Nomad (02-23-2019)
Members banned from this thread: Cypress, evince, moon, domer76, Nomad, Micawber, ThatOwlWoman, Jade Dragon, Guno צְבִי and reagansghost |
Naturally the usual scumbags and ne'er-do-wells have been banned
So much for AOC's farting cows!! Another canard regarding the alleged potency of CH4 as a GHG destroyed.
Two research papers find methane has a very limited ability to absorb radiant energy. Methane has such a low atmospheric concentration around 0.00018% and combined with it having such a narrow waveband in which it can absorb radiant energy, it is so irrelevant to global temperatures that calls for reductions in methane emissions are laughable.
https://farmcarbon.co.nz/scientist-s...ners-report-2/
Nomad (02-23-2019)
anatta (02-23-2019), Darth Omar (02-23-2019), Stretch (02-23-2019)
Another research paper concludes no evidence exists that methane emissions from livestock represent a risk to Earth’s climate
https://farmcarbon.co.nz/another-res...arths-climate/
Nomad (02-23-2019)
I seriously think we have been hoodwinked -at least the methane part, and that means nat gas is 'green'.
For sure CO2 is benign
Nomad (02-23-2019)
Stretch (02-23-2019)
The equation ΔF=5.35 ln C/C0 published in the IPCC AR4 gives a value of 3.7W/m^2 for the forcing effect due to a doubling of CO2 concentration, where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration. Using the Stefan–Boltzmann equation, this translates to a temperature increase of around 1.2K from the start of the Industrial Revolution (280ppm) to the end of the 21st century (560ppm).
This is undisputed science, so to get to the truly scary temperature increases, predicted by climate alarmists, means invoking all manner of positive climate feedbacks. These only exist in climate models as there is no real empirical data to prove whether any resultant feedbacks would in fact be positive, negative or non-existent.
Nomad (02-23-2019)
anatta (02-23-2019)
Yes in a word. Although methane is a potent greenhouse gas, its concentration in the atmosphere is infinitesimally small, around 0.00018%, and the retention time is 9.6 years. So if you stop to think about all that happens is cows convert grass, which takes CO2 from the atmosphere, to methane and that breaks down to CO2 again in less than ten years.
Another thing to consider, even though the number of ruminants has increased dramatically in the last fifty years, the atmospheric concentration of CH4 hasn't, ask an alarmist why that is and they have no answer.
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 02-23-2019 at 05:34 AM.
Nomad (02-23-2019)
anatta (02-23-2019)
Nomad (02-23-2019)
MAGA MAN (02-23-2019)
Seriously lol?
This is 101 stuff [for anyone who has formally studied it]: the sun releases radiation all across the spectrum from x-rays all the way to infrared and visible light. That methane is only affected [heated] by a narrow band of radiation from the sun is something EVERY climatologist should know. It’s news to me only because I never was made aware of it—but my ignorance is excusable because I’m not a climatologist.
Before anyone posits methane as a ‘global warming’ gas they should first see what portions of the electromagnetic spectrum affect methane.
We can’t expect AOC to know such things but it’s inexcusable for climatologists to not know it.
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Nomad (02-23-2019)
Nomad (02-23-2019)
Darth Omar (02-23-2019)
Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.
cancel2 2022 (02-23-2019)
JPP liberals must be waiting for instructions before they reply to this thread.
Garbage thread is garbage.
Especially funny is twatanna pretending to understand chemistry formulas.
It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.
cancel2 2022 (02-23-2019)
Nomad (02-23-2019)
Cypress (02-23-2019)
Bookmarks