BirthME, Doulas

There is no sense that a single molecule gains energy and keeps it for itself for a period of time exceeding something like 0.0000000000001 seconds.

Friday, 21 August, 2020 the way the CO2 level does) and any level of imbalance would eventually lead to atmospheric doubling.
In fact, there is a constant redistribution of energy among molecules. And have just turned three.At ThePrint, we invest in quality journalists. Methane vs. CO2 Global Warming Potential Methane and Carbon Dioxide - CH4 and CO2 105 times. You then go on to say "the warming today from methane is about half that of CO2." Scientists still don’t know exactly what’s going on, and they face an urgent challenge to find out. Why methane is a far more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide The shortness doesn't matter if we just go on emitting methane, which looks likely if humanity goes on consuming meat etc. "With that understanding of what needs to be accomplished, there are significant benefits obtained by reducing methane impacts now. global warming happens), and 1000 years Instead, because atmospheric methane quickly breaks down, to double the amount of atmospheric methane you would need to double the amount of rice production (which, BTW, is actually the largest source of human methane emissions), double the number of livestock, double the number of leaking drill sites, etc... and then Thus, the extent of damage which can be done by atmospheric methane is inherently limited in ways that carbon dioxide is not.That said, while methane on its own would likely never be a significant global warming problem, with the growing CO2 concentration methane adds a small additional amount of warming which could potentially push us past one or more tipping points that we might have avoided based on CO2 warming alone.CBDunkerson@3 Although an individual methane molecule may go away, I am referring to the net atmospheric concentration, which only goes away if we decrease emissions ... which we are not.


Having first mentioned atmospheric levels of CH4, you state that in terms of climate forcing, CH4 is  "about" 100-times as powerful as CO2 molecule for molecule. : Compare the temperature impacts of the two gases at times of 40 years (about when we might start to hit 2 degrees C, i.e. Global Warming Potential: 20 years vs. 100 years. I just posted the following comment on his YT video:"A ton of Methane warms the world ten times more than a ton of carbon dioxide does"?https://sites.google.com/site/irelandclimatechange/that-s-how-fast-the-carbon-clock-is-tickingThere is another way to consider the importance of reducing human activity creation of methane, starting now.The Paris Agreement lays out the objectives of limiting human impacts to a maximum 2.0 C warming, with the aspiration of limiting warming to 1.5 C. Another way of presenting that is: "The long term warming must not exceed 1.5 C. And the peak impact along the way may be as high as 2.0 C. And if there is a peak above 1.5 C along the way then the impacts will have been reduced to 1.5 C by 2100. Level of heat trapping potency that methane is greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame according to NASA research. Just because we can conceptually reduce methane concentrations more easily that we reduce CO2 concentrations does not mean that methane is not a big problem.I certainly believe, ClimateAdam should cease his channel until he's got the right education. Compare the instantaneous radiative forcings of the gases, by increasing CO 2 until the initial RF values are the same. An Reversing this trend in methane emissions is now probably the most urgent challenge in the fight against global warming, even more than the ongoing need to tackle CO2 emissions.

Even a 1.5 C warming impact is unfair to the future generations. Whereas CO2 lingers in the atmosphere and moves throughout the ecosystem, methane dissipates after approximately 12 years. A continued rise in the amount of methane in the air could easily cancel out any near-term progress we make in reducing CO2 emissions.

… For this reason, it's considered a greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide. There are many reasons why the media’s economics is broken.

Methane is caused by the decomposition of plant matter, and is released from landfills, swamps, rice paddies. I still maintain that a factor of 100 for methane is more appropriate for the instantaneous effect, because the factor of 86 is for a 20-year period. I’d like to see a Youtube video showing cartoon just that: molecules of CO2, H2O, CH4 and air (oxygen, nitrogen) doing all this interaction. Methane is particularly problematic as its impact is 34 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period, according to the latest IPCC Assessment Report. That isn't correct. Investigations into the effect of methane on climate change reveal seemingly conflicting figures. Worse yet, since the start of the industrial revolution, in broad strokes CO2 has increased about 50%, whereas I would be greatful if someone can show the error of my logic (seriously, I would be greatful to be shown that my argument here is wrong), but it seems to me that every day that we maintain high methane levels that it does not matter if methane is a "short-lived" greenhouse gas. Put another way, reducing methane now would allow for a higher peak of CO2 impact along the way to the end requirement of 1.5 C impact (with the understanding that effective sustainable actions to reduce CO2 will be implemented).Of course, everytime this matter of the future temperature impacts is presented, it is important to clearly state that it is unfair for the current generations to benefit by imposing Any global warming related climate change consequences on future generations.