3 ms·
"per unit mass" is the operative term since there is far far less methane being emitted. Methane was only relevant because it was such a strong greenhouse gas.
by koheripbal 7y ago
"per unit mass" is the operative term since there is far far less methane being emitted.
Methane was only relevant because it was such a strong greenhouse gas. As CO2, it becomes just a drop in the bucket.
- Brakenshire 7y agoIt becomes in combination 80 fold higher over 20 years and 20 fold higher over 100 years, per unit mass. Incidentally the reaction from Methane to CO2 produces 2.5 times more mass of CO2 than the Methane it starts with, which is one reason why the impact remains quite high. And of course everyone knows Methane emissions are relatively low, otherwise given their potency their effect on GHG warming would be a lot more than the 15% of thereabouts which it is at the moment. This is all like attacking an IPCC claim that the sea level is going to rise by 1m over 100 years by saying it won’t rise by 5m, but by on average 1cm a year for 100 years. We know that already.
- svara 7y agoWhat exactly are you trying to say with this? The tone of your comment sounds as if you're trying to disagree with your parent comment or somehow put it in perspective, when in fact you're just stating a related fact that is totally compatible with it.