101–110 of 450 posts
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…
It has a GWP of nearly 100 the first year but falls off rapidly.
If the hypothetical Methane Gun happened, there is immense warming potential that could rapidly melt regional ice sheets.
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 fac…
We just had a conversation the other day about climate change and methane, and some people were saying 20x as strong as CO2, and others were saying and sometimes correcting them to 28. According to this article the correct answer is 20. That’s still over an order of magnitude difference. It still doesn’t change the priorities much, it means you can leak 40% more methane from a system before it’s worse that coal, but…
The other big difference is that methane stays only around 12 years in the atmosphere compared to centuries for CO2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All plants we eat are fertilized. We can stop fertilizing and all die.
Yes, but the problem is that meat consumes approximately 25 plant calories to produce 1 meat calorie. It's a reducing function, which means calorie for calorie meat produces 25 times as much greenhouse gas simply from the costs involved in plant production. This isn't universally true - some meat is grown by grazing "free" plant calories. But it is true for grain fed cattle -- for most US industrial meat production.…
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 fac…
We just watched with front row seats what happens when once trusted scientific authorities rely on poor data, poor communications, and poor models. The general populace starts to distrust and reject them. This is the danger of every apocalyptic climate prediction that fails to come to pass. The desire to scare people into action only tends to push people into distrust and indifference.
How will this affect internet arguments about going vegan?
The big one is that "if we don't eat cows then all the methane from stuff cows eat won't enter the atmosphere".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All plants we eat are fertilized. We can stop fertilizing and all die.
Yes, but the problem is that meat consumes approximately 25 plant calories to produce 1 meat calorie. It's a reducing function, which means calorie for calorie meat produces 25 times as much greenhouse gas simply from the costs involved in plant production. This isn't universally true - some meat is grown by grazing "free" plant calories. But it is true for grain fed cattle -- for most US industrial meat production.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Methane naturally turns into CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if it did increase warming more than CO2, once methane emissions reach a steady level, reducing methane emissions won't change a thing, compared to CO2 emissions. This is also similar to meat production emissions. Most of carbon emissions in meat productions are of carbon which was captured from the air as a part of the production cycle, by the plants which fee…
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
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/02/06/a-differential-equation...
We just had a conversation the other day about climate change and methane, and some people were saying 20x as strong as CO2, and others were saying and sometimes correcting them to 28. According to this article the correct answer is 20. That’s still over an order of magnitude difference. It still doesn’t change the priorities much, it means you can leak 40% more methane from a system before it’s worse that coal, but…
Methane naturally turns into CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if it did increase warming more than CO2, once methane emissions reach a steady level, reducing methane emissions won't change a thing, compared to CO2 emissions. This is also similar to meat production emissions. Most of carbon emissions in meat productions are of carbon which was captured from the air as a part of the production cycle, by the plants which fee…
Methane = increase in Co2 Reducing methane = no effect But reducing Co2 yes? Why wouldn’t reducing methane change anything? Following your logic reducing Methane is reducing Co2, no?