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

361–370 of 450 posts

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

#361

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

machina_ex_deus wrote: post #315
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what can possibly cause warming is only the effect of the difference in temperatures between the CO2 gas and the surface This is wrong. If you do the math, you actually find that you get warming from CO2 if the atmosphere is colder, the same temp, or hotter than the surface. When the ground emits a photon there are two possibilities. it either gets absorbed by an atom in the atmosphere or it goes to space. about…

The jacket is preventing heat loss via convection. You literally can't prevent heat loss from radiation. By the zeroth law, an object with specific temperature is at thermal equilibrium with photonic heat bath at the same temperature. If you look at the interface between them, whether there's CO2 there or a black body doesn't matter, because you could replace it with photonic heat bath. The comparison to greenhouse (…

there doesn't have to be a difference in radiation energy for the second body to shift the equilibrium temperature

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

#362

Post by WalterBright »

hinkley wrote: post #350
WalterBright wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methane also has a half-life in the atmosphere of 12 years, rather than centuries for CO2.

CO2 doesn’t have a half-life. It has to be consumed.

It does have a half-life in the atmosphere. I'm not referring to radioactive decay.

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

#363

Post by polygamous_bat »

revelio wrote: post #332
jarenmf wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if a scientist questions climate science, he becomes a pariah As a climate scientist myself, I can tell you this is untrue and a harmful legend. As climate science is mostly atmospheric physics, biology and chemistry, it's pretty much very easy to disagree with anyone if you have a good argument supported by data. If you have strong scientific arguments, it does not matter even if the whole world is against you. On…

>> As a climate scientist myself, I can tell you this is untrue and a harmful legend Other climatologists say otherwise: https://reason.com/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-jud... There's also a long list of people who were listed as IPCC reviewers, who claim they pointed out serious flaws in the research, were ignored, and whose names were then put on the final report anyway.

I hope you do know that reason.com is a right wing think tank funded by David Koch foundation, and thus have serious conflict of interest?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/

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

#364

Post by polygamous_bat »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #347
revelio wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such dangerous feedback loops are conjectured but not actually a threat. It can be proven with historical evidence like this paper, which shows that during the Roman times it must have been much hotter than today, like somewhere between 3-7 degrees hotter, based on the discovery of bison fossils in the Alps. This is well beyond the level climatologists claim would cause runaway feedback driven global warming and mass…

This sounds like a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. Not sure why you would post it.

Unfortunately, looking at this (pretty new) account's recent posts makes me think you may be arguing in good faith against a climate change troll. It's just a general pattern of Gish-galloping, and relying on the principle that disproving bullshit takes lot more effort than spewing it.

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

#365

Post by least »

Maursault wrote: post #328
least wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

All you've done is contradicted the statements I've made, which are verifiably true. I'm not sure why you would waste your time. Every statement you've made, every single thing you've just written, is provably false. Eat all the meat you want. You've earned it.

> Every statement you've made, every single thing you've just written, is provably false.

No, they're not.

> Most vegans will need an actual B12 supplement.

It obviously depends on how much of any given fortified B12 food you consume. Hypothetically yes, you could eat enough fortified foods to avoid the need for a pill, but it'd take a lot more intentional eating on the vegan's part. Most vegans should take a B12 supplement because it ensures that they're getting enough B12, while fortified foods have varied amounts of it.

https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/...

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

I take this back, people do eat nori which is algae. It just doesn't contain vitamin d. Vegan would take a supplement, since vitamin D is not prevalent inside of plants. Another option might be UV-exposed mushrooms, but generally you either need fortified foods or a supplement. Vegan vitamin d supplements are produced from the algae you mentioned.

> 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.

Plant sources of iron do not contain heme iron, they contain non-heme iron, which is less bioavailable. 25% of heme iron and 17% of nonheme iron get absorbed, which seems insignificant until you realize exactly what that translates to in terms of how much material you need to consume to reach that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK540969/

And on the bioavailability of iron:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652...

On nori: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319322455_The_Tauri...

The only source of 1300 mg claim that i saw was webmd... which is what you copied that sentence from.

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

Phytates play a larger role than oxalates. It's the same issue as with iron. Phytates bind with calcium which can prevent uptake.

Stop making impassioned statements trying to push an agenda you're unwilling to defend. My argument is defensible. It's quite possible I'm wrong about some of it, but it's certainly not driven by dogma.

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

#366

Post by least »

varjag wrote: post #314
least wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fish is meat. But even if it weren't, it's still an animal so it doesn't matter when the discussion is about a vegan who won't eat them, either.

In the stores fish and meat are different aisles. And the discussion is about carbon footprint, not veganism.

Please don't inject yourself into conversations when you do not fully grasp the context.

> In the stores fish and meat are different aisles.

This does not change the fact that fish is still, in fact, meat.

> And the discussion is about carbon footprint, not veganism.

Broadly, but not in this context.

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

#367

Post by revelio »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #363
revelio wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> As a climate scientist myself, I can tell you this is untrue and a harmful legend Other climatologists say otherwise: https://reason.com/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-jud... There's also a long list of people who were listed as IPCC reviewers, who claim they pointed out serious flaws in the research, were ignored, and whose names were then put on the final report anyway.

I hope you do know that reason.com is a right wing think tank funded by David Koch foundation, and thus have serious conflict of interest? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/

1. The article is simply a summary and repetition of Judith Curry's announcement, and Curry is/was an academic climatologist.

2. Given (1) I don't really care what reason.com is, but at any rate, I think right wing think tanks are far less biased and far more reliable than universities, government agencies and left wing think tanks, so that's not a useful or convincing response. Climatology is flooded with money due to their claims of doom, so they're as biased by money and profit as it is possible to be. My experience was that their opponents are barely funded at all and object due to a belief that things labelled as scientific should actually be so.

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

#368

Post by revelio »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #347
revelio wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such dangerous feedback loops are conjectured but not actually a threat. It can be proven with historical evidence like this paper, which shows that during the Roman times it must have been much hotter than today, like somewhere between 3-7 degrees hotter, based on the discovery of bison fossils in the Alps. This is well beyond the level climatologists claim would cause runaway feedback driven global warming and mass…

This sounds like a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. Not sure why you would post it.

You assert a feedback loop that is reached at a certain absolute temperature level, I respond with evidence that it can't exist (otherwise it would have already triggered), and your reply is that you can't even understand the link between these two things?

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

#369

Post by matthewdgreen »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #364
matthewdgreen wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. Not sure why you would post it.

Unfortunately, looking at this (pretty new) account's recent posts makes me think you may be arguing in good faith against a climate change troll. It's just a general pattern of Gish-galloping, and relying on the principle that disproving bullshit takes lot more effort than spewing it.

Absolutely. I'm just more fascinated by the idea that there are still such climate change trolls out there in 2023, and they're wasting time on HN. I thought they'd moved away from straight denial and on to bad-faith arguments against renewables.
Post reply on HN