Could someone explain why the methane wouldn’t be increasing? Granted, I have a Discovery Channel view of all this, but from the shows I’ve seen they claim that lake methane is escaping at an increasing rate…and that ocean methane is also on the rise. I saw a show where they demonstrated this by putting a clear tube with one end closed into a lake, wiggling it about some and then opening the cap and lighting it up (i.e. methane was coming out of the lake). Unless they were wrong in their claim (always a chance with the kind of shows I watch), how could that be happening yet world wide methane isn’t increasing in the atmosphere?
WAG, but methane emmissions might be down in part to better capping of landfills, and the increase in collection efficiency of gas emmissions from those landfills.
But, the Atkins craze alone would mean more meat raised. Or there more people, like me, who have gone from serious meat-eater to (quasi-)veggie?
You ask a very good question, XT, one that shows the limits of our knowledge. Scientific American magazine calls the stabilization “mysterious”, saying
James Hansen, on the other hand, has said that it is premature to point to a particular reason for the change because methane has so many sources.
I have stated many times on this board that our understanding of climate is in its infancy, that we have nowhere near the knowledge needed to project climate hundreds of years into the future. This is a perfect example of that. We don’t know why the methane has stopped rising, we don’t know whether it will resume again, and if so, we don’t know when it might resume … and yet we can say that it is “very likely” that we are headed to climate catastrophe??? Don’t think so …
w.
PS - Do we really think the drop in methane is due to a “decline in rice production”? Not sure what Aslam Khalil has been smoking up there at Portland State University, but according to the FAO , there was a 3% increase in the number of hectares of rice grown worldwide in 2006 compared to 1996. This, combined with increases in yield, has led to a 12% increase in the total amount of rice produced over the same period … which makes Aslam’s decreasing rice explanation … mmm … well, let me call it dubious.
Methane’s a reduced compound in an oxidizing atmosphere. It’s not very stable. According to Wikipedia, it has a half life of about 7 years in the atmosphere. Now God only knows when, where and how that 7 year figure was measured. But I’d expect methane’s atmospheric halflife to depend on such things as temperature, UV intensity, humidity, ozone concentration etc. etc. etc.
I doubt athat nyone is monitoring the atmospheric methane halflife on a daily basis, checking for changes in the rate of decay.
If not, then the rate of methane production could still be increasing, but the amount measured in the atmosphere, decreasing.
I’m conservative. I believe that global warming may be happening. I believe that it is caused by sun cycles, as it has been for millions of years. I don’t believe that mankind can do anything about it. I also believe that a lot of people are getting rich off it by playing off the ignorance and fears of others (Algore comes immediately to mind).
Well, this actually brings us back to my OP. A better way, perhaps, to state what I was trying to get at is: Why are conservatives more inclined to hold the belief that human kind cannot affect the Earth in any major way (good or bad), while liberals are inclined to believe that humans definitely can have major impacts on the Earth (usually, at least up to now, in a bad way)?
I don’t get how the politically conservative beliefs lead more to the attitude “The Earth is just too big for us lowly humans to have any major effect on it”, while the politically liberal beliefs lead more to the attitude, “It’s certainly the activities of humans that are causing [global warming, climate change, the dust bowl, whatever]”.
Maybe it is related to habits of thought. Liberals prefer the government option over private/individual options to solve many problems. They tend to assume that every major problem should be, and is, susceptible to solution by the federal government.
An example might be economic thinking. Liberals tend to believe that economic problems can be addressed best by government action, and that such action will actually do more good than harm. Taken to its ultimate, this ends up in socialism and the debacles of Marxism.
Another factor might be the “watermelon” effect - environmentalists are often green on the outside, but pink on the inside. That is, they advocate a different (often government-enforced) societal structure that they want, regardless of GW. They want to cut back on logging, and the plight of the spotted owl is convenient as a way to push this. If it turned out that the spotted owls are not going to be wiped out, they simply shift their arguments to something else.
Bureaucrats tend to increase their own power over time. I am automatically suspicious of those who tell me “here is a major catastrophe looming, the only possible solution involves large sacrifices on your part, now get going” and doesn’t want to answer any questions and tells me we don’t have time to examine our options.
“We must do something, here is something, we must do it” is an untrustworthy syllogism.