Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Well, it seems like climate alarmists have noticed that all their hysterical screeching about carbon dioxide (CO2) isn’t having the desired effect. So they’re turning to a new villain, methane (CH4). Here’s Nature, which used to be a serious scientific journal, moaning that methane is “soaring” to new heights.
Figure 1. Page from Nature magazine, original here.
Now, anyone who knows me knows what I did after seeing that—I went and got the data to see what’s going on. We have data from a couple of sources—modern measurements, and ice cores. The Nature article only showed the change since 1984, but I always start with a long overview to give context to the data. Here’s the change in atmospheric methane since 1750.
Figure 2. Changes in airborne methane since 1750. Ice core data to 1980, modern measurements from 1984 onwards
Now, there are a couple of puzzles in this data. First, nobody knows the cause for the slowdown in methane rise that started about 1985 and ended around 2005.
Next, nobody knows why the rise started again. From the Nature article:
The growth of methane emissions slowed around the turn of the millennium, but began a rapid and mysterious uptick around 2007. The spike has caused many researchers to worry that global warming is creating a feedback mechanism that will cause ever more methane to be released, making it even harder to rein in rising temperatures.
“Methane levels are growing dangerously fast,” says Euan Nisbet, an Earth scientist at Royal Holloway, University of London, in Egham, UK. The emissions, which seem to have accelerated in the past few years, are a major threat to the world’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5–2 °C over pre-industrial temperatures, he says.
YIKES!! WORRIED RESEARCHERS! LEVELS GROWING DANGEROUSLY FAST! FEEDBACK MECHANISM!
(In passing, can I say how bored I am by scientists and researchers who are “worried”? Near as I can tell, these guys sit up nights looking for things to be worried about, and when they seize on something, they try to convince us that we all should be worried about it too … but I digress.)
In any case, just how fast are the methane levels rising? To investigate that, here’s a graph of the five-year “trailing trend”. This is the trend of the change over the five years previous to each year of record.
Figure 3. Changes in the five-year trailing trends of the rise in atmospheric methane.
Call me crazy, but I’m not seeing what the “worried researcher” described as methane levels “growing dangerously fast” … they’re only growing a third as fast as they were in 1985.
My conclusion?
I’m not going to be concerned until such time as the trend starts getting up somewhere around the 1985 levels.
My best to everyone, whether you’re worried or not …
w.
MY USUAL: When you comment PLEASE quote the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my own words and I’m happy to do so. But I can’t defend your interpretation of my words.
DATA:
Ice cores and modern data cannot be put together. They are two different data sets from very different sources.
The world’s leading ice core scientist, Jaworowski (sp?), has indicated that the trauma and micro-fracturing of ice cores during extraction and decompression can loose up to 50% of the contained gases, ignoring any chemical processes that might consume methane while at depth. This means that the ice core values of 800 ppb methane would have been 1600 ppb, which is pretty much what it is today. The same is true for CO2 in ice cores. This is meaningless scientifically.
It is simply ingenuous to pretend that ice core data of gases are absolute values, they clearly are not and cannot be, and thus the data cannot be commingled with Mauna Loa gas measurements.
Charles,
Sorry, but Jaworowski was specialized in radio-isotopes fallout in ice cores, never performed any CO2 or methane measurements in ice cores. His ideas from 1992 were completely refuted already in 1996 by Etheridge e.a. who drilled three ice cores at Law Dome and measured CO2 top down from the surface to full depth.
One simple point: if one measures 800 ppbv in ice and in the laboratory atmosphere it is 1600 ppbv, one would expect that CH4 goes from the outside air to inside the ice, not reverse if there were cracks in the ice…
See further: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
First, Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski is not “the world’s leading ice core scientist”. He’s the Chairman of the Polish Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection. His field of study is the influence of industry and nuclear explosions on pollution of the global environment and population. He is not an expert on ice cores.
Next, his claim that ice core CO2 data cannot be compared to modern CO2 measurements is based on his false idea that the air contained in the ice is exactly as old as the ice itself. However, numerous scientific studies have shown that it takes some years for the firn to close. The firn is the slowly compressing top layer of snow that will eventually be ice. Until the pores fully close, the air is still being exchanged with the atmosphere. So Jaworowski is simply wrong in his claim that ice age = air age. That idea is rejected by every researcher in the field.
Next, there is no evidence I know of that “trauma and micro-fracturing” and decompression affect ice core CO2. If that were the case, the results would be all over the map, because of variable amounts of fracturing … but they’re not. Here are the results from ten different ice cores, along with the modern data.
And here is a close-up of the same data since 1850, showing six ice core CO2 measurements plus modern CO2 measurements.
So I’m sorry, but your claims are not supported by the data.
w.
Charles,
In addition to what Willis said, here the graph of the firn and ice CO2 levels measured by Etheridge in de Law Dome drillings, where he used special equipment to measure the CO2 levels in the firn from near the surface to where the bubbles were closed at about 72 meters depth. At that depth the CO2 levels were about 10 years older that in the atmosphere, as the overlap with direct measurements at the south pole did show. At the same depth, the ice was already 40 years old (yearly layers at Law Dome are quite visible with 1.2 meter ice equivalent snow per years!), thus an age difference of 30 years between ice and included gas.
On the other side: CO2 levels in the firn of still open pores at closing depth and already closed pores in the ice were exactly the same.
Jaworowski published his objections in 1992, Etheridge his measurements in 1996, but Jaworowski still repeated his objections many years later.
When I confronted him with the age difference (for the Siple Dome ice core) in personal correspondence, he said that there were frequent melt layers in all ice cores, which is not true at all: none in Law Dome, one in the Siple Dome, for which the ice age – gas age difference was adjusted by Neftel…
Well, the alarmunists have been bleating about the various possible causes for whatever climate change of the moment they could possibly come up. None of ’em worked to their satisfaction to shut down the world, all the while further enriching the elite via guilt payments to save the planet…the children…humanity…endangered species…etc. Nothing stuck on the wall, so its back to that evil methane. I suggest that anyone who truly believes this crap stops eating, thereby curtailing methane output, all the while stop breathing, thereby reducing the dreaded CO2 levels. Its just the right thing to do for the cause they push on the rational thinking folks.
There is very little real science in the entire concept of “FEEDBACK” of thermal energy resulting from the thermal excitation of “greenhouse gases”. If that were true, people would be heating their homes with liquid crystal display thermometers. They respond to a wide range of thermal variations and must feedback enormous thermal energy. (RIGHT)
Jim, why do you think that undercooled victims are packed in alu foil? Because these reflect near all residues of heat the victim itself has left.
If you surround a heat source (even if that is the solar heated surface) with something that reflects some (even if it is only 1%) of the outgoing radiation, the surface will heat up, or you are destroying energy…
What does it take to obtain a
jobsinecure in which you can study something so narrow day in and day out for 40 years? These must rank among the lowest productivity employment of all time.By the way, that trend from 1850 to 1960 or so mirrors population growth pretty nicely — 5 grams of methane per person per day. Just sayin’ 🙂
On more serious note I have spent some time on gas well pads in western/southwestern Wyoming. The recent “worry” about methane, which is possibly about to become ludricrous regulation to make your home heating bill spike outta’ sight, has some of the gas producers putting expensive monitors around the perimeter of these large gathering and processing operations. These sensors are capable of sub ppb sensitivity to methane whilst the background air is nearly 2,000 ppb. Then the pneumatics on the pads are run by methane releases — permitted releases, which I can smell when the valves operate.
Lots of rent seekers running around proposing expensive technical, sciency sorts of solutions for a non-problem.
The post’s title almoist too clever/cute to be understood. CH? Swiss Confederation (Confoederatio Helvetica) ? Certified hypnotherapist? The U.S. vice president K(C)amala Harris? Yes methane is a potent greenhouse gas 25-30 times more than CO2 on a molecular / concentration basis. This is well known .. for a long time. Ban oil and gas fuels and send us back to literally the dark ages. Stupid is … as stupid does. Break out the cow bladder panties.
Stop Methane emissions…Eat Beef, daily if possible. I’m doing my part; are you?
In passing, I’m worried and quite certain that it’s worse than I thought. Much worse. Run away! It’s smellier than the smelliest smelly smell !!! I can’t breathe! We need to stop the passing now!
How do you refute Eschenbach’s logarithmic CO2 argument? Simply by pointing out that the anthropogenic increase of CO2 is exponential, not linear, as clearly proven by the measurements taken at the Scripps Institute on Mauna Loa from 1959 to present, and that it completely overcomes the diminishing effect of a logarithmic response. When you do the math you find that the anthropogenic CO2 increase is close to a remarkably steady 2.22% a year, and the slope of the logarithm for this can be calculated as d/dx(ln(1.0222^x)) = ln(1.0222), where x is the incremental year. Ln(1.0222) = 0.022, so 0.022x is a constant, positively sloped straight line. The slope of the log for the total atmospheric CO2 is currently less than 0.022 (it is currently about 0.0073) due to the effect of the 280 PPMv “always been there” part of the CO2, but as the exponentially increasing anthropogenic addition becomes a larger and more dominant part of the total atmospheric CO2 the slope will increase to approach 0.022. That means that the response to the actual CO2 increase is a line curving upwards, not slanting to the right and becoming flatter, the way a logarithmic response to a linearly increasing CO2 would. We are on track to have about 50% of the atmospheric CO2 attributable to human activity by 2053 +/-. Eschenbach and other deniers that cling to the logarithmic response as an argument against global warming simply do not understand the math.
First, I have no clue what you are calling “Eschenbach’s logarithmic argument”. This is why I ask, in every post, that you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING!!!
Next, you say
But I find nothing of the sort. In the Mauna Loa data, the average increase is 0.44% per year, not 2.22%. And it is not “remarkably steady”. It has varied from 0.13% to 0.85%, with half of the data between 0.32% and 0.55%. Here’s a violin plot of the annual growth percentages.
And here is the annual percentage increase in CO2 over time:
“Remarkably steady”? Don’t make me laugh.
And you have the albondigas to say that I “simply do not understand the math”?
Medice, cura te ipsum!
w.
Well, you did use my exact words but then revealed that you entirely missed the “anthropogenic” point. I did NOT say the Mauna Loa readings (which are for the total, the pre-industrial 280 ppmv PLUS the anthropogenic additions) showed the 2.22% increase. I stand by the “remarkably steady,” as the anthropogenic growth curve has an R-squared of 0.9979. Also I should not have conflated you with the armies of angry but innumerate denier trolls out there. But anyway, perhaps a picture is in order here, q.v., below. BTW I’d like to hear your response to my “Modtran” remarks.
Thanks, Dave. Seems you are calling “anthropogenic CO2” the Mauna Loa values minus 280 ppmv. Fair enough.
However, the changes in anthropogenic CO2 are not “remarkably steady. They’ve varied from 0.9 to 3.6% …
Next, it is totally meaningless to take the log of just anthropogenic CO2. The change in forcing is 3.7 times the log base two of the change in TOTAL CO2, not the change in some subset of that (anthropogenic CO2, volcanic CO2, ocean outgassing CO2, etc.)
And I still have no clue what you are calling “Eschenbach’s logarithmic argument”.
w.
Thanks, Willis. Since the total CO2 is a bastard mix of the constant “already there” 280 ppmv + the new anthropogenic CO2 being added and therefore is neither a linear nor a true exponential function (yet) amenable to my Excel trend line calculation, so, yes, I calculate the anthropogenic (Keeling minus 280 ppmv) which is demonstrably exponential, to get its trend line, then use that trend line equation to generate a CO2 curve that yields “total” CO2 levels, anthropogenic trend + 280 ppmv. That yields a 2020/2021 increase slope of 0.0073 (or 0.73%) as I stated in my original post. I don’t think that using an average of annual increases should be used in a situation where the annual percentage increases are, well, increasing. Even though the annual increases are not linearly increasing, to get close I plotted a linear trend line of the annual increases (which is very noisy data) and the least-squares regression has, as expected, a slope of 0.0073. But, as I said in my original post, that slope is increasing as the anthropogenic portion of CO2 becomes larger and more dominant, so that the “total” CO2 growth rate will get closer and closer to that of the exponentially increasing anthropogenic portion. God knows, we MUST do something about that.
Please note that in my image from the 2010 WUWT I used your equation, log base 2, for the total CO2 concentration, not the just anthropogenic CO2. I’m not sure where the “+233.6” in that equation came from, but using your equation with the actual Mauna Loa CO2 data, forcing is not only not “tapering off” but actually accelerating, as seen in the plot. Perhaps you can elucidate.
Thanks for taking the time!
Willis,
I know you are very busy attending to other posts in this forum, but I would really like to hear your defense of the WUWT post (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/) where your equation “Forcing = 2.94 x log2(CO2) + 233.6″ was shown to reveal an INCREASE in forcing, contradicting the “Modtran Results” artful insinuation that it is “tapering off.” My experience in online fora is that, when I challenge a contrary assertion whose author could not defend it, that author “leaves the building.” Have you left the building?
Many thanks,
Dave G.
Dave, reading your comment, I was all ready to answer it until you got all nasty and implied that I had left the building. Next time you want me to answer a question, keep a civil tongue in your head. Until then, piss off. You don’t get me to answer questions by insulting me.
w.
No, you were not “all ready to answer it,” because you don’t have an answer, and your followers here will see that your original post has been exposed for what it is, a fraud. I will not miss you.
Dave, don’t attempt to tell me what I was and wasn’t ready to do, you have no clue. I was indeed ready to answer you until you got all nasty.
Your pathetic attempt at mind reading is a total failure, so don’t quit your day job to take up as a prognosticator.
I tell the truth as best I know it. Sorry that you don’t like that.
w.
Willis, the best way for you to put me in my place is to demonstrate, in a calm, rigorous way, why my challenge to you is baseless and wrong. Why won’t you do that? I can take the heat. If you leave it the way is is, you will be seen as not credible in the subject area. I’ll honor your statement that you tell the truth as best you know it, but you must show how you got to know it. You haven’t done that. You can’t say that actual downward forcing is tapering off due to the logarithmic nature of CO2 just because you say so. It isn’t, as shown in my chart provided you.
I wish you no ill will.
Dave, there’re not enough hours in the day for me to deal with charming folks like you who accuse me of bad motives. You want to discuss matters with a man of honor, learn to keep a civil tongue in your head.
And your claim that you “wish me no ill will” is self-serving hogwash. People who wish me no ill will don’t accuse me of running from questions.
You don’t seem to get it. You’ve burned your bridges with me. And you think the way out of it is to threaten that in your imagination, people will think less of me because I won’t bow to your demand that I explain things to you despite your bad manners?
I “answer challenges” to my work all day every day. But I don’t give in to bullies like you. In my experience, people think more of me when I don’t cave in to threats …
So go away. Don’t go away mad. Just go away. Not interested.
w.
Wow. “[Y]our demand that I explain things” is what we should all expect as a professional obligation in any technical field. That’s what I did for 30 years as an electrical engineer. Evidently you don’t feel any obligation to defend your assertions, apparently expecting your readers to swallow them without question, examination or challenge, and getting angry if any of them doesn’t. Pretty arrogant, I’d say.
In future, if I drop in to WUWT on occasion, I will read your posts with close interest.
Dave Goodridge February 16, 2022 3:33 pm
Listen up, you lying slimebag. I have defended my assertions from the very first post I made on WUWT until today. I spend more time defending and explaining my claims than any other climate blogger that I know of.
Next, I publicly admit when I’m wrong. I have a whole post called “Wrong Again”, and another entitled “Wrong Again, Again”. Name me one other climate blogger who’s done that.
And I don’t want people to “swallow” my ideas, that’s another lie. From the beginning, I’ve asked people to investigate, do their own research and ask questions.
What I don’t do is knuckle under to scummy douches like you who open the bidding with an accusation that I’m a coward who won’t answer questions. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Finally, you threaten to “read my posts with close interest”? … gosh, now I’m terrified.
Piss off.
w.
Well, Willis, since you have lowered the bar to where you call me a “lying slimebag,” I can take off the gloves and say that you are a technically innumerate imposter who has little or no understanding of the mathematics or physics required to speak about the subject matter. Your credentials include that you were educated in massage therapy, carpentry and building construction and other areas that have nothing whatsoever to do with climate science. You do, in fact, prey upon similarly uninformed soldiers in the culture wars (they love you, and some call you “Dr. Eschenbach” – ha!). You are helpless to answer for your preposterous post insinuating a “tapering off” of downward forcing because you just don’t understand the CO2 response to an exponential CO2 increase, and you don’t have the balls to admit you don’t know.
Yes, I will be watching. Sorry your insecure ego considers that a “threat.”
Pass. You are now reduced to the refuge of impostors, attacking my credentials (I have absolutely none) rather than attacking my scientific claims. My invariable rule of thumb is, when a man starts slinging mud as you are doing, it’s because he’s out of real scientific ammunition.
Hilarious.
Bye …
w.