NASA Finds a Delaware-Sized Methane "Hot Spot" In the Southwest

merbs writes According to new satellite research from scientists at NASA and the University of Michigan this "hot spot" is "responsible for producing the largest concentration of the greenhouse gas methane seen over the United States—more than triple the standard ground-based estimate." It covers 2,500 square miles, about the size of Delaware. It is so big that scientists initially thought it was a mistake in their instruments. "We didn't focus on it because we weren't sure if it was a true signal or an instrument error," NASA's Christian Frankenberg said in a statement.

Comments

yes, let's "zoom out"

[silfen]

The scientists say the finding is reason enough to zoom out from fracking, and take stock of the operations of the entire established fossil fuel industry.

Fracking has been responsible for a big decline in US greenhouse gas emissions. Lumping the "entire established fossil fuel industry" together as if coal, oil, and gas were all the same is just idiotic.

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[Required Snark]

Any references? And by references I mean something that was not funded my the energy industry. Preferably in a peer reviewed journal that is not funded by the energy industry. You know, some organization that is actually credible, rather then being a bunch of paid shills.

Lacking that, I'm just going to assume that your are making stuff up. The "logic" of "Fracking has been responsible for a big decline in US greenhouse gas emissions" seems to be lacking. How could the conclusion follow from the premise? How about "An increase in the consumption of Nutella has been responsible for a big decline in US greenhouse gas emissions"? Makes about as much sense.

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[Anonymous Coward]

Methane is a greenhouse gas, a much more potent one than carbon dioxide. If reduced carbon dioxide from burning methane "instead of" coal is accompanied by more methane leaks, then it isn't clear whether fracking is a net positive with regard to climate change. And methane isn't replacing coal and oil. The primary effect of fracking is the lower price of fossil fuels. Higher availability and lower price always causes increased consumption.

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[khallow]

And by references I mean something that was not funded my the energy industry.

Which energy industry, the fossil fuel one or the green one?

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[pla]

but requires huge amounts of water.

"Huge amounts of water" doesn't mean huge amounts of potable water. Our planet has no shortage of water (you could more accurately say we have a shortage of land). We just can't directly consume most of it without energy-intensive processing first.

Fracking doesn't require clean water. It can use salt water, grey water, swamp water, runoff water, pretty much anything. Now, that said, in the places currently enjoying a fracking boom (no pun intended), the easiest water to get comes from nice clean freshwater aquifers. But it doesn't need to.

I find it simply mind-boggling that so many environmentally conscious people (and I say that as someone who considers himself one) hate the most environmentally friendly sources of energy we have: Nuclear, wind, solar, water, and to a lesser degree, natural gas. Yes, each has its own problems, some of which we can solve through regulation, some through further tech advancement, some through telling millionaire weenies on Cape Cod to go fuck themselves. But as long as the cheapest (by a good margin) alternative consists of the dirtiest fuel ever discovered by mankind (coal)... Maybe we should take just a teensy step back and pick our battles a bit better, hmm?

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[Immerman]

Actually, not really.

Methane (natural gas) does cut CO2 emissions by about half compared to coal. However methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas in it's own right, far, far more potent than CO2, even if it doesn't remain in the atmosphere for nearly as long. The only way a switch to methane reduces the greenhouse effect is if you can keep leakage at less than ~14%, otherwise it makes things even worse. And currently the leakage rates in the US are estimated at about 20%. And that's even before we get to the part where oil-pumping operations are allowed to simply vent or burn off the natural gas they're not interested in extracting. Have you seen nighttime pictures of the North-western US? Whole states that used to be dark are now glowing brightly from all the methane plume fires - laws aside that's just criminal.

Zoom out? As in consider a wider angle?

[denzacar]

Considering that the shitty *ngh* Vice *retch* article also states how "The hot spot predates fracking", maybe the equivocal suggestion to "zoom out from fracking" is meant as a call to stop looking at fracking as the main culprit (i.e. "zoom out" from it) for the release of methane?
Meaning that someone should "take stock of the operations of the entire established fossil fuel industry" INSTEAD.

But it's nice to see where one's preferences and loyalties lie.

Re:Proper link

[itzly]

They fail to mention that "3 times" the normal atmospheric concentration is still only 0.0000054.

At what concentration would you start to worry ?