|
|
|
|
|
by dnautics
1723 days ago
|
|
I feel like I'm being gaslighted. In advanced physical chemistry we took IR spectroscopy of methane and CO2 and CO2 definitely had much, much more absorption than methane on account of the dipole difference between Carbon and oxygen (IR absorption depends on stretching modes between atoms of different electronegativity, carbon is very close to methane). At the time, it was explained to us young chemistry students that methane was more potent GHG because it lasted in the air longer (CO2 is scrubbed by plants). Am I missing something? How can methane be a more potent GHG if it has lower IR absorption AND a shorter lifespan? Edit: found spectra here (not the data that i took, obviously): https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/methane_... CO2 has a big fat band that blows out the absorption at 4.5 um in a region untouched by water (and one that is overwhelmed by water); methane has two spiky bands both of which are partially occluded by water. |
|