Re: AGW. LNG Worse Than Coal.

On 2024-11-07, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

On 05/11/2024 01:13, Cryptoengineer wrote:

On 11/4/2024 4:34 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:

On 30/10/2024 01:37, Cryptoengineer wrote:

I'd like to see some numbers on this.
>
Yes, burning methane generates less CO2 per BTU than
methane.
>
But:
>
A significant amount of methane escapes the system in leaks
and gets into the atmosphere without being burnt. In the US,
about 1.4%. Other countries do much worse, and a recent satellite
has started mapping the problem:
>
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/nasa-s-methane-satellite-just-
mapped-its-first-plumes/ar-AA1spd3X?ocid=BingNewsSerp
>
Coal that 'leaks' out of the system just sits on the ground.
>
AND
>
Methane, molecule for molecule, is a far more potent greenhouse
gas than CO2. 120x as potent, in fact.
>
This is mitigated by the fact that methane only  lasts about 10
years in the atmosphere, while CO2 lasts far longer.
>
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
>
So, I'd like to see some actual numbers to support of debunk this
claim, not a simple declaration.

>
I understand that methane in the sky is slowly
converted to CO2.

 
Yes, and far faster then CO2 gets recycled. But it's also a far
more portent as a greenhouse gas, pound for pound, as C02. Numbers
matter, and figuring out the relative contribution of each to
warming \caused is a non-trivial calculation.

>
I wanted to make the point that the increase of
methane in the atmosphere means that CO2 in the
atmosphere increases as well.

Not appreciably. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere is
about only 1/220 that of CO2. In the very long term it builds up the CO2
since the CO2 stays around, but other sources of CO2 are far more important.
It's the short and medium term consequences of methane that have
a much bigger impact.

Chris