From the National Science Foundation
Ethane levels yield information about changes in greenhouse gas emissions
Research at Greenland and Antarctic shows decline in methane and ethane levels
Recent data from NSF-funded research in both Greenland and Antarctica demonstrate that fossil-fuel related emissions of both methane and ethane, two of the most abundant hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, declined at the end of the twentieth century, according to a paper published Thursday in the journal Nature.
The causes of the decline in methane emission rates to the atmosphere have been puzzling scientists for some time. This new study shows that a change in human activities may have played a key role in the recent leveling off of methane, which, being a potent greenhouse gas contributes to global temperatures.
Murat Aydin from the University of California, Irvine is the lead author of the paper. Other researchers include Kristal Verhulst, Eric Saltzman, Donald Blake, Qi Tang, and Michael Prather from UCI, Mark Battle from Bowdoin College, and Stephen Montzka from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The team investigated the history of fossil-fuel emissions of methane, based on measurements of another hydrocarbon, ethane, in air trapped in the polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. The ancient air resides close to the surface, within the perennial snowpack, and can be used to study changes in the atmosphere that occurred during the twentieth century.
“Fossil fuels are a common source of both ethane and methane. Methane has many other sources, but we know most of the ethane in the atmosphere today is from fossil fuels. If ethane changes, it is easier to figure out the cause” said Aydin. “After carbon dioxide, methane is the second most important greenhouse gas. This research was conducted to track ethane and to see what it could tell us about methane. We found that ethane emissions declined at the same time as the rise in methane dramatically slowed, suggesting a common cause.” At the end of the 20th century, methane and ethane were deemed valuable energy resources; collected and consumed as natural gas they are converted to carbon dioxide. The researchers’ results for this time frame indicate that the leveling off in atmospheric methane in recent years is likely linked to this change in energy use.
“This research helps explain why atmospheric methane levels stabilized at the end of the twentieth century” said co-author Eric Saltzman. “Methane levels are important for global climate and understanding how human activities affect methane is a key part of predicting how much warming we may expect in the future.”
“We still have more research to conduct, but this discovery is significant to our efforts in determining the link between ethane and methane and what it may tell us about climate change,” said Julie Palais, NSF program director. “We must work together to continue to find ways to further our research on this very important subject.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Looks like they’re casting about for other greenhouse gasses for which to continue their grant procurements.
Send this team some more money and let thyem know that if they can prove the trend continues over the next few years the grant will be doubled with bonuses.
noaaprogrammer says:
August 15, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Doesn’t hurt to drop your hook into several troughs at once. /sarc
About ten years ago someone bought my teenage son a fascinating poster for Christmas.
It showed the distribution of light ‘pollution’ across the planet at night.
I could see the great cities, the brilliant glow from Europe, the US eastern seaboard, Japan etc,
I noted the darkness over poorer countries like india, and of course the great empty regions of the earth. But something about a vast area of equatorial west Africa puzzled me. I knew that it was poor and underdeveloped and that much of it comprised of dense jungle…yet it glowed as brightly as a middle sized Westernized country…
They ‘flared off’ the gas back in those days. It was a merely a ‘nuisance’ when oil was 45 dollars a barrel. It’s worth a little bit more now I think!
Hard to figure out much of anything from this press release.
Look, methane is in the ppb and CO2 in ppm. At 1775 ppb, methane is 220 times less abundant than CO2. And at 20X better as a heat-trapping gas, that’s 1/220 x 20 = 1/11 of the effect of CO2. As CO2 may be responsible for only 3% of heat-trapping activity, that puts methane at 0.25% of the warming ability. We worry about this?
This is about as meaningless as meaningless can get! Why are they wasting so much time and money studying a non-issue. Of course, it’s just another chance to blame climate change (aka global warming) on man. Since we are cooling, it’s a true waste of resources. I want my money back!
We are cooling. Green the planet, release as much CO2 and methane as you can!
And ethane is as 0.5 ppb. If they worry about it, they are true idiots.
““We must work together to continue to find ways to further our research on this very important subject.””
NO, WE DON’T! It’s interesting but not all that important. To their grant,yes. To the world, NO!
Oh brother.
“After carbon dioxide, methane is the second most important greenhouse gas.”
Obviously a dumbass.
I agree with Steve R. But, if you find evidence that says fossil fuel use should be declining, and it contradicts the CO2 data that says we are still adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a constant(ish) rate, this presents a problem for something. I can’t wait to check in here tomorrow and see what comments have been made.
Doing a physical experiment to determine the recent history of ethane levels is a valuable and valid contribution to science. I can’t believe people are objecting to this. What – you’d rather not know what ethane has been up to? Please save the cynicism and negativity for when it is needed. This research is not deserving of being treated in this manner.
Seems to support the idea that human activity can have a profound influence on atmospheric composition and climate. What’s up with that?
Five days … pretty quick to resolve the issue of the decline in methane as discussed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/10/dueling-conclusions-on-global-methane-flatness-puzzle/
Guess NSF has to protect their funding finding …
The comments so far have missed the point: a possible (and most likely) explanation for the ethane trends is that (waste) gas emissions from gas/oil production have declined in the last 10 years or so as producers find a market increase for the “waste” natural gas and become more adept at capturing, transporting and storing natural gas. In this study, ethane was used as the tracer gas providing a synoptic signal that could be studied and analyzed. Irrespective of whether you find sufficient evidence for global climate change in other measurements, the fact that a detectable signal of the global trends in the gas/oil production, methods and markets can be found and easily measured in the Antarctic should surely be of interest to all with inquiring minds that need to know.
“After carbon dioxide, methane is the second most important greenhouse gas.
Really ?
What happened to that nasty H2O (vapour) pollution ( 10x the power of CO2 ) ?
I guess it depends on your definition of ‘important’, ie: scientific or political 🙂
“After carbon dioxide, methane is the second most important greenhouse gas.”
One day maybe they will redescover that they should say;
“After water vapour and secondly carbon dioxide, methane is the third most important greenhouse gas.”
Ian H.
Ya you can usually count on a few stock responses.
An_Inquiring_Mind says:
August 15, 2011 at 10:47 pm
The comments so far have missed the point: a possible (and most likely) explanation for the ethane trends is that (waste) gas emissions from gas/oil production have declined in the last 10 years or so as producers find a market increase for the “waste” natural gas and become more adept at capturing…
—————-
But the waste gas was never just released into the atmosphere, it was flared. Marketting of gas instead of flaring it would have no effect on the concentrations of Ethane in the atmosphere.
Our production of petroleum reduces reservoir pressures and would result in a reduction of hydrocarbon gases leaking to the surface though leaky reservoir seals. Since the shallowest reserves are generally the easiest to find and produce they were exploited first and were the greatest source of natural surface leakage. The hypothesis is that production of petroleum has reduced the natural leakage of hydrocarbon gases to the surface because of reduced reservoir pressures and lower atmospheric concentrations of hydrocarbon gases are a possible result.
higley7 says:
August 15, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Lets stop all research in to anything that Higley doesn’t find important then. You hear that researchers, you need approval from Higley first!
/sarc
Get a grip!
I thought water was the “most important” greenhouse gas.
No doubt I need to go back to school, maybe to sit under Mr. Aydin so that he can re-educate me. (AKA brainwashing.)
I would have thought that published financial records would provide you with all the information that inquiring minds need to know about gas and oil production.
Maybe a silly question but does it make a difference to the atmosphere if the gases are burnt off immediately or stored briefly only to be burnt off in millions of homes distributed about the planet?
Why don’t they ask somebody in the oil industry why the reduction happened?
Methane has a trivial GHG effect, not 20X CO2. To get that number, they “count” the H2O resulting from burning. Lies, all the way down.
John.
Co2 is a product of combustion, it matters not where it came from or at what point it is released into the atmosphere. Some believe that it causes global warming but considering it presently comprises 1/25 of ONE PERCENT of the atmosphere it would be necessary to abolish the laws of physics for this to be true.
Keep warm!