Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Are Microbes Increasing Levels of Methane in the Atmosphere? (msn.com) 71

Posted by EditorDavid from the greenhouse-gases dept.
Though it breaks down faster than CO2, methane is a greenhouse gas over 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide, reports the Washington Post. It suddenly started increasing in the atmosphere in 2007 — and then in 2020, its growth rate doubled.

While scientists have suspected it was natural gas, some researchers have a new theory... "The changes that we saw in the last couple of years — and even since 2007 — are microbial," said Sylvia Michel, lead author of the paper published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Wetlands, if they are getting warmer and wetter, maybe they're producing more methane than they used to...."

Michel and her co-authors analyzed samples of methane, or CH4, from 22 sites around the globe at a Colorado laboratory. Then they measured the "heaviness" of that methane — specifically, how many of the molecules had a heavier isotope of carbon in them, known as C13. Different sources of methane give off different carbon signatures. Methane produced by microbes — mostly single-celled organisms known as archaea, which live in cow stomachs, wetlands and agricultural fields — tends to be "lighter," or have fewer C13 atoms. Methane from fossil fuels, on the other hand, is heavier, with more C13 atoms. As the amount of methane has risen in the atmosphere over the past 15 years, it's also gotten lighter and lighter. The scientists used a model to analyze those changes and found that only large increases in microbial emissions could explain both the rising methane and its changing weight....

Researchers say it doesn't mean that the world can just keep burning natural gas. If wetlands are releasing methane faster than ever, they argue, there should be an even greater push to curb methane from the sources humans can control, such as cows, agriculture and fossil fuels.
The article includes this quote from Stanford University professor Rob Jackson (who works on the Global Methane Budget, a project tracking the world's methane sources). "You can turn a wrench in an oil and gas field to quench methane emissions," Jackson said. "There's no wrench for the Congo or the Amazon." Another recent study found that two-thirds of current methane emissions are caused by humans — from fossil fuels, rice cultivation, reservoirs and other sources. "Methane forms biologically in warm, wet, low-oxygen environments," Jackson said. "The wetlands of a rice paddy and the gut of the cow are all similar." But evidence is also emerging that natural wetlands may be responding to warming temperatures by pumping out more methane. Satellite data from recent years has shown global methane hot spots in the tropical wetlands of the Amazon and the Congo. "Wetlands will emit more methane as temperatures warm," Jackson said. "This may be the start of a reinforcing feedback, that higher temperatures release more methane from natural ecosystems...."

Over 100 countries have pledged to reduce their methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030, compared with 2020 levels — but so far, that pledge has yet to see results. Instead, satellite measurements show concentrations are rising at a rate that is in line with the worst-case climate scenarios.

Are Microbes Increasing Levels of Methane in the Atmosphere? More | Reply

Are Microbes Increasing Levels of Methane in the Atmosphere?

Comments Filter:
  • ban all standing water...

    • Quite the dilemma. Are we supposed to be draining the wetlands or preserving them? Or both at once?

    • In fairness, standing water is where mosquitos breed [nyc.gov].

    • Trump has pledged to drain the swamp.

  • They are building more and more Taco Bells [statista.com] ... what did you think would happen?

  • Yes. Obviously. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Saturday November 09, 2024 @12:18PM (#64933191)

    It's considered one of the most dangerous aspects of man-made climate-change cascading effects. Ice and Tundra thaw, release methane clathrates and biological processes - frozen for millenia - wake up, kick in and produce methane on top of that.

    And while methane degrades faster when compared to other greenhouse gases, it is also 23x more potent as a greenhouse gas and could be released in amounts that ramp up the global greenhouse effect rapidly. The "Methane Clathrate Gun Hypothesis" describes this effect and the data that support this hypothesis are pure nightmare material. It's a hypothesis but one that points to very specific cascading effect that we should pay more attention too to be prepared.

    The real problem is that this is by and large _only_ a cascading effect, meaning once it kicks in there is no turning back, even if humanity drops its fossil CO2 output to zero in an instant.

    In other words, once earth and nature themselves join in on the climate change effects caused by humans, with their geolithic timescales, it could mean a true and real 6th extinction level event and it's very likely that humans would be on that extinction list as well.

    And that is something I don't want.

    Either way, our time is quickly running out and we have to get moving with a global eco-turnaround.

    • Since dinosaurs/birds survived the last two extinction events (and didn't exist before), will they be fine?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        Maybe. Most of the animals you're referring to went extinct and the few that survived were incredibly different than today's birds.

        • Maybe. Most of the animals you're referring to went extinct and the few that survived were incredibly different than today's birds.

          Except for coelacanths. They apparently haven't changed much in the last 410 million years despite those two big extinction events.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            Of course those arent "dinosaurs/birds" as what the above was referring to.

          • Great example! One outlier that lives in some of the deepest parts of the ocean survived. Are you trolling people, or are you really that stupid?

            • What if no one cares if hu-mans survive? What if you joined me in the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement ("Live long and die out")?

        • Are you saying adaptability is overrated?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            Nope. Why do you ask?

            • "Most of the animals you're referring to went extinct and the few that survived were incredibly different than today's birds."

              Is it just me or are you saying that if a species doesn't survive in its original form then it's bad? Why can't I see the bird genome as a triumph of adaptation, well-suited to survive any "extinction event" we've created that will (one dreams!) wipe out the human scourge on this planet?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by skam240 ( 789197 )

                Is it just me or are you saying that if a species doesn't survive in its original form then it's bad?

                Yup, it's just you. I never said anything remotely close to that.

                No idea and don't care about the rest.

      • This gets into really unhelpful interpretations of "fine" means.

        The world will be fine. It will keep turning, day will follow night and so on and there's nothing humans can to to affect that much.Thing is though the world doesn't care about humans and all the above will hold if we somehow divert enough asteroids to turn it into a molten ball of rock extinct of all life.

        Everything alive today has, by definition, survived in some form every extinction event since the beginning of life.

        Will species/family/clad

    • Also... I believe that methane breaks down into mainly CO2 and water, so once it's done being 80x worse than CO2, it keeps right on trucking being 1x 'worse' as extra CO2 in addition to the stuff we're deliberately and directly pumping into the air.

      It's unlikely to be a human extinction event though, because the Earth has gone through such cycles before and life survived. CO2 concentrations would have to go up another 250% above today's levels before outdoor air quality would start to become a concern. Te

      • Came here more or less to make this point. Also, in the upper atmosphere, the oxygen involved tends to come from ozone

      • Temperatures going up just means we would migrate to more temperate climates wherever they end up being.

        Hell, I'd already like to migrate to where both the weather and political sorts of climates are nicer than where I presently reside. Can't do that because *checks notes* I don't earn enough money. I have a feeling many people are going to be in the same boat.

    • Either way, our time is quickly running out and we have to get moving with a global eco-turnaround.

      At least here in the US, a good portion of the population couldn't even be inconvenienced to wear a damn mask during a pandemic. Now I see why there are scientists researching potential geoengineering solutions, because we're not going to solve the problem by changing behaviors.

    • >our time is quickly running out and we have to get moving with a global eco-turnaround.

      Interestingly enough, most talk on the subject is about how we've modeled things from best case to worst case and we're not keeping things in the zone for 'best case'.

      What you don't hear much about is how the worst case model is "we do nothing to fight climate change" and it's pretty nightmarish after about the year 2100. What you also don't hear people talk much about is how we're not just doing nothing, we're makin

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Budenny ( 888916 )

        Who is this "we" that is "making things worse and releasing ever-growing amounts of CO2"?

        Who is actually doing that? List the top five countries, please. Inquiring minds want to know.

        • All of us. Everyone who buys stuff, drives stuff, or makes a campfire. It's a group effort.

          You want to blame someone else so you don't have to do your part, or you don't want to sacrifice while someone else is behaving worse? Tough, the world doesn't work like that without a lot of effort to make it work that way.

          Still, you're not going to like the answer. China is the worst overall by total amount. Blame China, amirite? Well, per capita it's the US which is dumping about twice as much CO2 into the wo

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dryeo ( 100693 )

            I'm Canadian, and I haven't checked but I suspect on the per capita scale we're doing very badly... but we're overall so tiny that if you're looking to clean up the planet we are not anywhere near the kind of place you need to start if you want to go country by country.

            Last I looked, per capita we actually put out the same or more then an American. Since we have about 10% of the population of America, that means we put out 10% of America. 10% is not that small of a number and with Alberta officially deciding that we need more CO2 (for the plants) and the next Federal government likely to have the same attitude, we do have an increasing affect. 10 countries like us equals America.

          • You should also compare per km2. Releasing is emission is a kind of natural resource (or "negative" natural resource) and with that measure China is twice as bad as the US, India is in the middle between US and China. *BANGLADESH* is equal to US. This is a measurement of overpopulation.

            ton CO2/km2:

            USA..........527,68
            Europe..........352,54
            China..........1070,10
            India..........794,56
            Bangladesh..........519,82

      • I'm pretty sure
        a) It's already too late.
        b) It's going to be bad by 2050.
        c) +3C is already baked in and unavoidable*.

        *put a pot of water on the stove and set the flame to a low flame. It might take 20 minutes... but the water will steam and boil. We have no way to "turn the flame off" at this point.

        We are about 41 gigatons of excess carbon per year. +2C is already being seen. The conditions for +3C will be met by 2040... after that, it's just a matter of the heat *inevitably* rising to +3C. And by 20

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Budenny ( 888916 )

      Climate hysteria, yet again.

      The usual pattern, an astronomically unlikely doom laden scenario is put forward.

      The next step, only alluded to very discreetly in this post, is usually to demand that the West reduce emissions. Usually to move its electricity generation to wind and solar.

      Which is (a) impossible and (b) useless, since even could it be done any reductions in emissions that it produces will be swamped by the increases from China, India etc, and they are never asked to reduce.

      Or maybe this is wrong

    • Maybe they should try and convince the public of the urgency by using terms like “potent” to describe how bad the problem is.

      That should make it clear. As mud.

    • Either way, our time is quickly running out and we have to get moving with a global eco-turnaround.

      There is no we in this equation other than who dies. Every single individual could go negative in their carbon footprint and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. There are only a few people who can do anything about what "humanity" is doing and they are quite happy with the way things are going.

      Long story short, we absolutely, 100%, will have an unlivable atmopshere at some point in our future. It doesn't matter what we say or do. Such is the consequence of concentrating power/money/authority. I am going t

  • these guys need to be locked up and sterilized, i mean gender reassigned
  • https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.10... [pnas.org]
    Fig 1A shows increasing total methane with decreasing geological methane and therefore the increase is due to microbial methane.

    We really shouldn't let this drunken microbe party go on for too long or we really will have no choice but to undertake geoengineering.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Torodung ( 31985 )

      Too late. Like normal human beings, climate scientists probably wound up missing the really horrible consequences and a variety of tipping points, simply because it is difficult to face your own demise so boldly. I have always presumed that it is very possibly worse than research indicates due to the human factor.

      So we probably already "have no choice." We need to do geoengineering. Curbing or changing current behaviors is, I strongly suspect, not going to get us out of this. It will be tricky and I hope we

      • We are well past the point where geoengineering is necessary, we reached that when oceanic acidity started taking off. The main way CO2 is removed from the atmosphere is by interaction with the sea, making it more acid; the main way it is returned to stasis is interaction with exposed subaquatic limestone (which can react much more quickly than exposed limestone above the surface can with air) and we know we have long since exceeded the rate at which that can happen.

        Even if you could plant every bit of land

  • If wetlands are releasing methane faster than ever, they argue, there should be an even greater push to curb methane from the sources humans can control, such as cows, agriculture and fossil fuels. (emph added)

    Um, could we please describe "agriculture" in this sentence? Because I'm pretty sure we can't meaningfully reduce agriculture without a massive die off of some kind. I know it's coming, one way or another, but I would like some details about how we're all supposed to properly starve to death.

    Now we're even going after vegetarians and vegans? Who's next, the Buddhist monks? Maybe excessive meditation causes climate change through accelerated exhalation of CO2?

    If you don't have a sense of humor, please don't

    • You can reduce methane emissions from farming without reducing farming.

      For example, all feedlots should be required to put their crap into a bioreactor (which can be basically just the same kind of bag used as a "water tank") and capture the methane, then at least flare it, but ideally to use it to make power and put that on the grid at peak times. In other contexts you can't collect cow crap, but you can there, and they already do. Right now it is mostly put into an open holding pond and left to decompose

  • Just like my farts.

  • Though it breaks down faster than CO2, methane is a greenhouse gas over 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide..

    Its bad enough when the layman can barely grasp the geeenhouse concept, but don’t try and sell this problem using terms like “potent”. The fuck is that? Are you selling me environmental concerns or the latest weed strain?

    You’re (allegedly) highly skilled professionals. At least try and act like you’re convincing us of that.

  • I am sure share gas development has nothing to do with the increase of methane gas in the atmosphere. Blame the cows and microbes instead and keep digging.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close