by starkd on 4/22/23, 3:52 PM with 433 comments
by hinkley on 4/22/23, 4:19 PM
According to this article the correct answer is 20. That’s still over an order of magnitude difference. It still doesn’t change the priorities much, it means you can leak 40% more methane from a system before it’s worse that coal, but we aren’t usually measuring these sorts of problems in 2 decimal points to begin with.
by shrubble on 4/22/23, 4:37 PM
This research shows that the mechanism of action was misunderstood all this time. What else hasn't been researched enough and has simplistic assumptions baked into the climate models?
That shockingly simplistic models and the barest of data don't actually have predictive power wouldn't surprise people in any other scientific discipline, but it will certainly be cause enough for this subject, to have this comment voted into oblivion....
by pier25 on 4/22/23, 4:38 PM
Could?
This is already happening.
Scientists such as Natalia Shakhova have been studying this for years. This is a video of her from 10 years ago.
by BurningFrog on 4/22/23, 4:19 PM
The effect is 30% less than previously thought, and global warming is still really really really important.
by henearkr on 4/22/23, 4:28 PM
by hatsune on 4/23/23, 7:15 PM
by _1cao on 4/22/23, 4:09 PM
by jmyeet on 4/22/23, 4:46 PM
> Methane is naturally destroyed by both chemical and biological processes, including reaction with atmospheric hydroxyl [OH] and chlorine, and by methane-consuming bacteria (methanotrophs) in soil and water. This results in a lifetime in the air of 9.1 ± 0.9 years [12]. Thus, we face an important question—given methane is being removed from the air anyway, why trouble to do this artificially? It may be preferable to dedicate the cost and energy involved in methane removal to the task of stopping methane emissions, which would accomplish the same end result of lessening, halting, or reversing the growth of methane-driven climate warming, or, alternatively, simply to ignore methane and dedicate all efforts to CO2 removal. To answer this question, the specific methods of removing methane must be examined.
by quaintdev on 4/22/23, 4:19 PM
by petermcneeley on 4/22/23, 4:42 PM
Methane has multiple peaks of absorption
by EGreg on 4/23/23, 5:46 AM
Frankly, we as a global society have FAR more pressing issues than the greenhouse effect, such as:
Collapse of insect and bird populations
Overfishing and plummeting biodiversity as we turn the world into farms and monocultures
Destruction of coral reefs and kelp forests and rainforests
One third of arable land WORLDWIDE is now undergoing desertification
Day zero for many cities as aquifers run dry
Plastic by mass will outnumber fish in the oceans by 2050
Factory farms overuse of antibiotics and superbacteria…
And so on… somehow this “climate change” thing has hijacked the conversation and sucked all the political capital for things like sustainability, switching to non biodegradeable plastics, ending factory farms, etc.
by jmartrican on 4/22/23, 5:15 PM
by 1letterunixname on 4/22/23, 5:58 PM
It has a GWP of nearly 100 the first year but falls off rapidly.
If the hypothetical Methane Gun happened, there is immense warming potential that could rapidly melt regional ice sheets.
by harold_b on 4/24/23, 2:21 AM
by Etrnl_President on 4/23/23, 7:21 AM
by lorddoig on 4/22/23, 8:03 PM
It is not difficult to see that a reasonable person may ask that if the UN is correct in saying 30% of climate change is due to methane[1] and this paper is correct in saying methane is 30% less effective at warming than we thought, then isn't this whole climate change problem potentially ~9% smaller than we thought? And isn't that actually pretty big? Big enough to potentially have policy implications?
I'm quite sure it's not that simple but nevertheless as a starting point for discovery it's a decent question. It's also a question that will be met with astonishing levels of derision on social media, mainstream media, and in society more generally. Merely asking it will have large international media outlets like the BBC openly describing the questioner as a 'climate sceptic/denier' which, while some may wear it as a badge of honour, actually serves the purpose of shaming them publicly for wrongthink. Social media will of course be far worse in this regard.
We now live in a world where it is popularly considered valid to provide a political (to put it kindly) response to a scientific question. It is, of course, both invalid and indefensible.
I have no ideological aversion to the idea that climate change is real and a serious threat, but the quality of societal discourse on the topic has become so poor and so overtly political that there is absolutely no basis upon which I can accept either of those assertions as _actually scientifically_ true (short of becoming a climate scientist and spending the next however many years personally reviewing all the literature). For me to accept these assertions as fact would be indistinguishable from a declaration of religious faith. It isn't going to happen.
Moreover the conduct of the pro-climate change 'lobby' from the IPCC to the BBC to Just Stop Oil activists has, on the whole, fallen so far short of the standard demanded by the severity of the problem they espouse that I simply don't believe them very much anymore. In my view--and I claim no authority on this matter, this is just how I see it--climate change may well be real and an existential threat, but it may also be a bureaucratic fantasy mistakenly grown from kernels of misunderstood or mistaken truths that has gotten so completely out of control that it's now controlling us. It could also be somewhere in between, or something else entirely: I don't know and I cannot know so long as society keeps excluding valid voices with valid questions.
I suppose I'm a climate sceptic then...but when it comes to deciding between being a sceptic or taking a leap of devotional faith, what choice do I have? Luckily it seems to me the way forward is the same in any case: the pro-climate change people, being the ones comprehensively 'winning' the 'argument' at the moment, need to show a little humility and engage in open debate with the well-meaning sceptics without the ad-hominem attacks, the gaslighting, the censorship, etc. It really is that simple, and the fact it’s so forcefully resisted should, in my view, give us all pause for thought.
[1]: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/methane-emission...
by ta8903 on 4/22/23, 4:16 PM
by drKarl on 4/23/23, 7:34 AM
by cratermoon on 4/22/23, 4:13 PM
by thevtm on 4/22/23, 4:01 PM
