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.
If the oceans are the CO2 sink of the world, then what happens to all the CO2 that collects in the ocean depths?
O’s Peace Dividend (formerly Goreacle Report).
…-
“Manitoba snowfall amount rare for October
Winnipeg had a lot of snow dumped on it Friday.
Rob Paola, a meteorologist with Environment Canada, said 10 centimetres of snow fell across the city Friday, with most coming between 6 p.m. and midnight.
He said southern Manitoba doesn’t often see such large amounts of snow this early in October.
“It is unusual. It has happened though, on a couple of occasions,” Paola said yesterday. “But it’s unusual to see this much snow this early.”
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/10/11/11371826-sun.html
…-
“Wind turbine in Sheffield broken by wind for second time
Blade on a wind turbine in Sheffield has broken in strong winds for the second time in 15 months.
Manufacturers of the 190ft high turbine, one of three owned by Sheffield University, are now investigating the damage at the site close to the city’s Parkway link road to the M1.
A blade on the same turbine was broken 15 months ago and residents who live close to the site at Catcliffe, near Rotherham, have expressed fears that they could pose a danger to local people.
Martin Oldfield said : “I’m worried about them from a safety point of view as they are quite close to the road and a supermarket where a lot of people go.
“There are workmen up there now starting work on repairing it but now that it’s happened a second time clearly there is a serious issue.
“There was one bright side – as soon as the blade snapped off the TV signal instantly improved and I could see all my programmes properly again.””
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2359863/posts
I think a lot of the early snowfalls in the US are an effect of the remnants of Super Typhoon Melor. The main event is supposed to hit early in the week, peaking tues/weds. This system may be part of the reason why Alaska has been warm while California is below par. The UK is warm at the moment.
On Anthony’s Blog bring what you got, make it lucid and make your case, not politics, as a chap said there are a lot of abcs behind names, no one gets kicked for being a warmer, they get kicked for being political or being dumb, or lying.
Me I used to be a banker, I had a lot of deals cross my desk, but they had to make the case on money. AGW is not cutting it. My ABC is B.App Sci math. Not business.
There is no business case that I can see and I trained under auditors in Business finance, Commerce as they say.
Addendum,
I asked dumb questions, I got answers polite answers.
maz2 (05:05:59) :
I was born in Catcliffe village.
Some time back they expanded the village down the hill & onto the flood plain to the East.
Two, perhaps three years back, the flood plain did what flood plains do, (flooded), & with it lots of homes.
Strangely, it wasn’t the fact they had built on the flood plain that was blamed.
DaveE.
Don S. (20:04:12) :
Well said!
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
The upper range of the predictions is from continuing the 1985-1992 growth path.
The lower range continues the 1992-2000 growth level.
“When objects approach the speed of light they crush themselves to death. Can I say this without sounding stupid?”
Nope, that’s sounds stupid also. Sounds like you picked up your physics by reading a couple of popular articles on the subject. Speeds are relative, not absolute. Thus in relationship to some other objects in the galaxy you are moving pretty darn fast right now. Are you feeling crushed?
Even acceleration doesn’t crush you as you “approach” the speed of light, because it depends on the type of acceleration you are experiencing. Is it due to being in a gravitational field or is it due to being pushed on. Acceleration due to gravity in free fall doesn’t crush. Even in the case of being pushed on it is relative to the push not the speed. One could “approach the speed of light” with very low acceleration if one kept it up for long enough.
Furthermore, high acceleration due to gravity is most likely to happen near a black hole. In that case you tend to be stretched out (not crushed) due to changes in the strength of the gravitational field. Gravity near your toes being more if near the black hole than near your scalp. Thus your toes are under a higher acceleration than you scalp and they get separated shortly thereafter.
Yaakoba is either a ten year old, a troll pretending to be of the “enemy” camp, a nut, or someone very ignorant of science. Best to ignore him. In fact maybe you are one of those also.
Back2bat,
“But in any case, behold the products of the government school system. Liberty anyone?”
Are you saying that just because we eliminate public education everyone is going to pursue college level physics competence? I doubt it. In fact, people will pursue what they feel is most appropriate. It’s likely many will not bother to learn physics at all. Is that a good or a bad thing? I don’t know. Does Enya need to learn physics to be a productive member of society?
Although I think fears of massive amounts of methane bubbling up is a little overblown, I don’t think a leveling off of methane levels at this point disproves such fears. The temperatures have been pretty flat so it’s kinda expected. Had temperatures risen and methane leveled off, now that would have shot a big hole in any concerns about methane.
The latest numbers on Methane from Barrow Alaska (which has the highest numbers of the measurement stations and the most seasonal variation) up to a few days ago,
… shows that Methane might be stabilizing again. The smoothed trendline has turned down at least.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/graph/xxx/xxx_single_ts_custom_4ad1ea48d6b24112187194.png
Mauna Loa’s measurements (which are about 80 ppb lower than Barrow and seems to lag the high latitude numbers like from Barrow) look like the recent growth might be slowing as well.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/graph/xxx/xxx_single_ts_custom_4ad1ebb956ab9302060963.png
The South Pole (which is about 150 ppb lower than Barrow), well it is hard to tell what is happening.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/graph/xxx/xxx_single_ts_custom_4ad1eccf7076b594314622.png
What I want to see are the ph levels at the lakes and rivers before and after the acid rain mitigation.
Did that great big government imposition on the private sector have any positive benefit?
Was the demonization of coal power warranted in even the slightest bit?
Go Rockies!
World Series played with snowmen in the bullpen – think about it.
“One of those unintended consequences. Funny how things work isn’t it?”
No, it isn’t. Especially when anybody could see it coming.
Maybe with sufficient funding a couple of those scientists will figure out how to rub two sticks together and ignite some of that methane. At this hour it is 14F in Cut Bank, MT with a forecast low of -1F tonight…and it’s only October 11th.
There may be some confusion spread here regarding the effects of methane compared to CO2. ALL gases absorb in certain ranges of the spectrum. When there is very little of the gas, as in the case of methane, absorption is rougly linear. As the amount of gas increases, and reaches the concentration of CO2, absorption is rougly proportional to the square root of ln N, and the broadening of the wings is roughly proportional to the square root of N, where N is the ratio of the increase of the gas. Methane is not INHERENTLY a more powerful greenhouse gas that H20 or CO2. It has a greater effect because there is so little of it. See
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectures/curve/curve.html+
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voigt_profile
dscott (04:50:19) :
If the oceans are the CO2 sink of the world, then what happens to all the CO2 that collects in the ocean depths?
___________________________
It precipitates out as limestone.
Couple of random comments….
I have found that generally, questions asked and comments made politely and somehow connected to the thread are either ignored, or are treated with respect and addressed. It doesn’t seem to me to matter whether the question or comment is “silly” or is deeply erudite and informed. Hostility is met with hostility, or evaporates.
On the quality of education remarks–the chemistry and physics being discussed nearby is stuff I learned in high school (if not from my own readings or conversations with my parents (neither of whom were formally trained beyond “business school” or junior college. It does appear to me that education is deteriorating rapidly.
I know what the chemical represention is (have since I was small). The question I posed was intended to point out that artifically altering (or trying to) the chemical makeup of the atmosphere to combat a poorly understood effect has, if “successful” a high probability (which I don’t know how to quantify) of having “unintended consequences”.
And lastly–is the Mt. Pinatubo – snow-in-my-backyard-in-early-Autumn thing another way of saying “sh*it happens”, natural events occur, we reallyn are not so significant in the Grand Scheme Of Things?
Somebody said, a few days ago, a memorable phrase:
Greenhouse gases are gases in a greenhouse
We should focus more in time than in temperature itself. It is quite different a minimum temperature of say -10°C at 6 am. than the same temperature along all 24 hours. It is quite different a three months summertime with a maximum temperature of 30°C than one month “summertime”.
Here is where the global warmers sophysm rests upon. They show us averages, temperature anomalies,etc., etc. which in reality mean nothing.
The same with mountain glaciers disappearing due to warming climate. Really they are made of frozen water and evaporation is needed as a precondition of any glacier growth.
Also the same with methane: Just look at saturn moons. If methane would increase there won´t be any temperature increase but the contrary.
Etc.,etc.
DaveE (06:22:31) :
maz2 (05:05:59) :
I lived and worked on the Southern Oregon coast-Port Orford, and Coos Bay.I had a place near the Ocean,I will put up with wind,snow and the occasional
Mountain Lion,in NE Oregon but I will never live near,as in 1/4 mi from the Ocean,
again.That said,I am amazed at the stupidity of developers.I am a Realtor,but I have
some sense as to where to build.When I lived in Port Orford, the local city council that
was hijacked by Greens,had this brilliant idea,”lets build the bestest,most good for
the environment sewage treatment plant _Ever_!”So, they dug into the sand berm
separating the Ocean from the local lagoon,Garrison lake.When the Big Nino of ’98
hit the berm wasn’t there.It was a mere sand spit.See, the berm was dug into
to place a giant septic tank.Then the North Pacific had his way with the tank,and the lake, and the homes that were built near the lake-including ones that were curiously
built on the berm now nearly removed,and breakers in the lake.My old home was
about 75 feet above lake and now Ocean,but I didn’t appreciate the waves working the sand hill that my home was built on.One big problem was the lake now is flooding everything.This was due to the outlet being plugged by the sand that was displaced for the now sea-going sewage ‘holding’ tank.So the city engineer, and a
local contractor quietly dug put the outlet-at great risk to themselves.Opened the
lake.This upset the city manager-who promptly called the State,turning the Engineer
in.Which got the city in trouble not the engineer.So, the problem resolved itself,
after the fines and the loss of oh, 3 miliion tax dollars,the Ocean calmed Nino went
back to his watery lair,and the Greenies were booted out. The Tank made a nice artificial reef, probably off the coast of Japan,as that was the general direction of travel. I moved from there to Coos Bay and then to Eastern Oregon.Never will I live
there again.Oh the City Council passes a resolution blaming the loss of the
tank the lake problems and the fact that there were some homes lost,on:
Global Warming.Not stupidity,not the realization that the old driftwood buried in the sand meant that at one time the _Ocean had been there!!!_ but it was the fault of
me driving my Ford Explorer,problem solved…
Oh for the folks in England the climate of the Southern Oregon coast is very like Cornwall-except the ocean is a lot colder…
*********************
Nick Stokes (17:06:48) :
Andrew (15:26:09) has a good point about reduced natural gas losses. This 2006 Nature letter notes the same slower rise in methane, and quantifies the causes. They say it is mainly due to anthropogenic factors, with wetlands emission adding to the ups and downs.
*********************
Well, OF COURSE, it is due to anthropogenic factors! What else could it be??
I wonder if control of methane is what John Kerry meant by “Any exploration must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and protect therights and interests of our coastal states.” in his op-ed piece in the NYT?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?_r=1&ref=opinion?hp
Larry Sheldon
Yes Sh*t happens and we are less than insignificant in the whole scheme of things. There are lots of people (Al Gore, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Mann et al ) whose egos won’t let them admit that the sum of all their knowledge doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
dscott:
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)
The actual reaction is one of carbon reacting with oxygen at high temperature to render methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor. It is a means of making fuel for gas turbines from a carbon source such as oil shale or coal or even municipal waste.
I have always thought that the source of the carbon dioxide in the CO2 clathrates was carbonic acid, i.e. carbon dioxide dissolved in water. Maybe someone can say otherwise.
The source of methane in the methane clathrates is not known to me, but methane leaking from natural gas deposits on the continental shelf is the most reasonable possibility.
As far as bacteria making use of CO2 goes methane has a heat of formation of -17.89 kcal/mole while carbon dioxide is -94.06 and water is -57.98. One does not make energy available going from CO2 plus water to CH4 plus oxygen.
What amount or percent of the total methane comes from garbage dumps? In SF we are told to sort our garbage to protect the environment. How much more methane is produced in garbage dumps compared to methane produced my composting?