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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Natural 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.”
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!
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.
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?
We know how to capture methane from animals?
Meet the New silliness. Looks a lot like the Old silliness.
Long live the fart tax!
“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.
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…
Regulate swamp gas … Put a plastic lid over the Everglades swamp.
The biggest problem with regulating methane is it doesn’t come from cars.
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.
Junior said “robustly”!!!
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
Where are the cow farts?
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.
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.
heh. “it’s more complicated than we thought.”
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.
“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.
“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.
So if we don’t eat meat because cow farts cause methane, does that mean we will have to substitute beans for our protein?
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.
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.
===========================
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?
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.