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

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

sciencenews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 450 posts

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

#181

Post by josephcsible »

myshpa wrote: post #175
josephcsible wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Atom & renewable sources. 256x256 km of solar panels is enough for whole world. > Electric tractors. Should have been here decades ago. Those sound like great ideas. How about we roll them out first, and only stop using fossil fuels once they're able to totally replace them with no downside, instead of giving up heat and tractors indefinitely in the meantime?

So ... business as usual? We have to decide to stop using the bad stuff first, set the deadlines, or new stuff will never materialize. Have you noticed how Tesla started electric cars, everybody laughed, and now they're the only way forward? It will be the same with this ... sooner or later. And the change of focus will bring innovation we can't even imagine now.

> Have you noticed how Tesla started electric cars, everybody laughed, and now they're the only way forward?

But Tesla was super successful even though ICE cars still aren't banned.

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

#182

Post by Aachen »

linuxftw wrote: post #79
replygirl wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relative to what things looked like 10-20 years ago, is there still a meaningful contingent of climate change deniers? As far as I can tell, most of those people have accepted the reality but disagree on how we should approach it. Even in the most extreme case--looking at Republicans in the US Congress, steeped in fossil propaganda and owing many of their elections to gerrymandering--and using a broad definition of c…

I personally don't believe CO2 is a driver of climate change. I think the 'science' is junk. I do think pollution is a the number one issue facing humanity, and we're doing nothing about it, because all of our collective energy is being directed at a red herring. Entire ecosystems are being destroyed by chemical and mining industries, not just ones used for batteries. We've polluted every water source on the planet.…

> I personally don't believe CO2 is a driver of climate change.

You can't just say that and not give a reason (unless "the science is junk" was the reasoning needed for any level-headed person to arrive at the same conclusion as you), at least not if you want to be taken seriously. Bit like saying that the sky being blue is just an optical illusion and it's really purple because the science on why it's blue being bogus and the real-world observations being just a coincidence.

It's so far out there and so casually said that I'm again not sure if this thread is just full of flame bait or legitimate opinions. Do people that believe there is no major conspiracy just not open these threads anymore in comparable numbers to those who believe in a conspiracy? Or do you actually believe the opposite of what you wrote but it's way funnier to cause this waste or time going back and forth over it?

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

#183

Post by Aachen »

freedomben wrote: post #98
henearkr wrote: post #30

To be honest, it would be awesome if the title could be change from "Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought" to "Methane is 20x worse than CO2 instead of 28x worse".

I agree with you that would be a better title, for a number of reasons. However I would advocate against changing it. The title here on HN is the same as the title in the original/linked article. Something I personally live about HN is we don't editorialize by rewriting headlines to reframe things to fit our preferred perception (even when we really believe that perception is correct). This is important for cognitive…

I don't know if it's the "HN is deteriorating" effect finally setting in after a decade, but I do feel like titles either made more sense at the source or were changed to make sense in the past (say, before 2020±1). Now the homepage very often has 10-30% titles that either make no sense or mislead, and you have to click to know what it's about. Might as well just have a list of hashes then and see where you end up. Opening it now: titles like Boustrophedon and XINF (those two words are two submissions' entire titles) aren't useful and should be added to, for example. Similar for this article: it's not editorialising ("expressing one's opinion rather than the facts") to make it reflect what the source is trying to say.

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

#184

Post by myshpa »

xyzzyz wrote: post #157
myshpa wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you forced humans to stop eating meat, this would make billions of people very unhappy. Wealthy billions. The poor ones don't eat as much meat and dairy. And it's a good thing ... if they did, we would need not one, but 4-5 Earths to feed everyone. Eating meat is a culture. A story we tell ourselves. It cost us all of megafauna, half of our forests, it threatens thousands of animal species with extinction, and i…

> Wealthy billions. The poor ones don't eat as much meat and dairy. And it's a good thing ... if they did, we would need not one, but 4-5 Earths to feed everyone. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying: less energy consumption pretty much directly translates to less human flourishing. You seem to be arguing that this is a good thing (which I disagree with), but you keep supporting my claim with more evidence, so please,…

> don't eat as much meat and dairy

> less energy consumption pretty much directly translates to less human flourishing

You're like the man who floats on the sea on the raft made from coconuts. The more he eats, the more he thinks he flourishes.

Sharks are meanwhile patiently circling around.

> Zimbabwe tried, they did get more money, but did not get any wealth

Not everybody has the guts and means to organize few coups & occupy some countries first, steal their oil and other natural resources, then build mega army and spread it around half a world.

But if they did, then it would work. It's a recipe that works everytime.

Inflation is irrelevant. I've studied economics ... it's hogwash.

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

#185

Post by Aachen »

hinkley wrote: post #18
slackfan wrote: post #8

[flagged]

So we go from 28x to 20x. That changes the slope of a line but not the direction, or the magnitude.

30% change sounds large, until you multiply it by the fraction of the problem that methane forms. It's still a welcome impact reduction, if true, but yeah you're quite right.

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

#186

Post by myshpa »

josephcsible wrote: post #181
myshpa wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So ... business as usual? We have to decide to stop using the bad stuff first, set the deadlines, or new stuff will never materialize. Have you noticed how Tesla started electric cars, everybody laughed, and now they're the only way forward? It will be the same with this ... sooner or later. And the change of focus will bring innovation we can't even imagine now.

> Have you noticed how Tesla started electric cars, everybody laughed, and now they're the only way forward? But Tesla was super successful even though ICE cars still aren't banned.

But they're being phased out.

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

#187

Post by pfdietz »

kalium-xyz wrote: post #147
pfdietz wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What toxic material are x-Si panels made of?

Small amounts of cadmium and lead. Honestly you should not focus on that the batteries are the one that a legit argument is for imho. I’ve looked into why solar panels degrade over time and it’s mostly them physically being destroyed. The uv degradation happens very quickly and so isn’t gonna further ruin the panels output after its already been exposed a bit

x-Si panels require neither Cd nor Pb. What did you think the Cd was for, btw?

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

#188

Post by least »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #142
least wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, but the problem is that meat consumes approximately 25 plant calories to produce 1 meat calorie. Why is this a problem? Animals also produce higher quality protein with higher bioavailability, have a better amino acid profile that better suits what humans require, and provide nutrients that people cannot get from plants. That's on top of the fact that a lot of those plant calories aren't even consumable by hum…

> "Why is this a problem?" It's a problem because of the aforementioned disproportionate energy consumption. > "Animals also produce higher quality protein with higher bioavailability" Hey look, you don't have to pitch me on meat -- I'm basically a carnivore. Personal preferences don't change the underlying engineering dynamics. > "and provide nutrients that people cannot get from plants." I love meat and I'll defend…

> this just isn't a rational argument.

Taurine, Creatine, Carnosine, and B12 are not found in significant amounts in plants. Heme Iron is much more bioavailable than Plant Iron or Iron supplements. Plant-based diets can also inhibit the absorption of many more nutrients, including Iron and B12. You cannot get the right type of omega-3 fatty acids through a normal plant-based diet, either, you must supplement it with an algae-based supplement.

In fact, a lot of nutrients that are abundant in meat and readily absorbed and processed by our bodies probably needs to be supplemented with a pill to get enough of it on a vegan diet. Choline can be found in plenty of vegetables, but are you actually getting enough of it? Incorporating meat into the diet makes it very easy to get enough of many nutrients that our body needs without having to take a half dozen supplements.

That doesn't even get into how a plant-based diet can negatively affect gut health and the composition of plants can inhibit nutrient activity and absorption. Nor does it get into how these diets can negatively affect children, either through the quality of nutrition derived from their mother's breast milk or from adhering to a plant-based diet in general.

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

#189

Post by myshpa »

revelio wrote: post #132
myshpa wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Antarctic sea ice extent is currently at the same level it was at this time of year in 1980, actually a little higher. Use Charctic to see for yourself: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-... Arctic sea ice extent is currently tracking the 2010-2020 average. Nothing much is happening in terms of Arctic sea ice extent at the moment and that's been true for a while. There has been a steady decl…

We have reliable measurements of Arctic snow cover that date back to the late 1960s when satellite observations of the Earth's surface began. The earliest satellite used for snow cover monitoring was the Television Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS) series, which was launched by the United States in 1960.

In the early 1970s, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) launched the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) sensor, which provided more detailed and accurate measurements of snow cover extent and duration in the Arctic.

The extent of Arctic snow cover has varied considerably from year to year, but in general, there has been a decreasing trend in snow cover extent and duration since the late 1960s. According to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the Arctic snow cover extent has decreased at a rate of approximately 4% per decade since the late 1960s.

In recent years, there have been some variations in snow cover extent, with some years showing slightly more snow cover than others. However, the overall trend has been towards less snow cover and a shorter snow cover season.

The decrease in Arctic snow cover is thought to be due to a combination of factors, including rising temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and changes in the Arctic's sea ice cover. The loss of snow cover has significant impacts on the Arctic ecosystem and can contribute to further warming and changes in the region.

[0] ChatGPT

The glaciers all around the world are melting. Polar bears are drowning. While world is 1-1.5C warmer, in polar areas it's 5C and more.

There were many papers claiming that smoking doesn't cause any harm. 97% of scientists agree that climate change/crisis is human made and bad. The scientific consensus is what matters.

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

#190

Post by least »

eastof wrote: post #159
verdverm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are nutrients and amino acids only found in meat. Where do you get the replacement for this, what does that process look like, are they even metabolically equivalent?

> nutrients [...] only found in meat Nutritional yeast is tasty and naturally has b12, and most cereals/grains are fortified with it. > amino acids [...] only found in meat This just isn't true, you can get all amino acids from plant-based sources like soybeans, lentils, and peanuts. Source: I have been vegan for 5 years and I still have a healthy 6 minute mile, 25 consecutive pullups, V5-V7 range boulder problem cli…

> Nutritional yeast is tasty and naturally has b12, and most cereals/grains are fortified with it.

Taurine, Carnosine, Creatine, and B12 don't exist in significant quantities outside of meat. Nutritional yeast is often supplemented with B12 but the bioavailability of it compared to animal protein is low. You will need to take an actual supplement to get the right amount of B12 your body needs to function optimally.

You'll also probably need to supplement calcium, iron (with kelp-based supplement), omega-3 fatty acids (with algae-based supplement), and Vitamin D because even though many of these are found in plants and even relatively high amounts, their bioavailability is low. Spinach is rich in iron but very little of it can actually be processed by the body.

> This just isn't true, you can get all amino acids from plant-based sources like soybeans, lentils, and peanuts.

The amino acid profile in plant sources do not mirror the needs of human beings. In order to achieve a complete amino acid profile you will need a combination of many protein sources like pea, hemp, soy, brown rice, and quinoa. In order to actually consume it and get what you need you'll likely need to make a mixture of protein powders because you won't consume the right amount just eating plant foods.

Post reply on HN