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

NASA finds super-emitters of methane

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#191

Post by micromacrofoot »

mmaunder wrote: post #23

Will be interesting to see how this capability unfolds. They’ve proven this can be done using an instrument not even designed for the task. A specialized instrument may be able to detect other greenhouse emissions. Imagine the kind of high resolution accountability that might be possible. But does the political will exist in the US to expose ourselves that way? Our political donors that way? Our country as one of the…

The government would only publicize the emissions that benefit us politically, which are likely the primary polluters we already know about (China, India, etc).

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#192

Post by bawolff »

mmaunder wrote: post #23

Will be interesting to see how this capability unfolds. They’ve proven this can be done using an instrument not even designed for the task. A specialized instrument may be able to detect other greenhouse emissions. Imagine the kind of high resolution accountability that might be possible. But does the political will exist in the US to expose ourselves that way? Our political donors that way? Our country as one of the…

There are a lot of countries out there, even if the us is unwilling to, it would be in the interest of many middle powers to do so.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#193

Post by oceanplexian »

29athrowaway wrote: post #166

YouTube is full of trash burning tutorials. Some of them are exceptionally stupid and talk about "clean burners", which is essentially a burn barrel connected to a leaf blower, such that the smoke is dispersed, creating the illusion of "clean" air. Such dumb tutorials have hundreds of hundreds of thousands of views. Each video has dumb comments on them like "Oh yeah this burner is awesome, I made the same thing at ho…

While I sympathize with the sentiment, that creating some kind of censorship dystopia will magically solve the problem, the idea has no traction when most of the people doing so make less than $1 a day somewhere in a remote corner of the world. This is the problem I have with climate activism.

The best way to reduce pollution is to raise the standard of living for people around the world. People who are wealthy can afford cleaner forms of energy, they can afford to dispose of trash cleanly, they can afford to recycle. People that are poor have nothing to lose and don't care about "environmental authorities". "Let's ban X", "Let's force people to do Y" and "Throw them in jail" is not a reasonable or effective way to solve problems. It also further divides people and does more to hurt your cause than to promote it.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#194

Post by datavirtue »

googlryas wrote: post #144
neves wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cynical me is always impressed in how much funding goes to find emitters outside the develop world: > "...emit methane at high rates span central Asia, the Middle East and the southwestern United States. By finding these sites from space, the satellite is bringing an important perspective to climate accountability," USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money spent in emergency Covid vaccines

I never realized the southwestern United States was outside the develop world.

Seen Arizona lately? People are standing outside the polls with guns.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#195

Post by lazide »

themitigating wrote: post #188
lazide wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re still being incredibly vague on who you expect to sacrifice and how for the course of action you propose. Mind giving more than platitudes?

I'm sorry. Let me throw out the hypotheticals in my head and these are not based on any real situation. 1. What if a small Eastern European country created a large nuclear reactor but didn't care about safety meaning that the probability of a meltdown that would effect Europe was X percentage. At what value of X is it acceptable to invade assuming all other methods of persuasion have been attempted. 2. If a country i…

Considering Russia did #1 in Chernobyl and all they got was their own (well Ukraine’s) land irradiated and a lot of strongly worded letters, the bar is practically a lot higher than you seem to think it should be.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#196

Post by Zild »

omgJustTest wrote: post #5

Stupid question: How much is this actually contributing to climate change? Any climate scientists who make active predictions about how much we don't know?

The answer is actually not that easy to find when searching for less than 5 minutes.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is apparently 440 ppm. CH4 (methane) is 1.85 ppm.

At identical concentration levels CH4 is 84 times more impactful greenhouse effect than CO2 over the course of 10 to 20 years and 28 over 100 years. So it should be about 35% of the global CO2 effect short term (which is not the total but close, probably ?), so highly significant. Curiously the number that I found is around 10-20% so either my numbers are wrong or other graphs I found use confusing units.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#197

Post by hinkley »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #191
mmaunder wrote: post #23

Will be interesting to see how this capability unfolds. They’ve proven this can be done using an instrument not even designed for the task. A specialized instrument may be able to detect other greenhouse emissions. Imagine the kind of high resolution accountability that might be possible. But does the political will exist in the US to expose ourselves that way? Our political donors that way? Our country as one of the…

The government would only publicize the emissions that benefit us politically, which are likely the primary polluters we already know about (China, India, etc).

Corporations are multinational. The atmosphere doesn't care if that methane plume came from a plant in the US or a US-owned plant in Nigeria. Or on an rig in the North Sea.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#198

Post by motokamaks »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #191
mmaunder wrote: post #23

Will be interesting to see how this capability unfolds. They’ve proven this can be done using an instrument not even designed for the task. A specialized instrument may be able to detect other greenhouse emissions. Imagine the kind of high resolution accountability that might be possible. But does the political will exist in the US to expose ourselves that way? Our political donors that way? Our country as one of the…

The government would only publicize the emissions that benefit us politically, which are likely the primary polluters we already know about (China, India, etc).

The Primary polluters are still China and USA. India is a far 3rd and emits 50% less CO2 than the USA. https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitt...

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#199

Post by oceanplexian »

pasabagi wrote: post #154
chitowneats wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can the current energy demand of the United States be met cost-effectively with wind, solar, and batteries? I'm a huge proponent of these technologies but the answer to that question in 2022 is still no. "Ending" domestic coal production would cause a drop in GDP that would make 2020 look like child's play.

Wait, why? Isn't solar or wind, depending on location, typically the cheapest form of power generation? Most of Europe is off coal. It's not really a necessary part of an energy mix.

> Most of Europe is off coal. It's not really a necessary part of an energy mix.

This is not exactly the best time to be talking about Europe's superior energy infrastructure.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#200

Post by hinkley »

jakub_g wrote: post #83

Since Turkmenistan was mentioned, mandatory link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater > One of the more popular theories is that Soviet geologists intentionally set it on fire in 1971 to prevent the spread of methane gas, and it is thought to have been burning continuously ever since.

Was there not some point where someone might have thought it a good idea to sink a gas wellhead half a mile away to drink that milkshake instead of letting it burn for 50 years?
Post reply on HN