Dueling conclusions on global methane flatness puzzle

Molecule of methane.
CH4 molecule - Image via Wikipedia

From UC Irvine:

UCI studies find different reasons for global methane riddle

One cites less dependency on oil, the other new farming practices

Irvine, Calif. – Two new UC Irvine papers reach markedly different conclusions about why methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, unexpectedly leveled off near the end of the 20th century. They appear today in the journal Nature.

Both note that after decades of increases due to worldwide industry and agriculture, the tapering off of the hazardous hydrocarbon in the atmosphere – which began in the 1980s – was remarkable.

“It was an amazing mystery as to why this occurred,” said earth system science professor Eric Saltzman, a co-author of one paper, which suggests that reduced use of petroleum and increased capture and commercial use of natural gas were the driving factors.

A second UCI paper found that water efficiency and heavier commercial fertilizer use in the booming Asian farming sector provided less fertile ground for soil microbes that create methane, while at the same time increasing nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas.

Associate researcher Murat Aydin, lead author on the first paper, drilled into South Pole and Greenland glaciers to extract trapped air as much as a century old. The samples were analyzed for ethane, a chemical that has some of the same sources as methane but is easier to track.

“Levels rose from early in the century until the 1980s, when the trend reverses, with a period of decline over 20 years,” Aydin wrote. “We find this variability is primarily driven by changes in emissions from fossil fuels.”

The authors posit that replacement of oil with lower-priced natural gas could be key.

The second team measured and analyzed the chemical composition of methane in the atmosphere from the late 1980s to 2005. They found no evidence of fewer methane atoms linked to fossil fuel. Instead, the sharpest trend by far was changes in the Northern Hemisphere linked to new farm practices, mainly the use of inorganic fertilizers instead of traditional manure and drainage of fields mid-season.

“Approximately half of the decrease in methane can be explained by reduced emissions from rice agriculture in Asia over the past three decades, associated with increases in fertilizer application and reductions in water use,” said lead author Fuu Ming Kai, who wrote his UCI doctoral thesis on the work and is now with the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research & Technology.

Martin Heimann, director of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, was asked by Nature editors to write a commentary on both papers.

“It is indeed very remarkably rare that two differing studies about the same subject come out from the same department – I can’t think of a similar case. But I think both analyses are scientifically sound and in themselves consistent,” said Heimann, lead author on the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. “At this time I would not favor one over the other.”

Heimann has invited members of both teams to a September symposium at which, he said, “we will discuss the two studies from all angles.”

Identifying methane sources is urgent. Research has shown that the fast-acting greenhouse gas is the second-largest contributor to climate change. Scientists around the world were heartened by the stabilizing levels, but there are now signs the hydrocarbon may be on the upswing again.

“We will need to reconcile the differences,” said earth system science professor James Randerson, a co-author on the second paper. “The important thing is that we must figure out – as scientists and a society – ways to reduce methane emissions.”

###
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

103 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brian H
August 10, 2011 2:08 pm

“hazardous chemical” “second-largest contributor to climate change”. Talk about begging the question(s). Pre-cooked conclusions that rope in $$ for “further research”.
This stuff is really tiresome.

James H
August 10, 2011 2:10 pm

What if there are multiple studies, and the sum of their effects is greater than 100% of the change? Would they still say that all of them are scientifically sound and consistent with each other? Maybe we just don’t know anywhere near as much as we think we do.

Editor
August 10, 2011 2:19 pm

The BBC reports it thus: “Scientists say that there has been a mysterious decline in the growth of methane in the atmosphere in the last decades of the 20th century.[…]And there are suggestions that methane levels are now on the rise again. “.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14476389
The half-life of methane in the atmosphere is, I think, about 7 years, as it oxidises(??).
Both explanations that were put forward look to me like BS, because they don’t explain the change from late 20thC methane decline to recent increase. In neither explanation has the underlying putative cause changed direction.
May I suggest another explanation: In the late 20thC, atmospheric temperatures increased, thus increasing the oxidation rate and thus reducing the observed level of methane (or its rate of increase). In the last decade, atmospheric temperatures have declined, thus reducing the oxidation rate, and thus increasing the observed level of methane.
In other words, the observed effects are due to the way that the half-life of methane changes with temperature.
Shouldn’t be too difficult for someone to check my thinking???

Bigdinny
August 10, 2011 2:31 pm

Would it be reasonable to conclude that the imposition of the fart tax on dairy and beef herds has had a beneficial effect on the atmosphere? Or is that a reach?

John S.
August 10, 2011 2:35 pm

“Levels rose from early in the century until the 1980s, when the trend reverses, with a period of decline over 20 years,” Aydin wrote. “We find this variability is primarily driven by changes in emissions from fossil fuels.”
The authors posit that replacement of oil with lower-priced natural gas could be key.

I must have missed where overall global oil consumption went down.

FergalR
August 10, 2011 2:44 pm

This is very important, the models being prepared for AR5 are going to be forced with 2,740 ppb methane in 2050.
That would take 23 ppb rise every year – and the last decade it’s only risen 2 ppb/year.
It’ll have to rise like a rocket from here on out. The methane is going to be a quarter (likely more) of the entire GHG forcing in 2050. If they overestimate the rise 1,000% or even 50% it would be a travesty.

August 10, 2011 2:46 pm

perhaps there is less farting. or fewer cows and goats to fart. Obviously we need more studies on this issue. I too missed the reduction in the consumption of global oil decreasing. Maybe I slept in that day

Paul Deacon
August 10, 2011 2:47 pm

I saw this on the BBC, where it was stated as follows:
***
“Scientists say that there has been a mysterious decline in the growth of methane in the atmosphere in the last decades of the 20th century.
“Researchers writing in the journal Nature have come up with two widely differing theories as to the cause.
“One suggests the decline was caused by greater commercial use of natural gas, the other that increased use in Asia of artificial fertiliser was responsible.
“Both studies agree that human activities are the key element.”
***
So the researchers don’t have a clue what is causing the changes in methane concentration, but they are certain it must be caused by man. I cannot think of a clearer case of confirmation bias in climate science.

Schitzree
August 10, 2011 2:49 pm

So the atmospheric level of methane has been stable since the 80’s, but we still need to reduce emissions because it’s a greenhouse gas and that means it’s cousing Global Warming (or Climate Change, or Climate Disruption, Or Climate Crisis, or…)

R. de Haan
August 10, 2011 3:06 pm

Nothing about the incredible reduction of swamps?

Dave Wendt
August 10, 2011 3:19 pm

” Research has shown that the fast-acting greenhouse gas is the second-largest contributor to climate change”
That is complete BS. Research indicates that CH4 a distant 4th or 5th on the list behind H2O, CO2, O3, and either tied with or behind N2O.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
Hit the Extended Abstract to view measured and modeled data tables.
Individual atoms of CH4 may be much more potent than CO2 atoms, but in the actual atmosphere their effect is almost negligible.

Molon Labe
August 10, 2011 3:21 pm

“What if there are multiple studies, and the sum of their effects is greater than 100% of the change?”
Then the problem will be “worse than we thought”, because, of course, their models are reality.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the surfeit of methane at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Steven Kopits
August 10, 2011 3:26 pm

The flaring of natural gas associated with oil production, once prevalent, has been reduced in recent years, both in the US and other jurisdictions.
Farming practices could also play a role.

Dave Wendt
August 10, 2011 3:34 pm

I thought that all the permafrost areas of the planet were melting into bubbling caldrons of methane. What am I missing here?

Jer0me
August 10, 2011 3:38 pm

Well I am glad we are moving from examining a change of a few dozen parts per million or the air to another change of a few dozen parts per billion. It restores my faith in science
/sarc

Ronald Henry
August 10, 2011 3:41 pm

Oil and gas production in the old Soviet Union was very inefficient with poor recovery practices and very leaky gas pipelines. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the adoption of efficient western oil and gas production and distribution methods the emissions of methane and other hydrocarbons from Russia have dropped dramatically. This timing fits the observed reduction in global methane concentrations.

George E. Smith
August 10, 2011 3:47 pm

So we can take it as gospel, that “natural gas contains NO Methane (CH4) ??
Can that be true ??

George E. Smith
August 10, 2011 3:48 pm

So we can take it as gospel, that “natural gas” contains NO Methane (CH4) ??
Can that be true ??

Latitude
August 10, 2011 3:48 pm

How do these people get these papers published….
…and how in this world did anyone get the idea that peer review is truth

View from the Solent
August 10, 2011 3:50 pm

Maryn Roy says:
August 10, 2011 at 2:46 pm
perhaps there is less farting. or fewer cows and goats to fart.
—————————————————————————-
Close, but no cigar. Farmers have been feeding garlic to their cattle http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/garlic-fed-cows-combat-global-warming-news-506900

cotwome
August 10, 2011 3:54 pm

“Research has shown that the fast-acting greenhouse gas is the second-largest contributor to climate change.”…
I imagine that the climate can ‘change’ without an increase or decrease in methane. It changes constantly! Or are they talking about ‘Global Warming’?

Maxbert
August 10, 2011 3:56 pm

“Research has shown that the fast-acting greenhouse gas is the second-largest contributor to climate change.”
Just keeping repeating that. Maybe someday it will be true.

Rational Debate
August 10, 2011 4:05 pm

Consider how CO2 increases typically lagged temp increases in the paleo records… I’d sure like to see how methane fit into those curves, if we even have some reasonable proxy to provisionally make that sort of determination. In other words, just how reasonable is the assumption that any significant methane level changes seen have anything to do with man’s input?
Seems eminently reasonable to me to assume that the atmospheric content of these sorts of trace gases have, and will continue, to vary significantly with natural shifts in temperature (especially any trace gasses with significant ties to biological systems) or other factors – perhaps even the intensity of cosmic rays, or changes in the earth’s magnetic field or any number of other factors.
The whole earth system, including solar and other extraterrestrial inputs, is so incredibly complex that I think there is no question a myriad of interactions and subsequent changes and results occur to individual components of the overall system that we’re just not yet aware of.

Julian Flood
August 10, 2011 4:09 pm

The tundra was holding a lot of methane (or precursor to methane) which was bound by acid rain. With the reduction in SO2 emissions the methane was released, then the release tapered off.
There’s a paper about it. Maybe someone with access to a proper library could try to track it down.
JF

August 10, 2011 4:16 pm

Last week Nature had paper — Montzka, S.A., E. J. Dlugokencky, and J. H. Butler (2011), Non-CO2 greenhouse gases and climate change, Nature 476: 43–50 — which noted that methane increments had increased to 6 ppb /yr (average from 2007-10). That’s a whopping 0.3% per yr. The slowdown has been a mystery for over a decade — but the science is settled.
It is also one reason why reality does not match earlier IPCC scenarios. But who needs reality, when one has (unvalidated) models.

1 2 3 5