3 ms·
Except we've already reached higher saturation (for black body radiation absorption) with CO2 than with methane. So, there is certainly a strong case to be mad
by nverno 5y ago
Except we've already reached higher saturation (for black body radiation absorption) with CO2 than with methane. So, there is certainly a strong case to be made that methane is more impactful in the short-term than CO2 in terms of climate warming.
- lucb1e 5y agoI haven't heard that before and it sounds conceptually incompatible with generally accepted concepts like the globally remaining CO2 budget (how could we have a budget, if we've already reached the CO2 saturation point and adding more doesn't worsen the problem?). Do you have a source for this?
- nverno 5y agoWell the climate never becomes completely insensitive to further increases in CO2 concetration - lookup the band saturation effect. I wasn't citing a specific source, only pointing out that different gases absorb at different wavelengths, some of which (like methane) have potential to absorb much more with increasing concentration. IIRCC there are other factors, like the persistence time in the atmosphere, that make CO2 more worrysome. I took this edx course on climate modeling a few years ago that was fantastic if you want to dig deeper and the professor does cover these topics (which I'm likely butchering) - https://courses.edx.org/courses/UChicagoX/PS280x/2015_T1/course/ https://courses.edx.org/courses/UChicagoX/PS280x/2015_T1/cou...