‘Methane Emissions Across Large Parts Of The U.S. Are Higher Than Currently Known’

[GliderGuider]

From a UCSB news release:

Nationwide Air Sampling Confirms ‘Methane Emissions Across Large Parts Of The U.S. Are Higher Than Currently Known’

[center][/center]

After taking a rented camper outfitted with special equipment to measure methane on a cross-continent drive, a UC Santa Barbara scientist has found that methane emissions across large parts of the U.S. are higher than currently known, confirming what other more local studies have found. Their research is published in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, stronger than carbon dioxide on a 20-year timescale, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, though on a century timescale, carbon dioxide is far stronger. “This research suggests significant benefits to slowing climate change could result from reducing industrial methane emissions in parallel with efforts on carbon dioxide,” said Ira Leifer, a researcher with UCSB’s Marine Science Institute.

Leifer was joined by two UCSB undergraduate students on the road trip from Los Angeles to Florida, taking a primarily southern route through Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and along the Gulf of Mexico. They used specialized instrumentation, a gas chromatograph, to measure methane. The device was mounted in the RV, with an air ram on the roof that collected air samples from in front of the vehicle.

“We tried to pass through urban areas during nighttime hours, to avoid being stuck in traffic and sampling mostly exhaust fumes,” Leifer said. “Someone was always monitoring the chromatograph, and when we would see a strong signal, we would look to see what potential sources were in the area, and modify the survey to investigate and, if possible, circumnavigate potential sources.”

The researchers meandered slowly through areas of fossil fuel activity, such as petroleum and natural gas production, refining, and distribution areas, and other areas of interest. The wide range of sources studied included a coal-loading terminal, a wildfire, and wetlands.

The team analyzed the data in conjunction with researchers at the University of Bremen, Germany, who analyzed inventories and satellite data from the Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography (SCIAMACHY) instrument onboard the European Space Agency’s (ESA) ENVISAT satellite to confirm the finding of strong methane sources in regions of fossil fuel activity. The surface measurements found methane levels increased as the researchers moved toward Houston, and then decreased as they continued westward –– the same trend observed in satellite data spanning the continent.

So it goes...

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. How can they KNOW emissions are "higher than currently known"?

Sorta like saying "we don't know what we don't know".

[daleanime]

2. Just an awkward way of saying....

that our data is improving.

[sikofit3]

3. Thanks for posting this

There are people in these rooms that really need to see this...

[GliderGuider]

4. What knocks me out is how clear the effect of leakage is.

4,000+ ppb in Louisiana?

As Guy McP says in his talks, when you factor in the methane, NOx, and the rest of the alphabet soup of GHG's, we're already over 600 ppm CO2e. And once the Arctic and possibly even the Antarctic start to outgas in earnest, it's just going to get worser and worser.

No matter what we don't know we don't know.

Frack on, for civilization!

[Socialistlemur]

5. There seems to be a lot of confusion

Most natural gas production along i10 near Houston is from sandstones. A lot of it is offshore gas. I got the sense there's a fraction of the public which thinks natural gas comes only from fractured wells.

[GliderGuider]

6. I don't know what "frack"tion of the population thinks that.

I sure don't, I use the word purely ironically. The rest of them must listen to the M$M or something.