New estimate of effect of methane on climate

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a new estimate of the effect of methane on climate change, suggesting that previous assessments may have underestimated its impact. Participants explore the implications of this finding for climate policy, the relative contributions of natural versus anthropogenic methane emissions, and the chemical behavior of methane in the atmosphere.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that methane's effects on climate may have been underestimated due to previous measurements taken after atmospheric mixing with other greenhouse gases.
  • Others argue that natural methane emissions are significantly higher than anthropogenic ones, questioning the relevance of the new findings for policy changes.
  • There is a discussion about the atmospheric residence time of methane, with some stating it is about 12 years, while others compare it to CO2, which has a much longer residence time.
  • Participants debate the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas compared to CO2, with conflicting claims about the relative effectiveness of each gas in trapping heat.
  • Some express skepticism about the implications of the new report, suggesting that the chemistry of methane and its transformation into other compounds complicates its impact assessment.
  • There are references to specific models and calculations that participants use to support their arguments regarding the greenhouse effects of methane and CO2.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of methane's impact on climate change, with some emphasizing its importance and others downplaying it in comparison to CO2. There is no consensus on the relative potency of methane versus CO2 or the implications for climate policy.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of measuring methane emissions and the influence of various factors, such as chemical transformations and natural emissions, on its overall impact. The discussion includes references to specific models and their limitations, but these remain unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in climate science, greenhouse gas emissions, and the comparative effects of different gases on climate change may find this discussion relevant.

  • #31
Thanks for that Bystander, I did have the figure wrong and from a textbook ("nd hand O.U. textbook) it's 3.6 years. Where the 100 years came from I do not know.

I get the basic derivation of the residence time, what I didn't get was how you'd go about estimating the flux. But even your rough calculations show how wrong the century was.

Notwithstanding my screw up the 3.6 years still dwarves the 11 days for water - which was my original point in stating it.

Thanks again.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #32
"Can you provide an article that references your graph? They may be correcting for some factor that wasn't corrected for in the other link."

Hi Patty,

As I post in my breaks (and at times when I shouldn't) at work I've not got the time to look into it(and I've not got the 'net at home). I don't consider the issue significant enough for the purposes of my argument to look into it at present. Sorry.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
17K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
38K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K