Is the destruction or removal of atmospheric methane a worthwhile option?

Removing methane from the air is possible, but do the costs outweigh the benefits? This note explores the question of whether removing methane from the atmosphere is justifiable. Destruction of methane by oxidation to CO2 eliminates 97% of the warming impact on a 100-yr time scale. Methane can be oxidized by a variety of methods including thermal or ultraviolet photocatalysis and various processes of physical, chemical or biological oxidizers. Each removal method has energy costs (with the risk of causing embedded CO2 emission that cancel the global warming gain), but in specific circumstances, including settings where air with high methane is habitually present, removal may be competitive with direct efforts to cut fugitive methane leaks. In all cases however, great care must be taken to ensure that the destruction has a net positive impact on the total global warming, and that the resources required would not be better used for stopping the methane from being emitted

Direct comparisons of European primary and secondary frequency standards via satellite techniques

International audienceWe carried out a 26-day comparison of five simultaneously operated optical clocks and six atomic fountain clocks located at INRIM, LNE-SYRTE, NPL and PTB by using two satellite-based frequency comparison techniques: broadband Two-Way Satellite Time and Frequency Transfer (TWSTFT) and Global Positioning System Precise Point Positioning (GPS PPP). With an enhanced statistical analysis procedure taking into account correlations and gaps in the measurement data, combined overall uncertainties in the range of 1.8 × 10−16 to 3.5 × 10−16 for the optical clock comparisons were found. The comparison of the fountain clocks yields results with a maximum relative frequency difference of 6.9 × 10−16, and combined overall uncertainties in the range of 4.8 × 10−16 to 7.7 × 10−16