Oops! Interaction With Aerosols Means Methane's Climate Impact 33X That Of CO2, Not 25X As Thought

[hatrack]

The effects of a critical greenhouse gas on global warming have been significantly underestimated, according to research suggesting that emissions controls and climate models may need to be revised. Methane’s impact on global temperatures is about a third higher than generally thought because previous estimates have not accounted for its interaction with airborne particles called aerosols, Nasa scientists found.

When this indirect effect of the potent greenhouse gas is included one tonne of methane has about 33 times as much effect on the climate over 100 years as a tonne of carbon dioxide, rather than 25 times as in standard estimates.

Drew Shindell, of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, who led the study, said that the findings added to the importance of measures to contain methane emissions, as well as those of carbon dioxide, which will be discussed at the Copenhagen climate summit in December.

As methane breaks down much more quickly than carbon dioxide, the impact of cuts on climate would also be faster. “For long-term climate change there’s no way around dealing with CO2 — it’s the biggest thing and it lasts hundreds of years,” Dr Shindell told The Times. “But if we were to have a concerted effort to deal with non-CO2 we could have a very large impact on the near term. Substantial reductions in methane, carbon monoxide and black carbon: that’s the way to make a big difference. I think it should be more of a priority .”

EDIT

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6895907.ece

[alc]

1. "the science is settled" is stupid

There is still a lot we don't know and what we do know is not with enough precision. This is why I want scientists on both sides to stop acting like children and start cooperating. And real scientists on both sides have to tell some of their colleagues to f-off or at least shut up for a while.

[hatrack]

2. OK then!

nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Both sides of what? nt