Methane Mystery: L.A. Emitting Twice as Much as Estimated

The earth is a complex system. Hell, we can't even get a 3 day forecast correct. Your “chemistry” might be correct under tightly controlled lab systems. But I more likely suspect some statistics were involved because you can't get the tightly controlled conditions.

Given the fact that I totally agree with you on this than what is the point of contention? None I think.

What makes CH4 “25 times more powerful”

Global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of how much a given mass of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to global warming.

IT IS AN ESTIMATE, IT IS NOT CHEMISTRY, IT IS NOT SCIENCE. NOTICE POLICTIAL AGENDA OF GLOBAL WARMING, THAT WHOLE PREMISE IS FALSE. IF YOUR BASIC PREMISE IS FALSE.........

The GWP depends on the following factors:

“the absorption of infrared radiation by a given species
the spectral location of its absorbing wavelengths
the atmospheric lifetime of the species

THREE FACTORS ARE USED HERE, WHAT OF ALL THE OTHER FACTORS. JUST BECAUSE YOU GET A NUMBER, DOESN’T MEAN IT HAS VALUE. THESE NUMBERS ARE PROBABLY PRESENTED TO 10 SIGNIFICANT DIGITS, BUT AGAIN, CRAP.

The GWP for a mixture of gases can not be determined from the GWP of the constituent gases by any form of simple linear addition.

THAT MEANS IT IS COMPLICATED AND THEY DON’T KNOW. BUT THEY MIGHT BE RIGHT IF THE ATMOSPHERE WAS PURE METHANE...........

DO NOT BUY IN TO THIER “SCIENCE”. THESE ARE NOT FACTS NOR CHEMISTRY. THEY ARE STATISTICS AND NUMBERS THAT PRETEND TO LOOK LIKE THE TRUTH.

more info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

“I do not see how it can be a political issue. It is something that can be easily tested and reproduced in a laboratory according to the scientific method.”

Any comments to your above statement?

The CH4 molecule when exposed to the Infrared radiation either absorbs it and/or reflects it back,

OK, lets talk about that. This discussion would also be true for C02

How is it absorbed? Does it increase in temperature? Does the CO2 become warmer? The answer would appear to be no. There is a higher energy level which would make the c02 possibly more reactive. Also at some point it is emitted not reflected back.

“...........Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn’t cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn’t absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25)”

Next point is where you use the word reflected. You are not the only one to use that, it gives the impression of glass which is a false analogy. C02 in the atmosphere is not glass, the energy is emitted. Now common sense would tell you that 50% might be emitted toward earth and 50% away from earth.

I am personally thankful that some it is emitted back toward earth.

Another fact to keep in mind is the composition of the earths atmosphere;

“Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases.”

Note that 0.038% CO2. It is not very much is it? If you put water into the air, how much is CO2?

I have appreciated this thread, it has caused me to think.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.