Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The way methane "exits" the atmosphere is by becoming CO2, so it's strictly worse.


When methane is released, each molecule casues 120x more warming than a CO2 molecule. As it decays (with a half life of ~10 years), it falls exponentially towards a floor of 2-4x worse than CO2 (it's 4x after 100 years and continues to decay from there). This is called Global Temperature Potential (GTP).

Even after 50 years, it's "only" 10x worse than CO2.

GWP is the average for all years, compared to CO2. For methane, most of this is contributed within the first 20 years after release. GWP is primarily useful for estimating the effect of constant steady state emissions. For instance, if we emit both methane and CO2 at constant rates from now to 2122, the heating from the methane is about 25x worse than from CO2. (CWP100=~25). (calculating this gives the same integral as averaging over 100 years).

However, if we're not looking at constant emissions, but instead large bursts where all the gas is released at once, it makes more sense to use the GTP curve.

Here is a nice plot that visualizes this: https://pubs.rsc.org/image/article/2018/EM/c8em00414e/c8em00...

Edit: strictly speaking, the above reasoning assumes the Earth cools rather quickly. Actual cooling once heat has been trapped can be 10-20 years, however, meaning the maximum temperature is reached about 10 years after the release, and it will take 20+ years for all the heat to escape Earth after the methane itself is gone.

https://pubs.rsc.org/image/article/2018/EM/c8em00414e/c8em00...


CO2 plus H2O (water vapor is also a highly potent greenhouse gas).


Methane becoming CO2 means it also produces H2O + a lot of heat, correct? Enough heat to use it as energy source for example.


Yes, biogas is primarily methane, and it's one possible energy source that can be (is?) used while transitioning away from fossil fuels.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: