Methane warming Earth, cooling Pluto?

[CrusaderFrank]

I don’t understand this

Methane in Plutos atmosphere cools it

But methane on Earth is a GHG and causes warming?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Left Wing "science" is magical

 

[EMH]

Pluto has a highly elliptical orbit and its Surface Air Pressure SAP goes up when it gets closer to Sun and Warmer.


Mars has a highly elliptical orbit and its Surface Air Pressure SAP goes up when it gets closer to Sun and Warmer.



Earth Surface Air Pressure actually going slightly down over the past 70 years = Earth not warming.

 

[ReinyDays]

The citation doesn't confirm the X post ... these are nitriles in the haze, not methane ...

This is on X ... maybe try not to be so gullible ... Pluto's atmosphere is only 10 ppm compared to Earth's ... that's just three years of human carbon pollution for the entire asteroid ... the Greenhouse Effect is from water vapor, and there's 1,000 times as much here in Earth's atmosphere than the all of Pluto's ...

 

[Old Rocks]

I don’t understand this

Methane in Plutos atmosphere cools it

But methane on Earth is a GHG and causes warming?

Aw well, what else to expect from this source.

Infrared radiation cooling is a process where objects emit infrared radiation to lose heat, offering an energy-efficient solution to traditional cooling systems. This method leverages the atmospheric window of 8–13 micrometers, where heat can escape into space without being absorbed by atmospheric gases.
Key points include:

• Emissive Materials: Materials that absorb energy and radiate it in the infrared range exhibit a strong cooling effect.
  
  1
• Natural Cooling: Radiative cooling allows objects to reach temperatures below ambient levels, even under direct sunlight.
  
  1
• Applications: This technology can be integrated into various applications, including buildings, to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
  
  1
  Overall, infrared radiation cooling represents a promising approach to sustainable cooling solutions.
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  3 Sources

 

[Old Rocks]

Left Wing "science" is magical

Right wing nuts are ******* dumb.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Right wing nuts are ******* dumb.

Dumb people believe that man made global warming is about to end humanity

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Aw well, what else to expect from this source.

Infrared radiation cooling is a process where objects emit infrared radiation to lose heat, offering an energy-efficient solution to traditional cooling systems. This method leverages the atmospheric window of 8–13 micrometers, where heat can escape into space without being absorbed by atmospheric gases.
Key points include:

• Emissive Materials: Materials that absorb energy and radiate it in the infrared range exhibit a strong cooling effect.
  
  1
• Natural Cooling: Radiative cooling allows objects to reach temperatures below ambient levels, even under direct sunlight.
  
  1
• Applications: This technology can be integrated into various applications, including buildings, to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
  
  1
  Overall, infrared radiation cooling represents a promising approach to sustainable cooling solutions.
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  3 Sources

I’m still unclear as to how methane on Pluto drops the temperature by 15%

“Using the James Webb Space Telescope, astronomers have discovered that the dwarf planet's mysterious blue haze isn’t just a visual spectacle — it actively controls Pluto’s climate. This haze, composed of organic particles formed from methane and nitrogen, absorbs sunlight and releases it as infrared radiation, cooling the atmosphere to a bone-chilling –203°C — 30°C colder than expected.”

Methane is .25% or so of Pluto atmosphere

 

[ReinyDays]

I’m still unclear as to how methane on Pluto drops the temperature by 15%

It doesn't ... the X poster is wrong ...

He doesn't say why he thinks Pluto's temperature should be -175ºC ... I come up with -235ºC at periapsis and -245ºC at apoapsis ... compared to the -225ºC we keep the JWST at ... not to mention using the same bandwidth as Earth's peak emissions ... all in all I agree with the scientists involved ... not enough information to call a press conference ...

Greenhouse gases make planets hotter than they should be ... not colder ... you're using the Laws of Thermodynamics, and the claimant on X does not ... that's the difference ...

YOU understand science ... astromoron doesn't ...

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

I axed AI what it thought.

Q1-If all hydrocarbon use were to stop today, how much could it cool the Earth off by?

Stopping all hydrocarbon use today would not result in immediate cooling of the Earth, and the climate system would continue to warm for decades due to existing greenhouse gas concentrations and the delayed response of the climate system. Even if emissions ceased entirely, global temperatures would still have a 42% chance of exceeding the 1.5°C threshold above pre-industrial levels due to past emissions. This is partly because some pollutants from fossil fuel combustion, such as aerosols, have a temporary cooling effect; stopping emissions would remove this cooling, leading to a temporary warming spike of about 0.2°C that could persist for 10 to 20 years.


Q2-If all hydrocarbon use were stopped today, how many deaths from starvation and exposure would result worldwide over the next 5 years?

Estimated Deaths Over 5 Years​

No peer-reviewed study provides a precise quantification for this exact hypothetical, as it is considered implausibly extreme and not seriously modeled (most analyses focus on gradual phase-outs). However, reasoned extrapolation from dependencies suggests:

• Initial chaos (first 1-2 years): Tens to hundreds of millions from exposure, lack of medical care, and immediate food shortages.
• Longer-term starvation (years 2-5): Potentially billions, as food production reverts to pre-industrial levels (capable of supporting ~1-4 billion people sustainably without synthetic inputs, per various estimates on fertilizer dependence).
• Total over 5 years: Likely 2-5 billion or more, with the highest toll from starvation in densely populated, import-dependent regions (e.g., Asia, Africa, urban areas worldwide). This could rival or exceed historical population collapses, with societal breakdown amplifying the crisis.

Q3-What are the expected deaths over the next five years directly resulting from global warming?

Cumulative over 5 years: Approximately 200,000 to 750,000 deaths worldwide directly attributable to ongoing global warming.

• Lower end: Conservative models assuming strong adaptation and offsets from reduced cold deaths.
• Higher end: Including emerging attribution for floods/droughts and faster-than-expected heat impacts.

IDK...seems like a tool for some people to control other people, more than protect them.
Hasn't it always been that way though? I think I have found a compromise.

If we executed all of the global warming protestors every year how much CO2 could we prevent?
The hypothetical scenario of executing climate protesters annually would prevent a negligible amount of CO2 emissions, as they represent a tiny fraction of the global population. Based on peak protest participation estimates (e.g., 6-7.6 million people in major 2019 global strikes) and assuming a generous upper bound of ~10 million active protesters worldwide annually, their removal would avert roughly 47 million metric tons of CO2 per year (using a global average per capita emission rate of ~4.7 metric tons).


For context, this equates to about 0.12% of annual global CO2 emissions (~37.8 gigatons in 2024), comparable to the emissions of a small country like New Zealand or a single large coal plant. The impact would be dwarfed by factors like population growth, industrial activity, or minor efficiency improvements elsewhere.

Definitely worth a shot IMHO.

 

[eagle1462010]

Ok.

Grab an umbrella and go outside full sun.

Now feel the warmth.

Now open umbrella block the sun. Is it still just as warm?

 

[ReinyDays]

Ok.

Grab an umbrella and go outside full sun.

Now feel the warmth.

Now open umbrella block the sun. Is it still just as warm?

Merry Christmas ...

Maybe I'm using the wrong umbrella? ... we don't see much sun here, this is for rain ...

 

[EMH]

I axed AI what it thought.

That's your first error. Don't ask AI. Ask THE ACTUAL DATA... what did the actual satellite and balloon data say before being FUDGED in 2005?

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling."


Translation from NBC - for more than three decades of rising atmospheric CO2, the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps showed precisely NO WARMING


"Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data." - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE....

and the excuses used to fudge the data don't jive with what they did to the data either.

 

[EMH]

I’m still unclear as to how methane on Pluto drops the temperature by 15%

It doesn't. It is just part of the "greenhouse gas" bullshit narrative.

 

[mudwhistle]

Left Wing "science" is magical

We used to call it FM.

Fcking Magic.

 

[eagle1462010]

We used to call it FM.

Fcking Magic.

We used PFM

PURE ******* MAGIC

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

That's your first error. Don't ask AI. Ask THE ACTUAL DATA... what did the actual satellite and balloon data say before being FUDGED in 2005?

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling."


Translation from NBC - for more than three decades of rising atmospheric CO2, the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps showed precisely NO WARMING


"Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data." - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE....

and the excuses used to fudge the data don't jive with what they did to the data either.

I axe AI all of my most important questions in life.

Examples of the most recent queries.

-Is there a donut-based diet plan?
-Can someone accidentally be exposed to cyanide in an office setting?
-If I shoot my neighbor's dog, can I go to jail?

 

[BackAgain]

Methane warming Earth, cooling Pluto?​

Sounds like the setup for the old joke:

My thermos keeps my hot coffee hot but it also keeps my iced-coffee cold! How do it know?

 

[Crepitus]

I don’t understand this

Methane in Plutos atmosphere cools it

But methane on Earth is a GHG and causes warming?

Gaseous methane is warming Pluto's atmosphere via greenhouse effect just like it does here on earth. There is very little effect on planetary temperature because the atmosphere is too thin.

The methane ice (which we don't get here) increases the planet's albedo reflecting more of the solar radiation back into space, cooling the planet.

Science is cool.

 

[EMH]

I axe AI all of my most important questions in life.

Examples of the most recent queries.

-Is there a donut-based diet plan?
-Can someone accidentally be exposed to cyanide in an office setting?
-If I shoot my neighbor's dog, can I go to jail?

What about if you eat the neighbor's cat, fried with honey mustard sauce?


One more thing. Air pressure is correlated with temperature. Surface Air Pressure is no different. Due to highly elliptical orbits, Mars and Pluto warm and cool dramatically due to change in distance from Sun. When they warm, their Surface Air Pressure rises, dramatically.

Over the past 70 years, Earth Surface Air Pressure is flat to down... proving

1. Earth is not warming
2. Earth is not experiencing an ongoing net ice melt