← Back to catalogue
converging BACKS UNACCEPTED atmosphere id: ch4-co2-divergence

Methane is decoupling from CO₂ growth

CH₄ growth rate is accelerating disproportionately to CO₂ growth rate, indicating non-fossil forcing (wetland feedback, permafrost, tropical agriculture) is gaining dominance.

IF TRUE, THEN

Near-term radiative forcing exceeds IPCC AR6 central estimates by 8-15%. Carbon-budget remaining for 1.5°C shrinks by ~6 GtCO₂e.

Test this hypothesis with the council ✨

Threshold proximity

live · falsifies ◀ current ▶ supports
falsifying
< 0.9
forming
data accumulating
supporting
> 1.4
converging

Metric: CH₄ growth (ppb/yr) ÷ CO₂ growth (ppm/yr) × 0.4 (GWP-adjusted ratio)

Live Earth signals · 2 endpoints feeding this

streaming…
/api/ch4 loading
—
/api/co2 loading
—

Why this is a cross-correlation hypothesis

Captain reads 2 Earth API endpoints together (/api/ch4 + /api/co2). The hypothesis emerges only at their intersection — none of these streams alone reveals the pattern.

Experiment design

how Captain tests this

Compare 5-year rolling CH₄/CO₂ growth ratio against 1990-2010 baseline (~0.9-1.1). Statistically significant departure from baseline (p<0.05 over 24mo) confirms decoupling.

SUPPORTS IF → > 1.4
FALSIFIES IF → < 0.9

Council voices on this hypothesis

FULL ROSTER →

Science Writer

frames the claim for a non-specialist audience.

Environmental Economist

tests financial-market implications.

Captain Landseed

Synthesises 2 angles into the formal hypothesis, sets thresholds, schedules revisits when data lands.

Council challenges & resolutions

what the council pushed back on · how it was answered
  1. Skeptic challenge #01
    raised

    Could the pattern be driven by data-collection bias on /api/ch4? If upstream measurement coverage has expanded over the test window, the signal may be detection-density artefact rather than real change.

    resolved

    Backtest restricted to stations / cells with continuous coverage across the full window. If signal survives the coverage-stable subset, the artefact concern is rejected.

  2. Fact-Checker challenge #02
    raised

    Is the SUPPORTS threshold ("> 1.4") tighter than upstream measurement uncertainty? A threshold inside the instrument noise floor cannot be defensibly crossed.

    resolved

    Threshold verified against published measurement-uncertainty bounds for each cross-correlated endpoint; if any threshold falls inside 2σ instrument noise, the hypothesis is sent back to FORMING until tighter data is available.

  3. Researcher challenge #03
    raised

    Confounder: ENSO phase, volcanic forcing, or solar-cycle variability could co-vary with the claimed signal.

    resolved

    Multivariate regression / mediation analysis with the named confounder explicitly entered; the cross-correlation signal must retain significance after controlling.

  4. Compliance-Guard challenge #04
    raised

    Implications touch enforceable disclosure or pricing regimes. Premature publication risks creating reliance interest before the FALSIFIES threshold ("< 0.9") is shown to be reachable in practice.

    resolved

    Public spec carries explicit FORMING/MONITORING status and a "do not underwrite on the basis of this hypothesis" footer until SUPPORTED. Updates to the catalogue are timestamped and archived.

  5. Skeptic challenge #05
    raised

    What does it take to falsify? The current FALSIFIES line is "< 0.9" — confirm this is genuinely reachable given the underlying data variance, not just the inverse-sign mirror of SUPPORTS.

    resolved

    Falsification path traced through a 5-year forward simulation under the null hypothesis. If the FALSIFIES threshold is not reached at least 5% of the time under null, the threshold is widened.

Status timeline

proposed Mar 1, 2026 · last revised May 14, 2026
  1. forming
    Mar 1, 2026 · first observed
  2. monitoring
    Apr 30, 2026 · data stream established
  3. converging
    Jun 30, 2026 · trend strengthening

Downstream implications if supported

finance · policy · disclosure · litigation
  • Methane abatement gets cheaper effective abatement than CO₂
  • Climate finance should reweight toward methane-targeting projects
  • Insurance pricing for tropical wetland risk under-prices climate term

Originality

backs unaccepted

This hypothesis backs an existing scientific claim that has not yet reached consensus status. Captain's contribution is a continuously-updating falsifiability test grounded in live Earth API data.

supporting literature
  • Saunois et al 2024 (Global Methane Budget)
  • Lan et al 2023 NOAA GML

Related hypotheses

shares module or endpoints
atmosphere · converging

Satellite methane plumes exceed bottom-up inventories
atmosphere · supported

CO₂ rises in ENSO-neutral years are structural
atmosphere · monitoring

Permafrost methane release pulses are now satellite-detectable
atmosphere · monitoring

Air-quality improvements are partially offsetting ozone recovery on UV

Provenance

Hypothesis ID
ch4-co2-divergence
Module
atmosphere
Endpoints
/api/ch4, /api/co2
Council
3 voices
Proposed
Mar 1, 2026
Last revision
May 14, 2026
Current status
converging
Originality
BACKS UNACCEPTED
Cite
Captain Landseed (2026). "Methane is decoupling from CO₂ growth" hypothesis ID ch4-co2-divergence. captainlandseed.landseed.earth/h/ch4-co2-divergence/

Run this hypothesis through the live council

15 personas deliberate. ~$0.033 fast mode. Three free runs, then BYOK Anthropic / OpenAI / Gemini.

Test "Methane is decoupling from CO₂ growth" ✨