And now what ? Anyone knows what actions will be taken based on this data ?
A lot of methane comes from animals. See here: https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2020 If you care about this, you should stop eating meat, or reduce your meat consumption.
NASA finds super-emitters of methane
301–310 of 387 posts
Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In LA, for example, the LADWP is test-driving a program where food scraps - vegetables, but also meats and fats - are diverted into green bins Moved to SF from LA area. Sf does the green bins and it’s actually surprisingly nice to separate the compostable scraps out of the other trash. It keeps the trash bin much cleaner and much less stinky. If I moved back to an area that didn’t require it, I’d still keep them se…
I live in the country and I throw whatever the hell I want in my compost and my garden loves it. Next time you get a hyper specific instructions page about what to compost and not, do what I do: chuck it in the compost with everything else organic! :)
Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane
#303To put this in perspective, the 18300kg per hour from the Permian site is equivalent (over a 100 time horizon global warming potential) to a 500 Megawatt coal power plant's CO2 emissions (~1kg of CO2 per kWh of electricity) burning 24/7. Or, to put it another way, it accounts for the same emissions as about 0.3% of the entire US electricity grid.
Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Due to the toxic nature, I still wouldn't recommend sunscreen without knowing exactly what is in it. What? Are you a bot?
It was a simple gesture implying that due to the hotter temperatures, sunblock may actually compound the problem. We can expect the above normal temperatures for a decade or two after the methane is contained. Don't toxify the body with sunscreen and make it worse. https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-sunscr... Perhaps biddy biddy biddy :p
https://www.cancer.org.au/iheard/are-chemical-sunscreens-saf...
Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane
#305To put this in perspective, the 18300kg per hour from the Permian site is equivalent (over a 100 time horizon global warming potential) to a 500 Megawatt coal power plant's CO2 emissions (~1kg of CO2 per kWh of electricity) burning 24/7. Or, to put it another way, it accounts for the same emissions as about 0.3% of the entire US electricity grid.
Just to confirm the numbers myself; 18,300kg methane per hour * 24 hours * 365 days = 160,308,000kg (~0.160 million metric tonnes). At 25x CO2 equivalent, that is 4,007,700,000kg (4 million metric tonnes). This link about US electricity generation: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 shows 767 "million metric tons" from coal, or 1.55 "billion metric tons" from all sources. 4 / 767 ~= 0.5%, so in the bal…
Where do you get the 25x from? Wikipedia says it's 80x-100x:
> over a 20-year period, [methane] traps 84 times more heat per mass unit than carbon dioxide (CO2) and 105 times the effect when accounting for aerosol interactions
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane)
After that 20 years, methane decomposes into CO2 so its long-term contribution is 3x CO2 equivalent (due to the higher mass after acquiring the oxygen atoms), so its lifetime CO2 equivalence can be higher or lower than 25x depending on which timescale you're looking at. Is the 25x an oft-used figure in the industry/literature?
Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane
#306Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane
#307Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane
#308COP27 is about to start, that would be a good time for countries to agree to do something about these starting this year.
Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane
#309Stupid question: How much is this actually contributing to climate change? Any climate scientists who make active predictions about how much we don't know?
The answer is actually not that easy to find when searching for less than 5 minutes. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is apparently 440 ppm. CH4 (methane) is 1.85 ppm. At identical concentration levels CH4 is 84 times more impactful greenhouse effect than CO2 over the course of 10 to 20 years and 28 over 100 years. So it should be about 35% of the global CO2 effect short term (which is not the total but close, pro…
Yikes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12608421 seems like yesterday
Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to confirm the numbers myself; 18,300kg methane per hour * 24 hours * 365 days = 160,308,000kg (~0.160 million metric tonnes). At 25x CO2 equivalent, that is 4,007,700,000kg (4 million metric tonnes). This link about US electricity generation: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 shows 767 "million metric tons" from coal, or 1.55 "billion metric tons" from all sources. 4 / 767 ~= 0.5%, so in the bal…
At 25x CO2 equivalent Where do you get the 25x from? Wikipedia says it's 80x-100x: > over a 20-year period, [methane] traps 84 times more heat per mass unit than carbon dioxide (CO2) and 105 times the effect when accounting for aerosol interactions (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane ) After that 20 years, methane decomposes into CO2 so its long-term contribution is 3x CO2 equivalent (due to the h…