Yesterday I pointed out a good reason for believing that making a change in the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas, either up or down, should not have the expected effect on surface temperatures. It’s because the “work load” of individual molecules is exceedingly flexible. It can rise or fall with no apparent limit. Moreover, it seems as if there are always enough molecules of the important gases in position to handle whatever amount of traffic—in the form of photons emitted from the surface—is trying to pass through the atmosphere on its way back to space. The GHG molecules all have their own specialty for capturing photons of certain wavelengths and sending an equal amount of energy back to the surface. By doing so they reheat the surface, necessitating a partial repeat of the initial run of emissions. The GHG molecules do their job at high speed. Then they can just sit in place and wait for the next opportunity to make a catch. In that sense, adding more molecules to any individual GHG in the air above should make no difference in this mechanism, at least not in the short run. But what about the long run? I have attempted no answer, but we are all pretty sure it does make a difference. Why, and how? I have some ideas about that, and will present them later, but today is a good time to talk about the current push to quickly reduce global temperatures by cutting way back on methane emissions. Would it really work?
We’ll start with a well-written description of the newly urgent UN (or IPCC) approach to methane cuts, published in August by The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/06/cut-methane-emissions-rapidly-fight-climate-disasters-un-report-greenhouse-gas-global-heating. A number of prominent scientists are quoted, and every reason for making a supreme effort is clearly laid out. Some selected notes: ” Cutting it is the strongest action available to slow global heating in the near term…..The report found that methane emissions could be almost halved by 2030 using existing technology and at reasonable cost…..Achieving the cuts would avoid nearly 0.3C of global heating by 2045 and keep the world on track for the Paris climate agreement’s goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C…..Methane is 84 times more powerful in trapping heat than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period and has caused about 30% of global heating to date…..We’re seeing so many aspects of climate change manifest themselves in the real world faster than our projections…..Cutting methane is the strongest lever we have to slow climate change over the next 25 years…..Seldom in the world of climate change action is there a solution so stuffed with win-wins.” All of the hoped-for benefits are described in the report, and they are huge. Humanity would be crazy not to go along with these recommendations, coming from the highest levels of science, no matter how many of the modest sacrifices may be required.
Personally, I am much in favor of enacting this plan as stated, despite having some doubts about whether the promised payoff would actually be delivered. My doubts are centered on the possibility that cutting back the number of methane molecules in the atmosphere could be fully offset by an increase in the frequency of photon trapping (and followup emissions) by the molecules that remained after the cuts. Every outgoing photon could still be captured, and the surface would be dealing with just as many returns as before, with no change in their temperature impact. I may be wrong about this, but let’s consider how things stand in today’s world. We’ll start with radiation bands, where methane gas has a footprint that is reasonably close to that of carbon dioxide, which in turn is second only to water vapor and all its eccentricities. CO2 and methane top the list of well-mixed gases that all tend to keep the same positioning of molecules throughout the atmosphere day after day and year after year.
This will help them to neglect side-effects cause by the canadian viagra samples medicine. You should remember however, that Kamagra Jelly is the best and most effective oral medication for ED. deeprootsmag.org cialis in spain It recuperates and improves the limit professional viagra cheap of the veins to enlarge suitably,” “Shedding pounds is the best, scarcest excessive method to control hypertension.” Drink with some limitation. One can effortlessly discover the generic kind of purchase tadalafil online on male reproduction system is not less than the cialis.Now let’s do a molecular abundance comparison. Viewing both in terms of parts per million, CO2 stand at 415, CH4 at just 1.9, or 218 times fewer. Oddly enough, it turns out that these two gases have a difference in greenhouse energy production that corresponds fairly closely with the difference in their radiation footprints and not at all with relative molecular abundance. How should one think about this huge difference in abundance—would you believe the individual molecules of one gas are simply kept more busy than the other, to an extreme, in terms of trapping outgoing photons? I think so, for lack of any reasonable alternative. I can’t see anything that would ever make individual CH4 molecules one bit stronger than CO2 molecules when it comes to trapping individual photons. They could, however, possibly trap lots and lots and lots (over 200 times) more of them over the course of a day, at very high speed per each catching event. Why should they not be able to each trap another 30% or so without much in the way of added difficulty? I still need to show how greenhouse gases, collectively, all in fact do have the ability to add more warmth to the surface as a result of adding to their abundances. I believe this is so, but by a markedly different kind of mechanism, probably having some strange features that are not yet well understood.
Carl