> Please explain!!!?

Please explain!!!?

Posted at: 2015-03-12 
Which would be more effective in reducing global warming: reducing methane levels to those of preindustrial levels or reducing carbon dioxide levels to preindustrial levels?

You can't reduce the CO2 to pre-Industrial levels. First, you would have to identify what pre-industrial levels were. Were they what was measured in the past? Were they only interpreted from bubbles in ice cores. OK, just for laughs, we will assume CO2 was 280 ppmV. It would take the worlds resources to find ways to extract enough CO2 to try to make it 280 ppmV but we certainly would fail because the ocean holds hundreds of times the carbon that is in the atmosphere. Methane has a relatively short retention time in the atmosphere and CO2 may as well. It would be an impossible task with dubious consequences if we tried. If you are talking emissions that is a different subject but it too is completely ridiculous to even contemplate. Only a wacko environmentalist would suggest it seriously.

Reducing carbon dioxide levels would be more effective. The total amount of methane is relatively small, and does not have as much an effect as CO2.

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, methane has even less effect, however because the amount of methane in the atmosphere is so low, it is not saturated like CO2 (has absorbed most of the heat possible) so an increase in methane could make a difference, but it oxidises and turns to CO2 in a few years, so it would take an explosive release of large amounts, to be a problem.

Basically returning either to pre-industrial levels will not make a lot of difference.

At least reducing methane to pre-industrial levels is possible. If we were to stop adding methane it would go back to normal in a few decades. Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is irreversible. All we can do is stop adding more.

So far you have 2 answers from global warming deniers.

And, of course, they give each other thumbs up.

methane is fairly reactive, so over time, it won't stay in the atmosphere.

CO2 is not, so it will stay in the atmosphere for decades at least.

Add to that, that there's far more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is methane,

and we're adding much greater quantities of CO2 than methane.

Methane gets into the atmosphere by mistake.

CO2 gets there because we intentionally burn fossil fuel.

so reducing CO2 is far, far, more effective.

Politicians and believers are looking to reduce co2 levels because for them, it's easier to tax. If they were honest, they would be building more nuclear power plants as nuclear doesn't create any co2 and they would replace current stations that are burning fossil fuels.

Reduce the climate alarmist and extremist and I think that all this GW bullschitte will decrease. What a bunch of clowns!

reduce carbon dioxide so there is less emission in the air to be trapped with the greenhouse gases.

Visualize whirled peas

co2 there is more of it to reduce and is longer lasting than ch4

Which would be more effective in reducing global warming: reducing methane levels to those of preindustrial levels or reducing carbon dioxide levels to preindustrial levels?

None of these would have any affect on global warming because it would actually need to exist in the first place wouldn't it? At present it only exists in the hearts and minds of the faithful.

Edit Everything linlyons states should be ignored since he failed to state his position on the theory of evolution before answering. - His own logic , not mine.

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in...

We need to do both.