7 ms·

Global warming is a terrible term for what's going on in the world. Heck, carbon dioxide isn't even the real culprit for green house gases: it's methane. Metha

by speek 18y ago

Global warming is a terrible term for what's going on in the world. Heck, carbon dioxide isn't even the real culprit for green house gases: it's methane. Methane is a much more potent green house gas, yet we're hearing more about carbon dioxide. There are more cows than there have ever been, because we're eating more of them because there are more of us to eat them. We're going to have the coldest winters and the hottest summers we've had for quite a long time. Yes, we'll have some weird weather mid-season (like now, in northeastern USA its 56 degrees F, 13ish degrees C), but that doesn't change the fact that people are introducing stuff into the atmosphere that shouldn't be there. Global Extreming would probably be a better term for what's going on.

randallsquared 18y ago
I didn't bother with the article, but I'm curious: what temperature circumstances would give you doubts about what's going on? (Not "cause you to disbelieve in 'Global Extreming'" or anything; just make you uncertain that it's well understood).
dustmop 18y ago
Why do you think Al Gore started using the term "climate change"?
- axod 18y ago
  "climate change" is ridiculous though. It's not like the climate has been static for millions of years and now suddenly everything is changing. The climate is always changing.
  - neilk 18y ago
    I think that's why you also hear "climate crisis". Still, the relevant people know what it means (whether pro or con). Debating whether they have the right marketing term is supremely pointless.
  - jhancock 18y ago
    Software development is always changing, yet we spend great effort managing change. Just because the climate has always been changing does not mean we should not try to understand and manage it better.
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Why then are we talking about "carbon credits" and "carbon sequestration" and limiting CO2 output when methane is so much more of a greenhouse gas? I haven't heard any politicians talk about reducing methane output, or methane caps, or methane sequestration.
- Shamiq 18y ago
  Keyword: Politicians.
- olefoo 18y ago
  CO2 is one Carbon and two Oxygen atoms per molecule. CH4 (methane) is one Carbon and four Hydrogen atoms per molecule. If you took an equivalent weight of CO2 and CH4 you would have more carbon atoms in the CH4 container. To draw the line between these elementary school facts and the use of the term carbon when referring to greenhouse gas mitigation in terms even a certified scrum master can understand; the carbon atom is the common factor in the two most prevalent heat trapping gases involved in atmospheric chemistry.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Thanks, but my High School stoichiometry and organic chemistry knowledge aren't that rusty yet. I found your answer wanting. Here's why -- looking up carbon sequestration on wiki, I see no mention of CH4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage And BTW, I'm not a CSM, but I work with hundreds of them. I'll be sure to let you know if your explanation leaves any of them muddled.
    - olefoo 18y ago
      > I'm not a CSM, but I work with hundreds of them Ooo, I'm in trouble now. Seriously, I hope the smart among them regard the little vendor merit badge with the right amount of sarcasm, because if you uncritically swallow a bunch of ritual packaged as a methodology and think that that somehow makes you safe from project failure... you're doomed. A Google query for "methane and carbon sequestration" nets 179K results; not proof positive, but at least as relevant as your wikiwhack. Also atmospheric methane breaks down into carbon dioxide and water in the presence of oxygen (at sufficient concentrations the reaction can take the form of a flame, or an explosion) so increased methane converts into increased carbon dioxide eventually. Now, if I had infinite amounts of time and patience I would attempt to set you right; but my life is too crowded to waste time on someone who seems to delight in inflammatory political statements on a tech/biz forum. //sad day when I have to set up plonk for HN :-(

by speek 18y ago

randallsquared 18y ago

I didn't bother with the article, but I'm curious: what temperature circumstances would give you doubts about what's going on? (Not "cause you to disbelieve in 'Global Extreming'" or anything; just make you uncertain that it's well understood).

dustmop 18y ago

Why do you think Al Gore started using the term "climate change"?

axod 18y ago
"climate change" is ridiculous though. It's not like the climate has been static for millions of years and now suddenly everything is changing. The climate is always changing.
- neilk 18y ago
  I think that's why you also hear "climate crisis". Still, the relevant people know what it means (whether pro or con). Debating whether they have the right marketing term is supremely pointless.
- jhancock 18y ago
  Software development is always changing, yet we spend great effort managing change. Just because the climate has always been changing does not mean we should not try to understand and manage it better.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

Why then are we talking about "carbon credits" and "carbon sequestration" and limiting CO2 output when methane is so much more of a greenhouse gas? I haven't heard any politicians talk about reducing methane output, or methane caps, or methane sequestration.

Shamiq 18y ago
Keyword: Politicians.
olefoo 18y ago
CO2 is one Carbon and two Oxygen atoms per molecule. CH4 (methane) is one Carbon and four Hydrogen atoms per molecule. If you took an equivalent weight of CO2 and CH4 you would have more carbon atoms in the CH4 container. To draw the line between these elementary school facts and the use of the term carbon when referring to greenhouse gas mitigation in terms even a certified scrum master can understand; the carbon atom is the common factor in the two most prevalent heat trapping gases involved in atmospheric chemistry.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Thanks, but my High School stoichiometry and organic chemistry knowledge aren't that rusty yet. I found your answer wanting. Here's why -- looking up carbon sequestration on wiki, I see no mention of CH4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage And BTW, I'm not a CSM, but I work with hundreds of them. I'll be sure to let you know if your explanation leaves any of them muddled.
  - olefoo 18y ago
    > I'm not a CSM, but I work with hundreds of them Ooo, I'm in trouble now. Seriously, I hope the smart among them regard the little vendor merit badge with the right amount of sarcasm, because if you uncritically swallow a bunch of ritual packaged as a methodology and think that that somehow makes you safe from project failure... you're doomed. A Google query for "methane and carbon sequestration" nets 179K results; not proof positive, but at least as relevant as your wikiwhack. Also atmospheric methane breaks down into carbon dioxide and water in the presence of oxygen (at sufficient concentrations the reaction can take the form of a flame, or an explosion) so increased methane converts into increased carbon dioxide eventually. Now, if I had infinite amounts of time and patience I would attempt to set you right; but my life is too crowded to waste time on someone who seems to delight in inflammatory political statements on a tech/biz forum. //sad day when I have to set up plonk for HN :-(