Recent research attributes the sharp increase in global methane emissions between 2020 and 2022 to greater inundation in tropical wetlands and a decline in hydroxide in the atmosphere.
Analysis of satellite data revealed that heavy rains, likely linked to La Niña conditions, amplified methane production in wetlands by enhancing anaerobic microbial activities. These findings underscore the significance of understanding wetland dynamics to address methane’s impact on climate change.
Recent satellite data analysis reveals that the record surge in atmospheric methane emissions between 2020 and 2022 was primarily caused by more extensive inundation and water storage in wetlands, alongside a minor reduction in atmospheric hydroxide (OH). These findings are crucial for strategies aimed at reducing atmospheric methane and lessening its effect on climate change.
Pandemic Impact and Theoretical Explanations
“From 2010 to 2019, we saw regular increases – with slight accelerations – in atmospheric methane concentrations, but the increases that occurred from 2020 to 2022 and overlapped with the COVID-19 shutdown were significantly higher,” says Zhen Qu, assistant professor of marine, earth and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University and lead author of the research. “Global methane emissions increased from about 499 teragrams (Tg) to 550 Tg during the period from 2010 to 2019, followed by a surge to 570 – 590 Tg between 2020 and 2022.”
Atmospheric methane emissions are given by their mass in teragrams. One teragram equals about 1.1 million U.S. tons.
One of the leading theories concerning the sudden atmospheric methane surge was the decrease in manmade air pollution from automobiles and industry during the pandemic shutdown of 2020 and 2021. Air pollution contributes hydroxyl radicals (OH) to the lower atmosphere. In turn, atmospheric OH interacts with other gases, such as methane, to break them down.
“The prevailing idea was that the pandemic reduced the amount of OH concentration, therefore there was less OH available in the atmosphere to react with and remove methane,” Qu says.
Research Methodology and Findings
To test the theory, Qu and a team of researchers from the U.S., U.K., and Germany looked at global satellite emissions data and atmospheric simulations for both methane and OH during the period from 2010 to 2019 and compared it to the same data from 2020 to 2022 to tease out the source of the surge.
Using data from satellite readings of atmospheric composition and chemical transport models, the researchers created a model that allowed them to determine both amounts and sources of methane and OH for both time periods.
They found that most of the 2020 to 2022 methane surge was a result of inundation events – or flooding events – in equatorial Asia and Africa, which accounted for 43% and 30% of the additional atmospheric methane, respectively. While OH levels did decrease during the period, this decrease only accounted for 28% of the surge.
Implications of Methane Surge on Climate
“The heavy precipitation in these wetland and rice cultivation regions is likely associated with the La Niña conditions from 2020 to early 2023,” Qu says. “Microbes in wetlands produce methane as they metabolize and break down organic matter anaerobically, or without oxygen. More water storage in wetlands means more anaerobic microbial activity and more release of methane to the atmosphere.”
The researchers feel that a better understanding of wetland emissions is important to developing plans for mitigation.
“Our findings point to the wet tropics as the driving force behind increased methane concentrations since 2010,” Qu says. “Improved observations of wetland methane emissions and how methane production responds to precipitation changes are key to understanding the role of precipitation patterns on tropical wetland ecosystems.”
The research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Reference: “Inverse modeling of 2010–2022 satellite observations shows that inundation of the wet tropics drove the 2020–2022 methane surge” by Zhen Qu, Daniel J. Jacob, A. Anthony Bloom, John R. Worden, Robert J. Parker and Hartmut Boesch, 24 September 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2402730121
The research was supported in part by NASA Early Career Investigator Program under grant 80NSSC24K1049. Qu is the corresponding author and began the research while a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard University. Daniel Jacob of Harvard; Anthony Bloom and John Worden of the California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Robert Parker of the University of Leicester, U.K.; and Hartmut Boesch of the University of Bremen, Germany, also contributed to the work.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
25 Comments
Fauci’s brainfart?
It was not due to rains, the methane increase was due to crust and core movement with the uptick of solar activity which caused an increase of magma coming closer to the surface getting ready to blow, as data shows our volcanic activity will correlate with the timeframe. With increased temperatures at the surface comes heating of areas where plant life will die and also in ocean floors. These scientists are not thinking far enough.
What a ridiculous article. The sharp increase was not due to rain/wetlands.
Now, every redditor and their significant others significant other are likely parroting this ridiculousness. Because it’s easier to let others think for you rather than think for themselves. /s
No. Your brainfart. Fauci has contributed to our community in unestimable ways. What have YOU done?
Well, for one, I didn’t lie to the general public numerous times, like he did, about masks, vaccines and ties to the Wuhan lab. Yeah, he contributed alright, and his contributions are measurable in unnecessary deaths.
What a plonker you are. Go back watching NBC, you bumhole.
Good for you. It’s wonderful to see people stand up to the “let them think for me” crowd of mindless bullies.
Well I can’t find out why no one reduces methane toCo2 which is ten times less harmful to climate change.
Why so delusional?
No mention of Russia’s coal mines producing methane with Reckless abandoned and unregulated ??? That it’s right next to Serbia but just had a few Summers of 100 plus degrees that’s following the permafrost?? The huge hole in the ozone right above it caught by Canadian satellite During those years of 20 to 22???
Sorry for the grammar I was using voice to tex
t
Russia isn’t “right next” to Serbia. Not even close. What are you on?
Interesting. I’ll have to look into these claims. This is why fighting climate change, so to speak, is more or less a fools errand if it’s not a global endeavor of both serious cooperation and intent.
It’s from all the politicians’ and news medias’ hot air.
“Atmospheric methane emissions are GIVEN by their mass in teragrams. One teragram equals about 1.1 million U.S. tons.”
Yes, it is sometimes done, when the author wants to impress naive or uncritical readers. However, the mass cannot be measured directly! Methane concentrations have to be measured, commonly as a mole-fraction (as is done with CO2) in a few places and then converted to a mass based on a lot of assumptions about how well mixed the gas is, that is how the concentration varies with altitude and between the few sampling stations, and where the cut-off is for the top of the atmosphere.
The quote is just plain wrong. This is a literal example of ‘gaslighting.’ I’m so tired of manipulative statements that misrepresent the truth.
Indeed. Scanning the headlines it even appears methane contributed to cooling. So reducing the carbon increases surface temp, then the methane increases secondary to bog resetting from more unstable rain patterns. It couldn’t possibly be that green house gasses actually offer a more stable climate and the biological activity of the plants and animals generate our precious atmosphere to protect us from the true 0 temperature of space. They even observed the emissions from human activity activity reduces methane. At the moment the magnetic poles are wobbling and the axis of the planet is wobbling. Therefore the area the sun hits is slightly different. Not the usual equatorial zones. This all cyclical. Now the elites have spread particulate and we are going to have a few “nuclear winters” in which we all get rickets and have crop failures. Great.
It’s another agenda push. It’s not really about methane caused climate change. It’s about what’s in their left hand while showing us what’s in their right hand.
Yes, presumably someone wants to explain atmospheric methane emissions using numbers even a young child can envisage, as SciTech Daily is that kind of informative popular bit of reading. To use mole-fraction is to use a form of units that means sweet FA to a great many people.
One might suppose that that umpteen terragrams or tons (UK) or even tons (USA) of methane will have precisely the same “greenhouse” effect as whatever mole-fractions of methane there might might be in the atmosphere. It’s all the same stuff, irrespective of the units in which it expressed.
So what’s the nit-picking about this time?
great. now wetlands are responsible for global warming. and we were taught wetlands were good.
Wait until all the beavers are introduced to areas where they were extirpated. We’ll have more wetlands and more methane. We’ll have to wait to see if the beaver-produced methane makes up for the cutbacks in fossil fuel methane.
The fact that greenhouse gases are naturally produced is not new information. The natural system is balanced. Man is producing 65% of the gases. This is what is unnatural and what is disrupting the system and creating climate change.
“The natural system is balanced.”
Do you have a citation for that assertion? It wasn’t so very long ago that the official position was that wetlands and termites were responsible for over 75% methane emissions.
The assertion about methane being responsible for climate change is claimed commonly. However, it is an absurd claim. See the following:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/06/the-misguided-crusade-to-reduce-anthropogenic-methane-emissions/
No citation other than his or her last parking ticket, I’m sure. Because every podunk redditor now thinks their an expert in everything.
Back around 4 billion years BP the natural system was balanced. Then some little green bugs evolved and upset the atmosphere, so that back around 1 billion years ago the natural system system was balanced and then again back around 280 billion years ago the natural system system was balanced and then again back around 1 million years ago the natural system was balanced. So basically the natural system has always been balanced as I am sure you will hastily admit. The only real problem is that we H saps have “unbalanced” the system from that in the happy days of feudalism to that in the days of our present industrial revolution, which is a period of about 400 years rather than what is a decent slow geological time of say 4 million years. And that unbalancing of what was the natural system during feudalism will also lead to massive social disruption (unbalancing) as we respond to it in the usual stupid way of great tribal warriors, vide Gaza etc, or WW2 if you prefer.
However, I suppose you do need to quibble and nit-pick about academic references in regard to natural systems being balanced. Is that internet you cite a peer-reviewed scientific article or one of simple pretension?
So roughly 1/3 well 28% of the increase was for to the lowered use of fossil fuels? Given that methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. Shouldn’t we be burning more fossil fuels. If we end fossil fuels use today global warming will spiral out of control because of the lower hydroxide and natural methane releases.
Before there were machines(cars,trucks,airplanes). You didn’t have the smell of exhaust emissions, when walking down the street. At least where I live is like.
What kind of emissions do nuclear power plants have, boiling antifreeze,
If it smells that bad at the surface of earth. What’s it like up in the sky?