Many people have pointed me to this story, I wanted to read about it a bit before posting it. Almost two years ago, when this blog was in its very first month, I posted this story on the puzzling leveling off of global methane concentrations. FYI Methane has a “global warming potential” (GWP) 23-25 times that of CO2.
CDIAC has an interesting set of graphs on methane, the first of which shows that indeed global concentrations of CH4 through 2004 have leveled off:
This one on latitude -vs- concentration would surely seem to point to anthropogenic sources of CH4:
So here is yet another addition to the puzzle, which seems to point in the opposite direction:
MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data
From: TG Daily By Rick C. Hodgin
Boston (MA) – Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature – and not the direct result of man’s contributions.
Methane – powerful greenhouse gas
The two lead authors of a paper published in this week’s Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere.
Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun’s light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth’s atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.
More study
Prinn has said, “The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks. The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus [an increase] in the rate of removal. Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each [is responsible for the overall increase].”
The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over. While the collected data from that time period reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, observing atmospheric trends now is like observing the healthy horse running through the paddock a year after it overcame some mystery illness. Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? Looking back over 2007 data as it was captured may prove as ineffective if the data does not support the high resolution details such a study requires.
One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it’s too early to know for sure if man’s impact is affecting things at the political cry of “alarming rates.” We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times – one that’s been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occuring for hundreds of thousands of years.
Project funding
Rigby and Prinn carried out this study with help from researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Methane gas measurements came from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE), which is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I love it when a plan comes together:)
The methane broken down by OH in the presence of sunlight is converted to CO2.
The worm has turned: now engineers doing science profess to be “baffled” by the idiocy that is AGW. Like Rattus rattus leaving the holed bilge.
Anyone watching for icebergs?
Anthony, how DOES one contact you to point you to stories? No e-mail or contact form?
I thought this might amuse you:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=209153
Aloha from Maui,
– Erik
REPLY: Comments are best, I already get dozens of emails a day, and I can’t even answer all of those. So no email link will be forthcoming. – Anthony
Wow, things happen and the researchers/scientists don’t know why. Hasn’t it always been thus?
How do you square this with ‘consensus’ and the ‘science is settled’?
CO2 continues to rise. Now methane is on the rise again.
Yet, temps are going DOWN.
Wrong tipping point!!
“The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model… ”
Here we go again… the results from such models will be taken a better than the real life data.
It would be interesting if this could be correlated to the increase in vegetation seen around the world for the past 10 years.
Could someone point me to the studies that examine climate change ex-anthropogenics? It seems to me that it would be a well funded exercise either way.
Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, a conversation:
No, Matthew, you can’t write that. Think of the consequences.
Ron, I must write what I see, I cannot say the sky is green, when it is indeterminate.
But, Mat, we will lose our good standing amongst the IPCC. I agree with you, but can’t you show a little political acumen and hedge with some phrase like: “More study is urgent to prevent the on-coming cataclism”. We do “study”; you know that, Mat, of course?
OK Ron, I will agree. More study is necessary; and it is so urgent that we must receive vast funds so I can put my kids through school.
With no disrespect of Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, who I have never met or come across before. The target was rich.
kuhnkat , clever name, almost like Schroedingerskhat.
Not sure that I am that baffled by either of those graphs Anthony; let’s just say, my mind is creative enough to offer a thesis (yet to be tested).
It is argued that for some decades prior to maybe 1995, the planet has experienced a period of warming that has been noticed locally in one fashion; that namely the arctic permafrost regions have been melting. Nothern forests growing in permafrozen ground suddnely found themselves awash, and trees blowing over in water ponds, and also more northern Tundra territory started growing some really substantial plants that soak up quite a bit of CO2.
But those permafrost regions, are largely peat bogs in the making, frozen in time by earlier cool periods, and once warmed to melting, the bacteriald ecay of the peat materials took off again becoming a principal source of methane GHG.
But then comes the 1995-8 time frame when seemingly the warming cycle decided to end, and recooling began; to where now it seems rather obvious.
So I opine, that somewhere since that 1995 warming doldrums period, the permafrost regiosn have started to shut down again, and return to a frozen in time decay work in progrss to be resumed later.
That the flattening dates from the 2004 time frame is not inconsistent with the last ten years of GISStemp and lookalikes, and a refreezing permafros thesis.
Well it’s just a thought. And once again we see that it is the models that are in disagreement with the measured data, and not verse vicea.
George
The methane concentration is roughly 2 ppm(volume) which should mean 1ppm(mass), if I am not wrong so late. This should correspond to 5*10**12 kg or 5 billion (US) tons in the atmosphere.
‘Several million tons of new methane’ (as quoted from above) means adding 1 ppb (pars per billion (US)) to the 1000 ppb present.
The world production of natural gas, also known as methane, is of order 1 billion tons (US). A mere 1% loss during transportation (pipelines or liqiud methane tankers) would result in blowing 10 million ton of methane into the atmosphere per year.
A cow is producing of order 50 kg of methane per year.
Australia, Argentina and especially nowadays Brasil are producing a lot of beef. Remember, there are nowadays of order 1 billion more beefeaters in the world.
So, you actually wonder why there is so little increase in the methane content, in view of the ‘fact’ that also the thawing permafrost areas throw out ever more methane.
Could this have something to do with melting permafrost or collapsing clathrates I read about a while ago?
Methane reflects the sun’s light back to the earth? Then it should also reflect incoming light back into space. Unless we have a one-way mirror. Now that would be worthy of several Nobel prizes.
Fascinating concept, a gas that reflects light. Must be that new silver plated methane. Absorb, yes. Reflect? Hmmm.
So umm, uhhh, errr, ahhh does this mean the theory must be wrong? Why is this news to anyone that science is not exact, is iterative, nor does it fit theory that some scientists want it to. Is that why it’s called science.
Nothing seems to be working out for the climate theoreticians and modelers. Looks like we have little understanding of what is really going on, which is one theory I can believe. Maybe we should concentrate on the sun’s output and it’s interaction with cosmic rays, and other forces of the universe.
Pay more in taxes so government can pretend to control the weather — Couldn’t you see through this from the get go.
The story looks awfully light on detail. A couple of MIT scientists noted that methane suddenly increased and out of that, the article’s author attacks the strawman that humans are the only emitters of greenhouse gases? We are? Since when? We’re one of the biggest sources, but we’re hardly the only one. Claiming that the theories behind global warming say what they don’t say and refuting them by mentioning a few trivia facts about methane in the atmosphere is disingenuous at best.
As for the dropping temperatures to which one of the comments refers, how come one researcher playing around with a bunch of models eliminated the one degree of warming but thousands of climatologists have not? Has the entire scientific community has become deluded, doesn’t have the right qualifications or is organizing a conspiracy of some sort? Like a wise man said “when it’s you against the world, bet on the world.”
I’ve read several summaries of this work, but they all seem to be based on the same press release. Some of the stories say the methane levels have “shot up”.
Does anyone know how much “shot up” refers to in terms of ppm?
Hi gfish,
Could you please back up the “We’re one of the biggest sources, but we’re hardly the only one” with a breakdown of the actual numbers for CO2 emissions.
Say over a year (any recent year), use Gigatonnes…
I would like to know what percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human sources – could you please help me out.
Thanks
gfish, another wise man said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. ” 🙂
Well just a stab in the dark here, but a lot of methane is burned off naturally by lightning is it not ? Then converted to ozone.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40101
gfish,
I checked out your website. Keep plugging along man. This is America the land of opportunity. Someday I bet you’ll post something that gets more than one comment.
Don’t ever quit,
Mike Bryant
The more we think we know the less we understand.
The trend in Methane concentrations does not correlate to any known natural phenomenon.
But it does correlate to the market value of Natural Gas (which is roughly 98% Methane) and the oil and gas industry’s awareness of the problems of and engineering capability in plugging leaks of Natural Gas.
The oil and gas industry used to just release Natural Gas (Methane that is) to the atmosphere. The industry used to just burn off Natural Gas on-site in big stacks, most often very incompletely. The oil and gas industry was not really concerned about plugging leaks in the infrastructure since Natural gas was so cheap and so plentiful.
Now that it has a geniune market value, now that energy can be derived on-site to power lots of other processes, now that leaks in consumer-delivery infrastructure is completly verbotten, there is almost NO direct release of Methane into the atmosphere by the oil and gas industry.
That explains the logarithmic chart of Methane concentrations better than anything else.
What explains the 2007 ten parts per billion increase is that oil prices increased so rapidly that oil production was rushed into service and a few more leaks of Methane occured as a result.
Why it happened all over the world simultaneously is a little harder to explain but oil and gas production does happen all over the world and is not concentrated in Russia or the Middle East only of course. There is less in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere but at over $100 per barrel price for oil, lots of rapidly increasing oil production resulted in more Methane releases than normal.
No climate change variables need to be invoked to explain this.
The more we think we know the less we understand…..
Now that is a excellent quote!
Graeme,
Ask and ye shall receive. About 26 Gt is nothing sneeze at. Volcanoes produce less than that. How much we actually produce varies by greenhouse gas.
Mike,
I appreciate the putdown based on a few of my posts. Very classy thing to get into personal insults in the middle of a scientific discussion. Way to class it up sir.
To Retired Engineer:
I suspect you’ll find that incident light from space/sun is shifted in wavelength when it is re-radiated back to the sky. To infrared and these green house gasses will absorb the ir radiation but allow the visible incoming radiation to pass.
As for the methane, maybe something is changing the OH radical concentration. Reducing it and that would give methane a longer residence time and effectively increase the concentration of methane. Maybe the OH concentration is influence by solar activity?