25 Oct 2016: Analysis

The Methane Riddle: What Is
Causing the Rise in Emissions?

The cause of the rapid increase in methane emissions since 2007 has puzzled scientists. But new research finds some surprising culprits in the methane surge and shows that fossil-fuel sources have played a much larger role over time than previously estimated.

by fred pearce

Arun Sankar/AFP/Getty Images
Methane emissions from rice fields, such as this one in India, have risen in recent years.

The stomachs of cattle, fermentation in rice fields, fracking for natural gas, coal mines, festering bogs, burning forests — they all produce methane, the second most important greenhouse gas, after carbon dioxide. But how much? And how can we best cut these emissions? And is fracking frying the planet, or are bovine emissions more to blame?

Until now, the world has not had a definitive answer to these questions. But in recent months, researchers believe they have finally begun to crack the problem — and the results are surprising.

The amount of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled in the past 250 years. It has been responsible for about a fifth of global warming. But it has a confusing recent history. The steady rise of emissions stopped in the 1990s. Emissions were stable for almost a decade until 2007, but then abruptly resumed their rise.

What has been going on? Fracking of natural gas in the U.S. and elsewhere has frequently been blamed for the resumed rise in emissions. But new studies are raising serious questions about that.

Researchers are now saying say that, globally at least, the increase in recent years is due to the activities of microbes in wetlands, rice paddies, and the guts of ruminants. “Despite the large increase in natural gas production, there has not been an upward trend in industrial emissions,” says Stefan Schwietzke, of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Boulder, Colo., who is the lead author of one of the new studies.

“Since 2007, atmospheric methane has been rising rapidly,” notes Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway, University of London. But he says his research shows that the increase is dominated by microbial emissions, particularly from the tropics.
By combining research approaches, a previously fuzzy image of methane sources is becoming dramatically clearer.

Yet that hardly exonerates gas fracking. It turns out that, all along, natural gas and other fossil fuels have been a bigger source of methane emissions than the industry has declared in submissions to governments and the UN. The companies may not have been deliberately lying; but the new studies prove that they were certainly and comprehensively wrong.

The new data come from combining two approaches to unraveling the methane riddle. First is a new database of isotopic analyses of methane in the air. This analysis can distinguish between methane coming from the three main categories of sources: the output of microbes living in anoxic environments such as wetlands, landfills, and the stomachs and butts of ruminants; fossil methane in gas, coal, and other underground fuel reserves that is released as those reserves are exploited; and the burning of vegetation like forests, bush, and crop residues.

Methane molecules from each of these sources have a characteristic ratio of two carbon isotopes, carbon-12 and carbon-13. Microbes fractionate the isotopes, increasing the proportion of carbon-12 compared to fossil methane. Yet methane from burning trees or crop residues has a higher proportion of carbon-13, because photosynthesis favors that isotope.

Second, satellite observations of methane concentrations in the air are allowing researchers to accurately identify the regions of the world from which increases in emissions are occurring. As the two approaches are combined, a previously fuzzy image of methane sources is becoming dramatically clearer.

The most detailed isotopic analysis was published earlier this month by NOAA’s Schwietzke in the journal Nature. He developed a global database of isotopic measurements taken all over the world in the past three decades and analyzed the trends. Two surprising discoveries emerge from Schwietzke’s study. First, the recent methane surge into the atmosphere is due not to the rising fossil-fuel emissions, but rather to an unexpected surge in microbial sources. Second, fossil-fuel sources are — and have been for at least some decades — almost twice as big as previous estimates, whereas microbial sources are about a quarter less.

Microbial methane still accounts for the majority of emissions, totalling almost 400 million tons a year, but fossil-fuel emissions are much more significant than previously thought, at about 200 million tons.

Methane lasts in the atmosphere only for about 12 years, much less than CO2; but while there, it packs a punch. Measured over a century, a molecule of methane warms the planet roughly 30 times more than CO2.

A chart showing sources of global methane emissions.

The findings from the latest methane studies have caught scientists by surprise. But they are backed up by other recent research.

In a separate paper published less than two weeks before Schwietzke’s, Nisbet combined a smaller set of isotopic data with a detailed analysis of the geographical sources of recent methane emissions. And he reached a similar conclusion. “Our results go against conventional thinking, but the analysis clearly points to increased emissions from microbial sources,” he said.

Do these trends matter?

For more than two centuries, rising methane emissions have resulted in steady increases in the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere. In fact, while CO2 concentrations have so far risen by only about 40 percent since pre-industrial times, methane levels have more than doubled, rising from 700 parts per billion to almost 1,800 ppb.

But the rise slowed in the 1990s, then showed a brief surge in 1997 when the large El Niño that year triggered a surge in emissions from burning forests, and then came to a complete halt from 1999 to 2006. Before scientists had figured out why the rise ended, it resumed. Now, finally, they are catching up with events.

A study published earlier this year by Hinrich Schaefer, of New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, using isotopic data concluded that the cause of the decade-long hiatus in rising methane emissions was the fallout from the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Soviet gas production had long been suspected of being extremely leaky, because of both poor production technology and heavy leaks from its long pipelines carrying huge quantities of natural gas from Siberian fields to Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union both reduced production and brought in Western technology that helped cut the leaks. Now it is becoming clear that the resumption in the rise in emissions after 2007 is a result of a surge in activity by methane-producing microbes. And geographical data from Nisbet and others show that the main zones of new emissions are the tropics. So what has happened to get the microbes there so excited?

Some researchers are blaming farmers. Schaefer argues that most of the post-2006 increase in methane emissions emanated from China, India, and Southeast Asia. In these growing and densely populated countries, which have only small areas of natural ecosystems,
Rising temperatures and rainfall changes have created ideal conditions for microbial methane production.
it seems that increased production from flooded rice fields and a growing number of livestock have been the likely culprits.

But Nisbet thinks the weather, acting to enhance microbial activity in both natural wetlands and flooded rice paddies, is more likely to blame. He says since 2007, rising temperatures and changes in rainfall have created ideal conditions for microbial methane production. For example, many wetlands have been enlarged by heavy rains. He says the tropics have seen a long run of wet years, topped off with an exceptionally warm 2014, which coincided with the biggest surge in methane emissions so far. It may not all be occurring in the tropics, he concedes. There was a local spike in Arctic emissions in 2007 during exceptionally warm conditions that summer, during which methane may have been released from melting permafrost. But his analysis suggests that spike was not repeated in subsequent years.

In any case, whether the source is the Arctic or the tropics, Nisbet warns that there is a real danger that climate change is starting to accelerate the processes that release methane into the atmosphere, potentially triggering a troubling positive feedback in which further warming could produce more methane and yet more warming. He calls the warmer and wetter conditions of the past decade, and their apparent impact on methane production across the tropics, “a troubling harbinger of more severe climate change.”

Where do we go from here? Now that the world has a strategy — agreed to in Paris last December — for combating CO2 emissions, it badly needs a similar plan for climate enemy No. 2: methane. The Paris agreement to keep warming “well below two degrees C” will be unachievable without it.

So if microbial emissions are behind the recent rise, what can be done to reduce them? Agriculture may be able to help. Research suggests that a reduction in the amount of time that paddies are flooded can reduce methane emissions without sacrificing productivity, and animal breeders are working on producing cattle with guts that produce less methane.

But the fossil fuel industry is likely to face even more pressure to act. The industry will of course point out that the new evidence shows that natural gas producers in particular have been reducing their emissions while increasing production. Schwietzke reckons that natural gas production was probably responsible for about 8 percent of total methane emissions per unit of production in 1985, but that this figure, including fracking, could now be as little as 2 percent.

The discovery that the industry has been systematically underestimating its contribution to climate change for decades —


With New Tools, A Focus
On Urban Methane Leaks

Urban methane leaks
Until recently, little was known about the extent of methane leaking from urban gas distribution pipes and its impact on global warming. But recent advances in detecting this potent greenhouse gas are pushing U.S. states to begin addressing this long-neglected problem.
and that national methane inventories submitted to UN climate negotiators are plain wrong — is bound to increase pressure for action. And with good reason.

The extent of how much could still be achieved was underlined two years ago by David Allen at the University of Texas at Austin, who gained unusual access to U.S. fracking wells to assess where their leaks were coming from. He found that “a small subset of natural gas wells are responsible for the majority of methane emissions.” A fifth of wells accounted for more than three-quarters of the venting of methane to the atmosphere.

“Much more can be done to reduce fossil fuel emissions,” says Nisbet. “This is one of the quickest and most cost-effective ways of cutting greenhouse gas warming.”

Correction, October 28, 2016: Earlier versions of this article incorrectly described Stefan Schwietzke’s estimate of the change in total methane emissions since 1985. Schwietzke said that natural gas production was probably responsible for about 8 percent of total methane emissions per unit of production in 1985, but that this figure could now be as low as 2 percent.

POSTED ON 25 Oct 2016 IN Climate Climate Oceans Pollution & Health Science & Technology Africa Antarctica and the Arctic Antarctica and the Arctic Asia Australia Central & South America Europe Middle East North America 


Great news
Posted by yeshambel on 25 Oct 2016

Your article says the following:
Microbial methane still accounts for the majority of
emissions, totalling almost 400 million tons a year,
but fossil-fuel emissions are much more significant
than previously thought, at about 200 million tons.

Then quotes Mr Schwietzke:
Schwietzke reckons that natural gas production was
probably responsible for about 8 percent of total
methane emissions in 1985, but that this figure,
including fracking, could now be as little as 2

The numbers don't add up. Schwietzke's previous
studies were hand in glove with the fracking
industry, as if his hidden agenda is to prove
fracking harmless. This new research ignores
recent satellite evidence in a Harvard Study of
extraordinary methane emissions coinciding
roughly with the main US fracking areas.
Posted by m gilliland on 25 Oct 2016

I think one sentence in this is misleading, if not

It says:

"Schwietzke reckons that natural gas production
was probably responsible for about 8 percent of
total methane emissions in 1985, but that this
figure, including fracking, could now be as little as
2 percent."

The Guardian’s article about this reearch says:

"...the new work found methane emissions from
natural gas production had declined as a fraction
of production from 8\% in the mid-1980s to around
2\% in the late 2000s and early 2010s.

“There has been anecdotal evidence for a while
that the oil and gas industry improved their
efficiency. Our data confirms this anecdotal
evidence on a global scale,” said Schwietzke."

I'm not sure which of these summaries is correct,
Posted by Thad Curtz on 26 Oct 2016

A methane source not mentioned in the article are large methane emissions from the sea floor off northeastern Siberia. Researchers have been studying it since 2011. http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/others/news/n0760-arctic-methane-gas-emission-significantly-increased-since-2014-major-new-research/
They report the emissions appear to be increasing.
Posted by Helen on 27 Oct 2016

Read Professor Peter Wadhams recent book, "A
Farewell to Ice". This is both a delightful, if
disturbing, read and gives one a better idea of the
varied sources of methane's current emissions and,
more importantly, of the imminent risk of its massive
ebullition (fizzing out like an opened soda bottle) or
Posted by Sev Clarke on 28 Oct 2016

One may wish to consult Tulane University and the Grand Challenge. This deals with hypoxic zones created by the introduction of ammonium nitrate that has been rendered into aqueous solution via surface runoff systems. This actually created algae blooms wherein the algae die and settle to the sea floor. Upon decomposition there they produce methane. This creates hypoxic zones where the oxygen in aqueous solution has been depleted thus rendering the area incapable of supporting fish and other aquatic fauna. The source of ammonium nitrate fertilizer is none other than Natural Gas that has been reformed into ammonium nitrate through a Haber Bosch process. This process got the German forces through a not too distant world war should one desire to consult a history book.

Posted by Jessee McBroom on 03 Nov 2016

Deserts are full of salt. Big heat generators are deserts - every tree
transpire = evaporate = evaporative cooling.
No trees in desert = hot dry desert and
elsewhere - where hot and dry winds from desert blow.

No big trees in desert because of underground
saline water level is high.- close to surface
Desalination river will lower underground

saline water level and decrease salinity = trees with

deep roots = greener country

When rain falls on desert water that joins underground saline water is lost for environment - no trees in desert with deep roots to send water back to sky
= less clouds and rain elsewhere across the country

Sand storm = Sand + dust + salt - from desert spread salt far and wide = less fertile soil elsewhereBush fires destroy land.soil - fertile soil must have decaying organic matter to be fertile and deep - artificial fertilizer or ash don't built a layer of good soil - layer of soil absorbs rain so less floods, drought and bush fires Saw once 6 m deep layer of soil
Posted by MILAN MITIC on 05 Nov 2016

I concur with many of the great comments below.
This methane article reminds me of Picasso's
Guernica, where there are 3 sources of light and no
one is looking at the main source.
The scientific information may be informative, yet it is
anything but enlightening. The author quotes 3 times
"methane increase due to microbial sources" then
goes on to whitewash over a permafrost connection
with disinformation leaving the reader to believe no
permafrost has melted since 2007. Its worth a read
to gather the science, but then you have to do the
work yourself and apply it to the real world.
Posted by James Gibbons on 14 Nov 2016

I can understand how fracking gas can result in methane emissions, but how does burning coal result in methane emissions? Does methane go up the chimney in a coal burning plant?

Does burning oil in our home furnaces or gasoline in our cars also produce methane emissions? I'm not in favor of fossil fuels, I just would like to know the answers to these questions.

Posted by Joe Zorzin on 15 Nov 2016


Comments are moderated and will be reviewed before they are posted to ensure they are on topic, relevant, and not abusive. They may be edited for length and clarity. By filling out this form, you give Yale Environment 360 permission to publish this comment.

Email address 
Please type the text shown in the graphic.

Fred Pearce is a freelance author and journalist based in the U.K. He is a contributing writer for Yale Environment 360 and is the author of numerous books, including The Land Grabbers. Recently for e360, he has written about the environmental legacies of nuclear facilities in Fukushima, Japan and Rocky Flats in Colorado.



On Slopes of Kilimanjaro, Shift
In Climate Hits Coffee Harvest

Rising temperatures and changing precipitation are taking a toll on coffee farms worldwide, including the plantations around Mount Kilimanjaro. If the world hopes to sustain its two billion cup-a-day habit, scientists say, new climate-resilient species of coffee must be developed.

From Obama’s Top Scientist,
Words of Caution on Climate

As President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren has been instrumental in developing climate policy. In an interview with Yale e360, Holdren talks about the urgency of the climate challenge and why he hopes the next administration will not abandon efforts to address it.

With Trump, China Emerges
As Global Leader on Climate

With Donald Trump threatening to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, China is ready to assume leadership of the world’s climate efforts. For China, it is a matter of self-interest – reducing the choking pollution in its cities and seizing the economic opportunities of a low-carbon future.

Full Speed Ahead: Shipping
Plans Grow as Arctic Ice Fades

Russia, China, and other nations are stepping up preparations for the day when large numbers of cargo ships will be traversing a once-icebound Arctic Ocean. But with vessels already plying these waters, experts say the time is now to prepare for the inevitable environmental fallout.

Obama’s Environmental Legacy:
How Much Can Trump Undo?

Few groups were as shocked and chagrined by Donald Trump’s victory as the environmental community. Yale Environment 360 asked environmentalists, academics, and pro-business representatives just how far Trump might roll back President Obama’s environmental initiatives.


MORE IN Analysis

How Far Can Technology Go
To Stave Off Climate Change?

by david biello
With carbon dioxide emissions continuing to rise, an increasing number of experts believe major technological breakthroughs —such as CO2 air capture — will be necessary to slow global warming. But without the societal will to decarbonize, even the best technologies won’t be enough.

With Trump, China Emerges
As Global Leader on Climate

by isabel hilton
With Donald Trump threatening to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, China is ready to assume leadership of the world’s climate efforts. For China, it is a matter of self-interest – reducing the choking pollution in its cities and seizing the economic opportunities of a low-carbon future.

What a Trump Win Means
For the Global Climate Fight

by david victor
Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency signals an end to American leadership on international climate policy. With the withdrawal of U.S. support, efforts to implement the Paris agreement and avoid the most devastating consequences of global warming have suffered a huge blow.

As Arctic Ocean Ice Disappears,
Global Climate Impacts Intensify

by peter wadhams
The top of the world is turning from white to blue in summer as the ice that has long covered the north polar seas melts away. This monumental change is triggering a cascade of effects that will amplify global warming and could destabilize the global climate system.

How Climate Change Could Jam
The World's Ocean Circulation

by nicola jones
Scientists are closely monitoring a key current in the North Atlantic to see if rising sea temperatures and increased freshwater from melting ice are altering the “ocean conveyor belt” — a vast oceanic stream that plays a major role in the global climate system.

Wildlife Farming: Does It Help
Or Hurt Threatened Species?

by richard conniff
Wildlife farming is being touted as a way to protect endangered species while providing food and boosting incomes in rural areas. But some conservation scientists argue that such practices fail to benefit beleaguered wildlife.

What Would a Global Warming
Increase of 1.5 Degrees Be Like?

by fred pearce
The Paris climate conference set the ambitious goal of finding ways to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, rather than the previous threshold of 2 degrees. But what would be the difference between a 1.5 and 2 degree world? And how realistic is such a target?

After Paris, A Move to Rein In
Emissions by Ships and Planes

by fred pearce
As the world moves to slash CO2 emissions, the shipping and aviation sectors have managed to remain on the sidelines. But the pressure is now on these two major polluting industries to start controlling their emissions at last.

Abrupt Sea Level Rise Looms
As Increasingly Realistic Threat

by nicola jones
Ninety-nine percent of the planet's freshwater ice is locked up in the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps. Now, a growing number of studies are raising the possibility that as those ice sheets melt, sea levels could rise by six feet this century, and far higher in the next, flooding many of the world's populated coastal areas.

How Nations Are Chipping
Away at Their Protected Lands

by richard conniff
Winning protected status for key natural areas and habitat has long been seen as the gold standard of conservation. But these gains are increasingly being compromised as governments redraw park boundaries to accommodate mining, logging, and other development.

e360 digest
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies


Donate to Yale Environment 360
Yale Environment 360 Newsletter



About e360
Submission Guidelines

E360 en Español

Universia partnership
Yale Environment 360 articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on Universia, the online educational network.
Visit the site.


e360 Digest
Video Reports


Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology


Antarctica and the Arctic
Central & South America
Middle East
North America

e360 VIDEO

A look at how acidifying oceans could threaten the Dungeness crab, one of the most valuable fisheries on the U.S. West Coast.
Watch the video.


The latest
from Yale
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at e360.yale.edu/mobile.


An aerial view of why Europe’s per capita carbon emissions are less than 50 percent of those in the U.S.
View the photos.

e360 VIDEO

An indigenous tribe’s deadly fight to save its ancestral land in the Amazon rainforest from logging.
Learn more.

e360 VIDEO

Food waste
An e360 video series looks at the staggering amount of food wasted in the U.S. – a problem with major human and environmental costs.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Choco rainforest Cacao
Residents of the Chocó Rainforest in Ecuador are choosing to plant cacao over logging in an effort to slow deforestation.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Tribal people and ranchers join together to stop a project that would haul coal across their Montana land.
Watch the video.