5 ms·

That statement directly contradicts the claim made in that article: Methane accounts for half of the average 1.0 degrees C of warming the world suffered over t

That statement directly contradicts the claim made in that article: Methane accounts for half of the average 1.0 degrees C of warming the world suffered over the past decade and reducing methane is the fastest strategy available to reduce warming. Why do you think this claim is wrong?

blueflow 4y ago
Its not a contradiction - "accounts for half [...] of warming" means half of the warming will continue without Methane.
- jwarden 4y ago
  Yes but nobody is claiming that warming will be eliminated without methane -- just reduced. GP claims that warming will not even be reduced, but the article claims that it will.
  - blueflow 4y ago
    It feels a bit like celebrating reducing pressure on the gas pedal in a car, one that is currently approaching a wall. You need to 1) stop accelerating 2) deccelerate and 3) have enough distance to come to a stop. Regarding climate change, i neither see 2 or 3, so the collision is as inevitable as it was before. And what this article describes isn't even doing half of 1.
LatteLazy 4y ago
I edited my comment above but basically... That 1 degree isn't due to current CH4 emissions, it's due to CH4 already up there. So we will get it whether we emit more CH4 or not. Plus there is another 1-1.5 degrees from CO2 and other sources. And that will also still be there. So the planet WILL keep warming and that includes the amounts being listed... It's a bit like if you stop turning the tap on a bath tub: it's still quite full AND it's still filling, it's just no longer filling FASTER than it was before (from that tap, the other tap is still being opened further...)
- jwarden 4y ago
  So CH4 breaks down rather quickly in the atmosphere. If we were to eliminate CH4 emissions completely, then within a decade there would be virtually no CH4 left in the atmosphere. Also when you say "reduce warming" do you mean "reduce global temperatures" or "reduce the rate of increase in global temperatures?" I think the article means the latter..

blueflow 4y ago

Its not a contradiction - "accounts for half [...] of warming" means half of the warming will continue without Methane.

jwarden 4y ago
Yes but nobody is claiming that warming will be eliminated without methane -- just reduced. GP claims that warming will not even be reduced, but the article claims that it will.
- blueflow 4y ago
  It feels a bit like celebrating reducing pressure on the gas pedal in a car, one that is currently approaching a wall. You need to 1) stop accelerating 2) deccelerate and 3) have enough distance to come to a stop. Regarding climate change, i neither see 2 or 3, so the collision is as inevitable as it was before. And what this article describes isn't even doing half of 1.

LatteLazy 4y ago

I edited my comment above but basically... That 1 degree isn't due to current CH4 emissions, it's due to CH4 already up there. So we will get it whether we emit more CH4 or not. Plus there is another 1-1.5 degrees from CO2 and other sources. And that will also still be there. So the planet WILL keep warming and that includes the amounts being listed... It's a bit like if you stop turning the tap on a bath tub: it's still quite full AND it's still filling, it's just no longer filling FASTER than it was before (from that tap, the other tap is still being opened further...)

jwarden 4y ago
So CH4 breaks down rather quickly in the atmosphere. If we were to eliminate CH4 emissions completely, then within a decade there would be virtually no CH4 left in the atmosphere. Also when you say "reduce warming" do you mean "reduce global temperatures" or "reduce the rate of increase in global temperatures?" I think the article means the latter..