Atmospheric methane concentration time series data:
See figure 2 of: http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/aggi/
Note that methane concentrations are leveling off,
unlike the fractions of other greenhouse gases.
-.-. --.- Roger
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Public release date: 27-Sep-2006

Contact: Dr Simon Torok

CSIRO Australia
Explaining the methane mystery

Scientists have explained why atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas
methane have stabilised

Scientists have explained why atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas
methane have stabilised in recent years, but warn that increases could
resume in the near future.

In research published in Nature this week, an international team of
scientists - including CSIRO researchers - has shown that it was a
decline in emissions of methane from human activities in the 1990s that
resulted in the recent slower growth of methane in the global
atmosphere.

Since 1999, however, sources of methane from human activities have
again increased, but their effect on the atmosphere has been
counteracted by a reduction in wetland emissions of methane over the
same period.

According to one of the authors of the Nature paper, Dr Paul Steele
from CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, prolonged drying of
wetlands - caused by draining and climate change - has resulted in
a reduction in the amount of methane released by wetlands, masking the
rise in emissions from human activities.

"Had it not been for this reduction in methane emissions from wetlands,
atmospheric levels of methane would most likely have continued rising,"
he says.

"This suggests that, if the drying trend is reversed and emissions from
wetlands return to normal, atmospheric methane levels may increase
again, worsening the problem of climate change."

The researchers used computer simulations of how the gas is transported
in the atmosphere to trace back to the source of methane emissions,
based on the past 20 years of atmospheric measurements.

The results indicate that a reduction and/or more efficient use of
natural gas in the Northern Hemisphere was largely responsible for the
drop in methane emissions in the 1990s, and that the more recent
increase stemmed from strongly increasing emissions from fossil fuel
use in north Asia.

The scientists also showed how changes in emissions from wetlands and,
to a lesser extent, bushfires, accounted for variations in atmospheric
methane from year to year.

The research is expected to help reduce uncertainties in future
projections of climate change and to help design effective strategies
to reduce methane emissions from human activities.

To date, reductions in major sources of methane from human activities
include improved piping of natural gas and the capture of methane from
landfill sites to generate electricity.

Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon
dioxide and is estimated to have been responsible for a fifth of the
enhanced greenhouse effect over the past 200 years. In addition to
emissions from natural wetlands and many other natural sources, human
activities including agriculture and the mining and use of fossil fuels
produce large amounts of the gas.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-etm092606.php

Roger Coppock wrote:

Atmospheric methane concentration time series data:
See figure 2 of: http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/aggi/
Note that methane concentrations are leveling off,
unlike the fractions of other greenhouse gases.

Scientists have explained why atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas
methane have stabilised
[snip]

Russian gas lines are no longer leaking. The Arabian Peninsula is
more punctilious about flaring rather than venting megatonnes of
methane annually. US coal mines are increasingly recovering rather
than venting methane.

If Al Gore wants to save the world from CO2, why doesn't he demand
Arab methane be injected back into the wells to increase liquid flow
rather than being burned in the desert to light up thousands of square
miles (visible from satellite at night)?

[snip]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf

Uncle Al wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

Atmospheric methane concentration time series data:
See figure 2 of: http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/aggi/
Note that methane concentrations are leveling off,
unlike the fractions of other greenhouse gases.

Scientists have explained why atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas
methane have stabilised
[snip]

Russian gas lines are no longer leaking. The Arabian Peninsula is
more punctilious about flaring rather than venting megatonnes of
methane annually. US coal mines are increasingly recovering rather
than venting methane.

If Al Gore wants to save the world from CO2, why doesn't he demand
Arab methane be injected back into the wells to increase liquid flow
rather than being burned in the desert to light up thousands of square
miles (visible from satellite at night)?

Because Al Gore doesn't give a s---- about the environment. He's
working on his career.

Uncle Al wrote:
If Al Gore wants to save the world from CO2, why doesn't he demand
Arab methane be injected back into the wells to increase liquid flow
rather than being burned in the desert to light up thousands of square
miles (visible from satellite at night)?

The heat trapped on our planet by methane's greenhouse effect
during it's lifetime in the atmosphere exceeds the heat generated
by burning the methane as a fuel by orders of magnitude. Better
to burn methane and change it into CO2, because, molecule for
molecule, CH4 is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

Uncle Al wrote in :

If Al Gore wants to save the world from CO2, why doesn't he demand
Arab methane be injected back into the wells to increase liquid flow
rather than being burned in the desert to light up thousands of square
miles (visible from satellite at night)?

[snip]

Why don't you compain to the Arabs?

"Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE" wrote in
oups.com:


If Al Gore wants to save the world from CO2, why doesn't he demand
Arab methane be injected back into the wells to increase liquid flow
rather than being burned in the desert to light up thousands of square
miles (visible from satellite at night)?

Because Al Gore doesn't give a s---- about the environment. He's
working on his career.

And YOUR excuse for allowing other to KILL your world is.... ????

Hysterical rightwing Karl Rove Fellators must SUCK wrote:
"Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE" wrote in
oups.com:


If Al Gore wants to save the world from CO2, why doesn't he demand
Arab methane be injected back into the wells to increase liquid flow
rather than being burned in the desert to light up thousands of square
miles (visible from satellite at night)?

Because Al Gore doesn't give a s---- about the environment. He's
working on his career.

And YOUR excuse for allowing other to KILL your world is.... ????

Oh give it a rest. You enviro-kooks have been crowing this same old
line since Rachel Carson wrote the book 1963 that lead to the deaths of
30 million Africans thanks the banning of DDT. It's been 43 years and
the World is still here. Change does not automatically = death.
Worst case scenario is a die-off. The population of the World exceeds
a certain number, 90% die, and things start again. Happens in all
sorts of animal colonies, but so what?

"Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE" wrote
in oups.com:


Hysterical rightwing Karl Rove Fellators must SUCK wrote:
"Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE"
wrote in oups.com:


If Al Gore wants to save the world from CO2, why doesn't he demand
Arab methane be injected back into the wells to increase liquid flow
rather than being burned in the desert to light up thousands of
square miles (visible from satellite at night)?

Because Al Gore doesn't give a s---- about the environment. He's
working on his career.

And YOUR excuse for allowing other to KILL your world is.... ????

Oh give it a rest. You enviro-kooks have been crowing this same old
line since Rachel Carson wrote the book 1963 that lead to the deaths of
30 million Africans thanks the banning of DDT. It's been 43 years and
the World is still here. Change does not automatically = death.
Worst case scenario is a die-off. The population of the World exceeds
a certain number, 90% die, and things start again. Happens in all
sorts of animal colonies, but so what?


YOU die-off now. OK? I don't have any problem with that.

Society by definition is a mutual defense pact against enemies inside and
outside. By choosing the benefits of the society one accepts the
obligations. When you collect the benefits without paying the obligations
you are a thief inside, an enemy inside. You don't have contractual
obligations owed to those 30 million in Africa, but you owe me or else
GET OUT. Prison is where we store the enemies within, and criminals is
what we call them. We know how to deal with YOU. You are the reason we
create these mutual defense pacts, and over the ages we have killed you
as often as required, in number uncountable.

Killing one more is nothing to lose sleep over.

In article .com,
"Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE" wrote:

Hysterical rightwing Karl Rove Fellators must SUCK wrote:
"Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE" wrote
in
oups.com:


If Al Gore wants to save the world from CO2, why doesn't he demand
Arab methane be injected back into the wells to increase liquid flow
rather than being burned in the desert to light up thousands of square
miles (visible from satellite at night)?

Because Al Gore doesn't give a s---- about the environment. He's
working on his career.

And YOUR excuse for allowing other to KILL your world is.... ????

Oh give it a rest. You enviro-kooks have been crowing this same old
line since Rachel Carson wrote the book 1963 that lead to the deaths of
30 million Africans thanks the banning of DDT.


1. DDT did cause problems.
2. DDT is not flat-out banned.

It's been 43 years and
the World is still here. Change does not automatically = death.

Gee, we never knew that.

Worst case scenario is a die-off. The population of the World exceeds
a certain number, 90% die, and things start again. Happens in all
sorts of animal colonies, but so what?


You first.

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE"
wrote:

Hysterical rightwing Karl Rove Fellators must SUCK wrote:
"Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE"
wrote
in
oups.com:


If Al Gore wants to save the world from CO2, why doesn't he demand
Arab methane be injected back into the wells to increase liquid flow
rather than being burned in the desert to light up thousands of
square
miles (visible from satellite at night)?

Because Al Gore doesn't give a s---- about the environment. He's
working on his career.

And YOUR excuse for allowing other to KILL your world is.... ????

Oh give it a rest. You enviro-kooks have been crowing this same old
line since Rachel Carson wrote the book 1963 that lead to the deaths of
30 million Africans thanks the banning of DDT.


1. DDT did cause problems.
2. DDT is not flat-out banned.

Uh, Lloyd...use your brain and check the headers and the writing style.
You're entering an "argument" in which a single troll is arguing with
him/herself as at least three different posters. Don't feed it!

Eric Lucas