Methane, emitted during the extraction of natural gas for energy production, accelerates climate change even more than carbon dioxide. According to a new theory, climate change itself causes additional methane emissions, thus creating a circular and destructive process for the environment
By Maya Falah, Angle, Science and Environment News Agency
When talking about climate change and the greenhouse effect, the immediate suspect is usually carbon dioxide (CO2) - a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing since the days of the industrial revolution, when man began to use the burning of fossil fuels to produce energy. But carbon dioxide is not alone. There are other greenhouse gases with a significant impact on climate change and global warming.
One of these gases is methane (CH4) whose warming effect 30 times greater than that of carbon dioxide. The contribution of methane to global warming is equal toBetween 30 and 90 percent in relation to the effect of CO2. Methane has hit the headlines in recent years due to the increasing use of natural gas, which is considered a more environmentally friendly alternative to oil and coal for energy production. In fact, natural gas consists of 90 percent methane, which is released in very large quantities during production and treatment In natural gas, accumulates in the atmosphere and increases the greenhouse effect and climate change.
The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has been rising steeply since the industrial revolution: the level of methane today is 2.65 times higher than the level that preceded it. Unlike carbon dioxide, whose increase is a direct product of burning fuels by humans, the concentration of methane has increased since the industrial revolution largely due to indirect factors such as population growth, growth in agriculture, and more. Human use of fossil fuels is also responsible for part of the increase in methane emissions: since the 19th century methane has been emitted from coal mines, and since the beginning of the 20th century also from oil drilling. After the methane concentration stabilized in the nineties for about a decade, we have witnessed in recent years a renewed increase in its concentration in the atmosphere: since 2007 it has increased by three percent.
Scientists explained the sharp increase in methane concentration in the last decade mainly due to the global growth in the production and use of natural gas. But recently it has become clear that natural gas alone cannot explain the increase. "Although the natural gas industry is certainly responsible for part of the increase in methane concentrations," explains Dr. Daniel Mader, founder of the scientific consulting company SP Interface, "in chemical measurements of substances that are released into the air with the methane, you can see that only a part of it can be attributed to the natural gas industry (and the other fossil fuels ), while part of it comes from emissions from natural sources.'
Gases, rice and glaciers
What are those natural sources? Organic matter that is decomposed by bacteria in the absence of oxygen, often emits methane. A significant part of methane emissions comes from gases emitted by cows and sheep raised in the meat industry (the gases are produced by the bacteria in the digestive system of these animals). Other factors are the growing number of rice crops in the world with population growth, mainly in East Asian countries (the roots of the rice are soaked in water rot and emit methane into the air) or in the melting of permafrost in North Asia, North America and the melting of the ice in the North Pole (processes that release methane into the air). But it seems that even these sources are not sufficient to explain the jump in methane concentrations, which shows no signs of abating in the meantime. In these years, there was no significant growth in the cattle and sheep industry (in fact, the cattle industry actually grew significantly in the years 2000-2006, in which a decrease in methane emissions was actually recorded), and the levels of methane released from the melting of the North Pole are not high enough to justify such an increase, and this is also the case with the cultivation of rice .
At the American Geophysical Union (GAU) conference held in the United States in December 2016, researchers put forward two new hypotheses that may explain the sharp increase in methane concentrations. The first hypothesis is related to the decrease in the concentration of hydroxyl in the air: hydroxyl (HO) is a reactive chemical (very chemically active) that is released into the air, reacts with substances in the air and, among other things, decomposes methane. Thus, the hydroxyl contributes to the reduction of methane concentrations in the air. In recent years, researchers suspect that the levels of hydroxyl in the air have decreased a lot due to stricter regulations on gases that caused the emission of hydroxyl into the air (since these are responsible, among other things, for the increase in the hole in the ozone), and therefore it has been suggested that the increase in methane gas concentrations is not only related to the increase in its emission into the air in recent years, but to a decrease in the ability The removal of methane from the air.
According to another theory, the levels of methane in the atmosphere have increased in recent years following the increase in the amount of precipitation in tropical areas. In the years 2014-2008, there was a substantial increase in the amount of rain that fell in the equatorial regions. This increase created many humid habitats that did not have time to dry between the heavy rains, and subsequently caused increased methane emissions from microbes that thrive in these conditions.
Ironically, this theory presents a vicious circle: climate change causes an increase in the amount of precipitation in tropical regions, this increase causes an increased presence of methane in the atmosphere, and the increase in methane concentration causes the worsening of climate change.
And what about natural gas?
So aren't natural gas drilling responsible for the increase in methane levels? Not sure at all. Part of the jump in methane concentrations observed since 2007 Definitely related to growth in natural gas production. Following the discovery of significant natural gas reserves such as Tamar and Levitan, this problem becomes important for Israel as well. Today, Israel's share in the average global greenhouse gas emissions (which mainly refers to carbon dioxide emissions) is very small compared to most countries in the world (less than XNUMX percent), but the increase in the use of natural gas expected here in the coming years can greatly increase our average methane emissions into the air and also our impact on global warming and climate change.
In the US and Canada, which are currently responsible for about 25 percent of the natural gas produced in the world, in recent years they have begun to understand the damage caused by the natural gas industry in terms of the amounts of methane it releases into the air. Therefore, they ordered during 2016 a series of restrictions on the industry with the aim of reducing them by about 45 percent relative to the amount of methane emitted in 20122. In both countries, the government officials are supposed to work to develop joint strategies, policies and plans to reduce emissions, to promote data collection and technology development, and to stop the practice of methane burning in gas and oil drilling facilities by 2030. It must be understood that it also pays for the gas companies to reduce emissions Methane - because that way they can sell the natural gas instead of losing it to the atmosphere. However, with the entry of Donald Trump into the position of President of the USA these days it seems thatThere is a very high probability that salvation will not come from the USA - Not in the next four years, anyway.
It is possible that the steps taken by the energy giants from North America will lead to a reduction of methane emissions into the air from the gas industry, but it is probably not enough to make a real change in the trend of the continuous increase of greenhouse gases in the air. "If you really want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and not just reduce the increase in emissions, a drastic change is needed," says Madar. "In order to stop climate change, we must promote a transition to the use of energies low in greenhouse gas emissions, such as wind energy, solar energy, energy storage, and even examine Nuclear energy. In addition, an economy must be promoted that takes into account the environmental cost of greenhouse gas emissions, which will reflect its impact on the environment in the price of the product or service - in the form of carbon pricing. As difficult or absurd as it sounds, we must limit the production and use of natural gas."
10 תגובות
my father
So is there a way to get a link or assume that it is simply the usual chatter of standard climate change deniers and the same names of scientists that are regularly mentioned by those whose connection to the field does not exist and whose work in the field is either not related to anything or does not support the claims of these deniers at all?
Avi Blizovsky
Why was my comment deleted?
my father
Which scientists claim there is no warming?
Which scientists claim that there is warming but it is not affected by human GHG emissions?
What real scientific institute claims that there is no warming as a result of man's GHG emissions?
Denying global warming is like denying evolution - both of these things are observations, not theories! The processes that cause these observations can certainly be discussed. But pay attention - they hypothesized that the emission of PAD by man is a significant cause of warming, they tested it, and it was verified!!!
I understand that you agree that there is warming and that it causes damage. Do you think the small amount of greenhouse gas emissions will slow down the warming process? Take into account that we were supposed to be in a cooling period now...
my father
I would love a link to the articles you are talking about.
I'm not for or against.
I just wanted to mention that there are different opinions among scientists - I am only referring to scientists and scientific articles.
Politically and economically, there are interests in both directions, on the one hand, those who pollute and do not want to be harmed, and there are those who invest a lot of money and profit from green energy, etc.
I don't want to start a debate here for and against, I have read articles that are very convincing and scientific for both sides, and visitors to this website should look through the political, economic and consensual smoke screen and read these articles as well as the others, let everyone decide for themselves.
I'm really not against it because from a non-scientific point of view, I'm of the opinion that the consensus and the huge investment of resources in this direction is good because even if it's not scientifically true that man is the cause of warming or that there is no warming at all, etc., etc., the very investment in preventing CO2 pollution also reduces air pollution and other environments, so it is welcome in any case.
But there is something that is good for the environment, and there is something that is good for science, and it is good for science to seek the scientific truth and prove it.
my father
Since we are on a scientific site, it is appropriate not to talk about proofs (which do not exist in science) and it is true that you should question the consensuses (it will be difficult to move forward somewhere without this) but you should do this with an understanding of what the consensuses are and why they are like that and not out of skepticism for the sake of skepticism or skepticism Out of a dislike of the meanings arising from scientific understanding.
If you want to understand, for example, a little more about climate science, what are the consensuses in it, what is the misinformation that all kinds of interested parties are trying to push into the field, and what are scientists who are really interested in advancing research in the field and really challenging the consensus think, then you are welcome to click on my name and send me a note or more About the site it brings you to.
for miracles
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it doesn't mean it's a duck - for example I have a neighbor like that.
The denial is not only from corrupt politicians and conspirators.
Just as the consensus is not only from politicians and political conservatives.
Both come from scientists who are still debating and have yet to prove it either way.
What we learned in school is irrelevant, if you learned something in school it does not say anything about its scientific correctness, even the consensus of most scientists or politicians or resolutions at the UN are not scientific proof.
I just wanted to emphasize that because we are on a scientific site, in science (as opposed to religion) it is appropriate and correct to always question consensuses.
my father
I fail to understand what you are saying, although I am well aware of the anti-scientific position you describe.
The facts are simple:
1. The earth is warming even though we should be in a cooling period. The poles are melting, the sea level is rising and the corals are dying. There is no debate about that.
2. Emission of greenhouse gases causes warming. Anyone who has graduated high school knows this.
3. We know for sure that man emits huge amounts of greenhouse gases, mainly GHG.
4. There is an overwhelming agreement among all the research bodies in the world about the warming and its causes. Almost all global warming deniers are people who do not understand the subject (some of them are indeed scientists, but not in a suitable field).
5. You hear the insinuations from corrupt politicians, corrupt journalists, and ignorant people who believe in any conspiracy.
In the article appears the sentence "Methane's contribution to global warming is 30 to 90 percent compared to the effect of CO2." This sentence is very misleading since the numerical ratio 30-90 does not speak about the contribution of the gases in the atmosphere to warming in general but about the contribution of one carbon dioxide molecule in relation to one methane molecule. Of course, it is important to note that the number of carbon dioxide molecules is greater than that of methane in the atmosphere, therefore the contribution of carbon dioxide to warming is probably greater.
Just to mention that the cause of global warming has not yet been proven.
Most of the scientists are of the opinion that the warming is caused and caused by man and this was also decided politically in the UN but nevertheless and in spite of that
There are even serious scientists who question the accuracy of the measurements of the warming and therefore also the actual existence of the warming.
And in addition, it has not been proven scientifically with certainty that the methane and CO2 produced by man, or created because of man, is the main cause of global warming and that it would not have happened naturally.
And to remind you that many scientific facts that are known today were questioned in the past by most scientists, from the rotation of the earth around the sun, the quantum theory, to pentagonal crystals.
And the UN is the body that decided that Zionism is racism, and so on...
So "global warming" greenhouse gases? CO2 methane...unproven, don't know, not sure.