Sentences with phrase «methane in the atmosphere does»

The amount of methane in the atmosphere doesn't increase as a consequence.

Not exact matches

In Titan's atmosphere, too, methane occupies the same ecologicalniche that water does on Earth: It condenses out and falls on thesurface as rain.

In order to keep the oxygen around in an atmosphere that has a lot of methane, you have to replenish the oxygen, and the best way to do that is with life.&raquIn order to keep the oxygen around in an atmosphere that has a lot of methane, you have to replenish the oxygen, and the best way to do that is with life.&raquin an atmosphere that has a lot of methane, you have to replenish the oxygen, and the best way to do that is with life.»

Although the researchers did not examine in this study what prevents methane released from the seafloor from reaching the atmosphere, they suspect it is biodegraded by microorganisms in the ocean before it hits the surface waters.

Methane and oxygen molecules together are a reliable sign of biological activity because methane doesn't last long in an atmosphere containing oxygen - bearing molMethane and oxygen molecules together are a reliable sign of biological activity because methane doesn't last long in an atmosphere containing oxygen - bearing molmethane doesn't last long in an atmosphere containing oxygen - bearing molecules.

Molecule for molecule, methane traps 20 to 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than does carbon dioxide.

(Over the course of a century, methane traps heat in Earth's atmosphere about 25 times as effectively as carbon dioxide; nitrous oxide does so almost 300 times as effectively over the same interval.)

And in fact, New Horizons does see large very dark regions on Pluto that might be made up of these photochemical products, generated when the methane in Pluto's atmosphere absorbs ultraviolet sunlight.

Methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere, but it is much more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat.

As the premafrost melts in the arctic tundra then does that mean a likely increase in methane production destined for the atmosphere?

Jupiter and Saturn have plenty of chemical fuel, as does Saturn's moon Titan, which has methane in its atmosphere.

Scientists can hunt for extraterrestrial cellular life forms, such as bacteria or more complex life, by looking for certain chemicals on a planet or in its atmosphere, but virions do not create by - products like methane or oxygen.

Of all greenhouse gases, methane seems the most innocuous — yet it traps 23 times more heat in the atmosphere than does CO2.

The issue was well known but little studied: methane does not hang around in the atmosphere for long, so scientists had assumed that the odd leak would not undermine its use as a bridge fuel.

Methane is not a global warming gas, and doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long.

[Response: Your question was not at all vague, I just don't remember hearing much about the isotopic composition of methane in the atmosphere.

As the premafrost melts in the arctic tundra then does that mean a likely increase in methane production destined for the atmosphere?

Even CO2 which is a better greenhouse gas than methane (when comparing them side - by - side in equal concentrations) does not trigger a runaway greenhouse, even in studies where it becomes the substantial part of the atmosphere.

One should also pay attention to other greenhouse gases, particularly methane (from rice paddies, ruminant animal digestive processes, industrial processes, and distributed natural sources, some of which could be triggered to large releases by warming) and nitrous oxide (from the nitrogen cycle linking the atmosphere, plants, and bacteria, now exacerbated by extremely heavy use of nitrogenous fertilizers in agriculture; note, as does Vaclav Smil from the University of Manitoba, that fertilizer use is required to feed half the world's current population.

Other feedbacks include forests, and most importantly, water vapour, which as the temperature of the atmosphere rises increases in the atmosphere (think tropical rain forest), and water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas (but it is not the «controller» of our climate because it does not accumulate in the atmosphere, only gases like CO2, methane and nitrous oxide do this) See Skeptical Science https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

«[Howarth et al.'s] analysis is seriously flawed in that they significantly overestimate the fugitive emissions associated with unconventional gas extraction, undervalue the contribution of «green technologies» to reducing those emissions to a level approaching that of conventional gas, base their comparison between gas and coal on heat rather than electricity generation (almost the sole use of coal), and assume a time interval over which to compute the relative climate impact of gas compared to coal that does not capture the contrast between the long residence time of CO2 and the short residence time of methane in the atmosphere.»

The thinking behind it is straightforward: Human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, generates carbon dioxide, methane and other gases that accumulate in the atmosphere; there they trap the sun's heat the way a greenhouse does; to reduce the heat, reduce the gases.

Other types of greenhouse gases, like methane — which does not last as long in the atmosphere as carbon but which traps more heat — are left out of the proposal.

In the shallows of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, methane simply doesn't have enough time to oxidize, which means more of it escapes into the atmosphere.

The problems any of these individual surveys can and do present are minuscule compared to the laughable counterpoints Bast and Spencer throw at them: a 2012 survey, for example, which found a strong showing of climate denial among members of the American Meteorological Society, and a petition, signed by 31,000 scientists asserting that «there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of... carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.»

Scientists must think about which microbes are «making the methane [and] what does that say about the isotopic signature of the methane in the atmosphere,» McCalley told Eos.

In the past decade methane levels have shot up (see chart), to the extent that the atmosphere contains two - and - a-half times as much of the gas as it did before the Industrial Revolution.

Another remnant of Germany's coal mining past is invisible: coal mine methane, which can build - up inside the mining shafts for decades after their closure.Not only does methane pose an explosion hazard, it is also a very potent greenhouse gas, being about 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

In a landfill items break down and release methane gas, having a greater green house gas impact on our atmosphere, where composting does not produce methane.

Methane disintegrates in less than an hour on the sunlight, doesn't stay in the atmosphere for 10 years!!!

While methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, it absorbs 84 times more heat, making it very harmful to the climate.

Methane has a 9 year lifetime and just doesn't build up much in the atmosphere.

In the report (PDF), which recants many of the popular skeptical arguments regarding climate change, Schwartz claims that [Al] «Gore's brand of over-the-top climate hysteria has nothing to do with reality,» and that «Most of the greenhouse effect is natural and is due to water vapor naturally in the atmosphere, as well as natural levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and a few other greenhouse gases.&raquIn the report (PDF), which recants many of the popular skeptical arguments regarding climate change, Schwartz claims that [Al] «Gore's brand of over-the-top climate hysteria has nothing to do with reality,» and that «Most of the greenhouse effect is natural and is due to water vapor naturally in the atmosphere, as well as natural levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and a few other greenhouse gases.&raquin the atmosphere, as well as natural levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and a few other greenhouse gases.»

Schmidt: What we've been doing in the last 150 years is we've been increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere — over 40 % in terms of CO2, we've more than doubled the amount of methane, which is another greenhouse gas, and the signatures of those changes are very very clear, all the way through the system.

Methane doesn't remain in the atmosphere very long — it converts to CO2 (a naturally occurring essential trace gas).

Between 6 and 22 percent of the Earth's methane comes from seeps in the ocean floor but most of these do not get into the surface nor released into the atmosphere because microbes consume up to 90 percent of this.

Fortunately, as depicted in Figure 2 (orange «thermal down surface» arrow), some of this energy does stay in the atmosphere, where it is sent back toward Earth by clouds, released by clouds as they condense to form rain or snow, or absorbed by atmospheric gases composed of three or more atoms, such as water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4).

It's not quite so simple for various reasons having to do with the chemistry and the circulation in the atmosphere, Also the 7 years is not the time that all the methane breaks down, but the half life, so half is left after ~ 7 years, 1/4 after 14, etc..

They are referring to a 1971 article written by climatologist Stephen Schneider, in which he did, indeed, make that prediction; however, as he himself now acknowledges, new evidence soon followed its publication that suggested that 1) the cooling impact of aerosols was not nearly as high as originally estimated and 2) there were many other gases in the atmosphere, including methane, CFCs and ozone, that had the same warming effect as carbon dioxide.

Here's a tiny slice of good news though: methane doesn't hang about as long in the atmosphere as CO2.

Now, my other question (and I am capable of doing my own research, but I'm just wondering if anyone knows off the top of their head), is how do these concentrations compare with historical levels of methane in the atmosphere over the arctic?

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?

methane concentrations have been increasing in the atmosphere... but NASA do not include it among their 5 indicators of Global Warming (Sea Level, Arctic Sea Ice, Atmospheric CO2 Concentration, Global Surface Temperature, Ozone Hole).

``... modeling and isotopic fingerprinting of ice - core methane do not support such a release to the atmosphere over the last 100,000 years or in the near future,» the report says.

When Methane decomposes in the atmosphere, does it absorb oxygen in significant quantities?

To make sensible comparisons you have to take account of the fact that methane's residence time in the atmosphere is much less than that for CO2, but Howarth did offer data for both 20 years and 100 years.