Remember all that talk about methane being the scariest greenhouse gas? The claims are behind the war on meat, rice, farts, gas stoves, fracking, and just about everything else in the known universe that improves human life.
Well, except farts. They really don’t improve human life that much, unless you have gas pains. Man, it sucks when you have gas pains.
The science behind the claims that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas is pretty straightforward, if you look at only part of the science. Methane indeed traps more heat inside the atmosphere than CO2, by a wide margin. It disperses much more quickly, with a short life in the atmosphere, but if you only consider the warming impact it indeed is quite powerful.
That’s the reasoning behind the war on gas. But…
When Climate Science Unsettles – Abe Greenwald, Commentary Magazine
Yeah, well, there is a huge problem with that claim. While technically true in some abstract sense, it is much less true when you look at all the effects methane in the atmosphere has on global temperatures. In other words, it is the sort of claim that relies upon your ignorance of the multiple effects of methane gas in the atmosphere–some of which are known widely, and many of which even climate “scientists” didn’t know when they made their wild claims about doom from leaking natural gas.
New research shows that methane is still a powerful greenhouse gas, but nothing like what is claimed regularly.
This is the sort of thing that happens all the time in climate research, where variables are viewed and modeled in isolation based upon a limited set of data, and then the “scientists” extrapolate the heck out of the limited data and come up with models that are, frankly, ridiculous.
Then they pick the most extreme outcomes from models with the worst outcomes, and call it “settled science.” It is exactly the sort of thing you see in nutrition research, for example. Creating simplistic models from limited data interpreting complex and highly interdependent systems as if they mirror the falling of a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum.
And the results, as you can see in the real world, are quite different. Bowling balls and feathers fall at the same rate in a vacuum, but once you introduce the atmosphere a feather can “fall upwards” on a breeze while the bowling ball crashes down as predicted.
The research in question here reveals the complexity of reality: methane may trap heat, but it also prevents energy from...
7 comments:
The idea that one group of people can tell another group of people how to live, based on a made up problem, is ridiculous
Funny how that all works. Kinda like all the alarmism about ocean levels rising whilst the uber wealthy pedos buy up all the beach front real estate. Anyone with a cursory understanding of chemistry knows that methane is short lived in the atmosphere. It is as if there was an Intelligent Designer that created Earth in the first place.
If Methane is such a deadly chemical, then instead of attacking cows and such, we should be deforesting the Amazon and turning it into farms. Because the Amazon Rainforest is a net producer of CO2 and a huge producer of Methane. The only reason the top layers of soil in the Amazon Rainforest are fertile is because of all the decay matter from dead plants and animals.
And... The most 'productive' areas of the Rainforest, due to LIDAR mapping, are areas that 400 years ago were clearcut and farmed by the natives. Other non-cleared areas are showing a slow die-off of species due to lack of tree variety and all that good food (carbon and nitrogen, oh, another Global Warming Chemical) are sequestered inside of all that old growth wood.
To further my point, the farms and ranches that have replaced swaths of the Rainforest that have caused all the crying and bitching by the environmentalists and climate change religionists (almost, but not always, the same) are grabbing and storing more carbon, converting more CO2 to O2, creating less methane, capturing more nitrogen, cooling the local atmosphere more than the stinking, filthy, rotting Rainforest.
Take that, Earth Day whackjobs!
How do I have ice on my windshield in the morning, when the overnight low was supposed to be 38 degrees F?
I’ll tell you how.
Their thermometers are out of calibration.
As far as I can see it’s off by 6 degrees Fahrenheit.
How often is the ten day weather forecast correct or even the five day forecast? That's all you need to know about these "climate forecasters" and forecasts because they use the same models to tell us what the climate/weather is going to be 100 years from now. It's pure bullpoop.
Nemo
Riddle me this, has any of this stopped the o-mammy's from buying two mansions on the edge of two oceans?
Post a Comment