You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
Methane levels no longer rising, say scientists
2006-11-22
But the brain-farts continue apace...
Levels of an important greenhouse gas have stopped growing, say U.S. scientists.

Methane levels have stayed nearly flat for the past seven years, following a rise during the two previous decades, according to researchers at the University of California, Irvine. The findings suggest methane may no longer be as large a global warming threat as previously thought and provide evidence that methane levels can be controlled.

The research, led by professors Sherwood Rowland and Donald Blake, will be published in Thursday's online edition of Geophysical Research Letters. "If one really tightens emissions, the amount of methane in the atmosphere 10 years from now could be less than it is today. We will gain some ground on global warming if methane is not as large a contributor in the future as it has been in the past century," Rowland, of the department of chemistry and earth system science, said in a news release.

Rowland is the co-recipient of the 1995 Nobel Prize for chemistry for discovering that chlorofluorocarbons in products such as aerosol sprays and coolants were damaging the Earth's protective ozone layer. He and his colleagues believe the slowdown in methane growth may be in part because of leak-preventing repairs to oil and gas lines and storage facilities, which can release methane into the atmosphere.

Other explanations include slower growth or decrease in methane emissions from coal mining, rice paddies and natural gas production.

"If carbon dioxide levels were the same today as they were in 2000, the global warming discussion would leave the front page. But to stabilize this greenhouse gas, we would have to cut way back on emissions," Rowland said. "Methane is not as significant a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, but its effects are important. The world needs to work hard to reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases."

Methane is the major ingredient in natural gas. It is also a powerful greenhouse gas and helps form ozone, an ingredient in smog. Atmospheric levels of the gas have more than doubled since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s. About two-thirds of methane emissions can be traced to human activities such as fossil-fuel extraction.
And the data is for the tiniest slice of time in a process in which scores of millenia denote actual trends.
Posted by:.com

#17  We owe a lot to Beano.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-11-22 15:16  

#16  JarH, I got a theory that if you marry MA there will be no side dish. It's just a guess.
Posted by: Shipman   2006-11-22 13:28  

#15  Well they obviously haven't been to my neck of the woods. I actually chased the dog out of the den the other night... it was a proud moment.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2006-11-22 12:59  

#14  Light a match
Save the planet
Posted by: tu3031   2006-11-22 12:38  

#13  Marry Mary-Ann and keep Ginger on the side - problem solved bro'

"But, that couldn't work! Ginger's got the money!"

John Kerry
-----

"In regards to methane levels no longer rising, that can't possibly be true. I've got a dozen scientists saying that greenhouse emissions are out of control and we're all going to die! Just look at how it's all outlined in my movie!"

Al Gore

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2006-11-22 12:15  

#12  Ship,

Marry Mary-Ann and keep Ginger on the side - problem solved bro'.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-11-22 11:30  

#11  Silent Spring, mutually-assured destruction, global cooling, running out of fossil fuel, mountains of garbage, snail darter endangerment, nuclear winter, clearing of rain forests, destruction of wetlands, old forest lumbering, northern spotted owl endangerment, ozone depletion, frog mutations, global warming... Oooohkay, time to move on to the next environmental gloom and doom.
Posted by: A. Gore   2006-11-22 11:15  

#10  In possibly related news, chili dogs are 2-for-1 in the O Club today.
Posted by: Seafarious   2006-11-22 10:46  

#9  It would have confused the enviros and allowed some 'changing the conversation'

It's like the MaryAnn or Ginger Question.

Cat or Greenie?
Cat or Greenie?
Cat or Greenie?

What's more fun to confuse?

Posted by: Shipman   2006-11-22 08:52  

#8  BURP!

Oh, shit!
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2006-11-22 08:49  

#7  We're producing and burning lots of methane so it can't get loose and cause global warming. (Of course when we burn it we end up with CO2, but 1) the plants love it, and 2) it is a much weaker greenhouse gas. Yay, big oil companies.)
Posted by: Glenmore   2006-11-22 08:17  

#6  A lot of work has been done on natural gas pipelines and mines over the past decade; not just in the US but overseas also (mostly because methane leaks are safety hazards).

IMO, In 2001, President Bush should have said that the US is working on a methane control strategy first (before the CO2 strategy).

It would have confused the enviros and allowed some 'changing the conversation'.

Blown opportunity.
Posted by: mhw   2006-11-22 08:13  

#5  And people said my diet would have no effect!
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-11-22 07:35  

#4  I've been doing my bit, under pressure from my family. Hasn't been easy, but glad it is paying off.

You're welcome, world.
Posted by: Carl in N.H.   2006-11-22 07:29  

#3  Paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman has argued (e.g., Scientific American, March 2005) that human influence on the global climate began around 8,000 years ago with the start of forest clearing to provide land for agriculture and 5,000 years ago with the start of Asian rice irrigation. He contends that forest clearing explains the rise in carbon dioxide levels in the current interglacial that started 8,000 years ago, contrasting with the decline in carbon dioxide levels seen in the previous three interglacials. He further contends that the spread of rice irrigation explains the breakdown in the last 5,000 years of the correlation between the Northern Hemisphere solar radiation and global methane levels, which has been maintained over at least the last 11 22,000-year cycles. Ruddiman argues that without these effects, the Earth would be nearly 2 °C cooler and "well on the way" to a new ice age. Wikipedia

I've read elsewhere that the amount of land used for rice cultivation in China has declined sharply, with more intensive cultivation techniques producing higher yields.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-11-22 03:20  

#2  Lol, ed - deadly!
Posted by: .com   2006-11-22 02:49  

#1  Amazing what one midterm election can accomplish.
Posted by: ed   2006-11-22 02:32  

00:00