Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: AGW. LNG Worse Than Coal.
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 13:28:45 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <vgifaf$2m10e$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfrvbu$1pcpr$1@dont-email.me> <vfrvtc$1pfke$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfs2l7$1psvq$1@dont-email.me> <vgbelr$14lgg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgbrfj$16vbr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:28:47 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ac19c9499ef251453a147d60989d65c";
	logging-data="2819086"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+UXIJOCD47S4Kuk5aJkerXHcjbId78NO8="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nb6UmH8LDDqWKXoYzQFdNiFlmzo=
In-Reply-To: <vgbrfj$16vbr$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3411

On 05/11/2024 01:13, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 11/4/2024 4:34 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On 30/10/2024 01:37, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>> I'd like to see some numbers on this.
>>>
>>> Yes, burning methane generates less CO2 per BTU than
>>> methane.
>>>
>>> But:
>>>
>>> A significant amount of methane escapes the system in leaks
>>> and gets into the atmosphere without being burnt. In the US,
>>> about 1.4%. Other countries do much worse, and a recent satellite
>>> has started mapping the problem:
>>>
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/nasa-s-methane-satellite-just- 
>>> mapped-its-first-plumes/ar-AA1spd3X?ocid=BingNewsSerp
>>>
>>> Coal that 'leaks' out of the system just sits on the ground.
>>>
>>> AND
>>>
>>> Methane, molecule for molecule, is a far more potent greenhouse
>>> gas than CO2. 120x as potent, in fact.
>>>
>>> This is mitigated by the fact that methane only  lasts about 10
>>> years in the atmosphere, while CO2 lasts far longer.
>>>
>>> https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
>>>
>>> So, I'd like to see some actual numbers to support of debunk this
>>> claim, not a simple declaration.
>>
>> I understand that methane in the sky is slowly
>> converted to CO2.
> 
> Yes, and far faster then CO2 gets recycled. But it's also a far
> more portent as a greenhouse gas, pound for pound, as C02. Numbers
> matter, and figuring out the relative contribution of each to
> warming \caused is a non-trivial calculation.

I wanted to make the point that the increase of
methane in the atmosphere means that CO2 in the
atmosphere increases as well.

Another thing - I heard an argument, which may
be completely wrong, or even right but irrelevant,
that a certain level of CO2 blocks heat radiation
from,the surface by about 100% at relevant infrared
wavelengths.  That seems to imply that more CO2
stops getting worse then - however, it may be enough
to remove humans ultimately as owners of the Earth,
and also of course it makes getting CO2 down to
a tolerable value that much harder.  I'm bringing
it up because...  does CH4 affect other wavelengths
of heat radiation which are passed through by CO2?
So that it makes a possible "couldn't be worse" CO2
situation, worse?