Sagebrush asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 2 months ago

Is William Happer right about methane not being relevant regarding the climate?

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/11/27/princeton-...

It would be nice if you critics would give solid scientific evidence as to your critique.

Update:

Antarcticice: Ha! Ha! Do you even understand anything about basic English? I asked for "solid scientific evidence" to refute the fact that methane is relevant. NOT for critique on a particular article. But your intelligence is so low quality that you can't understand the basics of communication in English. 

Also, just because a person has not published any whitepapers does not prima facie disqualify him from knowing his business, as you so imply. 

Update 2:

But it does show to all that your understanding of basic science and the English language is lacking. Ha! Ha! You take the time to expound on your wisdom on this question and come out shooting blanks that only prove your ignorance. 

So your assignment today is to RE-READ the question and SCIENTIFICALLY show us where the level of methane has even minutely altered our Earth's climate. Now, do you understand the question? And you want to be taken serious. Ha! Ha!

Update 3:

sam: Your article is quite dubious in the "solid scientific evidence" department. I quote from your article, "According to Deborah Gordon, in a Watson Institute podcast, "Methane is a stealthy gas — invisible, odorless, minute, and forceful — that is 120 times more potent than carbon dioxide as soon as it is emitted."

That is OPINION, not evidence. Don't you see the difference? I think not. Deborah is factual in that methane is stealthy, invisible and forceful (whatever that means). 

Update 4:

But the 120 times argument is lacking in proof. Don't you see the difference? A mere statement without any scientific backing is not 'solid scientific evidence'.  Now show all of us where and when the methane level has changed the climate, as you so infer. 

Update 5:

Cosmo: Computer models have proven by time itself to be inaccurate. 

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

You want to use admitted fiction as proof then go ahead, but don't bother us with that tripe anymore. Keep it to yourself. 

7 Answers

Relevance
  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    2 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    First of all, methane is very short lived in the atmosphere. That is an extremely important point. It means that whatever is added will be gone in a few years.

    Another important point about methane is that it primarily absorbs light in the spectrum already absorbed by water vapor. The atmosphere has thousands of times as much water vapor as methane and therefore methane contribution to "warming" is likely insignificant. That is why when NASA says it 28 to 36 times as big of a warming potential, they are flat out lying.

    Much of the methane that they blame on humans is from oil drilling.  Although petroleum production definitely increases the current rate of methane emissions, blaming humans for the all of the methane around oil fields reveals a lack of understanding of the geology involved.  Oil fields tend to involve oil and gas being trapped in stratigraphic traps which prevent upward migration much as a dam prevents downward migration of a river.  Like a dam, stratigraphic traps leak and the oil and gas migrates upwards eventually anyway.  Methane is a useful gas and therefore it tends to not be emitted on purpose.   It is a very clean energy source which is why the left hates it so much.  They hate anything that harms their quest for power and having energy independence does just that.  

    Alarmists claimed that our CO2 would increase the water vapor and that would all add to warming and that warming would increase methane releases from the oceans and permafrost.  Their predictions didn't come to pass or at least were wildly exaggerated yet they persist in their lies.  

    "We are here under false pretenses, wasting our time talking about a non existent climate emergency." ... "Phoniness of this bizarre environmental cult." ...It's hard to understand how much further the shrillness can go as this started out as global warming then it was climate change or global weirding climate crisis climate emergency what next but stick around it will happen. I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the holiness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end."  I couldn't have said it better Dr. Happer

    • ...Show all comments
    • JimZ
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      It is only a problem in your mind Dirac because you obviously aren't very well schooled in Geology.  

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    Sorry, your asking for “solid scientific evidence” on a paper the two authors haven’t published in any journal, Happer has no qualifications even remotely related to climate, so he’s from the standard denier expert mould.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer

    And you guys seriously want to be called skeptic, lol.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • sam
    Lv 6
    2 months ago

    he is wrong. Although carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas, short-lived climate pollutants like methane are rapidly accelerating global warming

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Dirac
    Lv 4
    2 months ago

    It is relevant, but I think the real takeaway is that if we take care of CO2 then we won't have to worry about methane. The contribution to the greenhouse effect from methane is down around the one percent level (of the total), while it is around 20 percent for CO2.

    As has been pointed out in here many times, the effect of logarithmic in concentration, so addition an amount of methane is more significant than adding the same amount of CO2, but I don't think methane is the problem, it just compounds the problem.  It would be particularly worrisome if we get a catastrophic release from the tundra or undersea clathrates. 

    • ...Show all comments
    • JimZ
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      I guess your of is supposed to be is but even that doesn't make sense. Methane is so low in concentration and its spectrum already absorbed by water vapor it is inconsequential IMO. Look for yourself. I did. Overlay their spectrum.  

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Daro
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Happer was top well respected scientist ....until he disagreed with liberal dogma on their pet idiocy.

    Every scientist who expresses any variation in opinion other than "American made Global Warming we all gonna die......" is immediately smeared.

    Even Roger Revelle, Gores previous hero. Changed his mind after years of sifting thru the evidence. Just in time to be slammed and denigrated by Al Gore (the champion of the pitiful polar bear). Heartland inst. showed the video of Gores rebuttal of Roger.

    .

    They dont have any scientific research. Just keep chanting "CO2 causing catastrophic warming" (just the CO2 which raised our living standards , not all of it).

    Thats why they had to erase the past 2 cycles to make it seem "unprecedented warming....."

    https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia...

    • ...Show all comments
    • Daro
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      Hansen admitted on national TV to "tweaking" data (others not under government thumb call it manipulating) data.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Cowboy
    Lv 6
    2 months ago

    Happer's hopeless. We can't trust anything the Trump administration is doing - they lie ALL the time - and democracy is fading in the face of their Putin-praising mendacity.

    Here's methane and climate from genuine scientists:

    http://www.dl.mozh.org/up/Methane_and_Climate_Chan...

    • Sagebrush
      Lv 7
      2 months agoReport

      You must be one of those who believed Obama when he said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Ha! Ha! 

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • cosmo
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

    What is possible, however, is to model radiative transfer in the atmosphere by computer (there are literally thousands of atomic and molecular quantum transitions)

    and to then verify those calculations by in situ measurements (send up balloons to gather samples, measure temperature, etc.).  This has been done with great accuracy.  So the effect of adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere is well-understood.  There is no doubt that adding methane to the atmosphere warms the Earth's surface.

    What makes predictions about the future difficult, is that there are feedback loops, both positive and negative, that will affect the future constituents of the atmosphere.

    This argument about Willam Happer's methane idea is not like that.  He's arguing

    about semantics: the fact that at present, methane contributes only 1/6 of the warming effect of CO2.  He says that's a negligible amount, and furthermore only a fraction of that methane has an industrial source.  Others say that, while the amount of methane in the atmosphere is small at present,  the warming due to CO2 will likely cause the release of a lot more methane by natural processes beyond human control, and if that happens the heating could be bad, possibly very, very bad.  It is true that anthropogenic methane sources are small compared to this natural feedback methane, and that therefore the regulations against industrial release of methane do not solve the bulk of the potential future methane problem.  Industrial release of methane will only make things a little bit worse, and forbidding such releases goes only a little way to solving the problem as a whole.

    The anthropogenic release of CO2 is the main problem, and the primary source is coal-fired power plants.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.