That’s not true. I used to work in a lab (a long time ago) studying anerobic methanogens. We thought we could find targets of their metabolic pathways to prevent methane production in livestock. Funded by Department of Energy.
Besides, from anthropogenic sources, methane probably accounts for a quarter of our emissions. I can only imagine how widespread fracking has changed this.
What’s not true? Do increased standards of living not cause a rise in GHG emissions? Note I didn’t limit that to increased methane.
And studying a way to decrease methane is not materially adddressing the issue that rising standards of living will wipe out gains from reducing fossil fuel usage. Even if you were successful in doing so.
That it’s ignored. I know first hand it isn’t.
In order to do something material to reduce green house gasses, you first need to research methods to do so.
I didn’t say completely ignored. So you want to show me the actually proposed policy proposal by the UN that materially addresses it?
You need to consider the resonance driven spectroradiometric properties of their emissions and absorption as well as thermal properties and resultant blackbody behaviors.
Not that THAT is the whole story either. You might also find that M
molecular dissociation at high altitudes and the thermal and spectroradiometric properties of the resultant molecules is of interest too. But I will say, I never quantified the effect. I just know it is there.
Ignore means to refuse to consider.
Ignore and completely ignore are the same thing.
Either way, it’s an integral component of every assessment of global warming. Saying it’s ignored on any level is an unsupported statement.
Yes, I’m definitely not, I agree. You explained to me that CO2 being a trace gas precludes it from meaningfully driving temperature change. Then methane is presented as something to be more concerned over versus CO2 because it has properties that make it nearly 100x more potent that CO2. Yet thought methane is around 100x more potent in relation to CO2, it is also around 200x less prevalent, meaning apples to apples given the amount of CO2 the warming from CO2 would be more worrisome. But we started from the current CO2 concentration relegating it trace gas and as such cannot meaningfully be driving temperatures so… that’s where I’m losing track. This gets back to my question about why this emphasis on CO2 being a trace gas and what bearing it has. Trace seems to matter when it comes to CO2, but not to methane.
It is part of the assessment, but it is not addressed with proposed policy to solve it. Because we have to keep living standards low isn’t quite as palatable as taxing energy.
Well, the global warming enthusiasts can’t be beat in that contest.
Throwing ■■■■ against the wall and it sticks - Is proof of man-made global warming
Throwing ■■■■ against the wall and it doesn’t stick - Is proof of man-made global warming.
False dichotomy. You don’t have to lower living standards to control green house gas emissions.
Lol, from http://archive.iussp.org/Brazil2001/s00/S09_04_Shi.pdf
In other words, out of a total of 7.72 GtC increase in emissions during 1990-2025 period, net impact due to future population growth (UN population medium growth variant) will be 3.73 GtC, which is 48.3% of total increase in future emissions. Thus, population factor will account for roughly half of the total gains in future emissions.
And that is from population growth alone, not including any rise in standard of living and also only including carbon emissions. In addition many of the older data sets assumed a continuing decline in population in developed countries before those countries started accepting mass migrations from underdeveloped countries.
I find t highly unlikely any emission reduction through alternate fuels sources is going to be able too ward off catastrophic warming on its own without equal effort applied to lowering or reversing population growth and with rising standards of living also driving increases.
If you want to punt to well, we can come up with new technology to reduce emissions caused by population growth and rising standards of living than I am going to have to use the same argument against reducing emissions, let’s just rely on new tech there as well.
I don’t understand what you mean here. Of course we will rely on new technology (or implementation of current technology) to reduce emissions. What does the bolded refer to? How could the use of new technology to reduce emissions be an argument against reducing emissions?
An argument against taking action that would harm our economy and standard of living now, just wait for new technology to come along and solve it later painlessly.
There’s an opportunity cost to waiting and much if not all the technology is available now.
Umm no, the technology to replace fossil fuels painlessly is not currently in existence. But given the trend lines in improvements in efficiency and cost in solar it isn’t that far off.
At which point you won’t need government, the UN or anyone else to force anyone to adopt it.
Planet X bruh
It would take work to switch but that’s not the same as pain.
