Thank you Stephan for your understanding of the significance of methane and also, the importance of the recharacterizing the role of fiduciaries in investing for a sustainable future. Due to the startlingly high mean and local surface temperature values during 2023 a schism has formed in the climate science community. This is somewhat exemplified by opposing positions represented by James Hansen and Michael Mann. Basically it is in regard to climate equilibrium sensitivity which refers to the anticipated and eventual equilibrium state resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. It is a function of what's called radiative forcing which is the same as Earth's energy imbalance that currently is producing rising planetary temperatures at a trailing rate. According to the physics of the Stefan Boltzmann formula, a doubling of CO2 would produce only 1° C of temperature increase. However, this value is and must be much higher due to other anthropogenic emissions, feedbacks and other factors. Other anthropogenic emissions include methane, nitrous oxide, industrial gases and some additional non condensing gases. The feedbacks are mostly temperature related and produce additional radiative forcing. Most are from loss of cryospheric albedo and increases in other greenhouse gases, such as water vapor, methane and nitrous oxide. Also, changes in cloud cover, both natural and anthropogenic aerosol presence play a significant and difficult to quantify positive or negative feedback role, as does the warming effects of humanity's increasing responses and reactions to the attendant challenges. The effects of clouds has been reported to be dynamic in that they could cause a future increase in sensitivity. Otherwise, the loss or overload of natural sinks must be included. Though it's reporting higher at this time Earth's energy imbalance value at the end of 2023 was 1.36 watts per square meter as a 36 month trailing average which suggests that this is the value for 2022. According to NOAA this value had increased from 0.5 to 1.0 during the period of 2005 through 2019 which is 0.5 over 14 years. Apparently the most recent increase of 0.36 watts per square meter occurred over a period of only 3 years. Since this is a much shorter time span there has been rapid acceleration of systemic radiative forcing. Without 7/10ths of the planet being covered in water, things would be much worse. It's generally represented that 89% of this excess heat goes into the oceans, 6% to warm the land, 4% to melt ice and snow and 1% to warm the atmosphere. Without this marine accommodation we would have been toast long ago. Also, further along we're going to miss the tempering effect of melting ice. In his recent paper titled Global Warming in the Pipeline, Dr James Hansen gives recognition to most of the above mentioned effects, including accumulation of heat from the very rapid increases in energy imbalance, mounting feedbacks from natural carbon reservoirs and albedo loss. As well, in recognition of recent data there is a reassessment of the amount of unmasked warming when aerosols are reduced and of climate sensitivity to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses. Significantly, paleo analogs are applied in order to further objectify models and thereby, bringing them more in alignment with current undeniably startling developments. However, as gathered from his discussions about the paper I think he is overvaluing the effects of CO2 while undervaluing those of methane. This is important in that we are at an extremely critical point where accurate attribution is essential for sufficient and appropriate policy decisions. Perhaps determinations used for the paper differ from his discussion and invalidate all of my representations provided below. In such case I retract those parts that are not really applicable. The following is a link to Dr Hansen's representation of the analysis provided in the above mentioned paper during COP 28: ua-cam.com/video/KnDb_bznZvE/v-deo.htmlsi=QTqJmpA6t_fb3Xq5 When recently being interviewed by Paul Beckwith, Dr Hansen had indicated that methane has only a 10% influence on what's going on. I disagree with only this and one other aspect. I made the following comment regarding the first: During the last 4 years, as shown on the Annual growth of climate forcing by GHG's chart displayed by Dr Hansen, it can be seen that while the growth rate for CO2 is declining, methane's is rapidly increasing. Considering that the instantaneous radiative forcing value for methane RESIDENT in the atmosphere is 120 times that of CO2, as it now approaches 1.95 ppm, it's real time effect is about 234 CO2 equivalent, while the value for CO2 is about 421. Accordingly, methane's current impact is 55.6% of CO2's. I'm more or less parroting information provided by Dr Robert Kleinberg of Columbia and Boston Universities in the following linked UA-cam presentation: ua-cam.com/video/__CNvof0y2c/v-deo.htmlsi=b-dxmBkmDJBYgwkv As a physicist, in his presentation he clearly represented why methane's impact must be depicted by radiative forcing metrics rather than global warming potential and accurately computes the magnitude of its impact. Also, he calculates that in regard to the INCREASE of radiative forcing, year over year, methane's effect has become comparable to CO2's There are numerous anthropogenic sources contributing to the increase of methane, but it is reported that 40% of all the increase is coming from natural sources, as determined by isotopic ratios of carbon. Also, as the Arctic permafrost melting accelerates, its annual climate impact from methane and CO2 emissions will be more or less equivalent to current emissions from the lower 48. Additionally, it is not unreasonable to be concerned about large emissions of methane from natural gas plays and methane hydrates now encapsulated under Arctic Ocean Shelf permafrost, such as in the very shallow and large East Siberian Shelf. Dr Euan Nisbet talks about these concerns and how potentially abrupt this may become as a feedback to global warming in an interview by Nick Breeze on UA-cam. The interview can be seen at this link: ua-cam.com/video/kDwxFS0KeQY/v-deo.htmlsi=4oN7oDohjeMGCNms He distinguishes methane emitted by the human enterprise from natural sources by analyzing ratios of carbon 12 and carbon 13. He contends that 40% of the increase is from natural sources, mainly wetlands. As reported early 2023 by a group at UC Riverside the top 20 California mega fires emitted seven times the amount of methane as was the average for the preceding 19 years. I would think that numerous problematic volatiles escape due to oxygen unavailability. As well, I would think smoldering fires are also a big source. According to Nesbit, if we can't reign in methane, temperature may not stabilize until we reach a Hot House climate state where even East Antarctica could be significantly diminished. Well in advance of this, much of the West Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets would be lost with major attendant sea level rise and an albedo reduction feedback. As such without another major glaciation they would not be able to reform. However, since we are disrupting a cooling trend that's been active for the past 50 million years, the Earth would incline towards returning to ice age conditions, but it might take several hundred thousand years. So in addition to all the significant factors determined by Dr Hansen's group as well as described in this narrative, I offer that the warming related feedback of methane further increases the urgency of our situation. However, this can be viewed in a positive light. Most methane on a geological time scale is rapidly removed from the atmosphere by very low temperature oxidation in the upper troposphere by hydroxyl radicals, OH+, that develop there when oxygen singlets react with water molecules following the ongoing photolysis of ozone. This will probably need to be augmented some way, such as atmospheric injections of iron salt aerosols, since even the current rate of methane emissions is probably already exceeding the formation of OH+. As well, both carbon monoxide and hydrogen compete for OH+ as their primary sinks. Carbon monoxide is emitted from wildfire and if the increased deployment of hydrogen is not carefully done it will have a major unintended consequence. It is well known how societal production of methane can be reduced significantly. It may require additional measures to manage emissions from natural sources, but if methane emissions are greatly diminished, the active RESIDENT values will fairly quickly decline as represented by its Global Warming Potential values. The second aspect of Hanson's analysis that seems incorrect is that he in part calculates climate sensitivity based on changes of resident carbon dioxide going in and out of glaciations and interglacials. Dr. Richard Alley has clearly presented a different picture of CO2's role in this regard. Responding to climate deniers that point out that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core records, I think it's about 300 years in Greenland ice and 600 years and some of the Antarctic Ice, Alley points out that the initial driver was normally very subtle Milankovitch Cycle factors and not CO2. Mostly CO2 has acted as a feedback when being emitted or absorbed as ocean surface temperatures changed and, as such, was subordinate to changes in cryospheric albedo and water vapor feedbacks. So it appears to me that James Hansen may be in error in the way he uses cryospheric cycles to gauge climate sensitivity. Notwithstanding this, I do agree that in consideration of what is currently happening and what is in the pipeline, sensitivity is much higher than what is represented by relied on models and that things will not simply self-resolve when, if ever, NetZero is achieved.
I can't disagree with you, but do feel the need to state that we have to work with what we have. Taxing the wealthy would make philanthropy much less necessary, and I along with many others are trying to advance that, but in the meantime this is what we've got.
Thank you Stephan for your understanding of the significance of methane and also, the importance of the recharacterizing the role of fiduciaries in investing for a sustainable future.
Due to the startlingly high mean and local surface temperature values during 2023 a schism has formed in the climate science community. This is somewhat exemplified by opposing positions represented by James Hansen and Michael Mann. Basically it is in regard to climate equilibrium sensitivity which refers to the anticipated and eventual equilibrium state resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. It is a function of what's called radiative forcing which is the same as Earth's energy imbalance that currently is producing rising planetary temperatures at a trailing rate.
According to the physics of the Stefan Boltzmann formula, a doubling of CO2 would produce only 1° C of temperature increase. However, this value is and must be much higher due to other anthropogenic emissions, feedbacks and other factors. Other anthropogenic emissions include methane, nitrous oxide, industrial gases and some additional non condensing gases. The feedbacks are mostly temperature related and produce additional radiative forcing. Most are from loss of cryospheric albedo and increases in other greenhouse gases, such as water vapor, methane and nitrous oxide. Also, changes in cloud cover, both natural and anthropogenic aerosol presence play a significant and difficult to quantify positive or negative feedback role, as does the warming effects of humanity's increasing responses and reactions to the attendant challenges. The effects of clouds has been reported to be dynamic in that they could cause a future increase in sensitivity. Otherwise, the loss or overload of natural sinks must be included.
Though it's reporting higher at this time Earth's energy imbalance value at the end of 2023 was 1.36 watts per square meter as a 36 month trailing average which suggests that this is the value for 2022. According to NOAA this value had increased from 0.5 to 1.0 during the period of 2005 through 2019 which is 0.5 over 14 years. Apparently the most recent increase of 0.36 watts per square meter occurred over a period of only 3 years. Since this is a much shorter time span there has been rapid acceleration of systemic radiative forcing.
Without 7/10ths of the planet being covered in water, things would be much worse. It's generally represented that 89% of this excess heat goes into the oceans, 6% to warm the land, 4% to melt ice and snow and 1% to warm the atmosphere. Without this marine accommodation we would have been toast long ago. Also, further along we're going to miss the tempering effect of melting ice.
In his recent paper titled Global Warming in the Pipeline, Dr James Hansen gives recognition to most of the above mentioned effects, including accumulation of heat from the very rapid increases in energy imbalance, mounting feedbacks from natural carbon reservoirs and albedo loss. As well, in recognition of recent data there is a reassessment of the amount of unmasked warming when aerosols are reduced and of climate sensitivity to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses. Significantly, paleo analogs are applied in order to further objectify models and thereby, bringing them more in alignment with current undeniably startling developments. However, as gathered from his discussions about the paper I think he is overvaluing the effects of CO2 while undervaluing those of methane. This is important in that we are at an extremely critical point where accurate attribution is essential for sufficient and appropriate policy decisions. Perhaps determinations used for the paper differ from his discussion and invalidate all of my representations provided below. In such case I retract those parts that are not really applicable.
The following is a link to Dr Hansen's representation of the analysis provided in the above mentioned paper during COP 28:
ua-cam.com/video/KnDb_bznZvE/v-deo.htmlsi=QTqJmpA6t_fb3Xq5
When recently being interviewed by Paul Beckwith, Dr Hansen had indicated that methane has only a 10% influence on what's going on. I disagree with only this and one other aspect. I made the following comment regarding the first:
During the last 4 years, as shown on the Annual growth of climate forcing by GHG's chart displayed by Dr Hansen, it can be seen that while the growth rate for CO2 is declining, methane's is rapidly increasing. Considering that the instantaneous radiative forcing value for methane RESIDENT in the atmosphere is 120 times that of CO2, as it now approaches 1.95 ppm, it's real time effect is about 234 CO2 equivalent, while the value for CO2 is about 421. Accordingly, methane's current impact is 55.6% of CO2's. I'm more or less parroting information provided by Dr Robert Kleinberg of Columbia and Boston Universities in the following linked UA-cam presentation: ua-cam.com/video/__CNvof0y2c/v-deo.htmlsi=b-dxmBkmDJBYgwkv
As a physicist, in his presentation he clearly represented why methane's impact must be depicted by radiative forcing metrics rather than global warming potential and accurately computes the magnitude of its impact. Also, he calculates that in regard to the INCREASE of radiative forcing, year over year, methane's effect has become comparable to CO2's
There are numerous anthropogenic sources contributing to the increase of methane, but it is reported that 40% of all the increase is coming from natural sources, as determined by isotopic ratios of carbon. Also, as the Arctic permafrost melting accelerates, its annual climate impact from methane and CO2 emissions will be more or less equivalent to current emissions from the lower 48. Additionally, it is not unreasonable to be concerned about large emissions of methane from natural gas plays and methane hydrates now encapsulated under Arctic Ocean Shelf permafrost, such as in the very shallow and large East Siberian Shelf. Dr Euan Nisbet talks about these concerns and how potentially abrupt this may become as a feedback to global warming in an interview by Nick Breeze on UA-cam. The interview can be seen at this link: ua-cam.com/video/kDwxFS0KeQY/v-deo.htmlsi=4oN7oDohjeMGCNms
He distinguishes methane emitted by the human enterprise from natural sources by analyzing ratios of carbon 12 and carbon 13. He contends that 40% of the increase is from natural sources, mainly wetlands. As reported early 2023 by a group at UC Riverside the top 20 California mega fires emitted seven times the amount of methane as was the average for the preceding 19 years. I would think that numerous problematic volatiles escape due to oxygen unavailability. As well, I would think smoldering fires are also a big source. According to Nesbit, if we can't reign in methane, temperature may not stabilize until we reach a Hot House climate state where even East Antarctica could be significantly diminished. Well in advance of this, much of the West Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets would be lost with major attendant sea level rise and an albedo reduction feedback. As such without another major glaciation they would not be able to reform. However, since we are disrupting a cooling trend that's been active for the past 50 million years, the Earth would incline towards returning to ice age conditions, but it might take several hundred thousand years.
So in addition to all the significant factors determined by Dr Hansen's group as well as described in this narrative, I offer that the warming related feedback of methane further increases the urgency of our situation. However, this can be viewed in a positive light. Most methane on a geological time scale is rapidly removed from the atmosphere by very low temperature oxidation in the upper troposphere by hydroxyl radicals, OH+, that develop there when oxygen singlets react with water molecules following the ongoing photolysis of ozone. This will probably need to be augmented some way, such as atmospheric injections of iron salt aerosols, since even the current rate of methane emissions is probably already exceeding the formation of OH+. As well, both carbon monoxide and hydrogen compete for OH+ as their primary sinks. Carbon monoxide is emitted from wildfire and if the increased deployment of hydrogen is not carefully done it will have a major unintended consequence.
It is well known how societal production of methane can be reduced significantly. It may require additional measures to manage emissions from natural sources, but if methane emissions are greatly diminished, the active RESIDENT values will fairly quickly decline as represented by its Global Warming Potential values.
The second aspect of Hanson's analysis that seems incorrect is that he in part calculates climate sensitivity based on changes of resident carbon dioxide going in and out of glaciations and interglacials. Dr. Richard Alley has clearly presented a different picture of CO2's role in this regard. Responding to climate deniers that point out that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core records, I think it's about 300 years in Greenland ice and 600 years and some of the Antarctic Ice, Alley points out that the initial driver was normally very subtle Milankovitch Cycle factors and not CO2. Mostly CO2 has acted as a feedback when being emitted or absorbed as ocean surface temperatures changed and, as such, was subordinate to changes in cryospheric albedo and water vapor feedbacks. So it appears to me that James Hansen may be in error in the way he uses cryospheric cycles to gauge climate sensitivity.
Notwithstanding this, I do agree that in consideration of what is currently happening and what is in the pipeline, sensitivity is much higher than what is represented by relied on models and that things will not simply self-resolve when, if ever, NetZero is achieved.
Philanthropy has no place on a just planet.
I can't disagree with you, but do feel the need to state that we have to work with what we have. Taxing the wealthy would make philanthropy much less necessary, and I along with many others are trying to advance that, but in the meantime this is what we've got.