I have explained this before. Methane is not stronger than CO2. What is larger is the slope that an increase of 1 ppb (parts per billion) causes. At the levels listed in the AR4, CO2 has a radiative efficiency of 1.04 x 10-5. CH4 has a radiative efficiency of 3.7 x 10-4. Without understanding what "radiative efficiency" is, this appears CH4 is 36 times stronger. Now the 20 year GWP (Global warming Potential) is 1 for CO2 and 72 for CH4. 1 is the standard for comparing against CO2. The 100 year GWP is again 1 for CO2, but CH4 drops to 25. Since CH4 decreases compared to CO2 from the 20 yr to 100 yr numbers, it indicates CH4 dissipates faster as well.
Now back to the radiative Efficiency.
CO2 in the AR4 for 2005 was 378 ppm (parts per million) which equals 378,000 ppb, Methane was at 1,774 ppb. There is 214 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is CH4, placing CO2 farther along a log curve, hence, less of a slope. The two curves are approximations based on IPCC data, and it shows that CO2 is about 5 times stronger, molecule per molecule. However. With CH4 at 1,774 ppb, the slope of increasing it to 1,775 ppb is 0.3664 using the ppm scale. CO2, starting at 378,000 ppb and increasing it to 378,001 ppb has a slope of 0.0141. My extrapolated numbers match pretty close to the IPCC. These slopes are 0.0003664 and 0.0000141 if I used a ppb scale. Both these numbers round to two significant digits, matching the IPCC numbers.
Now the GWP scale uses mass rather than molar values. I think they base it on tons added. Using simple baryon counts, CO2 has a mass of 44, and CH4 has a mass of 16. This is a ratio of 44:16, or 2.75:1. This is why the GWP short term is larger even larger, at 72 for 20 years. I forget the exact relationship, and I'm not going to look it up.
Thing is, we aren't going to add ppb to ppb of CH4 and CO2, or ton for ton. They will each increase by close to the same percentage. Since CO2 is actually about 5 times stronger, molecule per molecule, then when we add 20% or 30% more of each, CO2 is still stronger!
Last edited by Lord of Planar; 09-25-13 at 12:20 PM.
If that is what you meant, your 10 times is still invalid, as CH4, at current levels, is more than 30 times stronger.
Why don't you just admit it. These alarmist numbers are silly.
The climate scientists like James Hansen have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in awards and speaking fees for advocating government solutions to the problem they are defining (nice work if you can get it!).
Al Gore spends millions annually on climate research expeditions.
Richard Branson spends millions annually on climate research expeditions.
And so on and so on.
To hear you people talk none of the billions of dollars spent annually on climate research ever goes to a single scientist...
Last edited by jmotivator; 09-25-13 at 01:31 PM.
And? What does this prove?The climate scientists like James Hansen have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in awards and speaking fees for advocating government solutions to the problem they are defining (nice work if you can get it!).
And? What does this prove?Al Gore spends millions annually on climate research expeditions.
And? What does this prove?Richard Branson spends millions annually on climate research expeditions.
Jeepers creepers, this is not the argument. Of course millions are spent funding research. That is not my argument.To hear you people talk none of the billions of dollars spent annually on climate research ever goes to a single scientist...
Once again, like a broken record:
For years, I've read that climate scientists have taken money for research to push foward an agenda created by the donor and not by science itself. Not once has anyone ever offered any evidence of these supposed sinister dealings. NOT ONCE. Yet, unbelievably, it seems that the deniers universally belive this myth. Why do you think that is?
"There is a lot of talk coming from CitiGroup about how Dodd-Frank isn't perfect, So let me say this to anyone listening at Citi —I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. It should have broken you into pieces." -- Elizabeth Warren
Let's see, how do we scare 6 billion people into accepting a global tax?
*sigh* How much money do you suppose would be spent on climate studies if there was no perceived problem?
Hint: In 1988 The total spent on climate science was about $100 million in the US. It is now over $8 billion... or roughly a 8000% increase over 25 years. Do you suppose that climate scientists are eager to slash their budgets back to "no threat" level?
Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.