Cornell hypes on methane as a 'climate boogeyman'

IPCC_AR5_draft_fig1-7_methaneThrough the years, we keep hearing that methane, much like Trenberth’s missing heat, is going to jump out and get us.

Usually, the panic about the “methane bomb” from frozen ocean floor methane hydrates or methane from melting Arctic tundra. Now, they are taking on methane as a danger from natural gas production, and suggesting we just skip it altogether and go straight to wind and solar. Yeah right, like that will work.

Problem is, as this IPCC AR5 graph at right shows, the reality of atmosphereic methane seems to be far less than model projections. Plus, it seems to have an irrelevant contribution in the spectral scheme of all things GHG.

Control methane now, greenhouse gas expert warns

By

ITHACA, N.Y. – As the shale gas boom continues, the atmosphere receives more methane, adding to Earth’s greenhouse gas problem. Robert Howarth, greenhouse gas expert and ecology and environmental biology professor, fears that we may not be many years away from an environmental tipping point – and disaster.

“We have to control methane immediately, and natural gas is the largest methane pollution source in the United States,” said Howarth, who explains in an upcoming journal article that Earth may reach the point of no return if average global temperatures rise by 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius in future decades. “If we hit a climate-system tipping point because of methane, our carbon dioxide problem is immaterial. We have to get a handle on methane, or increasingly risk global catastrophe.”

Howarth’s study, “A Bridge to Nowhere: Methane Emissions and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas,” will be published May 20 in the journal Energy Science and Engineering.

Natural gas – that once seemingly promising link between the era of oil and coal to the serenity of sustainable solar, wind and water power – is a major source of atmospheric methane, due to widespread leaks as well as purposeful venting of gas. Howarth points to “radiative forcing,” a measure of trapped heat in Earth’s atmosphere from man-made greenhouse gases. The current role of methane looms large, he says, contributing over 40 percent of current radiative forcing from all greenhouse gases, based on the latest science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The role of methane as a driver of global warming is even more critical than this 40 percent value might indicate, Howarth notes. The climate system responds much more quickly to reducing methane than to carbon dioxide. If society aggressively controlled carbon dioxide emissions, but ignored methane emissions, the planet would warm to the dangerous 1.5 to 2.0 degree Celsius threshold within 15 to 35 years. By reducing methane emissions, society buys some critical decades of lower temperatures.

“Society needs to wean itself from the addiction to fossil fuels as quickly as possible,” Howarth said. “But to replace some fossil fuels – coal, oil – with another, like natural gas, will not suffice as an approach to take on global warming. Rather, we should embrace the technologies of the 21st century and convert our energy systems to ones that rely on wind, solar and water power.”

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
58 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick
May 16, 2014 5:28 am

Too funny! I ask people who are against human progress how much CH4 (Once, one person said “CH4. Humm, 4 carbons) is in the air (And what is likely to be due to fracking etc lets forget termites for now) and the usual reposnse is 30% – 40%. I ask how much CO2 is in the air, the usual response is 30% – 40%. So in their mind upto 80% of the air is made up of CO2 and CH4. Then I ask that how is that possible when N2 and O2 occupy ~78% and ~21%, respectfully, of the air? I lead them to Wikipedia, which in this case is factually correct. I usually hear crickets chirping. They don’t get the fact that if what they believed were true we’d be dead, right then and there! 1800ppb/v is meaningless as a fact let alone a concept to most people. And as WonkotheSane: May 15, 2014 at 2:58 pm says 1800ppb/v is 0.00018% understood even less so. In my experience with these types of “cults” and “religions” is that most people just want to be seen to conform. It is easier to conform and “be like everyone else” than to speak out. About 2000 years ago, our Roman rulers had issues with one person speaking out, and being against the grain, and he was killed for it.

beng
May 16, 2014 6:33 am

Just look at the satellite measurements of LW infrared radiation coming up from the earth. The CH4 band is barely visible, while the CO2 and O3 bands are plainly visible.
‘Nuff said.

Dr. Strangelove
May 16, 2014 8:23 pm

“Natural gas – that once seemingly promising link between the era of oil and coal to the serenity of sustainable solar, wind and water power – is a major source of atmospheric methane, due to widespread leaks as well as purposeful venting of gas.”
Howarth, if your faucet is leaking, the solution is stop using faucets? If you don’t like methane, don’t vent natural gas. Flare it so you get CO2 and water vapor.

May 16, 2014 8:44 pm

H2O being >90% of “climate”, I’m doubtful that Methane at 100× its current level would be significant.

May 17, 2014 5:44 am

dbstealey says:
May 15, 2014 at 3:33 pm
So far, the alarmist crowd is batting .000 in their predictions.
Atmospheric methane is leveling off, despite rising use of natural gas. So the methane scare does not compute.

Only if you live in the past, your data ended in 2005, try looking at up-to-date data:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.fig2.png

May 17, 2014 10:54 am

Phil.,
That just proves that human use of natural gas has nothing measurable to do with atmospheric methane levels. “Methane” is just another baseless alarmist scare.

Patrick
May 18, 2014 3:20 am

At 1.8ppm/v CH4, am I worried? Nope! If there is a real problem with CH4, we’d need to remove all termite activity from this rock. And given this is a virus, bacteria, insect rock…I don’t see that happening!

george e. smith
May 18, 2014 10:31 am

“””””…..gymnosperm says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:31 pm
Methane is CH4. When you climb the hydrogen ladder in NATURAL gasses; propane, butane, etc., the more energy from burning them is derived from breaking Hydrogen bonds and the less from Carbon bonds. Burning methane and other NATURAL gasses produces far less CO2/kilocalorie/mole than traditional fossil fuels…….”””””
I’m not grasping your point here.
Seems to me that methane has a 4:1 hydrogen to carbon ratio, which maximizes the water to CO2 ratio when you burn it. A very long carbon chain molecule approaches 2:1 ratio, and benzene gives you a 1:1 ratio. So wouldn’t that make methane the preferred fossil fuel ??