Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought • Hacker News Board

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#81

Post by shrubble » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

kennywinker wrote: post #51

shrubble wrote: post #40

This is exactly what the "deniers" have been saying - that the mathematical model is not fleshed out enough, and the data is not present in sufficiently accurate quantity, for the climate models to be accurate. This research shows that the mechanism of action was misunderstood all this time. What else hasn't been researched enough and has simplistic assumptions baked into the climate models? That shockingly simplisti…

Except climate change is happening, and there's no doubt about that because knowing it's happening isn't relying on models, it's relying on thermometers (and to a lesser extent ice cores to confirm that it's human-driven rather than a natural change). How bad climate change will be, yeah I suppose there is a little fuzzyness there. But given how bad it COULD be (think: complete extinction of humanity, or an end of ci…

The temperature has changed repeatedly without any evidence of human involvement over those longer time periods we can observe.

And the levels of CO2 etc. have changed as well, during time periods when it could not possibly have been blamed on humans.

I grew up in Canada, in an area with lots of farms... and I remember the high school trips to different geographical features such as moraines which are the residue of glaciers from long ago.

What caused those mile-thick glaciers to melt, given the low levels of human population and the low levels of human technology?

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#82

Post by altacc » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

shrubble wrote: post #40

This is exactly what the "deniers" have been saying - that the mathematical model is not fleshed out enough, and the data is not present in sufficiently accurate quantity, for the climate models to be accurate. This research shows that the mechanism of action was misunderstood all this time. What else hasn't been researched enough and has simplistic assumptions baked into the climate models? That shockingly simplisti…

This sounds like a prelude to a simplistic "the models aren't accurate, so climate change probably isn't really a problem". However the problem with that is that the overwhelming majority of observations and models, many of which are far from simple and use large amounts of data, point to climate change being real, unusually rapid and anthropogenic. Using the argument that these models aren't accurate ignores the fact that even with a large margin of error, the lower bounds of climate change still result in significant negative effects for large numbers of people and ecosystems. Models have for a long time shown that the overall global temperature will rise and observations over the years have proved the models reflect reality. Are all models 100% correct with predictions? No, but the trend the models show is proven, even if there is a margin of error which is typically always acknowledged during modelling.

Questioning the accuracy as a form of dismissal raise the question of what level of accuracy you'd want before accepting the results, and what level of accuracy any countering research should have. Research like this paper also has margins of error, are often single studies or analysis and therefore aren't proven to be accurate themselves. Science evolves all the time, a large amount of the science we experience or rely on day to day cannot be fully modelled with high accuracy but we don't discount reality because the models don't match it.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#83

Post by jmartrican » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 5:15 PM UTC

I wonder if global cloud coverage is being tracked and how it is trending. We can then see if methane is having a noticeable effect on cloud coverage over the years. I also imagine, there are other processes that effect cloud coverage.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#84

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 5:18 PM UTC

SquareWheel wrote: post #29

boomchinolo78 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denier is such a loaded word, call them skeptic. In this case at least, seems their skepticism was warranted.

In the context of scientific skepticism[1], denier or denialism[2] is the correct label. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

[deleted]

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#85

Post by zackees » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

matthewdgreen wrote: post #60

KennyBlanken wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't just natural gas leaking out of the distribution system. It's also the enormous methane output of the cattle industry. There are thirty million cows in the US alone. Each is producing 150 to 300lb of methane per year.

It is also the fact that both wetlands and melting permafrost emit methane, and both sources seem to be increasing their emissions as the world warms. This is a scary feedback loop, and that’s before we get to things like undersea clathrates.

[dead]

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#86

Post by myshpa » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #70

djleni wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain further? How does: > reducing methane emissions won't change a thing, compared to CO2 emissions. Follow from: > once methane emissions reach a steady level

Methane in atmosphere today is at 2 ppm, carbon dioxide is at 420 ppm. If methane is 20 times more potent, this implies that atmospheric methane is equivalent to 40 extra ppm of carbon dioxide. If we removed literally all methane from the atmosphere, this would be equivalent to reducing carbon dioxide concentration to 380 ppm. This would bring us back to climate of 2005. By any reasonable measure, climate in 2023 is…

> climate in 2023 is not significantly different than the climate in 2005

'Devastating' melt of Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657570

This was here just yesterday. You may not feel it "on your own skin", but Earth does. And what exactly will happen when we'll lose all ice, we simply do not know. We just know it won't be pretty.

> stopping all methane emitting activities would be tremendously negative to human flourishing

How? I smell bullsh*t.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#87

Post by freedomben » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

junofan wrote: post #61

henearkr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It doesn't change anything to the problem. But lots of people will say it does (the climate deniers).

Anyone who changes relative priorities for emissions reduction based on new information is a climate denier?

As a person who believes man is effecting the climate, and is very worried about sustainability, but also thinks that there are some climate scientists who are off in their estimates (or can be too myopic at times like any other human) and that there is still much for us to learn and discover, yes I can confirm that if you question anything or approach things with skepticism (even though that's the way science is supposed to be done), you are a "climate denier" or often called "a science denier." It's quite depressing.

I had hoped by now humanity would be moving deeply into rationality, but we're still just as emotion-driven as ever. We come by it honestly since our neurology is tuned to handle most (or maybe all) decisions subconciously and then have our conscious/rational mind justify the decision after the fact, but I do believe that by understanding our biology and implementing systems/approaches to combat it, we could become a highly logical species. There is still some hope on the horizon. Live long and prosper my friend.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#88

Post by dmurray » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 5:29 PM UTC

caeril wrote: post #80

KennyBlanken wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't just natural gas leaking out of the distribution system. It's also the enormous methane output of the cattle industry. There are thirty million cows in the US alone. Each is producing 150 to 300lb of methane per year.

Cattle are no different from any other herbivorous ruminant in terms of methane production, and the wild population is larger than our own herds. Do you also propose we exterminate every wild deer, elk, moose, buffalo, hippopotamus, elephant, giraffe, etc?

> the wild population is larger than our own herds.

It is not.

Domesticated cows make up approximately 35% of the world's mammal biomass. That's the same as humans. All wild land animals combined - all the ones you mentioned and many more - make up around 2%.

One source: https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#89

Post by robertoandred » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

shrubble wrote: post #40

This is exactly what the "deniers" have been saying - that the mathematical model is not fleshed out enough, and the data is not present in sufficiently accurate quantity, for the climate models to be accurate. This research shows that the mechanism of action was misunderstood all this time. What else hasn't been researched enough and has simplistic assumptions baked into the climate models? That shockingly simplisti…

You heard it here, folks! Climate change is a hoax.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#90

Post by freedomben » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

myshpa wrote: post #86

xyzzyz wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methane in atmosphere today is at 2 ppm, carbon dioxide is at 420 ppm. If methane is 20 times more potent, this implies that atmospheric methane is equivalent to 40 extra ppm of carbon dioxide. If we removed literally all methane from the atmosphere, this would be equivalent to reducing carbon dioxide concentration to 380 ppm. This would bring us back to climate of 2005. By any reasonable measure, climate in 2023 is…

> climate in 2023 is not significantly different than the climate in 2005 'Devastating' melt of Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657570 This was here just yesterday. You may not feel it "on your own skin", but Earth does. And what exactly will happen when we'll lose all ice, we simply do not know. We just know it won't be pretty. > stopping all methane emitting activities w…

> How? I smell bullsh*t.

Actually no, I don't think you would because raising/using cattle would not be allowed if we stopped all methane emitting activities. Also your farts can contain methane, so you'd have to hold them in ... forever. If you've ever had to do that during a long meeting, you should know it is negative to human fluorishing.

Giving up hamburgers and farting is not the only thing we'd have to do. I get the feeling you didn't think very hard about GP's comment before arrogantly and ignorantly dismissing them as bullshit. If you honestly think a world where only the wealthy had heated homes and many other products that everybody now takes for granted won't negatively effect human fluorishing, I'd be (truly) interested in hearing why, such as what would either replace those things or why we would no longer need them.