teo123 wrote:I've heard one seemingly convincing argument that it doesn't, and I haven't heard any refutation.
Have you bothered looking for one? I don't even think you're interested in a refutation anyways. What conservative think tank did you get this piece of climate denialism from anyway?
Instead of framing this as an argument against methane's role in climate change, keep in mind that methane's role in climate change is supported by the overwhelming majority of experts on this matter; the knowledge discrepancy in this field between you and an atmospheric physicist is beyond tremendous. Knowing this, there must be a reason and explanation for what you're presuming to be a contradiction. A more honest and fair version of this question would be:
A more honest, intelligent teo123 wrote:Since the spectrum for methane's absorption for radiation is so narrow and comparable to water, how is it able to be one of the most potent greenhouse gases?
That is in fact a very interesting question! Let's see if we can break it down for you, Teo that I wished existed. While there is some truth to this, it isn't the whole story. Let's answer it by addressing the points maded in the post by the less honest, intelligent, and unfortunately real-life Teo.
teo123 wrote:Methane cannot be causing global warming because,
See, this is what I mean; You're making a claim, stop doing that and instead ask a
question. I thought you were quoting something at first but I checked Google and it didn't turn up anything.
teo123 wrote: although its absorption spectre is wider than that of CO2, the frequencies that it absorbs almost entirely coincide with that of water (by far the most powerful and most abundant greenhouse gas).
Methane and water vapor have
similar (that is, not identical) absorption spectrums, but the key difference is that methane absorbs infrared radiation at ranges that water vapor isn't capable of. It is within the infrared range for both, but at slightly different wavelengths (which make all the difference).
One of the things to keep in mind is
saturation. Before human civilization, methane was a very rare gas in the atmosphere, especially compared to water vapor and CO2; Hence, adding much more methane than the Earth naturally has makes a much larger difference than would CO2 and water vapor would.
Adding more of other GHGs certainly makes a difference (as it is now), but their natural abundance doesn't make it as dramatic; you need to add a lot more for there to be a difference (which is what we're doing very effectively right now at the rate we're pumping it; that's why emissions in 50 years won't be as significant as the emissions we release today). But since things like CO2 are added to the atmosphere at such a large volume and rate, that's what makes them one of the biggest culprits, and makes up for that difference. After the primary absorption bands of the gas are saturated, additional molecules of it won't be as much as the ones before it. Combine that with methane being significantly more potent than water and CO2, there's your answer.
It's like having a shelf full of thrash metal albums. Adding one more thrash album to it isn't really spectacular but add a groove metal album (
) and sure as shit it's noticeable. I'm sure you enjoy that dogshit though, Teo.
And what's worse, methane has the ability to break off into CO2 and water vapor when enough oxygen is present, so if you really think those other two are more important, you should still give a shit about methane.
teo123 wrote:So, before some ray of light has been absorbed by methane, it has already been absorbed by water. CO2 is causing global warming because it absorbs some frequencies that water doesn't, but methane doesn't do that.
I think I already addressed most of this. Again, they aren't identical, and let's also keep in mind that WHERE in the atmosphere it is plays a role. Water vapor is able to be more saturated in certain parts, while methane is able to be more broadly spread. Also, water vapor is less abundant as you go up in the atmosphere, while methane doesn't necessarily have a preference.
It's more accurate to think of them as both contributors to climate change, just at different ratios.
The thing to keep in mind about allt his is, the vast majority of methane and CO2 that is being added to the atmosphere is being done so by humans acting ignorantly and irresponsibly. It is well within our means to reduce and eliminate these, which is why they are so often highlighted. We do this by not consuming animal products, switching our grids to renewables and nuclear power, embracing GM technology to grow more food more efficiently, allowing forests to regrow naturally, and in general improving our infrastructure and culture to be more considerate of the climate.
teo123 wrote:How do you respond to that argument?
Like that. Any more questions, smartass?
The fact that methane has a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere, and is one of the most potent, is what makes it so urgent, especially considering how much of a low-hanging fruit it is. Getting rid of methane would be a massive step in the right direction.
Does this adequately address your claim? If you were a sane and reasonable person it would be yes, but you'll find SOMETHING to fruitlessly argue, I know it.
Teo, you were been told LONG ago that if something is going against the scientific consensus, there's a good reason to be skeptical of it, and your intuition is certainly wrong if it seems convincing to you. It's almost always the case that the person giving this piece of information is either wrong or lying (or misrepresenting the facts, as it is here; See the definition of
"Bullshit")rather than hundreds of thousands of concurring scientists making such a silly oversight. Why oh why do you refuse to understand this? I think because deep down, you're still the same paranoid, arrogant conspiracy theorist desperate to be in on some knowledge that 99% of sheeple are too stupid to know about. Oh sure, you've changed your views many times, but fundamentally, you are the exact same person you were when you joined the forum eight years ago arguing in favor Flat Earth.
If you really want to know responses to this, why not ask a climate scientist? They aren't hard to come by with the internet, just ask on Reddit, or one of the professors at your school. The thing is you have to actually be opening to LEARNING AND UNDERSTANDING instead of constantly shifting the goalposts, which you're so fond of doing. The people you talk with will likely become frustrated with you and give up on trying to argue.
