24 Jul 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainNo.
Is methane gas a greater cause of anthropogenic global warming than CO2?
24 Jul 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainPound for pound only. Right now there is a LOT less Methane around than CO2 so CO2 dominates.
Yes.
24 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhNo.
Maybe.
Just google it yourself and come back to us.
25 Jul 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseMethane heats more pound for pound. A lot more.
Pound for pound only. Right now there is a LOT less Methane around than CO2 so CO2 dominates.
25 Jul 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainyes, 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.
Methane heats more pound for pound.
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.
25 Jul 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @humyYou are overestimating how much co2 heats the earth. How many times do I have to remind you of that?
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.
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.
25 Jul 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainNope; and it isn't me that is doing the estimating but science.
You are overestimating how much co2 heats the earth. .
25 Jul 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainCO2 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?
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.
28 Jul 17
Originally posted by @humyScience doesn't estimate, people do. Learn the difference.
Nope; and it isn't me that is doing the estimating but science.
28 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrassThat 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"?
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?
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
28 Jul 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainrational people, unlike you, use the scientific facts to do that estimating. That is obviously what I mean by science estimates it.
Science doesn't estimate, people do.
28 Jul 17
Originally posted by @humyStill 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.
rational people, unlike you, use the scientific facts to do that estimating. That is obviously what I mean by science estimates it.