By Steve Goreham
Originally published by MasterResource.
In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency published new methane emissions regulations for the oil and gas industry. The European Union enacted new rules to reduce methane emissions from the energy sector in May. Agriculture is also being targeted regarding methane. But methane regulations, even if established worldwide, won’t have a measurable effect on global temperatures. However, they will raise costs for energy and food, impacting consumers and businesses.
On March 8, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its rule on methane emissions for the oil and gas sector. The rule is intended to “reduce wasteful methane emissions that endanger communities and fuel the climate crisis.”
The new policy will require companies to pay a penalty of $900 for every ton of methane emitted above limits set by the EPA, starting this year. A legal challenge to the EPA’s new rule has been filed by 24 states.
On May 27, the European Union (EU) announced new regulations on methane emissions from coal, gas, and oil operations. These rules will require energy firms to monitor and report methane emissions and to reduce methane flaring from operations. The rules also apply to international firms that ship hydrocarbon fuels to Europe.
Methane (CH4) is also called natural gas. It is emitted from oil and gas operations from flaring or system leaks. CH4 is also produced through the decay of organic material, such as from municipal solid waste landfills. The EPA and the EU have proposed methane regulations to try to fight global warming.
But nature and human agriculture are larger sources of methane than the energy industry. Termites and other insects emit large amounts of methane. We have about 1.5 billion cows on Earth, and numerous other livestock and wildlife, emitting methane from both the nose end and the tail end.
Methane is a greenhouse gas and part of Earth’s greenhouse effect, which is blamed for global warming. Sunlight, which is high-energy radiation, enters the atmosphere and is absorbed by Earth’s surface. Like any warm body, Earth emits radiation. Since Earth’s temperature is lower than that of the sun, Earth emits lower-energy radiation called infrared radiation or longwave radiation, which is not visible to our eyes.
This longwave radiation seeks to leave Earth’s atmosphere, but almost all of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases then re-radiate the absorbed energy, which acts to warm Earth’s surface. The warming caused by the absorption of infrared radiation is called the greenhouse effect. Emissions from human industrial processes add to the effect and increase global temperatures.
But Earth’s greenhouse effect is overwhelmingly a natural effect. Water vapor, not carbon dioxide or methane, is Earth’s dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapor accounts for 70 to 90 percent of the greenhouse effect.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the next most important greenhouse gas, but most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from nature, such as CO2 emissions from the oceans and the biosphere. Every day, nature puts 20 times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as all human emissions and removes about the same amount. Methane ranks only as a distant third as a greenhouse gas.
The European Union states:
“ … methane’s ability to trap heat in the atmosphere is even stronger than that of carbon dioxide. On a 100-year timescale, methane has 28 times greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide and is 84 times more potent on a 20-year timescale.”
These assertions from the EU and other sources are widely reported, but they are incorrect. Claims about the global warming potential of methane are accurate in the laboratory, but not in the atmosphere.
No one paints a room in their house ten times, because after two coats of paint, no difference is observed. Similarly, greenhouse gases are already saturated in Earth’s atmosphere at the frequencies at which methane absorbs outgoing longwave radiation. Additional methane will have almost no effect.
A 2020 analysis by Wijngaarden and Happer looked at the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation by methane and other greenhouse gases across the radiation spectrum. The researchers found that doubling atmospheric methane, from either natural or human causes, would increase greenhouse gas absorption by only about 0.3 percent, a negligible amount.
Farming has become a target for efforts to reduce methane emissions. Earlier this year, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, the world’s largest beef producer, over the firm’s methane emissions and for allegedly making misleading sustainability statements to the public. The costs of this litigation will add to food price inflation for consumers.
Earlier this year, the EU sought to impose the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR) on European farmers. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, stated that the agricultural sector needed to transition towards a “more sustainable model of production.” Farmers were asked to reduce the size of dairy herds and to limit the use of nitrogen fertilizer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. Germany’s Federal Agricultural Minister, Cem Özdemir, even proposed a consumption tax on meat.
But angry farmers launched intense protests in France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, and other nations. Hundreds of tractors blocked traffic in major cities and police were pelted with eggs and liquid manure. The SUR was defeated, and the EU backed away from additional agricultural regulations, including regulations on methane and the use of nitrogen fertilizer.
Possibly the most bizarre law to reduce emissions was the Australia Carbon Farming Initiative Act of 2011, which awarded carbon credits for killing feral (wild) animals, including:
“… the reduction of methane emissions through the management, in a humane manner, of feral goats, feral dear, feral pigs or feral camels.”
Killing of animals for carbon credits was halted in 2012.
In any case, because of greenhouse gas saturation in the atmosphere, methane regulations across the world will have no measurable effect on global temperatures. But to the extent that they are enacted, these rules will raise the costs of energy and food production and prices to consumers and businesses.
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and the author of the new bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.
Raising costs on the people is the goal. Crush them with taxes and inflation, someone once said. I hate these people.
Look up “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” and you’ll get an inkling of what our “betters” have in store for us. Totalitarians, statists, and assorted do-gooders love humanity but despise people. They love animals, too, especially wild animals, but only in the abstract.
Any excuse, and any scapegoat will suffice to cram people into strait jackets, set up tyrannical rules, and tell “the people” it’s for our own good.
Initiatives to restrict travel, give up meat, herd the peasants into tenements, etc. stem from the contemporary climate panic, but are part of that larger pattern.
Never underestimate the will to power.
“They love animals, too, especially wild animals, but only in the abstract.”
Right, I bet few would dare to backpack into truly wild areas where they might run into wolves, bears, snakes, etc.
Mice and rats are more dangerous than large, picturesque monsters like wolves, bears, and snakes. For one thing, mice and rats are ubiquitous. For another, they carry dread diseases. For yet another, they can chew through electric wires and start fires, chew through walls and roofs, start leaks, and weaken the structures.
Over the long run small vermin have killed more humans than wars. However, most of what they do is not dramatic, won’t garner headlines on TV, and going after them won’t make you a hero among your friends.
Right, I know what you say about the big animals, having been a field forester for 50 years- but I bet the green whack jobs don’t know that.
There are some locations in the American west- with plague carried by rodents. And there are some snake species that I wouldn’t want to get near.
An exception- grizzlies. When I was in Yellowstone in ’92, I made sure there were other people around- so I could be on the opposite side of them if a grizzly showed up.
Pro tip –
always invite an environmentalist to accompany you when you go trekking in bear or cougar country.
It’s much more humane to present an environmentalist as a sacrificial offering to apex carnivores than it is to present say a sacrificial dog.
Like that guy who thought grizzlies were nice- and liked to film them, until the day one ate him.
“Kensizer” is the best mouse/rat trap I have used. It catches both rats and mice.
I’ve always wondered where the 84 times more potent on a twenty year scale comes from.
CH4 breaks down into H2O and CO2 in 7 to 12 years. NASA says so, so it must be true. Water vapour precipitates out so the net change is likely so small it can’t be measured. CH4 is measured in parts per BILLION so the change in CO2 levels from CH4 oxidizing is similarly nothing. Well not nothing, but rounded off to three decimal places… nothing.
The NASA site then goes on to bable about a ton of methane over a 100 year period warming the earth 4 times as much as a ton of CO2. Makes no sense in two ways:
The comparison is misleading and disingenuous at best. The Global Warming POTENTIAL is a mystery calculation that has no meaning.
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
The reason NASA reports the concentration of methane in ppb instead of ppm is that it makes methane appear more like a “menacing molecule”.
Quite so David.
You say “CH4 breaks down into H2O and CO2 in 7 to 12 years.”
That is certainly the official position but I am starting to think that the lifetime (aka removal rate or destruction rate of turnover rate) is quite a bit less.
On page 19 of the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) there is a graph (Figure 1.11) which shows a concentration gradient of methane in the atmosphere.
This is important because it means the methane in the atmosphere is not evenly mixed. It also suggests that the largest source of methane is in the far north. Canadian and Russian wetlands perhaps?
I downloaded some methane monthly average data from
https://gml.noaa.gov/dv/data/index.php?parameter_name=Methane&type=Flask
and the the northern values from sites like Cold Bay in Alaska or Alert in Nunavit in Canada are consistently 7% higher than the southern sites like Cape Grim in Tasmania or Baring Head in NZ. I have attached a graph of the difference between Alaska and Tasmania.
This means methane is not well mixed.
The thing is, it should be well mixed if the lifetime is 9.1 years as the AR6 says.
According to the IPCC AR1 p.9
“1.2. 11 The role of the atmosphere
The mean annual concentration of CO2 is relatively
homogeneous throughout the troposphere because the
troposphere is mixed on a time scale of about 1 year”
If it is not evenly mixed then the lifetime is much less.
This suggests that the lifetime is closer to 1 year than 9 years.
The lifetime is used to calculate total emissions, therefore natural emissions and also Global Warming Potential. (GWP)
If the methane lifetime is significantly lower, then the anthropogenic emissions are a smaller part of the total. Also the GWP would be mush lower as well.
The difference in concentration between north and south hemispheres could relate to the disparity in landmass.
Quite true Capt Jeff. But here is the thing. If the turnover time is greater than 1 year there should be very little difference in the values no matter what latitude the samples are taken.
On page 76 of the second IPCC Assessment report it says the turnover time for CO2 is about 4 years.
4 years is enough time for the CO2 to become well mixed in the troposphere. I calculated the difference between CO2 values sampled at a number of testing sites and the difference was always less than 1 percent. It is reasonable to say CO2 is well mixed.
Why then is there such a difference between sites for methane if its turnover time is 9.1 years? The simplest explanation is that methane’s turnover time is much less than CO2’s.
Life time definition: Time until 69,3% has gone. Half life: 50%
YOUR POST SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE ARTICLE
And the elephant in the room…Methane absorption bands are overlaid by water. I.e., the absorption bands are essentially saturated in the real atmosphere. Methane only has an effect with dry air in a laboratory.
No, water has a few absorption lines in the region where CH4 is the main absorber with many lines, low resolution spectra like the one shown in this post give a false impression.
Nonsense. Water obliterates the CH4 absorption band around 3000 cm-1 and knocks down 20% or more of the band around 1300 cm-1. Moreover, the absorption bands of water are broadened not only because of saturation but because all three phases are present in the atmosphere.
And NOx’s are at the other CH4 peak, and the others are at wavelengths where both incoming and outgoing IR have little energy…
Last comment lost in cyberspace….NOx’s are at the other CH4 peak, and the others are at wavelengths where both incoming and outgoing IR have little energy…around 2. 1/2 and 3 1/2 microns.
This is a classic in vivo (or maybe better in situ) versus in vitro issue. (In Vivo vs. In Vitro: Definition, Examples, and More (healthline.com). In the lab, you can measure the absorption spectrum of any gas such as Methane and get the isolated absorption bands of interest for calculating GHG impact and put a factor to it compared to CO2 such as 23 to 32 or so used by many. But this isn’t how things work in vivo (in life, or more appropriately, in reality). But it fits the narrative better, so that is what is used. Masking of primary absorption bands by other entities such as H2O are not included in the lab analysis but materially impact the real-world situation (in situ).
This is the same issue for Chlorofluorocarbons and the Oxone layer. Sherry Rolland showed in the lab what could happen and the environmentalist took this and ran with it all the way to Montreal. But in reality, other mechanisms dominate the Antarctic Ozone Hole and the Montreal Protocol was meaningless. But made Dow a lot of money-making alternatives to CFC12.
The “84 times more potent on a twenty year scale” exemplifies what Benjamin Disraeli had in mind when he quipped, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
T atmosphere was about 14.8 C in 1900, about 16 C in 2023, an 8.1% increase
WV near the surface in 1900 was 13282 ppm, in 2023 was 14500 ppm, a 9.2% increase
CO2 in 1900 was about 296 ppm, in 2023 about 421 ppm, a 42% increase
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
There were about 85.1 units of warming in 1900, about 100 units in 2023, an 18% increase, if atmosphere warming is due to WV + Clouds = 75%, CO2 19%, Other 6% in 2023
However, based on retained energy (= enthalpy) in the atmosphere, the RE % increase was 8.9% from 1900 to 2023
That increase is more in line with WV % increase and T % increase
It looks like some overcounting is taking place somewhere
It is likely, (WV + clouds) plays a much bigger role than 75%, especially in the tropics
Official Contribution to Greenhouse Effect
Below is a summary of official numbers regarding the greenhouse effect.
Atmospheric scientists cannot definitively say, how much greenhouse effect is caused by each GW gas
They cannot simply remove one gas and see how the absorption of IR photons changes.
Instead, they must use laboratory tests and subjective models of the atmosphere to predict likely changes.
https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html ;
.
WV molecules, 39 to 62%
Clouds, 15 to 36%
WV and clouds, 67 to 85%
CO2 molecules, 14 to 25%
All other GHGs, 5 to 9%
http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9636.pdf
.
COMMENTS:
The role of CO2 is grossly overstated, as was shown in this article.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
Based on RE in the atmosphere, the CO2 RE role was 0.30% in 1900, 0.39% in 2023
Earth surface temperature increased about 1.2 C in from 1900 to 2023, which caused
.
1) about 1.2 x 7 = 8.4% more WV in the atmosphere, 2) additional RE, and 3) shorter H20-WV-precipitation cycles.
.
The 1.2 C increase could be due to: 1) irrigation, 2) fossil H2O, 3) natural CO2; 4) recovering from the Little Ice Age, 5) albedo change, 6) cloud cover change, etc. See URL
https://globalchange.mit.edu/news-media/in-the-news/greenhouse-gases-water-vapor-and-you
T atmosphere was about
14.8 C287.95K in 1900, about16 C289.15K in 2023,an 8.1%a 0.4% increase.It might seem like nitpicking, but temperature change proportions should be calculated using the absolute temperatures.
Increasing the temperature from 14.8 C in 1900 to 16.0 C in 2023 is NOT an 8.1% increase. In absolute temperature, 14.8 C = 287.95 K and 16.0 C = 289.15 K, an increase of 0.417%. Since IR radiation is proportional to the fourth power of absolute temperature, the IR radiation would increase by a factor of (1.00417)^4 = 1.68%.
Davidmhoffer, I do not know where you get your chemistry or more particularly the engineering subject of reaction kinetics. CH4 can only react with atmospheric gases (78% N2 & 20.6% O2) if there is sufficient CH4 (5% min) and an ignition temperature of about 650C. Laboratory experiments can not mimic conditions in the atmosphere but engineers can make tests in firing a boiler with natural gas. (you probably do not know that to get a highly radiant high temperature flame it is necessary to crack the gas to get carbon) In the atmosphere lightning can remove some CH4. Two reactions are possible a) CH4 +O3 = CH3OH + O2 (methanol is highly soluble in water but it has been detected in clouds and the upper atmosphere) b) CH4 +O3 = 2*H2O + CO2 Although rare fireballs from lightning strikes have been recorded and even photographed near source of methane such as peat bogs.
Methane can not absorb any long wave radiation from the Earth’s surface -it is not greenhouse gas. CH4 absorbs radiation at a wavelength of 8 micron. The average radiation emission of the Earth is around 10 micron (in the range of 9.5 to 11.8 micron). CO2 absorbs at a wavelength of around 14.8 micron which is equivalent to a temperature of about 200K by Wien’s Displacement law. I will let you think if CO2 is a greenhouse gas based on its absorption/emission temperature, the lapse rate, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Scientist work with assumptions they can not prove. Engineers develop products and process from experience and operation and then develop theories to improve on their knowledge.
“The average radiation emission of the Earth is around 10 micron (in the range of 9.5 to 11.8 micron). CO2 absorbs at a wavelength of around 14.8 micron which is equivalent to a temperature of about 200K by Wien’s Displacement law. I will let you think if CO2 is a greenhouse gas based on its absorption/emission temperature, the lapse rate, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
This is a misunderstanding of Wien’s law, 200K has nothing to do with the emission/absorption of CO2.
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
The concentration of methane in the air is a low 1.9 ppm. This is due to the initiation of combustion of the methane by discharges of lightning. There are many thousands of lightning discharges every day, especially in the tropics. The methane is oxidized to
water and carbon dioxide.
Methane is slightly soluble in water. One liter of ice-cold polar water can hold up to
170 ml of methane.
We really do not have worry about methane.
Is that ml or mg? 170 ml seems like a lot.
You are right!
In the “Merck Index”, 11th Edition, Monograph 5863, the solubility of methane in water at 17 deg. C is reported as 3.5 ml per 100 ml water.
I will try to find the value for the solubility of methane in water at 0 deg. C.
Wolfram Alpha might find this data.
Suggest using Arrhenius equation and a methane thermodynamics table of properties.
Thanks Harold. I have been putting a bit of time trying to get my head around methane in the atmosphere. I am getting the impression that the official narrative is underestimating the total emissions and sinks.
I agree we should not worry about methane. I have often thought that methane would be important in oxidising methane.
oops. Sorry. I meant lightning would be important.
Too many wines.
Since time immemorial, the word “bullshit” has been used as a metaphor for empty talk, blatant lies, nonsense, and the like — anything so false it stinks.
When the climatistas started hand-wringing about cow farts, I knew they’d reached the end of reason, and were just trying to scare people too distracted, or too busy to think things through. Suggesting that cow farts will end life as we know it, is the moral equivalent of screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or pulling the emergency cord to stop a train when nothing’s wrong.
Many people are not proficient with very large or very small numbers. With most of the world’s people now urbanized, few people are familiar with wild or domestic animals, either, except for small pets. It doesn’t occur to them that animals have been farting merrily away for hundreds of millions of years before humans appeared, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
I’ve tried to explain termite farts on these pages and elsewhere, but people don’t get it. It’s not their fault. You can’t install enough bullshit meters to counteract the avalanche of climatistas’ propaganda. Not at the moment, anyway. People will wise up eventually. Let’s hope it’s before we’re all crammed into tenements, and restricted to short rations of puréed cockroach.
Compared: If doubling of CO2 counts for 3.0 W/m², doubling of methane counts for 0.7 W/m² (W/H fig 10 and 12) – For both approx 200 years from now.
Ridiculousness is running at an all time high and if there’s one thing climate alarmism is fueling, it’s ridiculousness.
I see a simpler life ahead if these people all get their way. I wonder what they’ll complain about then.
_________________________________________________________
It would be nice if someone would put a number to it. Methane is in the atmosphere at 1930 ppb and is increasing at an average rate of 7.2 ppb/yr.
How much will that run up global temperature by 2100? Policy makers*
need to know what that is in degrees C or F so they don’t make stupid rules regulating agricultural methane.
If anyone claims it’s much more than 0.05°C by 2100 they should pipe up
and show their source and work.
*Unelected Bureaucrats
If climate sensitivity for CO2 is 0.8°C, it is for methane 0.19°C.
0.19°C is achieved after 268 years if 7.2 ppb more per year. Approx. 0.05°C in 2100
Thanks for that. I will add that to my list.
Prof Dave Frame, leading climate scientist and IPCC contributor states New Zealand with its livestock industries is warming the planet by 4 millionths of one degree C per year.
Comes to 0.0003°C by 2100
‘Methane won’t affect temperatures’.
(and therefore any rules about it do not either)
“most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from nature, such as CO2 emissions from the oceans and the biosphere.”
This statement is partially false
The author poisons the well with his early inaccurate statement about CO2 coming from nature … that was completely unnecessary for what is a good article about methane. and only methane. I recommended the article on my blog this morning but wich I could have deleted that sentence
About 2/3 of the 420 ppm of atmospheric CO2 came from natural sources. That is “most”.
But oceans and the biosphere have been net CO2 absorbers of atmospheric CO2 for billions of years.
That CO2 has been converted to carbon in rocks, shells, oil, natural gas and coal.
Burning those fuels recycles CO2 back into the atmosphere where it improves plant growth, which will support more animal and human life. If the fuels are burning with modern pollution controls, the added atmospheric CO2 is great news for the planet.
While the CO2 emissions every year from nature are much larger the manmade CO2 emissions, they are offset by the natural absorption of CO2 that is slightly larger.
The carbon cycle is a net CO2 absorber in the long run. That’s why atmospheric CO2 has declined for billions of years.
All of the added atmospheric CO2 in the past few centuries was from manmade CO2 emissions. Some conservatives won’t admit that fact because they are not very bright, Or they belong to a club that requires members to deny 100% of consensus climate science.
Not 80%.
Not 90%.
Only 100% is allowed.
“Some conservatives won’t admit that fact because they
are not very bright, Or they belong to a club that requires
members to deny 100% of consensus climate science.”
___________________________________________________________
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and
unto God the things that are God’s” Jesus of Nazareth
Good advice, if climate science is correct about something,
denying such is only going lose your credibility.
A broken clock is “right” twice a day and so are leftists. There are enough leftist climate lies and exaggerations to attack. We don’t need to falsely claim there is no greenhouse effect or CO2 does nothing. That will cause people to stop listening
“All of the added atmospheric CO2 in the past few centuries was from manmade CO2 emissions.”
Sure, but we still don’t know how much of current warming is due to CO2. That’s the mystery, not where the CO2 comes from.
There is a strong consensus that lab spectroscopy of CO2 represents the approximate effect of CO2 alone in the atmosphere. About +0.75 degrees C. warming per CO2 x 2 which would take 168 years at a rise rate of +2.5 ppm a year. Obviously harmless.
Then the feedback wild guessing begins and the resulting ECS of CO2 becomes silly science, with a huge range of guesses.
It appears to be a career ender for any climate scientist to say: “I don’t know”, which is an accurate answer for many climate questions,
“All of the added atmospheric CO2 in the past few centuries was from manmade CO2 emissions.”
Without empirical evidence which you do not have that is just a wet dream.
“deny 100% of consensus climate science”
You have no evidence of that and if you were a scientist you would know how stupid that is.
“You have no evidence of that and if you were a scientist you would know how stupid that is.”
I am not a scientist.
But I know how stupid you are.
Calling people names loses credibility too.
You missed an obvious archaic CO2 sink: photosynthetic organisms converting CO2 to oxygen. Given that we have around 20% O2 today, that’s around 28% (280,000ppm) nette atmosphere-equivalents of CO2 gobbled up by cells (and later plants). Given that vast amounts of O2 were incorporated into carbonates and rust (“the great oxidation episode”), a lot more CO2 than that was around over the eons. Interestingly, scientists have estimated that CO2 and methane, in our reducing atmosphere prior to photosynthesis, were of the order of 1-2%, or 10,000-20,000ppm each. That makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint: 1-2% of a food was worth evolving for to consume; 300ppm as a trace gas would hardly spur such a cataclysmic transformation of life from anaerobic to aerobic. We weren’t Venus with 10,000ppm CO2 and methane, and conditions were prefect for the rise of plants and oxygen-using cells and animals. And we worry about 1.9ppm of methane?
Using the CO2 concentration data from Mauna Loa, and world CO2 emissions data from fossil fuels from 1959-2022, and the fact that about 8.00 gigatonnes of CO2 would be needed to raise the average concentration in the atmosphere by 1 ppm, it can be shown that the natural CO2 emission rate to the atmosphere is about 40 Gt/yr, and natural sinks remove about 0.140 Gt/yr for every ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.
If mankind stopped burning fossil fuels entirely, the CO2 concentration would eventually reach equilibrium at (40 Gt/yr)/(0.14 Gt/yr-ppm) = 285 ppm, but this would take over 200 years.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions in 2022 were about 37.2 Gt/yr. Adding that to the natural rate results in a total emission rate of 77.2 Gt/yr, while the natural removal rate would be 0.14 * 420 = 58.8 Gt/yr, so that the net increase is 77.2 – 58.8 = 18.4 Gt/yr, which corresponds to a concentration increase of (18.4 Gt/yr) / (8.00 Gt/ppm) = 2.3 ppm/yr.
However, this rate of increase would not continue forever. As the concentration increases, the natural removal rate increases in proportion. If human CO2 emissions continued at 37.2 Gt/yr into the indefinite future, the natural removal rate will catch up to the total emission rate when the concentration is (77.2 Gt/yr) / (0.14 Gt/yr-ppm) = 551 ppm. In this scenario, the CO2 concentration would not quite reach double the “pre-industrial” concentration of 280 ppm, and would take about 200 years to reach 551 ppm.
huh. so you think science has something to say. Money talks a lot louder.
What does the same set of charts look like for CO2?
Headline correction:
USA EPA’s Latest Regulation Increases Death Rate Among Working Class Families, the Poor and Children While Raising Their Taxes.
That is the proper fear-porn headline. Besides, the regulation does just that
Way past time for the EPA to be sunsetted.
Polls show that AGW alarmism is losing the battle. There will be a tipping point where climate alarmism and its ideological fruit such as the GND are pushed aside. It will then be replaced by a focus on efficiently producing more energy and, if necessary, developing climate adapting solutions.
Obviously the Wijngaarden and Happer analysis is not recognized by the climate modeling crowd. I’m curious as to arguments against adopting this theory and what research is ongoing to validate or invalidate it.
Unless cattle and other farm animals have increased significantly since stabilizing a decade or so ago, methane emitted by those critters has reach equilibrium, and as such farm animals have absolutely 0 contribution to anything but our stomachs.
There are approximately 90 million cattle in the US today, In the late 1700’s there were 60 million bison in the US. That’s a 30% increase in cattle farts in the intervening period, assuming of course that bison farts and cattle farts are equivalent. We can safely assume that prior to 1700 approximately the same number of bison roamed the great plains. All those bison farts had no affect upon the climate at the time and failed to prevent the LIA. Cattle farts have the same effect today, i.e. none.
Female cows eat grass that if not eaten would die in cold weather and release methane anyway
Male cows(steers) eat corn and release methane.
Methane emissions could be reduced by banning the sale and consumption of baked beans. And leave the steers alone.
Methane is the new boogyman. It has replaced nuclear radiation as the main topic of concern.
Our garbage pickup now requires plastic buckets to place food waste into so it can be recycled to pig farms instead of going into landfill. Because methane. There are no pig farms in our county.
The buckets, of course, have turned into ant farms and rodent feeding stations. Because methane.
.
Feeding food waste to pigs was banned here years ago because of claimed disease risk.
Our dogs and hens seem happy enough with it. Vegetable scraps apparently go well in worm farms.
Pretty silly. Hog manure produces way more methane if their goal is to decrease it. Every year there are several deaths from asphyxiation as farmers deal with hog manure pits. https://www.agriculture.com/manure-pit-accidents-are-more-deadly-than-not-7853529…..Of course the abundant methane produced on these operations could be captured and used to generate electricity https://www.biocycle.net/swine-manure-biomethane/
The cause of death is more likely H2S, especially hog manure.
Knowledge over Methane as a GHG is really bad, and this article only confirms that view. I took on the work myself, cause otherwise no one would do it, and things are very different in reality..
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/methane
From the above article:
“This longwave radiation seeks to leave Earth’s atmosphere, but almost all of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases then re-radiate the absorbed energy, which acts to warm Earth’s surface.”
The second sentence in this extract is just plain wrong.
The LWIR-active gases (the “greenhouse” gases) re-distribute nearly all of the excess energy they receive from absorbing longwave radiation off Earth’s surfaces (water, ice, land) to the other constituents of the atmosphere via molecule-to-molecule collisions, NOT via re-radiation of EM photons. Molecular collisions of gases in the atmosphere happen at rates that are in the range of 10^6 to 10^9 time faster than the times required (by quantum mechanics) for an LWIR-excited molecule to spontaneous re-emit a photon of equal or lower energy than the one it just absorbed.
Since 99% of the lower atmosphere is composed of N2 and O2 molecules (neither of which are LWIR-active), the greenhouse gases “warm” the entire atmosphere via their kinetic collisions with nitrogen and oxygen molecules, re-distributing the excess energy into translational, vibrational, and rotational modes of mechanical energy, but NOT into excited electron states.
It is then the entire atmosphere (and, again, that’s predominately nitrogen and oxygen gases) that subsequently emits thermal radiation isotropically because it has a range of temperatures above absolute zero degrees (ref: Plank’s law). Since all atoms and molecules in the atmosphere have a view factor of Earth’s surface that is slightly less than a full hemisphere, it can be said that the whole atmosphere “sends back” thermal radiation that “warms” Earth’s surface.
“It is then the entire atmosphere (and, again, that’s predominately nitrogen and oxygen gases) that subsequently emits thermal radiation isotropically because it has a range of temperatures above absolute zero degrees (ref: Plank’s law).”
This is incorrect, N2 and O2 do not emit thermal radiation, they have no dipole.
Only this reply is necessary: A tungsten filament in a light bulb does not emit thermal radiation because tungsten has no dipole?
Emissions from a tungsten filament involve electronic transitions which don’t involve dipoles, whereas those from CO2 are ro-vibrational transitions which do require a dipole. H2 and O2 to emit thermal radiation would require ro-vibrational transitions and not having dipoles can not do so.
Have it your way . . . nobody can say I didn’t try.
You should have tried harder in your Physical Chemistry spectroscopy classes.
And you, certainly, should author a scientific paper on why N2 and O2 do not obey the Stephan-Boltzmann law of radiation that applies to all matter, specifically because they don’t have molecular dipoles.
It is sure to be revolutionary. I will even attend a college-level Physical Chemistry spectroscopy class to hear this update.
Since it’s covered in any undergrad textbook on Physical Chemistry or Spectroscopy there would be no point since everyone knows that it’s the case. Originally based on Bohr’s work in 1913.
For example:
The quantum mechanics for homonuclear diatomic molecules such as dinitrogen, N2, and fluorine, F2, is qualitatively the same as for heteronuclear diatomic molecules, but the selection rules governing transitions are different. Since the electric dipole moment of the homonuclear diatomics is zero, the fundamental vibrational transition is electric-dipole-forbidden and the molecules are infrared inactive.
My emphasis.
You are right in pointing out that sentence is wrong. But you are wrong about everything else. Let me highlight these two quotes:
and..
So you think the atmosphere gets heated by the surface, and the surface gets heated by the atmosphere. Welcome to free energy land!
What happens in reality is that absorbing molecules within the atmosphere emit about as much radiation onto the surface as they receive from the surface, with only marginal differences. It is the same thing that happens everywhere around you, and even inside you. It does nothing.
Mr. Schaffer,
I can only gently suggest that you read up on and more importantly understand:
1) That the LWIR energy absorbed by a “greenhouse gas” molecule excites kinetic energy (i.e., translational, vibrational and rotational) modes of temporary energy storage, not elevated electron levels in the molecule.
2) The kinetic molecular theory of gases and how the collisions between molecules statistically results in a redistribution of energy from higher kinetic energy molecules to lower kinetic energy molecules until a Maxwell-Boltzmann type equilibrium energy distribution is reached for a given gas bulk temperature.
3) The frequency of molecular collisions in the atmosphere from sea-level to the top of the troposphere, and how they are typically 10^6 to 10^9 time faster than the time for a LWIR-excited molecule to re-radiate a LWIR photon that is close to the energy of the photon it received from Earth’s surface (aka the molecule’s “photo-relaxation time”). Professor William Happer presents a slide at the 38m00s mark into his videotaped presentation at the following link that documents this situation for CO2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXg_JfuRqTU . A copy of this slide is attached, showing CO2 photo-relaxation times ranging from about 0.01 to 1 second.
4) The Stefan-Boltzmann law, a fundamental law of physics, explains the relationship between an object’s temperature and the amount of radiation that it emits. This law states that all objects with temperatures above absolute zero (0K or -273°C or -459°F) emit radiation at a rate proportional to the fourth power of their absolute temperature. For gases, the Stefan-Boltzmann law realizes that the radiation occurs in a series of discrete spectral lines characteristic of the particular atom/molecules (having intensity versus frequency bounded by a blackbody-type distribution curves) as opposed to the radiation being across a continuous spectrum defined by a blackbody-graybody distribution curve that is characteristic of solid and liquid states of matter.
Finally, yes indeed, the atmosphere gets heated by Earth’s surface, and Earth’s surface gets heated by the atmosphere. There is nothing in that statement that implies “free energy” because both can, independently, be simultaneously losing heat energy to deep space. Keep in mind that the Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation is based on the absolute temperature of the radiating object . . . not on a delta-T between two separate objects.