Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Phys Org2)   The CO2 is too damn high   (phys.org) divider line
    More: PSA, Carbon dioxide, Oceanography, Climate change, sea surface temperatures, sea levels, CO2 pollution, Charles David Keeling, greenhouse gases  
•       •       •

1176 clicks; posted to STEM » on 04 Jun 2022 at 2:26 PM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



37 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-06-04 2:32:09 PM  
So is it too late to order a few buckets of potato soup?
 
2022-06-04 2:44:47 PM  
Its amusing that everyone always focuses on that and not the disturbing part that atmospheric methane is now entering the PPM domain after finally breaking free of the PPB domain. THAT graph is starting to take on a curve that is far too vertical since we are starting to melt the north
 
2022-06-04 3:01:18 PM  
Just start collecting the carbon dioxide and turn it into dry ice. Then launch the dry ice into the sun to cool the sun down and reduce the heating of our planet.
Seems pretty simple
 
2022-06-04 3:17:07 PM  

Concrete Donkey: Its amusing that everyone always focuses on that and not the disturbing part that atmospheric methane is now entering the PPM domain after finally breaking free of the PPB domain. THAT graph is starting to take on a curve that is far too vertical since we are starting to melt the north


Insert right wing talking points about hockey sticks...
 
2022-06-04 3:23:55 PM  
We're all going to die. The Great Filter is upon us, and we are failing.
 
2022-06-04 3:33:02 PM  

snowballinhell: We're all going to die. The Great Filter is upon us, and we are failing.


I've been thinking something more along the lines of the third great collapse of civilization.
We had the Bronze Age collapse around 1150 BCE.
We had the Fall of Rome and the ensuing chaos formally defined as 476 CE.
Now we're looking at a collapse that might actually consume the entire planet.
It won't be pleasant for those who live through it, but humanity will survive.
All this has happened before, all this will happen again.
 
2022-06-04 3:37:38 PM  

Bovine Diarrhea Virus: Just start collecting the carbon dioxide and turn it into dry ice. Then launch the dry ice into the sun to cool the sun down and reduce the heating of our planet.
Seems pretty simple


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-06-04 5:24:15 PM  
FTFA: "NOAA's measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) at the mountaintop observatory on Hawaii's Big Island averaged 420.99 parts per million..."

If only it had been 420.69 ppm, and Bonerhitler had published the report.
 
2022-06-04 5:58:56 PM  
I just farted. Sorry
 
2022-06-04 6:13:27 PM  
PLANT MORE TREES


on mars. Then us smart people have some place to move to.
 
2022-06-04 6:17:16 PM  
...and before someone says: "If you are so smart, why did you end a sentence with a preposition?"

I'm engineery-smart, not English hoity-toity smart.
 
2022-06-04 7:12:44 PM  
less than 1000ppm until serious cognitive effects! Wooooo!
 
2022-06-04 7:49:42 PM  

amigafin: ...and before someone says: "If you are so smart, why did you end a sentence with a preposition?"

I'm engineery-smart, not English hoity-toity smart.


because you speak English, not Latin
 
2022-06-04 7:57:08 PM  

amigafin: ...and before someone says: "If you are so smart, why did you end a sentence with a preposition?"


"Okay then - where is the men's room at - asshole?"
 
2022-06-04 9:14:37 PM  

rolladuck: We had the Fall of Rome and the ensuing chaos formally defined as 476 CE.
Now we're looking at a collapse that might actually consume the entire planet.


So you're comparing the Fall of Rome, when the climate cooled into the Late Antique Little Ice Age after the Roman Warm Period, to the oncoming collapse due to the climate warming from the Little Ice Age.
 
2022-06-04 9:18:38 PM  
i should burn that pile of old tires out back
 
2022-06-04 9:37:08 PM  

some_beer_drinker: i should burn that pile of old tires out back


Next to the other tire fire, or the abandoned coal mine fire?  Wait, let me ask Mischa in Siberia, he has new craters out there every day for some strange reason.
 
2022-06-04 10:03:06 PM  

some_beer_drinker: i should burn that pile of old tires out back


Maybe Mischa in Siberia would like them, to fill a hole or two.
 
2022-06-05 2:10:21 AM  

Concrete Donkey: Its amusing that everyone always focuses on that and not the disturbing part that atmospheric methane is now entering the PPM domain after finally breaking free of the PPB domain. THAT graph is starting to take on a curve that is far too vertical since we are starting to melt the north


It's amusing that humans ways focus on that and not the disturbing part that atmospheric increases in CO2 affects the co2-hemoglobin dissociation curve at the molecular level.

🧠
 
2022-06-05 6:40:53 AM  
Remember when the IPCC's projections around the turn of the century were all about "This is what the world will be like if we hit 400 PPM by the year 2100"?

I guess they were operating on the assumption that we're a rational, intelligent species, which is something that the pandemic conclusively disproved.  "I could be dead in a week or two?  Sure, I think it's a great idea not to wear a mask and hang out in densely populated venues."

This is why we are, and always have been, boned when it comes to the environment.  We're not willing to save our lives in the now, so we're sure as hell not going to do it in the future.
 
2022-06-05 10:24:24 AM  

The Weekend Baker: Remember when the IPCC's projections around the turn of the century were all about "This is what the world will be like if we hit 400 PPM by the year 2100"?

I guess they were operating on the assumption that we're a rational, intelligent species, which is something that the pandemic conclusively disproved.  "I could be dead in a week or two?  Sure, I think it's a great idea not to wear a mask and hang out in densely populated venues."

This is why we are, and always have been, boned when it comes to the environment.  We're not willing to save our lives in the now, so we're sure as hell not going to do it in the future.


Well... that means the IPCC projections were absolute shiat.

They predicted a figure for atmospheric CO2 concentration. We hit it 80 years early. They predicted a rise in temperature as a function of CO2 concentration. While there is some warming, that warming is not pairing with their predictions.

They have gone so far as to switch motherfarking gasses to blame on global warming. Apologies. Global Climate Change(tm).
 
2022-06-05 10:46:50 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: The Weekend Baker: Remember when the IPCC's projections around the turn of the century were all about "This is what the world will be like if we hit 400 PPM by the year 2100"?

I guess they were operating on the assumption that we're a rational, intelligent species, which is something that the pandemic conclusively disproved.  "I could be dead in a week or two?  Sure, I think it's a great idea not to wear a mask and hang out in densely populated venues."

This is why we are, and always have been, boned when it comes to the environment.  We're not willing to save our lives in the now, so we're sure as hell not going to do it in the future.

Well... that means the IPCC projections were absolute shiat.

They predicted a figure for atmospheric CO2 concentration. We hit it 80 years early. They predicted a rise in temperature as a function of CO2 concentration. While there is some warming, that warming is not pairing with their predictions.

They have gone so far as to switch motherfarking gasses to blame on global warming. Apologies. Global Climate Change(tm).


Oh, look, it's a moron.
 
2022-06-05 11:12:21 AM  

The Weekend Baker: Evil Twin Skippy: The Weekend Baker: Remember when the IPCC's projections around the turn of the century were all about "This is what the world will be like if we hit 400 PPM by the year 2100"?

I guess they were operating on the assumption that we're a rational, intelligent species, which is something that the pandemic conclusively disproved.  "I could be dead in a week or two?  Sure, I think it's a great idea not to wear a mask and hang out in densely populated venues."

This is why we are, and always have been, boned when it comes to the environment.  We're not willing to save our lives in the now, so we're sure as hell not going to do it in the future.

Well... that means the IPCC projections were absolute shiat.

They predicted a figure for atmospheric CO2 concentration. We hit it 80 years early. They predicted a rise in temperature as a function of CO2 concentration. While there is some warming, that warming is not pairing with their predictions.

They have gone so far as to switch motherfarking gasses to blame on global warming. Apologies. Global Climate Change(tm).

Oh, look, it's a moron.


Oh look, someone who adds nothing to the discussion.
 
2022-06-05 12:44:14 PM  

goodncold: So is it too late to order a few buckets of potato soup?


"God DAMN that's good soup!"
 
2022-06-05 1:15:34 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: The Weekend Baker: Evil Twin Skippy:Well... that means the IPCC projections were absolute shiat.
They predicted a figure for atmospheric CO2 concentration. We hit it 80 years early. They predicted a rise in temperature as a function of CO2 concentration. While there is some warming, that warming is not pairing with their predictions.
They have gone so far as to switch motherfarking gasses to blame on global warming. Apologies. Global Climate Change(tm).
Oh, look, it's a moron.
Oh look, someone who adds nothing to the discussion.


Did you ever consider that our consumption goes up by 3% a year, which was probably not first included in the climate change scenarios? They figured that we would STOP acting like that, that we would take STEPS.
And we did too.  The last 40 years have been the glory age of neoliberalism.  The same years that were imperative to start heading the right direction were given over to "greed is good."  We got the message.  We didn't get the other one--that we do, and always have, lived on a finite planet that has to be taken care of.

Most Farkers of a certain age have done quite all right for themselves, thanks to the unlimited brainwashing they get from the time they're born.  It wasn't anything they DID, no matter what they tell you.  I could have been rich too, if I wasn't very ethical.  Poor me, that I feel like that.  I could have been popular on Fark too.

Americans are actually very proud of their outlandish consumption, contrary to their bleating about how much they worry about climate change.  We're proud to "support the economy."  We're so farking stupid that we think that came up with that all by ourselves, and that it's a valid way to live our lives. That's because Americans are brainwashed to be stupid consumers, did I mention that?  Maybe I should again.

You're being led by forces you can't even see to wipe everything that  you love off the face of the earth, and because of certain sacred principles that your glorious overlords put in your head, you think you're a good dude and not at all responsible for any of the bad things that are bearing down on us at some speed.
It's not our fault. Perhaps it is the fault of the agencies who track these things.  It must be them, and not the corporations and our bloated egos giving us the wrong messages.  It must be something else, besides US.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-06-05 1:45:35 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: They have gone so far as to switch motherfarking gasses to blame on global warming.


lolwut
 
2022-06-05 2:56:56 PM  

jso2897: Evil Twin Skippy: They have gone so far as to switch motherfarking gasses to blame on global warming.

lolwut


1970's: OMG an ice age is coming. Also: nuclear power is the FUTURE! And the human population is exploding, which is going to cause nuclear war! Everything is dooooooommmm!

1990's: Carbon dioxide is the root of all evil. And you are evil for living in western civilization. Also: we should rip out all of our nuclear plants. We have computer models, which we can't correlate to any real historical data, but it's dooooooommmm!

2020's: well CO2 is baaad, but methane is way worse. Shame on you for eating meat or using natural gas. Oh, and look at all this new satellite data we have...
(That we can't corellate with anything historical. But it's dooooooooommmmm)
 
2022-06-05 3:01:13 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: The Weekend Baker: Remember when the IPCC's projections around the turn of the century were all about "This is what the world will be like if we hit 400 PPM by the year 2100"?

I guess they were operating on the assumption that we're a rational, intelligent species, which is something that the pandemic conclusively disproved.  "I could be dead in a week or two?  Sure, I think it's a great idea not to wear a mask and hang out in densely populated venues."

This is why we are, and always have been, boned when it comes to the environment.  We're not willing to save our lives in the now, so we're sure as hell not going to do it in the future.

Well... that means the IPCC projections were absolute shiat.

They predicted a figure for atmospheric CO2 concentration. We hit it 80 years early. They predicted a rise in temperature as a function of CO2 concentration. While there is some warming, that warming is not pairing with their predictions.

They have gone so far as to switch motherfarking gasses to blame on global warming. Apologies. Global Climate Change(tm).


This is Fark. Facts have no place here.
 
2022-06-05 3:01:31 PM  
And yes, I am perfectly aware that  "the science is never wrong"(tm)

However it does seem that the people who consistently get the bully pulpit and priority funding often are.
 
2022-06-05 4:46:46 PM  

WelldeadLink: Evil Twin Skippy: The Weekend Baker: Remember when the IPCC's projections around the turn of the century were all about "This is what the world will be like if we hit 400 PPM by the year 2100"?

I guess they were operating on the assumption that we're a rational, intelligent species, which is something that the pandemic conclusively disproved.  "I could be dead in a week or two?  Sure, I think it's a great idea not to wear a mask and hang out in densely populated venues."

This is why we are, and always have been, boned when it comes to the environment.  We're not willing to save our lives in the now, so we're sure as hell not going to do it in the future.

Well... that means the IPCC projections were absolute shiat.

They predicted a figure for atmospheric CO2 concentration. We hit it 80 years early. They predicted a rise in temperature as a function of CO2 concentration. While there is some warming, that warming is not pairing with their predictions.

They have gone so far as to switch motherfarking gasses to blame on global warming. Apologies. Global Climate Change(tm).

This is Fark. Facts have no place here.


Well he was just making shiat up and conflating popular news articles with actual research papers, so his post fits perfectly here.
 
2022-06-05 4:57:36 PM  
CO2 levels are now comparable to the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when they were close to, or above 400 ppm. During that time, sea levels were between 5 and 25 meters higher than today -high enough to drown many of the world's largest modern cities. Temperatures then averaged 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in pre-industrial times, and studies indicate that large forests occupied today's Arctic tundra.

So we remove all those people from the coastal cities, put 'em in the Arctic and tell them to start planting trees.  Problem solved!
 
2022-06-05 4:59:49 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: jso2897: Evil Twin Skippy: They have gone so far as to switch motherfarking gasses to blame on global warming.

lolwut

1970's: OMG an ice age is coming. Also: nuclear power is the FUTURE! And the human population is exploding, which is going to cause nuclear war! Everything is dooooooommmm!

1990's: Carbon dioxide is the root of all evil. And you are evil for living in western civilization. Also: we should rip out all of our nuclear plants. We have computer models, which we can't correlate to any real historical data, but it's dooooooommmm!

2020's: well CO2 is baaad, but methane is way worse. Shame on you for eating meat or using natural gas. Oh, and look at all this new satellite data we have...
(That we can't corellate with anything historical. But it's dooooooooommmmm)



Published 1992
Policymaker Summary of Working Group I
(Scientific Assessment of Climate Change)
e m i s s i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m human a c t i v i t i e s are
substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations
of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane,
chlorofluorocarbons ( C F C s ) and nitrous oxide. These
increases w i l l enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting
on average in an additional warming of the Earth's
surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, w i l l
increase in response to global warming and further
enhance it.

Oh look, they showed that methane concentration correlelated with temperature just like CO2 does:

Fark user imageView Full Size


But clearly they just invented that methane was a problem in the 2020s. When was 1992 again?
 
2022-06-05 5:16:52 PM  

dsmith42: Evil Twin Skippy: jso2897: Evil Twin Skippy: They have gone so far as to switch motherfarking gasses to blame on global warming.

lolwut

1970's: OMG an ice age is coming. Also: nuclear power is the FUTURE! And the human population is exploding, which is going to cause nuclear war! Everything is dooooooommmm!

1990's: Carbon dioxide is the root of all evil. And you are evil for living in western civilization. Also: we should rip out all of our nuclear plants. We have computer models, which we can't correlate to any real historical data, but it's dooooooommmm!

2020's: well CO2 is baaad, but methane is way worse. Shame on you for eating meat or using natural gas. Oh, and look at all this new satellite data we have...
(That we can't corellate with anything historical. But it's dooooooooommmmm)


Published 1992
Policymaker Summary of Working Group I
(Scientific Assessment of Climate Change)
e m i s s i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m human a c t i v i t i e s are
substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations
of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane,
chlorofluorocarbons ( C F C s ) and nitrous oxide. These
increases w i l l enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting
on average in an additional warming of the Earth's
surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, w i l l
increase in response to global warming and further
enhance it.

Oh look, they showed that methane concentration correlelated with temperature just like CO2 does:

[Fark user image 616x827]

But clearly they just invented that methane was a problem in the 2020s. When was 1992 again?


Oh goody. You found *A* paper that shows a correlation, that goes back to 1992. I'm so glad that insight was common knowledge when people were raising awareness about climate science in movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.

And if you try to say "But 'an Inconvenient Truth' isn't science. That was a politician going for a second 15 minutes of fame...", I'll say to you:

If a millionaire with a movie budget and scientific experts in his employ can't pick truth from noise, what chance does the public in general have?
 
2022-06-05 7:31:13 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: dsmith42: Evil Twin Skippy: jso2897: Evil Twin Skippy: They have gone so far as to switch motherfarking gasses to blame on global warming.

lolwut

1970's: OMG an ice age is coming. Also: nuclear power is the FUTURE! And the human population is exploding, which is going to cause nuclear war! Everything is dooooooommmm!

1990's: Carbon dioxide is the root of all evil. And you are evil for living in western civilization. Also: we should rip out all of our nuclear plants. We have computer models, which we can't correlate to any real historical data, but it's dooooooommmm!

2020's: well CO2 is baaad, but methane is way worse. Shame on you for eating meat or using natural gas. Oh, and look at all this new satellite data we have...
(That we can't corellate with anything historical. But it's dooooooooommmmm)


Published 1992
Policymaker Summary of Working Group I
(Scientific Assessment of Climate Change)
e m i s s i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m human a c t i v i t i e s are
substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations
of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane,
chlorofluorocarbons ( C F C s ) and nitrous oxide. These
increases w i l l enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting
on average in an additional warming of the Earth's
surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, w i l l
increase in response to global warming and further
enhance it.

Oh look, they showed that methane concentration correlelated with temperature just like CO2 does:

[Fark user image 616x827]

But clearly they just invented that methane was a problem in the 2020s. When was 1992 again?

Oh goody. You found *A* paper that shows a correlation, that goes back to 1992. I'm so glad that insight was common knowledge when people were raising awareness about climate science in movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.

And if you try to say "But 'an Inconvenient Truth' isn't science. That was a politician going for a second 15 minutes of fame...", I'll say to you:

If a millionaire with ...


Its not A paper you ignorant asshat. It is the first report from IPCC in 1992 warning that methane was a danger. Exactly the thing that you said never happened.

And stop smarting your own posts. It reeks of desperation.
 
2022-06-05 7:37:46 PM  

dsmith42: Evil Twin Skippy: dsmith42: Evil Twin Skippy: jso2897: Evil Twin Skippy: They have gone so far as to switch motherfarking gasses to blame on global warming.

lolwut

1970's: OMG an ice age is coming. Also: nuclear power is the FUTURE! And the human population is exploding, which is going to cause nuclear war! Everything is dooooooommmm!

1990's: Carbon dioxide is the root of all evil. And you are evil for living in western civilization. Also: we should rip out all of our nuclear plants. We have computer models, which we can't correlate to any real historical data, but it's dooooooommmm!

2020's: well CO2 is baaad, but methane is way worse. Shame on you for eating meat or using natural gas. Oh, and look at all this new satellite data we have...
(That we can't corellate with anything historical. But it's dooooooooommmmm)


Published 1992
Policymaker Summary of Working Group I
(Scientific Assessment of Climate Change)
e m i s s i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m human a c t i v i t i e s are
substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations
of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane,
chlorofluorocarbons ( C F C s ) and nitrous oxide. These
increases w i l l enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting
on average in an additional warming of the Earth's
surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, w i l l
increase in response to global warming and further
enhance it.

Oh look, they showed that methane concentration correlelated with temperature just like CO2 does:

[Fark user image 616x827]

But clearly they just invented that methane was a problem in the 2020s. When was 1992 again?

Oh goody. You found *A* paper that shows a correlation, that goes back to 1992. I'm so glad that insight was common knowledge when people were raising awareness about climate science in movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.

And if you try to say "But 'an Inconvenient Truth' isn't science. That was a politician going for a second 15 minutes of fame...", I'll say to you:

If a millionaire with ...

Its not A paper you ignorant asshat. It is the first report from IPCC in 1992 warning that methane was a danger. Exactly the thing that you said never happened.

And stop smarting your own posts. It reeks of desperation.


I didn't smart my own post, and *again* if it was that obvious then why were policy makers still dead wrong 14 years later.

If anything pointing out that it was a report from the IPCC makes it worse.
 
2022-06-05 8:16:25 PM  
And for the record: why it is worse?

The IPCC puts out reports targeting policy makers. They provide specific guidance. Through at least 2005, despite knowing that temperature tracked with methane, they pushed policies that clamped down on Carbon Dioxide.

I should also point out that later in that decade the IPCC had a coming to Jesus series of reports that the math that they used to push the narrative about CO2 was fundamentally flawed. They have also developed far more sophisticated models in recent decades that are far less deterministic. They end up reading like a choose-your-own adventure.

However the choices are not about what policy makes decide. The choices are about what climate factors actually end up driving the system.

The latest series of simulations I reviewed (and keep in mind; I do computer modeling for a living) adopted a model that is similar to those used by weather forecasters. The results, after decades of trying, are now only able to replicate past behavior with very, very specific parameters spoon fed into them.

Among the items that radically alter the output of the IPCC models:
* Volcanic activity
* The impact of plant growth in areas where added rainfall occurs
* the impact of plant growth in response to elevated CO2
* The impact of water vapor in the atmosphere

Water vapor is *still* the primary driver of climate change. And the models that incorporate water vapor at chaotic systems at best.

These are not my words. This is the conclusion of the model makers. What infuriates me is that the cautious guidance of the real Ph.ds doing the work in the field gets overlooked by the folks who write the narrative for the policy maker's section.

Thus important finding like the fact CO2 rise is a symptom of global warming (at least historically) is lost. And meaningful advice (or at least a respect for the fact we live inside a system of non-linear equations) is completely eroded away by stupid policies like carbon offsets.
 
2022-06-05 11:03:39 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: And for the record: why it is worse?

The IPCC puts out reports targeting policy makers. They provide specific guidance. Through at least 2005, despite knowing that temperature tracked with methane, they pushed policies that clamped down on Carbon Dioxide.

I should also point out that later in that decade the IPCC had a coming to Jesus series of reports that the math that they used to push the narrative about CO2 was fundamentally flawed. They have also developed far more sophisticated models in recent decades that are far less deterministic. They end up reading like a choose-your-own adventure.

However the choices are not about what policy makes decide. The choices are about what climate factors actually end up driving the system.

The latest series of simulations I reviewed (and keep in mind; I do computer modeling for a living) adopted a model that is similar to those used by weather forecasters. The results, after decades of trying, are now only able to replicate past behavior with very, very specific parameters spoon fed into them.

Among the items that radically alter the output of the IPCC models:
* Volcanic activity
* The impact of plant growth in areas where added rainfall occurs
* the impact of plant growth in response to elevated CO2
* The impact of water vapor in the atmosphere

Water vapor is *still* the primary driver of climate change. And the models that incorporate water vapor at chaotic systems at best.

These are not my words. This is the conclusion of the model makers. What infuriates me is that the cautious guidance of the real Ph.ds doing the work in the field gets overlooked by the folks who write the narrative for the policy maker's section.

Thus important finding like the fact CO2 rise is a symptom of global warming (at least historically) is lost. And meaningful advice (or at least a respect for the fact we live inside a system of non-linear equations) is completely eroded away by stupid policies like carbon offsets.


Wowsa. Lots of weird reasoning mixed up in there. To the original point, methane is considered worse in that it is a more potent greenhouse gas, but not worse in the sense that it's not responsible for the majority of warning that we see. In addition, the much shorter atmospheric lifetime of methane as compared to carbon dioxide means that it's not as big of a concern over the long term.

I think the reasons you see methane being covered more in the popular media more recently that we're getting a better grasp of sources over time, as well as the greater amount of detail you can cover since the obvious is out of the way. Another article about carbon dioxide is old hat - methane is something that hasn't gotten as much coverage historically and is more attractive and attention-getting in its novelty.

Might I suggest that the discontinuity you're picking up on has more to do with the popular coverage rather than some sort of shift in the science itself? The fundamental understanding about methane as a greenhouse gas hasn't changed over time. You might not be getting the most accurate impression of the state of the science or IPCC reports if you're claiming that methane is seen as being worse than carbon dioxide - this is decidedly not the case.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.