The Danger and Regulation of Methane

Methane is a gas produced by various activities like energy creation, raising cattle, and transportation. Overexposure to it can cause fainting, dizziness, and memory lost and in great enough doses people breathing in methane can die. It’s also very flammable and can cause explosions if it’s concentration reaches 5% to 15% in the air. With such potential for harm, it’s important to monitor it’s levels in the environment to prevent people from being hurt by it. However, experts say that the current regulations for people producing this gas are not enough. If you wish to change this you can join a group email for a public comment that will last until October 2nd or contact the EPA directly.

Doing something is better than doing nothing.

 

Chicken Little strikes again.
Methane: Much Ado About Nothing
Case closed. Nothing to see here. Move along. Only idiots would get hung up on such a minuscule effect that we can’t change anyway.

 

Most methane is never even touched by humans. Its created in swamps and wetlands and released into the atmosphere, and has been for millions of years. All this is is a really lame excuse to increase regulations in the ranching industry by the climate change doomsday cultists who want to pretend cow farts are going to end the world too. I'd wager more methane comes out of the swamps along the Amazon river alone than all the cows on the entire planet. So, shall we dry up the Amazon then? 'For the climate'?

 

According to the BBC human activities account for 60% of methane admissions. Also, most of the methane from cattle doesn't come from farts but when they belch while chewing cud. Even if you don't believe that methane contributes to climate change as I said above it is a potentially dangerous gas which is why it's leakage from pipelines and landfills should be regulated. Some experts say that the EPA isn't doing enough which is why there is a push to tighten regulations which you can help by contacting the agency before public comments close on Oct. 2nd.

Doing something is better than doing nothing.

 

Dude (or Dudette), which environmental organization are you stoking comment docket spam for? Sierra Club?

I've worked for the government and had to review docket comment submissions. You're not doing yourself any favors. It's easy to recognize these fact-free mass submissions and usually they're just bundled together and ignored. Particularly if you try to pull the stale old trick of writing a proforma letter that someone only has to sign. Tranches of 10,000 identical letters that may as well never been submitted.

It's not a vote. The agency really doesn't care about relative numbers. They're looking for actual thought and cogent points that can be addressed rather than volume.

And so far, you haven't come close to a cogent point.

 

Your two posts has ZERO evidence supplied and that you fail to realize that CH4 doesn't last very long in the atmosphere thus the chart Jack posted warm forcing range is likely on the high side and that it has negligible warm forcing as it is in the low energy part of the IR window and mainly smothered by water vapor thus actually less than what the chart postulates anyway.

Methane (CH4) breaks down into H2O and CO2 rather easily.

This has been addressed years ago.

Methane: The Irrelevant Greenhouse Gas

LINK

CH4 fearmongering is a waiting strawman and red herring sandbox games..

 

((Sigh))

I have to admit you have a way to go in correct presentation of scientific arguments. When you make a claim BACK IT UP! Use citations - drop in the url from where you got your info and that way you are also checking to see if that information is accurate and the source is trustworthy
But as far as curing the livestock methane problem?

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/animals/livestock/futurefeed

We Aussies have already worked out one solution cleaner cheaper better

 

"Doing something is better than doing nothing"

Not necessarily true... I could bang myself in the head with a 4 lb sledgehammer and that would be doing something, or I can simply not do that, and that would be better than doing something.

That sounds very similar to a gun control sound bite...." Just do something ".

 

Yeah, they do that because they have no idea that almost nothing times 85 is still almost nothing which is why it never goes anywhere far in their demented climate cult world.

Here is a 9-year-old comment Willis Eschenbach that explains why CH4 is irrelevant:

"Dr. Tom, a most interesting post. I never considered that.

Of course, being a man who checks everyone, I went to MODTRAN to check your assertions. I found the following increases in longwave absorption if we double the methane concentration. Here’s how absorption increases when you double the methane.

Clear Sky Tropics +0.75 W/m2 from doubling of methane
Clear Sky US Standard Atmosphere +0.69 W/m2
Clear Sky Subarctic Winter +0.34 W/m2

Note that these are reduced somewhat if there are clouds. On a global average, then, it seems that a doubling of methane would lead to an increase in absorption of somewhere around half a W/m2 … color me totally unimpressed.

So your claim is upheld by MODTRAN, my congratulations … always more for me to learn, thanks for schooling me on methane."

LINK

 

Here are the HIGH Resolution wavelength readings of the Following,

CO2

vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm

CH4

vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/ch4pnnlimagesmicrons.htm

Water Vapor

http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/h2opnnlimagesmicrons.htm


LINK

 

Well, it would feel better when you stopped. But this is a strawman argument

 

Citation please

 

No, you're the expert. You tell me what the going multiplication factor is in the IPCC literature.

 

No it's not....

I'm directly addressing the statement that the op keeps stating that it's better to do something than nothing.

 

Sunsettommy, just because something doesn't last for long in the atmosphere doesn't mean it can't have harmful effects if enough of it builds up. Whether you agree that methane contributes to global warming it is toxic so it's levels should be monitored and controlled.

Bowerbird, I was backing it up with links in the text connected to articles from BBC and the website Sciencing respectively. They are the sources for my statements. Here are the articles below.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210805-the-search-for-the-worlds-largest-methane-sources

https://sciencing.com/what-are-the-dangers-of-methane-gas-13404265.html

Pieces of Marlarkey, what do you suggest that one do if they want change in government policy?

 

What we've always done- vote and communicate with your representatives.

 

Already showed that CH4 is a negligible warm forcer at post 13 LINK and Post 14 shows how feeble CH4 is in absorbing energy in the IR window and Water Vapor covers part of it thus Methane becomes irrelevant.

 

Gorebull Warming doth vex me.

 

Nothing there except the global warming narrative that human emissions are the cause of global warming (which has never been scientifically proven) and that human emissions are the control knob to control global climate.

 

It is clear that both people in the thread completely ignored the known negligible warm forcing results of CH4 because they can't handle the evidence which are well known to many scientists which is why they hardly bring up CH4 anymore.

Post 11: The CH4 in the chart shows how negligible it really is as its main band in the very low IR part of the spectrum if you look at the middle of the chart.

While Water Vapor masks a lot of CH4 wavelengths thus CH4 is made irrelevant.

From Post 13:

1/2 a W/m2 is all it has after 80 years' time for the doubling effect.......

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahhahaahah!!!!!!!

Post 14: shows the high-resolution wavelength readings for CH4 and they are very low energy readings.

LINK

Essentially irrelevant.

Doing nothing is better than doing something.

 

It has been one month, no reply which should have been easy if it was really there.

LOL

 

Typical.

 

There are two concrete pylons at the entrance of my marina. They were built by FDR's CCC's (Civilian Conservation Corps) in the 1930's. T
here are chiseled marks in the stone showing high and low tide marks. They are as accurate today as they were in the 1930's. Unchanged, no matter what that IPACAC report says.

 

Isn't IPACAC something you used to give to sick kids to prevent them from puking?

 

Yes... all that environmental BS makes us puke