Paul Saladino· MD
that methane breaks down in about ten years it's oxidized back to co2 so it's a cycling of co2 not an enrichment contrast that with burning fossil fuels which represents an enrichment of co2 into the atmosphere
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
that methane breaks down in about ten years it's oxidized back to co2 so it's a cycling of co2 not an enrichment contrast that with burning fossil fuels which represents an enrichment of co2 into the atmosphere
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
there is a carbon cycle and that methane is broken down into carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but that the emission from from technology and from transportation maybe are not in the same way is that correct that there's some there's some carbon-based molecules that persist in the environment as greenhouse gases but that methane is not necessarily one of those methane participates in this carbon cycling is that correct