An idea I can get behind – regulate [as in capture waste gas and recycle] methane first

UPDATE: Some readers took exception to my title, and I can see why now. I regret my choice of wording for the title. “Regulate its escape into the atmosphere” is where I was going. “Regulate” from my perspective in engineering things and making things work is different than what others might think. I wasn’t implying legislation. Recycling and recovery systems is what was in my mind.  Gas regulator valves and all that. This passage from the story below was my focus: “Since we already know how to capture methane from animals, landfills, and sewage treatment plants at fairly low cost, targeting methane makes sense,”.

I’ve amended the title [in brackets] -Anthony

According to the 2007 IPCC AR4 Methane has a “global warming potential” of 25 times that of CO2 over 100 years. Here’s a CH4 budget pie chart. Note that there are several sources where we can manage methane without affecting energy creation. Starting on Methane, rather than CO2, is an idea that I could get behind because it can be recycled and used for many things.

http://oceanlink.island.net/ONews/ONews7/images/methane%20sources%20-%20EPA.gif

A new paper from Drew Shindell from NASA JPL prompted Roger Pielke Jr. to write:

For years my father has been arguing that:

. . . attempts to “control” the climate system, and to prevent a “dangerous intervention” into the climate system by humans that focuses just on CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases will necessarily be significantly incomplete, unless all of the other first order climate forcings are considered.

His views are now being robustly vindicated as a quiet revolution is occurring in climate science. Here is how PhysOrg reports on a study out today in Science by NASA’s Drew Shindell and others:

According to Shindell, the new findings underscore the importance of devising multi-pronged strategies to address climate change rather than focusing exclusively on carbon dioxide. “Our calculations suggest that all the non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases together have a net impact that rivals the warming caused by carbon dioxide.”

In particular, the study reinforces the idea that proposals to reduce methane may be an easier place for policy makers to start climate change agreements. “Since we already know how to capture methane from animals, landfills, and sewage treatment plants at fairly low cost, targeting methane makes sense,” said Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for the Climate Institute in Washington, D.C.

This research also provides regulators insight into how certain pollution mitigation strategies might simultaneously affect climate and air quality. Reductions of carbon monoxide, for example, would have positive effects for both climate and the public’s health, while reducing nitrogen oxide could have a positive impact on health but a negative impact on the climate.

“The bottom line is that the chemistry of the atmosphere can get hideously complicated,” said Schmidt. “Sorting out what affects climate and what affects air quality isn’t simple, but we’re making progress.”

Of note, Shindell et al. cautiously suggest that the entire framework of international climate policy may be based on an overly-simplistic view of the human effect on climate, by focusing on carbon dioxide equivalencies in radiative forcing (i.e.,g “global warming potential” or GWP), from their Science paper out today (emphasis added):

There are many limitations to the GWP concept (25). It includes only physical properties, and its definition is equivalent to an unrealistic economic scenario of no discounting through the selected time horizon followed by discounting to zero value thereafter. The 100-year time horizon conventionally chosen strongly reduces the influence of species that are short-lived relative to CO2. Additionally, GWPs assume that integrated global mean RF is a useful indicator of climate change. Although this is generally reasonable at the global scale, GWP does not take into account the rate of change, and it neglects that the surface temperature response to regionally distributed forcings depends on the location of the RF (26) and that precipitation and circulation responses may be even more sensitive to RF location (27). Along with their dependence on emission timing and location, this makes GWPs particularly ill-suited to very short-lived species such as NOx, SO2, or ammonia, although they are more reasonable for longer-lived CO. Inclusion of short-lived species in agreements alongside long-lived greenhouse gases is thus problematic (28, 29).

Read his complete commentary here

Here’s the press release from NASA/JPL with comments from Drew Shindel also.

Methane_surface_global

Surface Methane - Credit NASA Goddard

This map shows the distribution of methane at the surface. New research shows that methane has an elevated warming effect due to its interactions with other substances in the atmosphere.  For decades, climate scientists have worked to identify and measure key substances — notably greenhouse gases and aerosol particles — that affect Earth’s climate. And they’ve been aided by ever more sophisticated computer models that make estimating the relative impact of each type of pollutant more reliable.

Yet the complexity of nature — and the models used to quantify it — continues to serve up surprises. The most recent? Certain gases that cause warming are so closely linked with the production of aerosols that the emissions of one type of pollutant can indirectly affect the quantity of the other. And for two key gases that cause warming, these so-called “gas-aerosol interactions” can amplify their impact.

“We’ve known for years that methane and carbon monoxide have a warming effect,” said Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York and lead author of a study published this week in Science. “But our new findings suggest these gases have a significantly more powerful warming impact than previously thought.”

Mixing a Chemical Soup

When vehicles, factories, landfills, and livestock emit methane and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere, they are doing more than just increasing their atmospheric concentrations. The release of these gases also have indirect effects on a variety of other atmospheric constituents, including reducing the production of particles called aerosols that can influence both the climate and the air quality. These two gases, as well as others, are part of a complicated cascade of chemical reactions that features competition with aerosols for highly reactive molecules that cleanse the air of pollutants.

chart showing gas-aerosol interactions for methane and carbon monoxide

“Emissions-based” estimates highlight the indirect effects that emissions of certain gases can have on the climate via aerosols, methane, ozone, and other substances in the atmosphere. Credit: NASA/GISS › Larger image

Aerosols can have either a warming or cooling effect, depending on their composition, but the two aerosol types that Shindell modeled — sulfates and nitrates — scatter incoming light and affect clouds in ways that cool Earth. They are also related to the formation of acid rain and can cause respiratory distress and other health problems for those who breathe them.

Human activity is a major source of sulfate aerosols, but smokestacks don’t emit sulfate particles directly. Rather, coal power production and other industrial processes release sulfur dioxide — the same gas that billows from volcanoes — that later reacts with atmospheric molecules called hydroxyl radicals to produce sulfates as a byproduct. Hydroxyl is so reactive scientists consider it an atmospheric “detergent” or “scrubber” because it cleanses the atmosphere of many types of pollution.

In the chemical soup of the lower atmosphere, however, sulfur dioxide isn’t the only substance interacting with hydroxyl. Similar reactions influence the creation of nitrate aerosols. And hydroxyls drive long chains of reactions involving other common gases, including ozone.

Methane and carbon monoxide use up hydroxyl that would otherwise produce sulfate, thereby reducing the concentration of sulfate aerosols. It’s a seemingly minor change, but it makes a difference to the climate. “More methane means less hydroxyl, less sulfate, and more warming,” Shindell explained.

graphic showing methane's interaction with hydroxyl Many atmospheric pollutants compete for access to hydroxyl radicals (OH), highly reactive molecules that “scrub” the atmosphere of pollutants. This diagram illustrates hydroxyl converting methane (CH4) into carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into sulfate aerosols. Credit: NASA/GISS › Larger image

His team’s modeling experiment, one of the first to rigorously quantify the impact of gas-aerosol interactions on both climate and air quality, showed that increases in global methane emissions have caused a 26 percent decrease in hydroxyl and an 11 percent decrease in the number concentration of sulfate particles. Reducing sulfate unmasks methane’s warming by 20 to 40 percent over current estimates, but also helps reduce negative health effects from sulfate aerosols.

In comparison, the model calculated that global carbon monoxide emissions have caused a 13 percent reduction in hydroxyl and 9 percent reduction in sulfate aerosols.

Nitrogen oxides — pollutants produced largely by power plants, trucks, and cars — led to overall cooling when their effects on aerosol particles are included, said Nadine Unger, another coauthor on the paper and a climate scientist at GISS. That’s noteworthy because nitrogen oxides have primarily been associated with ozone formation and warming in the past.

A New Approach

To determine the climate impact of particular greenhouse gases, scientists have traditionally relied on surface stations and satellites to measure the concentration of each gas in the air. Then, they have extrapolated such measurements to arrive at a global estimate.

The drawback to that “abundance-based approach,” explained Gavin Schmidt, another GISS climate scientist and coauthor of the study, is that it doesn’t account for the constant interactions that occur between various atmospheric constituents. Nor is it easy to parse out whether pollutants have human or natural origins.

pie chart of methane sourcesNatural sources of methane include wetlands, termites, decomposing organic materials in ocean and fresh water, and a type of ice called methane hydrate. Man-made methane sources include livestock, rice paddies, biomass burning, landfills, coal mining, and gas production. Credit: U.S Dept. of Energy Technology Laboratory

› Larger image “You get a much more accurate picture of how human emissions are impacting the climate — and how policy makers might effectively counteract climate change — if you look at what’s emitted at the surface rather than what ends up in the atmosphere,” said Shindell, who used this “emissions-based” approach as the groundwork for this modeling project.

However, the abundance-based approach serves as the foundation of key international climate treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol or the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade plans being discussed among policymakers. Such treaties underestimate the contributions of methane and carbon monoxide to global warming, Shindell said.

Unpacking the Implications

According to Shindell, the new findings underscore the importance of devising multi-pronged strategies to address climate change rather than focusing exclusively on carbon dioxide. “Our calculations suggest that all the non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases together have a net impact that rivals the warming caused by carbon dioxide.”

In particular, the study reinforces the idea that proposals to reduce methane may be an easier place for policy makers to start climate change agreements. “Since we already know how to capture methane from animals, landfills, and sewage treatment plants at fairly low cost, targeting methane makes sense,” said Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for the Climate Institute in Washington, D.C.

This research also provides regulators insight into how certain pollution mitigation strategies might simultaneously affect climate and air quality. Reductions of carbon monoxide, for example, would have positive effects for both climate and the public’s health, while reducing nitrogen oxide could have a positive impact on health but a negative impact on the climate.

“The bottom line is that the chemistry of the atmosphere can get hideously complicated,” said Schmidt. “Sorting out what affects climate and what affects air quality isn’t simple, but we’re making progress.”

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Back2Bat

I suggest we start harvesting and burning that methyl-hydrate. Should we just let that dangerous substance lie around the sea floor? I call for hysteria, now!

Spen

Here’s a thing. Manure produces the same amount of methane as biofuel! So maybe we stop eating meat and dairy products after we stop producing biofuel.

coalsoffire

Sheese. The paper actually has the “it’s worse than we thought” mantra. I don’t believe it. They always think things are far worse than than they are, couldn’t some scientist somewhere ever report finding that are “just as bad as we thought they were”? For such imaginiative scaremongering people they don’t ever seem to be able to imagine things as bad as they actually find them. I find that unbelievable.
Also how does livestock get the anthropromorphic label. If we did have the cattle we would have a lot more deer and the antelope roaming. I’m not going to feel guilty about harnessing that resource in a more usable way. Put some of that on the “natural” causes side please.
And what about the build up of methane? I understand that there is none. WUWT?

Kum Dollison

We know how to capture methane from animals?
Meet the New silliness. Looks a lot like the Old silliness.

Max

Long live the fart tax!

Chilly Bean

“Our calculations suggest that all the non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases together have a net impact that rivals the warming caused by carbon dioxide.”
Well that’s not really saying much is it. So all non CO2 greenhouse gases also have a near negligable effect. Well turn those dials up everyone, there is another facet to a non problem.

helvio

If this idea goes forward, it can also be used to distinguish between the non-skeptics who have genuine interest in defending the environment, and those who mainly care about their broader political agenda of reducing energy consumption in developed countries. If CO2 is put forward as having a sub-leading effect on the ‘greenhouse effect’, then the ‘genuine’ non-skeptics would be ready to defend policies on curbing the production of gases like methane first, while the ‘political’ non-skeptics would abhor such an idea. That would most likely induce a split among them! Unless the scenario is already realized that political agendas dominate the field, and not just a generalized misinterpretation of climate dynamics…

tarpon

Regulate swamp gas … Put a plastic lid over the Everglades swamp.
The biggest problem with regulating methane is it doesn’t come from cars.

Paul Vaughan

Carbon capture & storage is going to lead to future risk of sudden massive release of methane into the atmosphere. Carbon capture & storage is a waste of money & research resources: No benefit to the environment, no benefit to taxpayers, no benefit to consumers — it’s nothing but a deflection-tool for politicians – and a perceived opportunity for snake-oil-salesmen. “Solving” a fake problem by creating a real one is not sensible.

gtrip

Junior said “robustly”!!!

Ron de Haan

Methane in our atmosphere: 2/3 of a single ppm.
This pure alarmism and any measure to reduce methane incredible costly and stupid.
It will have NO EFFECT on our climate.
[snip]

REPLY:
lots of other ways to regulate methane that are on larger sources without affecting dairy, etc. And Ron, please clean up your language. – Anthony

Jerker Andersson

Where are the cow farts?

Stephen Wilde

All of this complex discussion relies on the assumption that the composition of the air can affect global equilibrium temperature.
We should all know that the sea surface temperatures control the surface air temperatures. If the air gets warmer than the ocean surfaces then the air will be cooled. If the air gets cooler than the ocean surfaces then the air will be warmed.
It is the oceans that make the Earth warmer than it ‘should’ be, not the air.
Of that 33C ‘excess’ warmth that the Earth is supposed to enjoy how much of it is attributable to the air and how much is attributable to all that water ?
If the air only contributes a tiny proportion and the oceans control the air temperatures then how is a minor change to the composition of the air supposed to make any significant difference to the global equilibrium temperature ?
The composition of the air does make a tiny difference to the temperature of the air but since the oceans are in control all that needs to happen to negate such warming of the air is a tiny corresponding change in the rate of energy transfer from air to space. I have described the mechanism more fully elsewhere.
Note that such equilibrium temperature is not readily measurable. It is not sufficiently represented by surface air temperatures. One has to consider ocean energy content too and that is another can of worms.
Even that global equilibrium temperature is never stable. It varies constantly over time as a consequence of varying solar input to the oceans and variable rates of energy release to the air by the oceans.
The whole debate seems to me to be a colossal diversion from the real world physical processes that most matter.
A comparable question would be as to how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. A well known example illustrating the pointlessness of certain lines of enquiry.
Climatology seems to me to be currently engaged in questions of similar futility.

crosspatch

There is a huge amount of natural methane seeping into the atmosphere off of California. If we could drill there and remove that gas, it would reduce the seepage into the air.

Two small underwater containment structures positioned near Goleta Point, placed to collect natural seepage, have alone captured over 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas since 1982: enough natural gas to supply the needs of over 25,000 residential natural gas users each year.

tallbloke

heh. “it’s more complicated than we thought.”

Back2Bat

The earth is quite dangerous,
the Universe too.
For many dangers
there’s nothing to do
(If there’s no [self-snip]
we are simply screwed).
But with CH4
we can all do our part:
build proper landfills
and please do not fart.

Methane is a third world problem. Even in first world countries third world agricultural practices are the problem.
There won’t be any discussion of methane regulation because it doesn’t fit the agenda of further socializing first world economies.

pyromancer76

“In particular, the study reinforces the idea that proposals to reduce methane may be an easier place for policy makers to start climate change agreements….” “His team’s modeling experiment, one of the first to rigorously quantify the impact of gas-aerosol interactions on both climate and air quality….”
How about ending all these supposed “climate change agreements” until we have both models and experimental studies that match. And, if Drew Shindels’ team’s model is “one of the first”, let’s see a whole bunch more that understand this complexity in some more detail. Stop the regulations!
When I first started thinking about these issues (non-scientist, concerned citizen), I became interested in the idea of an accounting of all the chemicals (industrial, manufacturing, transportation, agricultural, food processing, sewage, etc. we humans add to the environment. Of main concern were/are preserving the environment (no out-of-“control” growth) including wilderness and wetland areas, limiting the effects of pollution, especially that which affects the health of children, and r&d funding for greater energy efficiency and delivery. I never realized my desires could turn into a political “control the world” movement. I still think they are good ideas.
Can we go back to square one and begin again carefully, on a step-by-step basis without all the grandiosity? Climate change agreements? Humans don’t control climate change and we know very little scientifically about “what” does.

Back2Bat

“A comparable question would be as to how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.” Stephen Wilde
I thought that problem had been solved recently but can’t find the link.

crosspatch

So if we don’t eat meat because cow farts cause methane, does that mean we will have to substitute beans for our protein?

Curiousgeorge

Look. All this back and forth about what ought to be regulated or not regulated and by how much is ridiculous. The planet is what it is. The only thing of significance is who survives and who doesn’t. It’s called evolution and it’s better to win than lose. The most committed wins. Deal with it.

kim

I think some of the alarmists are finally snapping to the fact that the CO2=AGW paradigm is just way too simpleminded. Here’s one saying that the chemistry of the atmosphere is ‘hideously complicated’. The next step is to understand that the feedbacks to CO2 forcing are ‘fiendishly complex’. Arrhenius really didn’t settle the science.
===========================

Jeremy

An idea I can get behind – regulate methane first
Sorry – count me out – this whole argument is loopy – since global warming is NOT a problem neither is methane a problem.
We don’t need more hype and alarmism and another new wasteful environmental policy on Methane…
I did not expect this kind of nonsense – at least not from this website.
Is it April fool’s day?

slow to follow

Anthony – you might be interested in this report from earlier this year. Worth a read IMO:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/Our+Responsibility/News/newsbiogas.htm

crosspatch (12:32:41),
Excellent link, thanks for posting.
The methane map in this article shows clearly that most of the methane emissions come from China, Russia, India and Brazil [the BRIC countries].
Those countries would have to agree to drastically cut their emissions to make a dent in global methane, and they have all made it very clear that they will not take any actions that slow their economic growth.
Certainly the U.S. and western Europe should not futilely act, while the BRIC countries more than make up for any mitigation by the cleanest countries on Earth.
The BRIC countries, which emit the most pollution by far, are the ones responsible for cleaning up their own countries. We are not polluting the atmosphere. They are.

jaypan

Have learned some time ago that there are other and more powerful greenhouse gases. Methane as an example.
Good to see some science about it being published.
It will however be considered a dangerous argument in eyes of hysterics: It only detracts non-climate-scientists (many of us in this blog) from the identified CO2 threat.
The thing I don’t like in this article is the proposal to let politicians now regulate the methane issue.
Ha, do we have to give them something to feel important, even earth-saving?
There is already a lot to do for serious politicians.

I seriously doubt that anyone has actually measured OLR reduction due to methane and I don’t believe it contributes to global warming. HOWEVER, it is a major clean energy source that should not go to waste. Modern sewage plants use anarobic digesters to produce enough natural gas to make enough electricity to run their run whole operations. It is cost effective. Figure the savings if this established technology was applied to all sewage plants, feed lots, and hog farms. We would not only be converting waste into clean energy, but also producing cleaner water and air. Also, we should consider developing technology for capturing naturally produced methane like swamp gas or from methane hydrates. It might not have any effect on the climate, but it is another source of clean energy.

Back2Bat

OK, me bad. I could not resist that asinine joke. I thought it was a gas even if it made someone the butt of it.

bucko36

“Jerker Andersson (12:25:51) :
Where are the cow farts?”
Somewhere back in my memory, I remember hearing that the “termites” of the world were the largest contributors of “Earth’s” Methane.

I think any of this anti-warming regulation is bogus. But that’s not why I am posting.
If I were Obama. . . . I would stop importing foreign oil with a sliding close of the spigot, while simultaneously giving a tax credit to have your car altered to NG, or retrofit your gas station.
US has NG resources we don’t use. More is suspected everywhere. Think of all the jobs. . . .

I think this is a Halloween “trick”. Getting “behind” methane? Something stinks! 🙂
Put the money into the Asteroid Defense System, or free permanent contraception for anyone that wants it, or spaceflight development. Heaven knows the real risk an errant asteroid could pose. And I really think there probably are too many people running around the planet (we make up at least 10% of the CH4 budget by just defecating), so let’s make it easier to keep the numbers steady or slowly decreasing. Maybe we could fore-go number two if we made significant strides in space development and exploration. Then we could export CO2 and CH4 and whatever else to Mars.

maz2

Why is Ivan waiting until “next summer”? The ice is gonzo says Goreacles.
Notice the SovietSpeak: “Andrei Smirnov of the state-run company Atomflot”.
Smirnov?
…-
“Russia to launch Arctic Sea shelf mission
Russia is planning extensive research to help uphold its claim to the energy-rich Arctic Sea shelf, which the country believes is an extension of the Eurasian continent, an official says.
At a conference in Moscow Friday, Andrei Smirnov of the state-run company Atomflot said Russia is planning icebreaker missions in the Arctic over the next three years to conduct a detailed geological analysis of the seabed.
The mission will kick off with an atomic-powered icebreaker and a research ship travelling to the Arctic next summer, Smirnov said.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2375406/posts

Les Johnson

Anthony: I agree that we should be going after methane, and other pollutants. I speak as an expert in this area, holding several patents in methane control. (no snickering, now).
Not so much for controlling AGW, but other, more immediate concerns. In oil wells, leaking methane can get in ground water, and contaminate rural water supplies.
Capturing methane allows it to be used as a power source, and control nuisance odours. (hey, I said to quit snickering.)
This really only applies to large point sources. Putting diapers on a cow makes no sense. Taking the manure from the barn, and capturing methane from the resulting pile of [politicians verbiage] does make sense. It also makes the neighbours down wind a lot happier.
Capturing methane from industrial sources is also relatively easy, and encourages co-generation of power.
Methane capture from swamps is unpractical. But installing methane capture in a land fill is practical.
Flaring an oil well’s excess methane is wasteful, especially in 3rd world countries that are energy poor to start with.

the_Butcher

Al is probably enjoying a big delicious steak right now as we speak.
Made you hungry I know…but let me enjoy my steak as you save the planet.

Mike McMillan

Anthony – try Bean-o.
😉
.
I’ve always said AGW is a bunch of BS.

Mike Gaffney

Sorry, I’m missing why you can get behind this nonsense any more than the C02 nonsense of Algore, Anthony.
The way I read it, the article is saying “OK, so we screwed up and C02 is not the evil boogy man we said it was. The fact is, the science is complex. Now methane! METHANE is a gas we can all agree to limit, right? So let’s keep the current global pseudo-science/political infrastructure and go hunting methane emitting unicorns now instead of C02 emitting ones. Science is dead! Long live science!”
I also question the general argument of knowing more about the atmosphere by tracking what we emit vs what ends up detected by satellites etc. in the atmosphere. It’s what ends up in the atmosphere that (presumably) matters. To get an accurate picture of that from what we know we emit takes a MUCH better knowledge of atmospherics and chemistry than we appear to have. UNLESS we all decide not to act until we KNOW how it works. Otherwise I see this as just a second bite at the global governance apple by the Greenies.
I also agree with an earlier comment that saying that the effects of all the other greenhouse gases combined can be as great as (the insignificant) effects of C02 isn’t really stating much, now is it?

What’s the problem with Methane?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/10/that-worrisome-methane-beast-apparently-is-still-not-awake/
Ever thought of making your blog posts consistent?

Ron de Haan

Ron de Haan (12:24:43) :
“Methane in our atmosphere: 2/3 of a single ppm.
This pure alarmism and any measure to reduce methane incredible costly and stupid.
It will have NO EFFECT on our climate.
[snip]
REPLY: lots of other ways to regulate methane that are on larger sources without affecting dairy, etc. And Ron, please clean up your language. – Anthony”
I am sorry Anthony but are we switching one hoax for another?
In the past half of Europe was one big swamp.
Methane, just like CO2 is a natural gas present in our atmosphere less than 1 ppm!
Lord Monckton yesterday made an excellent and most convincing presentation burying the CO2 and…the Methane Hoax.
One day later we dig it up again.
Are we infected by a virus called “regulation”.
Don’t you think we have much more urgent problems that are in need of our focus?

s graves

“Our calculations suggest that all the non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases together have a net impact that rivals the warming caused by carbon dioxide.”
Is it fair to say, then, that CO2 has, at most, has caused about half the warming of the last 130 years…perhaps .35C?
If so, hope the word doesn’t get out. I mean…what would people think ?(sarc off)

Most methane is produced by anaerobic digestion of biomass. There is no way we can alter that process.
Biomass grows, then it rots or burns. Whether the metabolism of cellulose occurs in a domestic cow or not, that cellulose will metabolize, like it or not.

Bill Illis

We should figure out where it is coming from mainly as well.
Have a look at this animation of methane from 2003 to 2005 (looks like a vegetation signal to me – industry does not have a seasonal signal):
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/sciamachy/NIR_NADIR_WFM_DOAS/scia_ch4_ani.gif
CO2 also available at:
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/sciamachy/NIR_NADIR_WFM_DOAS/scia_co2_ani_buchwitz.gif

Les Johnson

Paul Biggs: That article you referenced is mostly on the fear of natural methane coming out of the permafrost. This article is about anthropogenic methane capture.
Seems consistent to me. Perhaps you should read with a little more comprehension?

David Ball

There is no runaway warming on Titan, ……. just sayin’ 8^)

Old Goat

Great! They’ve found something else to scare the sheeple with, now that carbon dioxide seems to be going out of fashion. What next? Nitrogen, oxygen? Why not ban ALL gases and have done with it, that’ll get rid of us all in double quick time. Think of the money it’ll make for , for, for…. Hello? Anyone there?

Henry chance

Russia is the largest emmitter of CH4. Send them a bill. Don’t hold your breath because you will be O2 starved…

Sarah from Saskatchewan

In my experience a vegetarian diet produces more methane. Did Lord Stern think of that?
Lentil casserole, anyone?

Sarah from Saskatchewan

Good job we killed off all those buffalo

rbateman

Rice paddies. Uh-oh, Asia is in big trouble with the UN.
C02 theory on the rocks?
No problem, just call 1-800-hysteria for a new horn to toot.
Omigod, it’s global flatulence.
Let’s see, how many binge-scares have we endured?
First it was eggs were bad because of cholesterol.
Then they found out eggs were a different type of cholesterol and were good for you.
Then it was salt. So we switched to sea salt. Then they said sea salt was bad for you.
Then it was the coming Ice Age, and it didn’t.
Now it’s been Global Warming but it got left outside to freeze.
So here we go again with another big panic attack.

rbateman

Sarah from Saskatchewan (15:17:12) :
Don’t look now, but seems to me they’re working up to a herd of something else to shoot. Hmmm… don’t seem to be many buffalo around lately…
Independence Day (Wil Smith) “Oh no you don’t. Don’t you go shootin’ that Green Stuff at me !!”

Henry chance

The other moster producer of CH4 is Nigeria. It is racist to call them out.
(they are also a huge poluter by reason of petroleum leaks)
Of course folks the fires we see at refineries are flares burning CH4.
http://www.wiltonpark.org.uk/documents/WPS06-18%20Pdf%20presentations/Gardner.pdf
Much methane output is fugitive waste.