Live data from Hacker News

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

sciencenews.org

211–220 of 450 posts

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

#211
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand what you are arguing. Yes, the average temperature of earth has chaged vastly over its history, giving different levels of habitability. At this time, we're in a really good spot for habitability, and we are seeing that we are slipping out of it. There is evidence that some of the temperature change could very well be human made, and thus easy to stop (compared to, say, the emissions of v…

Easy to stop? Lol it's down right impossible and all this discussion is colossal waste of time. Humans are never going to coordinate globally to do this.

I'm not wasting a lot of time on this, maybe a couple hours a month in looking at papers? I don't think it's a waste of time.

Humans don't need to coordonate globally to slow down emissions. I'm sure you are aware of what motivated small groups of people can do.

I'm not talking changing laws or protesting, but sabotage and disobedience in general are very efficient and need little coordination.

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

#212
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand what you are arguing. Yes, the average temperature of earth has chaged vastly over its history, giving different levels of habitability. At this time, we're in a really good spot for habitability, and we are seeing that we are slipping out of it. There is evidence that some of the temperature change could very well be human made, and thus easy to stop (compared to, say, the emissions of v…

Climate has changed in big ways without mass extinctions. The medieval warm period, the little ice age, mid-20th-century cooling. Just three examples. The idea the climate has been stable since the dinosaurs isn't supported by the evidence.

Like all the variations you mentionned are less than 0.5° average, while we are already over 1° now. I think it's almost disengenuous to use them to say that the present warming is nothing to be worried of.

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

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason your comment is bad isn't you pointing out some "truth". The reason is your comment being misleading. You pretend, the accuracy of climate models was insufficient for any relevant conclusions to be made. That is just nonsense. The interesting part is people clinging onto anything calling that impending climate catastrophe (or its human cause) into question. Individual subjective short-term benefits outweig…

Well, Climategate happened. So there is legitimate reason to be skeptical of dire claims. And yes, I’m aware all of those involved in the scandal were cleared of wrongdoing. That’s like the FBI investigating itself and finding nothing wrong. Anyways, the fundamental assumption of most models—-that humans are behind climate change—-has not been sufficiently evaluated or tested. I find starting with that assumption uns…

Just for kicks, what do you think is the reason for that curve at the end of the hockey stick diagram? Because there's quite a bit of work that's been done there, I don't know what you need more!

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

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> World population has grown at exactly the same rate for the last 70 years Did you actually look at what you linked? The main graph is only China and India and already shows a net inflection for China in the past few years. It will keep slowing. Read about population-lag effect. The second graph nicely confirms that contrary to what you pretend population growth has started slowing globally. There is no consensus ab…

Did you bother changing the graph to show world population instead of just looking at the default selection? Here is the link to assist you in this: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demograp... It is a straight upwards line. But as I said, they don't care about population, only CO2 levels, which also go up in a straight line. It would indeed be a waste of time for you to argue further, because you…

(not a climate scientist) Also, for the graph showing "peaks" - it seems to me that the "pattern of peaks" is constant through your graph, but the average temperature rises continually through the peaks.

If I were to guess, the peaks are things like volcanoes, currents and such, which are "constant" through time. The rise in CO2 is shown in the graph by the median not being a flat line.

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

#215
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second link is not an unpaywalled copy, it's "climate change isn't real" content that you're portraying as having been posted to Nature. This is not a constructive way to talk about the topic at hand (methane being the equivalent of 20x CO2 instead of 28x, at least if the submission isn't in error).

Here's a public versions of their nature comment written by the same authors. I should have linked to that instead of the original paywalled version but all these versions are making the same argument, presumably with sightly different wording for copyright reasons: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientist... If you're claiming this material is "climate change isn't real" then look into who the au…

Alright so the ipcc makes multiple projections, with some being "hot", in the sense that they are worse than their other predictions. I think they made like 6 predictions last report.

This papers is just arguing that the "hot" predictions should be less intense, because they are not very good at reproducing some specific past dataset.

That has nothing to do with a problem with hot models - it's a slight modification to them.

You seem to be arguing in bad faith. Your article even seems to imply that the hot models are fine with predicting present data, just jot the data of the last ice age. Who cares? What has that got to do with anything? No one is only looking at the hot model!

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

#216

It is kind of astonishing to me to witness the discussion in these comments proceeding civilly and with actual regard to the science. In my experience this is vanishingly rare. It's extremely refreshing. At risk of ruining that civility, I'd like to address some aspects of climate scepticism various other comments are touching on. It is not difficult to see that a reasonable person may ask that if the UN is correct i…

Just a note, while I was in college some 6-7 years ago, I was told that methane was 19-21x worse than CO2. I don't think the consensus used to be that it was 28x.

The article also clarifies that while it is 28x, it also has a second effect in which it traps heat, so in total it seems to get to 20x.

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

#217

It is kind of astonishing to me to witness the discussion in these comments proceeding civilly and with actual regard to the science. In my experience this is vanishingly rare. It's extremely refreshing. At risk of ruining that civility, I'd like to address some aspects of climate scepticism various other comments are touching on. It is not difficult to see that a reasonable person may ask that if the UN is correct i…

And I've not seen a single good argument from skeptics. Just looking at the hockey stick graph is enough for me to understand the severity of the issue, and I've not seen a good answer to it, let alone most other arguments.

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe things have changed but when I was a bit into weightlifting maybe a decade ago, common knowledge back then was that some forms of protein (ie amino acids mix of specific types and ratios) can't be realistically substituted by normally eating humans. I mean unless you want to prepare all your meals with scales. Its not about theory on paper, but what people actually eat on a given diet and how their body looks l…

> some forms of protein... can't be realistically substituted by normally eating humans. uh... > Its a fact that ie vegans lack: B12, Most vegans consume enough B12 to avoid clinical deficiency by eating foods fortified with B12, including plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals, and B12 supplements > D3, The vegan source of vitamin D3 comes from algae, produces the most body-ready form of vitamin D…

> Most vegans consume enough B12 to avoid clinical deficiency by eating foods fortified with B12, including plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals, and B12 supplements

No, they probably won't get enough with just fortified foods. Most vegans will need an actual B12 supplement.

> The vegan source of vitamin D3 comes from algae, produces the most body-ready form of vitamin D3, cholecalciferol.

This is true, except that people don't eat algae, so it's an additional supplement you need to take.

> Plant sources of iron include lentils, chickpeas, beans, tofu, cashew nuts, chia seeds, ground linseed, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds, kale, dried apricots and figs, raisins, quinoa and fortified breakfast cereal.

All of which have low bioavailability which is why so many vegans have iron anemia. In fact eating mostly fibrous plants and seeds likely inhibits iron uptake.

> Nori, the papery-like seaweed product used in making sushi, has up to 1,300 milligrams of taurine per 100 grams.

It's likely to have less and once again, the issue comes down to bioavailability. It doesn't matter that it's in there if it cannot be processed by the human body.

> Sources of well-absorbed calcium for vegans include calcium-fortified soy milk and juice, calcium-set tofu, soybeans and soynuts, bok choy, broccoli, collards, Chinese cabbage, kale, mustard greens, and okra.

The phytates and oxalates in those inhibits calcium's bioavailability in these foods. You get it from supplements, once again.

> Sea vegetables such as kelp, nori, kombu, wakame, and arame provide more than enough daily iodine. Common vegan thickeners such as carrageenan and agar-agar contain the mineral, too.

You're more likely to meet your iodine needs from iodized salt. You need a reasonably large quantity of seaweed in your diet to actually meet your need for iodine. It's not problematic for some people, but it's just another list of things you need a specific amount of in order to just avoid malnutrition.

> Vegans avoid lower BMD by consuming plenty of plant-based foods containing calcium and vitamin D.

Yes, vegans have to jump through hoops to avoid malnutrition in their diet, which requires careful thought and planning. You do not avoid malnutrition just by eating a vegan diet and you will almost certainly be malnourished if you don't take supplements.

> But the biggest problem with eating meat is that meat industry is responsible for a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions.

It's also responsible for providing a reliable source of high quality protein which better matches what a human body needs. Livestock is nutritionally one of the best sources of food available to human beings. It does contribute a significant portion of greenhouse emissions, but so does agriculture in general. 14% of the 25% that agriculture contributes is livestock. If you completely removed livestock from the equation, emissions share for plant agriculture would increase and you'd be introducing more considerations that could also increase emissions. If I were to guess, it'd still be a net positive for emissions, but not as significant as people like to think.

> In conclusion, meat sucks. I'm not a vegan, but my biggest gripe is meat is shoved down everyone throats.

No, meat is great. It's an almost perfect food for humans. Vegetables, fruits, nuts, and grains are also great. Grains are probably the least great but they are important because they increase food security substantially and also serve as feed for livestock, which have their own benefits.

> Becoming a vegan is difficult because meat is literally everywhere, and animal product is in nearly all food products in some form or other, and even a large number of non-food products.

Vegan options are increasing a lot all over the country, including the East coast. But even if they weren't, eating out has a significantly higher carbon footprint than cooking a meal at home. You can cook for yourself which would decrease your carbon footprint along with your choice to eat vegan.

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

#219
post #88
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

before modern man, there were 30-60 mil buffaloes in the US, now there are 30 mil cows. It's kinda a net zero

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

#220
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cutting CH4 is useful for fighting climate change, but in a different way than cutting CO2. In terms of climate change it’s not a 10 years thing and then methane instantly swaps, it’s a second by second thing where a percentage of existing methane is constantly converted. In steady state new methane from say cow farts 1:1 replaces methane from past cow farts being transformed into CO2. The only difference is an atom…

I'm more worried about untracked CH4 leaks from coal mines and LNG projects. Which dwarf farm emissions. Cow's are just part of the problem. The real threat is the LNG industry.

Methane emissions from oil and gas are enormously variable depending on what kind of upstream production facilities you have. Norway's methane emissions from oil and gas are negligible, and a couple of orders of magnitude better than the worst offenders, which are Russia and the US.

Why the US? Shale gas is based on an enormous number of gas wells with a short lifetime each. It's not economical to provide power and compressed air at each of these shale gas wells, so they use the pressure of the natural gas as the energy source to actuate their valves and pump liquids. That means the gas is vented to the atmosphere. And any liquids storage is in tanks which have no blanketing, so any evaporation and associated gas goes straight to the atmosphere.

US shale gas has incredibly high methane intensity. Not quite as bad as Russia, but worse than the rest of the world, including Saudia Arabia.

LNG plants themselves tend to have fairly low methane emissions. If you go to Qatar or Australia, the other two leading LNG exporters, their CO2 emissions will be high, but due to their upstream facilities they will have a tiny fraction of the methane emissions of US production.

But it's cheaper and easier to just engage in finger-wagging, pledges and vague ESG-inspired aspirations that to pay more for less-GHG-intensive LNG, so nothing will change in the short term.

Post reply on HN