
Former White House climate adviser calls methane ‘irrelevant’ to climate - pseudolus
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/unpublished-paper-former-white-house-climate-adviser-calls-methane-irrelevant-climate
======
Merrill
>Methane, by contrast, is mostly removed from the atmosphere by chemical
reaction, persisting for about 12 years. Thus although methane is a potent
greenhouse gas, its effect is relatively short-lived.

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-
gases-remain-air)

~~~
Brakenshire
And then it breaks down to CO2. That is a basic and well understood part of
climate science, that’s how the calculations are made which show an 80 fold
higher impact for Methane per unit mass than for CO2 over a 20 year period,
and 20 fold higher impact over a 100 year period.

As the climate scientist says in the article, this doesn’t disprove mainstream
climate science, and the calculations are correct but banal, and just
presented in a way to give a misleading impression of a smaller impact. The
author is quite open about preparing the paper specifically to give ammunition
to efforts to roll back Oil and Gas regulations.

~~~
romaaeterna
Methane is 16.04 g/mol and CO2 is 44.01 g/mol. PPM of CO2 is 415 and PPM of
Methane is something like 1.8 PPM.

Increase in CO2 is something like 15PPM/decade. Increase in Methane is
0.1PPM/decade (or less).

So in absolute terms, the relative effect of Methane compared to CO2, using
the 80x figure is (1.8 * 16 * 80) / (415*44.01) = 12.6%.

And in growth terms, the relative effect of Methane is 19%.

However, since methane is limited by total land under cultivation, and it has
actual hit a stable PPM in the last decade (unlike CO2 which grows
exponentially), CO2 is by far the larger component in any climate models
projecting into the future.

In conclusion, Former White House adviser can actually math while your 80x
figure needed to be put into context. I do not know where you get your
information from, but I expect that it is from someone trying to make a
tendentious environmental case against cows more than it's about someone
trying to present unbiased facts.

~~~
svara
To summarize your comment, you're calculating that methane contributes around
12% to atmospheric heat trapping (when only considering methane and CO2), and
conclude that it is therefore irrelevant.

I don't think your own calculation supports that conclusion.

~~~
romaaeterna
CO2 is growing exponentially. CH4 is not. If CO2 were stuck at the current
level forever, nobody would care about global warming. It's future expected
doublings that are driving the danger scenarios.

Let me make it extremely simple: there are future expected doublings of CO2
ppm, but there are none for CH4. The share of warming for CH4 compared to CO2
is low and will only get lower.

~~~
masonic

      CO2 is growing exponentially.
    

No, it isn't. 68 parts per _million_ in 35 years isn't remotely "exponential"
growth. It's roughly half a percentage point a year.

Meaningful, yes. Exponential, not hardly.

~~~
marsokod
Saying it is a few percent per year is proof that it is an exponential growth,
per its definition.

------
the-dude
He is also a Princeton Physics Professor. But that would make just a boring
headline?

~~~
KirinDave
Why does this matter? This isn't his field. It'd be like if an honorary
professor in another field said something ridiculous about biology; we'd go,
"Cool story, bro."

I'm saying: if Ray Kurzweil gets negative press when he says something absurd
outside of his lane, then certainly a guy who openly says he's a climate
science denier is going to.

~~~
the-dude
So what would be the 'proper' field for commenting on 'climate science' ?

Are there faculties of 'Climate Science' ?

If anything, I will listen to anybody's arguments if they have a grasp of math
first, physics second, chemistry 3rd.

~~~
KirinDave
> Are there faculties of 'Climate Science' ?

Yes, actually. Most major universities in my country have an "atmospheric
science" department and some of the major findings in the field have come from
them. People who focus on climate are indeed called "climate scientists."

> If anything, I will listen to anybody's arguments if they have a grasp of
> math first, physics second, chemistry 3rd.

So you'd trust a particle physicists opinion about exoplanets over and
astrophysicist who specializes in exoplanet hunting? I'm sorry, but that seems
misguided. Why do you hate specialization? It's a pillar of modern physics.

~~~
the-dude
Why do you dismiss outside scrutiny so easily? Sounds very much like 'Only
members of the church may critize the church'.

~~~
KirinDave
Well, strictly speaking the actual Church where this paper is from backs the
Trump Administration in its climate science denial.

But as others have pointed out: the claims in this paper aren't very strong.
Further, they don't directly dispute anthropogenic global warming. All they do
is suggest that methane shouldn't be regulated because it breaks down over 40
years.

However, it breaks down to component greenhouse gases, which the paper fails
to mention. This seems to be a fatal stake in the heart of this argument.

Did you skim the article in question? Even quickly? If not, don't you feel a
bit ashamed for participating in this discussion without making even the most
basic effort?

------
martincollignon
If you want to do something on climate change as a techie, I would suggest
helping out projects here: [https://github.com/topics/climate-
change](https://github.com/topics/climate-change)

I would also suggest joining communities like
[https://climateaction.tech/](https://climateaction.tech/)

------
jokoon
I'm still curious if climate change is really a serious threat to human kind,
because it sounds like it is. It's a little weird that nobody can confirm it.

I never had a clear answer when asking if a temperature increase would be a
threat to the food supply, but +4C seems like a lot. Even displacing crops to
the north sounds a little crazy.

But it's true that climate change demonstrated how so many people are just
uneducated. It's impossible to talk science when politics are concerned.
Technocracy looks like it's compatible with democracy and there are times I
wish science was part of the political process. Officials are generally poorly
educated on science, and it's a problem (that adviser is educated on science).

------
Bantros
So about as relevant as man-made CO2 contributions to "climate change" then?

~~~
KirinDave
What are you trying to say here? My first reading is that you disagree with
anthropogenic global warming, but if you did that then you'd be disagreeing
with the paper we're discussing and as far as I can tell, you don't.

Can you clarify? Am I just misreading?

~~~
Bantros
If you suppose methane is "irrelevant" to climate change, like the adviser
suggests, that surely implies made-made CO2 contributions are about as
relevant.

In this case not very, or irrelevant.

Definitely doesn't sound as humorous when written like that, though I'll
clarify as it seems you are asking earnestly

------
OneGuy123
We have seen that doctors said & agreed that fats are bad and that cigarettes
are good.

So to dismiss any reasearch which shows that our effect on the climante is
lesser than we thing is equally stupid.

There is a difference between protecting the planet and blindly following
anything that climate "scientists" say.

Even in natural sciences 50% of articles is wrong due to statistics being hard
and humans being humans.

Climate activism has been politized: and once that happens all objectivity
goes out of the window.

In germany a group of scientists who wanted to present that research that goes
against the "climate destruction" agenda were threatened by local antifa-like
thugs and the police did nothing to protect them.

Modern climate activism is the same as book burning where the book burning now
means "destroy anything that shows us the opposite".

Thus it is not objective anymore and thus we cannot really trust anything that
comes from it.

If your reasearch $$$ depends on you to keep showing that humans are
destroying the climate then in one way or the other you will find the reason,
no matter how far-fetched it might be: humans want money and a good life.

~~~
jbsimpson
> If your reasearch $$$ depends on you to keep showing that humans are
> destroying the climate

Except if you cared about money, it is far easier to sell out and take the
money from the industry groups who want to fund research to throw the science
into doubt.

~~~
Tycho
Do you have figures on the size of government funding for climate research
relative to the size of private funding for climate research?

~~~
big_chungus
Federal spending is just shy of twelve billion as of 2014 plus an additional
twenty-six billion [0] ,and has likely increased since then. Private funding
is harder to measure. I also think there's a case to be made that many people
are "integrating backwards", looking for a specific answer and finding the
research to justify that. This always happens when an issue is politicized,
and this issue is undoubtedly politicized.

[0]
[https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_manage...](https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary)

~~~
akhilcacharya
Meanwhile in the oil & gas drilling and exploration sector:

> According to market research by IBISWorld, a leading business intelligence
> firm, the total revenues for the oil and gas drilling sector came to $2
> trillion in 2017.

[0] [https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030915/what-
percent...](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030915/what-percentage-
global-economy-comprised-oil-gas-drilling-sector.asp)

~~~
topologistics
>total revenues for the oil and gas drilling sector came to $2 trillion in
2017.

And all that money was immediately given to dirty evil fake scientists, right?

