The IPCC reports that, over a 20-year time frame, methane has a global warming potential of 86 compared to CO2, up from its previous estimate of 72. [update: IPCC latest report says methane is over 86 X more potent than CO2] Given that we are approaching real, irreversible tipping points in the climate system, climate studies should, at the very least, include analyses that use this 20-year time horizon.
For a larger version of this graphic to distribute click HERE.
This is indisputable proof. About a dozen universities and governments around the world cooporated in these measurements. They have been peer-reviewed up the wazoo.
For my original post about this please see: The real story about methane and the EPA estimates.
Update: I’m pasting the original post below because I know how hard it is to click to something else.
I might have mentioned the recent news that the EPA reduced their estimates of methane emissions but now I have even more and better information. This is the information that needs to be reported.
First, the bottom line: Methane levels are way too high–3x normal.
(1) What we know for a fact is that methane concentrations in the atmosphere are skyrocketing.
The EPA has some graphs that show the dramatic spike. Go to this website and then specifically to these figures. At the end of this post are the scientific references the EPA used for this information.
As the charts show, for about 1 million years, methane levels were always between 400 and 800 ppb. Then, all of sudden at the time of the industrial revolution (1850) when we started big time use of fossil fuels, levels of methane (and CO2) started to climb like crazy.
Today concentrations are over 1800 ppb, which means that we have essentially tripled (x3) the average concentration going back a million years.
Whether the leakage rate is 0.1%, 1%, 3%, 10%, doesn’t matter. As an analogy, think about people that are 400 pounds and really obese and suffering from heart disease. Whether they gain another 0.1, 1, 3, or 10 pounds every month moving forward doesn’t matter. Its the wrong question. They need to lose weight, not keep gaining. Translation: we need to stop poking holes in the earth to let the methane out, stop burning fossil fuels, and let nature over time bring the concentration of methane back to the 400 to 800 ppb range.
(2) How much EPA (or EDF, or UT, or NOAA, or UColorado, or anyone else) “estimates” is irrelevant given how much is already in the atmosphere–TOO MUCH. We know how much is actually in the air. 1800 ppb. 3 times what it should be.
(3) There are hundreds of thousands of wells, tanks, pipelines, meters, compressors, pumps, flares, etc, all over Texas, OK, LA, and the gulf that have never been tested for methane leaking. The high majority were installed well before the more modern stuff went in the last 10 years in the shale formations, including in the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s. . Methane leakage rates from any piece of equipment vary with time. They will vary with place. They will vary with the operator.
And then there are the brand new facilities like the one in the video below, like the ones all over the Eagle Ford Shale and all over the Barnett Shale just adding the Permian Basin because OMG! that vent the methane. They do it because they can.
(4) The EPA still says natural gas operations are the leading source of methane.
For even more information that was missed in the AP story see Meleah Geertsma’s Blog: EPA Report Confirms Oil and Gas Sector is Among Nation’s Worst Climate Polluters.
UPDATE 2: New study from NASA 2018: 68% of the global spike in methane is from oil and gas. The global methane spike coincides exactly with the fracking boom.
To understand methane’s Global Warming Potential (GWP) see: What do leeches have to do with fracking and climate change?
EPA data references.
Spahni, R., J. Chappellaz, T.F. Stocker, L. Loulergue, G. Hausammann, K. Kawamura, J. Flückiger, J. Schwander, D. Raynaud, V. Masson-Delmotte, and J. Jouzel. 2005. Atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide of the late Pleistocene from Antarctic ice cores. Science 310(5752):1317–1321. Accessed May 15, 2007. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/
Greenland GISP2 ice core: approximately 87,798 BC to 8187 BC
Byrd Station, Antarctica: approximately 85,929 BC to 6748 BC
Greenland GRIP ice core: approximately 46,933 BC to 8129 BC
Blunier, T., and E.J. Brook. 2001. Timing of millenial-scale climate change in Antarctica and Greenland during the last glacial period. Science 291:109–112. Accessed September 13, 2005. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/
EPICA Dome C, Antarctica: approximately 8945 BC to 1760 AD
Flückiger, J., E. Monnin, B. Stauffer, J. Schwander, T.F. Stocker, J. Chappellaz, D. Raynaud, and J.M. Barnola. 2002. High resolution Holocene N2O ice core record and its relationship with CH4 and CO2. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 16(1):10–11. Accessed April 24, 2007.ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/
Law Dome, Antarctica: approximately 1008 AD to 1980 AD
Various Greenland locations: approximately 1075 AD to 1885 AD
Etheridge, D.M., L.P. Steele, R.J. Francey, and R.L. Langenfelds. 2002. Historical CH4 records since about 1000 AD from ice core data. In: Trends: A compendium of data on global change. Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed September 13, 2005. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
Greenland Site J: approximately 1598 AD to 1951 AD
WDCGG (World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases). 2005. Atmospheric CH4 concentrations for Greenland Site J. Accessed September 1, 2005. http://ds.data.jma.go.
Cape Grim, Australia: 1984 AD to 2010 AD
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. Monthly mean CH4 concentrations for Cape Grim, Australia. Accessed October 27, 2011. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/
Mauna Loa, Hawaii: 1987 AD to 2011 AD
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. Monthly mean CH4 concentrations for Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Accessed May 10, 2012. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/
Steele, L.P., P.B. Krummel, and R.L. Langenfelds. 2002. Atmospheric CH4 concentrations from sites in the CSIRO Atmospheric Research GASLAB air sampling network (October 2002 version). In: Trends: A compendium of data on global change. Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Department of Energy.http://cdiac.esd.ornl.
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5121)
“(3) There are hundreds of thousands of wells, tanks, pipelines, meters, compressors, pumps, flares, etc, all over Texas, OK, LA, and the gulf that have never been tested for methane leaking. The high majority were installed well before the more modern stuff went in the last 10 years in the shale formations, including in the 1950′s, 60′s, and 70′s. . Methane leakage rates from any piece of equipment vary with time. They will vary with place. They will vary with the operator.
And then there are the brand new facilities like the one in the video below, like the ones all over the Eagle Ford Shale and all over the Barnett Shale that vent the methane. They do it because they can.”
Excellent post Sharon, thank you.
Do you know if the methane that is now venting out of people’s water wells after a company contaminates an aquifer, is being considered?
It seems to me, the first thing the regulators and companies are telling people after their water becomes contaminated with methane, ethane, propane, butane, H2S etc. is to vent their wells to atmosphere, so their homes and businesses don’t blow-up.
As more water wells become gas wells, is this intentional venting going to be part of the “methane release” equation?
Texas doesn’t consider methane AT ALL and they certainly don’t measure the methane in water wells. haha! The 83rd TX Legislature voted to strike the word climate change (or maybe it was global warming) from all their laws. So there is no climate change/global warming in Texas.
Other states and the whole world need to intervene in Texas because we are a menace to the whole planet.
We should also consider the methane that is seeping up all over the place because fracking created pathways for it to come to the surface. For example: http://youtu.be/VLgph4NMXrw
“Other states and the whole world need to intervene in Texas because we are a menace to the whole planet.”
The world needs to intervene in Alberta too.
Our province is the menace twin of Texas.
“Other states and the whole world need to intervene in Texas because we are a menace to the whole planet.”
Oh, maybe don’t look up here, we’re too busy following to lead anything.
“both Liberal and Conservative federal governments in Canada have indicated that they were waiting for the U.S. to take action before they did.”
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Climate+change+pipelines+Alberta+floods/8604371/story.html
“We should also consider the methane that is seeping up all over the place because fracking created pathways for it to come to the surface.”
Ain’t that the truth, have you seen the monster-methane-bubbling that’s now happening in Australia?
There is a lot of methane (raw natural gas) that is being released at well sites because of casing head gas buildup. And most of it is sour as a crock of Texas pickles!
CIRES and NOAA scientists observe significant methane leaks in a Utah natural gas field –
See more at: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/08/05/cires-and-noaa-scientists-observe-significant-methane-leaks-utah-natural#sthash.KrJGzQnu.dpuf
And, for the end users of natural gas:
Gas leaks cost consumers $1.5 b, study says
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/07/31/gas-leaks-costing-mass-consumers/5nIv3FsJaZRwscJ48jGMsI/story.html
Note that’s just Massachusetts!
The latest research says 105x and it’s in a link somewhere on this blog. But I would be happy if they would use the 70x instead of staying stuck on 25.