Comments on: What is different about methane (CH4) emissions? The forgotten CO2 in GHG emissions accounting http://ghginstitute.org/2010/07/13/what-is-different-about-methane-ch4-emissions-the-forgotten-co2-in-ghg-emissions-accounting/ Online Training Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:51:01 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Jessica http://ghginstitute.org/2010/07/13/what-is-different-about-methane-ch4-emissions-the-forgotten-co2-in-ghg-emissions-accounting/comment-page-1/#comment-5784 Jessica Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:58:43 +0000 http://ghginstitute.org/?p=2396#comment-5784 Hello Michael, I am also interested in this. (Take a look at my most recent blog post for details: http://www.scrapcarz.co.uk/free-collection/hampshire/southampton/winchester.) This makes for very engaging reading, you have most certainly provided me with some food for thought! Hello Michael, I am also interested in this. (Take a look at my most recent blog post for details: http://www.scrapcarz.co.uk/free-collection/hampshire/southampton/winchester.) This makes for very engaging reading, you have most certainly provided me with some food for thought!

]]> By: Archie Quinn http://ghginstitute.org/2010/07/13/what-is-different-about-methane-ch4-emissions-the-forgotten-co2-in-ghg-emissions-accounting/comment-page-1/#comment-1786 Archie Quinn Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:22:48 +0000 http://ghginstitute.org/?p=2396#comment-1786 Very good article and well researched; there may be some well constructed thought having gone into the lack of submission as this is a measurable quanta, my first thought is that we would have to remove methane (CH4 )as a list component to negate any double whammy effect on carbon emissions calculations. That being said, I do see your point regarding the amount created being far in excess of the value placed on the methane; however, being a basic logic thinker in puzzle solutions it would also appear that according to the same sources that define a destruction of natural habits as being the same sources on which we rely as accurate concerning the effects of and dissemination of CO2, we must therefore use those same calculations backward to the start of the industrial revolution and say that our planet has x cubic metres of plant life as carbon sink, less the amounts noted by our green brothers and sisters as being destroyed per cubic metre per day. This massive total is why we have carbon counting and the prelude to carbon trading; however, my puzzle master of a brain says you cannot have one without the other. The loss of this massive carbon sink also equates to the identical equal cubic metres of biomass that is “not now decaying” annually and producing the methane to which you refer. My point being that in fact before man came, the “methane level” (not CO2) was far greater than it is today, because the biomass level decaying on a daily basis from the uncultivated and unstripped planet. I am not saying your point and math is not correct in respect to methane, my point is that you are not considering that this form of Carbon has existed previously to mankind in far greater levels. This is shown in the ice core samples that show the massive increase in CO2 prior to every ice age when the planet was at the most lush and green hothouse conditions. True, we can no longer measure what is from us and what the natural level should be, but I would stand in common sense and logic that no amount of crops, animals or biomass produced by us now would equate to the extraordinary volume of missing biomass by natural decay that we have stripped from our planet. Your math is correct in methane to carbon, however you fail to consider the minimal gross volume of the methane compared to what it should be or was, the additional, and we need to repeat that word, “additional” carbon is what has caused our problem. I do not feel that any production of a natural material or organic matter in plant or animal should be considered as having contributed to global warming, for the legal definition of contributing is “adding to” or additional whereas the math for which you are so good at shows that natural bio organic methane levels, must by sheer loss of biomass be lower than the would otherwise be without other pollutants. Remove all mankind polluters other than methane producing industry from the point of the industrial revolution and our CO2 levels would by logic be lower with the loss of such vast forest areas, in short or simple form, you cannot cut down 10,000 acres of self decaying biomass, and say an acre of crops for ethanol creates more, and according to the used data regarding forest destruction that is about the ratio. Your point is proven, and your research into the eventual result of the methane is correct, however we need to get rid of the additional non methane polluters to make a difference, not punish farmers and green energy companies by greater carbon tax costs. I think you are a genius to have worked it out and published it, I just wish you would direct your efforts to the bad guys not the little guys. Very good article and well researched; there may be some well constructed thought having gone into the lack of submission as this is a measurable quanta, my first thought is that we would have to remove methane (CH4 )as a list component to negate any double whammy effect on carbon emissions calculations. That being said, I do see your point regarding the amount created being far in excess of the value placed on the methane; however, being a basic logic thinker in puzzle solutions it would also appear that according to the same sources that define a destruction of natural habits as being the same sources on which we rely as accurate concerning the effects of and dissemination of CO2, we must therefore use those same calculations backward to the start of the industrial revolution and say that our planet has x cubic metres of plant life as carbon sink, less the amounts noted by our green brothers and sisters as being destroyed per cubic metre per day. This massive total is why we have carbon counting and the prelude to carbon trading; however, my puzzle master of a brain says you cannot have one without the other. The loss of this massive carbon sink also equates to the identical equal cubic metres of biomass that is “not now decaying” annually and producing the methane to which you refer. My point being that in fact before man came, the “methane level” (not CO2) was far greater than it is today, because the biomass level decaying on a daily basis from the uncultivated and unstripped planet. I am not saying your point and math is not correct in respect to methane, my point is that you are not considering that this form of Carbon has existed previously to mankind in far greater levels. This is shown in the ice core samples that show the massive increase in CO2 prior to every ice age when the planet was at the most lush and green hothouse conditions. True, we can no longer measure what is from us and what the natural level should be, but I would stand in common sense and logic that no amount of crops, animals or biomass produced by us now would equate to the extraordinary volume of missing biomass by natural decay that we have stripped from our planet. Your math is correct in methane to carbon, however you fail to consider the minimal gross volume of the methane compared to what it should be or was, the additional, and we need to repeat that word, “additional” carbon is what has caused our problem. I do not feel that any production of a natural material or organic matter in plant or animal should be considered as having contributed to global warming, for the legal definition of contributing is “adding to” or additional whereas the math for which you are so good at shows that natural bio organic methane levels, must by sheer loss of biomass be lower than the would otherwise be without other pollutants. Remove all mankind polluters other than methane producing industry from the point of the industrial revolution and our CO2 levels would by logic be lower with the loss of such vast forest areas, in short or simple form, you cannot cut down 10,000 acres of self decaying biomass, and say an acre of crops for ethanol creates more, and according to the used data regarding forest destruction that is about the ratio. Your point is proven, and your research into the eventual result of the methane is correct, however we need to get rid of the additional non methane polluters to make a difference, not punish farmers and green energy companies by greater carbon tax costs. I think you are a genius to have worked it out and published it, I just wish you would direct your efforts to the bad guys not the little guys.

]]> By: Dusan Vacha http://ghginstitute.org/2010/07/13/what-is-different-about-methane-ch4-emissions-the-forgotten-co2-in-ghg-emissions-accounting/comment-page-1/#comment-1705 Dusan Vacha Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:51:08 +0000 http://ghginstitute.org/?p=2396#comment-1705 Hello Michael, I do not understand why indirect emissions of CO2 and N2O are differently treated in IPCC 2006 Gl. For indirect N2O emissions, methodology is provided and emissions estimates are included in the N2O trend tables. CO2 indirect emissions are only mentioned (and mixed with precursors inventory) with the remark that "The 2006 Guidelines estimate carbon emissions in terms of the species which are emitted." What's the difference and reason for that? Thanks, Dusan Hello Michael, I do not understand why indirect emissions of CO2 and N2O are differently treated in IPCC 2006 Gl. For indirect N2O emissions, methodology is provided and emissions estimates are included in the N2O trend tables. CO2 indirect emissions are only mentioned (and mixed with precursors inventory) with the remark that “The 2006 Guidelines estimate carbon emissions in terms of the species which are emitted.” What’s the difference and reason for that? Thanks, Dusan

]]> By: Michael Gillenwater http://ghginstitute.org/2010/07/13/what-is-different-about-methane-ch4-emissions-the-forgotten-co2-in-ghg-emissions-accounting/comment-page-1/#comment-1644 Michael Gillenwater Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:37:30 +0000 http://ghginstitute.org/?p=2396#comment-1644 Jane, The question of whether biogenic (versus fossil) carbon, when added to the atmosphere, should be "counted" depends on whether we know (or assume) it is "offset" by CO2 uptake by new biomass growth. We know the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere goes up in the fall (of the northern hemisphere) each year by a significant amount. But we don't count that because then it goes back down by a roughly equivalent amount in the summer as new growth pulls CO2 from the atmosphere. Similarly, if burn corn husks then regrow the corn next year in a repeated cycle, that would not be adding any CO2 to the atmosphere on a net basis (although it might be adding other pollutants). In the case of trees, we are just talking about a slightly longer time frame because trees take longer to regrow, but the same concept applies. Now peat is an interesting case. It is an example of something sort of inbetween what we think of as biogenic and fossil. Peat takes a long time to replenish (from my understanding) so it borders on not something that would not fit my definition of biogenic in this context. We have to think in terms of the time scale of the questions we are dealing with. In terms of climate change we are talking about decades. Trees can regrow in that amount of time (assuming you allow them to). But peat bogs, from my understanding, can take longer to recover their carbon sequestration function. But we are just talking direct CO2 fluxes so far. For the indirect additions of CO2 to the atmosphere from methane, you can just think of the fact that the carbon starts out as methane delaying how quickly the carbon can be cycled back into biomass because if first has to live one lifetime in a methane molecule. I am not saying that just because the carbon originates from biomass that we can definitely ignore it. Obviously if the carbon comes from biomass, the biomass is burned and methane is emitted, then that methane will be oxidized to CO2 in the atmosphere, and then if new biomass is not regrown to replace the original biomass, then even this indirect CO2 from biogenic sources would be a net addition to the atmosphere (even though it is not from a fossil source). None of this is really an accounting problem, however. Because we typically assume that all of the carbon (except that remaining solid as ash, etc.) is converted to CO2 when things burn. In reality, some of this carbon is really converted first to methane, CO, and NMVOCs. But as I said, these are later oxidized to CO2 in the atmosphere. So for combustion (biomass and fossil fuels) we take care of this issue in GHG emission inventories. It is only for methane sources other than from combustion it is a problem. CH4 from flooded lands is an example of biogenic carbon that is not replaced. But again, we can just assume all that carbon is oxidized (except for that which remains in the lake). Jane,

The question of whether biogenic (versus fossil) carbon, when added to the atmosphere, should be “counted” depends on whether we know (or assume) it is “offset” by CO2 uptake by new biomass growth. We know the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere goes up in the fall (of the northern hemisphere) each year by a significant amount. But we don’t count that because then it goes back down by a roughly equivalent amount in the summer as new growth pulls CO2 from the atmosphere. Similarly, if burn corn husks then regrow the corn next year in a repeated cycle, that would not be adding any CO2 to the atmosphere on a net basis (although it might be adding other pollutants). In the case of trees, we are just talking about a slightly longer time frame because trees take longer to regrow, but the same concept applies.

Now peat is an interesting case. It is an example of something sort of inbetween what we think of as biogenic and fossil. Peat takes a long time to replenish (from my understanding) so it borders on not something that would not fit my definition of biogenic in this context. We have to think in terms of the time scale of the questions we are dealing with. In terms of climate change we are talking about decades. Trees can regrow in that amount of time (assuming you allow them to). But peat bogs, from my understanding, can take longer to recover their carbon sequestration function.

But we are just talking direct CO2 fluxes so far. For the indirect additions of CO2 to the atmosphere from methane, you can just think of the fact that the carbon starts out as methane delaying how quickly the carbon can be cycled back into biomass because if first has to live one lifetime in a methane molecule. I am not saying that just because the carbon originates from biomass that we can definitely ignore it. Obviously if the carbon comes from biomass, the biomass is burned and methane is emitted, then that methane will be oxidized to CO2 in the atmosphere, and then if new biomass is not regrown to replace the original biomass, then even this indirect CO2 from biogenic sources would be a net addition to the atmosphere (even though it is not from a fossil source).

None of this is really an accounting problem, however. Because we typically assume that all of the carbon (except that remaining solid as ash, etc.) is converted to CO2 when things burn. In reality, some of this carbon is really converted first to methane, CO, and NMVOCs. But as I said, these are later oxidized to CO2 in the atmosphere. So for combustion (biomass and fossil fuels) we take care of this issue in GHG emission inventories. It is only for methane sources other than from combustion it is a problem.

CH4 from flooded lands is an example of biogenic carbon that is not replaced. But again, we can just assume all that carbon is oxidized (except for that which remains in the lake).

]]> By: Jane http://ghginstitute.org/2010/07/13/what-is-different-about-methane-ch4-emissions-the-forgotten-co2-in-ghg-emissions-accounting/comment-page-1/#comment-1641 Jane Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:14:42 +0000 http://ghginstitute.org/?p=2396#comment-1641 But the C from CH4 from biomass burning of long-lived vegetation, such as peat or trees, should be counted, shouldn't it? Just not the biogenic CH4 where the cycle is very short, I would think. Am I wrong? What about CH4 released from flooded lands, such as when reservoirs or dams are built? But the C from CH4 from biomass burning of long-lived vegetation, such as peat or trees, should be counted, shouldn’t it? Just not the biogenic CH4 where the cycle is very short, I would think. Am I wrong? What about CH4 released from flooded lands, such as when reservoirs or dams are built?

]]> By: Michael Gillenwater http://ghginstitute.org/2010/07/13/what-is-different-about-methane-ch4-emissions-the-forgotten-co2-in-ghg-emissions-accounting/comment-page-1/#comment-1624 Michael Gillenwater Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:05:08 +0000 http://ghginstitute.org/?p=2396#comment-1624 Prakash, You can refer to a previous blog post here for information on GWPs as well as links to the originating IPCC reports that describe in detail how GWPs are defined and estimated. http://ghginstitute.org/2010/06/28/what-is-a-global-warming-potential/ michael Prakash,

You can refer to a previous blog post here for information on GWPs as well as links to the originating IPCC reports that describe in detail how GWPs are defined and estimated.
http://ghginstitute.org/2010/06/28/what-is-a-global-warming-potential/

michael

]]> By: Prakash J. Lakhapate http://ghginstitute.org/2010/07/13/what-is-different-about-methane-ch4-emissions-the-forgotten-co2-in-ghg-emissions-accounting/comment-page-1/#comment-1613 Prakash J. Lakhapate Sun, 18 Jul 2010 08:41:39 +0000 http://ghginstitute.org/?p=2396#comment-1613 Good article and an eye opener. I have the following query. CH4 is considered to have 21 times CO2 equivalent. What is the basis for this? Good article and an eye opener.
I have the following query.
CH4 is considered to have 21 times CO2 equivalent.
What is the basis for this?

]]> By: Andrew Green http://ghginstitute.org/2010/07/13/what-is-different-about-methane-ch4-emissions-the-forgotten-co2-in-ghg-emissions-accounting/comment-page-1/#comment-1582 Andrew Green Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:34:49 +0000 http://ghginstitute.org/?p=2396#comment-1582 Thanks Michael - I was indeed unaware! Thanks Michael – I was indeed unaware!

]]>