Slashdot Mirror
Emissions of Key Greenhouse Gas Stabilize
brian0918 writes "Multiple news sites are reporting that levels of the second most important greenhouse gas, methane, have stabilized". From Scientific American: "During the two decades of measurements, methane underwent double-digit growth as a constituent of our atmosphere, rising from 1,520 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) in 1978 to 1,767 ppbv in 1998. But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore — and it is unclear why." From NewScientist: "Although this is good news, it does not mean that methane levels will not rise again, and that carbon dioxide remains the 800-pound gorilla of climate change."
What about Water Vapor (or vapour, depending on where you live)? I've heard that's a major contributor... though the talk you hear about it is... a heated discussion at the very least (flamefests usually).
Actually, approximately half of the floating arctic icecap melts every year, due to temperature fluctuations and ice currents. Approximately every seven years, the entire floating arctic icecap is renewed. Note that this doesn't include glacial ice in Greenland, Alaska, Scandinavia, etc.
So here we are, currently doing basically bugger all about global warming, but with plenty of computer simulations and estimates about how much warming will happen in how many years, and plenty of politics going on about who should pay for it, and what about second world countries, and AFAICS it's basically a game of how long can be put off doing something about this, because it's going to cost plenty of money and we don't seem to need to be doing it just right now...
Now, out of the blue, something *utterly* unexpected, inexplicable and major happens - the rate of methane emission levels out; and no one has a *CLUE* why.
Well, I can hear this ticking noise...
I sure hope we figure out interplanetry colonization soon.
You know - just in case.
Awesome so we can all just ignore this then? Cause like God would never let some thing as bad as Global Warming happen in the first place!? ...Oh wait...
Sarcasm aside I do worry what would happen if some one put it into the minds of the fundy Christians that Global Warming was the precursor to revelations and the like. With their collective political power in the first world I think we'd have a huge problem on our hands just like we do with their infection of the common understanding of science among the dumb masses. Before any one flames I'm saying this as a worried (liberal) Roman Catholic - I trust the fundies in my religion as much as the next atheist...
I ate your fish.
His point is that we can't just burn the methane, because that would produce water vapor and carbon dioxide, which hardly makes the problem better...
I'm sorry? Methane has a forcing potential of up to 24 times as much of CO2.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Wetlands 76%
Termites 11%
Oceans 8%
Hydrates 5%
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html#natural
So my first guess would be a global reduction of wetlands. Nope, I shall not look for evidence now, it is 3a.m. .
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
The reason we don't talk much about water vapor is because humanity really doesn't have much control over the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. However, we are definitely the primary source for the steady increase in CO2 over the last few decades.
Another thing to remember is that we're talking about climate *change*. The fact that water vapor provides most of the Earth's warm comfy blanket is less important than the fact that we're adding another layer, because the addition is what is driving the change (and possibly starting up various feedback loops). If your wife asks you to stop hogging the covers, do you point out how she would be freezing to death without the insulation provided by the house? No, you accept that the smaller thermal value of the blanket is a real issue.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
"Get your stories straight or don't post..misinformation doesn't benefit anyone"
Not sure what your point is here since the GP didn't mention Anatartica, Arctic ice comes from the Arctic (north), Antartic ice comes from Antartica (south). Since the mid 1950's the Arctic ice cap has lost ~60% of it's volume (although one "skeptic" belives the missing ice is hiding behind Canada somewhere).
There has been very little change in the volume of the Antartic ice cap, however both the Antartic penninsula and Greenland have experinced a +3C rise in average tempratures compared to the +1C global average (accurately predicted by climate models I might add).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?art icleID=442
"Scientists have discovered why atmospheric levels of methane have stabilised in recent years, but their findings are bad news for industry and agriculture where rising emissions of the greenhouse gas have been revealed.
The scientists, including researchers from France's Climate and Environment Science Laboratory and Australia's national science agency CSIRO, found that a reduction in natural emissions of methane from wetlands has been masking rising emissions from human-related activity."
Sic! Intuition still works, and, believe me, I did not read this before.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
I think it may be related to the rise in natural gas prices, and the natural urge for gas producers to go plug up leaks at those prices.
Natural gas production is the leading source of Russian methane emissions, for instance. And in 1990, Russia leaked as much as 26 million tons of methane. It was probably worth their while to plug some of these leaks at current prices.
+5 informative? should be -1, load of crap. Water vapour is indeed responsible for most of the greenhouse effect, but not the forcing, except in the indirect sense. Ever hear of thermodynamics, system equilibriums, maybe even the universal gas law (if you maybe went to college or a decent high school)? How about feedback loops?
To spell it out for you, more forcing via CO2 and CH4 results in higher temps, which results in more H20 evaporation, which results in higher temps, which results in more evaporation, ad infinitum until a new equilibrium temperature results which is higher that you would get from the additional CO2+CH4 contribution alone. Elementary physics, and never mind feedback amplifiers such as methane clathrate sublimation and rotting peat bogs. You sir are a cretin or maybe just a dumbass troll.
PS possible feedback impedence mechanisms are mostly hypothetical and presently fall under the loony rationalizations category, don't even try to go there as policy justification until you have 50 years of research proving them, as there is 50 years of research behind the scientific consensus that anthropogenic forcing of climate change is real and potentially disastrous.It has nothing to do with "left" or "right". You are correct that we need to do more climate research, but what we also really need to do is work on carbon-neutral energy, and fast.