How much warming in the middle #Miocene 15million years ago came from methane?
Methane is not constrained at all for the Miocene.
But I did the maths –yet I also warn you: I am maths dyslexic. 😁

tldr: with assumed 10 times more wetlands than today and all of the remaining landmass assumed to be like today's tiny "wild rest",
CH4 emissions were 2124 Mt per year.
Which amounted to 6608 ppb CH4 in the atmosphere which in itself caused +2.1°C .

CO2 in 15Ma is not well constrained either. (see below)
I calculate 560ppm to have contributed 3°C (current science working theory for ECS ±1).

So methane 2.1°C and CO2 3°C on their own, omitting all other climate factors, caused +5.1°C in the Miocene.

The breakdown of the numbers follows. With links.

# CO2:

Hoenisch et al 2023 published meticulously revised CO2 values from global #d13C proxies https://paleo-co2.org , their considered-best proxies are all oceanic in origin.

The chart #1 of 1milion years 15 million years ago, shows #Hoenisch ' s CO2 proxies as the horizontal lines. I chose to fill the gaps with repeated values between the rare data points. So each line segment really is only 1 data point at its right-most end.

560 ppm CO2 seems an okay guess, no?

#CH4 #methane

@Peters_Glen did a cool chart, more intuitive than the one in #AR6, I think. See pic 2 or his tweet where he plots the various greenhouse gases with their warming contribution 2010-2019: https://x.com/Peters_Glen/status/1431873249449680901

The average CH4 concentration in the decade 2010-2019 was 1840ppb (NOAA) and caused +0.51°C as per Glen's chart.

From Glen's chart follows my secret methane formula 😁
1 Mt methane <=> 3.111 ppb <=> 0.001 ºC

If emissions in 15Ma were 2124 Mt CH4 (see #landmass below), it resulted in 2.12°C at a concentration of 6608 ppb.

#Landmass

According to the Global Methane Budget by #GlobalCarbonProject : https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1561/2020/

emissions from the "wild rest" 2008-2017 were 222 Mt CH4 annually . See picture 3.

The wild rest today is 54mio km2, according to #OurWorldInData https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

Wild rest: 222 Mt CH4 from 54mio km2 = 4.1 t CH4 / km2.

Emissions from wetlands 2008-2017 were 180Mt CH4 (Tg=Mt) .
They cover 4.37% of the total land mass: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coverage-of-wetlands?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
4.37% of 141mio km2 total is:
Wetlands 6.2mio km2.

Wetlands: 180 Mt from 6.2 km2 = 30 t CH4 / km2.

In 15Ma Miocene, 10 times more wetlands would have been
62 mio km2.
And
wild rest 79 mio km2.

wetlands 62mio km2 times 30t CH4 = 1800 Mt CH4
wild rest 79 mio km2 times 4.1t CH4 = 324 Mt CH4.

Wetlands plus wild rest:
1800 Mt + 324 Mt = 2124 Mt CH4

secret methane formula:
1 Mt methane <=> 3.111 ppb <=> 0.001 ºC

2124 Mt <=> 6608 ppb <=> 2.12°C

Why do I assume that wetlands were 10x more than today, tho? Why not 15, 20 or 5 times more?

Dunno. Well, humans have unwetted lotsa wetlands since the invention of agriculture in the #Holocene. (Btw, the area of today's dried peatland alone emits 2Gt CO2 per year. See table on dried wetland areas and their emissions GHG:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15499-z/tables/2 #Günther et al 2020, based on IPCC guidelines for wetlands https://www.ipcc.ch/publication/2013-supplement-to-the-2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories-wetlands/ )

Hard to tell what area was covered by wetlands in the previous interglacial 126thsd years ago.

And in the middle Miocene, 15Ma?

My thinking goes like this:
The #Sahara was still forested 15Ma. As was the Gobi Desert probably. The prairies in the US were still forested, even #Greenland and #Antarctica. Northern #Russia had much more land mass back then, too.

Some of the different vegetation compared to pre-Holocene was due to different topography: the Rockies and Alpes were much, much lower, the high mountain ranges in East Asia didn't exist. #Australia was 15° further South. See also #Steinthordottir et al 2021 in "Miocene The Future Of The Past https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020PA004037
And the whole special Miocene issue:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1002/(ISSN)2572-4525.Miocene1

All land area had gap-less biomes growing. Mostly forests. What do forests do? Away from the coast, within the continents, forests control the hydrological cycle, how much evaporates and how much it rains. All biomes do, but forests most.
The more forests there are, the more it rains. Uninterrupted plant cover with its propagating rain cycle hinders deserts from forming in the heart of the continents, too.

Also, air holds 7% more water per 1°C warming, raising the potential rain amount.

Now, if it rains a lot, and depending on the topography, land is inundated temporary, seasonally or permanently, methane-producing microbes in the soil get to work presto, eat carbon and fart CH4.
The warmer it is, the more the microbes work.

But why 10x more wetlands?
Why not 7 or 15x?
Dunno. 10 feels right. And 6608ppb is nicely close to a guesstimate of mine that mid Miocene CH4 concentration cd have been 7000 ppb.
Maybe 400ppb came from huge animals, happily roaming among giant trees.
Brazil's Giant Sloth? The "wild rest" in the Miocene was HUGE! And cute.
#FridaysForFuture
#anloCH4

How do the assumed-guessed
+5.1°C in the mid Miocene 15Ma compare to Westerhold 2020?

See my chart from #1 again.
And its ALT-text:
Line chart 1 million years of of climate factors 15 million years ago.
Milankovic cycles are the background of the chart.
The foreground are several CO2 proxies from Hoenisch's paleoCO2-archive. Also sea level by Miller et al 2020 and by Rohling et al 2021.

And global surface air °C by #Westerhold et al 2020 https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aba6853

Westerhold's surface air °C peaks at 20.6 °C about 15.6 million years ago and undulates around 18 to 19°C the rest of the time.

The global average in 2023 was 14.9. So according to Westerhold, 15.6Ma might have been 6°C warmer than the completly gobsmacking bananas year 2023.

Apart from the 100thsd year peak in 15.6Ma, those 1 million years maxed at 19°C according to Westerhold.

4.1°C over 2023.
Round about 5.6°C over pre-industrial.
So my #methane and land mass assumptions might be okay, don't you think?
#anloCH4

But do I think that with #Exxon 's CO2-experiment we can reach #methane levels of the middle Miocene?

No. Not if civilisation continues.

The forest cover is missing for setting the hydrological cycle in continental interiors as high as
to allow for 10 times more wetlands than today.

The #Miocene really isn't a good analog for future climate in high emission pathways at all. Apart from the missing biomes & methane, lots of other important, climate-relevant changes occurred since due to tectonics:

The #Arctic sea didn't get #Pacific waters at all. But the tropical Pacific got #Atlantic waters via wide open Panama Isthmus.
The Rockies , the Andes, and the Alpes were much, very much lower, the Alpes by maybe 2km.

The ENSO4 region near Papua Guinee and Australia was totally different due to PNG and AUS being that much further South, 10° or so.
The mountain ranges in China's Northwest & Mongolia weren't there.
The Arab Peninsula didn't exist. The Mediterranean was larger.

See maps below, from a paper in the special Miocene Issue, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021PA004298 #He et al 2021, "Middle Miocene (∼14 Ma) and Late Miocene (∼6 Ma) Paleogeographic Boundary Conditions".

All these things not only influenced but determined atmospheric and ocean currents! So just because global °C might be the same on paper ( which it wouldn't be, see impossible-to-achieve methane levels and vastly different hydrological cycle), the climate reality would NOT be the same at all.

A climate analog for #Exxon's CO2 experiment can only be taken from interglacials up to 1 million years ago when the major Earth system settings were really like today's. And if we find ourselves outside their boundaries then it's simply that: unchartered territory.

Promoting a false analog as example for what the world might come to also leads to wrong conclusions for example regarding adaption. I don't see any value in talking o the Miocene as climate analog, only negative impacts.
#anloCH4

This new paper actually prompted me to ponder and calculate potential methane levels in the mid #Miocene 15Ma.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47676-9 "Continuous sterane and phytane δ13C record reveals a substantial pCO2 decline since the mid-Miocene" by #Witkowski etal 2024.

The paper made the rounds on Twix and in the Fediverse because it is taken as proof that "IPCC was wrong AGAIN and ECS is far higher than their 3°C ±1!"

As it happens, the authors themselves write that they a) used a different formula to calculate their ECS and b) that they did not incorporate methane and cloud feedbacks and that this omission likely is the reason for paleoclimate ECS being always higher than ECS base on today's boundary conditions.

Looking at CO2 values in their supplementary Excel file, the question must be raised how on Earth they can muster the audacity to claim they had proven IPCC ECS wrong – with 3 data points in 15Ma for one proxy and the other one has a single data point...
I mean... really... the individual proxy series in Hoenisch's paleoCO2-archive are mostly equally spotty. Only in averaging them all, and with properly equal regional distribution, can one hope to come near CO2 levels in the distant climate past. One study is not enough to conclude anything.

Also maybe their sediment core from the Californian continental shelf in shallow waters... was an upwelling zone 15Ma? Different Pacific currents due to open Panama Isthmus and the Pacific not flowing into the Arctic Sea make that possible, no?
d13C as proxy for CO2 from upwelling zones is known to be too high because of the additional nutrients those creatures received that later form the sediment proxy. (See supplement to Hoenisch )

Also maybe: the location was a melting zone for hydrates in the warm Mid Miocene 15Ma?
It looks shallow enough for warming waters to reach down and melt the iced gas. And would this dissolved CH4 become accessible carbon for the creatures?

Dunno. Anyway.
That's why I sat down and guesstimated and calculated the methane level in 15Ma. 😁
#FridaysForFuture
#anloCH4

Continuous sterane and phytane δ13C record reveals a substantial pCO2 decline since the mid-Miocene - Nature Communications

Molecular fossils from marine phytoplankton reveal a substantial decline in CO2 values over the past 15 million years and may support higher climate sensitivity than previously reported.

Nature