Climate change (split from Climate Change Tipping Points)

[Doogles31731]

I’m having trouble deciding where to start in this Climate Change thread. I’m not a climate scientist, so I can only make comments to some extent on the broad picture. I’m not a member of any group, and any thoughts I present are the results of my own research on aspects of the claims.

As distinct from the general thrusts of arguments to date, I’m pleased to say that the IPCC appears to be becoming more conservative about the average global near surface temperatures. It’s a huge change from the ‘Mann hocker stick” and ‘Al Gore’ alarmist days.

The 2021 Report Summary relating to temperatures is contained in Section A.1.1, which says, in part, -- “Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850. Global surface temperature in the first two decades of the 21st century (2001-2020) was 0.99 [0.84- 1.10] °C higher than 1850-1900 . Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C higher in 2011– 2020 than 1850–1900, with larger increases over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83] °C) than over the ocean (0.88 [0.68 to 1.01] °C). The estimated increase in global surface temperature since AR5 is principally due to further warming since 2003–2012 (+0.19 [0.16 to 0.22] °C).”

Has anyone asked the question as to whether we would be better off globally if our temperature was a couple of degrees warmer? Apparently somebody has, because a paper published in Lancet this year --  Zao et al (2021; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext) -- came up with this conclusion -- “Globally, 5 083 173 deaths (95% empirical CI [eCI] 4 087 967–5 965 520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·58–11·07) of all deaths (8·52% [6·19–10·47] were cold-related and 0·91% [0·56–1·36] were heat-related). “ This means of course that we have 9 times less deaths related to hot weather than we do from cold weather. Such a positive outcome has to be balanced of course with the claimed disadvantages of the overall small average increase in global near surface temperatures.

The proponents of climate catastrophe claim that the adverse effects of warming are obvious -- rising sea levels, loss of glaciers and sea ice around the poles, polar bears dying off, coral reefs dying, more severe cyclones, wildfires etc. I’ve had a look at some of these claims, and I find  them questionable.

For example, forest fires don’t appear to have been too unusual in Russia during the last 750 years -- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379111000655 and polar bears are increasing in numbers -- https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/. Severe cyclones are NOT more frequent in Australia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_region_tropical_cyclone -- Severe Tropical Cyclones frequencies recorded were -- 76, 67, 65, 41, 38 in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s respectively. The figures for Hurricanes in the USA do not show any significant difference statistically on a decadal basis -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_hurricanes.

Would less ice in the Arctic facilitate shipping and trade from a 'North West' passage?

Does anyone else check these claims?

I’ll leave it there for now, rather than make the post too long.

 

[TheVat]

I would suggest that,  rather than start with multiple claims on several disparate topics for which contrarian claims are offered,  Just pick one -- perhaps the one you feel has the most empirical foundation -- and we could address that.   The rate of wildfires claim, for example, possibly has factual errors so far as the USA is concerned.   

 

[Peterkin]

8 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

The proponents of climate catastrophe claim that the adverse effects of warming are obvious -- rising sea levels, loss of glaciers and sea ice around the poles, polar bears dying off, coral reefs dying, more severe cyclones, wildfires etc. I’ve had a look at some of these claims, and I find  them questionable.

You can't see the difference in glaciers? Or the polar ice? Why would NASA fake this data? 

8 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

For example, forest fires don’t appear to have been too unusual in Russia during the last 750 years -- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379111000655 and polar bears are increasing in numbers -- https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/. Severe cyclones are NOT more frequent in Australia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_region_tropical_cyclone -- Severe Tropical Cyclones frequencies recorded were -- 76, 67, 65, 41, 38 in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s respectively. The figures for Hurricanes in the USA do not show any significant difference statistically on a decadal basis -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_hurricanes.

Why Russia for fires, cyclones in Australia, and hurricanes in the US? Why not fires in Spain, droughts in India, floods in France? ... Better still, why not compare overall predictability of weather, or change in patterns in any one place over time, or a combination of extreme summer and winter weather on one continent?  Or insurance statistics in one country?  There are so many factors in climate change, so many kinds of manifestation and so many sources of information, it's hard to get a clear overall picture.

 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

For example, forest fires don’t appear to have been too unusual in Russia during the last 750 years --

You might note that the issue is global climate change, and a general rule, looking at local effects will not rebut the claim of global impact, unless the claim is that every place would see that impact. 

e.g. a claim that average temperature is going up is not a claim that the temperature is going up at every point on the globe, so finding a place that sees the temperature staying constant or even decreasing does not rebut the claim.

[Sensei]

An increase in the Earth's average temperature will increase water temperatures. Cold water loving krill will die disrupting the marine food chain, which will affect all humans living near the sea.

Some already hot areas in Africa and Asia will become even hotter, making it impossible for people to live there.

The result will be a mass migration of people fleeing to more livable regions of the planet such as Europe, North America or Siberia. The influx of peoples will be massive and uncontrollable. This will inevitably cause irritation and protest among the indigenous peoples of the EU, USA, Russia and Canada.

I have serious doubts about the validity of your statement that more people die from cold than from heat. Poor African and Asian countries do not make reliable statistics on deaths from overheating and e.g. getting a stroke.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Sensei

[Peterkin]

That ^^ certainly poses a threat to all of us. Of course, many of the migrants will die along the way and not be recorded as victims of heat. In fact, record-keeping will become impossible as fatalities mount up from the cumulative effects - including energy system breakdowns as the demand for cooling grows in industrial nations.

Of course, an even bigger question is: What will all those people drink and eat?  But, never mind, they might not even be able to breathe. 

The fact of an occurrence being not unusual doesn't preclude its size, intensity and frequency being unusual. 

12 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The result will be a mass migration of people fleeing to more livable regions of the planet such as Europe, North America or Siberia.

Maybe not Siberia.

But that certainly poses a threat to all of us. Of course, many of the migrants will die along the way and not be recorded as victims of heat. In fact, record-keeping will become impossible as fatalities mount up from the cumulative effects - including energy system breakdowns as the demand for cooling grows in industrial nations.

Of course, an even bigger question is: What will all those people drink and eat?  But, never mind, they might not even be able to breathe. 

The fact of an occurrence being not unusual doesn't preclude its size, intensity and frequency being unusual. 

Sorry about repeating myself there; can't seem to edit out the mistake. 

[MigL]

I suggest we all re-read the OP.

He's asking if a 'little bit' of something bad could actually turn out to be good.
If a global temperature increase as we have witnessed over the last several decades, could actually be beneficial.

The problem, of course, would still be stoppng further temperature increases which will lead to the scenareos presented by other members. That would be 'too much' of something bad.

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

I suggest we all re-read the OP.

He's asking if a 'little bit' of something bad could actually turn out to be good.
If a global temperature increase as we have witnessed over the last several decades, could actually be beneficial.

But is also asking about specific claims ("I’ve had a look at some of these claims, and I find  them questionable.") without sourcing them, and then using regional data as rebuttal.

The sourcing is important, because there is a difference between cyclone number and cyclone intensity (and related issues like rainfall); the former is given in the post but the latter is what the IPCC claim seems to be

 

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

  

[TheVat]

I hope all participants have read at least the Summary Reports of the IPCC, and other basic literature on this extremely complex topic.  Doing so should make clear that many scenarios of stressful changes happening at an unprecedented rapid rate have graduated from future scenario to present reality.  I'm probably a little weary, from other science forum experiences, of having to do massive literature hauling and pull-quote dumps to educate people on what's presently going on and then realizing they will never read the material or do anything but cherry-pick anomalous data sets that do not fairly represent global trends. 

Also key is that it's not just the degree of temperature rise, but the rapidity with which it happens, which has all kinds of effects on how flora and fauna are able, or not able, to adapt to changes in their particular ecological niche.  The last time the Earth got this warm, the warming process that led there took place over millennia, not decades.  And there was also not a species of machine-making hominins who were engaged in other environment-altering activities on top of the warming and introducing novel sorts of perturbation due to things like deposition of diesel soot on the cryosphere, massive methane release, forest clearing, etc. 

[MigL]

43 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm probably a little weary, from other science forum experiences

I know what you mean.

Sometimes questions are asked on this site, and members are all too quick to jump on them with claims of 'hidden agendas' and accusations of 'denial'. I prefer giving the benefit of the doubt, and I've often been wrong, but sometimes peple just come to a science site to get the opinion of scientifically minded people. Why waste an opportunity to change the opinion of someone who's not thinking clearly ?

Not that I'm accusing anyone of doing so, but sometimes the most important discussions, pertaining to climate change, race and gender relations, gun control, etc., are shut down by such accusations before they even begin.
Unfortunate because these are discussions that need to happen

[Peterkin]

 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Sometimes questions are asked on this site, and members are all too quick to jump on them with claims of 'hidden agendas' and accusations of 'denial'. I prefer giving the benefit of the doubt, and I've often been wrong, but sometimes peple just come to a science site to get the opinion of scientifically minded people.

Yes, but they rarely come armed with carefully selected counter-data. In this instance, the question was:

 

16 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

Does anyone else check these claims?

It follows a scatter-shot refutation of some of "these claims".

Anyone want to address this part?:

16 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

Would less ice in the Arctic facilitate shipping and trade from a 'North West' passage?

I shudder even to contemplate it. I realize that's a reflexive, emotional reaction rather than a scientific one - it's just that I'm partial to whales.

[Ken Fabian]

On 9/7/2021 at 4:51 PM, Doogles31731 said:

I’m pleased to say that the IPCC appears to be becoming more conservative about the average global near surface temperatures. It’s a huge change from the ‘Mann hocker stick” and ‘Al Gore’ alarmist days.

No, the IPCC reports were more conservative in the past, not less, with more care to emphasise uncertainty over confident and unequivocal statements.

The hockey stick "controversy" was never a real controversy and Mann's early modeling has been confirmed as close to the mark.  Multiple independent studies confirm the fundamental nature and existence of global warming, including hockey stick like change.

Al Gore - not a scientist - speaking of worst case possibilities that haven't eventuated is not good reason to doubt the veracity of mainstream climate science - not when the most likely possibilities have eventuated, and those are as serious as was claimed.

Questioning whether climate change has a net positive or net negative or where some kind of sweet spot between harms and benefits might lie has been tried. But you will struggle to find conservationists/environmentalists - and a great many ordinary people - for whom the remnant natural ecosystems and species have high value who will accept economic modeling that says the losses will be worth it. Adding 4 or 5 C degrees to already very hot and dry regions that experience serious droughts and heatwaves will have very serious consequences - adding that much to any region will have profound and serious and not entirely predictable outcomes. That kind of not being predictable doesn't make it more likely that no harms will occur greater, just makes the seriousness of the worst ones greater.

Cost vs benefits studies have also been done in purely economic terms and the answer from credible ones appears to be the same; the disruptions from change will have costs impacting people now living, in their lifetimes, that no far future  "better climate state" after they are gone can compensate for. And the potential for extreme outcomes with catastrophic outcomes remain real and in risk assessment terms, very high.

So, if you find one claim - say that fires can't be clearly tied to climate change - does that make all the claims that have turned out right, like ice loss, ocean heat content rise, temperature rise, more frequent and severe heatwaves, more new hot temperature records broken and less new cold records - do you count the one claim as significant but all the rest not?

Edited September 8, 2021 by Ken Fabian

[Doogles31731]

 

I respect TheVat from my association with him in another forum and will take his advice to narrow my discussion, for now, down to the matter of controlling population growth in order to help control a problem regarded as anthropogenic.

I notice that the OP of the ‘Tipping Point’ thread said that thousands of scientists had formed a group and produced recommendations for consideration. I notice that one of the world problems they think should be addressed is world population growth. I endorse that wholeheartedly.

But when I read the recent 2021 IPCC Summary of recommendations, I performed  a 'search and find' for the word ‘population’ with a negative outcome. It’s hard to believe that any objectively-thinking world body could make claims that a situation is anthropogenic, without making any positive recommendations for slowing down the cause. I searched Google for a graph correlating increasing temperature anomalies with population without success, but just to confirm that population MAY have a role in some of the temperature increase, I produced a graph myself some years ago.

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

I fully realise the difficulty of the task and that it has to involve religious and political hurdles.

I also know that TheVat had some ideas in the past about why it is not being addressed by any world body, but I’d also be interested in the thoughts of others.

1220875285_CLIMATECHANGEwebsiteinspcf.docx

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, Doogles31731 said:

But when I read the recent 2021 IPCC Summary of recommendations, I performed  a 'search and find' for the word ‘population’ with a negative outcome. It’s hard to believe that any objectively-thinking world body could make claims that a situation is anthropogenic, without making any positive recommendations for slowing down the cause.

The IPCC does not recommend policy

the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change. It identifies where there is agreement in the scientific community on topics related to climate change, and where further research is needed. The reports are drafted and reviewed in several stages, thus guaranteeing objectivity and transparency.  The IPCC does not conduct its own research. IPCC reports are neutral, policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive.

https://www.ipcc.ch

[Ken Fabian]

Doogles - I don't agree that the principle cause of the global warming problem is overpopulation; whilst true that less people relying on fossil fuel burning reduces the climate problem the same number of people using clean energy reduces the problem a lot more and doesn't risk crimes against humanity like population control does. It is a simplistic but incorrect view to blame overpopulation and that leads to the incorrect conclusion that effective climate action is not possible or else will require tyrannical levels of control over peoples lives, ie climate activism will lead to crimes against humanity. Wrong.

A transition to zero emissions is the principle way on offer to fix global warming for the population we have and expect to have. We will do that at scales beyond anything before or else fail. Whatever climate policies we have must include the reasonable aspirations and expectation people have to have kids, even whilst promoting smaller numbers of them and providing easy access to contraception makes a lot of sense.

Doogles - The last link is full of baseless claims. My response is that climate science got to where it could confidently say CO2 is causing global warming legitimately. The National Academy of Sciences report "Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action" in 1975 proposed a program for action (go figure) to develop sufficient quantitative understanding that predicting the course of climate change and a decade later that was showing that we didn't have to worry about imminent global cooling, but the reason why was just as bad or worse. At that time they already had a good qualitative understanding, like knowing what principle climate processes were in play. Climate change science had bipartisan support; back then if there were a real problem, people in positions of trust and responsibility wanted to know. Only later did a lot decide they preferred not to know.

Doogles, try the US National Academy of Sciences or read the State of the Climate reports or the IPCC AR6 report. Try to read with the understanding that what they publish comes from competent, honest professional scientists doing their jobs. It really is the best available knowledge and no-one is making it up. And consider that police and intelligence services are competent professionals too, fully capable of uncovering patterns of falsification and exposing conspiracy where it exists. i don't doubt they have been asked, but their assessment was and is that global warming science and global warming are true.

[TheVat]

My overall impression is that the only feasible way to keep human population at some sustainable level is to promote women's rights in regions where they are still more or less seen as chattel.   Women who gain rights,  and literacy, and a voice on how they want to plan a family,  tend to have fewer children.  

As for more draconian solutions, those are usually the failure mode of civil society.   War,  genocide,  totalitarian control of citizens reproductive plans.   

Ultimately,  the loss of arable land (desertification), fisheries, grazing land,  habitable temp ranges,  and so on,  will be the deciding factors in earth's carrying capacity for humans.   Mother Nature will become the primary agent of population control.  (well, that,  and the sterilizing effects of various endocrine disruptors which are presently increasing in human tissues everywhere) 

[MigL]

23 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Ultimately,  the loss of arable land (desertification), fisheries, grazing land,  habitable temp ranges,  and so on,  will be the deciding factors in earth's carrying capacity for humans. 

One could make the argument that climate change is simply one of those factors that determines the Earth's carrying capacity for humans ...

[Doogles31731]

Swansont stated -- “The IPCC does not recommend policy”

 Are you sure about that Swanont? Technically they don’t make policies, but they make recommendations for policy makers.

 This site (260 pages) is devoted to recommended response strategies to Climate Change by the IPCC -- https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_III_full_report.pdf -- Climate Change: the IPCC response strategies.

The beginning of that paper affirms their role:

It seems they have the 'go ahead' under b), to formulate realistic response strategies to population growth if they wish to. 

Ken Fabian, thank you for the comments, but why do you think it is referred to as ANTHROPOGENIC climate change? Certainly population is not the main cause, but  to my mind it’s part of a multifactorial issue that should be addressed in part.

You mentioned the International Academy of Sciences as an authority to heed. As far back as 1993, they produced a white paper on population control to be presented to the United Nations Conference on Population and Development in 1994. They expressed the hope that the paper would reach the attention of governments and peoples of all countries.

In that paper, they state in part “As human numbers further increase, the potential for irreversible changes also increases. Indicators of severe environmental stress include the growing loss of biodiversity, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing deforestation worldwide, atmospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, loss of topsoil, and shortages of water, fuel and fuel-wood in many parts of the world.”

 They didn’t even mention increased nitrogen and phosphate run-offs causing ocean ‘dead zones’, nor the limited global supply of the above fertilisers needed to sustain increasing numbers of humans.

 And of course, there’s the body of scientists mentioned in the OP on ‘Tipping Point’, calling for action on population.

 You may wish to check this paper -- Roerto Sumiblan Deluna Jr (2012; https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36603/) published an article titled Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emission in Asia:  Effect of Population, Affluence and Energy Efficiency. Part of their Abstract reads " ... Results showed that 97 percent of the variation in the level of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission could be explained by changes in population, GDP per capita and energy efficiency.”

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

My overall impression is that the only feasible way to keep human population at some sustainable level is to promote women's rights in regions where they are still more or less seen as chattel.   Women who gain rights,  and literacy, and a voice on how they want to plan a family,  tend to have fewer children.  

As for more draconian solutions, those are usually the failure mode of civil society.   War,  genocide,  totalitarian control of citizens reproductive plans.   

Ultimately,  the loss of arable land (desertification), fisheries, grazing land,  habitable temp ranges,  and so on,  will be the deciding factors in earth's carrying capacity for humans.   Mother Nature will become the primary agent of population control.  (well, that,  and the sterilizing effects of various endocrine disruptors which are presently increasing in human tissues everywhere) 

I like this contribution from TheVat. It's positive and constructive.

It’s refreshing to receive positive input. But the big problem is the nuts and bolts practical issue of implementing the suggestions. The whole world appears reticent to do anything about it.

 It needs a world body, and the IPCC is one suggestion. And as I revealed in my response to Swansont, they have the power under their charge to “formulate realistic response strategies for the management of the Climate Change issue.”

 So I’d still like to hear of more positive practical suggestions.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

Swansont stated -- “The IPCC does not recommend policy”

 Are you sure about that Swanont? Technically they don’t make policies, but they make recommendations for policy makers.

As I had quoted: IPCC reports are neutral, policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive.

Quote

It seems they have the 'go ahead' under b), to formulate realistic response strategies to population growth if they wish to. 

They would need to have expertise in that area, and come up with strategies that could be adopted by some very diverse cultures. And seeing as this is, in large part, a cultural, religious and a political issue all tied into one (views on birth control, for example) rather than a technical one, I'm not surprised at all that they would steer clear of it. 

And strategies are not policies. Yes, they could say "reduce your population" but is that a realistic outcome? A strategy would need to suggest a course of action. I can't even think of what realistic paths one could recommend that a (non-authoritarian) government would be inclined to enact. 

[TheVat]

Among the carrot v stick approaches,  the only viable ones I can see (other than the demographic shift that population pundits have been talking about since the 1950s) are of the economic carrot variety -- monetary awards for having two or fewer children (which also has it's own built-in monetary awards,  as small families can generally provide more amenities to themselves and their children).  Of course that would require an economic model different from growth-based capitalism to really take root.  And an end to male-dominated cultures where many babies still equal virility, and all the swaggering variations on that stupid theme.    Will try to link an economist I saw recently talking about a gradual reduction scenario,  and some of its advantages and pitfalls.  (meantime,  google "cat slaps a seal, " it's great!) 

[MigL]

In developing countries, large numbers of male children are actually an economic advantage as they provide help in supporting the family ( never mind school ), while females are a detriment, as there is an associated cost ( dowry ) to marry them off.

The economic model definitely needs to change.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Among the carrot v stick approaches,  the only viable ones I can see (other than the demographic shift that population pundits have been talking about since the 1950s) are of the economic carrot variety -- monetary awards for having two or fewer children (which also has it's own built-in monetary awards,  as small families can generally provide more amenities to themselves and their children).  Of course that would require an economic model different from growth-based capitalism to really take root.  And an end to male-dominated cultures where many babies still equal virility, and all the swaggering variations on that stupid theme.    Will try to link an economist I saw recently talking about a gradual reduction scenario,  and some of its advantages and pitfalls.  (meantime,  google "cat slaps a seal, " it's great!) 

Well the good news is that the organic birth rate in the largest per-capita GHG offender (the US) the birth rate is low enough that it's less than 2 kids for each woman. Similarly for China, and a lot of developed nations.

So maybe the IPCC recognized this and realized there's not a lot of leverage here

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

Among the carrot v stick approaches,  the only viable ones I can see (other than the demographic shift that population pundits have been talking about since the 1950s) are of the economic carrot variety -- monetary awards for having two or fewer children (which also has it's own built-in monetary awards,

That second,  self-contained monetary reward already manifests in at least two generations: a higher standard of living, more parental supervision and care (fewer accidents and shorter illness periods - less medical expense and work-time lost) and much fewer childbearing years, (so that women can return to the work-force at a young age, when they still have advancement prospects.)  But that's only a viable issue in societies where birth control is readily available and women have the freedom to choose... which is currntly limited to 'modern industrial' countries - and some of them are clawing back both freedom of choice and access. 

However, the pandemic has been a boon to population control. I don't just mean the number of people who have died and will die, but the birth-rate itself. Uncertainty and anxiety have motivated couples to think harder about the future and refrain from or put off having more babies. Of course, the put off segment may cause a huge baby boom if/when they feel secure again - unless they've discovered, in the meantime, the benefits of not having babies.

However, it's been devastating to the planet in waste-production. While air quality generally improved when industries and city centers were locked down, the manufacturing sector is set to resume in the same old way, only with more robots, that require more energy, but fewer employees.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Peterkin
poor sentence construction.

[Ken Fabian]

Doogles - If the assumption is that fossil fuel burning is unavoidable then consumption of them and emissions appear directly linked to population - and in 1993 I expect that was an underlying assumption. It is only recently that it has been seen as both necessary and possible to shift to zero emissions - which makes un-linking of global warming solutions from population possible. It doesn't un-link other problems with large and growing populations but I suspect that an NAS report on population, if commissioned now, would acknowledge that global warming is primarily a dirty energy problem that can be treated apart from population.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Ken Fabian

[TheVat]

AGW is also a rice-growing and ruminant livestock problem,  given that they produce significant amounts of methane,  a potent GHG.  If more people equals more rice and meat consumption, then AGW will not be decoupled from population growth just by elimination of dirty energy.   We may also be looking at switches to millet,  and ways to alter the digestion of cattle (or go to vat production of beef,  etc.) if people insist on traditional foods but want to keep atmospheric methane levels down.  There are already experiments underway with adding a certain type of kelp to cattle feeds to lower their methane emissions.  

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent