4 ms·

One also has to consider that the methane decays over a matter of decades. Other than CO2, which stays in the atmosphere until it is taken out. So, even if met

One also has to consider that the methane decays over a matter of decades. Other than CO2, which stays in the atmosphere until it is taken out. So, even if methane takes a big share in current greenhouse emissions, its share in the accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be lower. The climate change it causes is temporary. (Disregarding runaway effects.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

Retric 9y ago
Methane contains carbon so it's not 100% temporary just mostly.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
skosch 9y ago
Decades – we don't have decades to fix this. Also, it decays into CO2, so to claim that its effects are temporary is misleading. On top of that, as long as the carbon is in a CH4 bond, it traps at least 20× as much radiation. Please don't dismiss the significance of methane emissions.
- samstave 9y ago
  We should he focusing on plastics rather than methane.
- Jach 9y ago
  How many years do we have to fix this then? Alternatively, at what point will activists start saying we passed the point of no fix and give up their activism?
  - marssaxman 9y ago
    I got to that point 3-4 years ago, personally. Even if it were economically and technically possible to get our act together, it has become entirely clear that the political system is incapable of acting quickly enough.
  - skosch 9y ago
    Here you go: https://croadsworldclimate.climateinteractive.org/ https://croadsworldclimate.climateinteractive.org/ Honestly dude, rise above the cynicism (if that's how you meant to come across). You're a goddamn adult, and a well-educated engineer at that. Your current standard of living is at risk because of climate change (also millions of lives in poorer countries, but whatever). Spend 10 seconds on a Google search. "Activists" don't owe you any answers. Never forget, despite what the sensationalists will tell you, climate change is very much fixable. Clean energy and better land management can and will get us there – and eventually, maybe in 200 years, we'll sequester enough carbon to get back to 350ppm. The question is about what happens in the meantime: if we act fast, we'll only get decades of food insecurity, war, and displacement, mostly in poorer countries [2]. If we delay further, we'll simply see much worse, and at home as well. But the "point of no return" rhetoric is nonsense and does nothing but paralyze people. By the way, one of the easiest and fastest ways to catalyze at-scale solutions would be a revenue-neutral carbon tax at the source, effectively internalizing the social costs of climate change and letting the free market do its thing. (Look up "fee and dividend"; lots of folks are working on this already.) [1] unless we hit some really unlucky runaway feedback loop, which is possible. [2] plus the disease epidemics and terrorism that come along with it – we don't live on an island.
    - Jach 9y ago
      You're the one writing phrases like "we don't have decades to fix this". How is one supposed to interpret that as anything but "point of no return" rhetoric, especially in light of that rhetoric actually being used with some frequency for the last few decades? I agree it's not helpful rhetoric, so maybe I should have aimed my comment at alarmists who use the rhetoric but who haven't fully embraced that it's too late, instead of the more general activists. I'm fully on-board with planetary engineering projects. Those require engineering work and capital more than activism, though. Do you want to make a prediction on the accuracy of whatever climate model you like (we can use the one you linked if you prefer) for what the temperature increase will be in 2 years, 7 years, and 12 years? We can record it at https://predictionbook.com/ https://predictionbook.com/
      - nielsole 9y ago
- tambourine_man 9y ago
  > Also, it decays into CO2… If that carbon was already in the biosphere that’s mostly, fine long term. I worry a lot more about the carbon we keep adding to it, that wasn’t in the equation.
llccbb 9y ago
The runaway effects are exactly the concern. Check out research on methane clathrates in the Mesozoic. Methane is 24x as potent a GHG than CO2. When you see the gas flares in hydrocarbon production fields it may look like a waste (it is), but it has to be done because the alternative of releasing methane into the atmosphere is worse.

Retric 9y ago

Methane contains carbon so it's not 100% temporary just mostly.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

skosch 9y ago

Decades – we don't have decades to fix this. Also, it decays into CO2, so to claim that its effects are temporary is misleading. On top of that, as long as the carbon is in a CH4 bond, it traps at least 20× as much radiation. Please don't dismiss the significance of methane emissions.

samstave 9y ago
We should he focusing on plastics rather than methane.
Jach 9y ago
How many years do we have to fix this then? Alternatively, at what point will activists start saying we passed the point of no fix and give up their activism?
- marssaxman 9y ago
  I got to that point 3-4 years ago, personally. Even if it were economically and technically possible to get our act together, it has become entirely clear that the political system is incapable of acting quickly enough.
- skosch 9y ago
  Here you go: https://croadsworldclimate.climateinteractive.org/ https://croadsworldclimate.climateinteractive.org/ Honestly dude, rise above the cynicism (if that's how you meant to come across). You're a goddamn adult, and a well-educated engineer at that. Your current standard of living is at risk because of climate change (also millions of lives in poorer countries, but whatever). Spend 10 seconds on a Google search. "Activists" don't owe you any answers. Never forget, despite what the sensationalists will tell you, climate change is very much fixable. Clean energy and better land management can and will get us there – and eventually, maybe in 200 years, we'll sequester enough carbon to get back to 350ppm. The question is about what happens in the meantime: if we act fast, we'll only get decades of food insecurity, war, and displacement, mostly in poorer countries [2]. If we delay further, we'll simply see much worse, and at home as well. But the "point of no return" rhetoric is nonsense and does nothing but paralyze people. By the way, one of the easiest and fastest ways to catalyze at-scale solutions would be a revenue-neutral carbon tax at the source, effectively internalizing the social costs of climate change and letting the free market do its thing. (Look up "fee and dividend"; lots of folks are working on this already.) [1] unless we hit some really unlucky runaway feedback loop, which is possible. [2] plus the disease epidemics and terrorism that come along with it – we don't live on an island.
  - Jach 9y ago
    You're the one writing phrases like "we don't have decades to fix this". How is one supposed to interpret that as anything but "point of no return" rhetoric, especially in light of that rhetoric actually being used with some frequency for the last few decades? I agree it's not helpful rhetoric, so maybe I should have aimed my comment at alarmists who use the rhetoric but who haven't fully embraced that it's too late, instead of the more general activists. I'm fully on-board with planetary engineering projects. Those require engineering work and capital more than activism, though. Do you want to make a prediction on the accuracy of whatever climate model you like (we can use the one you linked if you prefer) for what the temperature increase will be in 2 years, 7 years, and 12 years? We can record it at https://predictionbook.com/ https://predictionbook.com/
    - nielsole 9y ago
tambourine_man 9y ago
> Also, it decays into CO2… If that carbon was already in the biosphere that’s mostly, fine long term. I worry a lot more about the carbon we keep adding to it, that wasn’t in the equation.

llccbb 9y ago

The runaway effects are exactly the concern. Check out research on methane clathrates in the Mesozoic. Methane is 24x as potent a GHG than CO2. When you see the gas flares in hydrocarbon production fields it may look like a waste (it is), but it has to be done because the alternative of releasing methane into the atmosphere is worse.