Dear Nabeel,

The greenhouse gases responsible for global warming are not limited to carbon dioxide (CO2): scientists are also concerned about the large increase in methane in the atmosphere. Billions of tonnes of methane from organic decomposition are trapped in the Arctic subsoil, called permafrost. With global warming causing ice to melt, scientists are worried about the consequences of releasing this methane in the Arctic ice. Carbon dioxide, or CO2 and methane (CH4) are both greenhouse gases. The first remains in the atmosphere for nearly 200 years while the latter remains there only a dozen years. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming: it has an impact on the greenhouse effect about 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2). Its global warming potential (GWP) is therefore 25, and it increases with time: it is estimated at 62 within 20 years. Methane emissions are increasing over time, particularly because of the reserves of methane trapped in the Arctic subsoil, called permafrost. Increasing temperatures accelerate the melting of ice, and scientists are concerned about the consequences of releasing this methane from the Arctic ice. CO2 emissions remain the most harmful to the climate due to their very high level, but other gases also act on the greenhouse effect: water vapor (H2O), nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3)... and methane (CH4) in particular. As methane progresses, climate change accelerates. But scientists do not want to draw conclusions for now, since the phenomenon of methane is too recent to draw any "trend". At an equal quantity, methane is therefore more potent in greenhouse effect than CO2. But methane emissions are not as high as carbon dioxide emissions. To know which gas has the most impact on climate, scientists reason in "CO2 equivalent"; the effect of each gas is expressed as a function of the CO2 effect (which is 1 by definition).

Carbon dioxide has much more influence on climate than methane, from the point of view of current emissions.

With my best regards

Prof. Bachir ACHOUR

One mole of methane is 10 times more powerful than one mole of CO2 in accelerating global warming. But the concentration of methane in the atmosphere lower than that of CO2. Currently, the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is CO2 because its increasing concentration from time to time. It is released from industries, vehicles, deforestation practices, etc

Thanks a lot dear Birhano Iticha. Your answer is more than enough. Best regards.

Dear Nabeel,

Prof. Achour has rightly mentioned "Carbon dioxide has much more influence on climate than methane ...."

Methane has a GWP (global warming potential) of 21, which means it's 21 times more effective at preventing infrared radiation from escaping the planet. But, its amount in the atmosphere is much less than CO2, that is why the overall greenhouse effect of methane is much lower, only about half or less that of carbon dioxide.

Besides, the atmospheric lifetime of methane is about 12 years, whereas it varies between 50 and 200 years for carbon dioxide.

Regards

Thanks a lot dear Asit Kumar Batabyal and Bachir Achour for your valuable comments. Best regards.

In nutshell Co2 is more responsible for global warming since its concentration is quite higher than other green house gases. I do agree with above answers

Suchit Rai,

Yes Suchit, it's the conclusion in one sentence. Thanks

Many thanks dear Asit Kumar Batabyal and dear Sachit Rai for your professional comments. Best regards.

Thanks a lot dear Kenneth M Towe, another professional answer from the professionals. Best regards.

Thanks a lot dear Ales Kralj for the perfectly organized (scientific) answer. Best regards.

Comments of Dr.Kenneth and Dr.Ales - Valuable information. Thanks

hello

Global warming is the main cause of CO2 that causes greenhouse phenomena

REGARDS

Thanks a lot dear Ali hadi Ghawi.Best regards.

Kenneths claim that "Methane has been declining" as well as "Global temperatures have "paused"" disagree with data. It is denialism dogma that shouldn't be allowed on RG just as no journal would publish such nonsense.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1988-2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#/media/File:Mlo_ch4_ts_obs_03437.png

Dear Henrik Rasmus Andersen, my question was clear and I am responsible for it. If you have a clear answer then you are welcome, otherwise it is not normal to interrupt the conversation with a side route away from the the main question, so please let the audience hear your comment about the main question above. Best regards.

I should have mentioned that I completely agree with most of the answers that CO2 is the GHG responsible for most of the man made increase in the greenhouse effect. Methane contributes with less warming potential but as it also increase in concentration due to human activities it should not be disregarded from the planning of reduction emissions.

Another important GHG is N2O which is also produced as a by-product from human activities.

Thanks a lot dear Henrik Rasmus Anderson. Best regards.

I agree and recommend the answer of Dr. Birhano Iticha

Thanks a lot dear Dr. Isam Issa Omran. Good luck

Quantum mehanics exposes that neither CO2 nor CH4 has a significant effect on climate. The EMR absorption they do at ground level is thermalized (energy is shared with surrounding molecules warming the near-ground atmosphere). Further radiation from the warmed gas (energy distribution according to Maxwell-Bosmann distribution of molecule energy) is rerouted up via water vapor (WV is the only significant ghg). At higher altitudes (3+km), thermalization brings CO2 back in to play.

Dear Dan Pangburn, your comment is completely unfamiliar. Do you have an article?

DIY

Load: http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php

Set: wavenumber 0-1500, species H2O, CO2, Scale to atmospheric abundance, Standard atmosphere, 0 altitude, min intensity 0.0001 to block meaningless noise, Linear, Sticks.

Note that CO2 influence is barely discernable at 667/cm.

See the decline of WV with altitude at http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/earth-radiator.html

The comment of Mr. Dan Pangburn gives a new concept about climate. This advocates that water vapor is the significant GHG and has major effects on climate not CO2 or CH4.

The given link (http://homeclimateanalysis. ..................) points to an investigation on the above concept.

What climate researchers say on this?

Regards

Asit,

Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas in the tropics, but not in polar regions where its concentration is much lower.

Moreover, the concentration of water vapour depends on temperature, and it is the greenhouse gas CO2 which keeps the planet warm enough for water vapour to exist. See the paper Lacis et al., 2010 here: "

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature" http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

Dear Dan Pangburn, you presented a site on your claim and not an article published in a peer reviewed journal. Nevertheless let the Climate researchers (Specialists) tell us about your claim and I my self with any scientific finding. Best regards.

There are three reasons why CO2 is more important than CH4.

First, the concentration of CO2 is around 400 ppm (pars per million). The concentration of CH4 is only around 1800 ppb (parts per billion), very much less than CO2.

Second, CO2 absorbs radiation in the 15um band which is near the peak of the outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) from the Earth. Methane absorbs radiation in the 1.66 um band where there is much less OLR radiation to be absorbed.

Third, CH4 molecules are destroyed after about 10 years and converted into CO2, whereas CO2 molecules have as a much longer lifetime and are removed from the atmosphere by being dissolved in the oceans and calcified there. But as atmospheric and oceanic concentration increases the ocean biota are less able to calcify CO2, see ocean acidification. Thus the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere increases as we add more CO2 to the atmosphere. On the other hand, CO2 has only increased by about a third since industrialisation. Whereas CH4 has doubled, http://ecen.com/eee55/eee55e/growth_of%20methane_concentration_in_atmosphere_arquivos/image004.gif and is still rising despite what Dr Towe says. See https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/images/F1.large.jpg

Dear McDonald and dear M Towe, both of you provided valuable information about CO2, especially ( CO2 being "calcified" )although you disagree about the concept. But both of you accept the question concept that CO2 is more dominant than CH4. I highly appreciate your valuable information. Best regards

I totally agree with Nabeel - we got valuable information from Dr.Kenneth and Dr. Alastair on the generation of CO2 and CH4 and their influence on the climate etc. Excellent - educative for us.

Best regards to Dr.Kenneth and Dr. Alastair

Please colleagues refer to the links below, if you have any comment:-

https://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/climateroles/

https://www.saveearth.info/global-warming/

Excellent dear Kenneth M Towe

Thanks a lot dear Cristina Mihaela Balaceanu

Dear Nabeel,

The links (you provided) are informative/educative - 'Climate roles of H2O, CH4 and Co' and 'the raw facts on global warming'. Thanks

Madam Cristina - "......a lot of project related to capture and carbon storage and this could be a source of decreasing of total amount of carbon ..." ---- Are these projects successful? Regards

Dr. Mutasem Z. Bani-Fwaz - Given link "The Discovery of Global Warming" - A lengthy   article. We will read it, then comments. Is it a compilation from Spencer Weart & American Institute of Physics? Thanks and regards

Failing to consider thermalization has resulted in "epic fail" of prediction of average global temperature by climate scientists. Discover why non condensing IR active gases have no significant effect on climate and what does (98+% match to measured 1895-2015) at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Excellent dear Asit Kumar Batabyal for your active participation and scientific sense,thanks a lot dear Mutasem_Bani-Fwaz for your article which is more historical review than scientific processing( which will always fail towards this difficult phenomena), thanks a lot dear Dan Pangburn for your participation. Regards

Dear Kenneth M Towe, another professional answer that is clear like the SUN. Best regards.

Influence of solid wastes on the emissions of CH4 and CO2 in developing countries. Please refer to the following link:-

http://www.firs.institutoventuri.org.br/en/news-en/88-influence-of-solid-waste-on-climate-change.html

I am ready to hear your comments.

Dear Nabeel,

The link - News of 8th International Forum on Solid Waste (12-14 June, 2017, Brazil) on 'Influence of solid waste on climate change'.

Solid wastes are sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs), not only by its relation to production and consumption, but also because of methane (CH4) when disposed in dumps or even in landfills. Discussions held on waste management activities to reduce GHG emissions. Good information - Problem invites R & D for cost effective technologies and implementation. Our institute is working on waste management and developed 'Municipal Solid Waste Management Pilot Plant for zero waste life".

Regards

Most of the climate scientists became so much more certain that the temperature is going up due to increasing  of concentrations of CO2, and other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide . I totally agree with the answers that reported  the main man-made greenhouse gas is CO2. Most of the answers are professional , specially that are reported by Dr.Kenneth ,Dr. Henrik,Dr. Ales, and Dr. Bachir.Except of Alistair, almost, all professors  are ignored effect of water vapor(WV) which may be it is the most powerful greenhouse gas. .The WV produced by burning gas and oils may be become a major green house gas that warms the earth .

Dear Asit Kumar Batabyal, I hope that this pilot plant will offer optimum solutions for Solid Waste Management to reduce their detrimental effects to the environment especially the reduction of Green House Gases (GHGS)., it is an encouraging news. Regards

Dr. Nabeel,

One good news - The Governor of West Bengal State has inaugurated the plant today. This is a waste to wealth technology. From Municipal Solid Waste, we are producing gases towards generation of electricity. Thanks

Dr. Hassan Alshamsi - You are correct. The water vapor(WV) is considered as CHG and has also contribution to warming.

But CO2 is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does (from the paper titled "Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature" by Lacis et al, Science, 2010). For reading see the link provided by Dr. Alastair Bain McDonald .

Thanks and regards

Dear Dr. Asit Kumar Batabyal

Thanks a lot for your valuable and significant contributions besides that of Dr. Kenneth M.Towe. Dear audience, please refer to the link and let me know if there is a solution by the man, I think that our SCHOOLS and UNIVERSITIES are responsible for teaching how to contribute to REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING:-

https://hubpages.com/education/How-to-save-our-mother-earth-from-global-warming

I agree with this statement of Dr. Kenneth ".........Humans cannot adjust the natural variations. They can't even predict what will happen to them" - We have to understand this. Regards

I can never argue with you dear Kenneth M Towe and dear Asit Kumar Batabyal, but let me say one sentence ( LET US STOP DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT), offcourse let the nature take its part. Best regards.

Dr. Nabeel - "LET US STOP DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT" - This is always true for all. We all are working in that direction - analysis of problem, human role, knowledge generation & education, preventive and control measures. Regards

Re Kenneth M Towe to me 2 months ago.

Three things to consider:

1) The effective time constant for the planet average global temperature change responding to forcing change is about 5 years. Yr to yr variations in forcing are essentially 'noise' in the trend.

2) The US is less than 2% of the planet surface.

3) Correlation is with SSN, not area.

Jorge's calculation is wrong. The atmosphere extend to at least 80 km, the pressure in the atmosphere is lower than 1 atm. at any altitube above ground level and the average temperature is lower than 25 °C.

If the correct assumptions and method of calculation is used the increase in concentration fits the observed increase from about 285 ppmv to 400 ppmv.

Dear Jorge, in my opinion it is not as simple as your calculations with the assumed buondary conditions you have put, Global Warming is, with my respect to your scientific efforts. Also I greatly respect the scientific efforts of Dr. Henric Rasmus.

The problem is that the simplification (all atmosphere 1.0 atm) doesn't lead to to the maximum concentration. If you select 0.5 atm to use in your method of calculation the concentration would be double. It is incorrect then you say "The maximum possible"!

You could calculate this just as easily without oversimplification using standard methods from atmospheric chemistry and the same data. With that you get quite close to the observed CO2-concentration increase.

Mithane is more potent in global warming.

@Samrat Sikdar

You are right. But global warming is correlated with CO2.

In spite of the well-known warning that correlation does not prove causation, many have been fooled by the temporary and rather crude correlation of CO2 increase with reported temperature increase. They also ignore available scientific tools and desperately cling to failed dogma.

Hitran, using Quantum Mechanics, calculates, besides many other things, the relative absorb/emit intensity of water vapor molecules vs CO2 molecules. The calculator is here: http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php Comparison at zero altitude is shown at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECWhyyDUYAA1P89?format=jpg&name=medium . Comparison by the ratio of the summation of intensities (line lengths) for each wavenumber for each molecule species is 8.7/0.07 = 124. On average at ground level, according to the low populations used by Hitran, WV molecules outnumber CO2 molecules by about 8,000/330 ≈ 24 to one. After accounting for molecule count, each WV molecule is still 124/24 ≈ 5 times more effective at warming (absorb/emit of thermal radiation) than a CO2 molecule.

The relative effectiveness of the increases of WV and CO2 over 30 years is calculated as follows:

CO2 increase in 3 decades, 1988 to 2018 = 407 - 348 = 59 parts per million by volume (ppmv)

Average global water vapor increase trend from NASA/RSS TPW data, is 0.04272/28.9 * 100 * 10 = 1.47 % per decade.

Average global WV ≈ 10,000 ppmv. WV increase in 3 decades = .0147 * 10,000 * 3 = 441 ppmv

Therefore, WV increase has been about 441/59 * 5 = 37+ times more effective at increasing ground level temperature than CO2 increase 1988-2018. (Most of the world has been falsely indoctrinated.)

Well above the tropopause, about 10 km (33,000 feet), radiation emitted from molecules there to space is primarily from CO2 molecules. If you ignore the increase in water vapor (big mistake), near the surface, WV averages about 10,000 ppmv. The increase in absorbers at ground level since 1900 is then about 10,410/10,295 ≈ 1%. WV above the tropopause is limited to about 32 ppmv because of the low temperature (~ -50 °C) while the CO2 fraction remains essentially constant with altitude at 410 ppmv; up from about 295 ppmv in 1900. The increase in emitters to space at high altitude (~> 30 km, 0.012 atm), and accounting for the lower atmospheric pressure, is (410 + 32)/(295 + 32) * 0.012 ≈ 1.6%. This easily explains why CO2 increase does not cause significant warming (except at the poles) and might even cause cooling. The result being that Climate Sensitivity is not significantly different from zero. The exception at the poles is because it’s cold there at ground level so WV is already low.

Humanity has contributed to warming but it’s from added water vapor not added CO2 http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Seen from space terrestrial radiation is effectively emitted from about 5 km not from the stratosphere where the ABSOLUTE CONCENTRATIONS are low

your use of a mixing ratio is not the proper one

CO2 abundance is more than CH4, However, CH4 has 25 times more global warming potential than CO2. The life span of CH4 (12 years) is very less than the CO2 (> 100 years).

@Mahalakshmi DV

Thank you for your answer