Sentences with phrase «not much methane»

But because there's not much methane to begin with, it's not true that 1.33 x methane has more impact than a doubling of CO2 (we've already increased methane by well over this amount)... a doubling of methane doesn't even have nearly as much impact as a doubling of CO2.

Not exact matches

Yes, meat will cost more and won't as widely available, but farm animals should all have real lives and humane deaths (and stop emitting so much methane into the atmosphere).

The idea being raising cattle produces so much methane (which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) that the primary contribution to greenhouse gases is actually the cow itself, not shipping, so eating local beef vs generic feed lot beef has little effect on the environmental impact.

Perhaps their real problem is that the price of methane has been so low that they can't make money drilling vertical wells, but they would much rather blame the Governor and the environmentalists.

Concentrating on soot and methane alone is not likely to offer much of a shortcut.»

Whilst methane - burning is cleaner that other fossil fuels, any methane not burnt and released in the emissions from the engine has a much greater warming effect than oil - based fuel.

Cutting the amount of short - lived, climate - warming emissions such as soot and methane in our skies won't limit global warming as much as previous studies have suggested, a new analysis shows.

«Cutting back only on soot and methane emissions will help the climate, but not as much as previously thought,» said the study's lead author, climate researcher Steve Smith of the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

I don't think you could store that much methane underwater.»

Most biologists typically recognize three official branches of life: the eukaryotes, which are organisms whose cells have a nucleus; bacteria, the single - celled organisms that may or may not possess a nucleus; and archaea, an ancient line of microbes without nuclei that may make up as much as a third of all life on Earth (See «Will the Methane Bubble Burst?»

If test plants succeed, waste methane could fuel vehicles — but the conversion may not offer much environmental benefit

Reducing emissions of soot from vehicles and methane from pipelines may not help reduce rates of global warming as much as earlier studies have suggested, new research suggests.

But scientists haven't known why landfills make so much methane.

The study observed active methane plumes rising from the seabed, but most of the gas was not from hydrates and much of it did not reach the atmosphere.

Marine geologist Karin Andreassen at CAGE, the study's lead author, says the data could hold lessons for retreating ice sheets in West Antarctica and Greenland, although her team could not determine how much methane actually escaped into the atmosphere from blowouts in the distant past.

But judging by today's stores of methane hydrates, there doesn't seem to have been enough methane stored at the time of the PETM to drive that much warming.

Among the other advantages of flexible MOFs, Long says, is that they do not heat up as much as other methane absorbers, so there is less cooling of the fuel required.

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

Rivers and streams haven't received much attention in accounting for that budget, Stanley says, because they don't take up much surface area on a global scale and, with respect to methane, didn't seem to be all that gassy.

For example, models don't currently include permafrost methane emissions — as there's too much uncertainty about them.

«Without a way to take it out of the atmosphere quicker, our measurements indicate there can not be much methane being put into the atmosphere by any mechanism, whether biology, geology, or by ultraviolet degradation of organics delivered by the fall of meteorites or interplanetary dust particles.»

«We do not need to worry as much about the natural methane seeps into the atmosphere.

The quoted values of methane being N times more powerful than CO2 (N is of order 20 - 30) has little to do with its absorption spectrum, but primarily a consequence of saturation (i.e., current methane background much less than CO2).

The worry is not so much that there is already an abprupt release (though methane concentrations are on the rise) but that there are pathways for such abrupt release.

Request for clarification from a retired engineer: when it's said that methane is N times the greenhouse gas that CO2 is, is that purely taking into account their absorption spectra relative to the blackbody emission from the surface, or does it take into account saturation as well, since methane constitutes a much smaller percentage wrt CO2?

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

Northern hemisphere concentrations are a bit higher than they are in the Southern hemisphere (here), but the magnitude of the difference is small enough to support the conclusion from the methane budget that tropical wetlands, which don't generate much interhemispheric gradient, are a dominant natural source (Kirschke et al 2013).

How could they answer that when no one even knows how much of the warming is due to CO2 or methane and when there is absolutely no way to account for all of the various feedbacks (notably, of course, including the ones that they haven't thought of or don't know about)?

Has anyone commented that the past claims of «shallow hydrates» would imply the presence about 50x as much methane in the shallow sediments — compared to methane in water or air or sediment not in clathrate form?

The likelihood of serious sea level rise under «business as usual», and impacts on water resources may not have the acute drama associated with polar bear population decline or the possibility of massive methane clathrate releases, but they are much more likely to figure on policy makers agendas — just as other long term chronic issues (such as pensions) do.

Further, spreading it over a couple of years wouldn't make all that much difference: the feedback effect for methane is a ~ -.2 loss rate for each +1 % of methane emission rate, which holds for up to about 33 % increase in emission rate.

I'd feel so much better about your continued calm in the face of multiple lines of evidence indicating rapidly increasing methane escaping in the arctic if you were actually researching methane, which you aren't, so far as I know.

Even if most of this will probably not escape in any eventuality, I think it's very important to determine as soon as possible whether we're talking about one well with a bad cement job, one well with methane hydrate melting around it, failure of containment of most wells in Bovanenkovo (which after all will all have much the same conditions at the top of the reservoir), or failure of containment of most wells in the Yamal Project.

I know, I know, too much bacteria methane gas, Why not run them on Cow farts?

Too many uncertainties around what we will or won't do on mitigation at this time, as well as when and how much methane will release...

More on the Potential Risk of Methane Bubbling From the Siberian Seafloor Further reinforcement of the notion that while permafrost melting is certainly a cause for concern due to the global warming potential of trapped methane, at least where the Siberian seafloor is concerned, well, not sMethane Bubbling From the Siberian Seafloor Further reinforcement of the notion that while permafrost melting is certainly a cause for concern due to the global warming potential of trapped methane, at least where the Siberian seafloor is concerned, well, not smethane, at least where the Siberian seafloor is concerned, well, not so much.

A future hydrogen economy could use the gas as an energy carrier As this method doesn't produce oxygen which needs to be kept separate from hydrogen, safety from explosion of the two gases is much less of a problem with electricity in the national grids carried by ageing cables, it would be useful to replace them by passing the hydrogen along gas pipes used currently for natural methane gas.

blogspot: December 10, 2013 Noctilucent clouds: further confirmation of large methane releases Back in September 2013, extremely high methane readings were recorded over the heights of Antarctica... These high methane readings over Antarctica have not been discussed much among climate scientists, let alone in the media.

People farts don't produce nearly as much methane as cow farts (and especially burps) do — most human farts actually contain no methane at all (Miller et al 1982).

Best to leave as much as possible in the ground, especially coal, and not to exploit other dirty sources like oil / tar sands, nor go after methane from coastal clathrates.

Melting permafrost will emit methane, and methane is an ultra-potent greenhouse gas, but scientists do not think so much it will escape in the coming century.

Looking down at the frozen tundra around the various chilly lakes below, I tend to see methane deposits, which isn't much better than seeing salt problems and ice dams breaking.

This has never happened before because the sea ice never retreated very much in the summer and the water temperature could not rise above zero because of the ice cover... The permafrost is acting as a cap for a very large amount of methane (CH4), which is sitting in the sediments underneath in the form of methane hydrates.

Perhaps Japan is investing so much in methane hydrates because they don't want to be dependent on LNG imports forever, and they don't see any practical renewable alternatives.

He is stuck into methane also, because he is got much bigger shovel METHANE IS NOT a GLOBAL warming gas, boys, let it out, before you emethane also, because he is got much bigger shovel METHANE IS NOT a GLOBAL warming gas, boys, let it out, before you eMETHANE IS NOT a GLOBAL warming gas, boys, let it out, before you explode!

Some projects don't deliver as many credits as promised; it turns out that landfills in the developing world don't yield as much methane gas as expected because poor people don't throw away as much food as well - fed Westerners do.

They found that even if little or no methane leakage occurs, natural gas doesn't do much to help reduce the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

How can you admit that methane has to be reduced, but not CO2 that is increasing the forcing three times as much in the same timeframe?

Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in - situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.»

Indeed, when methane leakage from drilling and infrastructure is factored in, natural gas doesn't look much like a climate hero at all.