That worrisome "Methane Beast" apparently is still not awake.

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

The Ups and Downs of Methane

Reposted from World Climate Report

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
161 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SteveSadlov
October 12, 2009 1:22 pm

I have yet to see any convincing evidence that much purported “permafrost melting” is actually happening, en masse, across broad swaths. All I’ve seen is anecdotal, typically, photographic “evidence” consisting of point observations at road cuts, mines, home sites, and other diggings.

TIM CLARK
October 12, 2009 1:56 pm

Pamela Gray (17:58:09) :
Keeping our garbage piles manageable (cuts down on methane) is a worthwhile endeavor. I see nothing wrong with turning it into profits. In fact, I would say that making money out of garbage is the ultimate capitalistic endeavor.

Pamela, you have aptly described computer generated AGW research.

George E. Smith
October 12, 2009 2:43 pm

So Ikeep reading this claim that Methane is 25 times more potent as a GHG than CO2. Would somebody please explain that.
Does that mean that the long wave IR capture crossection of a CH4 molecule is 25 times the area of that for a CO2 molecule; or does that mean that CH4 captures a 25 times wider spectrum of LWIR than CO2 (13.5-16.5 microns roughly); or does that mean that CH4 operates at a LWIR spectral location where the earth’s emittance is 25 times higher;(where the heck could that be) or is it some combination of those.
The CH4 IR absorptions spectrum I have is mighty puny.
We are constantly told that the CO2 absorption band is almost “saturated” at today’s CO2 levels, and that only increases with the Log of the CO2 abundance.
I thought that CH4 in the atmosphere decays to something else in the presence of sunlight.
“25 times more potent” sounds like a description of a poison potion; not a scientific measure of energy absorption.
Where’s the data?
George

Michael J. Dunn
October 12, 2009 2:43 pm

coaldust (07:16:55) :
“How about CH4 + 2O3 -> CO2 + 2H2O +O2?”
This would be equivalent to CH4 + 3O2, which already happens. It takes extra energy to make ozone, which mostly happens in the higher regions of the atmosphere, thanks to ultraviolet light.

Gary Hladik
October 12, 2009 6:34 pm

Roger Sowell (14:09:01) : “Gotta watch those pesky decimal places…they make a difference from time to time…”
Tell that to the IPCC! 🙂
TIM CLARK (13:56:28), that was a good one!

E.M.Smith
Editor
October 13, 2009 2:20 pm

Gee, 1998 had high methane, 2005 had low.
And,1998 was a hot year, and 2005 was colder.
It’s almost like the swamps and marshes make more swamp gas when it’s hotter…
Oh, wait, they do.
For this we need public funded PhDs, published papers, and computer toys?
All we have here is the typical relatively stable natural level with relatively minor variations back and forth from natural process. Bounded in place by some as yet unidentified natural NEGATIVE feedback process.
Trees do not grow to infinity.
Frogs to not expand their population to cover the globe.
Cow Pies to not pile up endlessly to the heavens above.
Phosphorus and Nitrogen are endlessly recycled.
Even the crustal plates are both created and destroyed.
And guess what,
CO2 and even methane to not build up to infinity nor do they enter positive feedback loops to damnation. They hit natural negative feedback processes and wobble back and forth inside modestly stable zones driven by simple natural processes.
When it is hot, fermentation makes a bit more, that then reacts faster with ozone, oxygen, and other oxidizers; and dissolves to faster in rainwater; and is eaten faster by various bacteria and thus drops again.
There was a time that scientists admired the durability and stability of nature, before they started to believe their own stories designed to scare the children…
Is there any way to get some adult supervision in the “science” departments of today? (There was a time I admired folks with Nobel Prizes and who called themselves scientists. Now, not so much…)

E.M.Smith
Editor
October 13, 2009 2:29 pm

dscott (14:39:40) : 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.
Aerobic fermentation gives CO2. Anaerobic fermentation gives methane.
Look up “gobar gas” and google “anaerobic methane fermenter” then stand back.
So literally “crap” washes out to sea, gets buried on the ocean floor, and does an anaerobic fermentation to methane. At a cold enough temperature and high enough pressure, this combines with water in the muck and makes the clathrate. Pretty simple, really.

E.M.Smith
Editor
October 13, 2009 2:40 pm

Larry Sheldon (17:35:38) : I keep asking this off-topic question, but nobody will even yell at me for, being Off Topic
What is the connection between the sulfates-that-are-good-for-the-AGW-problem, and the SO4 that made the acid rain that was killing the trees and all?

They are the same stuff. Greens like to pretend that if people make the sulphates it is evil and if volcanoes make it it is good; but that is a political evaluation not a technical one.
One of my favorite ways to “fix AGW” (if it were real) that I like to toss at AGW advocates is the “Sulphate Stratospheric Seeding Airplanes” at negative cost.
Yes, negative cost.
The present global fleet of aircraft have multiple fuel tanks and there is a preferred order to use them. One for takeoff, different ones for high altitude cruising (where it is easier to “trim” the aircraft for weight and balance changes as fuel is burned).
So all we need to do is put high sulphur fuel into the “cruise” tanks of the world aviation fleet and we’re done. Oh, and the cost is negative because all we need to do is STOP taking the sulphur out at the refineries in the first place, and that saves money.
We would continue to use low sulphur fuel for takeoff and landing. That way the “evil” sulphates are kept out of smog and the “good” sulphates are put in the stratosphere to “solve global warming”.
So far all it gets me is dirty looks, but I like that 😉

H.R.
October 13, 2009 5:37 pm

Leland? Leland?
I guess I’ll go back to waiting for Godot.

October 13, 2009 6:14 pm

Leland got eaten by the methane monster.
RIP Leland.

Larry Sheldon
October 13, 2009 6:23 pm

Maybe Leland is like me–has a great deal of difficulty dealing with on-topic discussions.
Who is Leland Palmer, anyway?

1 5 6 7