Counter-Intuitive Climate Change Solution Profitable Approach to Cleaning the Air

You have completely perverted a formerly science friendly engineering forum into a political swamp!

Congratulations. You are singlehandedly destroying a formerly great forum!

Not in my opinion.

Not in mine either!

There is no doubt that the Earth is warming.The problem is deciding if the cause is truly anthropological.The Earth has gone through many freeze-warm cycles in it's history,and some are closely associated with solar sunspot activity,ie:The Maunder Minimum,the year without a summer. There are so many factors that must be considered,but what if we are headed toward another minimum sunspot period? Perhaps this warming will turn out to be a blessing in disguise. At any rate,I am doing my small part to reduce methane:I take Beano...are you doing your part? 8 billion people must have an effect on methane production in the atmosphere. Perhaps I could get a grant to study that;I know it's a dirty job,but somebody has to do it.Or perhaps I could get carbon credits for fart prevention.

Here is a link to Cow methane mitigation:https://news.psu.edu/story/364787/2015/08/04/research/feed-supplement-greatly-reduces-dairy-cow-methane-emissions==========================================================

Should we....instead? no. Removing methane isn't an alternative to addressing CO2 emissions. It is a supplementary approach at best.

Secondly the profitable part is really questionable. "Carbon offsets" - someone pays you to run your methane contraption, so that they are allowed to continue burning fossil fuel and emitting CO2 without any reduction. If the machine doesn't work, it doesn't matter, they're off the hook. This type of approach is starting to be assessed and it has been found wanting. I wonder where they would have to put the machine to capture methane. Obviously, where the emissions are.. what will they do, low level flights over the permafrost? Buzz a cow or two? Out of sight and out of mind, it smells like a scam to me.

When you think about some of the tech that has crossed these pages recently, that not only captured CO2 but also turned it into a valuable product - carbon nanotubes or nanofibers for example, well that is IMO so much more viable as an enterprise, cw converting one emission into another.

If I had the choice then Methane.

Reason being?

It still has an energetic value and you can burn it.

I might add there is no comparison of longevity in the atmosphere....Methane is very short lived compared to CO₂ ...so a lifetime contribution by both is needed for any valid comparison....

..."How long does Methane last in the atmosphere?

about 12 years This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years. Methane, by contrast, is mostly removed from the atmosphere by chemical reaction, persisting for about 12 years. Thus although methane is a potent greenhouse gas, its effect is relatively short-lived."... Jan 16, 2012 ...

"As methane rises into the air, it reacts with the hydroxyl radical to create water vapor and carbon dioxide. The lifespan of methane in the atmosphere was estimated at 9.6 years as of 2001; however, increasing emissions of methane over time reduce the concentration of the hydroxyl radical in the atmosphere."...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

1. Hydroxyl radical – OH in the atmosphere is the largest sink for atmospheric methane as well as one of the most significant sources of water vapor in the upper atmosphere.

That's a very good point. Converting an emission with effects lasting 12 years into an emission with effects lasting thousands of years... What were they thinking?

Just a reminder the most potent greenhouse gas is water vapour.

Should we reduce evaporation or interfere with the water cycle in the atmpsophere?

As a second comment: longevity of the gas in the atmosphere is of no conseqence to the ability to absorb and emit in the electromagnetic spectrums. The only concern there is the concentration.

If a longevity affects the concentration by means of impacting on the processes that washout or destroy the specific greenhouse gas, it might be a point, but so far this discussion about how long a Methane or CO2 or Water vapour for that matter remains in the atmophere is a non issue.

In case of water vapour it is also the abilty to condensate and form clouds which makes our atmopsheric system so nice and complex.

And truly a set of suggestions that are tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.

You can also sign here:

http://chng.it/PVhHmxhQkL

which is a

Petition for Zali Steggall to build wind farms for Warringah

<...we...>?

If you've got a business model that works, then go for it, Dude.