[HN Gopher] NASA finds super-emitters of methane
___________________________________________________________________
NASA finds super-emitters of methane
Author : walterbell
Score : 195 points
Date : 2022-11-01 20:38 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Another example of why we need the 'regulation' that is so
| demonized.
| stetrain wrote:
| Hmm but if we make businesses do something that is not the most
| short-term profitable choice, then the shareholders may not be
| able to extract maximum value!
| ch4s3 wrote:
| This isn't a very good take. Business leaders are generally
| fine with reasonable regulations that are evenly applied and
| easy to comply with. The operations out there spewing methane
| are essentially free riding, and their competitors who don't
| do that probably want better enforcement. Obviously this
| isn't universally applicable to all conceivable regulations,
| but its true enough in this case.
| ohbtvz wrote:
| I personally don't care in any way about what business
| leaders are comfortable with. Our planet is burning. They
| should be uncomfortable.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| My point is that businesses aren't even necessarily
| against this kind of regulation. The reality is that
| controlling methane requires a lot of unsexy
| followthrough and monitoring, and international deal
| making. This is a political failure.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| We need it at the worldwide level, which is especially
| difficult.
| themitigating wrote:
| Not if you use force
| cowtools wrote:
| it is strictly impossible to establish a one-world
| government through force, at least given our current
| technology.
|
| If a country has the army of robots needed to make it
| happen, then you have two problems.
| steve_taylor wrote:
| It's impossible to establish a one-world government
| without force.
| lazide wrote:
| Good luck doing that on renewables and positive vibes!
| themitigating wrote:
| We can sacrifice for the greater good.
| lazide wrote:
| That 'we' sure is carrying a lot of weight. From the
| context of this thread, it seems likely most of the
| sacrifice would be from folks in Turkmenistan, who would
| be told to change at the point of a gun no? Likely
| leading to a non trivial death count from violence or
| starvation.
|
| I'm pretty sure you didn't ask them if they were Ok with
| that sacrifice.
|
| To quote C.S. Lewis - " Of all tyrannies, a tyranny
| exercised for the good of its victims may be the most
| oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
| than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber
| baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at
| some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our
| own good will torment us without end for they do so with
| the approval of their own conscience. They may be more
| likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to
| make a Hell of earth."
| themitigating wrote:
| In a democracy the population is responsible for voting
| in the government.
|
| In a dictatorship the population is responsible for not
| overthrowing the government.
| guelo wrote:
| Instead of the geopolitically-driven western trade regime we
| have today we should be basing trade relations on
| environmental standards.
| stetrain wrote:
| Yes, but that shouldn't prevent us from implementing it where
| we can first.
| Alupis wrote:
| Not if all your efforts are wasted because other nations
| won't follow in-step or do not care.
|
| This isn't grade school were trying your hardest gets you
| an 'A' for the day... in reality trying your hardest and
| failing is still failure.
|
| The US could do all the magical things and net zero
| emissions next year and it won't matter one bit. That's
| just reality... without a globally concerted effort, it's
| all just waste.
|
| But I realize there is a non-trivial amount of folks that
| believe doing _something_ , _anything_ is better than
| nothing - even if it is not logical and has no beneficial
| outcome.
|
| Perhaps we should put those energies into productive means
| of solving the problem instead of emotionally "feel-good"
| solutions. Why does developing countries use dirty energy
| production? What can we do to make it cheaper to use
| renewables instead? Can we make biodegradable plastics more
| attractive than traditional plastics? That's just
| scratching the surface...
| llsf wrote:
| I would disagree, in this case, we have a combination of
| 2 issues:
|
| 1. Climate change due to CO2/etc. emissions
|
| 2. Fossil fuel (oil/gas/coal) peak
|
| Even if we do not care about climate change, as fossil
| fuel addicts, any decline of fossil fuel production would
| be catastrophic for the world wide economy.
|
| So, in this race to avoid fossil fuel, the sooner you are
| out of it, the more resilient you will be when pumping
| oil/gas/coal would be too expensive.
|
| Capturing all those methane gas, if not for the climate,
| but for usage is good for the national security.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Nirvana fallacy. Your efforts aren't wasted if others
| don't follow suit. A partial solution is better than no
| solution. At the least you're buying the world a few
| extra years to figure it out.
|
| Also, being the leader makes it easier for other
| countries to follow suit. Every country has a large bloc
| of cynical reactionaries within their boarders pointing
| their fingers and saying "why would we do anything if
| other countries aren't?". If _you_ do things first, you
| disarm that narrative that 's going on in other
| countries, which makes it easier for their progressives
| to get change done locally.
| Alupis wrote:
| The "problem" countries are not going to start setting up
| wind farms just because the US can do it. These countries
| are burning coal for a reason... it's exceedingly cheap.
|
| Make something else exceedingly cheap and they will use
| it. Anything else is just a distraction and made to make
| you feel good at night while not accomplishing anything
| significant.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look
| at China. They don't like being covered in smog all the
| time and the respiratory problems that creates.
|
| Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason.
| It's because of investment in these technologies by
| richer countries. The richer countries pave the way by
| making the technology so cheap that it's irresistible and
| a better deal to poor countries. The way you make it
| cheap is by funding the transition yourself. The cost
| decreases naturally follow as part of R&D.
|
| Thirdly, rich countries _should_ subsidize the energy
| transition of poor countries. They 've emitted much more
| than poor countries per capita since the Industrial
| Revolution, so a de-facto retroactive carbon tax to fund
| poor countries' transition on an expedited timeline is
| only fair.
| Alupis wrote:
| > Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that.
| Look at China.
|
| China is far from a poor country... by some measurements
| they outpace even the US.
|
| > Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason
|
| This is true - however we also need to recognize the
| technology is not ready today. It might be tomorrow, but
| throwing everything out and going full-in on green tech
| today is foolhardy. Some prominent states in the US
| already struggle to keep electricity on year round... how
| on earth can we expect new tech to not only do better but
| be cheaper in that environment? What chance do developing
| nations have if the wealthiest nations cannot solve this
| already?
|
| > Thirdly, rich countries should subsidize the energy
| transition of poor countries
|
| I agree on some level. However I do not agree with
| pushing unproven technology just because it makes us feel
| good day. That will just burn developing nations and make
| them less likely to trust us next time we come up with
| some amazing new solution to all their problems...
| xmonkee wrote:
| "The United States accounts for only about five percent
| of global population, but is responsible for 30 percent
| of global energy use and 28 percent of carbon emissions."
|
| https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-
| greenhouse-...
| stetrain wrote:
| Well if the options are:
|
| 1) Try to improve what we can and hope others follow.
| Outcomes are either a global improvement in emissions or
| significant adverse climate effects.
|
| 2) Don't do that. Outcome is significant adverse climate
| effects.
|
| What's the argument for choosing 2)?
|
| Okay we might be at an economic advantage for 20, maybe
| 50 years? But then what?
|
| PS: I agree with your last statement. But I don't see how
| reducing excess methane emissions prevents us from
| pursuing those solutions as well. Nor would I categorize
| that as an emotional "feel-good" solution.
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| To me the obvious solution seems like it would be to
| impose targeted tariffs on imports from countries that do
| not act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, alongside
| taxes on domestic emissions.
|
| Does this happen? What are the difficulties with it?
| Alupis wrote:
| The countries producing majority of the world's emissions
| are doing so because they are using the cheapest forms of
| energy production available - not because they are evil
| doers or something nefarious.
|
| The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is
| to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives.
| Tariffing goods from these nations will not have the
| desired impact - the nation still needs cheap energy
| production and will not stop just because the US made
| their goods more expensive for it's own citizens.
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| > The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is
| to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives.
|
| Or make greenhouse gas emissions more expensive.
|
| So you set the tariffs proportionnal to the assessed
| level of greenhouse gas emissions. Set them at a level
| where governments are incentivised to act to reduce the
| tariffs.
| Alupis wrote:
| The tariffs only hurt your own citizens.
|
| The nations that matter for emissions are not going to
| care about US tariffs...
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Of course it would matter. Just because it's not a
| solution doesn't mean it wouldn't give the rest of the
| world more time to follow suit.
|
| It's really scary to me how common this kind of false
| dichotomous thinking has become. It's everywhere, in
| politics especially.
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| If regulations make cleaner and more advanced industries
| less competitive, pushing production to cheaper places with
| less regulation and higher emissions intensity of
| production, then that could actually increase CO2 output.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Perhaps it should not, but it will. Who is going to accept
| heavy regulation when their competition is not so
| encumbered?
| reillyse wrote:
| Lots of countries do this. It just takes leadership.
| Alupis wrote:
| This sounds great and all, but there is no evidence thus
| far to indicate any of the nations that actually matter
| for climate emissions care one bit about your nation's
| leadership.
| reillyse wrote:
| I'm not sure what nation you are referring to. I was also
| not proposing my nation was the leader so I'm confused.
|
| I would say the the US is one of the largest polluters on
| the planet and leadership in the US would change world
| wide pollution levels. Leadership is just that, leading.
| It's very easy for other countries to just point at the
| US and say "they don't practice what they preach, why
| should we do anything". And they are right. Why should
| they do shit when the richest country in the world isn't
| interested in changing their behavior.
| Alupis wrote:
| > I would say the the US is one of the largest polluters
| on the planet and leadership in the US would change world
| wide pollution levels
|
| You might be surprised if you look into this a bit. On a
| Per Capita basis, the US is barely in the top 10.
|
| Regardless, developing nations are not burning coal and
| petroleum because they hate the environment... they need
| cheap energy production - which is currently a failure of
| the green energy movement (ie. there is nothing cheap
| about it, it's a luxury at the moment).
| jiggyjace wrote:
| 'Regulation' is not a solution for countries that do not answer
| to the morals of the West, such as Turkmenistan, China, or
| Russia. Regulation should be demonized, for many situations it
| ends up being a hammer to a screw.
| pstuart wrote:
| There's always leading by example, as well as incentivizing
| via aid.
|
| This is not to dismiss the challenge, just that we shouldn't
| avoid hard problems just because they're hard.
| themitigating wrote:
| "Leading by example " having heard that in a long time I
| believe it's called "virtue signaling " now. That should
| tell you how well that would work
| fragmede wrote:
| If the haters had any virtue _to_ signal then they 'd
| just do that instead. You hate the game not the player,
| but that's just because you're* losing it.
|
| * you referrs to people that use that odious phrase.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| It's interesting how so much of what we used to consider
| 'being a decent person' is now 'virtue signaling'. It's
| the most cynical, worthless meme to come out of the last
| 50 years and that's saying a lot.
| [deleted]
| mmaunder wrote:
| Will be interesting to see how this capability unfolds. They've
| proven this can be done using an instrument not even designed for
| the task. A specialized instrument may be able to detect other
| greenhouse emissions. Imagine the kind of high resolution
| accountability that might be possible. But does the political
| will exist in the US to expose ourselves that way? Our political
| donors that way? Our country as one of the largest emitters?
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| It's now possible for independant charities to do this:
|
| https://www.methanesat.org/
| mturmon wrote:
| Such as this CO2 measurement, made from a dedicated instrument
| for the last ~8 years: https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/science/
|
| It uses broadly the same technique as in OP -- spectroscopy to
| detect the absorption of sunlight from the presence of that
| particular chemical species. Because the above instrument was
| designed for the purpose, it's much more accurate and able to
| distinguish small variations in CO2, not "just" large plumes.
| mturmon wrote:
| Several questions ask to contextualize this measurement.
|
| Here's a highly-cited paper in _Nature_ (including some of the
| researchers quoted in the OP) that describes how an earlier
| survey of California methane emissions went:
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3
|
| If I remember right, the state of CA asked for this survey. It
| was carried out by an instrument similar to that of the OP, but
| airborne, not on ISS as in OP.
|
| California has standards for methane emissions (e.g.,
| https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/oil-and-gas-met...)
| that are now covering landfills and oil and gas infrastructure,
| and dairies -- three of the largest categories of large emitters.
|
| (One effect of these regulations, that lay people may have
| noticed, is trying to get food waste out of the landfill stream,
| and into composting, so that it doesn't decay anaerobically and
| produce methane. In LA, for example, the LADWP is test-driving a
| program where food scraps - vegetables, but also meats and fats -
| are diverted into green bins.)
|
| Strengthened regulations on methane emissions from oil and gas
| infrastructure are part of this - I'm not saying the studies
| motivated these regulations, just that they are all part of
| policies heading in that direction.
|
| It is believed that large oil companies are aggressively selling
| off oil pumps/fields to get out from under this responsibility.
| (https://www.propublica.org/article/california-oil-wells-shel...)
|
| The ISS measurements in OP have covered (and will continue to
| cover) a much broader area than the California airborne survey -
| but with less spatial resolution - so presumably a broad survey
| of mid-latitude super-emitters will be possible in the coming
| months.
| ryanhuff wrote:
| My Orange County suburb recently mandated putting food waste
| into a separate can.
| tanto wrote:
| > Together, the Turkmenistan sources release an estimated 111,000
| pounds of methane gas per hour
|
| If this is happening all the time, then the number of global
| methane emissions due to human activity on this
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions) Wikipedia page
| can't be valid.
|
| Crazy how human negligence and greed might end humanity.
| proee wrote:
| From some Google Searches...
|
| 111,000 pounds of methane, multipled by factor of 80x, equal
| around 388M tons of CO2.
|
| A car produces around 4.6 tons of C02 per year. So this makes
| the emissions equal to about 84M cars driving around for a
| year. Google says there are around 1.46 Billion cars in the
| world.
|
| So this amount of greenhouse gas is around a 5.7% increase in
| our overall car emissions.
|
| (edited based on feedback below)
| ljf wrote:
| Quoting here but;
|
| Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon
| dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the
| atmosphere. Even though CO2 has a longer-lasting effect,
| methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least
| 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human
| actions.
| guelo wrote:
| Also, the extra warming from methane can trigger
| unrecoverable tipping points, such as melting ancient
| glaciers and permafrost, whose effects will last for
| thousands of years.
| aeternum wrote:
| The issue is that this methane is not being oxidized. Burning
| the methane as it is released is an easy solve. Yes this
| increases CO2 at the ratio your specify (~1ton Methane to
| 2.75 CO2) but that is still much better than releasing it as
| Methane gas.
|
| Methane gas in the atmosphere causes 80x the greenhouse
| effect that CO2 causes.
| tildef wrote:
| Maybe I'm misreading something, but I don't understand the
| discrepancy. According to the wiki article, human output is 363
| megatons/year. 111,000 lb/hr = 55.5 tons/hr = 0.5
| megatons/year. Still a lot though!
| xwdv wrote:
| If things get really bad and these things are deemed bad for the
| planet, could a nation demand the facilities be shut down or else
| be destroyed by military strike?
| reillyse wrote:
| This concept is so strange. I'm not sure what country you are
| from, but I'm going to assume the US. Would you think it was OK
| if another country destroyed something in America because they
| thought it was damaging the environment. How about if they
| tried to force you to change your ways because of the
| environmental damage you were doing? Because guess what? The US
| is seriously over represented in pollution. Destroying the US
| might just solve the entire climate problem, I doubt that would
| be palatable ?
| RandallBrown wrote:
| Neal Stephenson's latest novel sort of explores this idea.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel)
| ZainRiz wrote:
| Turkmenistan gas extraction company right now:
|
| "Gee, thanks for finding our leaks guys! You won't believe how
| much money we were just leaking into the atmosphere there."
|
| </dreams>
| possiblelion wrote:
| So - looking at this it seems Turkmenistan [a repressive, North
| Korea style dictatorship] is destroying our climate system at an
| order of magnitude faster than anyone else. I'm well aware of the
| legacy that Iraq/Afghanistan have left in terms of international
| interventions into other countries; but if it is our common
| future on the balance, shouldn't we do something? Something more
| than just politely asking to stop?
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I've often imagined a dystopian future, hotter world where
| bombs are dropped on unauthorized coal / cement plants to
| prevent more sea level rise / super hurricanes, rendering those
| with no other options into partisan stone-age tribes.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| You might enjoy this book which features similar events:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_for_the_Future
| ZainRiz wrote:
| Like offering to pay to fix the leaks in their gas pipeline?
|
| Prob way cheaper than invading the country
| 1024core wrote:
| > Prob way cheaper than invading the country
|
| But they have oil....
| Retric wrote:
| It's a little over 1/1,000th of human released methane, so on
| it's own not that critical or that far above expectations for a
| country with a little over 1/2000th the global population.
|
| The issue is mostly that it's presumably cheap to fix unlike a
| billion cows all farting.
| [deleted]
| adontz wrote:
| Bring them democracy!
| themitigating wrote:
| Why don't we forget that since it's expensive. How about "fix
| the leaks or we'll bomb presidental palaces"
| _HMCB_ wrote:
| But is the world going to do anything about those spots?
| fortysixdegrees wrote:
| Have they published a global map we can look at?
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| How could a 2 mile long methane plume in New Mexico have been
| undetected for any significant amount of time?
|
| From what I understand basic environmental monitoring is done in
| 2022 around all major industrial facilities in the U.S.
| abruzzi wrote:
| what interesting is there is nothing there. The only something
| are gas wells which the whole area is dotted with, so my only
| guess is leaky gas wells?
| https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3761968,-104.0819087,4787m/d...
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Looks like Marathon Oil is the company
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| They passed laws 2 years ago to penalize this. Goes into effect
| next year.
|
| This wasn't a surprise. Laws had been previously passed
| specifically to allow this to continue.
| pojzon wrote:
| Or simply ,,How come we are finding out about that now and not
| in last 20 years..."
| lob_it wrote:
| Because carbon credits and net-zero psychologically imply
| failure of the populous to prevent climate change.
|
| Are you wornout and tired of the doom and gloom? I worked on
| my golf swing and actually found new angles to enjoy.
|
| I saw these reports over a decade ago and was aware of
| methane too.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tGEKzMgkUhU
|
| I read and watched the reports on CFC's decades ago, where
| small emissions/leaks will never be detected until they
| accumulate in the atmosphere and/or cause holes in the ozone
| layer or the like.
|
| Until all of the "small" greenhouse gas/methane leaks are
| capped, we can expect temperatures to continue to rise.
|
| After the methane leaks are capped, we can expect around two
| decades before the atmosphere/temperatures normalize.
|
| I prefer FORE over sooowwwyyy from obvious obsolete goals and
| inferior data.
|
| Plenty of data available on inaccurate data on the matter:
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62917498
|
| https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/methane-super-emitters-
| mapp...
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/tougher-rules-on-methane-
| leaks-...
|
| https://www.newsweek.com/fracking-wells-tainting-drinking-
| wa...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63083634
|
| Edit: I'm not a fan of acid rain, but I personally didn't
| rain on the parade either. Do the math on 24/7/365 leaks of
| the unaccounted methane emissions too, for a good laugh at
| how much damage has already been potentially done since 2000.
| Acid rain warnings predate the turn of the century too :)
| themitigating wrote:
| Donald trump?
| runnerup wrote:
| Sadly, the environmental monitoring is woefully inadequate,
| even next to the western hemisphere's largest industrial
| complex (Freeport, TX ... though its a bit better of an example
| to use or include Deer Park / Houston Ship Channel as well
| because it's part of America's 3rd/4th largest city). Below the
| dashed line is a copy/paste of a comment I made two months ago
| on a post of ProPublica's dispersion model and public health
| impact modeling of _self-reported_ emission events:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32549653
|
| I am very much looking forward to more and more satellites like
| this one and ESA's SENTINEL-5P and SCIAMACHY. But AFAIK they'll
| never be able to tell the difference between, say, ethyl
| acrylate vs. butyl acrylate (both incredibly toxic) or ethyl
| mercaptan vs. methyl mercaptan (both noxious/cause headaches at
| unbelievably low concentrations; ethyl mercaptan has an odor
| threshold of 0.35 parts per trillion).
|
| So if one plant makes one chemical, and another plant next door
| makes a similar chemical, these satellites might let the public
| know that one of the plants is leaking, but both still would
| have deniability - "it's the other guy across the street". And
| you'd still not actually know _which_ chemical you 've been
| exposed to.
|
| For that, you'd need monitoring stations with comprehensive
| sensor combinations at the property boundaries of each chemical
| plant.
|
| ------------------------
|
| I live in the western hemisphere's largest integrated
| industrial complex (Freeport, TX integrated with the eastern
| edge of Houston as well). Note that Freeport, TX has ZERO state
| or federal EPA VOC analyzers which can actually detect which
| chemical is leaking. They can only detect "this amount of
| something with {sulfur, N-O bonds, aromatic carbon rings} -- no
| clue what precisely though!". This is the same capability of
| the most advanced atmospheric pollution satellites. Completely
| fucking useless for an area which manufactures something like
| 15-20% of all USA domestic chemicals. The technology to measure
| individual chemicals exists, but the government isn't paying
| for it or installing it.
|
| The ENTIRE east side of Houston metropolitan area is dedicated
| to or "next door" to massive chemical manufacturing. This is an
| industrial area nearly equal to _the area encompassing all of
| Seattle /Bellevue/Redmond/Renton/Tukwila_. This massive area
| has only 3 air quality monitors which test for these kinds of
| chemicals[0]. During huge major events like the ITC fire[2],
| they often show no increased pollution at all. I lived next to
| leaks every day and because I worked in the plants I knew the
| smells - one day acrylates, next day thiols, next day
| hydrocarbons, etc. But the 3 monitoring sites over 10 miles
| from me showed nothing at all.
|
| Here is the one "correct" monitoring station near the chemical
| plants of Houston: [0]... but several of its analyzers are
| often offline/broken/pending maintenance. Here's a map of all
| the other ones: [1] Generally single/dual color dots mark "not-
| useful" monitoring sites which might measure only PM2.5 or
| Ozone, for example. The 4+ color dots are generally useful,
| they measure specific (large) families of chemicals so you can
| see very roughly _what_ is leaking, even if it doesn 't have
| "soot" in it.
|
| The data used by ProPublica is actually far worse than the
| woefully inadequate data collected by TCEQ/EPA air monitoring
| stations -- because what ProPublica used was "self-reported"
| data from the chemical plants. But I know from working in them
| and living next to them that many leaks are never reported and
| many leaks are never even known internally! Our government's
| data collection is a travesty. ProPublica couldn't use the real
| air quality measurements because having 2-3 points across 1000
| mi^2 is completely useless for the wind models they wanted to
| apply to the problem.
|
| We don't actually have any data. The government is failing us.
| They need to spend about $1 million per air monitoring station
| and build them along the perimeters of each plant so that leaks
| can be assigned to the offending companies, and they need to be
| built near housing so that we know how families are being
| affected. ITC fire which blanketed houston's sky in smoke: [2]
|
| 0:
| https://tceq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id...
|
| 1:
| https://tceq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id...
|
| 2: https://abc13.com/deer-park-fire-2019-itc-houston-air-
| qualit...
| kaushikc wrote:
| It is probably inadequate by design.
| fazfq wrote:
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Although methane does not survive for long within our atmosphere,
| it can trap more than 100x the heat for the same volume.
|
| https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-ca...
|
| Note that this article points out the potential contribution of
| the methane to climate change, but this would not be
| anthropogenic climate change as the gas is already in its natural
| form, just being released from underground.
| INGSOCIALITE wrote:
| _fart joke_
| madrox wrote:
| Worth noting that EMIT wasn't funded for this purpose. It was
| greenlit to measure and track dust (arguably still for climate-
| related purposes, but still!). This is a relatively minor example
| of why funding space-based science is so important. We're still
| seeing "accidental benefits" of deploying technology there.
| reillyse wrote:
| Cynical me thinks that if NASA tried to get funding for a
| project that could detect large scale methane plumes which
| might be used against the oil and gas industry they might just
| not be able to get that funding.
| neves wrote:
| Cynical me is always impressed in how much funding goes to
| find emitters outside the develop world:
|
| > "...emit methane at high rates span central Asia, the
| Middle East and the southwestern United States. By finding
| these sites from space, the satellite is bringing an
| important perspective to climate accountability,"
|
| USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money
| spent in emergency Covid vaccines
| chitowneats wrote:
| > USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money
| spent in emergency Covid vaccines
|
| Have we not recently been reminded that the true cost of
| reducing domestic energy production is much higher than the
| mere bottom line estimate of shuttering the production
| facilities?
|
| Germany and France might like a word. With Ukraine slowly
| shaking their heads in the background.
| reillyse wrote:
| All the more so for switching to wind and solar (and
| reducing usage). Nobody is saying cancel energy. Just
| that switching away from coal is probably a good idea.
| chitowneats wrote:
| Can the current energy demand of the United States be met
| cost-effectively with wind, solar, and batteries?
|
| I'm a huge proponent of these technologies but the answer
| to that question in 2022 is still no.
|
| "Ending" domestic coal production would cause a drop in
| GDP that would make 2020 look like child's play.
| themitigating wrote:
| Switching over slowly and let the market adjust. Why must
| everyone make this argument as some sudden disruptive
| change?
| chitowneats wrote:
| We are switching over slowly. That's literally the status
| quo. The argument of "we could end coal for X dollars" is
| what introduced the idea of a discrete value into this
| argument. How can you know what we will spend unless you
| specify a time interval? Clearly we won't be burning coal
| in 100 years. Maybe not even 50. Or 30.
| derefr wrote:
| The way that the USA would "close all of its coal mines"
| would involve replacing that production with different
| domestic energy production; not by becoming reliant on
| foreign energy markets.
| hilyen wrote:
| > The instrument can look for methane in the same way. "It turns
| out that methane also has a spectral signature in the same
| wavelength range, and that's what has allowed us to be sensitive
| to methane," EMIT principal investigator Robert Green said at a
| press conference, according to Space.com's Mike Wall.
|
| Lol "it turns out". Did they troll Congress and sell them a
| mineral detector? Of course they knew methane had a spectral
| signature.
|
| EDIT: No idea why people downvoting, I think it's hilarious and
| good we can detect it.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| I read that as "we built the detector to be sensitive to the
| wavelengths of the minerals we wanted to monitor, and methane's
| spectra are in that range, so it works well for picking it up".
| jacobjjacob wrote:
| Of course they could have known that beforehand, but it sounds
| like they weren't designing a methane detector so the fact that
| it works so well as one is what "turned out" I think. Also
| articles are really good and taking one quote from a big
| technical answer and making the speaker sound stupid
| mturmon wrote:
| Yeah, but CH4 detection was not why the mission was flown, so
| the PI is being careful to make this distinction.
| hirundo wrote:
| Looking forward to AR apps that map pollutant emissions from such
| data and project it as you travel about, making the invisible
| conscious. There will be more public pressure for reform if the
| public can see the see the point-source IRL.
|
| If popularized that data could move real estate prices, with
| political fallout.
| [deleted]
| Bhurn00985 wrote:
| And now what ?
|
| Anyone knows what actions will be taken based on this data ?
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Everyone has always had the option to vote with their dollars.
| If we allow ourself to be eco-capital-realists for a moment, we
| have to conclude that living on a habitable planet is simply
| not that important for most people.
| nomel wrote:
| I think this is an extremely privileged perspective.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| For a brief moment before civilization-wide collapse, we'll
| be able to generate a lot of shareholder value.
| themitigating wrote:
| That's not what people think. They don't care because it
| won't effect them.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| My plan is to move a bit north before the wet bulb temperatures
| in the southern US get too bad. I'm thinking ruralish Michigan
| for my retirement.
| jakub_g wrote:
| Since Turkmenistan was mentioned, mandatory link:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater
|
| > One of the more popular theories is that Soviet geologists
| intentionally set it on fire in 1971 to prevent the spread of
| methane gas, and it is thought to have been burning continuously
| ever since.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| I'm not quite sure, does burning it make it less harmful?
| josephpmay wrote:
| Yes, burning methane converts it to CO2, which is much less
| harmful of a greenhouse gas
| danuker wrote:
| In the short term.
| MonkeyClub wrote:
| omgJustTest wrote:
| Stupid question: How much is this actually contributing to
| climate change?
|
| Any climate scientists who make active predictions about how much
| we don't know?
| barbazoo wrote:
| > Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at
| trapping heat in the atmosphere
|
| It's a pretty potent greenhouse gas.
|
| https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane
| Georgelemental wrote:
| Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas compared to CO2,
| but also stays in the atmosphere much less long (on the order
| of a few decades).
| khuey wrote:
| The way methane "exits" the atmosphere is by becoming CO2,
| so it's strictly worse.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Methane becoming CO2 means it also produces H2O + a lot
| of heat, correct? Enough heat to use it as energy source
| for example.
| tmtvl wrote:
| Yes, biogas is primarily methane, and it's one possible
| energy source that can be (is?) used while transitioning
| away from fossil fuels.
| Pokepokalypse wrote:
| CO2 plus H2O (water vapor is also a highly potent
| greenhouse gas).
| CrazyStat wrote:
| The 25x number is already accounting for the fact that
| methane doesn't stick around as long. It's based on
| 100-year GWP calculations [1]. If you look at shorter
| timescales methane is relatively much worse.
|
| [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-
| warmin...
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas. But the upside is that
| it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long. The half life of it
| is something like 9 years.
| nomel wrote:
| Would it be ecologically responsible to set these leaks on
| fire?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| At which time it turns into CO2 which stays around longer,
| and water which I believe is a more potent greenhouse gas
| than either
| Georgelemental wrote:
| Water falls to the earth as rain
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Something like 90 or 95% of the greenhouse effect is from
| water vapor. The only reason we really care about
| atmospheric CO2 is because we think that it triggers more
| atmospheric water which is the real driver of global
| temperature change.
| Pokepokalypse wrote:
| warmer atmosphere == higher capacity to hold water vapor.
| pkaye wrote:
| According to the article, it lasts shorter time in the
| atmosphere compared to CO2.
|
| > Since methane only lasts in the atmosphere for about ten
| years, compared to the centuries that carbon dioxide sticks
| around, reducing methane emissions could contribute to slowing
| global warming sooner,
| namuol wrote:
| Worth mentioning that CH4 ultimately turns into CO2.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| At which point it reacts with ozone to form carbon dioxide
| and water. It's like saying the best way to destroy water is
| by freezing it.
| marricks wrote:
| Really hoping this was outside our solar system and indicative of
| life, TBH.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-01 23:00 UTC)