Through the years, we keep hearing that methane, much like Trenberth’s missing heat, is going to jump out and get us.
Usually, the panic about the “methane bomb” from frozen ocean floor methane hydrates or methane from melting Arctic tundra. Now, they are taking on methane as a danger from natural gas production, and suggesting we just skip it altogether and go straight to wind and solar. Yeah right, like that will work.
Problem is, as this IPCC AR5 graph at right shows, the reality of atmosphereic methane seems to be far less than model projections. Plus, it seems to have an irrelevant contribution in the spectral scheme of all things GHG.
Control methane now, greenhouse gas expert warns
By Melissa Osgood, Cornell University
ITHACA, N.Y. – As the shale gas boom continues, the atmosphere receives more methane, adding to Earth’s greenhouse gas problem. Robert Howarth, greenhouse gas expert and ecology and environmental biology professor, fears that we may not be many years away from an environmental tipping point – and disaster.
“We have to control methane immediately, and natural gas is the largest methane pollution source in the United States,” said Howarth, who explains in an upcoming journal article that Earth may reach the point of no return if average global temperatures rise by 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius in future decades. “If we hit a climate-system tipping point because of methane, our carbon dioxide problem is immaterial. We have to get a handle on methane, or increasingly risk global catastrophe.”
Howarth’s study, “A Bridge to Nowhere: Methane Emissions and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas,” will be published May 20 in the journal Energy Science and Engineering.
Natural gas – that once seemingly promising link between the era of oil and coal to the serenity of sustainable solar, wind and water power – is a major source of atmospheric methane, due to widespread leaks as well as purposeful venting of gas. Howarth points to “radiative forcing,” a measure of trapped heat in Earth’s atmosphere from man-made greenhouse gases. The current role of methane looms large, he says, contributing over 40 percent of current radiative forcing from all greenhouse gases, based on the latest science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The role of methane as a driver of global warming is even more critical than this 40 percent value might indicate, Howarth notes. The climate system responds much more quickly to reducing methane than to carbon dioxide. If society aggressively controlled carbon dioxide emissions, but ignored methane emissions, the planet would warm to the dangerous 1.5 to 2.0 degree Celsius threshold within 15 to 35 years. By reducing methane emissions, society buys some critical decades of lower temperatures.
“Society needs to wean itself from the addiction to fossil fuels as quickly as possible,” Howarth said. “But to replace some fossil fuels – coal, oil – with another, like natural gas, will not suffice as an approach to take on global warming. Rather, we should embrace the technologies of the 21st century and convert our energy systems to ones that rely on wind, solar and water power.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Say what?
if you really want a munch scream the last time the sun was here in the galactic year there was the Permian–Triassic extinction known as the great dying with 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct. Sleep tight kiddies.
Perhaps the author should educate himself about the dwell time of atmospheric methane, it is approximately 12 years.
So living is a disaster now. It must be. Every advancement that has prolonged life has doomed life.
…the preceding public service announcement was brought to you by the joint efforts of
Solyndra and GE…….
First it was CO2, then nitrogen, now methane, we really need to get rid of that pesky atmosphere to save the earth.
oh gawd, not the dreaded “tipping point!!!” again.
That graph, that graph! The models overstate things grotesquely compared to the observations! It can’t be true. It just can’t! NOT AGAIN!!! ….. sob…..sob… … sniff
Perhaps we should check all the records from the Eemian interglacial period left by humans (sarc), to see how they handled a global temperature at least 3 C more than what we are currently experiencing. And those poor souls did not have CO2 and methane to worry about. How did those chaps survive, anyway? Once we get that mystery out of the way, perhaps we will all have a better understanding of climate and adaptability.
The eclectic professor is an expert in the two very diverse disciplines of greenhouse gase science and environmental biology. How does that work? I don’t see anywhere in his CV where he has advanced degrees in radiative physics that would lend credence to his being a “greenhouse gas expert.”
Interesting: the AR reports didn’t consider the growth in nat gas use but the methane projection is much higher than observed. Coal use leads to more methane release than actual methane use?
The sources of methane for the reports need reviewing. Corrected methane sources may correct CO2 emissions and temp projections.
State of Fear — Since the CO2 boogeyman isn’t working out so well, we need another. Methane is another GHG, so it’s an ideal candidate.
The real issue with nat gas & fracking is that it is killing the green dream of solar & wind power. Before unconventional plays got traction, nat gas prices were north of $ 10/mcf & solar & wind were starting to look a lot more cost competitive & the greens were excited by the prospect ! Now with abundant nat gas driven by fracking, nat gas is down around $ 4.50 /mcf & solar & wind are no where close to competitive & the greens are bumming out again.
So, the greens solution – attack fracking with all sorts of patently false & alarming stories. Howarth’s push on methane as a dangerous GHG is just one more attempt to kill fracking with yet another alarming approach.
Sorry, we aren’t buying it & all you are doing is further destroying any scientific credibility you & your fellow warmists might have ever had.
Yeah…. Tell me just how my car will drive with that big sail and solar panel attached to it…
THE SKY IS FALLING.. again (sigh)
That was the hidden plan all along.
• Drop coal use natural gas
• Drop natural gas use solar & wind
• Drop solar & wind use faith & hope
It always “not be many years away“, or is that months or days or even hours!?
No, society needs to deal with the “widespread leaks as well as purposeful venting of gas.”
This guy is a nutjob. What makes him think that Europe and the USA are going to turn away from natural gas because he warns of impending catastrophe. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
To back up my last paragraph countries have already stated pilot schemes to get at the methane hydrates in the oceans. Japan come immediately to mind. Does that sound like us moving more into methane or less?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27021610
M Seward says:
I know, right? Golly. It sure looks familiar. I just know I’ve seen projections and observations just like that somewhere before…
There’s no systemic problems with IPCC projections though. We evaluated that by expert opinion and we’re at least 97% confident that any similarity between graphs there is strictly coincidental.
We don’t need no stupid fracking….just capture the cow farts.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/13/scientists-develop-backpacks-to-turn-cow-farts-into-green-energy/
Seriously, the largest sources of methane from human activities include rice paddy agriculture (good luck changing that!), methane flux from water retained by hydroelectric dams, open landfills and several others. Enteric fermentation is up on the list and contributes more than natural gas production according to the USEPA:
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/methane-leakage-from-cows-higher-than-from-natural-gas-development
Let’s just kill & eat the cows. Problem over.
Well the author cites a previous thread on this; but he clearly did not read that (entire) thread.
It has been pointed out MANY TIMES in regard to both CO2 and CH4 also O3, that while these absorption BANDS may overlap, the INDIVIDUAL SHARP LINES that comprise these bands, AND THEIR ABSORPTION, do NOT overlap.
So the match between water LINES, and CO2 or CH4 lines, is NOT what the author thinks, so his argument doesn’t hold water, and it is time skeptics understand this, because it makes us all look silly.
Now there is a silver lining to this conundrum, as well. Just as these narrow spectral lines do not (generally) overlap those of another species, nor do they OVERLAP EACH OTHER !!
So what looks like a wide brick wall, is actually a picket fence, and a great deal of OTHER LWIR wavelengths in those bands, just go whizzing right on through, GHG or no.
If YOU PEOPLE do not read ALL of the posts in a thread, you may go away, with a half baked notion of what is actually going on.
GHG atmospheric warming and atmospheric cooling delay, are physically real processes; that virtually nobody disputes. Those are NOT planks worth dying for.
What ELSE gose on to counter those effects, is what is poorly understood at least in the Ckicken Little Encampment.
So READ that earlier thread in its entirety, and stop with this silliness. I’m sure Phil must take heart medication, every time he reads these un-informed posts.
I’m more afraid of Godzilla than I am of GHGs, particularly the benign CO2. But they DO have an effect.
So does flushing your toilet twice, instead of once, have an effect on next week’s Surfing contest in Hawaii; but it won’t be cancelled as a result of your wastefulness.
g
Since this isn’t my area of expertise, I wonder if anyone has done the calculations. How much would we reduce production of excess methane if we outlawed eating beans?
The author’s closing line is a hoot:
” Rather, we should embrace the technologies of the 21st century and convert our energy systems to ones that rely on wind, solar and water power.”
Back when we were trying to permit hydro (water) power plants, they killed that one too. Said it was too tough on the fish, the birds, the trees, the flees and probably the Japanese. I was forced during the 1990’s to abandon some 15 small hydro projects in various stages of the permitting process at a loss of $ millions.
“You can’t be serious!”
John McEnroe
Really… We are seriously discussing something said by a staff member of the Cornell University Media Relations Office?
Melissa Osgood, media relations specialist
Melissa Osgood is the media relations specialist focusing on agriculture, food, nutrition, health, medical technology; and energy, climate and sustainability. She also coordinates media outreach and events in Boston featuring Cornell faculty experts. Previously, she worked in communications for the American Dairy Association and Dairy Council as well as a private high school in Buffalo, N.Y. She interned for several television and radio stations and holds a bachelor’s degree in communications from Hiram College.
http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013/07/22/park-foundations-funds-continue-flow-to-fracking-critics/
That’s the funding source. A mouthpiece for the trillion dollar wind and solar industry.
“Robert Howarth, greenhouse gas expert” — ROFLMAO! I wonder when he became an expert in green house gases, was it during his B.A. at Amhert, during his non existent masters program, or during his attainment of a doctor of philosophy at MIT?
I can only assume Prof. Howarth is referring to “the technologies of the 21st century” B.C.