1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13427
    24 Jul '17 15:10
    Is methane gas a greater cause of anthropogenic global warming than CO2? Is Exxon Mobile and the news media demonizing the wrong gas?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/business/energy-environment/future-of-natural-gas-hinges-on-stanching-methane-leaks.html
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    24 Jul '17 15:22
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Is methane gas a greater cause of anthropogenic global warming than CO2?
    No.
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13427
    24 Jul '17 15:47
    Originally posted by @humy
    No.
    Yes.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    24 Jul '17 16:55
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Yes.
    Pound for pound only. Right now there is a LOT less Methane around than CO2 so CO2 dominates.
  5. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    24 Jul '17 18:37
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Yes.
    Maybe.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    24 Jul '17 18:421 edit
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    Maybe.
    No.
    Just google it yourself and come back to us.
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13427
    25 Jul '17 19:59
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Pound for pound only. Right now there is a LOT less Methane around than CO2 so CO2 dominates.
    Methane heats more pound for pound. A lot more.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    25 Jul '17 20:213 edits
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Methane heats more pound for pound.
    yes, and there is so much less methane in the atmosphere than CO2 that most of the greenhouse effect still comes from CO2 so your conclusion is clearly wrong.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm
    "...While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes...."

    Science, which is based on evidence and calculations, says you are wrong. Science is right and you are wrong.
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13427
    25 Jul '17 20:442 edits
    Originally posted by @humy
    yes, and there is so much less methane in the atmosphere than CO2 that most of the greenhouse effect still comes from CO2 so your conclusion is clearly wrong.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm
    "...While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ...[text shortened]... h is based on evidence and calculations, says you are wrong. Science is right and you are wrong.
    You are overestimating how much co2 heats the earth. How many times do I have to remind you of that?
    There was always a lot more co2 than methane. That means nothing.

    Those calculations are wrong. CO2 lags after temp rises in the ice core records. Your cause and effect is backwards. That is why climate model predictions are mostly wrong, because the calculations are wrong.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    25 Jul '17 22:19
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    You are overestimating how much co2 heats the earth. .
    Nope; and it isn't me that is doing the estimating but science.
  11. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    6975
    25 Jul '17 22:20
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    You are overestimating how much co2 heats the earth. How many times do I have to remind you of that?
    There was always a lot more co2 than methane. That means nothing.

    Those calculations are wrong. CO2 lags after temp rises in the ice core records. Your cause and effect is backwards. That is why climate model predictions are mostly wrong, because the calculations are wrong.
    CO2 is obviously not lagging now. Where is the ice core record from the last time all the earth's heavy hydrocarbons were dug up and burned in a 100 year period?
  12. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13427
    28 Jul '17 16:41
    Originally posted by @humy
    Nope; and it isn't me that is doing the estimating but science.
    Science doesn't estimate, people do. Learn the difference.
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13427
    28 Jul '17 16:511 edit
    Originally posted by @wildgrass
    CO2 is obviously not lagging now. Where is the ice core record from the last time all the earth's heavy hydrocarbons were dug up and burned in a 100 year period?
    That is a stupid comment. The Pliocene Epoch had about the same amount of co2 in the atmosphere as today. The earth is much much cooler than today. This is evidence that co2 levels do NOT result in temps that equal that of the Pliocene. When the cause and effect is backwards you need to start thinking like it is. Why can't you think properly in this context? Are you still brainwashed by Al Gore's ridiculous film "The Inconvenient Truth"? Is it the word "backwards" you don't understand or "cause and effect"?

    Other factors must be found to account for this enormous difference in temps. Let me know when you figure that out. Until then stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

    Your cause and effect is backwards. Let me know when you have accepted this.

    http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.us/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/rutan3.png
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    28 Jul '17 17:06
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Science doesn't estimate, people do.
    rational people, unlike you, use the scientific facts to do that estimating. That is obviously what I mean by science estimates it.
  15. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13427
    28 Jul '17 17:11
    Originally posted by @humy
    rational people, unlike you, use the scientific facts to do that estimating. That is obviously what I mean by science estimates it.
    Still making up crap as you go along I see. It is amazing most of your peers have not run you off of this forum for giving it a bad reputation. Your trolling is not science.
Back to Top