Methane Much More Sensitive To Global Heating Than Previously Thought, Study Says (theguardian.com) 81
Methane is four times more sensitive to global warming than previously thought, a new study shows. The result helps to explain the rapid growth in methane in recent years and suggests that, if left unchecked, methane related warming will escalate in the decades to come. From a report: The growth of this greenhouse gas -- which over a 20 year timespan is more than 80 times as potent than carbon dioxide -- had been slowing since the turn of the millennium but since 2007 has undergone a rapid rise, with measurements from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recording it passing 1,900 parts a billion last year, nearly triple pre-industrial levels. "What has been particularly puzzling has been the fact that methane emissions have been increasing at even greater rates in the last two years, despite the global pandemic, when anthropogenic sources were assumed to be less significant," said Simon Redfern, an earth scientist at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.
About 40% of methane emissions come from natural sources such as wetlands, while 60% come from anthropogenic sources such as cattle farming, fossil fuel extraction and landfill sites. Possible explanations for the rise in methane emissions range from expanding exploration of oil and natural gas, rising emissions from agriculture and landfill, and rising natural emissions as tropical wetlands warm and Arctic tundra melts. But another explanation could be a slowdown of the chemical reaction that removes methane from the atmosphere. The predominant way in which methane is "mopped up" is via reaction with hydroxyl radicals (OH) in the atmosphere.
About 40% of methane emissions come from natural sources such as wetlands, while 60% come from anthropogenic sources such as cattle farming, fossil fuel extraction and landfill sites. Possible explanations for the rise in methane emissions range from expanding exploration of oil and natural gas, rising emissions from agriculture and landfill, and rising natural emissions as tropical wetlands warm and Arctic tundra melts. But another explanation could be a slowdown of the chemical reaction that removes methane from the atmosphere. The predominant way in which methane is "mopped up" is via reaction with hydroxyl radicals (OH) in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Genus PLC [nypost.com] is doing that right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Gene editing IS genetic engineering.
You're probably thinking of recombinant or transgenic genetic engineering, where genes are moved from one species to another.
But genetic engineering itself include *everything* you can do to DNA directly (typically excluding selective breeding, mostly just to make a clear distinction between ancient methods and the vastly more powerful modern ones).
I believe there's really only three things we can do: delete genes, replace genes, or insert genes.
And if we replace or inser
Eating methane with corn (Score:1)
In 2009 I was at a talk where Dr. Strand proposed to add 5 genes from methane eaters to the US corn crop. Turns out the US corn crop filters the whole atmosphere in a couple of years. This trick at the crop scale would run the methane down to near zero in that time.
Of course, it would be GMO corn.
On the other hand, a lot of the corn crop is destined to making ethanol. If anyone cares about methane, this is one line that should be tried.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: First we kill the cows... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cows don't revolt.
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me to present documentary evidence [youtube.com] that this is not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember correctly, cattle production is not as large a contributor as you might expect. And one that can be reduced dramatically with feed additives.
A huge contributor is leaky infrastructure. As I recall, the U.S. averages roughly 15-25% methane losses between pumping and point of use, that's a LOT of methane leakage into the atmosphere. And of course there's a huge amount of natural gas that's simply vented from oil wells because it's not worth capturing (contaminated, no convenient markets, etc)
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember correctly, cattle production is not as large a contributor as you might expect. And one that can be reduced dramatically with feed additives.
Beano for Moocows?
Whatever happened to moocow man? He was the best troll ever on Slashdot. Funny, not a jerk.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's also lamb, turkey, bison, yak and seafood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When it was all said and done, Bill Gates finally owned every square inch of the planet, all to himself, by himself, alone.
and he had Time Enough at Last to read all the books...
Beans and Politicians (Score:2)
We know that beans contribute to human methane production, we need to get rid of beans.
Most of the waste gas that come from humans come from politicians. Nothing useful comes from them either. Lets get rid of them.
Re:Surprise (Score:4, Informative)
Correcting the amount of methane in the atmosphere will yield results in 10-12 years because of its short life in the atmosphere. Reversing CO2 will take centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Correcting the amount of methane in the atmosphere will yield results in 10-12 years because of its short life in the atmosphere. Reversing CO2 will take centuries.
When methane breaks down, what does it break down into?
Hint: it's not good news
Re: (Score:2)
Water vapor has a pretty significant greenhouse effect, but should fairly quickly fall out as preciptation. Everything's fine here. No problem! I'm sure that free C atom will just turn into diamonds that rain from the sky, right?
Re:Surprise (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sure that free C atom will just turn into diamonds that rain from the sky, right?
Yeah, therein lies the problem, as you allude. It just becomes CO2. So Methane has a strong greenhouse effect, then it breaks down into water which also does though it's short lived, and also more CO2 which isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only comparing molecule to molecule to show which is worse. The volume of methane we have to deal with is small, as is the final CO2 it results in, compare to the larger output of CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only comparing molecule to molecule to show which is worse. The volume of methane we have to deal with is small, as is the final CO2 it results in, compare to the larger output of CO2.
As much as I would love to call methane a non problem, it won't go away in 12 years unless we release it all in one fell swoop. And what if the ocean's changing chemistry releases all that methane clathrate?
Now just between us tardigrades, whatever "tipping point" that many speak about, my money is on that we passed that some time ago, and all this extra methane is just going to increase the pain.
What I think the money should go to is figuring out the effects we're going to see. What places are going t
Re: (Score:2)
Reversing CO2 will take centuries.
Sort of a meaningless number. The slope of the seasonal decrease* in measured CO2 levels [noaa.gov] is pretty rapid and doesn't lag the driving cause by much time. When we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere faster than plant life removes it, it will come down pretty fast. The phase lag is minimal and CO2 responds very quickly to various system inputs. How long will it actually take to reduce it to pre-industrial levels? Probably not going to happen unless we reduce the population levels exhaling the stuff to similar le
Re: (Score:2)
When we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere faster than plant life removes it, it will come down pretty fast.
Source? (I'm genuinely curious, as I've heard numbers all over)
Re: (Score:2)
Source?
Take a look at the data in the link I posted. It's quite clear that CO2 levels have a very rapid seasonal change from the shape of the sawtooth curve.
Re: (Score:2)
Your conclusion from the data is not sound. CO2 drops quickly when lots of plants are growing, but that's not the same as CO2 dissipating from the atmosphere as plant CO2 capture is only temporary and is returned when plants are broken down by microbes in the soil. There's a straight forward article on the subject [uga.edu]
If we were to stop producing CO2 and add lots of rain forests then yes, we could drive it down. We probably won't be able to add more permanent forests than actually existed in the 19th century, an
Re: (Score:2)
as plant CO2 capture is only temporary and is returned when plants are broken down by microbes in the soil
Where does it say that in the article you posted?
If we were to stop producing CO2 and add lots of rain forests then yes
Why? Don't you think rain forests get broken down by soil microbes as well? The correct solution would be to grow forests. But you only get credit for carbon sequestration based on the number of tons of carbon you haul out of them on logging trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say that in the article you posted?
"so when the [northern hemisphere] plants are actively growing in April through September, they are removing CO2 from the atmosphere, lowering the concentration. At the end of the Northern Hemisphere growing season, plants go dormant and CO2 starts to build up again."
Why? Don't you think rain forests get broken down by soil microbes as well?
They act as a carbon sink as multiple generations of plants replace the ones that decay. And a substantial depth of organic material accumulates on the forest floor. Additionally trees are tall and provide vertical scaling of carbon storage. O
Re: Surprise (Score:2)
They act as a carbon sink as multiple generations of plants replace the ones that decay. And a substantial depth of organic material accumulates on the forest floor.
Or not.
There are scientists who base their claims that logging the Amazon basin is bad because the soils are fragile and don't have the depth of organic material to recover. Like North American forests do, which can be replanted. Additional evidence supporting this is the "Terra preta" soil that indigenous people had to fortify in order to grow crops. The take-away from all this is that the Amazon basin has a pretty low value agriculturally and as a carbon sink. And that's the primary reason for leaving it
Re:Surprise (Score:4, Informative)
The US is #22 for per capita methane and 12th overall greenhouse gas emission. https://www.worlddata.info/gre... [worlddata.info]
A new buzzword is coined (Score:2)
Just read this (Score:2)
On the Bright Side.... (Score:2)
On the bright side, chickens will soon be laying hard boiled eggs.
--
In this bright future you can't forget your past. - Bob Marley
Concerning (Score:3)
But on the plus side, great news for the nascent alternative protein markets and investors, estimated to be worth maybe 160 billion in a few years. Always remember, an ecological problem has a moral component (human greed) which has a technological mass production and marketing answer. And that's serious. No big changes happen in the world without investors plopping money on the table. The rise of a new planetary human value of care and compassion will have to wait another 500 years. Tech is the answer.
Re: (Score:1)
Global warming also means much more land is suitable for raising cattle too, so win/win!
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming also means much more land is suitable for raising cattle too, so win/win!
The earth gets smaller towards the poles, and cows are not known for their ability to live in swamps in places with little daylight in winter. They also are not known to thrive in deserts. So, no, probably not more land suitable for raising cattle.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure world plus dog has now seen Allan Savory's work on soil regeneration. Most land can't be used for agriculture but can be used as grassland for ruminants, and some deserts can be regenerated by carefully reintroducing ruminants. And human guts are too small to do well with plants, having reallocated the tissue energy requirements to the brain. And all the nitrogen isotope stuff about our ancestors being hyper carnivores. So yeah, it should be a win win win. But no, let's replace sun + grass + cow +
Wait.. Global Heating or Global Warming? (Score:1)
feedback loop (Score:5, Informative)
methane trapped in the ocean floor is released due to warmer water: https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov... [noaa.gov]
thawing permafrost is releasing enormous amounts of methane: https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]
The Amazon is no longer a carbon sink: https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]
Basically, we've passed the tipping point. If humans released zero carbon/methane emissions starting now, there are already enough greenhouse gasses baked into the system to continue the global warming and climate change process with the earth releasing it's stored reserves. 40 years of corporate sponsored misinformation has been roaring success. Our children, let alone our grand children, are going to be very, very uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, not an expert but that is my take away from this too.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/tren... [noaa.gov]
it just doesn't make sense that these sudden increases correspond to agricultural or prospection activities, i can hardly believe these changed so much in such short time span. i would bet on either measuring errors/bias, some unexpected chaotic fluctuation or, well, that the shit finally hit the fan.
Re: feedback loop (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather go for, the Earth system is incredibly complex and the brains trust that declares they understand it, are really a bunch of narcissistic planks who know they understand bugger all, but shout that they know it all.
Or to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, there are things they don't even know they don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Our children, let alone our grand children, are going to be very, very uncomfortable.
Unless your grand children are major fuckups they will almost certainly have a better life than you.
States of the Earth (Score:3)
You seem a little under-informed (or are intentionally misrepresenting) about the "pulses" and higher-temperature periods. Allow me to provide a bit more context.
There's three basic states that the Earth can be in, and two of them are actually sub-states of an ice age, or "Icehouse Earth" stage (characterized by permanent ice caps at the poles), which we've been in for about 2.5 million years now. Longer than humanity has existed - we hadn't yet evolved into homo erectus when the current ice age began.
And
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, we've passed the tipping point.
I've been beating that drum for along time. If humans released zero carbon/methane emissions starting now, there are already enough greenhouse gasses baked into the system to continue the global warming and climate change process with the earth releasing it's stored reserves. 40 years of corporate sponsored misinformation has been roaring success. Our children, let alone our grand children, are going to be very, very uncomfortable.
My projection is during climate stabilization, humans are going to hav
Re: (Score:1)
Methane chart (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise "nearly vertical" is meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what I should be looking for. The current rate seems to be going back (and above?) to the rate of the 1980s. It seems to flatten out around the time of the Montreal protocol, which I don't know if it is related.
Long story short: I don't know how to read this graph without knowing the why of various inflection points.
Please tell me the story...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
The fact we don't know why it flattened is interesting to say the least. I found that one theory is that it stopped because of the USSR collapse. If so, that would mean a 10 year lead time to see any effect of our actions. Depressing.
Now I realize it is present in the "great acceleration" big picture...
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
Indeed with this longer time scale, the little 2000 plateau doesn't seem too relevant.
Wait (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what's meant by "the science is settled".
Well that doesn't sound too fucking good (Score:2)
Damn it. Methane was bad enough for warming, now this. Was there anything about "tilling" dirt helping absorb methane, or was that purely CO2? Are there any natural sources, besides OH in the atmosphere, that actually get rid of methane? I have to go read up, this really sucks.
OK here is something:
https://www.wired.com/story/it... [wired.com]
Natural Gas is METHANE (Score:5, Informative)
Every time the subject of methane comes up, everyone talks about biomass and cows. The petrolium industry has performed a marketing miracle over the years naming the stuff "Natural Gas". Surely that could never be an issue because it's "natural". "Natural" is not a molecule. "Natural Gas" is predominantly methane. The methane component can vary from 65% to over 90%. "Pipeline quality natural gas" contains a minimum of 75% methane.
Factor in all the leakage from wells, fracking, pipelines, other, and you get a boatload of methane; sometimes quite literally as LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) is mostly methane.
Re: (Score:2)
All that is true, except the part about a marketing miracle. The term came into use to distinguish it from the less desirable manufactured gas made mostly from
Re: (Score:2)
Natural gas is a product. You say it's some form of evil marketing but the reality is the end goal of natural gas is to sell it to a customer who will then set it on fire, not release it to the atmosphere.
I don't think I've ever seen any marketing oil industry or other industry claiming that methane is natural and thus okay to leak. I've seen plenty of oil companies ignore the extent of their leaks (and get their ass handed to them by western regulators, or get ignored by 3rd world regulators), but the real
Re: Natural Gas is METHANE (Score:2)
The vast majority of sources that offgas CH4 were already being exploited for coal or oil. Without using it as combustible fuel more of it would end up directly in the atmosphere and the rest flared off above oil derricks anyway.
Natural gas decalred "green". (Score:1)
The Europen Union declared natural gas a "green" energy source: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/0... [cnbc.com]
I should also point out that the EU declared nuclear fission power "green" as well. This might appear counter intuitive as natural gas contributes to global warming but it is in fact "green" because it was with increased use of natural gas over coal and petroleum that so many nations in the world lowered their CO2 emissions. Studies show that nuclear power has the lowest CO2 emissions of any energy source know
urgent need (Score:2, Informative)
Source (Score:1)