© AP Photo/NASA, JPL-Caltech, University of MichiganThis undated handout image provided by NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Michigan, shows The Four Corners area, in red, left, is the major US hot spot for methane emissions in this map showing how much emissions varied from average background concentrations from 2003-2009 (dark colors are lower than average; lighter colors are higher.
A surprising hot spot of the potent global-warming gas methane hovers over part of the southwestern U.S., according to satellite data.
That result hints that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies considerably underestimate leaks of methane, which is also called natural gas.
The higher level of methane is not a local safety or a health issue for residents, but factors in overall global warming. It is likely leakage from pumping methane out of coal mines. While methane isn't the most plentiful heat-trapping gas, scientists worry about its increasing amounts and have had difficulties tracking emissions.
A satellite image of atmospheric methane concentrations over the continental U.S. shows the hot spot as a bright red blip over the Four Corners area of New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Utah. The image used data from 2003 to 2009.
Within that hot spot, a European satellite found atmospheric methane concentrations equivalent to emissions of about 1.3 million pounds a year. That's about 80 percent more than the EPA figured. Other ground-based studies have calculated that EPA estimates were off by 50 percent.
The methane concentration in the hot spot was more than triple the amount previously estimated by European scientists.
The new study, done by NASA and the University of Michigan, was released Thursday by the journal
Geophysical Research Letters.
The amount of methane in the Four Corners - an area covering about 2,500 square miles - would trap more heat in the atmosphere than all the carbon dioxide produced yearly in Sweden. That's because methane is 86 times more potent for trapping heat in the short-term than carbon dioxide.
"It's the largest signal we can see from the satellite," said study lead author Eric Kort, a University of Michigan atmospheric scientist. "It's hard to hide from space."
There could be some areas elsewhere in the country where more methane is emitted if it is dispersed by wind, Kort said.
Kort said the methane likely comes from leaks as workers extract natural gas from coal beds, and not from hydraulic fracturing, called fracking, because the data were collected before fracking really caught on.
The results were so initially surprising to the scientists that they waited several years and then used ground monitors to verify what they saw from space, Kort said.
Several methane experts said the research makes sense to them and
that the detected methane amount is disturbing."That is immense," Terry Engelder, a scientist at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in an email.
Source: NASA's Earth science research
Reader Comments
The more I think about this the more it bothers me. So how is it that they distinguish methane on these satellites? Bakken crude has methane, propane etc in it how come Bakken flaring doesn't show up? Then again, we are talking about NASA here.... grain of salt.
Regardless, just downwind - given typical regional wind patterns - of Black Mesa. No surprise.
More subtle warmist propaganda:
"....traps more heat than all the carbon dioxide produced yearly in Sweden."
So called greenhouse gasses do not trap heat, they export it to space in the form of radiation. They can do this more effectively that non-GHGs because they have additional vibrational modes that convert thermal energy to radiation. The result of increasing atmospheric GHGs is to produce an increase in outgoing radiation flux cooling the planet. The cooling is enhanced by the gravitational compression of the atmosphere which leads to denser concentrations of gasses nearer the surface of the Earth i.e. lower in the atmosphere. When photons are emitted the mean free path is thus greater in the upward direction than in the downward. This means that while the radiation emissions are isotropic there is a net upward flux arising from multiple absorption/emission events. The cooing of the planet by GHGs is self limiting and therefore relatively small.
I reckon?
Regardless, I reckon astrology should be taken more seriously and I appreciate that.
I also agree that methane is abundant and could be part of a better future for all.
Ken