Live data from Hacker News

NASA finds super-emitters of methane

smithsonianmag.com

301–310 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#301

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.

Done already, been vegetarian for the past 5 years, what's your next suggestion ?

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#302
post #219

Earlier 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! :)

Be wary of rodents if you try to compost things with a high fat content. I hope you have good rat control.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#303

To 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.

Thank you: kind of incredible that the author of the article didn't think to include that kind of information.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#304
post #286

Earlier 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

Yeah I'd rather get some "potentially unsafe" chemicals in my body than definitely get severe skin cancers all over my body

https://www.cancer.org.au/iheard/are-chemical-sunscreens-saf...

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#305
post #294

To 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…

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 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

#307
I find the cognitive dissonance on emissions stunning: we've made basically no effort to cut emissions for over 40 years, now people are shocked that there are a LOT of emissions happening. WTF did anyone expect? The power of people to believe "someone else is fixing it even though there is no reason they would" is incredible.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#308
post #243

COP27 is about to start, that would be a good time for countries to agree to do something about these starting this year.

China and the US have already committed to take no serious action. Here in the UK we have the same policy. The EU prevaricates (who can blame them). India also isn't planning to do anything. COP27 is a giant waste of time with champagne.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#309
post #196

Stupid 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…

440PPM?

Yikes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12608421 seems like yesterday

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#310
post #305
post #294

Earlier 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…

The 100 year global warming potential seems to be a pretty common way to compare greenhouse gases. It makes sense when you discuss things like, say, limiting warming to N degrees by 2100 or long-term climate change, but I agree that the caveat that "it's much, much, much worse on shorter time scales" should be emphasized way more than it is. Especially given the current situation.
Post reply on HN