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

NASA finds super-emitters of methane

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–387 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#381

Post by strainer »

ljf wrote: post #350
strainer wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is somewhat deceptive framing, because methane can not accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Its levels in the atmosphere will break down relatively quickly if we reduce output, unlike CO2. But the present level of methane in the atmosphere basically captures about 30% as much heat as the present level of CO2. That still leaves CO2 as significantly larger immediate problem and the much larger future probl…

Don't forget what methane breaks down into... Water vapour and co2. So it's not like it breaks down and is no longer an issue n

You shouldn't formulate the system like that - without any proportion. The proportions are what matters.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#382

Post by titzer »

squokko wrote: post #377
titzer wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a leaky ship. Arguing over who has to fix their holes first is pointless dithering and finger-pointing.

Yes, arguing about who fixes their holes "first" is pointless, but who fixes their holes "ever" is very important. It doesn't any sense for me to fix my holes if you have your finger in your ears saying "la la la I can't hear you" when I ask when you're going to fix yours.

> It doesn't any sense for me to fix my holes

It always makes sense to fix your holes. The ship is taking on water, yo. The sooner the better. Then you've got a whole hell of a lot better argument to make me fix mine. Instead I can just turn around and point right back at you and say the same damn thing about you, and we get nowhere. Which, incidentally, is exactly where we have been getting because of lazy excuses like this. Which is why I described it as "pointless dithering and finger-pointing."

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#383

Post by aj7 »

Alupis wrote: post #115
hackerlight wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look at China. They don't like being covered in smog all the time and the respiratory problems that creates. Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason. It's because of investment in these technologies by richer countries. The richer countries pave the way by making the technology so cheap that it's irresistible and a better deal to poor countries. The w…

> Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look at China. China is far from a poor country... by some measurements they outpace even the US. > Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason This is true - however we also need to recognize the technology is not ready today. It might be tomorrow, but throwing everything out and going full-in on green tech today is foolhardy. Some prominent states in…

China GDP/person 1/5 that of U.S. Don’t confuse the Chinese urban elite, who indeed have a Western level of income and wealth, with “China.”

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#384

Post by aj7 »

stetrain wrote: post #135
Alupis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look at China. China is far from a poor country... by some measurements they outpace even the US. > Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason This is true - however we also need to recognize the technology is not ready today. It might be tomorrow, but throwing everything out and going full-in on green tech today is foolhardy. Some prominent states in…

Who is throwing out non-green power? My electricity in the US comes from majority gas and coal as it ever has. To make a significant change over 20-50 years requires big investments now. Making those investments does not mean we are throwing away everything else immediately.

In Tucson, with 350 days of Sun, until fairly recently, electricity was generated from COAL. Now natural gas.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#385

Post by 29athrowaway »

TexanFeller wrote: post #319
29athrowaway wrote: post #166

YouTube is full of trash burning tutorials. Some of them are exceptionally stupid and talk about "clean burners", which is essentially a burn barrel connected to a leaf blower, such that the smoke is dispersed, creating the illusion of "clean" air. Such dumb tutorials have hundreds of hundreds of thousands of views. Each video has dumb comments on them like "Oh yeah this burner is awesome, I made the same thing at ho…

My family lived outside the city limits of a rural town and trash service wasn’t even available to us. Us and every single family in that situation used a burn barrel. There are a huge number of people in America that have never done it any other way!

Have you heard of dioxin?

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#386

Post by pencilguin »

hinkley wrote: post #201
jakub_g wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an expert but quickly googling: Methane is 84x more contributing to the warming than CO2 over the first 20 years, per kg emitted. It persists in atmosphere shorter than CO2 though, so a 100 year coefficient is 28x. Source: https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalent...

Any other use of methane besides combustion most likely ends up releasing the exact same amount of energy as burning it. For instance, nitrogen fertilizer eventually breaks the hydrogen bonds and ends up back in the atmosphere.

Burning it at the source means thatuch more gas will also be extracted and (ultimately) burnt for the other use.

2xNH3 -> 3xH2 + N2 is fine, only excepting that more NH3 will need to be made. In the future it will be made with wind or solar energy, but that is still a few decades off.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#387

Post by pencilguin »

willsmith72 wrote: post #304
lob_it wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I use a hat.
Post reply on HN