2 greenhouse gases on the rise worry scientists

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - 2 greenhouse gases on the rise worry scientists stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

SETH BORENSTEIN | October 25, 2008 12:39 AM EST | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
This undated handout photo provided by the Scripps Institute shows Scripps geoscientists Ray Weiss, left, and Jens Muehle in San Diego, Calif., amid collection cylinders used to collect air samples from a variety of locations around the world. Weiss and Muehle led a study that found that the greenhouse gas nitrogen trifluoride, used in the manufacture of flat-panel monitors, escapes to the atmosphere at levels much higher than previously assumed. Two major and potent greenhouse gases are building in the atmosphere, raising an unexpected new threat for accelerating global warming, new studies show. The gases are methane and nitrogen trifluoride, and their levels are building faster than expected. (AP Photo/Scripps Institute, Robert Monroe)

WASHINGTON — Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas that worries climate scientists. Airborne levels of two other potent gases _ one from ancient plants, the other from flat-panel screen technology _ are on the rise, too. And that's got scientists concerned about accelerated global warming.

The gases are methane and nitrogen trifluoride. Both pale in comparison to the global warming effects of carbon dioxide, produced by the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. In the past couple of years, however, these other two gases have been on the rise, according to two new studies. The increase is not accounted for in predictions for future global warming and comes as a nasty surprise to climate watchers.

Methane is by far the bigger worry. It is considered the No. 2 greenhouse gas based on the amount of warming it causes and the amount in the atmosphere. The total effect of methane on global warming is about one-third that of man-made carbon dioxide.

Methane comes from landfills, natural gas, coal mining, animal waste, and decaying plants. But it's the decaying plants that worry scientists most. That's because thousands of years ago billions of tons of methane were created by decaying Arctic plants. It lies frozen in permafrost wetlands and trapped in the ocean floor. As the Arctic warms, the concern is this methane will be freed and worsen warming. Scientists have been trying to figure out how they would know if this process is starting.

It's still early and the data are far from conclusive, but scientists say they are concerned that what they are seeing could be the start of the release of the Arctic methane.

After almost eight years of stability, atmospheric methane levels _ measured every 40 minutes by monitors near remote coastal cliffs _ suddenly started rising in 2006. The amount of methane in the air has jumped by nearly 28 million tons from June 2006 to October 2007. There is now more than 5.6 billion tons of methane in the air.

"If it's sustained, it's bad news," said MIT atmospheric scientist Ron Prinn, lead author of the methane study, which will be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters Oct. 31. "This is a heads up. We're seeing smoke. It remains to be seen whether this is the fire we're really worried about.

"Whenever methane increases, you are accelerating climate change," he said.

Story continues below
advertisement

By contrast, nitrogen trifluoride has been considered such a small problem that it's generally been ignored. The gas is used as a cleaning agent during the manufacture of liquid crystal display television and computer monitors and for thin-film solar panels.

Earlier efforts to determine how much nitrogen trifluoride is in the air dramatically underestimated the amounts, said Ray Weiss, a geochemistry professor with Scripps Institution of Oceanography and lead author on a nitrogen trifluoride paper. It is set to be published in Geophysical Letters in November.

Nitrogen trifluoride levels in the air _ measured in parts per trillion _ have quadrupled in the last decade and increased 30-fold since 1978, according to Weiss, who is also a co-author of the methane paper.

It contributes only 0.04 percent of the total global warming effect that man-made carbon dioxide does from the burning of fossil fuels.

But nitrogen trifluoride is one of the more potent gases, thousands of times stronger at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Methane is more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide on a per molecule basis. Carbon dioxide remains the most important gas because of its huge levels and rapid growth.

Still, methane and the potential of future increases is a worry, Weiss and others say.

Its recent increase coincides with anecdotal evidence of more methane being released in the shallow parts of the Arctic Ocean. A scientific survey in late summer found methane levels in the east Siberian Sea up to 10,000 times higher than normal, said Orjan Gustafsson, an environmental scientist at Stockholm University who has just returned from the six-week survey.

Prinn's data are consistent with the early results of "whole fields of methane bubbles" that Gustafsson said he found last month.

The highest methane level increases were seen in monitoring stations in Alert, Canada, which with recent anecdotal evidence points to plants in permafrost thawing and decaying.

Stanford University environmental scientist Stephen Schneider cautioned that the recent increase is new and that "it is pretty hard to be very confident of any trend or big story yet on methane."

Methane levels have kept scientists guessing for the past decade. They were on the rise until about 1997, then soared in 1998 and then leveled off until jumping again in 2006.

WASHINGTON — Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas that worries climate scientists. Airborne levels of two other potent gases _ one from ancient plants, the other from flat-panel screen t...
WASHINGTON — Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas that worries climate scientists. Airborne levels of two other potent gases _ one from ancient plants, the other from flat-panel screen t...
Filed by Nick Sabloff  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
63
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
- berrycooda I'm a Fan of berrycooda 22 fans permalink

RELAX....

GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL.....

Just about the time the scientists figure out a way to utilize the methane gas, the EPA will step
in and complain that it is causing another problem.

With the EPA, we are damned if we don't and damned if we do.....
I am waiting for them to tell us how to get fuel and resources needed for homes,businesses etc.

All they do is tell us what we can't do...Maybe the polar bears can keep us warm.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 AM on 10/27/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 235 fans permalink

If reality is too complicated for you GOP Fake Christians,

Leave running things to us Liberals.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 10/27/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 235 fans permalink

All the more reason to use up all the easy methane while we convert to solar and wind.

Look up Methane Extinctions

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:46 PM on 10/26/2008

Look up global dimming.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:59 PM on 10/26/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

Yes, do look it up.

As the world economy slows so will the rate at which short-lived particulates (ash, soot) and aerosols (sulfur dioxide) spew out of tailpipes and factory chimneys, which means they will reflect or block less incoming sunlight, thus unmasking some of the warming caused by higher levels of long-lived CO2 and methane already in the atmosphere.

We know the effect is real and will happen, it was observed and measured in the days immediately after 9/11, in the months after the 1991 Mt Pinatubo eruption, and in the years after the collapse of Soviet eastern Europe.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:56 PM on 10/26/2008
- haval2 I'm a Fan of haval2 35 fans permalink

these are the two gases - MC CAIN & PALIN

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 PM on 10/26/2008
- Enid I'm a Fan of Enid 9 fans permalink

Nitrogen is the element we need to deal with. Some rain storms dump as much or more nitrogen than the farmer would put down for his crop.
Nitrogen again affecting the acids of our streams and oceans and already effecting life with in them.
Nitrogen manufacture fertilizer has given us bountiful crops allowing for more people on the planet more complications.
This is all about a life stile that no quick change can happen.
We need science in Washington not voodoo.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 PM on 10/26/2008
- NetWeasel I'm a Fan of NetWeasel 2 fans permalink

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will), but isn't Frozen Methane Slurry (FMS) the same thing as Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)? After some filtering, of course.

Why aren't there pumping stations up there now sucking up as much FMS as possible and converting it to CNG to send where energy is needed? Once the CNG is used, it would be converted to CO2, a gas one twentieth as bad as the original methane.

Does anyone have an estimate of how much FMS is up (and down) there, and what its energy equivalent in crude oil would be? This might be a way to stop the consumption of rapidly dwindling crude oil supplies...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 10/26/2008
- LITU I'm a Fan of LITU 82 fans permalink
photo

Not to be snitty but, how would one pump a landscape? The methane is broadcast, not confined.

There is no solution to old ice melting as we have passed the threshold already, and no one is in a political rush to halt the continued massive pollution, but a better approach, requiring the least amount of infrastructure, might be to convert current users (engines) to CNG, of which trillions of cubic feet lie in huge pools under the contiguous U.S. The result would be an immediate reduction in CO­2 generation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:45 PM on 10/26/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

Who said anything about frozen methane slurry?

The methane is not frozen, it does not get cold enough anywhere on earth to freeze methane. (-182.5 °C, 91 K, -297 °F) The methane is locked in a frozen water ice matrix called a methane clathrate or methane hydrate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrates
It's the water ice that is melting and releasing the gaseous methane to bubble to the surface of sea or permafrost.
And there are vast amounts of clathrate underlying the tundra and continental shelf of Russia.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:06 PM on 10/26/2008
- rpr I'm a Fan of rpr 2 fans permalink
    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 AM on 10/27/2008

Beneath the seafloor, the east coast of America is loaded with methane hydrate. Enough to power industry, vehicles and heat homes for countless years to come. If the sea warms up enough......this gas will be released into the atmosphere which will likely cause a runaway greenhouse effect.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:47 AM on 10/27/2008
- LITU I'm a Fan of LITU 82 fans permalink
photo

Hey, if we keep it up, earth may truly become Venus' sister planet.

I can only apologize to my baby granddaughters, because I've been trying for years to minimize my footprint, to no avail. I'm very saddened for their future.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 AM on 10/26/2008
- haramagoti I'm a Fan of haramagoti 12 fans permalink
photo

how do even worn scientists emit a sophisticated breeziness to it all, we know what the problem is already, finish the story, the story that's always guided people, our believing our natural compassion overrides the lack thereof and -cause us not, but allow us to- recognize our innate sense without self-indulgent corporate sponsored fattening -a thievery- that we would waste not, want not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:52 AM on 10/26/2008
- shockmagog I'm a Fan of shockmagog 137 fans permalink
photo

Yes, conservation of our natural resources cannot be stressed enough.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 PM on 10/26/2008
- strick9 I'm a Fan of strick9 11 fans permalink

I know nothing about nitrogen trifluoride, but our wasteful society disposes of a lot of organic waste in landfills. Methane could be captured and used as a source of fuel instead of adding to the greenhouse effect, it's 20 times worse than CO2. I remember in the late 1960’s a Ski Slope in Chicago built on top of a closed landfill called Mt. Trash More. The methane was captured and used to heat the buildings.

In St Louis near I-44 ithey store natural gas for the city. In the spring the top of the cylinder is near the ground level, in the fall it extends upward near the top of the external frame. The large vertical cylinder guided by an exterior frame is like an inverted glass in a bowl of water. Gas was pumped in displacing the water causing the tank to rise. The weight maintains the pressure on the gas main.

This structure reminds me of a methane generator described in, “Mother Earth News.” At the time failed to see that it could supply capacity to meet my needs. Consisteing of two plastic barrels of different diameters with the ends removed. The larger filled with liquid animal waste, the smaller inverted and the air released to allow it to fill with the liquid. Methane bubbles rose to the top displacing the liquid collecting the methane under pressure. This could provide fuel and improve the atmosphere, at least near the factory farms and sewer disposal sites.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 AM on 10/26/2008
photo

The whole idea of ethanol production made no sense anyway, making fuel out of food, and now we pay, and pay again... surprise. See " Methane-driven ethanol plants are catching on": http://www.spokesmanreview.com/business/story.asp?ID=170435

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 PM on 10/25/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 72 fans permalink


Better to just create METHANE.

Even though Methane released into the atmosphere is bad, captured methane is VERY USEFUL.

You can use Methane pretty much everywhere you may already be using either Natural Gas or Propane.

You can even run your car on it! In fact, you can convert your car to run ALL FOUR: Gasoline, Propane, Natural Gas AND Methane! Methane will be the cleanest burning and most powerful of the four!
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 PM on 10/26/2008

Quick. Someone ask our Repub. VP candidate if she things nitrogen trifluoride is naturally occurring versus manmade.

If we can keep this planet going in the midst of our greed for the latest technology it will be amazing. We have to try, and this kind of knowledge is helpful.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 PM on 10/25/2008
- darthdarcy I'm a Fan of darthdarcy 48 fans permalink
photo

The methane that exists in huge pockets in lakes and the sea as well as the ice and permafrost in the past may have been responsible for the great extinction...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:25 PM on 10/25/2008
photo

Why are we seeing record low temperatures? Surly if GW were happening due to all the continuing spewing of CO2, we would see a consistent rise in global temperature.

After all, the gases that are causing the supposed rise in the world temps continue to increase by tons, on a daily basis, so . . . . . where's the sauna?

Nope, temps are going down. 'Splain that, all you smart guys.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 PM on 10/25/2008

I guess that's why the polar ice caps keep melting at an alarming rate, eh? All those cold temps you fail to reference. 'Splain enough?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 PM on 10/25/2008
- WoodyCPM I'm a Fan of WoodyCPM 69 fans permalink

Most of the other posters have already answered the question but why not wade into it? Yes, the weather is not the climate. The climate is bigger than the weather. The weather, localized, has all kinds of year to year variation, but inexorably the climate is warming as the data clearly show. The weather patterns resulting from the warming climate will alternate between extreme heat and possibly extreme cold in places in which it has not happened recently. Recently meaning in the past several thousand years. Also floods and droughts, the direct result of the weather, will also occur where they haven't for a very long time. Storms will intensify.

As these things continue to evolve and develop and human civilization is continually and more profoundly stressed from it, famine and wars may be two of the obvious results. As human populations continue to fight over fewer and fewer resources, those humans who are supersititous and religious, which means most people, will start to insist that the end is near, the devil did it, we aren't living moral lives, God is mad at us, blah, blah, blah. When what is causing it is how we heat and cool our homes and how we transport ourselves around town and around the globe.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 PM on 10/25/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

Why would you expect to see a consistent rise in global temperature?

We've never seen a consistent rise--or a consistent fall--in temperature before.
Not ever.

There has always been hour-to-hour, day-to-day, year-to-year, decade-to-decade variation in weather and natural climate cycles. Why would we stop seeing that variation now?

We didn't see it over the last hundred years. Average temperatures rose, flattened out, and dropped, even for significant periods of time. Yet the long-term trend over the entire century was still undeniably an upward slope. Look it up.

It would be foolish to assume that we should see a consistent year-after-year rise in global temperature when we have never seen such a thing before.

And it would be even more foolish to conclude that the long term trend has reversed or even flattened based on only the past three years of variation. Anyone with a grasp of simple maths would know that.

Of course, that might be the problem right there.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 PM on 10/25/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 141 fans permalink

Yes, the talk of a "consistent, incremental" rise in global temperatures or else warming is a myth is another straw horse argument by deniers. As you explain much better than I, in an environment as complicated as our atmosphere we will see no steady incremental rise, but day-to-day and yearly variation. The trend of this temperature change is toward warming temperatures, and an outlying year or two does not disprove a trend. I think at this point deniers are grasping at any exemption that they think may disprove a rule, even though in their own minds they know what they say is not true.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:03 PM on 10/26/2008

Well I am far from an expert on this, and anyone who knows better please feel free to correct me, but I think the record low temps are localized and temporary (weather) as opposed to global and longer-term (climate).

Also, this is pure speculation on my part and I would love it if someone who knows the answer could enlighten me, but it seems that as the polar ice melts, it puts greater amounts of colder water into the ocean currents, which gets lifted by air currents and moved around by the wind. That would mean that more cold air is circulating to make the weather colder, but as it dissipates that effect would go away, and we would be left with less ice to keep things at a steady temp, thus ending up with more warming, globally.

Anyone?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:45 PM on 10/25/2008
- mamacat I'm a Fan of mamacat 127 fans permalink

So far global warming has had its greatest effect on the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Temps are reported to be pretty consistently about 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than even 50 years ago, resulting in massive melting of the polar ice cap, the Greenland Ice mass, and the Antarctic ice mass. Much more observation and research needs to be done to better understand what is happening, but there is no doubt that the polar regions, and perhaps the equatorial regions, are much warmer than they used to be. In the temperate regions we are seeing unusual fluctuations. Sometimes wetter than normal, often much drier than normal, and often different than historical norms.

In the short term, we cannot stop what we have already caused. It is debatable whether we can, at this point, stop the process of GW, even if we eventually try. There are likely to be massive releases of CO2 and methane from the polar regions that we cannot at this point prevent. What that will mean 5, 10 or 30 years from now, we can only try to make educated guesses about. We can certainly make GW worse, and we can slow it down, but it has taken hundreds of years to get where we are now. It will take a long time to reverse what we have caused, even if we eventually start to try.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:25 PM on 10/25/2008
- gcallaghan I'm a Fan of gcallaghan 52 fans permalink
photo

I'm far from an expert, but my understanding of the polar ice melts is they serve to dilute the ocean salt water, too. The cold freshwater is heavier than seawater and sinks, disrupting the flow of warmer currents like the gulf stream which play a major part in the way weather is manifested. Colder or hotter - it's climate change, not weather change, that's the end result.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:29 AM on 10/26/2008
photo

The Atlantic gulf stream is a giant heat conveyor. That's why Britain and northern Europe enjoy relatively mild weather.
Warm water flows north, warming the air along the way. It returns south, cold, to be rewarmed.
As polar ice melts, it dilutes the process. Fresh water and slat water have different specific gravity. The heat engine stops working.
So, polar ice melts, England gets cold.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:07 PM on 10/26/2008
- LITU I'm a Fan of LITU 82 fans permalink
photo

Global warming is a misnomer. It's global climate change, i.e. changes in weather patterns, which cause a redistribution of weather-related phenomena.

But I recognize that you don't really get it as you continue to beat the same old drum song. You ever heard of err on the side of caution?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 PM on 10/25/2008
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 72 fans permalink
photo

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! or not, this from wiki's greenland page: ''Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago. The existence of those DNA samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 °C (1 °F) in the winter. They also indicated that during the last interglacial period, 116,000–130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.[17]'' butterflies? cool!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 PM on 10/25/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 141 fans permalink

I don't think the argument is now that the Greenland glaciers must melt completely before we are in trouble. How much of the Greenland glaciers must melt before that Atlantic conveyor belt of warming currents that are brought up from the equator is lost and Europe may plunge in temperatures? Also, during these last warming periods of 130,000 or 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, there were hardly almost 8 billion people living on the planet, many close to oceans. Butterflies?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 PM on 10/26/2008
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 72 fans permalink
photo

hi real, yes butterflies!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 10/27/2008
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 72 fans permalink
photo

yes real, butterflies and water vapor! say, what do you think of my position above to rpr that co2 and methane and water vapor can force just so much water vapor into the atmosphere before at some point, it's tipping point, water vapor reverses it's warming role and prevents more warming than it causes? you know cold cloudy days versus hot muggy nights. water vapor rules!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 PM on 10/27/2008
- rpr I'm a Fan of rpr 2 fans permalink

The problem is not the absolute temperature change. If the temperature rises slowly, over centuries, the environment including humans has time to adapt. If the changes are slower than a generation, people can easily migrate.
The problem is that the current change is at least tens of times faster than anything known from the paleoclimatic record. In addition, there may be tipping points where the system falls from one equilibrium into another, which has happened - and could take less than a decade.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080902075735.htm

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 AM on 10/27/2008
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 72 fans permalink
photo

good article rpr. i think the same water vapor that traps heat leaving earth has a tipping point where it reverses it's role and blocks sunlight from heating the earth in the first place.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 PM on 10/27/2008
- mouselion I'm a Fan of mouselion 118 fans permalink
photo

Contain it, use the gases as an energy source for closed system uses.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:50 PM on 10/25/2008
- Deli I'm a Fan of Deli 25 fans permalink
photo

With all respect, contain it? That reminds me of Bush saying to seal the borders of Pakistan. No possible way. The Russians just did a study of these "fields" of permafrost. Where there use to be a few known areas of methane release around the world, it is now happening across massive numbers of acres. The tipping point is long past, and we mere humans do not have the capacity of global awareness to have even recognized it.

Now I'll say something that someone else can find ridiculous: Has it occurred to anyone that a chemical reaction could eliminate oxygen as we know it, like in a relatively immediate sense at any moment?

All that is keeping things together is our amazing capacity for denial. Why else would people be calm when flying at 35,000 feet?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:46 AM on 10/26/2008
- rpr I'm a Fan of rpr 2 fans permalink

If ocean chemistry changes significantly, there could be large scale die-offs of phytoplankton that would cause some parts of the oceans to become anoxic and hostile to life except bacteria.
That would reduce the ocean's oxygen production. Similar things have happened, for example when the Siberian or Indian trapps erupted. They caused major extinction events.
However, there's enough oxygen in the atmosphere that it would take centuries to drop significantly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:01 AM on 10/27/2008
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect