Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Science => Topic started by: Stephan on July 11, 2019, 09:59:23 PM

Title: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on July 11, 2019, 09:59:23 PM
The February 2019 numbers of methane were recently published:
February 2019:     1865.4 ppb
February 2018:     1856.2 ppb
Last updated: June 05, 2019
The March 2019 numbers of methane were recently published:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/
March 2019:     1866.4 ppb
March 2018:     1857.5 ppb
(increase by almost 9 ppb)
Last updated: July 05, 2019
Eyeballing from the graph the increase was a little lower than March 2018, but bigger than March 2017.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on August 07, 2019, 09:46:13 PM
The April numbers of methane were published today:
April 2019:     1865.8 ppb
April 2018:     1856.7 ppb
Last updated: August 05, 2019
Yearly increase a little bit higher than 9 ppb.
Highest ever recorded April value since measurements started. An increase of 14,4 % since 1983.

______
Source: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: bligh8 on August 10, 2019, 05:18:53 PM
The Leaks That Threaten the Clean Image of Natural Gas
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL082635

 Abstract
Urban emissions remain an underexamined part of the methane budget. Here we present and interpret aircraft observations of six old and leak‐prone major cities along the East Coast of the United States. We use direct observations of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ethane (C2H6), and their correlations to quantify CH4 emissions and attribute to natural gas. We find the five largest cities emit 0.85 (0.63, 1.12) Tg CH4/year, of which 0.75 (0.49, 1.10) Tg CH4/year is attributed to natural gas. Our estimates, which include all thermogenic methane sources including end use, are more than twice that reported in the most recent gridded EPA inventory, which does not include end‐use emissions. These results highlight that current urban inventory estimates of natural gas emissions are substantially low, either due to underestimates of leakage, lack of inclusion of end‐use emissions, or some combination thereof.....more within the article.
Sorry if this was posted b4...did not see it in search



Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: TerryM on August 11, 2019, 02:37:03 PM
I'm reasonably sure that this was discussed some years ago - possibly on our sister site?


It's worth revisiting & I'll join the conversation tomorrow.


Fair Warning
Terry
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: bligh8 on August 11, 2019, 02:52:27 PM
Good Morning Terry

Yea, there has been many papers/articles posted about this unnecessary/unattractive area of NG.
..A bridge to no ware..  comes to mind.  I see Berkley CA became the first city no ban NG, hopefully others will follow.  It's still a little early around here and quiet, a good time to tend my garden.

Have a day
bligh
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: TerryM on August 12, 2019, 02:13:38 PM
IIRC
My conclusion at the time was that cities, particularly older cities needed to require their gas supplier(s) to repair and maintain their infrastructure.


The wellheads were problematic, the intra-city higher pressure pipelines were doing a decent job, but the low pressure, low volume system and marginally profitable at best distribution networks were in need of very expensive repairs.


Raising the costs of gas for all users is probably the only way to pay for these repairs without making it a city responsibility and taxing the whole community to benefit those distributing or using the energy.


Abandoned lines don't need to be repaired, they simply need to be identified and separated from the system - again as the responsibility of the supplier who had been feeding those networks.


I strongly believe that NG has a place in our energy systems, at the very least until coal has been eliminated.
Terry
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: bligh8 on August 12, 2019, 03:18:35 PM
Terry

They came through my neighborhood about 4/5 yrs ago and replaced all the low pressure lines in the street and the lines running up to the house meters.  I might think that this was a state wide effort knowing the economics of the township in which I live, still, I'm guessing here.

I see we have some shared history, I've a master's degree in "street"  mostly NYC downtown east side, alphabet city, dark days.  Got out in 87 just before the A-Train came into town...pure luck.

I do not have, nor could I guess at a reasonable response to our current FF problem only that I might think that we should STOP digging the crap up and let the cards fall will they will.
I would prefer a controlled decent into chaos rather than let's just set the planet on fire.

bligh   
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: TerryM on August 13, 2019, 02:42:26 AM
Yea
I thought my second time through was pushing it. :-[  But I take it we both ended up on our feet.


Fixing the pipes is far more economical than replacing every gas appliance with it's electrical counterpart.


It wasn't so long ago in California that area heating with resistance coils was as illegal as lighting a pathway using NG lights. Heat your bath water with a resistance heater and watch that meter spin. San Francisco can get damn cold - and recently a little too warm for comfort. The power draw in inclement weather is going to make it even harder for PG&E to make a comeback after that ridiculous court decision.


If your price for a product doesn't cover the costs of maintaining your infrastructure you're structurally bankrupt and some one will be stuck with the bill. Better a little squawking now than lots of screaming later when gas can't be supplied.


Where I'm at everything's electric, but my electricity isn't even metered, it's wrapped in my (controlled) rent. - another situation that would be illegal in California, Oregon, Nevada or Arizona.


Berkley has been known to be out on the bleeding edge for half a century. Hope this isn't the misstep that flings them to the ground.


Keep your mast pointing upward.
Terry
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: DrTskoul on August 13, 2019, 03:25:27 AM
Terry

They came through my neighborhood about 4/5 yrs ago and replaced all the low pressure lines in the street and the lines running up to the house meters.  I might think that this was a state wide effort knowing the economics of the township in which I live, still, I'm guessing here.

I see we have some shared history, I've a master's degree in "street"  mostly NYC downtown east side, alphabet city, dark days.  Got out in 87 just before the A-Train came into town...pure luck.

I do not have, nor could I guess at a reasonable response to our current FF problem only that I might think that we should STOP digging the crap up and let the cards fall will they will.
I would prefer a controlled decent into chaos rather than let's just set the planet on fire.

bligh

Either way it will not be very controlled...
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: KiwiGriff on August 15, 2019, 08:23:39 AM
This fits here somewhat.

Ideas and perspectives: is shale gas a major driver of recent increase in global atmospheric methane?
Abstract
Quote
Methane has been rising rapidly in the atmosphere over the past decade, contributing to global climate change. Unlike the late 20th century when the rise in atmospheric methane was accompanied by an enrichment in the heavier carbon stable isotope (13C) of methane, methane in recent years has become more depleted in 13C. This depletion has been widely interpreted as indicating a primarily biogenic source for the increased methane. Here we show that part of the change may instead be associated with emissions from shale-gas and shale-oil development. Previous studies have not explicitly considered shale gas, even though most of the increase in natural gas production globally over the past decade is from shale gas. The methane in shale gas is somewhat depleted in 13C relative to conventional natural gas. Correcting earlier analyses for this difference, we conclude that shale-gas production in North America over the past decade may have contributed more than half of all of the increased emissions from fossil fuels globally and approximately one-third of the total increased emissions from all sources globally over the past decade.
https://www.biogeosciences.net/16/3033/2019/
The fracked gas boom is not the breathing space on the way to carbon free some wish for.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: TerryM on August 15, 2019, 11:39:34 PM
^^
That was unexpected.


I knew fracked gas was dirty. I didn't think it was that bad.
Poland with her insistence on coal + LNG from fracked wells could use up the entire EU's CO2e budget.
The US with fracking and Trump is out of the race.
China is building new thermal coal plants.
Canada needs her Tar Sands.
India is burning anything combustible.
and the UK faces more blackouts.


Lets build more EVs boys, it's the only way out of this hole.
Terry

Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: nanning on August 16, 2019, 07:43:24 AM
And give them to all non-rich chinese, indian and african people as an act of compassion  :-* (their airquality) and an act of selfless  ;D international cooperation in mitigation.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: TerryM on August 16, 2019, 12:59:42 PM
And give them to all non-rich chinese, indian and african people as an act of compassion  :-* (their airquality) and an act of selfless  ;D international cooperation in mitigation.
We could give them the EVS, and sell them the electricity!
Immolation is a traditional Hindu thing is it not? ::)
Terry
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: FishOutofWater on August 17, 2019, 04:35:24 PM
That report that fingers fracked methane may be correct but the math does not give a unique solution. There are multiple possible sources of changes in C-13/C-12 ratios. The article correctly points out that fracked gas has a different ratio that gas from traditional gas reservoirs because of oxidation reactions that take place when gas migrates to a reservoir. However, there are other possible sources that might also produce the observed change in isotope ratios. There's no bad science here but the results are ambiguous and other researchers have fingered other possible sources such as Asian agricultural activities including rice growing.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: TerryM on August 17, 2019, 06:02:24 PM
That report that fingers fracked methane may be correct but the math does not give a unique solution. There are multiple possible sources of changes in C-13/C-12 ratios. The article correctly points out that fracked gas has a different ratio that gas from traditional gas reservoirs because of oxidation reactions that take place when gas migrates to a reservoir. However, there are other possible sources that might also produce the observed change in isotope ratios. There's no bad science here but the results are ambiguous and other researchers have fingered other possible sources such as Asian agricultural activities including rice growing.


If the choice is blaming Asian subsistence farmers or North American job providers I know who gets my support. 8)
Terry
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on September 06, 2019, 09:48:11 PM
The value for May 2019 has been published:
May 2019:     1862.8 ppb
May 2018:     1854.8 ppb
Last updated: September 05, 2019
An annual increase of 8 ppb, slightly lower than the increase in the last months.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on October 07, 2019, 10:33:25 PM
The value for June 2019 has been published:
June 2019:     1860.2 ppb
June 2018:     1852.0 ppb
Last updated: October 05, 2019
The annual increase of 8.2 ppb is roughly equal to the one from May 2019.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: TerryM on October 08, 2019, 12:36:20 AM
Possibly related to S&Ss latest findings from Siberia.

"the scientists did not need special plastic cones that were prepared to collect methane. Water "boiling" with methane bubbles could be scooped up with buckets."


"It is manifested by an increase in methane concentration in air up to 16 ppm (millionths of a share), which is 9 times more than the average planetary values. No one has ever registered this before! "


Hat tip to Kassy
Terry


Re: Arctic Methane Release (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,12.msg232261.html#msg232261)
 Reply #1087 on: Today at 12:41:58 PM
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: jai mitchell on October 24, 2019, 03:47:08 AM
massive acceleration happening.

(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/ch4_trend_gl.png)
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Ken Feldman on November 05, 2019, 10:47:15 PM
The July update has been posted to NOAA's site.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/ (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/)

Quote
July 2019:     1858.6 ppb
July 2018:     1849.0 ppb
Last updated: November 05, 2019
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: vox_mundi on November 07, 2019, 05:58:43 AM
NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-11-06/nasa-flew-gas-detectors-above-california-found-super-emitters

(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iXN4SRJJhyAY/v0/560x-1.jpg)

Over the course of three years, NASA flew a plane carrying gas-imaging equipment above California and made a discovery that surprised even the state’s own environmental agencies: A handful of operations are responsible for the vast majority of methane emissions.

In a report published in Nature on Wednesday, scientists estimated that 10% of the places releasing methane -- including landfills, natural gas facilities and dairy farms -- are responsible for more than half of the state’s total emissions. And a fraction of the 272,000 sources surveyed -- just 0.2% -- account for as much as 46%.

For example, of the 270 surveyed landfills, only 30 were observed to emit large plumes of methane. However, those 30 were responsible for 40% of the total point-source emissions detected during the survey.

NASA’s aircraft made dozens of flights across 10,000 square miles from 2016 through 2018. Landfills accounted for 41% of the source emissions it identified, manure management 26% and oil and gas operations 26%.

The team identified more than 550 individual point sources emitting plumes of highly concentrated methane. Ten percent of these sources, considered super-emitters, contributed the majority of the emissions detected. The team estimates that statewide, super-emitters are responsible for about a third of California's total methane budget.

(https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/2019/athirdofcali.jpg)

The results are already effecting change. The survey revealed four incidents of leaking natural gas distribution lines and one leaking liquefied natural gas storage tank, which operators confirmed and repaired.

Riley M. Duren et al. California's methane super-emitters (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3  ), Nature (2019)
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Tor Bejnar on November 07, 2019, 03:05:40 PM
Quote
Over the course of three years, NASA flew a plane carrying gas-imaging equipment above California and made a discovery that surprised even the state’s own environmental agencies: A handful of operations are responsible for the vast majority of methane emissions.
I think this is great news!  It is far easier, politically and physically, to fix a few big problems (of this nature) than it is to fix a very large number of so-so problems.  (Stopping the 10 speeders going 20 units over the posted school zone speed limit is easier than stopping the 10,000 going 5 units over. [pick your units: mph, kmph])
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on November 07, 2019, 09:13:47 PM
The July update has been posted to NOAA's site.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/ (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/)

Quote
July 2019:     1858.6 ppb
July 2018:     1849.0 ppb
Last updated: November 05, 2019
Thank you for posting this. It is an annual increase of 9.6 ppb, higher than in the last months...
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: pietkuip on November 08, 2019, 12:05:23 AM
Data from Barrow, in the high Arctic. This year shows a 50 ppb increase.

So that might be where the global acceleration comes from.
Source: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=BRW&program=ccgg&type=ts
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: kassy on November 08, 2019, 12:20:25 AM
There are plenty of other sources so that is only part of it.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on December 08, 2019, 08:36:57 PM
The CH4 concentration values for August are available now:

August 2019:     1863.6 ppb
August 2018:     1851.9 ppb
Last updated: December 05, 2019

The annual increase (11.7 ppb) is significantly above from that of the last months. At the moment I have no clue whether this is just natural variability, an outlier or a trend change...
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: pietkuip on December 08, 2019, 09:50:14 PM
The CH4 concentration values for August are available now:

August 2019:     1863.6 ppb
August 2018:     1851.9 ppb

The annual increase (11.7 ppb) is significantly above from that of the last months. At the moment I have no clue whether this is just natural variability, an outlier or a trend change...
Barrow showed burps of more than 50 ppb in August. And even higher ones in October.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=BRW&program=ccgg&type=ts
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: kassy on December 08, 2019, 10:39:39 PM
Interesting. Now we have a whole month to wonder what the next value will be.  :)
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on December 10, 2019, 10:35:35 PM
The CH4 concentration values for August are available now:

August 2019:     1863.6 ppb
August 2018:     1851.9 ppb
Last updated: December 05, 2019

The annual increase (11.7 ppb) is significantly above from that of the last months. At the moment I have no clue whether this is just natural variability, an outlier or a trend change...
I took the time and checked the average August annual methane increase. Apart from 1998 (the super El Niño year) there has never been such an increase since 1990.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: kassy on December 12, 2019, 03:34:49 PM
A partial explanation of recent 2010-16 growth:

Quote
Scientists think they can now explain at least part of the recent growth in methane (CH4) levels in the atmosphere.

Researchers, led from Edinburgh University, UK, say their studies point to a big jump in emissions coming from just the wetlands of South Sudan.

Satellite data indicates the region received a large surge of water from East African lakes, including Victoria.

This would have boosted CH4 from the wetlands, accounting for a significant part of the rise in global methane.

Perhaps even up to a third of the growth seen in the period 2010-2016, when considered with East Africa as a whole.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50708544
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on December 16, 2019, 12:57:14 AM
Quote
I took the time and checked the average August annual methane increase. Apart from 1998 (the super El Niño year) there has never been such an increase since 1990.
Stephan, I assume the 1990 cutoff is because that is as far back as the data goes, right?
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: kassy on December 16, 2019, 03:09:00 PM
Some cool research coming up. It will be interesting to have this background data:

Barrels of ancient Antarctic air aim to track history of rare gas

An Antarctic field campaign last winter led by the US and Australia has successfully extracted some of the largest samples of air dating from the 1870s until today. Researchers will use the samples to look for changes in the molecules (hydroxyls) that scrub the atmosphere of methane and other gases.

...

Air from deeper ice cores drilled in Antarctica and Greenland has provided a record of carbon dioxide and methane, two greenhouse gases, going back thousands of years. While carbon dioxide has a lifetime of decades to centuries, an even more potent gas, methane, has a lifetime of just nine or 10 years.

Pinpointing the exact lifetime of methane, and how it has changed over the years, depends on the concentration of hydroxyl. That number is important for the global climate models used to study past and future climate.

...

Analysis over the coming months will aim to produce a concentration curve for carbon-14 monoxide and hydroxyl over the decades, similar to the now-famous curves for carbon dioxide and methane. The curves show how gas concentrations have changed in the atmosphere since the industrial era.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191213092515.htm
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: pietkuip on December 17, 2019, 12:05:52 AM
According to Peter Carter (interview at COP25), the Barrow data indicate emissions from methane hydrates:
https://youtu.be/oa13KrOvE2s?t=1182
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Red Kite on December 17, 2019, 05:01:44 AM
when i look at the page https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=BRW&program=ccgg&type=ts to check the latest data on atmospheric concentration of methane (in-situ data type; hourly averages data frequency; data for current year), i see such a graph
(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evil_gryphon/11301853/19055/19055_600.png)
- straight lines in which there are no data for these time intervals.
(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evil_gryphon/11301853/19284/19284_600.png)
(I marked them with arrows)

Also, every time i open this picture, i save it on my computer, i have quite a few such pictures:

(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evil_gryphon/11301853/18188/18188_600.png)

(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evil_gryphon/11301853/19469/19469_600.png)

(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evil_gryphon/11301853/19718/19718_600.png)

(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evil_gryphon/11301853/18031/18031_600.png)

(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evil_gryphon/11301853/18845/18845_600.png)

ESRL regularly removes data from its data set. Having old pictures, you can recover deleted data and the result will look like this:
(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/evil_gryphon/11301853/18603/18603_600.png)
They delete the data, possibly due to calibration or inaccurate measurements or for some other natural reasons, but there is a possibility that this data is valid and they deleted it because it looked too scary.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on December 17, 2019, 03:24:07 PM
I would not think they would delete "scary" readings, unless they had some other reason to delete them, like thinking they are implausible or erroneous or something.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: kassy on December 17, 2019, 03:45:56 PM
I highly recommend the interview piethuip posted above but watch it from the start not the given time stamp. There are lots of interesting tidbits in there.

The idea of the measurements is to produce measurement of the true atmospheric values. Some times local values will not represent those. For example CO2 measurements would be not valid if there was a local bushfire.

Similarly this data could be thrown out because it represents local methane spikes and thus it does not represent the overall atmosphere.

Too bad we don´t have some simple file format with all the base data, possible error codes if rejected and then the reprocessed data.

For an example of error codes look at the web site of Mona Loa they have a good write up of situations where their CO2 data is not valid. Don´t see such info for Barrow.

Also welcome Red Kite!
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: nanning on December 17, 2019, 05:20:12 PM
Thank you pietkuip and Red Kite for the links :).
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: pietkuip on December 17, 2019, 11:45:45 PM
One fracking well blow-out in Ohio emitted huge amounts of methane in February 2018:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/climate/methane-leak-satellite.html

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/12/10/1908712116
"From these data, we derive a methane emission rate of 120 ± 32 metric tons per hour."
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: vox_mundi on December 18, 2019, 07:33:29 PM
^ Related

(https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/2019/methaneleakv.jpg)
Data from the Copernicus Sentinel-5P satellite revealed that an explosion in a natural gas well in Ohio in February 2018 released more than 50 000 tons of methane into the atmosphere. The blowout leaked more of this potent greenhouse gas in 20 days than the majority of many European nations do in a year from their oil and gas industries.

https://phys.org/news/2019-12-methane-leak-visible-space.html
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Tor Bejnar on December 18, 2019, 07:58:44 PM
I once picked apples about where the tip of the arrow is, in the 'after' image.  Fracking country is not healthy for children and other living things (except for methane-eating microbes).  The arrow, per the text, indicates prevailing wind direction, not "Tor lived here."
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 18, 2019, 09:13:48 PM
During the blowout Pennsylvania high methane readings were comparable to the Barrow baseline numbers. The Barrow spikes , if valid, might indicate some serious oilfield related venting.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: sidd on December 18, 2019, 09:40:47 PM
That's early johnny appleseed country, some orchards still survive. Most of those apples went into liquor. He floated down the ohio round there.

If you take I-70 eastbound outta ohio you pass right by there. Pipelines everywhere, wells, one big compressor station is visible from the freeway.

sidd
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: pietkuip on December 19, 2019, 06:58:02 PM
The Barrow spikes , if valid, might indicate some serious oilfield related venting.
I think a natural source is more likely, but before such bursts were seen in Barrow only during summer. How is that possible in December? Maybe this recent paper gives a mechanism:

"Methane increase over the Barents and Kara seas after the autumn pycnocline breakdown: satellite observations"
Leonid Yurganov, Frank Muller-Karger & Ira Leifer
http://www.aps-polar.org/paper/2019/30/04/A191205000007
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gb05sKZAPgHSdROkGG4HyR4YtEdMRMgg/view

I found the paper via this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K2GNoD61ng
It is a channel by Margo, who is clearly struggling with reading such articles. I can only find that all the more admirable.

So that was from the seas. But also land can contribute to emissions in winter (2015 publication):
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2381/methane-emissions-in-arctic-cold-season-higher-than-expected/

Or this from 2019: https://eos.org/research-spotlights/methane-releasing-tundra-soils-freezing-later-each-year
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: nanning on December 19, 2019, 08:11:18 PM
Oil field related is still a natural source I think. They popped some balloon with their needles. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on December 19, 2019, 09:56:16 PM
Quote
I took the time and checked the average August annual methane increase. Apart from 1998 (the super El Niño year) there has never been such an increase since 1990.
Stephan, I assume the 1990 cutoff is because that is as far back as the data goes, right?
No. The data from NOAA begin in July 1983. Until 1990 the annual increase was above 12 ppb per year. Whether the collapse of the COMECON in 1990/91 was the reason for the slowdown of the CH4 increase rate or just a coincidence I do not know.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on January 10, 2020, 04:55:07 PM
The September 2019 average is avialable:

September 2019:     1870.5 ppb
September 2018:     1860.4 ppb
Last updated: January 05, 2020

The annual increase is 10.1 ppbm, higher than before...
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: nanning on January 10, 2020, 05:28:07 PM
Stephan, thanks for the regular updates.
(Note: the increase is in ppb.)
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on January 10, 2020, 08:07:47 PM
Thanks, nanning. Got it fixed.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on February 08, 2020, 10:43:54 PM
The October average for CH4 from NOAA has been published:

October 2019:     1876.2 ppb
October 2018:     1865.7 ppb
Last updated: February 05, 2020

The annual increase of 10.5 ppb is at the very upper end of what has been observed in the last years. You have to go back to 2015/16 to find comparable rates.

I set an index of 100 to Jan 2000. October 2019 has a relative value of 105.7. Compared to the SF6 increase (see value in that thread) this doesn't sound too much. But with CH4 we talk about ppb and not ppt.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: oren on February 08, 2020, 11:47:22 PM
Thank you Stephan for these regular updates.
The trouble with CH4 is that it was supposed to shrink considerably in the last two decades thanks to its short atmospheric residency. That its level was maintained and on the rise in the last few years is a result of continued anthropogenic emissions.
With the othe GHGs, maintaining the level is a great outcome.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Shared Humanity on February 09, 2020, 07:37:43 PM
I second Oren with the thanks. Tracking these atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases is the single best way to measure the adequacy of our efforts to avoid catastrophic warming. You are doing this site a service by providing these updates which serve as a context for discussions on many threads on this site. The numbers are not good but necessary.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on February 09, 2020, 09:00:58 PM
Thank you SH.
I try to be as early and as reliable (concerning the time I find to do the posting and to compare the actual data with older ones and compute slopes) as possible. Just a number (x,yyy.z ppb) is in my opinion not enough to feed a discussion.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: dnem on February 19, 2020, 09:54:31 PM
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1991-8

Preindustrial 14CH4 indicates greater anthropogenic fossil CH4 emissions

Abstract
Atmospheric methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas, and its mole fraction has more than doubled since the preindustrial era1. Fossil fuel extraction and use are among the largest anthropogenic sources of CH4 emissions, but the precise magnitude of these contributions is a subject of debate2,3. Carbon-14 in CH4 (14CH4) can be used to distinguish between fossil (14C-free) CH4 emissions and contemporaneous biogenic sources; however, poorly constrained direct 14CH4 emissions from nuclear reactors have complicated this approach since the middle of the 20th century4,5. Moreover, the partitioning of total fossil CH4 emissions (presently 172 to 195 teragrams CH4 per year)2,3 between anthropogenic and natural geological sources (such as seeps and mud volcanoes) is under debate; emission inventories suggest that the latter account for about 40 to 60 teragrams CH4 per year6,7. Geological emissions were less than 15.4 teragrams CH4 per year at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,600 years ago8, but that period is an imperfect analogue for present-day emissions owing to the large terrestrial ice sheet cover, lower sea level and extensive permafrost. Here we use preindustrial-era ice core 14CH4 measurements to show that natural geological CH4 emissions to the atmosphere were about 1.6 teragrams CH4 per year, with a maximum of 5.4 teragrams CH4 per year (95 per cent confidence limit)—an order of magnitude lower than the currently used estimates. This result indicates that anthropogenic fossil CH4 emissions are underestimated by about 38 to 58 teragrams CH4 per year, or about 25 to 40 per cent of recent estimates. Our record highlights the human impact on the atmosphere and climate, provides a firm target for inventories of the global CH4 budget, and will help to inform strategies for targeted emission reductions9,10.

Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on March 06, 2020, 08:41:18 PM
Finally, also CH4 received an update by NOAA:

November 2019:     1877.0 ppb
November 2018:     1866.2 ppb
Last updated: March 05, 2020

This converts into CO2 eq: 57.3 / 19.1 ppm (20 y / 100 y)

The annual increase of 10.8 ppb is at the very upper end of what has been observed in the last years. You have to go back to 2015/16 to find comparable rates.

I set an index of 100 to Jan 2000. November 2019 has a relative value of 105.7.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on April 06, 2020, 09:00:30 PM
Finally, also CH4 received an update by NOAA:

December 2019:     1874.7 ppb
December 2018:     1866.0 ppb
Last updated: April 05, 2020

The 2019 average is thus 1866.9 ppb, 9.5 ppb above the 2018 average.

This converts into CO2 eq: 57.3 / 19.1 ppm (20 y / 100 y)

The annual increase of 8.7 ppb is in the upper half of what has been observed in the last years, but much lower than in July-November 2019 (see posts above in this thread).

I set an index of 100 to Jan 2000. December 2019 has a relative value of 105.6.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on May 05, 2020, 10:26:28 PM
It is the fifth of the new month and so the average values of the "NOAA gases" are available.
Here is the value of CH4:

January 2020:     1873.5 ppb
January 2019:     1865.0 ppb
Last updated: May 05, 2020

This converts into CO2 eq: 57.2 / 19.1 ppm (20 y / 100 y)

The annual increase of 8.5 ppb is in the upper half of what has been observed in the last years, but much lower than in July-November 2019 (see posts above in this thread).

I set an index of 100 to Jan 2000. January 2020 has a relative value of 105.5.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on June 05, 2020, 09:25:14 PM
It is the fifth of the new month. Therefore the monthly averages of the "NOAA gases" are available. Here is the value of CH4:

February 2020:     1873.7 ppb
February 2019:     1864.9 ppb
Last updated: June 05, 2020

This is an annual increase of 8.8 ppb. This increase is still in the upper half of what has been observed in the last years.

I set an index = 100 for the 1980 average [1601.2 ppb]. February 2020 is at 117.0 compared to that index.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on July 06, 2020, 09:13:58 PM
It is the fifth of the new month. Therefore the monthly averages of the "NOAA gases" are available. Here is the value of CH4:

March 2020:     1876.4 ppb
March 2019:     1866.3 ppb
Last updated: July 05, 2020

This is an annual increase of 10.1 ppb. This increase is in the upper half of what has been observed in the last years.

I set an index = 100 for the 1980 average [1601.2 ppb]. March 2020 is at 117.2 compared to that index.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on August 06, 2020, 07:36:11 PM
It is the fifth of the new month. Therefore the monthly averages of the "NOAA gases" are available. Here is the value of CH4:

April 2020:     1876.3 ppb
April 2019:     1865.3 ppb
Last updated: August 05, 2020

This is an annual increase of 11.0 ppb. This increase is in the upper half of what has been observed in the last years.

I set an index = 100 for the 1980 average [1601.2 ppb]. April 2020 is at 117.2 compared to that index.

Attached the development since 1980. A much more complicated pattern than the CO2, N2O or SF6 graphs.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on September 10, 2020, 08:32:31 PM
Here is the latest monthly average of Mauna Loa CH4 concntration:

May 2020:     1874.7 ppb
May 2019:     1861.9 ppb
Last updated: September 05, 2020

This is an annual increase of 12.8 ppb. This is the highest annual increase since March 2015!

I set an index = 100 for the 1980 average [1601.2 ppb]. May 2020 is at 117.1 compared to that index.

Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on October 06, 2020, 08:35:52 PM
Here is the latest monthly average of Mauna Loa CH4 concentration:

June 2020:     1872.2 ppb
June 2019:     1858.8 ppb
Last updated: October 05, 2020

This is an annual increase of 13.4 ppb. This is the highest annual increase since February 2015!

I set an index = 100 for the 1980 average [1601.2 ppb]. June 2020 is at 116.9 compared to that index.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on November 06, 2020, 07:09:21 PM
Here is the latest monthly average of Mauna Loa CH4 concentration:

July 2020:     1872.0 ppb
July 2019:     1858.4 ppb
Last updated: November 05, 2020

This is an annual increase of 13.6 ppb. This is the highest annual increase since February 2015!

I set an index = 100 for the 1980 average [1601.2 ppb]. July 2020 is at 116.9 compared to that index.

See attached graph. Click for a better visibility
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: oren on November 06, 2020, 10:48:29 PM
Thanks for the charts Stephan, a welcome addition, showing well the worrying trends.
Title: Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
Post by: Stephan on November 06, 2020, 10:53:14 PM
...you're welcome, oren.
I will add the charts from time to time. Just yesterday I thought it would be time for another set of actualized "NOAA gases" chart, and so I included them in my posting.