OK Leland Palmer, I told you on several occasions where you tried to steer threads towards Methane that you should wait until WUWT had a thread that was relevant – here you go, have at it. – Anthony
One of the indisputable facts in the field of global climate change is that the atmospheric build-up of methane (CH4) has been, over the past few decades, occurring much more slowly than all predictions as to its behavior (Figure 1). Since methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas (thought to have about 25 times the warming power of CO2), emissions scenarios which fail to track methane will struggle to well-replicate the total climate forcing, likely erring on the high side—and feeding too much forcing into climate models leads to too much global warming coming out of them.
Figure 1. Atmospheric methane concentrations, 1985-2008, with the IPCC methane projections overlaid (adapted from: Dlugokencky et al., 2009)
Figure 2 shows the year-over-year change in the methane concentration of the atmosphere, and indicates not only that the growth rate of methane has been declining, but also that on several occasions during the past decade or so, it has dropped to very near zero (or even below) indicating that no increase in the atmospheric methane concentration (or a even a slight decline) occurred from one year to the next.
Figure 2. Year-to-year change in atmospheric methane concentrations, 1985-2008, (source: Dlugokencky et al., 2009)
This behavior is quite perplexing. And while we are not sure what processes are behind it, we do know one thing for certain—the slow growth of methane concentrations is an extremely cold bucket of water dumped on the overheated claims that global warming is leading to a thawing of the Arctic permafrost and the release of untold mega-quantities of methane (which, of course, will lead to more warming, more thawing, more methane, etc., and, of course, to runaway catastrophe).
To some, the blip upwards in methane growth in 2007 (Figure 2) was a sure sign that the methane beast was awakening from its unexpected slumber. Climate disaster was just around the corner (just ask Joe Romm).
But alas, despite the hue and cry, in 2008 the increase in methane, instead of equaling or exceeding the 2007 rise, turned out to be only about half of the 2007 rise. And together with information on from where it seemed to emanate (the tropics rather than the Arctic), it cannot be taken as a sign that the slow methane growth rate during the past decade was coming to an end as a result of an Arctic meltdown.
Here is how NOAA methane-guru Ed Dlugokencky and colleagues put it in their publication last week describing recent methane behavior:
We emphasize that, although changing climate has the potential to dramatically increase CH4 emissions from huge stores of carbon in permafrost and from Arctic hydrates, our observations are not consistent with sustained changes there yet.
The factual portion of their conclusion remains the same, with or without the inclusion of the final word (but it sure was nice of them to throw it in there as a bone to climate catastrophists the world over).
Reference
Dlugokencky, E. J., et al., 2009. Observational constraints on recent increases in the atmospheric CH4 burden. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18803, doi:10.1029/2009GL039780.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The ozone must be eating the methane.
methane concentrations follow temperature ???
Do you think that it is really possible for anything to have an exact target; such as hitting the moon with a rocket since the moon is in a constant orbiting motion? The earth orbits the sun with the speed of light, the moon is smaller than earth and it is orbiting slower than earth plus it is rotating on it’s axis at a very slow rate. Plus all this is dependent on the gravity of the sun. Earth rotates on it’s axis at 1,000 miles in one hour, all planets in our galaxy are insync with earths rotation; all this stuff is traveling so fast in the universe that it seems almost impossible to be able to hit a target since there is constant motion.
The earth orbits the sun at the speed of light, the moon orbits the earth; plus all these other planets are in constant orbiting motion, yet connected to the rotation of the earth.
It looks in my mind like all this stuff works like the internal structure of a big wrist watch
The Toronto Star ran a piece recently emphasizing the danger of methane being released in the Arctic, asking readers to visualize a boiling and bubbling cauldron as in Macbeth.
http://lloydtown.blogspot.com/2009/09/interpreting-arctic.html
Even in that piece it became clear that recent observations may be … nothing new. So far: dog bites man, but just you wait folks, it’s going to be man bites dog any day now.
Temperatures in Arctic in 40ties had been similar to present times. Why the catastrophic release of methane did not happen that time, and why it should happen now?
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MAAT%2070-90N%20HadCRUT3%20Since1900.gif
The Earth does not orbit anything like the speed of light! or did i miss some irony?
Yaakoba (12:52:01) :
The earth orbits the sun with the speed of light,
Ya lost me on that one.
As Bill Clinton stated, “It’s the economy stupid”, less people can afford steak these days. As the cow population goes, so blows the methane!
If warming –> methane –> more warming –> more methane –> …
Then why is the methane still there?
When someone says something like this:
I begin to doubt their competence and their sanity.
I see the concentration is in ppb.
So, CH4 is 25 times as potent at C02, but roughly 1/225 the concentration?
It’s all the fault of the evil neocons!
Is it acceptable for me to highjack a methane thread?
As you might be aware snow has forced the postponement of game three of the Philadelphia Phillies-Colorado Rockies playoff.
Already the AGW propaganda machine is spinning up damage control, scheduling the cartoon feature Ice Age: The Meltdown as alternative broadcasting.
I want them to go bonkers trying to dream up new coverups!
So inspite of my lifelong love affair with the Oakland A’s for the remainder of this season I am a Rockies fan.
Hope you become a Rockies fan too.
Smokey, that is a funny graphic. Sometimes I wonder, how can people be THAT stupid! But obviously, people are THAT stupid. The last paragraph in that graphic was hilarious. Like the global warming advocates, it starts with an unprovable idea and extrapolates from there.
Would it be easier to list the elements and compounds we don’t need to worry about?
Just asking.
@yaakoba
You got some of the numbers right, but missed a few decimal points on the “speed of earth orbiting the sun.”
And it’s a dang good thing, too, because if the earth were traveling at the speed of light, a lot of REALLY weird things would be happening, per Einstein’s special theory of relativity.
Speed of light is roughly 186,000 miles per second. (300,000 kilometers/sec)
Earth’s orbital speed is approximately 18.6 miles per second.
(Calculate the circumference of a circle (earth’s orbit) using 93 million miles as the radius, and the time to orbit the sun as 365.25 days. Divide the circumference (in miles) by the time (convert that to seconds) and the result is 18.6 miles per second). Here endeth the lesson.
Gotta watch those pesky decimal places…they make a difference from time to time…
The IPCC declared that human activity was responsible for most methane emissions whih why when the rise in methnane level stopped some years ago many AGW proponents were dismayed. After all there jsut as many cows and sheep as before.
The idea that melting permafrost would release huge amounts of CO2 and methane also has little merit. Frozen soil is biologically inactive but once it warms biological processes start so vast releases do not occur. The CO2 Science website has an excellent archive on this.
As for releases from undersea methane hydrates the pressure is too great and deep ocean temperatures too cold for any change in temperature above the thermocline to affect them.
Kindest Regards
Can there be a thread here without someone asking if they can hijack it?
How about getting your own blog – no one cares about your bright ideas.
Smokey, it’s too bad that sea level rise like that won’t happen in that region. They already have problems with water supply and coastal towns attract more tourism than inland towns. Sea level rise would be a boon for Israel and its neighbours! 🙂
CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O
Has anyone considered that methane burns?
RE:
Yaakoba (12:52:01) :
Do you think that it is really possible for anything to have an exact target; such as hitting the moon with a rocket since the moon is in a constant orbiting motion? The earth orbits the sun with the speed of light, the moon is smaller than earth and it is orbiting slower than earth plus it is rotating on it’s axis at a very slow rate. Plus all this is dependent on the gravity of the sun. Earth rotates on it’s axis at 1,000 miles in one hour, all planets in our galaxy are insync with earths rotation; all this stuff is traveling so fast in the universe that it seems almost impossible to be able to hit a target since there is constant motion.
The earth orbits the sun at the speed of light, the moon orbits the earth; plus all these other planets are in constant orbiting motion, yet connected to the rotation of the earth.
It looks in my mind like all this stuff works like the internal structure of a big wrist watch
The Earth orbits the Sun at a distance of approx 149,600,000k (r)
The orbital diameter is thereby 299,200,000k (d)
The orbital circumfrence is 939,964,505k
There are 365.25 days in a year so the earth travels 2,573,482.5k per day
or 107,243k per hour (you are currently traveling at this speed around the sun even if you are in orbit around the earth)
The moon orbits the earth at a distance of 384,000k (r)
The orbital diameter is thereby 768,000k (d)
The orbital circumfrence is 2,412,743
There are 29.5 days in the lunar cycle (granted the sidreal period is slightly shorter) so the moon travels 81,788k per day.
So traveling to the moon requires approx 2 days travel time so we just need to aim 160,000k ahead of the moons location to hit it
Has anyone explained adequately the creation of methane calthrates on the ocean floor? I can’t seem to find anything that speaks of CO2 sequestration in deep ocean water to form methane without the inference of decaying organic matter/sediment. Everything I find speaks of breaking down methane CH4 to make CO2 + H2O. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Methane
Is it possible that under the high pressure on the ocean bottoms that CO2 reacts via some chemcial vs organic process using H2O to become CH4 and liberates O2? (CO2 + H2O -> CH4 + O2)
If Peter L. Ward (not Peter D. Ward) is correct, SO2 is a major atmospheric driver of climate change, and CO2 is a bit player. (See http://www.tetontectonics.org/Climate.html ) If SO2 levels start to rise again because of “unscrubbed” coal-fired plants being built in China and India, we are likely to see increasing methane levels again due to decreasing oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere. This will give AGW supporters new life and support to their real agenda, social/political change. Ward’s hypothesis should be looked at seriously by CO2 skeptics since, if he is correct, changes due to SO2 may be interpreted by the press and the public as being caused by CO2 with resultant huge social/political/economic consequences. Give it a read.
dscott (14:39:40) :
Has anyone explained adequately the creation of methane calthrates on the ocean floor?
Look! A real experiment!
http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/geochem/gas_hydrates.htm
When objects approach the speed of light they crush themselves to death. Can I say this without sounding stupid?