“80 times that of CO2”

Methane is for all intents and purposes irrelevant as a greenhouse gas in earth’s atmosphere, because of very low concentrations and overlap of its spectral bands with H2O.  So journalists make up completely fake statistics about methane.

“Indeed, methane is responsible for around a third of the 1.1C increase in global temperatures since pre-industrial times, a rise that is fueling the more extreme weather patterns currently experienced around the world … Its impact on temperature rises is 80 times that of CO2”

The Global Methane Pledge could be our only realistic chance to slow down climate change within a few years–but time is already running out | Fortune

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to “80 times that of CO2”

  1. Ivan Wainwright says:

    Lies, lies and more lies. Sickening.

  2. Petit_Barde says:

    “a rise [of 1.1C°] that is fueling the more extreme weather patterns currently experienced around the world”

    Extrem weather events data (Gathered by the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, etc. on heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, wildfires, …) show no trend whatsoever and thus positively contradict this claim on which (and on which only) the “climate crisis” narrative is based.

    • Peter Carroll says:

      Over the last 50 years, Australia has seen a steady DECLINE, in the number and severity of cyclones. Google, BOM Cyclone chart.
      When this chart was first released it was in two shades of blue. Approximately two months later, it was change to the mandatory, frightening, climate change colours of, red and yellow.

  3. arn says:

    Well,Bill G has to get rid of cattle food competition to make his artificial and bug meat a success,(which is some bizarre logic considering the fact that insects produce a magnitude more methane than humans and cattle combined,
    but I guess Mr Gates bugs are either methane free or methane neutral)
    the same way they need to destroy traditional energy supply so uncompetitive renewables can take over.

    From a reasonable point of view it is hard to imagine that there is anything in the Universe that can come even close to match the extraordinary destructive superskills of co2 to absorb heat,
    but all of a sudden there is methane
    which is 80 * stronger.
    One may get the idea that a bottle filled with a little bit of methane would explode in a huge fireball as soon as it gets exposed to the sun.
    (a why the hell is noone using methane to store energy/heat ,
    it should be the best battery ever.)
    And what may happen to cows without methane?
    Their body temperature should drop by 20 degrees and the places where most of their methane is located should be massive hot spots.

    Funny btw that all this incredible methane and co2 is happening of a planet full of h2o ,which for some reasons plays no role in AGW just like the sun,
    though both in combination with atmospheric pressure should be at least 95% of the factors that drive our climate.
    But for some reason any birdshit and any cowfart have more impact than those 3 combined.

    My guess is that we will see a massive increase in government changes as result of climate policies.
    Those who don’t follow the climate agenda and are being removed and those who remove their government as result of destructive policies as happened in Sri Lanka.

  4. Peter Carroll says:

    When this GHG emissions fraud was first being pushed, there were five GHG’s causing, “global warming”. Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Ozone, Nitrous Oxide and Halocarbons/Fluorocarbons.
    All except CO2 seemed to disappear from view rather quickly, but now CH4 has made its way back onto the, “bad gas”, list.
    As for CH4 being 80 times as bad as CO2, the EPA says 25 times, the UNEPA says 80 times. Looks like, pick a number, any number, the higher the better.

  5. GeologyJim says:

    I couldn’t help but notice the glee in this writer’s fantasy piece that “technology is rapidly improving “ to allow track-and-trace monitoring of methane bad-actors (sources other than, sadly, China, India, and Russia)

    We are witnessing an orchestrated campaign of economic self-flagellation designed to neutralize Western values, institutions, and culture. And rid the world of about one-third of its population

    If Patrick Henry were alive today, he’d have to say “Well, they’re surrendering Liberty, so I guess Death is the only option “

  6. dm says:

    INFORMED, THINKING, OBJECTIVE minds should use the notion “…methane is responsible for around a third of the 1.1C increase in global temperatures since pre-industrial times” to skewer CO2 alarmism.

    Only about 30% of the temperature increase since the Little Ice Age ended has occurred since anthropogenic methane and CO2 began having detectable impacts on temperature. 1950 or so is the earliest date for detectable impacts.

    30% approximates the one third share of warming blamed on methane by alarmists. If methane is indeed responsible for one third, anthropogenic CO2 has NOT affected temperature;-}

    Background calculations & data:
    A) 1.75C is the approximate temperature increase between 1880 and 2020 or so. See the graph based on NASA data in Tony’s essay titled “Erasing the 1940s Blip”.
    B) 1.25C is the increase between 1880 and 1940. See the National Geographic temperature graph referenced in “Erasing the 1940s Blip”.
    C) 1.75 – 1.25 = 0.5 and 0.5 / 1.75 = 30% or so.

    Let me close by pointing out Dr. Will Happer shares the assessment methane’s GHE is exaggerated by alarmists. See:
    https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2022/11/16/a_little_learning_on_methane_and_climate_change_864994.html

    • conrad ziefle says:

      If you look at graphs going back to 1880, in almost all of Tony’s data sets, I see NO warming trend, Only a very jagged up and down that seems to not change the mean at all, or maybe reduces it slightly.

  7. Perhaps I’m a bit slow on the uptake, but doesn’t the rather narrow Methane band correspond to a black body peak of about 90 degrees Celsius? Which part of the Earth is that hot, or in other words, where is the IR radiation, which it allegedly blocks, coming from? I could never understand how Venus at 740K is allegedly catastrophically heated by a gas having its absorption band corresponding to about 150K. CO2 is the cause of concern to those who believe in the green house myth, because its absorption band is near the Earth’s nominal surface temperature.

    • conrad ziefle says:

      My little chart which I found on the Internet, and looks about right, shows methane having two tiny peaks: One at about 2.5 μm and the other at about 18 μm. Both are overlapped by larger water vapor peaks. I don’t know if this graph shows the ε, or the total absorption given the current level of these molecules in the atmosphere. I think probably the latter, but it would be nice to know which it is. Anyway the one at 12.5 μm, or so, is an outlier for both incoming radiation and outgoing radiation and in any case they would cancel each other out. The one at 18μm, or so, is at the shorter wavelengths for outgoing radiation and is heavily overlapped by H2O vapor. So it appears by any interpretation of the graph, methane is currently not causing any significant absorption. Getting back to the incoming radiation, which has significant voids due to H2O absorption, what happens with that radiation which was absorbed? This question can also be asked about the outgoing radiation, which is also absorbed. The green house gases can’t just hold that radiation. They must either share it with the surrounding molecules through conduction/convection, or they must reradiate it around in all directions, including back to the black hole of space. Eventually, all of it must end up in the black of space, because it is at the greatest differential to any earthly temperatures. 0 deg K (space) vs 289 K (Earth), or so. The delta with any place on Earth being at max about 20K. So that versus a delta of 289 K, which will have the greater heat exchange? So it appears that green house gases seem to be our benefactors in that they delay thermal loses, without which we would become an instant ice cube. H2O being the most prevalent and strongest of them, and no amount of burning fossil fuels will impact the amount of H2O vapor which is associated with the natural vapor/liquid balance given that the Earth is covered 71% by water liquid.

  8. Paul Homewood says:

    If methane missions stay constant, they will not increase global temps because as fast as we add them to the atmosphere they disappear again:

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/10/20/methane-the-irrelevant-green-house-gas-dr-thomas-p-sheahen/

  9. scott allen says:

    A couple of gases that are more influential in global warming are
    SF6 and NF3
    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_sf6/
    https://gml.noaa.gov/hats/gases/NF3.html

    Both of these two gases are thousands times more potent greenhouse gas then CO2 and have very long lives and we are doubling the amounts in the air about every 5 years.
    why does nobody talk about them….because they are used to make solar pannels and wind turbines

    • tonyheller says:

      The only greenhouse gases on earth of any significance are H2O and CO2

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      Has the warming caused by these two gases been measured?
      I would say no.
      Has the warming caused by CO2 been measured?
      I would say no.
      How do we know which is more potent?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *