Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I finally understand methane lifetimes

climateer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 86 posts

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#21

Post by alexose »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #8

So, hydroxide radicals (OH) break down methane (CH4) into carbon dioxide (CO2). This is a good thing for the climate, as a molecule of methane has a much bigger warming effect than CO2. (Although it is odd that the CO2 produced by methane is not counted toward methane’s overall climate impact). There is limited OH in the atmosphere. As a result, more methane “uses up” the OH. That means that increased methane in the…

There's a group that is advocating for spraying an Iron Salt Aerosol into the atmosphere, which apparently catalyzes the natural decomposition process. I haven't done a deep dive into the subject, but on the surface it seems pretty compelling.

https://ironsaltaerosol.com/home/isa_summary

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#22

Post by photochemsyn »

boringg wrote: post #16

It's this level of understanding that can't be pushed out to the general population. It is far too complicated for people to grasp. Add on to these complexities is that if we are trying to price carbon - the impacts change with the concentrations in the atmosphere. The market needs to be dumbed down to simplistic values (which thankfully they have) so that we have a sense on where to target and incentivize change for…

I don't think it's that complicated. Start with water vapor - moisture evaporates from the ocean, lakes, soil, vegetation. On average such a water molecule stays in the atmosphere for 4-10 days - because water condenses as rain, unlike methane or carbon dioxide. Water vapor increase accounts for about 2/3 of the immediate global warming effect, but is controlled by temperature, which is in turn controlled by the CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. Hence we can think of water vapor in the atmosphere as a feedback to the CO2/CH4 forcing.

This is not too difficult for people to understand. The fact that methane is a reactive gas, i.e. CH4 + O2 -> CO2 over time (OH just being an intermediate), means it gets converted to CO2, accounting for the relatively short 10-year lifetime. CO2 + OH/O2 does nothing, so we can expect a longer lifetime. The notion that CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere is 100 years is perhaps a bit more complicated, as it involves ocean uptake and things like that, but it's all fairly straightforward.

The gas/oil/coal sector might want people to believe that passing gas in a closed room won't eventually create a stink, but it's the same general concept.

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#23

Post by a_c »

> never trust a number

One pet peeve of me is the water consumption of everything. Take milk production for example, it disregards so many things, local climate, soil conditions, ecology of having cow on land, biodiversity and so on. Somehow milk production boils down to a single number and is compared with e.g. almond milk. Almond milk uses less water hence good.

At least we are way over the age of line of code..

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#25

Post by colechristensen »

a_c wrote: post #23

> never trust a number One pet peeve of me is the water consumption of everything. Take milk production for example, it disregards so many things, local climate, soil conditions, ecology of having cow on land, biodiversity and so on. Somehow milk production boils down to a single number and is compared with e.g. almond milk. Almond milk uses less water hence good. At least we are way over the age of line of code..

Yup.

In Iowa we put porous pipes in the ground to drain rain into the rivers faster because otherwise about half the state would have standing water on the surface.

Water consumption of Iowa cows does not matter at all, water consumption of a lot of cows doesn't matter at all. There is very little irrigation in Iowa.

There are places where water is a limiting factor, and places where it isn't.

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#26

Post by [deleted] »

nverno wrote: post #20
boringg wrote: post #16

It's this level of understanding that can't be pushed out to the general population. It is far too complicated for people to grasp. Add on to these complexities is that if we are trying to price carbon - the impacts change with the concentrations in the atmosphere. The market needs to be dumbed down to simplistic values (which thankfully they have) so that we have a sense on where to target and incentivize change for…

I think it is the dumbing down that makes it easier for mud-rakers. People know it's complicated anyway, and the average person can grasp complicated things as well as you.

[deleted]

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#27

Post by Enginerrrd »

nverno wrote: post #20
boringg wrote: post #16

It's this level of understanding that can't be pushed out to the general population. It is far too complicated for people to grasp. Add on to these complexities is that if we are trying to price carbon - the impacts change with the concentrations in the atmosphere. The market needs to be dumbed down to simplistic values (which thankfully they have) so that we have a sense on where to target and incentivize change for…

I think it is the dumbing down that makes it easier for mud-rakers. People know it's complicated anyway, and the average person can grasp complicated things as well as you.

As an environmental engineer that deals with the interface between the public and policy makers, I think I'm inclined to agree with you. The public IS dumb, but every time they try to dumb down the principles they regulate on, it always comes at the detriment of the environment and the 'little guy'. It's almost always better to delegate policy to smart qualified people with correctly aligned interests. Getting that latter part right is hard, but that is the job of a competent public official.

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#28

Post by boringg »

photochemsyn wrote: post #22
boringg wrote: post #16

It's this level of understanding that can't be pushed out to the general population. It is far too complicated for people to grasp. Add on to these complexities is that if we are trying to price carbon - the impacts change with the concentrations in the atmosphere. The market needs to be dumbed down to simplistic values (which thankfully they have) so that we have a sense on where to target and incentivize change for…

I don't think it's that complicated. Start with water vapor - moisture evaporates from the ocean, lakes, soil, vegetation. On average such a water molecule stays in the atmosphere for 4-10 days - because water condenses as rain, unlike methane or carbon dioxide. Water vapor increase accounts for about 2/3 of the immediate global warming effect, but is controlled by temperature, which is in turn controlled by the CO2…

I agree I don't think it's that complicated but when you have a regulatory industry surrounding complex science with politicians weighing in it can get very tricky. I refer to climate deniers/paid advocacy groups and mud rakers who constantly try and trip up progress by trying to bring sow doubt through poking holes in the argument or nitpicking small issues.

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#29

Post by zackees »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #8

So, hydroxide radicals (OH) break down methane (CH4) into carbon dioxide (CO2). This is a good thing for the climate, as a molecule of methane has a much bigger warming effect than CO2. (Although it is odd that the CO2 produced by methane is not counted toward methane’s overall climate impact). There is limited OH in the atmosphere. As a result, more methane “uses up” the OH. That means that increased methane in the…

No post body was provided.

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#30

Post by boringg »

nverno wrote: post #20
boringg wrote: post #16

It's this level of understanding that can't be pushed out to the general population. It is far too complicated for people to grasp. Add on to these complexities is that if we are trying to price carbon - the impacts change with the concentrations in the atmosphere. The market needs to be dumbed down to simplistic values (which thankfully they have) so that we have a sense on where to target and incentivize change for…

I think it is the dumbing down that makes it easier for mud-rakers. People know it's complicated anyway, and the average person can grasp complicated things as well as you.

I disagree. There is an inherent risk that dumbing down or abstracting away the complexities of the science to have an appropriate discourse on appropriate policy action creates blowback but trying to create a system that accounts for the complexities of the science would just cause infinite headaches.

The business mechanism to try and solve this needs to be simple and relatively clear and should align with the science. The general population doesn't have the time or capabilities to understand the complexities. I am not saying hide the complexity - I am just saying don't have it in the forefront of the policy decisions - and don't constantly change the regulatory mechanism unless it is grossly misaligned with the science.

I am glad you think the average person has the same capability to understand the problems and has taken environmental science engineering programs - I feel much better about that.

Post reply on HN