Slashing Methane Emissions Could Be Crucial For Fighting Climate Change, UN Report Warns (nytimes.com) 144
The New York Times reports:
A major United Nations report will declare that slashing emissions of methane, the main component of natural gas, is far more vital than previously thought... It also says that — unless there is significant deployment of unproven technologies capable of pulling greenhouse gases out of the air — expanding the use of natural gas is incompatible with keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, a goal of the international Paris Agreement...
The reason methane would be particularly valuable in the short-term fight against climate change: While methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, it is also relatively short-lived, lasting just a decade or so in the atmosphere before breaking down. That means cutting new methane emissions today, and starting to reduce methane concentrations in the atmosphere, could more quickly help the world meet its midcentury targets for fighting global warming. By contrast, carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, lasts for hundreds of years in the atmosphere... While cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions will remain urgent, "it's going to be next to impossible to remove enough carbon dioxide to get any real benefits for the climate in the first half of the century," said Drew Shindell, the study's lead author and a professor of earth science at Duke University. "But if we can make a big enough cut in methane in the next decade, we'll see public health benefits within the decade, and climate benefits within two decades," he said...
Carbon dioxide is the biggest driver of climate change, but methane is more potent in the shorter term, warming the atmosphere more than 80 times as much as the same amount of carbon dioxide does over a 20-year period. That's bad news, but it also means that cutting methane emissions may be one of the most effective ways to immediately slow rising global temperatures... Unlike carbon dioxide or most other air pollution, methane isn't released by burning fossil fuels, but comes from leaks and other releases from oil and gas infrastructure, among other sources... Fixing those leaks in theory should pay for themselves by saving money, because capturing the gas means companies capture more product. That potential makes plugging leaks from oil and gas infrastructure the most effective and cheapest way to slow emissions, the U.N. report says...
Rolling back methane emissions would prevent more than 250,000 premature deaths, and more than 750,000 asthma-related hospital visits, each year from 2030 onward, the report finds. The lower emissions would also prevent more than 70 billion hours of lost labor from extreme heat and more than 25 million tons of crop losses a year.
One professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University tells the Times we've overestimated agriculture's role in methane while underestimating the fuel industry's role, while another researcher found that methane-reduction efforts in the top-polluting industries could slow global warming by 30 percent.
"Over all, a concerted effort to reduce methane from the fossil fuel, waste and agricultural sectors could slash methane emissions by as much as 45 percent by 2030, helping to avoid nearly 0.3 degrees Celsius of global warming as early as the 2040s, the report says."
The reason methane would be particularly valuable in the short-term fight against climate change: While methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, it is also relatively short-lived, lasting just a decade or so in the atmosphere before breaking down. That means cutting new methane emissions today, and starting to reduce methane concentrations in the atmosphere, could more quickly help the world meet its midcentury targets for fighting global warming. By contrast, carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, lasts for hundreds of years in the atmosphere... While cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions will remain urgent, "it's going to be next to impossible to remove enough carbon dioxide to get any real benefits for the climate in the first half of the century," said Drew Shindell, the study's lead author and a professor of earth science at Duke University. "But if we can make a big enough cut in methane in the next decade, we'll see public health benefits within the decade, and climate benefits within two decades," he said...
Carbon dioxide is the biggest driver of climate change, but methane is more potent in the shorter term, warming the atmosphere more than 80 times as much as the same amount of carbon dioxide does over a 20-year period. That's bad news, but it also means that cutting methane emissions may be one of the most effective ways to immediately slow rising global temperatures... Unlike carbon dioxide or most other air pollution, methane isn't released by burning fossil fuels, but comes from leaks and other releases from oil and gas infrastructure, among other sources... Fixing those leaks in theory should pay for themselves by saving money, because capturing the gas means companies capture more product. That potential makes plugging leaks from oil and gas infrastructure the most effective and cheapest way to slow emissions, the U.N. report says...
Rolling back methane emissions would prevent more than 250,000 premature deaths, and more than 750,000 asthma-related hospital visits, each year from 2030 onward, the report finds. The lower emissions would also prevent more than 70 billion hours of lost labor from extreme heat and more than 25 million tons of crop losses a year.
One professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University tells the Times we've overestimated agriculture's role in methane while underestimating the fuel industry's role, while another researcher found that methane-reduction efforts in the top-polluting industries could slow global warming by 30 percent.
"Over all, a concerted effort to reduce methane from the fossil fuel, waste and agricultural sectors could slash methane emissions by as much as 45 percent by 2030, helping to avoid nearly 0.3 degrees Celsius of global warming as early as the 2040s, the report says."
Wanna cut methane emissions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Gonna have to refreeze the tundra and permafrost
Incorrect. (Score:2)
Wanna cut methane emissions? Gonna have to refreeze the tundra and permafrost
The reduce methane emission, you merely need to methane emissions. Eliminating all methane emissions is moving the goal posts.
However, it should be our ultimate goal to remove enough green house gases from the atmosphere to halt the runaway processes releasing more methane.
Re: (Score:1)
Did I say "all"?
Re: (Score:3)
Did I say "all"?
Yes, you implied it, whether it was intentional or not by saying emissions could not be cut. You placed a specific condition on this, without refreezing the tundra. This condition is not true unless you require all emissions to be halted.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) Interesting logic you applied there, warped, but interesting
Yes, you implied it... by saying emissions could not be cut.
Where did I say that? You seem to be putting a lot of your own words into my post, which I also find interesting
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you implied it... by saying emissions could not be cut.
Where did I say that?
note the bold.
Wanna cut methane emissions? Gonna have to refreeze the tundra and permafrost
Now, "gonna have to" or "you are going to have to" expresses that "in order for A to happen, B is required".
Effectively, you are arguing that the analogous declaration to a spouse of "want some milk? gonna have to go buy some!" in no way implies that there is no milk available except that which is at a store.
There is nothing warped here beside your denial or the obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) You make up some funny shit... You're putting way too much effort into it.
Re: (Score:2)
You have yet to refute a single claim. I take this as you silent acknowledgement of the points I have made.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) You win the internet...
Re: (Score:2)
Thawing methane clathrate deposits are a coming huge emission source, but preventing it isn't really in the cards at this point.
What does Methane break down into? (Score:5, Insightful)
After that relatively short time in the atmosphere, methane breaks down into CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
After that relatively short time in the atmosphere, methane breaks down into CO2.
Yet another reason to reduce methane emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
After that relatively short time in the atmosphere, methane breaks down into CO2.
While brief, the effect is intense. During that relatively short time in the atmosphere, methane has far more effect on climate than it will over the next 500 years it spends as CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
At which point it has 1/10th of the effect on global warming. Methane is an issue because of its potency not because of how much of it there is. In terms of CO2 the entire global methane emissions are a single digit percentage of all human activity.
The CO2 part here is really a distraction from how damaging it is in the short term. But indeed it is another good reason to target methane emission reduction.
So Quit Eating Beef? (Score:3)
Re: So Quit Eating Beef? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: So Quit Eating Beef? (Score:3)
Cute. Threatening to take people's food away has never led anywhere good. Telling them to eat stuff grown in a lab instead is a meme out of Isaac Asimov's books, not a serious public policy proposal.
Sin Tax. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just tax the fuck out of beef like they do with cigarettes and booze. Problem solved.
Because people now no longer drink or smoke? What specific problem do you think would be solved? I'd love to see your working...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sin Tax. (Score:2)
Man has been eating farmed livestock for tens of thousands of years. Doing so confers survival benefits, unlike smoking cigarettes or gambling. Calling it a "sin" betrays the religious cult nature of modern environmentalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Shifting from beef to pork and chicken does not fuck up survival. Personally, as it is, I don't eat much beef due to the price. Had pork chops for dinner tonight, chicken yesterday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sin Tax. (Score:2)
Everything is bad for the climate. You people are literally exhorting society to stop having children. You're that hostile yo human prosperity that you're asking (sometimes demanding) voluntary extinction when you're not demanding deliberate impoverishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sin Tax. (Score:2)
Define "cut down." I make myself a nice pot of beef stew maybe twice a month and have BBQ beef kebabs a maybe a twice a month at most during the summers. It's not like I inject myself with beef three times a day.
But maybe I'll up my intake if it gives *you* a heart attack because I don't recall having ceded the right to eat the food I want to busybody control freaks telling me how to behave because climate/racism/Koran/Talmud/Book of Mormon/FSM says so.
Mind your own fucking business and clean up the mess in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who cares about climate wants to tax beef and fossil fuel.
People who care about their ability to buy food and medicine for their children are not going to vote themselves into poverty. Saving the planet for their grandchildren will mean nothing if their children are left dead or sterile from a lack of money to buy necessities.
People care about global warming, just not near as much as the cost of energy. The Democrats know this, and that's why they no longer oppose new nuclear power plants being built.
Voters have learned that nuclear power is a low CO2 option bec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a choice about choosing between poverty and caring about the climate. What gave you the impression it was?
We have nuclear power. Nuclear power will give us energy that is both clean and inexpensive. Because the Democrats opposed nuclear power for so long they forced this choice between clean energy and low cost energy. With the Democrats no longer opposing nuclear power this choice between one or the other is gone, we can have both now.
This Democrat opposition isn't completely gone. The Democr
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I do live in a world opposite yours. I live in a world where the Democrat party put in their platform support for building new nuclear power plants. This is after nearly 50 years of opposing it.
Why would the Democrats change their mind on nuclear power? Could it be because the voters changed their minds on nuclear power? I would think so.
I believe it was in Arizona that a ballot initiative was voted on in the last election which would have been very favorable to wind and solar, and nuclear power
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound very emotive but the reality is we have been going down this path for decades anyway. Do you think the cheap meat that many people have to rely on is all natural grass-fed goodness?
For many people switching from mechanically recovered head meat chicken nuggets or hormone-grown factory farmed beef to something lab grown would be a major improvement in diet. So would switching to a more plant based menu.
Re: So Quit Eating Beef? (Score:5, Interesting)
yes, cows contribute to climate change
The methane is produced by the bacteria and archaea in the cows' guts. Some strains of bacteria produce much less methane than others. The bacteria can be GMOed to not only reduce methane emissions but also improve the cattle's conversion ratio of feed to meat.
if supply chains adjusted to a majority vegan consumer base we'd be in better shape
Veganism is good. But switching from beef to chicken or pork is also good.
Re: (Score:2)
The methane is produced by the bacteria and archaea in the cows' guts.
FROM GRASS THAT JUST GREW, getting that carbon from the atmosphere. Cows don't eat coal or drink petroleum, so the "cow fart contribution" to atmospheric carbon does not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
The cows are eating grass that absorbed CO2, then they are burping out CH4, which is far more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
So the net effect is converting CO2 to CH4.
You are correct that fossil fuels are worse than cows. So driving less is better than eating less beef. But it isn't really a contest. We can drive less and eat less beef. Or we can switch to EVs and give the cows new gut bacteria.
Disclaimer: I drive an EV. I don't eat beef or any other meat. But I do put milk in my tea.
Re: So Quit Eating Beef? (Score:2)
You don't need to stop raising cattle. Adjusting the composting of their feed can significantly reduce the methane that cattle produce. https://beef.unl.edu/reduce-me... [unl.edu]
Let's start there. I do not eat meat. But for those who do, we should make it better.
Re: (Score:2)
Just have to move more to chicken and pork. Though they have their own problems.
Or change what we feed them (Score:2)
We could also adjust what we feed them.
Feeding Cattle Seaweed Reduces Their Greenhouse Gas Emissions 82 Percent [ucdavis.edu]
Feeding cows seaweed [google.com]
Or less exotic Cattle on carbohydrate -rich diets with high intake will produce less methane as a percentage of dietary gross energy [unl.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't eat bugs either. Some species (termites) produce amounts comparable to all anthropogenic sources. Of course we should get rid of cows in the USA and turn the prairies back over to buffalo. Which can go on eating the grass and burping methane.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't eat bugs either. Some species (termites) produce amounts comparable to all anthropogenic sources.
1. Termites emit 5% of what humans emit. Termites as a source of atmospheric methane [iastate.edu]
2. When humans eat termites, they usually aren't growing additional termites, just harvesting wild termites.
Termites are often used to feed poultry. The hard part of harvesting termites is separating the bugs from the dirt and decaying wood. The chickens do that for themselves. Harvesting termites for chicken feed [youtube.com].
Re:So Quit Eating Beef? (Score:5, Interesting)
Aren't "natural gas emissions" from cows a leading source of methane in the USA?
More from cow burps than farts to be precise, but both contribute... However... recent research by The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Penn State and UC Davis, noted in Hawaiian Seaweed Makes Cows 90% Less Gassy [forbes.com] (and others -- Google cows red seaweed [google.com]), shows:
Other articles about this:
Seaweed May Be the Answer to the Burping Cow Problem [modernfarmer.com]
Adding Red Seaweed To Cow Feed Could Cut Bovine Flatulence [npr.org]
From the Modern Farmer article just above:
A taste-test panel was also conducted, and it found no difference in the flavor or quality of the seaweed-fed steers.
Re: (Score:2)
> Hawaiian Seaweed Makes Cows 90% Less Gassy
Perhaps I should try some seaweed.
Re: (Score:2)
Seaweed reduces methane slightly.
However, only one particular Hawaiian seaweed and there is not nearly enough of that to feed even a small proportion of existing cattle.
Also, cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So Quit Eating Beef? (Score:2)
Increased cost plus it doesn't solve the problem. Only a small decrease in methane plus you still have all the waste from growing animal feed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The idea that cattle are significantly GHG positive on the whole is a bit more contentious than you would think based on headlines. There have been several pretty prominent papers out of places like Berkley trying to tie vast amounts of emissions to US ag, and it simply doesn't pass the sniff test in a lot of cases.
One thing to be aware of is there is a lot of creative accounting that goes on in making claims about agricultural emissions. For example, it's pretty common for animals like pigs and chickens
Re: (Score:2)
70% of agricultural land is used to grow food (primarily corn and soy) to feed to animals.
Stop feeding animals and you have a whole lot of excess land.
Re: (Score:2)
and it simply doesn't pass the sniff test in a lot of cases.
Agreed.
I don't want to discount the rest of your argument, but you did leave that one wide open...
Re: So Quit Eating Beef? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So Quit Eating Beef? (Score:2)
Re: So Quit Eating Beef? (Score:2)
Re: So Quit Eating Beef? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You think the right-wing is riled up over coal and oil, just try and take away their BBQ.
I don't think that the right wing is riled up about coal and oil. After exiting the left-wing echo chamber, I learned that the actual issue is the economic impact of more expensive energy in a society that was built on cheap energy. This is a thing, even if you choose to ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
The right wing has already latched on to this and is making shit up as we speak. Their latest meme is telling each other that "Not-Muh-President Biden done did say we durn 'Muricans can only eat 4 pounds of beef a year! Muh Beef over muh deaf body, Xiden!".
If you need a retard to English translation for that, they are convinced that Biden is plotting to limit them to 4lbs of meat a year. They are all convinced he as all but signed an executive order dictating this.
Re: (Score:2)
If you need a retard to English translation for that, they are convinced that Biden is plotting to limit them to 4lbs of meat a year. They are all convinced he as all but signed an executive order dictating this.
Just wait until they find out he's also going to change America over to metric.
And they are only allowed 1.81437 kg
I'm all for unnatural gases then (Score:2)
I mean it.
We knew this as far back as 1980’s (Score:4, Interesting)
uncapped oil wells were everywhere leaking. Big oil walked out of the Overthrust Belt. Then Big Oil created cow fart strawman to take the bullseye off them. Now its UN turn to run the flag up the pole after the glaciers have melted past the point of no return, permafrost is gassing methane wildly pitching AGW and media are on-cue with the message “ we’ve got a problem”!
I’m almost off /.
Re: (Score:1)
Then Big Oil created cow fart strawman to take the bullseye off them.
It's not a strawman, it's just another source of the problem. Grazing animals contribute to 40% of the total man made methane emissions. The oil and gas industry contributes 48% of the total man made emissions. The other 12% comes from man made wetlands for the purposes of farming (e.g. rice) or other reasons (e.g. waste treating, or environmental damage to wetlands we caused).
Mind you the bullseye should stay on oil and gas regardless. It's much easier to regulate and capture emissions from a process plant
Destroyed their creditability (Score:2, Insightful)
When they said "... By contrast, carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas ..." I knew that they're speaking as an evangelist, and not from the actual facts.
The "main greenhouse gas" is not carbon dioxide, but is instead simple water vapor, which accounts for about 95% of the total greenhouse effect. This fact is quite useful as a litmus test to see if someone talking about climate change actually knows what they're talking about. But the problem is that you can't politically demonize water vapor, so those wh
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The "main greenhouse gas" is not carbon dioxide, but is instead simple water vapor, which accounts for about 95% of the total greenhouse effect.
Water vapor only acts as an amplifier. It's not a driver of the greenhouse effect on Earth.
This fact is quite useful as a litmus test to see if someone talking about climate change actually knows what they're talking about.
Congrats. You know jack shit about global warming. You failed the most basic test.
But the problem is that you can't politically demonize water vapor, so those who wish to use climate change as a political lever to enforce their will instead use the next most influential gas.
Water vapor exists in a dynamic equilibrium, because its lifetime in the atmosphere is measured in days.
Re: Destroyed their creditability (Score:2)
You may want to explore the concept of "cause and effect". A basic understanding us that temporally, cause precedes effect. This is an important concept for you to remember. Now as for why.
Scientists have managed to sample CO2 levels from gas bubbles in ice core samples from Antarctica over long spans of time. They've also managed to get good estimates of global temperatures by tree growth rings and similar proxies. And there is a nice positive correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. But ... there i
Re: (Score:2)
You may want to explore the concept of "cause and effect". A basic understanding us that temporally, cause precedes effect. This is an important concept for you to remember. Now as for why.
You know NOTHING about AGW.
Here's a mental experiment: you wave a magic wand and remove all water vapor from Earth's atmosphere. What would happen with climate?
Answer: not much. Within days the water vapor in the atmosphere will go up to the pre-magic-wand state (modulo some short-term weather system disturbances)
Now we do the same with CO2. Wave a magic wand and removing all of it. What would happen? Answer: the Earth will soon become an ice ball, with glaciers extending to the equator. And it will s
Re: (Score:1)
You know NOTHING about AGW.
Because you said so? That's some top level science right there folks...
Here's a mental experiment: you wave a magic wand and remove all water vapor from Earth's atmosphere. What would happen with climate? Answer: not much.
This is your science again? You say things and those things are now fact?
https://climatechangeconnectio... [climatecha...ection.org]
Nothing in that link contradicts the GP's claim.
Re: Destroyed their creditability (Score:2)
The fact that he's using AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) instead of GW (Global Warming) indicates his bias and explains his hostility to anything that contradicts his beliefs. After all, the very term he uses indicates that humanity is to blame and no other theories are desired or acceptable. And his refusal to accept that Earth has massive CO2 sinks that accumulate and store CO2 when the temperatures are low and unfortunately release that stored CO2 when temperatures increase just makes his problem hard
Re: (Score:2)
I do believe that global warming is happening, but as for the cause being anthropogenic in nature, the jury isn't out, it hasn't even been convened. Right now, GW is being treated as a political matter instead of a technical matter. And they cannot demonize water vapor whereas they can do so for carbon dioxide. Fact of the matter is that water vapor accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect.
Dude, you're just stupid. You're incredibly militantly stupid. You grabbed that one idea that you think is ironclad ("water vapor") and you can't even imagine that OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT before.
Just type the "water vapor causes global warming" in Google and read the first article: https://skepticalscience.com/w... [skepticalscience.com]
It clearly explains why water vapor is NOT the explanation for the GW.
Re: Destroyed their creditability (Score:2)
I know this is futile since your mind is closed, but maybe a miracle will happen.
I have not and never will claim that water vapor causes global warming. I will state that approximately 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor.
NOTE: Greenhouse effect IS NOT THE SAME AS Global warming. Anyone who thinks so is an idiot.
Now, with that said, we have that big nuclear fusion reactor out there. It's about 150 million km, or 93 million miles away. You can frequently see it during the day. And I believe that
Re: (Score:2)
I have not and never will claim that water vapor causes global warming. I will state that approximately 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor.
CO2 and other greenhouse gasses _cause_ the AGW. Water vapor is not a cause of it. Its heightened overall concentration is a RESULT of the AGW. Do you remember what you told about causes and effects? It applies here.
NOTE: Greenhouse effect IS NOT THE SAME AS Global warming. Anyone who thinks so is an idiot.
Greenhouse effect is the CAUSE of global warming.
Maybe you could explain the presence of Viking farms under the Greenland glaciers.
And now you're starting to move goalposts and spew gilgamesh of nonsense. Again, a quick Google search will tell you all about it.
Diagnosis: you ARE a moron. Admit it and maybe one day you'll get better.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you said so? That's some top level science right there folks...
Because climate scientists say so. Do you seriously think that you can just spend 10 seconds and think of an argument that nobody checked before? Then you're pretty stupid.
This is your science again? You say things and those things are now fact?
There you go. Do you understand what I'm trying to illustrate?
Nothing in that link contradicts the GP's claim.
It does. The current global warming has a CO2 driver, unlike some previous warmings that were powered by Milankovich cycles.
Moreover, if you do the math, the Milankovich cycles alone can't explain the drastic warming. They mostly act as a driver for the CO2 concentration that
Re: (Score:2)
That is how religion works, not science. But thanks for confirming that.
Since when does religion back up their declarations with exhaustive observational data and rigorous documented analysis? You know full well that's what the climate science has. But thanks for confirming you're still stuck deep in denial.
Nothing in the link demonstrates that.
Yes it does. Are you denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Did you read the line saying "As carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, the greenhouse effect is strengthened, and a greater degree of warming occurs"? Did you miss the graph showing CO2 is more than 50% higher
Re: (Score:2)
40 years of failed predictions about effects of warming, and about 15 years of failed predictions about the ice age prior to that.
Goalpost shift, from religion to quality of predictions. Of course you provide no citations, because there were zero scientific studies predicting ice ages anytime soon, only wildly speculative media reports. Doubtless your other claims are also based on misinterpreted journalism and bloggers with agendas, because predictions have so far been remarkably accurate - from the 1979 Charney Report [bnl.gov] nailing the climate sensitivity from doubled CO2 at around 3 degrees C (observations so far show 0.66C increase from
Re: (Score:2)
A continued string of unreliable predictions
And again you dodge all the provided evidence of successful predictions. And you insist these allegedly failed predictions are "religious" now? Good one.
Do you deny the Vishnu as a God?
Of course I have no proof of that, how could I prove a negative? But there's zero evidence for, and plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. While your baseless denialism flies in the face of decades of rigorous scientific studies, and the consensus of every scientific institution on the planet - that's the blind religious faith you're thinking of.
did you just link to an 866 page doc and think that counts as an argument?
Did you j
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, So when specifically in history did that happen
It was right there on the graph in the original link [climatecha...ection.org], many times over the last 800k years - no surprise you somehow overlooked that.
80ppm used to equal 8 degrees, but the last 140ppm only adds 1 degree?
Timeframes, dude. Those historical rises took thousands of years. The world has a lot of thermal inertia, what with those deep oceans, feedbacks, tipping points etc. Thinking that human emissions should have had their full effect already only highlights how little you understand about climate. Even if we stopped all emissions overnight, temperatures will keep rising [theconversation.com] for many de
Re: (Score:2)
When did 80ppm increase in CO2 cause an 8 degree increase
Then let me explain it for you, and I'll use small words. A slight warming from orbital effects releases some CO2. CO2 traps heat, making the planet warmer. A warmer planet releases more CO2, in a positive feedback. CO2 didn't start the warming, but the CO2 feedback drove most of it, far faster than the orbital changes could have.
Or, humans can emit CO2, also warming the planet (thus releasing more CO2). In this case, the CO2 is the original cause, as well as a positive feedback.
There's much more going on,
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 didn't lag temp then? Which is it?
Yes it did - then. "Warming from orbital effects releases some CO2", "CO2 didn't start the warming" - obviously CO2 rise came after temp rise, then. And CO2 is the only plausible cause of the warming today, which is why the CO2 rise predates recent warming. Please try reading more carefully; it's no wonder you're having so much trouble grasping these concepts.
In a few thousand years the climate reaches a new equilibrium. Then eventually slight cooling orbital changes can disturb this equilibrium, triggering
Re: (Score:2)
I get that you people think you can just exhaust the other side with stupidity but this is really pushing the boundaries of idiocy. To the people that responded seriously to this below - you need to see through this nonsense. This jackass has nothing serious to add to the conversation and is not worth "debating".
It's not muh CO2, It's muh water vapor! I mean.. sun activity! I mean... It's, uhh, natural this or that! Muh Muh!
reduce meat and dairy (Score:1)
We're going to need a green new deal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The job of tackling climate change...
Define how you think this Mcguffin would be 'tackled' ie what is the end state, problem solved state, you believe we will reach if only we do what you say?
Typical un groups (Score:2)
If it would save money to fix the leaking pipes, don't you think the companies that own them would have done so already?
They also gloss over the issue of cows and how much methane they produce.
They want to make it look like the fossil fuel industry is lazy and it's all their fault. Don't want to upset the dairy farmers though.
Also don't want to acknowledge that natural gas is extremely clean burning in terms of pollution. Cleaner than oil, coal or most other hydrocarbons.
Clean coal (Score:2)
Can we offset the methane with clean coal carbon traded emissions? That's green, right?
I think if we can get the majority of the electorate sufficiently educated that they can tell the difference between PR & marketing bollocks & actually coherent, meaningful sentences based on refutable facts, we might be in better position to deal with the pressing issues of the century like global heating, environmental degradation, & wealth inequality.
It's all one thing (Score:2)
Methane is bad. And then when it breaks down, it is into water vapor and CO2, which is also bad. The water vapor is a strong GHG but does not persist long. The Methane is a strong GHG but persists for a medium period. The CO2 is not a strong GHG but it persists for a long time — especially when we have exceeded the planet's capability for fixing it. This is mostly done through gas exchange with the ocean and subsequent absorption into subaquatic limestone, but we have already exceeded this mechanism's
You're welcome (Score:2)
Well, in that case ... (Score:2)
...don't pull my finger.
Could be (Score:2)
Could be. But won't be.
Re: Hmm.. (Score:1)
Pathetically, the "related stories" agree.
One story about Biden could've sworn he was "in".
And one story of Trump defecating about Biden.
Slashdot truly is a corpse.
Get your old news here: METHANE! (Score:2)
Got me to look at FP. So what's your excuse for propagating the typically vacuous Subject? (Are especially vacuous Subjects a sig of the same vacuous identity? Or a dysfunctional personality type marker?)
If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Who killed Cock Slashdot?
"We have met the enemy, and he is AC."
But I have to mostly agree with the conclusion for different reasons. Not enough new on Slashdot these years. Old news is an oxymoron.
Oh yeah. The story. Old news gets old reacti
Re: Get your old news here: METHANE! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It has been ice free for most of its existence.
It's been human civilization free for most of that time too.
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly suggest you go take a course on science. You seem to have no idea where the methane or CO2 comes from, or how energy is generated.
Re: (Score:2)
Guessing from context, but I think your "you" references the immediate reply to my comment. If so, then I guess my reply to that comment would be "NAK".
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. US should exit from UN and other organizations like WHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Burning methane makes CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
All energy production emits some amount of CO2, even solar power that people on Slashdot likes to shill for. We get the most energy for the least CO2 from nuclear fission power. That's because a nuclear power plant uses less aluminum, cement, and other material for the same energy when compared to all other energy sources.
Serious people want nuclear fission power. Unserious people talk about the problems of radioactive waste and long build times for nuclear power plants. So what if it takes a decade to
Re: If only there would be an economic incentive t (Score:2)
Unlike fossil fuel-fired power plants, nuclear reactors do not produce air pollution or carbon dioxide while operating. However, the processes for mining and refining uranium ore and making reactor fuel all require large amounts of energy. Nuclear power plants also have large amounts of metal and concrete, which require large amounts of energy to manufacture. If fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore, or if fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear power plant, then the emission
Re: (Score:2)
Burning methane makes CO2.
Still better to burn it than release the methane into the air.
It will turn into CO2 anyway and you skip the decade or so where it is worse than CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true [wikipedia.org]. CO2 is clearly the major cause, easily outweighing CH4.
Re: (Score:2)
You think Al Gore threatened to fire thousands of climate scientists around the world, and every scientific institution on the planet, unless they pretend to support some US policy even today? Pull the other one.
Which historical records prove that CO2 cannot drive climate today? Citations required, because it's not true [skepticalscience.com]. CO2 traps heat, and whether it's released in response to a warming planet (as in the past) or is directly emitted by humans does not change its effect of trapping more heat.
CO2 in the atmos