lot build successful businesses like Bob Jones and similar entrepreneurs like him, then you lot can come and lecture the rest of us about how to run a profitable business, because you guys know fuck all.

Answer: It doesn’t, you’d need to calculate the equlibrium constant to do that, which you have not. Moreover I suspect you don’t know how to.

Rich Prick, get a fucking science degree before mouthing off. Trying to label me a greenie is a sad ad hominem, and is by in large quite inaccurate.

Please take your foot out of your own mouth. Here is a list of the chemical composition of atmospheric gases, taken from a table which is duplicated all over the internet. You will note that there is more than 200 times as much CO2 as Methane gas.

Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 383 ppmv (0.0383%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.745 ppmv (0.0001745%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10-6%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0%-7×10-6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10-6%)
Iodine (I) 0.01 ppmv (1×10-6%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv

However, the chemical reaction of methane gas decomposing to CO2 is largely unidirectional, strongly favouring the oxidation reaction. I was trying to point out the speed in which it occurs is proportional to atmospheric methane and inversely proportional to atmospheric CO2. On that basis, if photosynthesis were to slow down (think Krakatoa), CO2 would accumulate and the decomposition of methane would slow. However, all things being equal, livestock would starve and die, less agricultural methogenesis and hence less methane emissions and atmospheric accumulation.

I do acknowledge though that atmospheric methane is better at trapping radiated heat than CO2. However, it is the anthropogenic sources of methane (such as coal mining) which are the problem, not agriculture. Believing that agriculture is behind rising levels of atmospheric Methane gas is a myth.

I raged like a motherfucker.

There it is, in one short byte, the reason why the Greens are absolute lunatics. The scary thing is, Toad and his Green cohorts actually believe this shit. They not only want to destroy a food source, they actually want to destroy New Zealands biggest export industry, in order to reduce bovine farting.

Let us pray for an under-5% vote in 2011, and purge these nutjobs from our political system.