4 ms·

if you believe the carbon equivalency metrics for methane

• virgildotcodes 1y ago
  Why would you not believe that?
  • throwawaymaths 1y ago
    there's a lot of unmeasured assumptions and if you read what is described to the public its usually scientifically wrong. usually it's one of: - methane has a higher absorption than CO2 incorrect. CO2 has a dipole moment amd c-infinity-v symmetry so it absorbs way more - methane has higher absorption in open windows of IR frequencies also incorrect. the water band don't overlap with CO2 - methane has a longer atmospheric half-life incorrect. you can look up the numbers on this. i believe it was believed to have a longer half life a few decades ago but detailed isotopic studies have disproved it? you have to dig really deep to figure out that there is I think? an estimated self-shading effect of CO2 that changes the marginal absorbance of a single molecule. but this assumes a uniform distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere and no scattering. anyways i think this is not spoken of because it also reminds that the effect of Co2 is logarthmic (A = log(T))
    • throwawaymaths 1y ago
      example incorrect explanation (from MIT, of all places they should know better): https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-makes-methane-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-carbon-dioxide https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-makes-methane-more-pote...
      • CorrectHorseBat 1y ago
        Do you have an example of a correct explanation according to you? Why should we believe you are correct and everyone else isn't?
    • virgildotcodes 1y ago
      Do you have any sources that reinforce your assertions? I'm not aware of anyone asserting that methane has a longer half life than CO2, just the opposite. It has a shorter half life, is more powerful a GHG, and then decomposes into CO2 and H2O to add insult to injury.