"You could refer to these [anaerobic methane-eating bacteria] as a 'biofilter'—they would consume some of the methane that is moving into the water," Colwell says. Already, he adds, these bacteria perform this role in anoxic environments like the depths of the Black Sea.
Also, recent results from the Svalbard Islands north of Norway suggest that methane may not always rise from the water column in the way that Elliott's model assumes. In most models, including Elliott's, methanotrophs in the water were able to digest methane because it diffused into the water. Around Spitsbergen, however, 250 plumes rising from the bottom of the ocean included large bubbles which could ascend much higher up the water column before dispersing, increasing the danger that they could reach the atmosphere intact.
Ultimately, Elliott says, he and his team cannot eliminate the possibility that methanotrophs in the Arctic could be overwhelmed by large burps of methane gas from clathrates. Valentine speculates that the limiting nutrient will be oxygen, but Elliott's model raises some other potentially interesting possibilities.
When asked whether or not fertilizing the Arctic Ocean with some of the missing nutrients that could enhance the productivity of methanotrophs, such as iron, Elliott speculates that "I would bet that someone will very soon discuss the potential for engineering this situation. This becomes an opportunity for the geoengineering types to become creative."
See what we're tweeting about
46 Comments
Add CommentScientific American appears to be supporting sensationalism vs science in this article. The article opens with:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Methane trapped in Arctic ice (and elsewhere) could be rapidly released into the atmosphere as a result of global warming in a possible doomsday scenario for climate change, some scientists worry."
Look at what is stated....."could be rapidly released" "some scientists worry"
These statements could be made about virtually anything.
Yes, it could happen, but you "could" be hit by lightning on your way home tonight some idiot worry's. While neither statement is false......it is a low probability event and the magazine should concentrate on better science vs. hyperbola.
How about articles on what could be saved by the creation of a an improved more efficient energy grid, or reasonable comparisons of various forms of electricity production.
Just relax folks. It takes time to build the hysteria. Now SA just needs to find a way to make capitalism the primary producer of methane on the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI seem to recall hearing that methane deposits are commonly found near oil deposits (seems reasonable). So, for about a century when oil drills hit those pesky methane deposits, the gas was simply vented into the atmosphere. If my recollection is correct and significant methane deposits have been commonly released into the atmosphere for nearly 100 years: how much did this past practice contribute to current global warming, and how do those releases compare to the oceanic methane hydrate deposits that seem to threaten further warming the global climate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther, for a less popular suggestion, presuming for a moment that oceanic methane hydrate seepage indicates the presence of much larger subterranean methane gas deposits, might they also indicate the presence of significant untapped oil deposits?
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou criticize a statement that you acknowledge to be literally true, by stating flatly that the sort of rapid methane release discussed in the article "is a low probability event." I'm not aware of any empirical support for that statement.
You might want to follow your own advice, and concentrate on better science rather than hyperbole (a "hyperbola" is something different, btw).
SA also did a large article on the mechanisms of clathrate release, pointing out that it can occur in a cascading fashion, feeding on its own energy from change of state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe now seem to have hit some critical mass of fear generated by reality, and the poorly adapted minds find it necessary to engage in ferocious denial burps.
Kinda like clathrates, same mechanism of operation. The effect will be to so pollute the internet that comment sections likely will start disappearing because they are so fouled by ideologues. It's strange to hear these comments in a place formerly populated by scientists and their followers.
Dear denialists: next time you use a scientific advance, like a computer, automobile, television, satellite navigator, try to remember the trust you used to have in science, and try to wonder how you lost it. I think you'll find that there are commercial interests involved who don't care a bit about the quality of life of your children, or grandchildren. The question is, are you so frightened that you're going to ruin their lives because you have so little mental toughness that you can't face the reality science confronts you with?
Yes, religion has an interest, and oil has and interest, and arms merchants have an interest in keeping you frightened and flailing around. Be careful, you might hurt the entire earth by your foolish actions.
There are NO certainties in science; it's ALWAYS "some" and "probably." Also no one anywhere has said this is a "low probability event." That was you. The comparisons to a "lightning strike" and complaints about "sensationalism vs. science" were a nice way to deflect from that reality while making you look like the smart one. Good job!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry I'm a little rude here, but many skeptic posters like you are able to twist facts in your posts with such precision that I'm beginning to suspect some of you are getting paid for it.
We aren't going to need a comet to boil off the oceans at the rate we're going.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill the same method work in the tundra peat bogs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill the same method work on Tundra peat bogs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to agree with Sisko to a point. Just putting "time bomb" in the title says a lot - although I know that was probably not done by the author. Is it really a time bomb, or a possible time bomb? The information in the article would not seem to support the certainty expressed in the title
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is good to see such notables as Valentine, Archer, Colwell, Elliot, et al. addressing this issue however. Clearly the period of true science addressing the clathrate - methane - climate question has begun.
We may soon have the some actual data to address the unanswered "just how rapid" - "just how self-perpetuating" - "just how sensitive" questions that enable the kind of speculation that we typically see when this issue is addressed.
I was an avid reader of SA during the 60's. I have returned to read the online version and find that "sicience" seems to have blended with politics! How sad is that
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was an avid reader of this magazine in the 60's. I find that the editor is allowing politics and science to become muddled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow sad is that
Further to the comments by jtdwyer at 01:28 PM on 02/05/10
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a retired Design Engineer who was involved for about 40 years in designing and operating oil tankers, LNG carriers etc as well as Floting Production units which are in use all over the world. I can confirm that many (smaller) oil fields have been developed by "cold Flaring" the gas. Early gas carriers also frequently vented methane in order to control tank pressure. It is quite likely that a good proportion of the atmospheric methane increase seen in the 60s to mid 80s came from such venting. It largely stopped during the late 80s largely due to environmental concerns and is now seldom seen.
Oily one – Thanks very much. Your anecdotal evidence tends to confirm the premise that a significant amount of methane has already been released into the atmosphere. As I understand, these releases occurred primarily as new oil fields were initially drilled. You qualified your confirmation to the development of smaller oil fields: does that indicate that, at least by 1960, methane was often captured when larger oil fields were developed? I presume that you limited your statement to the period between 1960 and 1980 because that is when you had direct knowledge of these practices, and that they probably also occurred for the years prior to 1960.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile additional research is necessary to produce any reliable conclusions, one could guess that significant quantities of methane were released into the atmosphere from the late 1800s until around 1980, probably somewhat proportional to the size of oil fields developed. I suspect that little useful historical atmospheric methane data exists, but to the extent that it does it would have been significantly influenced by these releases from oil field development. Considering that subterranean oil deposits included stored methane produced over many millions if not billions of years, this contribution to current atmospheric methane levels could have been highly significant in relation the amounts produced by current biomass.
Any assessment of risk for any potential future releases of methane, from oceanic methane hydrates for example, should be considered in perspective to the releases made for the period from around 1880 to 1980.
Of course, this likely increase in historical atmospheric methane coincides with the period that of climate warming that has been attributed to increased CO2, based largely on the impact of burning of fossil fuels. As I understand, methane has a potentially greater greenhouse affect than CO2. While little may now be known about its historical contribution to the global climate, it should be carefully examined.
sarahtonin--You wrote "many skeptic posters like you are able to twist facts in your posts with such precision that I'm beginning to suspect some of you are getting paid for it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not twist facts.....I really did not offer any facts, just my "opinion" that this article is clearly attempting to be sensational vs. factual. Clearly the lead comment, as others have pointed out, saying "doomsday scenario" without describing the defination or facts is evidence supporting my assertion.
You label me a "skeptic"......and what do you believe I am askeptic regarding? The comment is true on a variety of subjects. Currently it is looking at your ability to use common sense.
Perhaps super resilient bacteria types known to survive even in space can be genetically engineered to eat up what indegenous methanotrophs may not. Science is about many maybes too. Maybe the oceans are being debased rather than acidified while the pH is still above 7 and could that lead to a shift in the proportion of the types of salts that are saturated in seawater?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe convergence of science upon political concerns is inconvenient but necessary. Human population has gone beyond the point where we can ignore our collective effects on the Earth. We depend on some semblance of the current climate and ecosystem to survive as a species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no comprehensive inventory of methane clathrates existing beneath the sea floor. Oil drillers know its fairly common, which suggests that the amounts are significant. So, anthropogenic global warming is a ticking time bomb. Ironically, the change to the atmospheric climate is the least of the problem. Changing the temperature and Ph of the oceans is likely to have a far more devastating effect.
As an engineer, I've often warned people that making casual changes to systems that are not well understood is likely to produce an unpleasant result. In the case of our oceans and methane clathrates, that result could be a mass extinction event that includes humanity.
Atmospheric methane has a half life of about 7-years. If we allow the greenhouse effect to increase by one or two orders of magnitude for that amount of time, the survivors will be living on canned food reserves. If the ocean becomes a soup of anaerobic bacteria producing hydrogen sulfide, I don't believe the canned food reserve will be fully utilized because there won't be anyone around to eat it.
Holier--and what is it that you are suggesting be done regarding this concern? It sounds like you believe we should discontinue drilling for oil off shore, but I may misunderstand your position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHolier - As an engineer you should know that jumping to conclusions can also lead to a hard landing. No conclusion should be reached without reliable data: if data does not exist efforts should be made to collect it or at least provide reasonably derived estimates for evaluation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving said that, I agree that there is cause for concern. Without assessing the methane releases that have already occurred no definitive conclusion can be reached.
However, I also suspect that the oceanic methane hydrate deposits that have been detected may indicate the presence of much larger subterranean methane gas deposits, which could multiply potential risks.
Any large gas deposits could also pose a greater opportunity than determining some high risk method of capturing methane hydrate deposits: drilling for methane gas would be more feasible.
All this, including current fears, are merely speculation unless more exploration, data capture and analysis is done to quantitatively assess the methane situation.
Sisko, it really sounds as though you are throwing your arms up in defeat at the first tangible evidence that things actually are going as badly and potentially worse for humanity as a result of their actions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's all of us be clear on at least one thing today: science is not trying to scare everyone witless. Scientists don't want to create a (forgive the pun) climate of absolute terror from which no countermeasures will arise. They are trying to wake people up to the fact that we - as the current dominant species on the planet - have a responsibility to ensure that our impacts upon the planet's natural systems are restrained as greatly as possible. To that end they have been in the process of documenting all of the consequences of our modes of production in order to understand exactly what is at stake.
Humans are a significant destructive force which is raging out of control against the environment. No one can make the case that this is not true. Since industrialism, indeed since the beginning of agriculture, humans have been changing the face of the planet. We are not competing with our surroundings, we are suppressing and destroying them. It has to stop.
The only way we are going to be compelled to clean up the mess we have created is to have the full brunt of the consequences, current and projected, shoved in our faces. If that ruffles a few feathers, that's too bad, but nobody said this was going to be a happy fun time of singing songs around campfires. Unfortunately science has formidable opposition, in the form of corporate interests, that has a strong vested interest that such evidence is never presented, or taken seriously. Currently, they are winning, because in the last sixty years America's education system has fallen to the level of a bad joke, and people simply do not possess the critical thinking ability to know the difference between real reporting and a smear campaign.
I hope that some day the information and data that all of these scientists have been producing receives the attention and reaction it deserves. However, I am afraid that when that day finally arrives, it will be too late to take action.
But please, do not simply assume in the meantime that everything we work toward is a waste of time. Nothing could be more worthwhile.
Galaxy_man- I really do not agree with your assessment on a number of levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote "as the current dominant species on the planet - we have a responsibility to ensure that our impacts upon the planet's natural systems are restrained as greatly as possible." --- This perspective is yours and not universal, and not necessarily mine. We are a part of the system, the system is subject to change. While I agree that we should not destroy the system, I am not significantly concerned about the survival of every species on the planet.
You wrote: "Humans are a significant destructive force which is raging out of control against the environment." - I believe we are a part of the environment and effect it....as do all other species. To only see the changes as destructive is a view I do not share. We modify the environment in an attempt to better fit human needs. At times, this is not done effectively when viewed with a longer term perspective. I think the biggest concern is human population growth, but the system will ultimately effect that.
You wrote: "Unfortunately science has formidable opposition, in the form of corporate interests, that has a strong vested interest that such evidence is never presented, or taken seriously. Currently, they are winning, because in the last sixty years America's education system has fallen to the level of a bad joke, and people simply do not possess the critical thinking ability to know the difference between real reporting and a smear campaign.
This statement is an example of utter stupidity- Corporations are simply legal entities run by people....like you and I. This you vs. them mentality you are spouting is simply silly. People form a corporation to perform a service and to limit individual's personal liability. Corporations are not bad....people sometimes do bad things, and sometimes they make bad decisions, whether they lead a corporation or not.
When I read these articles and blogs, I see great disagreement in the opinions of people regarding the relative impact of humanity on the environment. These disagreements often result in insults being hurled back and forth. What I find personally most distressing is that the vast majority of people seem to agree on a large number of the steps that should be taken to improve the long term situation, but in spite of that; the political realities in the USA does not get anything worthwhile accomplished. In my opinion, this is due to the current political perspective from both parties that it is better to be against what the other party is for, rather than being interested in implementing something positive that the other party might get credit for implementing.
"I believe we are a part of the environment and effect it....as do all other species."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlright, so what you are basically saying is that, had humans not come along, deforestation, desertification, mountaintop removal, ocean oil spills, non-biodegradable products, and nuclear waste would all have been produced anyway, because like you said, humans are just part of the system and don't really have a guiding influence in its development. Are you suggesting the dolphins would have done it in our stead?
Embracing the view that humans have no greater power to effect their surrounding than local fauna is an act of willful denial. It's childish and does nothing but contribute to the problem. Glad to have you on board.
galaxy- LOL at you for the response.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI stated that humans are a part of the environment/system, I did not suggest that humans are not impacting the environment/system to a greater degree than other species on the planet.
I do suggest that the environment will change regardless of human actions, although we certainly have the ability to impact the types and degree of those changes.
The bottom line is: what do you believe humans should be doing in relation to a specific issue? What specific actions should we be taking. When you get down to that level the discussion becomes meaningful and not just theory
Sisko is right. True or not, the wording is merely sensationalism. reminiscent of the national Enquirer, not a supposed objective science magazine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut then lately it is hard to tell the difference.
Galaxy is right. One of the biggest problems we are facing at this point is that of Environmental Literacy. Most people aren't even aware of the problems. Especially in the case of Global climate change, the least publicized part is ocean acidification. These articles, even if they are 'sensationalist', are written to inform the public of what research is being done, so that more people can make informed decisions. Any intelligent person can take the information in the article with a grain of salt and understand that science is never 100 percent certain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you would rather stay ignorant on the subject, don't read the article.
Naturalist---I think it is fair to say I am not ignorant on the subject of climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI merely request that a periodical that reportedly focuses on science, to try to do so from an objective standpoint and provide facts and data and NOT to be a proponent of a particular position. SA is currently not appearing to do this when addressing the issue of climate change. This article is a good example of the periodical supporting the position of an "imminent threat" or "doomsday" being on the horizon and that if we do not act immediately there will be unavoidable, disastrous consequences.
The obverse to that is "if you want to stay ignorant and alarmed, read it". Clearly trying to inform the public with bad information is not doing them a service, but a dis-service.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no such thing as a "scientist" warning of global warming. Ooh, I've made a mistake! There is no warming so let us now call it "climate change." That will make it more believable to the denizens of Washington awaiting another 16 inches of snow tonight. The earth was far warmer in the Middle Ages than she is today and the only apparent catastrophes were the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwisting the facts? Oh yes, we skeptics use the same algorithm of Mann: you input any random data and a hockey stick pops out, we evil types simply reverse the sign of the output to look smart. We also obtain credentials in real sciences like chemistry and physics to further our devious plans to ensure the Freemasons establish a world government by eating all the polar bears and melting enough icecap that the only piece of land sticking out of the resulting deluge is the grassy knoll where we will build our secret bunker headquarters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSA is published by the same group as Nature, a peer reviewed journal, one of several journals that most researchers work their entire careers to be published in. SA then takes those articles and interprets them so we don't have to wade through the actual programing that went into this particular model. Like I said before, they are simply telling us what research is being done. Does anyone else find the ingenuity and curiosity that some researchers have to be inspiring?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll admit that the author of this article clearly has a bias. But implying that this has caused some sort of mass hysteria is ridiculous. No body is running for the hills in panic. Just the opposite actually, people seem stubbornly rooted with the inability accept modern science and technology. You might as well be using 8-track players in your car.
If the article encourages people to be better stewards of the environment, whats wrong with that? The people that stand against this issue have been loud and obnoxious, so I encourage some doomsday propheteering or a little bit of sensationalism if it drowns out the other voices.
SA is published by the same group as Nature, a peer reviewed journal, one of several journals that most researchers work their entire careers to be published in. SA then takes those articles and interprets them so we don't have to wade through the actual programing that went into this particular model. Like I said before, they are simply telling us what research is being done. Does anyone else find the ingenuity and curiosity that some researchers have to be inspiring?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll admit that the author of this article clearly has a bias. But implying that this has caused some sort of mass hysteria is ridiculous. No body is running for the hills in panic. Just the opposite actually, people seem stubbornly rooted with the inability accept modern science and technology. You might as well be using 8-track players in your car.
If the article encourages people to be better stewards of the environment, whats wrong with that? The people that stand against this issue have been loud and obnoxious, so I encourage some doomsday propheteering or a little bit of sensationalism if it drowns out the other voices.
The deposits of methane hydrate that are known are massive, far larger than any other petroleum-type substance that we know of, possibly more than all of them combined (if I remember the pie chart correctly). As far as how fast they could be released, that is less certain, but because of the nature of these hydrates, once the temperature rises enough to release some of them, they will all go because of the feedback loop. One of the leading theories for the cause of the Great Permian Extinction is that the Siberian Traps released enough GHGs to release all the methane hydrates that were around then, and the combined greenhouse effect caused a series of other problems that ultimately wiped out 95% of the species on Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefusing the Methane Greenhouse Time Bomb
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anyone bothered to read the entire article, or even the entire title? Note that is says Defusing while I agree that the use of the words Time Bomb are a bit inflammatory, putting the Defusing in front of it takes a lot of wind out of the sails. In addition, reading the whole article, the main premise is that if large amounts of methane were to be released, the methane consuming bacteria are there to consume it before it gets to the atmosphere. Further, it states that if the amount of methane released to the water column was greater than these bacteria could immediately consume, then there is another mechanism that would reduce or even eliminate the transfer of the methane to the atmosphere. That mechanism is the less dense, cold fresh water that floats on top of the relatively warmer, saltier, denser water below. This capping layer would inhibit the methane rich water from reaching the surface.
“Defusing the Methane Greenhouse Time Bomb”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anyone bothered to read the entire article, or even the entire title? Note that is says “Defusing” while I agree that the use of the words “Time Bomb” are a bit inflammatory, putting the “Defusing” in front of it takes a lot of wind out of the sails. In addition, reading the whole article, the main premise is that if large amounts of methane were to be released, the methane consuming bacteria are there to consume it before it gets to the atmosphere. Further, it states that if the amount of methane released to the water column was greater than these bacteria could immediately consume, then there is another mechanism that would reduce or even eliminate the transfer of the methane to the atmosphere. That mechanism is the less dense, cold fresh water that floats on top of the relatively warmer, saltier, denser water below. This capping layer would inhibit the methane rich water from reaching the surface.
Yes, that is correct. The author concludes that there is no danger of climate change catastrophe. The point is that the poor guy can't get published in Scientific American unless he throws in a global warming angle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe current problem with the internet and all voting is that the oppinions of each poster are equal. Science, is a process where an expert's opinion is greter than a novice for obvious reasons and purposes. Ross Quillian, of UCI, explored some rudimentary ideas on systematic rating of opinion in general back in the 60's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it time to put the theory into practice, then ideologs could have their input, in proportion to its value. The same system could be used for democracy in general: Would't that be cool? as in cool the silliness of our politics these days. That would help to cool the planet, right?
It is time for that to p
Ya think the earth has been through it's growing phase?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, it's got a lot of changes to go through and there is nothing we can do about one bit of it. Trying to limit "gases" is ridiculous, and the blame is not on humans, but the earth itself. The efforts are only profit driven, and will become a shamefull scam.
Ideology is the opposite of science in every way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it more prudent to ignore comments based on ideology or to deffend the forum of science?
Pluvinergy proposes to engineer the atmosphere and it's very reasonable. It is unreasonable to think we do not effect the planet.
Dogma is supported by ideology, Science is supported by evidence. It is astounding how many readers of this magazine cannot seem to grasp that simple relationship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Global Warming" is ideology becomming dogmatic. It is a buzz word created by greedy media ideolouges. Anthropogenic Climate Change is the proper term. The evidence in support of human effect on the environment is volumnous. There are also a large number of unknowns. This does not invalidate the theory. There always are unknowns in Science. If all unknowns were resolved it wouldn't be Science, it would be Religion. It is well supported by evidence that there are truly huge deposits of clathrates in the deep oceans. They are also known to be somewhat unstable. These methane deposits release slowly under current conditions, as do the methane deposits trapped in Siberian peat deposits, and methane digesting bacteria can digest most of it, releasing fossile CO2 into the atmosphere in the process. We really don't know under what exact conditions there might be a truly massive release of this trapped methane, so it is quite worrisome. The fossil record shows several such releases into the oceans as the Earth warmed from the last Ice Age, possibly accelerating that warming, so this scenario has happened before. What does it all mean? We just don't know. And we're not sure we want to wait to see if it will happen.
I wonder if this huge resevior of energy might be tapped, the hydrogen removed from the methane, and the carbon sequestered back in the deeps in a much more stable form?
There may be as much as 10 trillion tons of methane stored there. Is anyone mining those deposits?
The author states that there is a great deal of uncertainty in his model. Enough said!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile there may be quite a bit of uncertainty in the model, the global scale catastrophe that might result from the predictions being validated warrant a deeper look and an attempt to refine the model. We simply cannot wait to see if this event will happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUncertainty, or low probability, does not invalidate a model. Having a large bolide strike the Earth is a low probability event that has nevertheless happened several times, with Earth shaking consequences ( including global extinction events where 90% of the species were wiped out).
Proper risk assessment requires that you view the severity of the consequences along with the probability of the event. The concept isn't that complicated, once you get politics out of the way. It is a political statement that says people are more important than species diversity, and that being able to drive our gas hogs anywhere we want whenever we want is more important than the health of the ecosystem we all share. The consequences of this attitude are all around us. So ask yourself, do you want to live in a clean natural garden, or a toxic airless cesspit? Oh wait! You're not there anymore, you had to jump in your Hummer and run to the mall for a pack of cigs, a burger with fries, and a diet coke... Poor sad Earth...
I think it has been looked at closer, and found to be wanting. Hidden from us by the sycophantic MSM, are the work of real scientists: http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/540020/page-1.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should probably spend a bunch of money studying orcs and trolls for all the good it will do us as well.
Seems the article mistates some numbers. "methane is 72 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20-year timescale". I've always understood methane to be about 22 times more powerful, and that it oxidizes to CO2 in between 7-9 years. Where are you getting your numbers?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy understanding is that your "22 times more powerful" number is for over the period of a century. But since, as you point out, most methane oxidizes long before that, many people have preferred the effect of a time frame closer to the half life of methane in the atmosphere. I have heard that it is actually over 100 times more powerful than CO2 over the 7-9 you mention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been studying the use of natural gas as a clean transportation fuel. In numerous articles methane was described as 21, or 22 time more dangerous as a GHG than CO2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the first article I have read to declare that methane is 72 times worse than CO2. What is the source of this statemnt. Could this possibly be a typo?
I have been studying the use of natural gas as a clean transportation fuel. In numerous articles methane was described as 21, or 22 time more dangerous as a GHG than CO2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the first article I have read to declare that methane is 72 times worse than CO2. What is the source of this statement. Could this possibly be a typo?