Agreed, one has to consider a time period, so assume one takes a day that
when injected there is no decay over this period‹so it might as well be a
second of time one takes‹so virtually instantaneous. And I¹ll assume
linearity on methane absorption and logarithmic for CO2.
So, for methane, humans
The last line is the key and perfectly true. At last an honest broker.
plausible. We are not dealing with solid science but rather with hypothesis and
plausibility. Plausibility is not a lesser form of exactness. They are not
related concepts. Nothing better than plausibility is available. So
In light of recent modeling results on the lifetime of CO2 in the
atmosphere, I am concerned that the current time-integrated (not
instantaneous) GWP estimate for CO2 has been underestimated and hence
GWP's of other gases (esp short-lived gases) relative to CO2 have
been overestimated. E.g.,
First, I should have noted that the recent Shindell et al paper makes clear
that methane has roles in addition to its own GH effect, so my estimate does
not include that.
On the CO2 question, GWP is over a time period. Indeed, as the time is
stretched out, the GWPs for other species drop because
Thanks, Mike. My comments below. - Greg
First, I should have noted that the recent Shindell et al paper
makes clear that methane has roles in addition to its own GH effect,
so my estimate does not include that.
On the CO2 question, GWP is over a time period. Indeed, as the time
is
