Why are there so many methane satellites?
heatmap.news
Why are there so many methane satellites?
1–10 of 78 posts
Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?
#2[deleted]
Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?
#3I get that methane has a strong greenhouse effect, and that climate models need to account for its concentration to make accurate predictions. But in terms of climate activism, isn't worrying about methane mostly a red herring?
My understanding is that it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years or so. It doesn't accumulate over centuries the way CO2 does. This means even if we manage to permanently reduce the amount of methane in the atmosphere, it would only be a one-time effect equivalent to not emitting a certain amount of CO2 once. In the long run, the amount of net carbon added to or removed from the carbon cycle, for example from fossil reservoirs, is the only thing that really matters.
Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?
#4The TFA answers it's question
>>"So why do we keep launching more?"
>>"Despite the small army of probes in orbit, and an increasingly large fleet of methane-detecting planes and drones closer to the ground, our ability to identify where methane is leaking into the atmosphere is still far too limited. "
And a lot of nice detail is provided about particular satellite programs
Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?
#5I get that methane has a strong greenhouse effect, and that climate models need to account for its concentration to make accurate predictions. But in terms of climate activism, isn't worrying about methane mostly a red herring? My understanding is that it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years or so. It doesn't accumulate over centuries the way CO2 does. This means even if we manage to permanently reduce the amoun…
It reacts with ozone to decompose into carbon dioxide, so methane not only has a much higher short-lived effect but later turns into CO2.
Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?
#6I get that methane has a strong greenhouse effect, and that climate models need to account for its concentration to make accurate predictions. But in terms of climate activism, isn't worrying about methane mostly a red herring? My understanding is that it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years or so. It doesn't accumulate over centuries the way CO2 does. This means even if we manage to permanently reduce the amoun…
That’s exactly why it’s also worth targeting. Its short residence time means that addressing methane emissions could make a meaningful impact. It’s not zero sum - we should address the low hanging fruit of methane emissions while also decarbonizing.
Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?
#7I get that methane has a strong greenhouse effect, and that climate models need to account for its concentration to make accurate predictions. But in terms of climate activism, isn't worrying about methane mostly a red herring? My understanding is that it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years or so. It doesn't accumulate over centuries the way CO2 does. This means even if we manage to permanently reduce the amoun…
That's a misunderstanding. The methane stays in the atmosphere a few years until it reacts with oxygen to CO2. So first you have the multiple times worse effect of CH4 and then you're left with CO2, which is still a greenhouse gas. You're left with CO2 either way, even when you burn the methane. That's why it's so bad. And that's why actually when companies or politicians tell you about "clean" gas, it's very misleading. There is significant leakage in production, transport and storage, before the gas even reaches a consumer.
Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?
#8I get that methane has a strong greenhouse effect, and that climate models need to account for its concentration to make accurate predictions. But in terms of climate activism, isn't worrying about methane mostly a red herring? My understanding is that it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years or so. It doesn't accumulate over centuries the way CO2 does. This means even if we manage to permanently reduce the amoun…
I think the idea is even in those 12 years, it's way more damaging than CO2 will be. Over 100 years, it is 28 times more damaging than C02, despite not being in the atmosphere for most of that time.
Plus doesn't it just break down into CO2 anyway, meaning that methane does its direct damage, plus creates more CO2.
Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?
#9Because these are either spy sats or even weapons in space disguised as "methane detectors".
Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?
#10I would guess for the same reason the government consistently buys $1000 hammers and $5000 toilet seats - to mask some military operation theyd rather not publicly report on.