Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Arctic Methane Release  (Read 240617 times)

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #950 on: February 26, 2019, 06:59:33 PM »
A good explanation of the recent rise in methane concentrations (which are still below the annual increases that happened in the 1980s to early 1990s) is increased fossil fuel emissions.  The huge increase in fracking oil and natural gas in the US is a probable source.  Also, the growth in agricultural emissions has continued unabated.

See the two studies cross-posted from AbruptSLR in the Antarctica forums:

The first linked 2017 reference used satellite data to reconcile different estimates of methane emissions by correcting for estimates of methane emissions from biomass burning from 2001 to 2014.  This implies that the recent increases in both biomass burning and in fossil fuel use are contributing to the current high rate of increase of atmospheric methane concentrations (see the attached image for Mauna Loa Atmospheric Methane concentration from 2005 to Feb 26, 2019).  That said I also suspect that increases in agricultural methane emissions and natural emissions from wetlands are also contributing:

Worden et al. (2017), "Reduced biomass burning emissions reconcile conflicting estimates of the post-2006 atmospheric methane budget", Nature Communications 8, 2227, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02246-0

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02246-0

Abstract: "Several viable but conflicting explanations have been proposed to explain the recent ~8p.p.b.per year increase in atmospheric methane after 2006, equivalent to net emissions increase of ~25Tg CH4 per year. A concurrent increase in atmospheric ethane implicates a fossil source a concurrent decrease in the heavy isotope content of methane points toward a biogenic source, while other studies propose a decrease in the chemical sink (OH). Here we show that biomass burning emissions of methane decreased by 3.7 (±1.4) Tg CH4 per year from the 2001–2007 to the 2008–2014 time periods using satellite measurements of CO and CH4 nearly twice the decrease expected from prior estimates. After updating both the total and isotopic budgets for atmospheric methane with these revised biomass burning emissions (and assuming no change to the chemical sink), we find that fossil fuels contribute between 12–19 Tg CH4 per year to the recent atmospheric methane increase, thus reconciling the isotopic- and ethane-based results.

See also:

Title: "NASA-led Study Solves a Methane Puzzle"

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-led-study-solves-a-methane-puzzle

& see:

Adam Yeeles (2019), "Coal methane unabated", Nature Climate Change 9, 186, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0432-x

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0432-x

See also:

Julie Wolf et al, Revised methane emissions factors and spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock, Carbon Balance and Management (2017). DOI: 10.1186/s13021-017-0084-y

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13021-017-0084-y

Abstract

Background

Livestock play an important role in carbon cycling through consumption of biomass and emissions of methane. Recent research suggests that existing bottom-up inventories of livestock methane emissions in the US, such as those made using 2006 IPCC Tier 1 livestock emissions factors, are too low. This may be due to outdated information used to develop these emissions factors. In this study, we update information for cattle and swine by region, based on reported recent changes in animal body mass, feed quality and quantity, milk productivity, and management of animals and manure. We then use this updated information to calculate new livestock methane emissions factors for enteric fermentation in cattle, and for manure management in cattle and swine.

Results
Using the new emissions factors, we estimate global livestock emissions of 119.1 ± 18.2 Tg methane in 2011; this quantity is 11% greater than that obtained using the IPCC 2006 emissions factors, encompassing an 8.4% increase in enteric fermentation methane, a 36.7% increase in manure management methane, and notable variability among regions and sources. For example, revised manure management methane emissions for 2011 in the US increased by 71.8%. For years through 2013, we present (a) annual livestock methane emissions, (b) complete annual livestock carbon budgets, including carbon dioxide emissions, and (c) spatial distributions of livestock methane and other carbon fluxes, downscaled to 0.05 × 0.05 degree resolution.

Conclusions
Our revised bottom-up estimates of global livestock methane emissions are comparable to recently reported top-down global estimates for recent years, and account for a significant part of the increase in annual methane emissions since 2007. Our results suggest that livestock methane emissions, while not the dominant overall source of global methane emissions, may be a major contributor to the observed annual emissions increases over the 2000s to 2010s. Differences at regional and local scales may help distinguish livestock methane emissions from those of other sectors in future top-down studies. The revised estimates allow improved reconciliation of top-down and bottom-up estimates of methane emissions, will facilitate the development and evaluation of Earth system models, and provide consistent regional and global Tier 1 estimates for environmental assessments.

That is part of it, but not all of it. There has been a drop carbon-13, while the methane is still rising. This implies there is some increases in the system as well. Forest fires, the Arctic, etc
"When the ice goes..... F***

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #951 on: February 26, 2019, 08:43:41 PM »
Here are a couple of studies on US Natural Gas and Oil production methane emissions that indicate the scale of leakage and emissions from well sites:

https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=924889

Quote
Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas
supply chain

Ramón A. Alvarez, et. al 2018

Methane emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas supply chain were estimated using ground-based, facility-scale measurements and validated with aircraft observations in areas accounting for ~30% of U.S. gas production. When scaled up nationally, our facility-based estimate of 2015 supply chain emissions is 13 ± 2 Tg/y, equivalent to 2.3% of gross U.S. gas production. This value is ~60% higher than the U.S. EPA inventory estimate, likely because existing inventory methods miss emissions released during abnormal operating conditions. Methane emissions of this magnitude, per unit of natural gas consumed, produce radiative forcing over a 20-year time horizon comparable to the CO2 from natural gas combustion. Significant emission reductions are feasible through rapid detection of the root causes of high emissions and deployment of less failure-prone systems.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.8b03535#

Quote
Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Production Sites in the United States: Data Synthesis and National Estimate


Mark Omara, et. al. 2018

We used site-level methane (CH4) emissions data from over 1000 natural gas (NG) production sites in eight basins, including 92 new site-level CH4 measurements in the Uinta, northeastern Marcellus, and Denver-Julesburg basins, to investigate CH4 emissions characteristics and develop a new national CH4 emission estimate for the NG production sector. The distribution of site-level emissions is highly skewed, with the top 5% of sites accounting for 50% of cumulative emissions. High emitting sites are predominantly also high producing (>10 Mcfd). However, low NG production sites emit a larger fraction of their CH4 production. When combined with activity data, we predict that this creates substantial variability in the basin-level CH4 emissions which, as a fraction of basin-level CH4 production, range from 0.90% for the Appalachian and Greater Green River to >4.5% in the San Juan and San Joaquin. This suggests that much of the basin-level differences in production-normalized CH4 emissions reported by aircraft studies can be explained by differences in site size and distribution of site-level production rates. We estimate that NG production sites emit total CH4 emissions of 830 Mg/h (95% CI: 530–1200), 63% of which come from the sites producing <100 Mcfd that account for only 10% of total NG production. Our total CH4 emissions estimate is 2.3 times higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s estimate and likely attributable to the disproportionate influence of high emitting sites.

Both studies indicate that methane emissions from oil and natural gas production exceed US EPA estimates by 2.5 to 5 times.  And the scale of leakage is 2 to 4 Tg per year, or about what the natural emissions from the ESAS are annually.  That's just in the US.  The potential emissions reductions worldwide could stabilize methane levels in the atmosphere as was the case in the late 1990s.

Ultimately, natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels to support industrial applications being replaced by renewable electricity powering buildings and transportation.  Since methane's residence time in the atmosphere is about a decade, we can expect to see the concentrations in the atmosphere decrease during our lifetimes.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3254
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #952 on: February 26, 2019, 08:59:50 PM »
The potential emissions reductions worldwide could stabilize methane levels in the atmosphere as was the case in the late 1990s.

Ultimately, natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels to support industrial applications being replaced by renewable electricity powering buildings and transportation.  Since methane's residence time in the atmosphere is about a decade, we can expect to see the concentrations in the atmosphere decrease during our lifetimes.

Of course, there is nothing in the short term or long term trends that supports your statement that "natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels."

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/nat_gas.pdf

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #953 on: February 26, 2019, 09:05:19 PM »
This also assumes methane release doesn’t pick up from natural sources. Kens argument doesn’t seem to be based in reality. ......Everything will be ok. Those who think otherwise should be silenced. We will fix everything!.... sorry but that just isn’t gonna happen. We might try to fix things, but I have high doubts. Renewable energy certainly isn’t the answer. Perhaps we should give up civilization and try to create self sustainable communities. But no that’s to much to ask for. Civilization has to go, as well as capitalism, if we want any decent chance of Saving the world
"When the ice goes..... F***

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #954 on: February 26, 2019, 09:22:38 PM »
The potential emissions reductions worldwide could stabilize methane levels in the atmosphere as was the case in the late 1990s.

Ultimately, natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels to support industrial applications being replaced by renewable electricity powering buildings and transportation.  Since methane's residence time in the atmosphere is about a decade, we can expect to see the concentrations in the atmosphere decrease during our lifetimes.

Of course, there is nothing in the short term or long term trends that supports your statement that "natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels."

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/nat_gas.pdf

If you ignore recent developments then the case looks bleak.  Fortunately, the economics for renewables have improved greatly in recent years, to the point that they are now cheaper than fossil fuel plants.

An article from 2018:

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/04/12/solar-and-wind-plus-storage-to-increasingly-replace-gas-plants/

Quote
Solar and wind plus storage to increasingly replace gas plants



A session at BNEF’s Future of Energy Summit explored how renewables paired with energy storage are successfully competing with new gas plants.
April 12, 2018 Christian Roselund

For some years it has been obvious that increasing deployment of solar and wind is cutting into the market share of coal and nuclear power plants in the United States and Europe. These plants are being increasingly retired, and a negligible number of new plants of either technology are being built in either region.

But this is only part of the story. For the past 15 years, the United States in particular has put a massive capacity of new gas plants online, many of which are combined-cycle designs. These plants use fuel more efficiently than “peaker” plants, but also ramp more slowly, and as such are often meant for “mid-merit” applications.

However, according to a panel at Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s (BNEF) Future of Energy Summit in New York City, the market for new combined cycle gas plants may be coming to a close, in favor of solar and wind paired with energy storage. And this may foreshadow a larger move away from gas.

“Renewables + storage is already much smarter than combined cycle,” stated Javier Cavada, the president of energy solutions at Wärtsilä. “Combined cycles have gone to half in 16, half in 17, and this year we will see if there is any crazy person going for combined cycle.”

And this is coming from a company that supplies gas plants.

California leads the way

Cavada’s statement represents something of a European perspective. The capacity of new gas plants put online in the United States increased from 2016 to 2017, and while pv magazine was not able to find a breakdown by type of plant for the past two years, the majority of deployments have traditionally been combined cycle.

However, in California regulators are repeatedly choosing renewable energy plus storage over not only new gas plants, but even continued operation of gas- and oil-fired power plants, including not only combined cycle, but also single-cycle “peaker” plants. Additionally, the bids for clean energy are often coming in at lower prices than other options.


Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #955 on: February 26, 2019, 09:41:18 PM »
This also assumes methane release doesn’t pick up from natural sources. Kens argument doesn’t seem to be based in reality. ......Everything will be ok. Those who think otherwise should be silenced. We will fix everything!.... sorry but that just isn’t gonna happen. We might try to fix things, but I have high doubts. Renewable energy certainly isn’t the answer. Perhaps we should give up civilization and try to create self sustainable communities. But no that’s to much to ask for. Civilization has to go, as well as capitalism, if we want any decent chance of Saving the world

Not even close to what I said!  You seem to deliberately misinterpret what I've been saying.

I've posted many scientific papers to rebut the doomsday scenarios you keep posting from newspapers and other non-scientific sources.  I haven't silenced you, yet you keep twisting my words in response.

It will take a lot of effort to shift from fossil fuels to carbon free sources.  It can be done.  Giving up and saying we're all doomed because natural emissions are going to increase is a typical denier tactic.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #956 on: February 26, 2019, 09:57:07 PM »
The potential emissions reductions worldwide could stabilize methane levels in the atmosphere as was the case in the late 1990s.

Ultimately, natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels to support industrial applications being replaced by renewable electricity powering buildings and transportation.  Since methane's residence time in the atmosphere is about a decade, we can expect to see the concentrations in the atmosphere decrease during our lifetimes.

Of course, there is nothing in the short term or long term trends that supports your statement that "natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels."

Back to the replacement of fossil fuels.  When the costs of generating electricity from renewables plus batteries is less than building new fossil fuel plants, you'll see the construction of new fossil fuel plants decline and eventually end.  That point was hit in 2018 in the US:

https://www.theenergytimes.com/solar/batteries-out-distance-gas-burning-generators

Quote
Batteries Out-Distance Gas-Burning Generators


From southern California to Arizona, energy storage units are popping up to make renewables more available when power demand peaks.

Martin.Rosenberg | Feb 14, 2018

Electric batteries linked to renewables can be cheaper than conventional natural gas burning peaker generators, the workhorses of the utility sector in periods of high power demand.

Utilities are scrambling to deploy batteries at a fast clip as a result, reports the Wall Street Journal.

Tucson Electric Power is building a 100-megawatt solar installation backed up with 30-megawatt capacity energy storage facility.

Meanwhile, Fluence Energy, a joint venture of Siemens and AES, is building the largest lithium ion battery in the world that will provide backup power to 60,000 southern California homes, the Journal reported. That battery is triple the size of a mammoth energy storage installation Tesla recently built in Australia.

This trend of changing out energy generation infrastructure in favor of green, climate-change fighting sources of renewable energy is accelerating.


Quote
"The federal government estimates that a new gas-fired peaking plant could generate electricity for about $87 for a megawatt hour, including the cost of building the plant and buying fuel,” the Journal reported. “By comparison, Xcel Energy’s Colorado subsidiary recently ran an open solicitation and received 87 bids for solar-plus-storage projects at a median price of $36 per megawatt hour, one of the lowest such bids to date.”


Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #957 on: February 26, 2019, 10:02:53 PM »
And when the cost of building new renewables plus battery storage is cheaper than operating fossil fuel plants, you'll see those plants close.  We hit that point the USA last year too.

https://thinkprogress.org/colorado-wind-batteries-cheap-12e82b91a543/

Quote
This is how coal dies — super cheap renewables plus battery storage

New Colorado wind farms with batteries are now cheaper than running old coal plants

Joe Romm Jan 10, 2018, 12:35 pm

Solar, wind, and battery prices are dropping so fast that, in Colorado, building new renewable power plus battery storage is now cheaper than running old coal plants. This increasingly renders existing coal plants obsolete.

Two weeks ago, Xcel Energy quietly reported dozens of shockingly low bids it had received for building new solar and wind farms, many with battery storage (see table below).

The median bid price in 2017 for wind plus battery storage was $21 per megawatt-hour, which is 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. As Carbon Tracker noted, this “appears to be lower than the operating cost of all coal plants currently in Colorado.”

And the trend for coal worldwide is not looking good:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/renewables-may-prove-cheaper-than-96-of-coal-plants-2030#gs.u6ErXI9T

Quote
A new global analysis of 6,685 coal plants finds that it is now cheaper to build new renewable generation than to run 35 percent of coal plants worldwide. By 2030, that percentage increases dramatically, with renewables beating out 96 percent of today’s existing and planned coal-fired generation.

The 4 percent exception is in markets with extremely low fuel costs, where coal is cheap and plentiful, or with uncertain policies for renewables, like Russia.

The EIA is notorious for underestimating the growth of renewable energy.  The EIA reports are not reliable for estimates of future energy generation.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3222
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 359
  • Likes Given: 772
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #958 on: February 26, 2019, 10:19:54 PM »
Ken, I hope that you are right about renewables taking over, and there is good reason to believe it will happen. But it's a question of pace. For now the trends show continued rise in global fossil fueled electricity, despite the high growth of renewables. Until the trend shifts substantially we cannot assume all will be well. And of course even then there's all the other anthropogenic emission sources which are on much less optimistic trajectories. Not to mention natural feedbacks which will surely grow in time, even if not to doomsday levels. So I am quite pessimistic all in all.

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #959 on: February 27, 2019, 02:10:30 AM »
This also assumes methane release doesn’t pick up from natural sources. Kens argument doesn’t seem to be based in reality. ......Everything will be ok. Those who think otherwise should be silenced. We will fix everything!.... sorry but that just isn’t gonna happen. We might try to fix things, but I have high doubts. Renewable energy certainly isn’t the answer. Perhaps we should give up civilization and try to create self sustainable communities. But no that’s to much to ask for. Civilization has to go, as well as capitalism, if we want any decent chance of Saving the world

Not even close to what I said!  You seem to deliberately misinterpret what I've been saying.

I've posted many scientific papers to rebut the doomsday scenarios you keep posting from newspapers and other non-scientific sources.  I haven't silenced you, yet you keep twisting my words in response.

It will take a lot of effort to shift from fossil fuels to carbon free sources.  It can be done.  Giving up and saying we're all doomed because natural emissions are going to increase is a typical denier tactic.

I’m sorry but this is pure dillusion. Renewable energy is not gonna fix anything. And the “doomsday scenario” can not be dismissed. Why? Because it’s where we’re headed. We have already locked in at least 3 C of warming. That is the optimistic estimate. 4-5 C is where civilization collapses, 6 C and up we start talking about extinction. Renewables would have been great if we had invested in them decades ago. Now instead of “hoping” for a future that will never come. Let’s try and protest the system of “infinite growth on a finite planet”. The doomsday scenario is not some theory or low probability. It’s already Happening
"When the ice goes..... F***

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #960 on: February 27, 2019, 02:17:38 AM »
This will be my last time posting on this thread, as well as ASIF.  The real reason I come to ASIF is for info on the ice. Point is, many posters here lack either urgency or understanding of the entire situation we find ourselves in. I would like to point out I mean no ill will towards people i disagree with. So thanks for all the contributions everywhere. This is a good forum, filled with many good people.
"When the ice goes..... F***

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1655
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #961 on: February 27, 2019, 02:49:05 AM »
Ken Feldman, thank you for that series of posts. They give me hope, however feeble. I agree with you that the transition can be done much faster than anyone thinks. Things are looking good from the technological and financial point of view. The technology to replace fossil fuels exists and it will make our lives better.

But it is by no means a sure thing yet. The seeds have been sown. They are sprouting beautifully. But there is a long way to go before the fruit. Lots of work by lots of great people needs to be done to be safe from climate change. There isn't enough sense of urgency yet. Climate change is a problem for us, today, not in the future.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #962 on: February 27, 2019, 03:10:36 AM »
This will be my last time posting on this thread, as well as ASIF.  The real reason I come to ASIF is for info on the ice. Point is, many posters here lack either urgency or understanding of the entire situation we find ourselves in. I would like to point out I mean no ill will towards people i disagree with. So thanks for all the contributions everywhere. This is a good forum, filled with many good people.

Totally understandable. At least take a break and nurture yourself some. Being compared to "climate deniers" is a shot below the belt. It's uncalled for and it all adds up.
Maybe a meetup with https://xrebellion.org would help you feel a lot better and validated among friends (which you deserve and need - we all need imho)
 Take care.
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1655
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #963 on: February 27, 2019, 01:19:32 PM »
Fear is the most important emotion to reach if we want people to defend themselves from climate change. Fear and only fear activates the fight or flight response. But that scientist is worried that he  becomes a scaremonger.

His resistance to becoming a scaremonger has nothing to do with the severity of climate change or protecting people. He just wants to protect his reputation and not feel fear himself. There is no double blind experiment in climate science. 

Fear is the appropriate logical reaction to climate change. Blunting that fear blunts the response to climate change.

But no. People, including scientists don't want to feel fear. They rather prepare for a distant danger in the year 2100.

Caveat: Fear without hope is as paralyzing as hope without fear. While the truth about climate change must be told to people and that truth is scary, a message of hope has to be delivered with it so that people has a means for action and don't fall into panic.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Gray-Wolf

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 746
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #964 on: February 27, 2019, 06:56:19 PM »
Some of us posting here might do to think about their own health from time to time and maybe take a back seat for a while lest we 'burn out'?

It's the old Pink floyd Wall's " banging your head against some mad buggers wall!" feeling!

If you start to feel that knot tighten in your tum maybe time to go for a run?, tidy the yard?, watch a few clouds?

This is all scary stuff and 'fear' is not a thing to habitualise to!!!

Take a break , chillax a while, be well!  :)
KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
 
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #965 on: February 28, 2019, 01:18:11 AM »
Fear is the most important emotion to reach if we want people to defend themselves from climate change. Fear and only fear activates the fight or flight response. But that scientist is worried that he  becomes a scaremonger.

His resistance to becoming a scaremonger has nothing to do with the severity of climate change or protecting people. He just wants to protect his reputation and not feel fear himself.

I agree. At least someone noticed. :)
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #966 on: February 28, 2019, 01:48:48 AM »
Fear is the most important emotion to reach if we want people to defend themselves from climate change. Fear and only fear activates the fight or flight response. But that scientist is worried that he  becomes a scaremonger.

His resistance to becoming a scaremonger has nothing to do with the severity of climate change or protecting people. He just wants to protect his reputation and not feel fear himself.

I agree. At least someone noticed. :)

If you read that post on Realclimate.org you'll see that fear is actually a bad way to motivate people:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/the-best-case-for-worst-case-scenarios/

Quote
The last point is similar in appearance to the previous, but has a very different basis. Recent social science research (for instance, as discussed by Mann and Hasool (also here)) suggests that fear-based messaging is not effective at building engagement for solving (or mitigating) long-term ‘chronic’ problems (indeed, it’s not clear that panic and/or fear are the best motivators for any constructive solutions to problems).

The article linked to in that quote is here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/doomsday-scenarios-are-as-harmful-as-climate-change-denial/2017/07/12/880ed002-6714-11e7-a1d7-9a32c91c6f40_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.009bc6aba270

Quote
Doomsday scenarios are as harmful as climate change denial


By Michael E. Mann , Susan Joy Hassol and  Tom Toles
July 12, 2017 

Michael E. Mann is distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center. Susan Joy Hassol is the director of Climate Communication LLC. Tom Toles is the editorial cartoonist for The Post.

It is easy to understand why advocates for climate action have become somewhat dispirited in recent months. In the space of less than a year, we’ve seen the United States go from playing a leading role in international climate negotiations to now being the only nation in the world to renege on its commitment to the 2015 Paris climate accord.

It is in this environment of defeat and despair that we’ve witnessed a dramatic rise in the prominence of climate doomism — commentary that portrays climate change not just as a threat that requires an urgent response but also as an essentially lost cause, a hopeless fight.  Some of the more egregious examples can be found among fringe characters such as ecologist Guy McPherson —a doomist cult hero who insists that exponential climate change likely will render human beings and all other species extinct within 10 years.

Such rhetoric is in many ways as pernicious as outright climate change denial, for it leads us down the same path of inaction. Whether climate change is a hoax (as President Trump has asserted) or beyond our control (as McPherson insists), there would obviously be no reason to cut carbon emissions.

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #967 on: February 28, 2019, 02:18:18 AM »
Fear is the most important emotion to reach if we want people to defend themselves from climate change. Fear and only fear activates the fight or flight response. But that scientist is worried that he  becomes a scaremonger.

His resistance to becoming a scaremonger has nothing to do with the severity of climate change or protecting people. He just wants to protect his reputation and not feel fear himself.

I agree. At least someone noticed. :)

If you read that post on Realclimate.org

If I read it? You're kidding aren't you Ken. I was the one who posted it here. You seriously think I hadn't read it all? Please tell me you don't think that.

Now as to "fear" yes that article and thousands of others online do say what they say about that.

How can I put it best?

They are all wrong.

100% wrong and history proves that in spades when it references reality and not idle theories and people's false/unfounded beliefs.
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3222
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 359
  • Likes Given: 772
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #968 on: February 28, 2019, 02:28:55 AM »
I'll take a quick OT detour:
IMHO fear is a great motivator for immediate problems and actions. A very bad motivator for long-term/chronic problems with no discernible course of immediate action and no immediate negative outcome. Recasting climate change as a world war and the solution as moving to a war economy is IMHO a good approach. But I know many people who say "it's a long time from now, what do I care", and "I heard of these problems decades ago and nothing happened". So there's a limit to the fear people can take before they become numb.

Back to methane in the arctic.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1655
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #969 on: February 28, 2019, 02:51:51 AM »
Quote
panic and/or fear

Panic and fear are two very different things.

Fear is a normal human reaction to danger, real or perceived. Fear activates the fight or flight response that allows humans to act against danger. Without fear we wouldn't have evolved as we would have ignored threats and perish. Fear feels very uncomfortable to humans but when properly handled fear enhances our senses and wits and gives us an edge against adversity. If not properly managed, fear may become panic.

Panic is fear gone bad. When panic sets, mistakes are made on the fight or flight reaction, decreasing the chances of survival. Panic can manifest in different ways. In the case of climate change induced panic it can lead anywhere to severe depression to climate change denial. Fear without any hope of success may increase the chances of panic.


Historically fear is an excellent motivator. Dictators and unscrupulous leaders use fear of non existent threats because it works. Climate change is a real threat. Whoever doesn't fear it is because they don't understand it. Fear of climate change is the appropriate reaction to the understanding of climate change and the only thing that will motivate people into the appropriate action.

It is not immoral to scare people about real dangers. It is the natural order to tell people the truth even if it is scary, no,  specially if it is scary. That is the only way people will jump into action. It is immoral to hide the dangers, because it blunts the reaction.

Leaders are believing the fallacy that as long as they know about climate change a solution will be found without "scaring" the people.

Guess what, most people can take it. Most people will react properly upon understanding the true scope of climate change. A few won't. That's a fact of life. But those who do react properly will do something. Some will do a lot, some a little, leaders emerge, work is accumulated and the stupid climate change problem is solved.

But since climate change is a problem for 2100, who cares.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

be cause

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 357
  • Citizenship .. a Lurker gets asylum
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #970 on: February 28, 2019, 08:06:27 AM »
fear seperates .. love unites .. love is far more useful .. love your fellow man and you will care for him too .. and work toward everyone's wellbeing .. b.c.
be the cause of only good
and love all beings as you should
and the 'God' of all Creation
will .. through you .. transform all nations :)

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1897
    • View Profile
    • Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multiple Sklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgia Modular Mobile Computing iOS Software OSX Android Custom Rom Rooted
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #971 on: February 28, 2019, 08:35:56 PM »
fear can be and is permanently abused and leads to anarchy as well as ultimately wars and disruption.

i'm really not a man of any church (institutional religion) but in fact solutions are written in the bible, over and over again when someone comes up with a really good idea, solution or approach i think, where did i read that again and again, it's in the bible (new testament) and the only solution is love and it's derivatives like respect, modesty, patience, knowledge, forbearance and goodwill.

where i come from we say that fear is a bad counselor, it only serves for immediate and adrenalin driven action but not to find sustainable solutions. (as oren already hinted/wrote)
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3254
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #972 on: March 01, 2019, 03:08:51 AM »
WTF has happened to this thread?

Rod

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #973 on: March 01, 2019, 05:29:58 AM »
WTF has happened to this thread?

I have a lot to say about this, but none of my draft messages are coming out right.  So I will just say that I hope Wherestheice changes his mind.  Ignore the trolls.  We can all read the papers and see what they say.  I think there might be some people from WUWT on here intentionally misrepresenting the papers and trying to frustrate people. 

We have lost too many good people lately, and I miss all the great science that this forum offers. 

With that said, and still off topic (sorry Shared Humanity)  I want to give a shout out to Tealight, Interstitial and Tor Bejnar for their work regarding the disintegration of A68. A scientist recently posted an article on twitter and I'm pretty sure he was using your stuff.  Too bad he did not give you credit!   Keep up the good work!   Thank you to all the people posting good science.  I really look forward to seeing what you have to say each day. 

Even though it gets frustrating when people are obviously obfuscating the science, just ignore them and keep doing your thing.

morganism

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #974 on: March 03, 2019, 10:26:31 PM »
Seen in the wild, another general article on the uptick in methane

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-methane-atmosphere-accelerating-20190301-story.html

Very strong atmospheric methane growth in the four years 2014‐2017: Implications for the Paris Agreement

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GB006009


Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #975 on: March 04, 2019, 07:49:57 PM »
Seen in the wild, another general article on the uptick in methane

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-methane-atmosphere-accelerating-20190301-story.html

Very strong atmospheric methane growth in the four years 2014‐2017: Implications for the Paris Agreement

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GB006009

The LA Times article Morganism provided a link to is a very good plain-language overview of the science studies discussing possible reasons for the recent increases in methane emissions. 

Quote
Nisbet and his team examined whether any of these hypotheses synced up with the changing chemical signature of methane in the atmosphere.

Some molecules of methane weigh more than others, because some atoms of carbon and hydrogen are heavier than others. And lately, the average weight of methane in the atmosphere has been getting lighter.

That seems to implicate biological sources such as wetlands and livestock, which tend to produce light methane. Daniel Jacob, an atmospheric chemist at Harvard who was not involved in Nisbet’s study, said that explanation squares with his own research. His results suggest most of the additional methane comes from the tropics, which are home to vast wetlands and a large proportion of the world’s cattle.

Estimates of emissions from coal mines and oil and gas wells suggest that fossil fuel contributions are rising too, but those sources usually release heavier molecules of methane, which would seem to conflict with the atmospheric observations.

Some researchers have proposed a way to resolve this discrepancy. Fires create an even heavier version of methane, and agricultural burning — particularly in developing countries — appears to have decreased over the last decade. A drop in this source of ultra-heavy methane would make atmospheric methane lighter on the whole, potentially masking an increase in emissions from fossil fuels.

Finally, reactions that break down methane eliminate more of the lighter molecules than the heavier ones. If that process has slowed down — causing methane to build up in the atmosphere — it would leave more light gas behind, possibly helping explain the overall trend.

Nisbet and his colleagues concluded they can’t rule out any of these explanations yet. “They might all be happening,” he said.

One possibility is conspicuously missing from the list. Scientists have long feared that thawing Arctic sediments and soils could release huge amounts of methane, but so far there’s no evidence of that, said Ed Dlugokencky, an atmospheric chemist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who worked on the study, which will be published in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles.

Quote
Regardless of what’s behind the recent increase, scientists say there are ways to reduce methane concentrations. And the benefits will accrue quickly because methane has a shorter lifetime than CO2, lingering in the atmosphere for only about a decade.

Humans account for as much as 60% of methane emissions, and nearly half of that may come from the fossil fuel industry, Jacob said.

One priority is to plug leaks from oil and gas wells, he said. Methane is the primary ingredient in natural gas, so companies have a financial incentive to try to capture as much as possible.

Often, a few culprits bear most of the blame, “which is both scary and a good thing,” because they represent big opportunities, Wunch said. At the Barnett Shale in Texas, 2% of the facilities produce half of the field’s methane emissions. In Southern California, the Aliso Canyon leak released roughly 100,000 tons of methane in 2015 and 2016 — the equivalent of burning 1 billion gallons of gasoline.

sark

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 84
  • not a scientist
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #976 on: March 04, 2019, 09:45:55 PM »
I find it a bit funny that it's not necessary to invoke permafrost to explain all the methane.  What the frack!
I am not a scientist

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3254
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #977 on: March 04, 2019, 10:57:44 PM »
What does it matter where the methane is coming from?

https://www.methanelevels.org/

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #978 on: March 05, 2019, 04:29:38 AM »
And the benefits will accrue quickly because methane has a shorter lifetime than CO2, lingering in the atmosphere for only about a decade.


Comments like this (in the article quoted) are disingenuous and dishonest simply not accurate. (?)

It makes it sound like to the "average person" it's no big deal because it only last 10 years and then the problem just disappears.

For a start that is false about the 10 years bit. Second the GWP of methane is circa ~x25 that of CO2 over a 100 hundred year period. Post 100 years those children of CH4, the CO2, is still mostly in the system somewhere and impacting the global system for over 1000 years.

I wish these distortions of the "big picture" science would stop appearing in the media and forums like this. (a forlorn hope that one) Do I really need to provide supporting refs for the comments above? Or argue the point whether the CH4 GWP is 20, 25, 28 or 30 times CO2 over xyz period when the original statement is clearly a blatant distortion of the facts itself?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 10:44:55 AM by Lurk »
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

vox_mundi

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 447
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #979 on: March 05, 2019, 05:57:15 PM »
Disappearing Rice Fields Threaten More Global Warming
https://www.bangor.ac.uk/news/research/disappearing-rice-fields-threaten-more-global-warming-40010

All over China, a huge change has been taking place without any of us noticing. Rice paddies have been (and are being) converted at an astonishing rate into aquaculture ponds to produce more protein for the worlds growing populations. This change risks creating an unexpected impact on global warming.

International researchers, including Prof Chris Freeman from Bangor University, have found conversion of paddy fields to aquaculture is releasing massive amounts of the greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere.

It was always assumed that because rice paddies are already a huge source of atmospheric methane, nothing could happen to make a difficult situation worse.

When describing their work which appears in “Nature Climate Change”, Prof Chris Freeman commented: “We were amazed to discover that methane production from the converted rice paddies was massively higher than before conversion.” ... The conversion increased associated global warming potentials from 8.15 ± 0.43 to 28.0 ± 4.1 Mg CO2eq ha−1, primarily due to increased CH4 emissions.

Junji Yuan et al. Rapid growth in greenhouse gas emissions from the adoption of industrial-scale aquaculture, Nature Climate Change (2019)
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 07:31:37 AM by vox_mundi »
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

kassy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #980 on: March 05, 2019, 08:48:37 PM »
That is an interesting find and possibly part of the methane mentioned in the article
AGU Very  strong atmospheric methane growth  in the  four  years 2014 -2017 in #943 in this thread.

The abstract does not mention when the conversion began but the article cites two sources and the second of those is the China Fisheries Yearbook 2013 so at least by then it was a factor so it shows up at the right time to contribute.

If anyone who has access could quote some data on the historical growth numbers and estimated emissions from those that would be nice.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3254
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #981 on: March 05, 2019, 09:51:52 PM »
The potential emissions reductions worldwide could stabilize methane levels in the atmosphere as was the case in the late 1990s.

Ultimately, natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels to support industrial applications being replaced by renewable electricity powering buildings and transportation.  Since methane's residence time in the atmosphere is about a decade, we can expect to see the concentrations in the atmosphere decrease during our lifetimes.

Of course, there is nothing in the short term or long term trends that supports your statement that "natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels."

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/nat_gas.pdf

If you ignore recent developments then the case looks bleak.  Fortunately, the economics for renewables have improved greatly in recent years, to the point that they are now cheaper than fossil fuel plants.



You counter my suggestion that oil and gas consumption will continue to climb with a response that focuses almost entirely on electricity generation using fossil fuels which will have little if any impact on the consumption of oil which is transportation based.

I will repeat. There is very little evidence that...


Ultimately, natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels...

If you want to understand the trends in transportation which is driving growth in oil consumption, I've posted a lot of industry data on the cars thread. EV's are simply not growing fast enough to prevent another couple of decades of growth in oil consumption. Although I suppose if you use ultimately to mean 40 years out, this statement may be true.

But then, since we need to be carbon neutral by 2050, this would mean that, ultimately, we're screwed.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #982 on: March 06, 2019, 01:11:31 AM »
What does it matter where the methane is coming from?

https://www.methanelevels.org/

It matters because methane emissions from anthropogenic sources can be reduced.  I've cited the results that can be obtained by better detection of leaks from oil and natural gas drilling and distribution.  The article on conversion of rice paddies to aquaculture ponds indicated that aeration of the ponds can reduce the emissions.

And the fact that methane is 25 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas means that small reductions in human emissions of methane can have as much of an impact on reducing future temperature increases as larger reductions in carbon dioxide.  (As Shared Humanity notes, we do have to reduce those to net zero by 2050 to 2070 to keep the temperature increase to less than 2 C).

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #983 on: March 06, 2019, 01:26:58 AM »
The potential emissions reductions worldwide could stabilize methane levels in the atmosphere as was the case in the late 1990s.

Ultimately, natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels to support industrial applications being replaced by renewable electricity powering buildings and transportation.  Since methane's residence time in the atmosphere is about a decade, we can expect to see the concentrations in the atmosphere decrease during our lifetimes.

Of course, there is nothing in the short term or long term trends that supports your statement that "natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels."

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/nat_gas.pdf

If you ignore recent developments then the case looks bleak.  Fortunately, the economics for renewables have improved greatly in recent years, to the point that they are now cheaper than fossil fuel plants.



You counter my suggestion that oil and gas consumption will continue to climb with a response that focuses almost entirely on electricity generation using fossil fuels which will have little if any impact on the consumption of oil which is transportation based.

I will repeat. There is very little evidence that...


Ultimately, natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels...

If you want to understand the trends in transportation which is driving growth in oil consumption, I've posted a lot of industry data on the cars thread. EV's are simply not growing fast enough to prevent another couple of decades of growth in oil consumption. Although I suppose if you use ultimately to mean 40 years out, this statement may be true.

But then, since we need to be carbon neutral by 2050, this would mean that, ultimately, we're screwed.

The days of the internal combustion engine (ICE) are numbered:

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/25/the-osborne-effect-on-the-auto-industry/

I posted a summary of this article in the Cars, Cars, ... forum in the Policy and Solutions area a few days ago.  Here's the key chart from the article:



The costs for battery electric vehicles (BEV) are continuing to decrease, mainly due to the decrease of battery costs and improvements in battery technology.  Meanwhile, ICE vehicles are a mature industry that have seen costs slowly increase over time. 

Also, some countries have laws or policies that will restrict the sales of ICE vehicles in the future.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-that-will-ban-gasoline-cars.html

China, the world's largest auto market, has set aggressive goals for the adoption of BEVs as noted in this story from 2018.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/05/30/chinas-all-in-on-electric-vehicles-heres-how-that-will-accelerate-sales-in-other-nations/#6ca00b38e5c1

Quote
Chinese consumers are on track to buy more than 1 million electric vehicles (EVs) this year after sales grew 53% in 2017.  And China’s leadership is charting a course to an all-electric future, targeting 2 million annual EV sales by 2020 and a complete ban on internal-combustion engines, which officials predicts will happen before 2040.

China’s EVs enthusiasm is driven by domestic considerations, but by committing to electric transportation, the world’s largest vehicle market will accelerate global EV adoption.


Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #984 on: March 06, 2019, 02:34:11 AM »
Disappearing Rice Fields Threaten More Global Warming
https://www.bangor.ac.uk/news/research/disappearing-rice-fields-threaten-more-global-warming-40010

 I am not arguing the point. But there is another massive ( not sure if it's really massive ) change in switching from paddy fields production to dry land rice growing. Not only in China but elsewhere in the world. The purpose being to reduce costs, reduce water use and lower GHG emissions overall.

But I am not up-to-date as following such trends is just too much hard work if it's not your area of interest or knowledge area. 

Maybe (I do not know for sure) this is why those paddy fields are now becoming available to aquaculture? It's probably worth checking out if interested.
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #985 on: March 06, 2019, 06:33:59 PM »
That is an interesting find and possibly part of the methane mentioned in the article
AGU Very  strong atmospheric methane growth  in the  four  years 2014 -2017 in #943 in this thread.

The abstract does not mention when the conversion began but the article cites two sources and the second of those is the China Fisheries Yearbook 2013 so at least by then it was a factor so it shows up at the right time to contribute.

If anyone who has access could quote some data on the historical growth numbers and estimated emissions from those that would be nice.

It's challenging to reconcile methane emissions from various sources based on economic data (bottom's up estimates) with the calculated emissions to arrive at the concentrations in the atmosphere and the annual growth rate in the concentrations combined with field measurements taking air samples over emitting sources (top down estimates).  The changes in estimated natural emissions from El Nino/La Nina shifts and the impacts of the precipitation on tropical wetland emissions can overwhelm changes in emissions from human sources.  And that doesn't take into account the debate on how much methane is being emitted from the ESAS, as we've been discussing in this forum over the past few months.  The estimates for the ESAS emissions range from 2 to 17 Tg per year, depending on how measurements over a small part of the ESAS are estimated to apply to the entire ESAS.

Here's a study from 2018 discussing agricultural sources of methane emissions.

https://daneshyari.com/article/preview/4758866.pdf

Quote
1750. There are
many sources of CH4 in the terrestrial biosphere. Global CH4 sources,
which include unmanaged and managed sources, have been estimated
at 678 Tg CH4 yr−1 with a range of 542–852 for the 2000–2009 decade.
Wetlands are the main unmanaged source and they account for
217 Tg CH4 yr−1 of global CH4 emissions (IPCC, 2013). Managed
sources originate primarily from fossil fuels (96 Tg CH4 yr−1), ruminants
(89 Tg CH4 yr−1), landfill/waste (75 Tg CH4 yr−1), rice
(36 Tg CH4 yr−1)
and biomass burning (35 Tg CH4 yr−1) (IPCC, 2013).
There are very large uncertainties in these estimates. In Canada,
emissions from wetlands range from 16 to 29 Tg CH4 yr−1 depending
on the study (Thompson et al., 2017). Agriculture accounts for about
1.4 Tg CH4 yr−1, approximately 88% are from enteric fermentation and
the remaining 12% are from manure management systems
(Environment Canada, 2015b; Karimi-Zindashty et al., 2012). Little is
known about the magnitude of the CH4 emissions from wetlands within
the agricultural landscape.

The article below estimates that the inbalance of methane emissions (causing the increase in concentrations of methane in the atmosphere since 2007) is 25 million tons (or 25 Tg).  They estimate that increased fossil fuel production since 2017 is responsible for 17 million tons (or 17 Tg) of the increase.  So compared to the increase in emissions from fossil fuel production, the increase from additional aquaculture is probably about an order of magnitude (10 times) less.

Here's the article from January 2018 summarizing the study on increases in methane emissions from fossil fuels.

https://rmi.org/2018s-pressing-energy-challenge-methane-emissions/

Quote
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has shown that since preindustrial times, methane has been responsible for 20 percent of global warming and nearly 40 percent of the climate forcing, a direct measure of the amount that the Earth’s energy budget is out of balance. Methane currently contributes almost 40 percent to the heat-trapping effect of all human-produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

And this problem is only getting worse. As NASA explains, since just 2006, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have risen sharply and are currently causing an overbalance of more than 25 million tons per year. Clearly this cannot continue if we have any hope of limiting global temperature rise to 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees, as outlined in the Paris Climate Accord.

Enter the recent NASA study. Its research confirms that 17 of the extra 25 million tons of annual methane emissions come from the fossil fuel sector—or nearly 70 percent of all new emissions! During this period, there has been a massive increase in hydraulically fractured oil and natural gas production while coal mining has remained constant. In addition, natural gas wasted in unproductive flares and vents to the atmosphere have been on the increase for the past eight years. By inference, the increase in both petroleum production and the intentional wasting of the associated gas provides a smoking gun to the spiking atmospheric concentrations of methane. Reliable methane emissions estimates in the oil industry are lacking since measurements of partial combustion and vents are close to absent, and measurements of gas leakage from transport and distribution are scarce.

Quote
Too many scientifically based studies have been published to continue to ignore the problem of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. The time to fix this problem is now. Our best chance to address runaway methane emissions is to tighten up the oil and gas supply chain where large amounts of methane are intentionally vented and unintentionally leaked. Rocky Mountain Institute’s Global Race for Zero Methane Emissions Challenge is doing just that, aiming to reduce climate-change-causing methane impacts of the oil and gas industry by 5.6 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions.

Starting with major oil and gas companies, methane reduction must become the oil industry’s priority, as opposed to being treated simply as a regulatory hurdle. To this end, there are some encouraging signs of commitment by certain companies that recently signed a set of Methane Principles. However, this commitment must be followed up with real action in the form of tens of thousands of methane abatement projects across the oil and gas supply chains.

To make these projects happen faster, petroleum ministries and national and international oil companies need to reexamine their 100-year-old business models and open up their protected markets to entrepreneurial forces. To solve the industry’s methane problem, the industry needs to mobilize a “gold rush” of activity that is supported by national budgets, multilateral financing, and commercial banks.

Another solution would be for people to press for Governments to limit or ban fracking for oil or natural gas.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #986 on: March 06, 2019, 07:15:59 PM »
To further demonstrate how confusing studies of methane emissions can be, a different study on the conversion of rice paddies to aquaculture ponds published in 2018 found that the conversion reduced methane emissions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231017308506

Quote
Inland aquaculture ponds have been documented as important sources of atmospheric methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), while their regional or global source strength remains unclear due to lack of direct flux measurements by covering more typical habitat-specific aquaculture environments. In this study, we compared the CH4 and N2O fluxes from rice paddies and nearby inland fish aquaculture wetlands that were converted from rice paddies in southeast China. Both CH4 and N2O fluxes were positively related to water temperature and sediment dissolved organic carbon, but negatively related to water dissolved oxygen concentration. More robust response of N2O fluxes to water mineral N was observed than to sediment mineral N. Annual CH4 and N2O fluxes from inland fish aquaculture averaged 0.51 mg m−2 h−1 and 54.78 μg m−2 h−1, amounting to 42.31 kg CH4 ha−1 and 2.99 kg N2O-N ha−1, respectively. The conversion of rice paddies to conventional fish aquaculture significantly reduced CH4 and N2O emissions by 23% and 66%, respectively.


Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3254
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #987 on: March 06, 2019, 08:21:36 PM »
Total vehicles in China just topped 300 million.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/2088876/chinas-more-300-million-vehicles-drive-pollution-congestion

Most are ICE's.

24 million new cars hit the roads in China in 2018.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/233743/vehicle-sales-in-china/

Most of these were ICE's.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #988 on: March 06, 2019, 11:24:05 PM »
Total vehicles in China just topped 300 million.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/2088876/chinas-more-300-million-vehicles-drive-pollution-congestion

Most are ICE's.

24 million new cars hit the roads in China in 2018.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/233743/vehicle-sales-in-china/

Most of these were ICE's.

I'll respond to this post here, but we should probably take further discussion to the Cars, Cars,... forum.

Yes, currently more ICEs are begin sold than EVs.  The question is for how long?  The article I posted predicts that in the mid-2020s, less than 10 years, more EVs will be sold then ICEs.

There's already evidence that EVs are cutting into demand for ICEs.

https://www.treehugger.com/cars/gas-car-sales-are-down-china-eu-us-electric-cars-blame.html

Quote
According to publicly available data, sales of fossil fuel-powered cars were down in China, Europe AND the United States last year, while sales of electric cars were significantly up.


Here's the view from China alone:


In the world’s largest auto market, China, total light duty vehicle (LDV) sales declined in 2018 relative to 2017. This was the first year-on-year drop since 1992. Yet, in this shrinking overall auto market, EV sales (including BEVs and PHEVs) almost doubled in volume to 1.1 million, from 600,000 in 2017.

The numbers aren't quite as dramatic in the US and Europe, but they are both still moving in the right direction. In the US, for example, LDV sales were 17.274 million, up from 17.230 million the year before—but EV sales were up 160,000 to 360,000 during the same timeframe. In other words, increased market share and a decline in absolute terms of fossil fuel-powered cars. Meanwhile European LDV sales ticked up an even smaller 0.07 million to 17.75 million overall, but with 408,000 electric vehicle sales (up from 307,000 the year before), the entirety of that increase—and then some—was due to electrification.