Solving methane mysteries with satellite imagery

by ltrgon 10/3/2024, 1:25 PMwith 20 comments

by photochemsynon 10/3/2024, 5:10 PM

This article might benefit from a bit more numerical data:

    COâ‚‚ Radiative Forcing:

        1950: Approximately 0.58 W/m² @ 310 ppm 

        2020: Approximately 2.13 W/m² @ 414 ppm


    CHâ‚„ Radiative Forcing:

        1950: Approximately 0.25 W/m² @ 1.15 ppm

        2020: Approximately 0.59 W/m² @ 1.86 ppm
Methane in the atmosphere is oxidized to CO2 with about a 6-year halflife, so:

20-year timescale: CHâ‚„ is approximately 84-87 times more efficient than COâ‚‚.

100-year timescale: CHâ‚„ is approximately 28-34 times more efficient than COâ‚‚.

The other thing to keep in mind is the removal rate:

> "Roughly 56% of annual fossil CO₂ emissions are absorbed by natural sinks—29% by the biosphere and 23% by the oceans—while 44% remains in the atmosphere, driving global climate change. For CH₄, 90% is removed by atmospheric oxidation within roughly a decade, with a small fraction absorbed by soils."

The bottom line? If human civilization really wants to stabilize the concentration of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere - which ideally will lead to a stabilization of global temperature and a new climate normal (certainly warmer and wetter, much like Pliocene conditions of 2-5 mya), then elimination of fossil fuel combustion as an energy source really is the only plausible option.

by 28304283409234on 10/3/2024, 2:57 PM

Meanwhile: https://cleantechnica.com/2024/05/03/fossil-fuel-companies-b...

Looks like another arms race. :-(

by techwiz137on 10/3/2024, 3:39 PM

My car runs on methane, but it's very expensive, only 20% cheaper than gas and soon it might be 1:1. Hard to store (200 bar pressure tank) and tanks have a 20 year lifespan.

by dudeinjapanon 10/4/2024, 4:15 AM

He who smelt it dealt it.