Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

Cryosphere => Permafrost => Topic started by: Vergent on August 02, 2013, 03:34:12 PM

Title: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: Vergent on August 02, 2013, 03:34:12 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/31/artic-methane-catastrophe-empirical-evidence (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/31/artic-methane-catastrophe-empirical-evidence)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Vergent on August 02, 2013, 03:58:16 PM
The authors who so confidently dismiss the idea of extensive methane release are simply not aware of the new mechanism that is causing it.

NASA researchers have found local methane plumes as large as 150 kilometres across - far higher than previously anticipated.


In 2011, I started a thread "This is not good" at American Weather(edit: 801 replies, 29k views).

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/30926-this-is-not-good/ (http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/30926-this-is-not-good/)

I warned that while the observed methane release was local, the rate of change was potentially catastrophic.

Well, 1.0 km methane fountains have turned into 150 km fountains in 2 years. That is 0.78 km^2 fountains changing to 17,671 km^2 in two years. That is more than 100X per year. If it continues = clathrate bomb.

Snowlover123(a troll) reserected "This is not good" recently saying "I don't think the methane burst from the Arctic that Vergent was concerned about in 2011 had any detectable impact on the Global Temperature at all."

Could someone among the unbanned respond to him with a link to this article?

Vergent

Edit: Its like an itch in the middle of your back that you cannot scratch yourself.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on August 03, 2013, 08:20:55 AM
Verg
I'll post your finding next time I'm over there. The 1km vents scared me. I don't know how to react to 150km vents 2 years later.


Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Vergent on August 03, 2013, 04:17:41 PM
Terry,

Thanks! There must be some physical limit. But, continued >100x per year totally erases an alarmist label for the Arctic Methane Emergency Group. All we can do now is hope that the limit is somewhere south of 50GT.

Verg
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Vergent on August 03, 2013, 04:21:01 PM
In addition the 150km scale totally removes the argument that this was happening in the recent past, but was not observed.

V

edit; this elephant can not hide in the jelly bean dish.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Shared Humanity on August 03, 2013, 04:37:12 PM
Verg
I'll post your finding next time I'm over there. The 1km vents scared me. I don't know how to react to 150km vents 2 years later.


Terry

And prior to discovering these emerging? 1km vents, they had discovered vents that were no larger than 10m.

Wouldn't this trend suggest the frozen cap in the ESS is failing dramatically?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Vergent on August 03, 2013, 04:42:18 PM
Verg
I'll post your finding next time I'm over there. The 1km vents scared me. I don't know how to react to 150km vents 2 years later.


Terry

And prior to discovering these emerging? 1km vents, they had discovered vents that were no larger than 10m.

Wouldn't this trend suggest the frozen cap in the ESS is failing dramatically?

Yes! The scale of the observed venting has increased 100 fold for three years running, and we have not reached the point where this year will max out.

Vergent
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Dromicosuchus on August 03, 2013, 08:19:46 PM
Are we sure that these larger vents were not present in the previous decade or century?  I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting the possibility of something being about to go dramatically wrong up-a-top, but I'd like to have more than three years of data before I pronounce doom.  The nearest thing I can find to hard data is this paper from 2006 (covering 2003 and 2004) (http://ic.ucsc.edu/~acr/BeringResources/Articles%20of%20interest/Eurasian%20Basin/Shakova%20and%20Semiletov%202007.pdf), and this from 2010 (http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Extensive%20methane%20venting.pdf) (covering 2003 through 2008, with sampling each year).  It seems to indicate an increase (2003 had an estimated annual diffusive (that is, not counting bubbles) ESAS flux of 0.5 Tg, 2004 yielded 0.15 Tg, and the 2003 through 2008 average (again, diffusive only) was 3.35 Tg (0.93 Tg summer flux added to 2.42 winter flux).  Note that the winter flux is described as being "accumulative potential flux," calculated based on the methane concentrations in the water beneath the seasonal coastal ice sheet, and may be an overestimate of the quantity of methane that actually makes it into the atmosphere unoxidized.

Which sure LOOKS like an increase.  All that said, though, I'm not sure that the first two measurements are at all comparable to the longer average.  For one thing, the 2003 and 2004 data is based on a much smaller sampling area, and sampling occurred during September only, with an extrapolation (as far as I can tell) from the emissions at that time to the yearly emissions.  There are some obvious issues with using that as a basis for deducing a trend (which is, lest I be misunderstood, not what Shakhova et al. claimed to do.  I'm the one trying to parse out if a trend is here or not, and my criticism of using the data that way is directed at myself.)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Vergent on August 03, 2013, 09:42:25 PM

Apples and oranges.

The kilometer patches in 2011 were ebulation patches in the ESAS. The 150 km was airborn plumes, detected by aircraft. We will have to wait for more data from S&S to assess rate of change.

Vergent

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on June 30, 2014, 11:28:53 PM
With all of the excitement involving Russia, Europe & the US over the Ukrainian situation it's nice to hear that polar cooperation is proceeding as planned.

Igor Semiletov from the Russian Academy of Science and Natalia Shakhova of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks will be leading 80 scientists on a 100 day research cruise investigating Methane releases from aboard the Oden, Sweden's largest icebreaker.
As well as gathering more data related to the methane fluxes they have previously discovered, this expedition will also be researching Arctic currents and the role of clouds in the Arctic climate.


S&S have probably generated more heat with their ESAS methane research than any other team working in the Arctic. They've been studying methane under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf since the mid 1990's & warn of the possibility of a sudden release. It was one of their expeditions that confirmed the huge methane fluxes in the Arctic Ocean after crews transiting the Northern Passage reported that "the ocean is boiling".


http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/research/highlights/2014/swerus-c3- (http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/research/highlights/2014/swerus-c3-)
has information about the first leg of the expedition that begins July 6th at Tromso, Norway and ends August 20th in Barrow, Alaska. A map of the proposed route is included.

A facebook site for the SWERUSC-C3 expedition:
https://www.facebook.com/swerusc3 (https://www.facebook.com/swerusc3)
That S&S could make this thing happen even in the face of the situation in the Ukraine indicates how important their work is. I'm hoping that the facebook site keeps us up to date.
Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 01, 2014, 01:59:23 PM
Can any of my fellow forum mates point me to satellite monitoring maps of atmospheric methane levels?  I expect the East Siberian Sea to become denuded of ice cover, and with those shallow waters then warming up, it would be interesting to follow the possible emissions of methane from those waters.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on July 01, 2014, 02:13:31 PM
You know methane tracker ?
http://www.methanetracker.org/ (http://www.methanetracker.org/)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 01, 2014, 06:29:17 PM
You know methane tracker ?
[url]http://www.methanetracker.org/[/url] ([url]http://www.methanetracker.org/[/url])

Thanks.  At first I couldn't get Google Earth to install on my antique XP machine.  Fixed that, but it loads as slow as molasses in Greenland.  I was wondering if there were other convenient sources on the Web somewhere...
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on July 02, 2014, 11:34:18 AM
The methane tracker site use the metop datas :
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/soundings/iasi/index.html (http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/soundings/iasi/index.html)
you may try that.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 02, 2014, 04:13:23 PM
Thanks, Sleepy and Terry for posting the Shakhova interview and the expedition links. Kudos to Tenney Naumer and Nick Breeze for getting Shakhova on Skype for such a long interview! It's current, because it's after their winter expedition, while the paper presented in the fall was after last summer's.

Very interesting that she argues clearly against geoengineering, going so far as to joke about it. She said, what are we to do, flip the poles so we get the climate of Antarctica in the Arctic? I suspect she's succeeded in talking AMEG out of pushing this idea. I see all the links to their 'strategic plan' are dead now.

It all sounds seriously 'not good'.

Surprises to me (and I've been following her and Semiletov since 2010):


The gist of the interview is that things have been changing very fast.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 02, 2014, 05:19:03 PM
The methane tracker site use the metop datas :
[url]http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/soundings/iasi/index.html[/url] ([url]http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/soundings/iasi/index.html[/url])
you may try that.

Thanks, Laurent!!  Quite a bit more usable.  These were the images A4R was posting and archiving for awhile.  Sadly, they're presented in Mercator projection, which distorts the polar regions horribly.  It's also not intuitively obvious what atmospheric layers to look at, nor why much of each map seems to have interference from, I guess, clouds.  Or why the highest concentrations of methane are not to be found at the lowest layers of the atmosphere.  I thought I knew a little bit about methane production, measurement, and chemistry.  Much to learn.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on July 02, 2014, 08:04:53 PM
Lynn
That was a very good synopsis of the scariest analysis of the scariest interview I have seen. An additional, sudden increase of 3 C will be worse in the northern hemisphere and worse yet at higher latitudes. Not a question of if, rather when.
It is TEOCAWKI event that there is really no planning or mitigation for. Whenever the fetch along the ESAS lengthens and winds begin to blow I wonder if this will be the one that tears everything up.
Neither the informed nor the oblivious escape.
Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 02, 2014, 08:47:03 PM
Thanks, Terry.

I wanted to see a bit about said rift, so I found an article: http://www.evgengusev.narod.ru/canada/vin.html (http://www.evgengusev.narod.ru/canada/vin.html)

"On the central and western part of the Laptevs Shelf, riftogenous processes were superimposed at the final stage of the Early Cretaceous deformation resulting in rather weakly deformed basement rocks being buried under rift formations. "

Not good at all.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on July 03, 2014, 11:15:01 PM
Following S&S with the interactive bathymetry product from NOAA should be exciting.
http://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/ (http://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/)


Terry


Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 04, 2014, 02:16:20 PM
Terry, I don't understand what we'll be seeing on the bathymetry map (will the expedition add data to it in real time?), but I've bookmarked the icebreaker's route.

http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/swerus-media (http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/swerus-media)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on July 04, 2014, 09:13:54 PM
Sorry Lynn, badly worded on my part.
I'm lacking much detailed knowledge of the bathymetry of the Arctic Ocean & felt that the interactive map would be a help when trying to understand the reports that S&S will hopefully be sending back. So far as I'm aware they won't be interacting with the NOAA site in any manner and my comment meant only that I will find it a helpful supplement as I attempt to follow the discussion.
Your bookmarked url that tracks the voyage in real time is great! I'm excited by their studies yet I fear the information they seek. Sometimes I prefer "if" to "when" & if "when" moves into the "soon" column I'm aghast.
Their last big expedition was followed by such a wall of silence that I'd assumed the results were too scary to disseminate. (How's that for a paranoid, conspiracy theory) With facebook & daily trackings this seems much more accessible, which is hopefully a good sign.
Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 05, 2014, 01:57:45 AM
I thought the video interview with Shakhova was post-winter expedition. Not silent at all. And they delivered a paper last fall, after the summer one, didn't they? So which expedition are you referring to?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on July 05, 2014, 09:57:53 AM

Sorry about the distraction but:

When S&S returned from the late 2011 expedition they were strangely silent after a few remarks while disembarking.
http://voiceofrussia.com/2011/09/01/55512419/ (http://voiceofrussia.com/2011/09/01/55512419/)
Speaks of their coming voyage. They made use of the Academic Lavrentiev and departed Sept,2 returning October 18. This was a huge emergency expedition to determine if the reports of "boiling seas" could be real.
During September telephoned reports confirmed "hundreds of methane torches-fountains".


After they disembarked they report on October 18th that thousands of eruptions were sited, then silence until the AGU in December after which they "go on vacation". During the next few years Shakova investigates and reports on methane emissions from permafrost. Very important work, but hardly as earth shattering as the ESAS work she had been involved with.


Some of us were expecting a fuller, more timely, discussion about what they discovered. As I mentioned it's weird "conspiracy theory" stuff, not really suitable for a science thread. S&S have been sounding the alarm bells long and loud, I just found it strange that such an important subject, & one they were both so passionate about went from headline news to the back burner so rapidly. The most recent interview is the fullest since 2012 IMO. No new data to report on, but a much scarier interpretation.


I'll be following the upcoming expedition closely. S&S are THE EXPERTS regarding ESAS methane releases. Dmitrenko & others brought forward to muddle the message did their job but are forgotten.
Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on July 05, 2014, 12:39:00 PM
They seem to use some foreign resources now (thinking of Swedish icebreaker for the next expedition).Would not be surprise to know that they have been told to shut up by their government...so much drilling places everywhere...but sure some datas would be much better than just the emotions of madame Shakova.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 05, 2014, 02:23:09 PM
Terry, you're right about her 'interpretation' of existing data in the video, with Semiletov off-camera being more dire. It hadn't occurred to me that Russian support had been cut off. I was more inclined to wonder why the rest of the world isn't really listening. My theory is that S&S's warnings constitute an all-bets-are-off situation like the sudden collapse of the WAIS, so IPCC risk management strategies etc. leave it right off their probability charts.

I think it's similar to those of us who have a giant old tree near our house. We're careful about fire prevention, we have the extinguishers, we lock the doors when we leave, keep the roof from leaking, etc. There's nothing we can do about the possibility that the tree will suddenly squash half the house flat, so we just enjoy its display in the fall and live as though it can never happen.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 05, 2014, 05:37:19 PM

Their last big expedition was followed by such a wall of silence that I'd assumed the results were too scary to disseminate. (How's that for a paranoid, conspiracy theory) With facebook & daily trackings this seems much more accessible, which is hopefully a good sign.
Terry

I am inclined to think that, if they found scary stuff and the deafening silence might suggest this, they are going back this year for a more detailed look and possible confirmation of their fears before issuing a report. The last thing they would do is sound alarms without being certain.

(Adjusts foil cap.)  ::)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 05, 2014, 06:49:10 PM
There are a lot of scientists on that icebreaker concerned about exactly the same thing, so this may be a bigger deal that it seems.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on July 07, 2014, 04:33:43 PM
S&S have left the building(s)
I'll be following the expedition from the great link that Lynn provided.
http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/swerus-media (http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/swerus-media)


Terry

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 07, 2014, 04:46:20 PM
If I suspected that Russia had suppressed S&S's findings and concerns, so they had to go elsewhere to find support for expeditions, I was mistaken. All eighty scientists are on the same mission.

From the chief scientist's blog on Saturday,

"SWERUS-C3 has several objectives centered in the “C3” and we have good hopes to return massive new knowledge on central topics, including on the sources, fluxes and functioning of the extensive releases of the strong greenhouse gas methane from the thawing subsea permafrost and collapsing frozen methane (hydrates), which earlier findings of SWERUS-C3 scientists have documented."

So, this is a big international initiative. We can only hope what they do with the copious data makes waves.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Adam Ash on July 10, 2014, 03:49:26 PM
An expedition to look for methane plumes of indeterminate scale must present the team leaders with some interesting safety problems. 

Sailing into a decent plume could have explosive levels of methane ingested into plant and engines on board, or lower levels could displace breathable oxygen for the crew. 

Portable breathing apparatus for all?  Can they seal the ship so it can have a conscious crew to take it out of trouble?  Fingers crossed.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 10, 2014, 04:32:29 PM
Well, Adam, that's a dark thought. I believe they send inflatable boats out. You can read lots of details in the blogs of crew on their site.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: wili on July 11, 2014, 12:48:36 AM
That's not the only (and probably not the main) danger on these trips. This open ocean, and storms are common. Last year a research vessel got in trouble in a storm. They ended up getting through it ok, but the boat that was sent out to help them sunk and all on board dies, iirc.

This is truly heroic research these folks are engaging in. Another reason it cranks my gears when some dismiss or disparage them.  >:(
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 11, 2014, 02:04:24 AM
Yes, this is sixteen years of single-minded seeking by S&S and this cruise makes me think more scientists than ever are on board, so to speak. Up until now we thought the worst fault line in the world would let LA and SF fall off the US. The ESAS fault line is truly scary.

My take is that this methane is being widely ignored because if the worst release should happen, none of our other plans would matter. So everyone carries on as if there was no possibility.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: jonthed on July 11, 2014, 08:35:29 AM
My take is that this methane is being widely ignored because if the worst release should happen, none of our other plans would matter. So everyone carries on as if there was no possibility.

Interesting thought. Wouldn't rushing to limit future warming somewhat reduce the chances of a catastrophic release happening though? It would at least lead to a slightly slower pace of change and release, and given methane's short life in the atmosphere, could mean less of a catastrophe.

Is this methane release factor really one we should just be leaving to fate?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 11, 2014, 01:42:29 PM
Yes, this is sixteen years of single-minded seeking by S&S and this cruise makes me think more scientists than ever are on board, so to speak. Up until now we thought the worst fault line in the world would let LA and SF fall off the US. The ESAS fault line is truly scary.

My take is that this methane is being widely ignored because if the worst release should happen, none of our other plans would matter. So everyone carries on as if there was no possibility.

I don't believe we are ignoring it. The 1st part of your post would suggest the opposite. I believe the ESS methane releases occurring today and the potential for future releases have not yet become a larger part of the AGW conversation because there is still much science doesn't know. These efforts to measure and if they find rapidly expanding plumes, will get communicated.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 11, 2014, 02:16:39 PM
SH, that's exactly what I'm hoping. Once the science is communicated, the urgency should spur more action that there has been to date.

Shakhova wishes there were an international initiative to dot the whole 2m sq.km. with observation stations.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Adam Ash on July 12, 2014, 07:23:57 AM
Well, Adam, that's a dark thought. ...

Lynn and Wili!  My concern for these noble souls arises from an experience I had years ago when I was inspecting sewer lines 4 m below ground.  My fellow worker and I nearly died from methane in the line. 

Methane is odorless, a non-irritant and we had no idea we were in the death zone until I realised my fellow worker was goughing and gasping, and my knees were crumbling.  We only just made it out and we never went back underground. 

Of course if the gas ignites (from an outboard motor on a rubber boat, for example) then all that remains is highly toxic carbon monoxide, which close to the fire source will kill you in a single breath.  Tidy.

I just hope they are taking care.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on July 12, 2014, 08:21:06 AM
Are you sure it was methane ?
It is more likely to be H2S exposure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide
Toxicity

Hydrogen sulfide is considered a broad-spectrum poison, meaning that it can poison several different systems in the body, although the nervous system is most affected. The toxicity of H
2S is comparable with that of hydrogen cyanide or carbon monoxide.[13] It forms a complex bond with iron in the mitochondrial cytochrome enzymes, thus preventing cellular respiration.

Since hydrogen sulfide occurs naturally in the body, the environment and the gut, enzymes exist in the body capable of detoxifying it by oxidation to (harmless) sulfate.[14] Hence, low levels of hydrogen sulfide may be tolerated indefinitely.

At some threshold level, believed to average around 300–350 ppm, the oxidative enzymes become overwhelmed. Many personal safety gas detectors, such as those used by utility, sewage and petrochemical workers, are set to alarm at as low as 5 to 10 ppm and to go into high alarm at 15 ppm.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Adam Ash on July 12, 2014, 08:58:21 AM
Was it H2S? We did not stop around to ask!!! :)  H2S is toxic (blocks cellular absorption of O2) while methane 'merely' displaces 02 from the air.  Pick your poison.

Returning to the matter at hand, tho...  Have any of the sea ice photo watchers ever spotted circular polynya over geographically-fixed locations in the continental shelf zone which would be indicative of a persistent upwelling of gas from below?

It would seem to be a likely indicator of outgassing plumes, provided sea conditions are calm enough to let the outward movement of the ice in all directions persist.

I have worked with air lift pumps and they certainly induce a decent horizontal velocity at the surface.   I would have thought that a kilometre-scale hydrate emission would be visible among mobile pack ice.

Likewise, the plumes will be bringing up deeper 2 degree water from below and punching it through the ?cooler fresher surface water.  Would that show up in thermal imaging as a plume of higher temperature water in the passing current, with a distinct hot-spot as its origin above the plume?

Finally, the rising plume creates a spot of less-dense water.  This means the core of the plume will have a water surface which is higher than the surrounding sea.  Thus ice thickness / sea surface radars may be able to discern these upwellings, depending on the resolution of the sensors.

We really need to get a handle on this calthrate breakup issue don't we, and any way we can use existing sensor systems to re-look at the sea surface and detect these would be helpful, I would have thought.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 12, 2014, 01:34:47 PM
Adam, I'm glad you posed that question. I didn't find an answer, but I did find a blog post by Robert Scribbler, an ASI regular. My conclusion from this is it seems the real wild card is the fault line.

"A 17 megaton emission, though double previous estimates and outside the range projected by GCMs, represents about 2.8% of the global total methane emission from all sources (or 10% the total US emission). This puts ESAS on the map of very large single sources, but it does not yet provide enough methane to overwhelm the current methane balance. To do that, yearly rates would have to rise by an order of magnitude, reaching about 150 megatons a year or more.

"Ironically, about a 150 megaton per year emission, averaged over thousands of years, is what climate models currently project (although the models show larger emissions happening much later). So it is worth noting that even getting on this track would be a bad consequence while exceeding it by any serious margin this century would be a very, very bad consequence indeed.

"To put the size of the ESAS methane store into context it is worth considering that should the ESAS emit 1 gigaton of methane each year, it could continue that emission for more than a thousand years. Such a rate of emission would about effectively double the current forcing from human CO2 emissions and extend the time-frame of that forcing for up to 15 centuries."

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/arctic-methane-monster-shortens-tail-shakova-semiletov-study-shows-esas-emitting-methane-at-twice-expected-rate/ (http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/arctic-methane-monster-shortens-tail-shakova-semiletov-study-shows-esas-emitting-methane-at-twice-expected-rate/)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on July 12, 2014, 05:26:25 PM
Adam
I'm not sure that the very shallow ESAS, >50 M, allows for much stratification. Also the ice there is FYI & a British team some years ago found that FYI melt caused mixing to greater depths due to the high brine content.
Pingo features might be the easiest way to locate the source of major plumes or blowouts. In Hudson Bay pingos have developed since the ice sheet melted as evidenced by iceberg keel scaring.
The current voyage may help pinpoint some of the plumes.
Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 12, 2014, 07:32:37 PM
Terry, what are pingo features?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on July 13, 2014, 08:26:17 PM
Terry, what are pingo features?

I was actually referring to the Pingo Like Features found in the ESAS.



True Pingos are caused by melt /freeze cycles similar to frost heaves found in the north.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingo)


Escaping methane creates Pingo Like Features in shallow seas all around the Arctic.


http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html (http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html)
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/outreach/ice-bound/pepperoni/pdfdocs/pongo%20paul.pdf (http://www.ig.utexas.edu/outreach/ice-bound/pepperoni/pdfdocs/pongo%20paul.pdf)


On page 18 of S&S's presentation Methane Release from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf 2010 they posit that undersea Taliks may terminate as Pingo Like Features venting CO2


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArctic_methane_release&ei=LsLCU8ryAoiHyASz84KYBQ&usg=AFQjCNGl47iW7FLJWpI5moFhPEESBG22Jg&sig2=Kh9lPnTsEJm6G94Gz9z91w (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArctic_methane_release&ei=LsLCU8ryAoiHyASz84KYBQ&usg=AFQjCNGl47iW7FLJWpI5moFhPEESBG22Jg&sig2=Kh9lPnTsEJm6G94Gz9z91w)




Canadian research has found Pingo Like Features in Hudson Bay that are younger than the iceberg scaring of nearby terrain indicating recent formation of the features must be <7.7 BP on age. I assume these to be evidence of CO2 venting in the not too distant past.


http://www.ismer.ca/IMG/pdf/Roger_et_al_2011_Open_File_6760.pdf (http://www.ismer.ca/IMG/pdf/Roger_et_al_2011_Open_File_6760.pdf)


The huge venting events that S&S have reported on may be creating undersea Pingo Like Features that can be spotted by something similar to the multi-beam bathymetry used by the Canadians in Hudson Bay. Being able to pinpoint where the gas is emerging on the sea bed might indicate whether it's in the form of melting clathrates or free gas formerly capped by undersea permafrost.
Both possibilities are frightening although widespread melting of undersea permafrost seems, at least to me, to be the worst imaginable finding.


Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: wili on July 13, 2014, 08:40:40 PM
Oh goody! PLF's. Another acronym to throw into the rich alphabet soup we already have brewing here! :D This is actually my favorite obscure landscape feature. Here's the visual from Terry's second link, in case you missed it:

(http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs-xsection-350.jpg)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 13, 2014, 09:16:11 PM
Thanks for the homework, Terry. So, possibly the pressure of methane on a weak spot creates the PLF, or the PLF allows the escape of methane, whichever form it takes.

Either way it only reinforces my artist's mental image of the ESAS as a brewing abscess on the behind of our planet.

Since the numbers say arctic methane is a very long-term threat unless the worst happens – the rift opens up. But maybe that's not a separate risk. Maybe these PLFs caused by a warming bottom are to that catastrophic release S&S fear as horizontal drilling is to earthquakes.
Title: Re: This is not good. Either.
Post by: Adam Ash on July 14, 2014, 04:47:05 AM
Argh me hearties!  So its Gas Escape Features ye'll be lookin' fer is it!  Rite then!  Try these!

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045184/pdf (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045184/pdf)

'...An estimated 10,000
features, ∼150 m in diameter, are observed at 500–700 m
water depth. In the latter depth range sub‐bottom profiles
show similar gas escape features (pockmarks) at
disconformities interpreted to mark past sea‐level low
stands. The amount of methane potentially released from
hydrates at each of the largest features is ∼7*10^12 g. If the
methane from a single event at one 8–11 km scale
pockmark reached the atmosphere, it would be equivalent
to ∼3% of the current annual global methane released from
natural sources into the atmosphere...'

And this follow up work too, with prettier pictures...
http://oceanrep.geomar.de/21515/1/geomar_rep7.pdf (http://oceanrep.geomar.de/21515/1/geomar_rep7.pdf)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: jimbenison on July 15, 2014, 11:28:12 AM
I'd like to share this resource as I think it could be very relevant to the discussion of how free methane in places like the ESAS might find its way out through a permafrost cap. It relates to nanomedicine but the physics are applicable.

Viscosity and Locomotion in Ice

An equally relevant but far more serious challenge is locomotion through solid water ice. Just below freezing, crystalline ice viscosity is ~1010 kg/m-sec, requiring a 1-micron nanorobot to expend on the order of ~200,000 pW to creep forward at 1 micron/sec (Eqn. 9.73) by viscoplastic flow in which ice crystals are deformed without breaking. Just halfway from freezing to liquid nitrogen temperature, at 164 K, viscosity has already risen to ~1021 kg/m-sec, roughly equivalent to solid mantle rock, and the power requirement has increased 100-billionfold, clearly prohibitive.


http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/10.5.2.htm (http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/10.5.2.htm)

A bit more detail is in the publication. But the important take home message is that as the temperature of ice increases by even fractions of a degree the amount of energy needed to get through it via viscoplastic flow decreases by orders of magnitude.

The ice doesn't need to melt. It only needs to warm a tiny tiny little bit.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 15, 2014, 02:19:17 PM
This is the sort of thing Natalia Shakhov meant in the video interview about how interdisciplinary the work on the ESAS methane is.
Title: Re: This is not good. Either.
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 16, 2014, 02:54:35 PM
Argh me hearties!  So its Gas Escape Features ye'll be lookin' fer is it!  Rite then!  Try these!

[url]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045184/pdf[/url] ([url]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045184/pdf[/url])

'...An estimated 10,000
features, ∼150 m in diameter, are observed at 500–700 m
water depth. In the latter depth range sub‐bottom profiles
show similar gas escape features (pockmarks) at
disconformities interpreted to mark past sea‐level low
stands. The amount of methane potentially released from
hydrates at each of the largest features is ∼7*10^12 g. If the
methane from a single event at one 8–11 km scale
pockmark reached the atmosphere, it would be equivalent
to ∼3% of the current annual global methane released from
natural sources into the atmosphere...'

And this follow up work too, with prettier pictures...
[url]http://oceanrep.geomar.de/21515/1/geomar_rep7.pdf[/url] ([url]http://oceanrep.geomar.de/21515/1/geomar_rep7.pdf[/url])


Fantastic links!
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 16, 2014, 03:29:38 PM
Amazing links guys!

I've read them all and can't help but think that these PLF's and other evidence of methane leaks near New Zealand are suggestive of or similar to the manner that thermokarsts form and propagate on land permafrost. The initial thermokarsts are small but, as they go through seasonal fill and drainage cycles, they expand rapidly as the warmth of the melted water thaws adjacent permafrost. Thermokarst hydrology can also degrade areas of permafrost at some distance from the original thermokarst as the water that drains moves underground. With the massive heat content present in the seas above submerged PLF's, I would think this process could be much more rapid.

In the initial reports of methane seeps on the East Siberian Sea floor, I believe they reported very rapid expansions of individual seeps, 10's of meters to hundreds of meters to kilometer wide in just a few years. We may be much closer to unzipping these frozen hydrates than available  science suggests. Since we expect the ESS to be substantially seasonally ice free for decades going forward, it would seem we are past  the point of stopping this from happening. It is not if but when.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on July 16, 2014, 11:48:20 PM
Giant Hole Forms In Siberia, And Nobody Can Explain Why
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/giant-hole-siberia-crater-end-of-world_n_5591780.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/giant-hole-siberia-crater-end-of-world_n_5591780.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green)

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 17, 2014, 12:00:45 AM
More detail at the original link. http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/features/large-crater-appears-at-the-end-of-the-world/ (http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/features/large-crater-appears-at-the-end-of-the-world/)

"Anna Kurchatova from Sub-Arctic Scientific Research Centre thinks the crater was formed by a water, salt and gas mixture igniting an underground explosion, the result of global warming. She postulates that gas accumulated in ice mixed with sand beneath the surface, and that this was mixed with salt - some 10,000 years ago this area was a sea.

"Global warming, causing an 'alarming' melt in the permafrost, released gas causing an effect like the popping of a Champagne bottle cork, she suggests.

"Given the gas pipelines in this region such a happening is potentially dangerous."
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on July 17, 2014, 12:06:37 AM
If that is true we should see plenty of this, there is a lot of fire everywhere in Siberia, they surely can ignite any gaz bubble trapped in the ground...
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 17, 2014, 12:09:40 AM
Doesn't sound good, Laurent.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Adam Ash on July 17, 2014, 03:29:36 PM
A great big black hole in hydrate country here on ole planet Earth.  Who would have imagined that.

Is this an known unknown or an unknown unknown?  Is that just one lonely black swan, or is there a herd of them thundering towards us out of the tundra?

(Sorry for the blather, but there's not much to say about this that makes any constructive sense!)

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on July 18, 2014, 01:07:23 PM
Lynn
I'm confused. !0,000 years ago I would have thought that sea level would have been much lower than today. Is it possible that this now above sea level area of Siberia has rebounded that far?
Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on July 18, 2014, 01:27:51 PM
TerryM,

A bit less than 8.000 years ago that was the max of the holocene for the temperatures and the sea level was higher than it is now.
It seems there was a lag of 1000 years between the temp and the SLR.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 18, 2014, 01:54:13 PM
Terry,

I'm out of my depth when it comes to these historical specifics. (Ha! I made a funny.) Laurent seems to be on top of the facts.

If anything is confusing to me it's that Shakhova said the ESAS shelf was tundra 200 years ago.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on July 18, 2014, 02:50:11 PM
Laurent
Thanks, I'm much happier with Max sea level ~6.5K BP than 10K BP. Don't know the elevation of the site in question but if sea level was ~3.5M above today, thinking of Siberia as a the bottom of the sea still doesn't ring true.


Lynn
I think you may have dropped a decimal. IIRC the ESAS was tundra 20K BP as opposed to 200 BP :)
Sea level rose spectacularly at the end of the last ice age opening the Bering Strait & flooding much of what is now the Arctic Ocean.
As I understand S&S's concerns it's that all the organic matter that built up during this period froze is trapped under a permafrost cap. When water inundated the ESAS after the ice age it raised the surface temperature considerably. This was land that supported megafauna in the not too distant past so lots of organic material is there. The present heating and mixing of water now that the ice is departing only adds to the problem.
Geo heating is melting the cap from beneath & warm Arctic waters are doing the same from above. At some point the permafrost becomes permamelt & releases all the trapped gasses. I don't think it's a case of if, but rather when this occurs.
An area I'm also concerned with is the former Bering land bridge. There are Pingo like features there & it's subject to Pacific waters. If there is a permafrost cap beneath this area I can't think of a good reason to assume that all the gas from beneath it has vented.
Terry

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on July 18, 2014, 03:35:26 PM
Thanks, Terry, I got this 200 business wrong because I watched Shakhova on video and I think her English was unclear. I did have trouble understanding how it could be so recent. I'm vividly clear on all the decomposed flora and fauna under there. I'm lucky I can sleep at night!  ;)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on July 18, 2014, 07:25:02 PM
If the ESAS is 50 m deep then it was before 10.000 years ago that the bottom was a swamp.
...I know there is a problem with my previous graph...It seems most of the SLR graphs for the holocene soften the data too much...
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Adam Ash on July 19, 2014, 06:04:06 AM
Ah. OK.  Just GoogleEarth the north west corner of the Yamal Peninsula. 

It is littered with holes of similar size to that recent one.  Most seem to be filled with water. 

An initial impression is that these holes are just sort of sink holes in the swamp, but this latest orifice may provide an enhanced understanding of how these hole features are created. 

Perhaps they may not be formed by a gradual sinking of some vegetative fairy circle or other slow process, but rather by an explosive event followed by a weathering and water fill that leads the newly blasted hole to end up looking like its sisters.   If that hypothesis is to have merit then we would expect to find a series of ages of such holes - some new like this one, and others of intermediate age, and others well weathered. 

I broke the cross on my ARdrone recently, so I don't have the capability to fly her up there from the Antipodes to do a reconnaissance but I'm sure there are some folk closer who can.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Adam Ash on July 19, 2014, 06:26:25 AM
At
  71.787536°   72.113329°  (Copy paste into GE)
you can see evidence of a steep side slope complete with a mounded edge (which snow has heaped up against), and at
  71.171112°   71.360918°
an example showing a sloping inside then a vanishinly deep centre...

Boom!  Interesting. 

There must be quite a sonic and thermal signature for these events.  To create a 200 to 2000 metre diameter by 100(s?) of metre deep hole in the ground would require more tonnes of TNT than I care to imagine.  I wonder if seismographs and the atom bomb orbiting and ground-based monitoring systems pick up these events?

Examples:
Fresh debris around the crater rim.  750m diameter.  Cloudy disturbed water in the pool so still gassing?
  70.968751°   70.349530°

Fresh debris around the crater rim.  650m diameter.  Clear water so gassing ceased?
  69.698662°   69.536169°

Hypothesis proven, methinks?

OK, that's enough to go on with for today...
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 19, 2014, 04:52:11 PM
At
  71.787536°   72.113329°  (Copy paste into GE)
you can see evidence of a steep side slope complete with a mounded edge (which snow has heaped up against), and at
  71.171112°   71.360918°
an example showing a sloping inside then a vanishinly deep centre...

Boom!  Interesting. 

There must be quite a sonic and thermal signature for these events.  To create a 200 to 2000 metre diameter by 100(s?) of metre deep hole in the ground would require more tonnes of TNT than I care to imagine.  I wonder if seismographs and the atom bomb orbiting and ground-based monitoring systems pick up these events?

Examples:
Fresh debris around the crater rim.  750m diameter.  Cloudy disturbed water in the pool so still gassing?
  70.968751°   70.349530°

Fresh debris around the crater rim.  650m diameter.  Clear water so gassing ceased?
  69.698662°   69.536169°

Hypothesis proven, methinks?

OK, that's enough to go on with for today...

It seems plain that these start with a growing sub-surface cavity, filling with methane.  Such sub-surface gas collections wouldn't explode--there wouldn't be enough oxygen in the cavity to permit combustion. 
I think what's formed here is analogous to what you see when you cook a pancake.  Gas pockets form and grow beneath the gas-impermeable surface layer, and then the roof collapses and a pocket is formed.
Any "explosion" would simply be the pop of a cork from pressure, not combustion.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Xulonn on July 19, 2014, 08:07:49 PM
Edit:  I just read A-Team's comments on the subject in the dedicated thread, and most of my questions have been answered,and speculations put to rest.

Although I have no experience and knowledge about tundra/permafrost soil dynamics, I would speculate that with the rich stew of organic materials, reactions other than combustion could cause high pressure in a chamber sealed from the atmosphere by impervious, mucky soil, and eventually "pop."   The holes they leave behind could be ringed by close-falling ejecta, unlike meteor hits which often have rays of ejecta extending for some distance, and often in a lop-sided elliptical pattern depending of the angle of the strike.   

These tundra holes seem to be common, eventually becoming filled with water.  It would be interesting if such ponds and lakes, like others in the northern latitudes that I am aware of, develop methane bubbles under the ice in winter. 

Although it's south of the tundra in the taiga, here's good video with Professor Katey Walter Anthony of the University of Alaska Fairbanks talking about Alaska lakes and methane.

http://youtu.be/YegdEOSQotE (http://youtu.be/YegdEOSQotE)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: ghoti on July 22, 2014, 06:13:06 PM
People working on the SWERUS expedition on the Oden report methane bubbles in the Laptev where they are sampling.

http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/emma-and-lisas-blogg-leg1/174-lisa-20140721-1500utc (http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/emma-and-lisas-blogg-leg1/174-lisa-20140721-1500utc)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 22, 2014, 07:02:34 PM
People working on the SWERUS expedition on the Oden report methane bubbles in the Laptev where they are sampling.

[url]http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/emma-and-lisas-blogg-leg1/174-lisa-20140721-1500utc[/url] ([url]http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/emma-and-lisas-blogg-leg1/174-lisa-20140721-1500utc[/url])


Not to cross-post in the forum, but I have a bit of commentary on this development here:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,480.msg32108.html#msg32108 (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,480.msg32108.html#msg32108)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: bligh8 on July 23, 2014, 06:27:53 PM
That's not the only (and probably not the main) danger on these trips. This open ocean, and storms are common. Last year a research vessel got in trouble in a storm. They ended up getting through it ok, but the boat that was sent out to help them sunk and all on board dies, iirc.

This is truly heroic research these folks are engaging in. Another reason it cranks my gears when some dismiss or disparage them.  >:(

Wili....Most folks do not understand as you said..(Open Ocean Sailing) for any reason. Some folks are just driven to do these things, to this I can relate. One other thing, Boats commit suicide and their captains let them. The idea of a boat just sinking is silly, the captain and crew fail not the vessel.

In other news...no rain here for weeks then 3 days ago, 6.7inches in 30 hrs. Hot and humid here today.

Fair Winds Wili
b
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 24, 2014, 07:05:16 PM
Hey Bligh8,  Off subject..  My crew, his wife and dog, pushed off from Kaua'i in their 31 foot Gemini catamaran and made landfall at Fort Bragg California 33 days later. That big high pressure that dominated the North Pacific early this summer was IMHO their benefactor in success. Slow going but no big storms.
The only advice I gave him was to go early rather than late and with the hurricanes over the last month I guess I was correct. We were able to stay connected over the Internet for the whole trip.
Modern miracles. He has since sailed down to Santa Barbara and is currently sitting on a big mooring of mine outside the harbor. For what it's worth he has decided he needs a bigger boat for the sail west to Polynesia.
 I don't suppose I will ever make any big sail adventures as the farm is a full time commitment. I might as well get a milk cow because there isn't anybody who I can get to feed 76 pigs, two horses and a dozen chickens for more than a day or two ( let alone poop duties ).Irrigating crops is also an issue. I have always considered dairy the ultimate ball and chain ,no breaks , no time off. 24/7 365. After 40 years putting on a wetsuit for a living I guess I can't complain about a lack of adventure. No complaints really. Today is poop day, I get to pick up and compost what the critters left this week. There will be a big orchard in a few years  where the compost piles currently are. One complaint , this drought sucks.
 Please keep us posted if you push off for some distant shore .   
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: viddaloo on August 25, 2014, 12:00:52 AM
Scary stuff, for sure.

But hey! Seems peanut butter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA6LuWC9DPE) will save the day?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: viddaloo on August 25, 2014, 07:15:57 AM
They've been studying methane under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf since the mid 1990's & warn of the possibility of a sudden release. It was one of their expeditions that confirmed the huge methane fluxes in the Arctic Ocean after crews transiting the Northern Passage reported that "the ocean is boiling".

Has anyone here seen or read the dystopic «The Road»? Everyone seems to wonder what caused the collapse in that story, as per design, yet it isn't too hard to think it was methane that killed all the fish, burnt the trees and sent people out on the road to try and survive.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: lisa on August 25, 2014, 05:02:49 PM
Methane seeps reported off the US Atlantic coast:

News Report:  http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/08/numerous-methane-leaks-found-atlantic-sea-floor (http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/08/numerous-methane-leaks-found-atlantic-sea-floor)

Paywalled paper from Nature Geoscience: Widespread methane leakage from the sea floor on the northern US Atlantic margin (Jul 2014):
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2232.html (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2232.html)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Anne on August 25, 2014, 07:09:45 PM
Has anyone here seen or read the dystopic «The Road»? Everyone seems to wonder what caused the collapse in that story, as per design, yet it isn't too hard to think it was methane that killed all the fish, burnt the trees and sent people out on the road to try and survive.
Hi viddaloo, yes I read The Road very recently.  Perhaps we should start a new Cli Fi thread over on the "Off-topic/The rest" part of the forum? 

ETA: Just done! The thread is here:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,976.0.html#new (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,976.0.html#new)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: viddaloo on August 26, 2014, 03:27:37 AM
Methane seeps reported off the US Atlantic coast:

What happens to sea–floor methane releases if more and more months 'crash' and go ice–free every year? Seriously increased gas release, for sure, but how long till we have The Road style conditions?

These are my Arctic Sea Ice prognoses based on the available PIOMAS data:

From 2021 September will be free of Arctic sea ice.
From 2022 August to October will be free of Arctic sea ice.
From 2024 July to October will be free of Arctic sea ice.
From 2025 July to November will be free of Arctic sea ice.
From 2028 June to November will be free of Arctic sea ice.
From 2034 June to December will be free of Arctic sea ice.
From 2043 May to December will be free of Arctic sea ice.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: zworld on August 29, 2014, 05:09:21 PM
Methane seeps reported off the US Atlantic coast:

The fear I have had for sometime is that warming ocean waters wont just release the hydrates in the Arctic circle. The biggest stores of methane hydrates occur in temperate waters where greater input from organic debris exists.

In 2009 methane plumes reaching the surface were observed off the N Cal coast. In 2011 off the Atlantic seaboard. Since then the plumes have increased. Now it appears that they may be starting to release over wide areas, as the recent Atlantic data show.

At this point in time, modeling shows that it wont take much more temp increase to release the stores of methane in the upper limit in these areas. When this starts occurring worldwide, we can kiss our asses goodbye.

From the report;

Extrapolating the upper-slope seep density on this margin to the global passive margin system, we suggest that tens of thousands of seeps could be discoverable.

That's the same wording Shakova used about the Arctic findings.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: retiredbill on September 03, 2014, 09:12:57 AM
Bruce Steele, also off-subject, but in Reply #72 you mentioned you had 2 horses. Do you use them for utilitarian purposes? In another thread I wondered if horses could be used for agriculture/transportation post-collapse as they had been before invention of the internal combustion engine.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: nowayout on September 03, 2014, 08:30:48 PM

That's the same wording Shakova used about the Arctic findings.

The (next) tipping point, if you like to translate the cautious wording.  And we won't get off the slope.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 04, 2014, 02:42:16 AM
Retired Bill, I have one Welch Cob trained to harness. She is buggy trained and I have harnesses and buggy for that but we have only hitched her to a plow once( actually an old harrow with some teeth removed.)
To do any kind of heavy work I would need to get a harness with a collar, as a harness for pulling a buggy has a lighter leather strap that runs across the chest. This is uncomfortable for the horse with too big a load, like a plow. Mostly though they don't get enough use to justify the hay costs. At the local feedstore a bale of alfalfa is $25.00 ! This is Southern California in a drought but feeding horses is expensive almost anywhere. In someplace where rains keep a pasture green most of the year horses are much cheaper to feed, they like pasture and don't need much else if they can get some fresh grass. Need rain and space.
 I have a little electric tiller for light cultivation work in the fields ( big garden/ small farm ) and it is so much easier to put in the battery and get to work rather than putting the harness on /off . I do think horses are nice to be around and herd animals have some lessons to teach. Hard to describe why I like them but if you have a good imagination sometimes they like you back. Or not.  There has been some horses around most my life and I am thankful for that.
 I think pulling together a modest recreation of a farm with 1900 horse technology + some solar/battery tools , LED lights, and a very good location is completely doable.  I also believe you could easily power a diesel tractor with hog fat and fuel preheater for the tractor. With presses, combines, seed cleaners , methanol and some sodium hydroxide you could make some vegy bio-diesel but fat would require less technology. Anyway there will be plenty of old tractors around for a hundred years or so. Most of mine are from the 60's. Cheap
 So with some grazing land for pigs and horses and an old tractor to run only a few hours per  year, a nice plow horse and some tack as well as some lightweight battery power you could get by without fossil fuel, or pretty dang close.  Not saying you could make a living $ wise but you could feed yourself and your family. If a group of likeminded souls who could help each other , baker, metal smith, wheel maker, electrician , bard ,etc. and also keep up their own farms you could might have something like feudalism to work with. 
 Some step down from our current consumption , some big step, seems to me inevitable. People can propose whatever they think might be solutions but testable whole system ideas need time to get running smoothly. Most of what I envision is off the shelf available today but I am leaning heavily on what was working before we went NUTS over last 100 years. Including some solar electrics would lighten the workload and make the transition easier. I am not counting on the grid and although that is extreme it does focus your limits nicely. Water, rain, some nice soil , a decent growing season. A rather large wish list.   
   
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: viddaloo on September 04, 2014, 03:36:27 AM
Most of what I envision is off the shelf available today but I am leaning heavily on what was working before we went NUTS over last 100 years. Including some solar electrics would lighten the workload and make the transition easier. I am not counting on the grid and although that is extreme it does focus your limits nicely. Water, rain, some nice soil , a decent growing season. A rather large wish list.   

A major problem will probably be the decent growing season part. How likely is that, when the climate goes NUTS, for crops that take a long time to grow? I'm thinking maybe hunter–gatherer is a safer way to survive, because of this, because of the mobility and due to social conditions. Starving people will most likely rob the farms or eat the crops before the harvest.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 04, 2014, 06:11:10 AM
Viddaloo, This drought we are in would test any foraging culture. I do not even see an acorn set this year. If climate change = drought around here I think hunger would be a big problem. A primitive existence would require a large range ...tough to find space, dry perennial springs, no grass for bunnies. Knowing how to stash large food stores for these sorts of conditions would truly be a challenge. I do think it is a skill set that is part of past native cultures but are you into leaching the poison out of your food before you eat it?  Food that is toxic to rodents stores a lot better, two years without refrigeration and what happens in a decade of drought?
 I am talking about historic conditions around the southwest continental U.S.  We will be in a world of hurt if future droughts exceed the droughts that crushed former cultures in the Southwest. They had few thousand years of experience but even that didn't save them. 
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on September 04, 2014, 01:33:49 PM
I'm reading Fernand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century, Vol. I: The Structure of Everyday Life. Once populations got too high to support hunting & gathering, they lived on almost no meat, growing field crops – wheat, rice and maize. Turn that around the other way and once agriculture is unsupportable, the number of acres of foraging land needed per person becomes very high. After plague and/or famine reduced a population, wild plants and wild animals repopulated the area, but not immediately.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Clare on September 07, 2014, 08:29:20 AM
"Starving people will most likely rob the farms or eat the crops before the harvest."

In the suburb where we live & garden there are a lot of people struggling to manage financially, not starving obviously but poor quality junk food is much less expensive to buy than good meat & vege... ...also we have a gang problem & young 'uns ('prospects') commit crimes to gain cred to eventually be able to join the predominant local gang.

I am sure the following will happen most other places too, is not unique to my neighbourhood, but it certainly gives me a feeling of how things could potentially deteriorate in the future.
:-(

My hubby wondered once if our garden might be a target to people taking our produce & while we have been burgled once (looking for $ & ?drugs after my mum died) & had fruit taken I have decided meat is more what people steal around here. Whole deep freezes full sometimes, ducks from parks & chickens etc but mainly it's rustling of stock from farms.
eg. this last year
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/hawkes-bay/8414370/Hawkes-Bay-lamb-thieves-face-jail-time (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/hawkes-bay/8414370/Hawkes-Bay-lamb-thieves-face-jail-time)
These people seemed to be operating backyard slaughter houses.
 
& This was a shocking case at a remote farm 10 years ago, they seen to think rustling was involved in some way here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11314844 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11314844)

But this recent case up north involved avocados = healthy, well sort of cos they had been recently sprayed! They were caught later selling them at an Auckland market:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11307601 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11307601)

My in-laws told of the last winter of the war in occupied Holland, when food got desperately short, people ate the bulbs & also Ma told of begging for bread from the German soldiers & of walking out to a farm to glean for potatoes after they were harvested, the farmer turning a blind eye.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: retiredbill on September 14, 2014, 03:17:11 AM
Bruce, thanks for your insights. Of course, using draft animals during
a drought doesn’t make sense. I was assuming the use of inexpensive pasture land
but was concerned about the competition of using the same land for growing food. Is
there much land that can best be used for pasture?

If I understand your position on agricultural technology, there will be sufficient PV panels,
electric motors,  biodiesel-powered tractors, etc. to last around 100 years. Plenty of time
to replenish a stock of draft animals. I don't know about other transportation needs. I
envision a rapid decline in cars, trucks, railroads. But there may be sufficient leeway to
replace them with animals.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: viddaloo on September 17, 2014, 08:08:04 PM
Does anyone in this thread have a clue or a theory as to why methane release from Arctic clathrates seems to be most prominent during Winter and Spring, and not in the Summer/Autumn when the ocean is warmer? Or at all if this really is the case? Thank you for shared insights!
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on September 17, 2014, 09:26:39 PM
I would think the melting release fresh water that does protect the arctic from hot salty water of the oceans !?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: wili on September 18, 2014, 04:54:49 AM
IIRC, regular atmospheric methane breakdown requires OH and light and both become predominant in the summer and fall. All the rest of the year it can build up in the atmosphere. And conditions in the early and midwinter can serve to contain much of the methane close to the surface (again, iirc). But you should check other more reliable sources, of course.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 18, 2014, 12:28:39 PM
I note that a comparable pattern occurs in Antarctica/Southern Ocean, only in the austral Spring and Winter (there is a thread in Antarctic folder about methane documenting this pattern), and probably due to the same reason cited by wili.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: viddaloo on September 18, 2014, 12:40:48 PM
IIRC, regular atmospheric methane breakdown requires OH and light and both become predominant in the summer and fall. All the rest of the year it can build up in the atmosphere. And conditions in the early and midwinter can serve to contain much of the methane close to the surface (again, iirc). But you should check other more reliable sources, of course.

Thanks, wili.

But just to be sure: Are CH4 releases from clathrates bigger in Winter, or is just the CH4 level bigger because OH doesn't break it down?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: wili on September 18, 2014, 11:47:43 PM
I always assumed that it was not because of increased emissions in Winter, but I'm not sure if anyone has checked that 'on the ground' (or in that case on the sea, ice) to be absolutely sure. There are certainly enough fractures in the ice, especially these days, for methane to make it through that 'barrier' into the atmosphere during the winter.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: viddaloo on October 28, 2014, 12:44:22 AM
This is a short, but great, intro to the methane problem (only land–based sources are discussed).

Methane: The Tippiing Time Bomb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skYizW7ktj8#ws)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Pmt111500 on October 28, 2014, 03:24:14 AM

Thanks, wili.

But just to be sure: Are CH4 releases from clathrates bigger in Winter, or is just the CH4 level bigger because OH doesn't break it down?

this. Also biological action on methane by natural systems ceases in the absence of light or warmth (c. +4C). methane is a very poor staple food to any living creature out there. recently melted areas take a while to cool down, so observed methane levels start their yearly rise in late autumn. in finnish language there's even a month named for this, marraskuu (november) basically meaning the 'month of the recently dead or those things that just started to rot', I guess Halloween takes its place in the anglophone world.

umm, an idea emerges that if or when there are no more winters here we should step into a system of three (or maybe six?) seasons, to better explain the world and year. but that's a decision of those coming after. It's not like different systems hasn't been used f.e. samis and lapplanders in the north have had 8 seasons, three of which would likely translate as 'deep winter' for most of the anglophone world.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: viddaloo on October 28, 2014, 04:25:26 AM
The Sami seasons are of course much more poetic and cultural, but in a way we use 8 seasons in our culture as well: Early spring, late spring, early summer, late summer, early autumn, late autumn, early winter, late winter.

For a number of reasons, 'midsummer' goes into the early summer season. Air and oceans warm later than solstice, so the warmest months are July & August. Just as the coldest months are February & March, at least here in Scandinavia.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Pmt111500 on October 28, 2014, 05:49:52 AM
and just now I see you're from Norway ::), so you're familiar with these of course. well no harm done.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: wili on October 29, 2014, 10:47:39 PM
vid, what Ptm said. I would expect for methane to start rather late in the melt season and go well into the refreeze season. I have seen indications that some of it is held near the ground/ice surface by atmospheric patterns in part of the winter, but I don't think I still have those links.

Meanwhile:

Ominous Arctic Methane Spikes Continue

 — 2666 Parts Per Billion on October 26th


http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/ominous-arctic-methane-spikes-continue-2666-parts-per-billion-on-october-26th/ (http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/ominous-arctic-methane-spikes-continue-2666-parts-per-billion-on-october-26th/)

Imagine, for a moment, the darkened and newly liberated ocean surface waters of the Kara, Laptev, and East Siberian Seas of the early 21st Century Anthropocene Summer.

Where white, reflective ice existed before, now only dark blue heat-absorbing ocean water remains. During summer time, these newly ice-free waters absorb a far greater portion of the sun’s energy as it contacts the ocean surface. This higher heat absorption rate is enough to push local sea surface temperature anomalies into the range of 4-7 C above average...


More to your point, note this passage, especially:

The rate of release intensifies throughout summer. But during the Arctic Fall, it reaches a peak. Then, as sea ice begins to re-form over the surface waters, a kind of temperature inversion wedge develops. The surface cools and the ice solidifies — forming an insulating blanket, trapping heat. The insulating layer, in turn, pushes the anomalously hot mid level waters toward the bottom. This process delivers a final and powerful dose of heat to the Arctic Ocean bottom water and sea bed.

Methane release rates spike as the methane flooding up from the sea bed squeezes out through cracks in the newly forming ice or bubbles up through open waters just beyond the ice edge.


ETA: Aha! And this passage seems to be about the 'trapping' effect (though it occurs apparently at higher than ground level).

as methane releases from the sea and land surface, it becomes trapped in the mid-cloud layer. There, a sandwich of cloud and moisture form a cap beneath which methane tends to concentrate. In this layer, readings can be quite a bit higher than surface measurements. Recent years have shown numerous instances where methane readings in the mid-cloud layer spiked above 2300 parts per billion.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Apocalypse4Real on November 02, 2014, 03:40:27 AM
I appreciate Robert Scribbler's description of factors that are in play in Arctic methane release.

However, I am not supportive of the use of one highest range reading of one 12 hour period in the METOP IASI to shape the conversation that this is related to Arctic Methane release. The is a presumption that the image somehow tells us that is where the spike occurred, in reality it does not.

I have blogged further on this issue: http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com/2014/11/methane-spikes-lots-of-hype-no-long.html (http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com/2014/11/methane-spikes-lots-of-hype-no-long.html)

A4R
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Gray-Wolf on November 02, 2014, 12:23:42 PM
If it draws folk into the issue, of post USSR methane increases, then surely it has a purpose A4R?

 The other point , for me, is that if Shakhova is correct in her assuming the potential for 'trapped gas' in lenses below ice caps then every so often we ought to expect a 'breach' and one or other pocket to pour out?

As you point out in your piece there could be a myriad of reasons for this spike high above Russia but surely some 'possible reasons' are worse than others?

We have seen 'blowouts' in the Yamal so why not similar just off shore and on a larger scale?

For me I have to imagine sea water penetration ever deeper as voids open up and so more and more opportunity for any major gas pockets to become breached?

One swallow and all that eh? Should we begin to see flocks should we then take more note of such instances?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Apocalypse4Real on November 02, 2014, 03:09:32 PM
Hi Grey-Wolf,

I am not questioning or debating Shakhova and Semiletov's findings, nor permafrost melt impacts on methane release from pockets or bacterial action. I have blogged on the findings of the SWERUSC-3 expedition and their findings this summer (see below). There is a reason to be concerned about  Laptev ESS release potential, but that is not related to what I am critiquing in my comments.

Nor am I questioning refreeze, or changes in OH over Siberia or the Arctic Ocean areas during fall and winter. That is also well documented in the research.

There is a difference between a 12 hour spike - which is weather related, and a large release from sea bed sources, which will be trackable in the IASI imagery from low altitude into the 600 mb boundary layer - and which will have an noticeable impact on global mean methane.

See:
http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com/2014/07/major-methane-releases-at-laptev.html (http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com/2014/07/major-methane-releases-at-laptev.html)

http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com/2014/08/swerus-c-3-more-arctic-methane-found.html (http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com/2014/08/swerus-c-3-more-arctic-methane-found.html)

http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com/2014/09/swerus-c-3-second-methane-release.html (http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com/2014/09/swerus-c-3-second-methane-release.html)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on December 20, 2014, 10:57:03 AM
Most of Alaska's Permafrost Could Melt This Century
http://www.livescience.com/49184-permafrost-disappears-from-alaska.html (http://www.livescience.com/49184-permafrost-disappears-from-alaska.html)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: colding on December 22, 2014, 06:03:02 PM
Methane is leaking from permafrost offshore Siberia:

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-methane-leaking-permafrost-offshore-siberia.html (http://phys.org/news/2014-12-methane-leaking-permafrost-offshore-siberia.html)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on December 30, 2014, 12:11:16 PM
Melting Permafrost Threatens Infrastructure, Homes
http://www.alaskapublic.org/2014/12/17/melting-permafrost-threatens-infrastructure-homes/ (http://www.alaskapublic.org/2014/12/17/melting-permafrost-threatens-infrastructure-homes/)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 13, 2015, 06:09:19 PM
Here is another article about methane emissions from the Arctic seafloor west of the Yamal Peninsula, in the Kara Sea:

http://www.adn.com/article/20150112/alarm-over-kara-sea-permafrost-thawing (http://www.adn.com/article/20150112/alarm-over-kara-sea-permafrost-thawing)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 13, 2015, 07:04:49 PM
I would like to point out that due to the energy potential for extracting methane from gas hydrates in the seafloor (Arctic or otherwise), that the US DOE has compiled large amounts of information regarding the nature and risks of methane hydrates as can be seen from the information at the following links.  As examples of the risks of methane emissions:

1. The first image indicates that by 2030 the DOE expected that it will be commercially viable to recover methane from some insitu methane hydrate sources; which of course raises the risk of leaks and accidents if this were to occur.

2.  The second image show potential means (for natural and anthropogenic) to trigger methane emissions from shallow polar continental shelves, including both the intrusion of warm bottom ocean water such as GCMs project along the Russian Arctic Shelves in the coming decades; and due to drilling through the submerged permafrost as the Russians are planning to do in the coming decades in the Kara Sea.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-gas/methane-hydrates/graphic-files (http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-gas/methane-hydrates/graphic-files)
http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-gas/publications (http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-gas/publications)
http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-gas/methane-hydrates (http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-gas/methane-hydrates)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on April 01, 2015, 10:03:06 PM
The Arctic climate threat that nobody’s even talking about yet
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/01/the-arctic-climate-threat-that-nobodys-even-talking-about-yet/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/01/the-arctic-climate-threat-that-nobodys-even-talking-about-yet/)
The concern is whether such an agreement will arrive soon enough to stop or at least blunt the permafrost problem. It’s “a true climatic tipping point, because it’s completely irreversible,” says Schaefer. “Once you thaw the permafrost, there’s no way to refreeze it.”
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on April 09, 2015, 06:48:19 PM
Permafrost 'carbon bomb' may be more of a slow burn, say scientists
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/09/arctic-carbon-bomb-may-never-happen-say-scientists (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/09/arctic-carbon-bomb-may-never-happen-say-scientists)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on April 24, 2015, 09:57:53 AM
Warming Climate May Carbon In Arctic Soils
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/warming_climate_may_carbon_in_arctic_soils-155066 (http://www.science20.com/news_articles/warming_climate_may_carbon_in_arctic_soils-155066)

"We found that decomposition converted 60 percent of the carbon in the thawed permafrost to carbon dioxide in two weeks," Stubbins said. "This shows the permafrost carbon is definitely in a form that can be used by the microbes."



Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: jai mitchell on April 27, 2015, 01:57:45 PM
Sam Carana reports a significant increase in daily maximum methane values 2,845 ppb.

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/04/methane-levels-as-high-as-2845ppb.html (http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/04/methane-levels-as-high-as-2845ppb.html)

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F01ihisJ7zI/VT3WTy6P50I/AAAAAAAAQOk/-MCBTG4X2tw/s1600/2015-methane-b.png)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Buddy on April 27, 2015, 03:31:51 PM
There is certainly a "bad setup" for this year (melting wise....heat wise....etc):

1)  Continued rising CO2 levels
2)  Continued rising methane levels
3)  Warm anomaly's in the oceans....especially the mid Pacific (El Nino) and Arctic (melting of Arctic ice sheet and Greenland ice sheet)

Bad mojo for this years melting of Greenland and Arctic....

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Laurent on May 17, 2015, 10:51:35 AM
Thawing Arctic carbon threatens 'runaway' global warming
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2869575/thawing_arctic_carbon_threatens_runaway_global_warming.html (http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2869575/thawing_arctic_carbon_threatens_runaway_global_warming.html)

"We found that decomposition converted 60% of the carbon in the thawed permafrost to carbon dioxide in two weeks", says Aron Stubbins, assistant professor at the University of Georgia's Skidaway Institute of Oceanography. "This shows that permafrost carbon is definitely in a form that can be used by the microbes."


Already posted somewhere, but that page may bring some other links interesting to you !?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: GeoffBeacon on May 18, 2015, 11:24:58 AM
They talk of CO2 but I didn't see methane mentioned. I posted this on another thread. Any comment now?


"Expert says deadly gas released from melting permafrost region will lead to 'awful' consequences for global warming."
http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/opinion/features/f0099-new-warning-about-climate-change-linked-to-peat-bogs/
 (http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/opinion/features/f0099-new-warning-about-climate-change-linked-to-peat-bogs/)
   
A leading Siberian scientist has delivered another stark warning about climate change and said melting peat bogs could speed up the process.

    Professor Sergey Kirpotin, director of the BioClimLand Centre of Excellence for Climate Change Research in Tomsk, said he has concerns over the 'awful' consequences in Russia’s sub-Arctic region.

    He said that a thaw of the frozen bogs, which take up as much as 80 per cent of the landmass of western Siberia, will release billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide – into the atmosphere. That, he concluded, will greatly speed up the effects of global warming around the world with potentially devastating consequences.

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Gray-Wolf on May 18, 2015, 01:46:35 PM
With even some of our own learned posters insisting, over the years,that we have nothing to worry about from Permafrost meltdown I have to wonder just what it will take for the world to wake up to the 'potential' of dangerous feedbacks there beginning to become 'The Reality' on the ground there?

When I first became aware of the possible scale of releases from there I realised that it would only take of small percentage of those releases to push the system into a dangerous feedback cycle. Every year we seem to receive renewed warnings and see even more worrying 'spikes' in CH4 over the Arctic.

Is it really going to end up like the rest of AGW and take an indisputable 'event' to bring folk into clarity over the dangers we face there?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Buddy on May 18, 2015, 02:34:24 PM
Is it really going to end up like the rest of AGW and take an indisputable 'event' to bring folk into clarity over the dangers we face there?

Probably.   We humans are NOT very good at looking ahead.....even with facts in hand.....and being able to truly understand what MAY likely happen.  I think we have a 'bias' towards rose colored glasses.

The feedback effects are only going to continue......and continue to get worse and worse (logarithmically) .  What I am amazed at....is that many people are not underestimating what may happen just within the next 5 years:  More and more heat into the Arctic because of the disappearing ice sheet, creating more and more heat being absorbed rather than reflected, creating more permafrost melt, creating more wild fires, etc..etc...etc..

I believe we are at the beginning of a 3 - 5 year period where all but the most idiotic and immoral humans will finally realize that we are in DEEP S***.  And additional methane releases will come into play....  And it WILL take "events" to wake them up unfortunately...
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: jai mitchell on May 18, 2015, 03:26:28 PM
With even some of our own learned posters insisting, over the years,that we have nothing to worry about from Permafrost meltdown I have to wonder just what it will take for the world to wake up to the 'potential' of dangerous feedbacks there beginning to become 'The Reality' on the ground there?

When I first became aware of the possible scale of releases from there I realised that it would only take of small percentage of those releases to push the system into a dangerous feedback cycle. Every year we seem to receive renewed warnings and see even more worrying 'spikes' in CH4 over the Arctic.

Is it really going to end up like the rest of AGW and take an indisputable 'event' to bring folk into clarity over the dangers we face there?

One of the problems that I have seen is that the models have used only forcing and not regional temperature impacts to determine permafrost decomposition rates.  If one looks realistically at the potential for total arctic ice loss in mid july 2040 one realizes that the temperature profiles are dramatically understated (by up to 14C averages!) 

Because the models understate the temperature response, the decomposition of permafrost is slowed considerably, since GHG effects operate on a logarithmic scale, by the time there is significant contribution (say 100 Gt of carbon) our abundances under RCP 8.5 are already around 800 ppm and the impacts of that 100Gt are reduced by over 300% (especially when looking at impacts only through 2100).

If, however, we get really serious about decarbonization (I believe we will) AND we have severely underestimated sea ice response (for example underestimate impacts of chinese aerosols on preserving sea ice these last 14 years) and we have already locked in the above ice loss scenario, then that 100 Gt of carbon will likely be the reason that all of our efforts to desperately extract 340 Gt of Carbon from the atmosphere to return to 350 PPM will ultimately fail.

This implies that we wait until 2020 to get REALLY serious with carbon reductions and have accumulated significant atmospheric loading through 2030.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Gray-Wolf on May 19, 2015, 06:05:58 PM
Is it really going to end up like the rest of AGW and take an indisputable 'event' to bring folk into clarity over the dangers we face there?

Probably.   We humans are NOT very good at looking ahead.....even with facts in hand.....and being able to truly understand what MAY likely happen.  I think we have a 'bias' towards rose colored glasses.


And this is what really gets me. The misleaders have given their devoted a reason why to be offended by the term 'denier'. Playing the " don't mention the war" card as early as they could to try and staunch the link between a person being 'in denial' of events which is the go to when we take bad news ( esp. bereavement). As we know the first of the stages of bereavement is 'denial' and , to me, this is what happens to most folk who baulk at the prospects AGW lays before us.

 To me the Climate Misleaders are using that 'natural ' response to such terrible ends. would you tell someone who is reeling from the loss of someone dear " its alright, its all just a big mistake" when you know ( as the Misleaders do..... and probably better than us!) the news is for real??

I have spent nearly two decades trying my utmost to find a reason why I should throttle back, relax and not worry but year on year the papers/reports/data just compounds into an ever worsening scenario.

It is the same with the permafrost. in A'Level Geography ( back in 83') my master assured us all that the submerged permafrost was secure for thousands of years........ where are we now?

My greatest fear is the portion of the paleo carbon cycle in hibernation be resurected and re-introduced into today's cycle.

We here that the last time CO2 was at 400ppm West Antarctica was ice free and 2/3rds of Greenland was also. How much of that carbon cycle hibernates beneath that ice? how much is dormant in our peat/permafrost? Go too far and we unleash that old carbon cycle on top of the 'fossil carbon cycle' we appear content to flood the atmosphere with.

450ppm saw East Antarctica under ice. does that mean over 450ppm unburies the carbon buried beneath that? We appear committed to ice free west Antarctica and a lot of Greenland ( and so unleashing some of the 120ppm buried there) , does that mean we are also on a path to lose East Antarctica too as levels spiral beyond 450ppm???

Where it all just CO2 we stood to unleash that would be one thing but CH4????
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Buddy on May 19, 2015, 07:54:26 PM
I have spent nearly two decades trying my utmost to find a reason why I should throttle back, relax and not worry but year on year the papers/reports/data just compounds into an ever worsening scenario.

Well....you definitely should NOT "throttle back."  The denier group is well funded by the fossil fuel industry, and just like the tobacco industry before them, they know EXACTLY what they are doing.  If you are ethical (which I believe you are)....then you don't have the "prism" to psychologically "see" how a person can be so dishonest in misleading other people on a topic that has such importance for humanity.

Well...look no further than the likes of Lance Armstrong, tobacco companies, Bernie Madoff, Bill O'Reilly, etc...etc...etc.

One of the frailties of mankind is our propensity to lie.  And there are a LOT of people out there that are prone to lying.  It is my belief.....that the freedom of speech is a special right we have in many democratic countries.  But with that comes obligations:  (1) don't lie yourself, and (2) call out other people who ARE lying.

That is why I have called out Joe Bastardi.  If you go to the link below....and look BELOW the SECOND VIDEO CLIP of Joe Bastardi on that link....you will see me discussing how Joe lied about a Time magazine cover in an article he penned in "The Patriot Post" (the Patriot Post apparently had no problem with posting his lies....as I reported to them....and they shut off my access:).

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3668502585335462792#editor/target=post;postID=3144601249506749062;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=3;src=link (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3668502585335462792#editor/target=post;postID=3144601249506749062;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=3;src=link)

There are a LOT of people who will do ANYTHING FOR MONEY.   And the fossil fuel industries are supporting (directly and indirectly) a LOT of them.

So don't back off.....step it up:)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: jai mitchell on May 21, 2015, 06:06:01 PM
The liink to the Bastardi critique is for editorial access, therefore, I cannot access the blog.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: salbers on June 01, 2015, 01:05:31 AM
Glad to see Vergent picked up this thread over here. I hear that Nunavut Flasks measured by NOAA are picking up with methane. On the other hand there was a recent cruise in the Laptev Sea that was inconclusive about the ESAS.

I saw a few minutes of this NOAA talk on May 19th, casting doubt on large ESAS emissions, in terms of a ship measuring CH4 well offshore in the Laptev Sea.
 
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/annualconference/abs.php?refnum=107-150406-A (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/annualconference/abs.php?refnum=107-150406-A)
 
Shakhova is also quoted in this NOAA paper on Carbon-Tracker Methane. The paper suggests no strong trend in the ESAS yet if you read some of the details:
 
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/8269/2014/acp-14-8269-2014.pdf (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/8269/2014/acp-14-8269-2014.pdf)

In the May 19th talk, the argument was made that rising sea level will stabilize methane in the ESAS since the pressure would rise. However that seems to be a relatively small negative feedback. It was also mentioned that by the time we detect a clear trend it will be too late to stop it. Also, methane extraction activities in the area could contribute to speeding up the release.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: wili on June 01, 2015, 09:09:52 PM
https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/arctic-methane-alert-ramp-up-at-numerous-reporting-stations-shows-signature-of-an-amplifying-feedback/

Arctic Methane Alert — Ramp-Up at Numerous Reporting Stations Shows Signature of an Amplifying Feedback
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Vergent on June 02, 2015, 04:03:01 AM
Wili,

Thanks for the link.

+0.01%, +0.03%, +0.1%, +1.0%................................

This is not good.

Verg

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Vergent on June 02, 2015, 02:37:12 PM
Have a nice day!
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on June 02, 2015, 05:13:50 PM
Verg
I got distracted by threats of Nuclear Winter and had been following other sites for some time. When I returned I found that my sources for atmospheric methane had either closed down or had stopped reporting.
Any chance you could get me up to date on what happened to say the NOAA sites.
Thanks
Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Vergent on June 04, 2015, 04:06:03 AM
TerryM,

Good to hear from you.  ;D

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/ (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/)

Good news, they now have a station in siberia.

http://gdata1.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/daac-bin/G3/gui.cgi?instance_id=AIRS_Level3Daily (http://gdata1.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/daac-bin/G3/gui.cgi?instance_id=AIRS_Level3Daily)

Here is Giovani for visualizing satellite data.

Verg
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: salbers on June 05, 2015, 09:38:17 PM
The NOAA site looks like it has some more powerful plotting features we can explore. For example I made an animated time-series plot of the latitudinal dependence of CH4. So far though the plot I made only goes up to 2009.

Also, below is a time-series plot of the new Siberia station.



Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Vergent on June 07, 2015, 05:58:00 AM
Ironic, they are building ice breaking tankers to ship methane through the arctic.

http://www.popsci.com/worlds-first-ice-breaking-tanker-ships-open-arctic-route (http://www.popsci.com/worlds-first-ice-breaking-tanker-ships-open-arctic-route)

Verg
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Sleepy on June 07, 2015, 06:16:26 AM
They will soon be there.

http://crewing.in/?p=91 (http://crewing.in/?p=91)
The first vessel from the batch is scheduled for delivery in 2016, the final one joining the fleet in 2019.

The project’s first commercial cargo is due to be shipped in 2017. The chosen route for the LNG cargo is the Northern Sea Route (NSR).


 :'(
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: salbers on June 07, 2015, 05:30:10 PM
Hope they don't start punching too many holes in the metastable methane hydrates...

To help evaluate recent measurements, here is the "normal" methane distribution by latitude and season from a book in a Google Search.

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: salbers on June 07, 2015, 07:41:34 PM
Here is the longer term trend at Nunavut. The rate is now spiking and is at a record high, though a similar rate of rise did occur during the 1980s. It will be interesting to see if things accelerate beyond this.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: salbers on June 26, 2015, 07:32:58 PM
Interesting about the attached figure from this website: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/controversy.html (http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/controversy.html)

It shows a high hourly methane reading at Barrow, though I'm unable to reproduce this figure going directly to NOAA's web site.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: salbers on June 27, 2015, 12:33:17 AM
Also this analysis of the top down vs bottom up methane budget

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/19139

reaches a different conclusion than what was presented at a NOAA/GMD meeting this May.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: ghoti on July 18, 2015, 06:17:22 PM
No mention of methane levels but the permafrost melting and slumping it quite specatular.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/n-w-t-scientists-predict-catastrophic-lake-drainage-due-to-thawing-permafrost-1.3158206 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/n-w-t-scientists-predict-catastrophic-lake-drainage-due-to-thawing-permafrost-1.3158206)

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 19, 2015, 09:05:50 PM
The following is a re-post of my Reply #1054 in the Conservative Scientists & its Consequences thread in the Consequences folder:

The linked open access reference examines the coastal dynamics and creation of new submarine permafrost in shallow water of the central Laptev Sea (see the first attached image) and concludes: "For this region, it can be summarized that recent increases in coastal erosion rate and longer-term changes to benthic temperature and salinity regimes are expected to affect the depth to submarine permafrost, leading to coastal regions with shallower IBP." (see the second attached image), where IBP means: ice-bonded permafrost.

This research and conclusions may have profound implications if the abrupt collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, WAIS, in the next few decades leads to rapid increase in sea level in the Arctic Sea.  This is because more prior researchers have assumed that the IBP would be covered by a layer of somewhat protective non-ice-bonded sediment.  However, as Overduin (2015) make clear, wave driven coastal erosion (which will increase if/when the Arctic Sea Ice extent seasonally collapses) can/will expose the previously buried but new submarine IBP to relatively rapid warming from the sea water; which would likely result in a multi-decadal period (starting with the ASLR possibly around 2050) of relatively rapid methane emissions as the associated methane hydrates in the new submarine permafrost region decompose:


Overduin, P., Wetterich, S., Günther, F., Grigoriev, M. N., Grosse, G., Schirrmeister, L., Hubberten, H.-W., and Makarov, A.: Coastal dynamics and submarine permafrost in shallow water of the central Laptev Sea, East Siberia, The Cryosphere Discuss., 9, 3741-3775, doi:10.5194/tcd-9-3741-2015, 2015.

http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/9/3741/2015/tcd-9-3741-2015.html (http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/9/3741/2015/tcd-9-3741-2015.html)
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/9/3741/2015/tcd-9-3741-2015.pdf (http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/9/3741/2015/tcd-9-3741-2015.pdf)

Abstract: "Coastal erosion and relative sea-level rise transform terrestrial landscapes into marine environments. In the Arctic, these processes inundate terrestrial permafrost with seawater and create submarine permafrost. Permafrost begins to warm under marine conditions, which can destabilize the sea floor and may release greenhouse gases. We report on the transition of terrestrial to submarine permafrost at a site where the timing of inundation can be inferred from the rate of coastline retreat. On Muostakh Island in the central Laptev Sea, East Siberia, changes in annual coastline position have been measured for decades and vary highly spatially. We hypothesize that these rates are inversely related to the inclination of the upper surface of submarine ice-bonded permafrost (IBP) based on the consequent duration of inundation with increasing distance from the shoreline. We compared rapidly eroding and stable coastal sections of Muostakh Island and find permafrost-table inclinations, determined using direct current resistivity, of 1 and 5 %, respectively. Determinations of submarine IBP depth from a drilling transect in the early 1980s were compared to resistivity profiles from 2011. Based on boreholes drilled in 1982–1983, the thickness of unfrozen sediment overlying the IBP increased from 0 up to 14 m below sea level with increasing distance from the shoreline. The geoelectrical profiles showed thickening of the unfrozen sediment overlying ice-bonded permafrost over the 28 years since drilling took place. Parts of our geoelectrical profiles trace permafrost flooded, and showed that IBP degradation rates decreased from over 0.6 m a−1 following inundation to around 0.1 m a−1 as the duration of inundation increased to 250 years. We discuss that long-term rates are expected to be less than these values, as the depth to the IBP increases and thermal and pore water solute concentration gradients over depth decrease. For this region, it can be summarized that recent increases in coastal erosion rate and longer-term changes to benthic temperature and salinity regimes are expected to affect the depth to submarine permafrost, leading to coastal regions with shallower IBP."
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 27, 2015, 06:01:24 AM
I would just like to say that the findings of this research is not good:

Travis W. Drake, Kimberly P. Wickland, Robert G. M. Spencer, Diane M. McKnight, and Robert G. Striegl (2015), "Ancient low–molecular-weight organic acids in permafrost fuel rapid carbon dioxide production upon thaw", PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1511705112

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/21/1511705112 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/21/1511705112)

Significance

To our knowledge, this study is the first to directly link rapid microbial consumption of ancient permafrost-derived dissolved organic carbon (DOC) to CO2 production using a novel bioreactor. Rapid mineralization of the freshly thawed DOC was attributed to microbial decomposition of low–molecular-weight organic acids, which were completely consumed during the experiments. Our results indicate that substantial biodegradation of permafrost DOC occurs immediately after thaw and before downstream transport occurs. We estimate that, by 2100, between 5 to 10 Tg of DOC will be released from Yedoma soils every year given the most recent estimates for projected thaw. This represents 19–26% of annual DOC loads exported by Arctic rivers, yet it is so far undetectable likely due to rapid mineralization in soils and/or headwater streams.

Abstract
Northern permafrost soils store a vast reservoir of carbon, nearly twice that of the present atmosphere. Current and projected climate warming threatens widespread thaw of these frozen, organic carbon (OC)-rich soils. Upon thaw, mobilized permafrost OC in dissolved and particulate forms can enter streams and rivers, which are important processors of OC and conduits for carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. Here, we demonstrate that ancient dissolved organic carbon (DOC) leached from 35,800 y B.P. permafrost soils is rapidly mineralized to CO2. During 200-h experiments in a novel high–temporal-resolution bioreactor, DOC concentration decreased by an average of 53%, fueling a more than sevenfold increase in dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) concentration. Eighty-seven percent of the DOC loss to microbial uptake was derived from the low–molecular-weight (LMW) organic acids acetate and butyrate. To our knowledge, our study is the first to directly quantify high CO2 production rates from permafrost-derived LMW DOC mineralization. The observed DOC loss rates are among the highest reported for permafrost carbon and demonstrate the potential importance of LMW DOC in driving the rapid metabolism of Pleistocene-age permafrost carbon upon thaw and the outgassing of CO2 to the atmosphere by soils and nearby inland waters.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 27, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
The linked reference cites research that is closely related to my last post on this topic, and both indicate a stronger positive feedback (from both CO₂ & CH4 emissions) form permafrost decomposition than assumed in AR5:

Caitlin E. Hicks Pries, Edward A. G. Schuur, Susan M. Natali & K. Grace Crummer (2015), "Old soil carbon losses increase with ecosystem respiration in experimentally thawed tundra", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2830


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2830.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2830.html)

Abstract: "Old soil carbon (C) respired to the atmosphere as a result of permafrost thaw has the potential to become a large positive feedback to climate change. As permafrost thaws, quantifying old soil contributions to ecosystem respiration (Reco) and understanding how these contributions change with warming is necessary to estimate the size of this positive feedback. We used naturally occurring C isotopes (δ13C and Δ14C) to partition Reco into plant, young soil and old soil sources in a subarctic air and soil warming experiment over three years. We found that old soil contributions to Reco increased with soil temperature and Reco flux. However, the increase in the soil warming treatment was smaller than expected because experimentally warming the soils increased plant contributions to Reco by 30%. On the basis of these data, an increase in mean annual temperature from −5 to 0 °C will increase old soil C losses from moist acidic tundra by 35–55 g C m−2 during the growing season. The largest losses will probably occur where the plant response to warming is minimal."


See also:
http://news.nau.edu/researchers-measure-potential-release-of-permafrosts-old-carbon/#.Vi_ip9KrRxA (http://news.nau.edu/researchers-measure-potential-release-of-permafrosts-old-carbon/#.Vi_ip9KrRxA)
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/permafrost/ (http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/permafrost/)
https://www2.nau.edu/schuurlab-p/publications.html (https://www2.nau.edu/schuurlab-p/publications.html)

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 01, 2015, 07:10:47 PM
The linked open access reference indicates that differential frost heave & associated cryogenic disturbances to subarctic permafrost can accelerate net carbon emissions from degrading permafrost, thus indicating that recent short-term research showing that undisturbed defrosting permafrost might absorb more carbon than it releases; is probably not true in the long-term when more disruptive cryogenic disturbances are accounted for:
 
Marina Becher, Johan Olofsson and Jonatan Klaminder (30 October 2015), "Cryogenic disturbance and its impact on carbon fluxes in a subarctic heathland", Environmental Research Letters, Volume 10, Number 11.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/114006 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/114006)


Abstract: "Differential frost heave, along with the associated cryogenic disturbance that accompanies it, is an almost universal feature of arctic landscapes that potentially influences the fate of the soil carbon (C) stored in arctic soils. In this study, we quantify how gross ecosystem photosynthesis (GEP), soil respiration (Re) and the resulting net ecosystem exchange (NEE) vary in a patterned ground system (non-sorted circles) at plot-scale and whole-patterned ground scales in response to cryogenic disturbances (differential heave and soil surface disruption). We found that: (i) all studied non-sorted circles (n = 15) acted as net CO2 sources (positive NEE); (ii) GEP showed a weaker decrease than Re in response to increased cryogenic disturbance/decreased humus cover, indicating that undisturbed humus-covered sites are currently the main source of atmospheric CO2 in the studied system. Interestingly, Re fluxes normalized to C pools indicated that C is currently respired more rapidly at sites exposed to cryogenic disturbances; hence, higher NEE fluxes at less disturbed sites are likely an effect of a more slowly degrading but larger total pool that was built up in the past. Our results highlight the complex effects of cryogenic processes on the C cycle at various time scales."

Extract: "Our findings indicate a complex influence of cryogenic activities on C fluxes in the studied systems, occurring over small spatial gradients as well as in different time periods. Currently, cryogenic activities are, in a time scale of years, associated with a lower NEE and thus a higher potential for C accumulation. If cryogenic disturbance processes co-occur with the burial and prevention of a build-up of C in the form of humus at the mineral soil surface, the effect of cryogenic disturbances is expected to generate a lower NEE at a centennial to millennial time scale, as suggested by others (Bockheim 2007, Koven et al 2009). However, it is also clear that cryogenic disturbance has the capacity to lower GEP and thus lower the input of C to the soil at an annual time scale. The outlined complexity is further enhanced because the mineralization rate of organic matter can be accelerated by cryogenically driven processes—either indirectly as soil temperature during summer increases in response to reduced humus cover or directly by the mixing of surface soil, which appears to stimulate heterotrophic respiration. The highlighted complexity is further indicated by the positive relationship between NEE and NDVI found in this study, which stands in complete contrast to the commonly assumed negative relationship used to predict CO2 fluxes in arctic landscapes (Shaver et al 2007, Dagg and Lafleur 2014). Contrasting trends have important implications for how NDVI can be used for upscaling C fluxes in the arctic from satellite data, which suggests that relationships between NEE and NDVI established for sites less affected by cryogenic processes have limited predictive power in soils under the influence of cryogenic disturbance processes. Finally, cryogenic activities are predicted to decrease in large parts of the northern hemisphere (Aalto et al 2014). It is evident from our study that these changes will affect important C fluxes and that changing conditions for cryogenic activities needs to be considered when predicting the fate of C in high latitude ecosystems."
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 03, 2015, 04:51:25 PM
The linked research documents the relatively large methane emissions from a subarctic lake during spring thaw.  This research is important because projections of future such methane emissions from subarctic lakes indicate a potential for rapid increases in associated atmospheric methane concentrations before 2060:

Mathilde Jammet, Patrick Crill, Sigrid Dengel and Thomas Friborg (2015), "Large methane emissions from a subarctic lake during spring thaw: mechanisms and landscape significance", Journal of Geophysical Research – Biogeosciences, DOI: 10.1002/2015JG003137

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JG003137/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JG003137/abstract)

Abstract: "The ice-cover season and subsequent spring thaw are thought to be of particular importance for the biogeochemical cycle of northern lakes and wetlands. Yet, the magnitude of their methane emissions during an entire cold season is uncertain due to scarce measurements. While wetlands are known to be the highest natural emitters of methane, emissions from northern lakes are an uncertain component of terrestrial carbon budgets. To evaluate the importance of methane emissions from a subarctic lake during winter and spring, surface methane fluxes were recorded with the eddy covariance method in a subarctic fen-type wetland and in an adjacent shallow lake, from freeze up to complete ice out. The fen was a steady emitter of methane throughout winter. While no detectable flux was observed from the ice-covered lake surface during winter, it was the largest methane source of the landscape in spring, with a cumulative release 1.7-fold higher than at the fen, accounting for 53% of annual lake emissions. The high temporal resolution of the measurements allowed making a direct link between breakdown of the temperature stratification after ice breakup and the highest release of methane from the lake surface. A sediment upwelling at the end of the thaw season likely contributed to these emissions. We suggest that, unlike wetlands, shallow seasonally ice-covered lakes can have their highest methane emission potential in the cold season, likely dominating the spring methane release of subarctic landscapes with high lake coverage."
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: salbers on December 24, 2015, 05:40:30 PM
There is a September 2015 paper by Natalia Shakhova here that talks about methane fluxes and such from the ESAS:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/20140451 (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/20140451)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 28, 2015, 02:01:03 AM
There is a September 2015 paper by Natalia Shakhova here that talks about methane fluxes and such from the ESAS:

[url]http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/20140451[/url] ([url]http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/20140451[/url])


salbers,

Nice catch, and the attached plot for Dec 26 2015 at 469 mb indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations are generally high in the Arctic and in particular over the ESAS (which is not a good sign).

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Shared Humanity on December 28, 2015, 07:15:59 PM
What is very interesting is the highest atmospheric methane levels are almost exclusively over water. Can someone explain this to me?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 28, 2015, 08:04:03 PM
What is very interesting is the highest atmospheric methane levels are almost exclusively over water. Can someone explain this to me?

SH,

First, I am not a meteorologist and interpretation of these measurements can be tricky, so my feelings will not be hurt if someone better qualified corrects the following.
Second, note that the grey areas failed to pass the quality control tests (which happens more frequently over land) so do not interpret the grey as low methane concentrations.
Third, methane is lighter than air at STP so it tends to float upward and accumulate at higher altitudes, and while it is floating upward the winds tend to shift it laterally from its point of emission (see the four attached plots [for 1000, 866, 672 and 469 mb, respectively] for Dec 27 2015, with 1000-mb (hPa) being close to the Earth's surface and 469 mb (hPa) being closer to the middle of the troposphere).
Fourth, note that methane concentrations decrease from North to South (due to emissions sources concentrated in the NH), and that mean methane concentrations are at historic high levels so the red color represents the new normal.
Fifth, if Arctic Ocean seafloor hydrate decomposition (such as over the ESAS and the Barent Sea) is an increasing source of methane emissions then this might contribute to the high purple color concentration over the Arctic Ocean area.  Also, note that methane is absorbed by sea water so it is critical that the Arctic Ocean is shallow so that some of the methane has a chance to reach the atmosphere before being absorbed and so that relatively warm ocean water can reach the seafloor in order to decompose the natural gas hydrates.
Sixth, note that dry permafrost land area frequently emits more methane at this time of year (as discussed elsewhere in my Reply #1235 in the Conservative Scientists and its Consequences thread), and this methane may (or may not) be blown over water (like Hudson Bay) by winds.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Theta on December 30, 2015, 07:11:38 PM
Someone brought up a question on reddit regarding the possibility that the current system that is bringing high temps to the north pole will lead to the methane hydrates degassing enough methane to turn it into a self reinforcing feedback loop. What are the thoughts of people here
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 30, 2015, 08:29:02 PM
Someone brought up a question on reddit regarding the possibility that the current system that is bringing high temps to the north pole will lead to the methane hydrates degassing enough methane to turn it into a self reinforcing feedback loop. What are the thoughts of people here

I think that the current event (related to storm Frank) is primarily an atmospheric event; which will have little immediate impact on methane hydrates.  My biggest concern is that this event may be followed by other similar events that will bring not only heat, but more importantly humidity to the Arctic; which could set-off a several decade long spiral leading to reduced sea ice extent and more warm ocean water near the seafloor that could progressively degrade the subsea methane hydrates leading to a Clathrate Gun type of scenario with multiple bursts of methane releases in the second half of this century.

Edit: If it is not clear why I am concerned about increasing humidity in the Arctic it is because the Arctic use to have very low humidity and because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so increasing humidity in the polar regions has a much stronger impact (Polar Amplification) on local regional warming than in previously humid area like the equatorial regions.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Pmt111500 on January 06, 2016, 04:22:14 AM
Someone brought up a question on reddit regarding the possibility that the current system that is bringing high temps to the north pole will lead to the methane hydrates degassing enough methane to turn it into a self reinforcing feedback loop. What are the thoughts of people here

Nah, this is primarily an atmospheric event like ASLR said. Even though the above freezing temperatures decrease the albedo of the surface of the ice by making the snow crystals bigger, it's still dark in there so a hefty frost/snow layer on top is likely to develop during the rest of the dark period. What this event may have done to the ice is that the melt period might progress a bit faster once it starts. The scenario of hydrates degassing explosively likely requires a strong positive anomaly in the currents reaching arctic, this sort of thing could be an issue in the autumn some year, not in the deep of winter.  My guess is this would require a significant surface warming in the whole Atlantic so a cold summer in Greenland (with a very warm Atlantic) preventing melting and Gulf Stream slowing could be another sign of an increased threat of hydrates degassing. Not impossible with some long lasting weather extreme during summer-autumn, but in winter, no way.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: johnm33 on January 06, 2016, 07:38:23 PM
Whilst I agree with whats been said above, that doesn't mean there's no risk. If this represents an upwelling of northbound currents there's a lot of heat below the surface. I guess the question is, is this the basal current?
(http://puu.sh/mlSbn/c93f760a4b.jpg)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: mati on January 07, 2016, 02:02:33 AM
i wonder if this excursion into the arctic of a jet stream from deep in the south to the north is a precursor to the failure of the ferrel cell circulation...
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 07, 2016, 03:36:35 AM
I note without links to references that I have seen model results indicating that warm ocean currents will not penetrate far enough into the Arctic Ocean Basin to trigger significant Clathrate Gun failure mechanisms until after 2035-2040; and separate model results indicating that the Ferrel Cell should not collapse until well after 2100 even assuming reasonably high climate sensitivity values.  Now neither of these two points mean that methane releases from Arctic marine methane hydrates will not accelerate year by year, only that massive collapses associated with Clathrate Gun (submarine landslides along the Continental Shelves), nor with Ferrel Cell collapse, are likely before 2035-2040 and 2100, respectively.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Pmt111500 on January 07, 2016, 04:36:42 AM
i wonder if this excursion into the arctic of a jet stream from deep in the south to the north is a precursor to the failure of the ferrel cell circulation...

Well, I'd say if we take the theory of Jennifer Francis to its logical conclusion then this is the result. Some day the realization of an extreme Warm Arctic/Cold Continents-scenario could indeed do just this.

This though in my opinion cannot totally happen before Arctic is completely free of ice. This doesn't mean there couldn't be weather situations in which a temporary cessation of the Ferrel Cell happens. The great warm Blob of North Pacific disturbed the Ferrel Cell greatly, and the western plains weather was imho like it would be in the case of Ferrel Cell cessation. If we get two blobs of warmth, one in Pacific and one in Atlantic, this still leaves remnants of Ferrel Cell on locations.  What sort of weather would destroy those patches too I don't know. I'm not too well acquainted with the Ferrel Cell generation so I leave this here by saying that this even a temporary stop in the Ferrel Cell is not too good, this could disturb the breadbaskets of the world greatly like in the Midwest or in the Russian heatwave some years back. Too bad this is one bitch of a thing to predict.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Sleepy on January 07, 2016, 05:01:37 AM
mati, ASLR and Pmt.
With all the respect for people like Jennifer Francis and others. As far as my meager understanding goes, the coriolis effect seems to be underestimated or forgotten. The earth would have to have the rotational speed of Venus for that to happen in any near time. After 2100, maybe.

In either way, this won't end well.
I wish our leaders would use the same condemning words about AGW that they have expressed recently regarding North Korea.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: magnamentis on January 07, 2016, 11:39:54 AM
it will not end well for some who live in good environment now but then it will do well to others who are now living in the cold or dry zones. this doomsday approach leads nowhere nor does denialists approach. we are a part of nature like any other input to the system and we have to deal with and manage things, not make them good or bad simply because they change. if someone were born into conditions like a few hundred million years ago when there was no ice he as well would have complained to have to leave antartica because live got unbearable there once after it was a beautiful place. things change and are neither good or bad, they are like they are and change as they change and i don't mean to sit still and accept everything as fate, but the doomsday guys are no better than the denialists, they some how get exited and give their lives meaning and importance which is a characteristic that both lead us where we currently are, in the good and the bad stuff.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Sleepy on January 07, 2016, 12:49:12 PM
magnamentis, it will not end well for the civilisation we have built and the people in it, it does not matter where you live. But the planet will do just fine without us.

Sweden has just closed it's borders to immigrants and id checks everyone entering this cold and dry zone. A lot of them from Syria, those disturbances started because of drought a long time ago. Climate induced drought. Our nature can't cope with these fast swings and nature in general on the rest of this planet can't change as fast as we are changing it.

Here's a link from the UN climate treaty thread today and Kevin Andersson.
http://kevinanderson.info/blog/the-hidden-agenda-how-veiled-techno-utopias-shore-up-the-paris-agreement/ (http://kevinanderson.info/blog/the-hidden-agenda-how-veiled-techno-utopias-shore-up-the-paris-agreement/)
Is he a doomsday guy to you? Or James Hansen?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: magnamentis on January 07, 2016, 10:14:39 PM
no issue with anything but the tendency to apply value which we don't know and just because it's changes the situation as we know it but by no means would i deny that it will end bad for some while i disagree that it's the entire world that will get in more trouble. there have always been wars and entire tribes and ethical groups wandering about the planet, else in sweden would be know one, all europeans descend from imigrants ( from africa btw ) we just see things often in too short a context. no i wouldn't give names to anyone i don't know personally, my post was more referring to the frequent good and bad talk. 3 decadas ago when i wanted my children and now my grand children to grow and prosper i had to guide them without telling them they're bad or give them that feeling because they didn't yet understand, but one has to explain, debate and reson over and over again. the confrontations mostly have their roots in on side taking side far from the middle and vice versa instead of meeting in the middle and decide together what's feasible. so again, 99% of what i read every day in this forum for quite some time, long before i subscribed, is valuable information and exchange, just wanted to throw in my 2cts as to the above mentioned. the more we make up our mind towards one extreme the smaller is the chance to succeed with real world solutions. too short jumped i know but there is no way to put it all in here. not the place and not enough space LOL
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Sleepy on January 08, 2016, 08:30:17 AM
A study regarding Svalbard. Open access.

Ice-sheet-driven methane storage and release in the Arctic.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160107/ncomms10314/full/ncomms10314.html (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160107/ncomms10314/full/ncomms10314.html)

A quote from the results.
The juncture of the ocean–ice sheet
interface critically controls the ground surface temperature
change between the submarine and subglacial environments. It
abruptly decreases from +3.5°C within the ocean to -4.5°C
within the subglacial environment and consequently impacts
significantly on the temperature distribution in the lower
subsurface (Fig. 2; Supplementary Fig. 1).

Fig 1 & 2 attached below.

Also a quote from the end of the discussion.
In the outer continental shelves where the
eustatic signal outpaced isostatic rebound, methane emissions
from recently inundated shallow shelves (first tens of metres)
would have been expelled into the atmosphere, similar to presentday
process of methane transport across the shallow East Siberian
Arctic Shelf. This study not only implies the potential for
significant gas hydrate storage and release capacity during past
glacial/inter-glacial conditions but is also significant in its
implication for current and future greenhouse gas release under
the ongoing thinning and retreat of contemporary ice sheets and
glaciers.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 12, 2016, 12:20:10 AM
The following two links lead to recent information about permafrost degradation.  I am particularly concern about the impacts of wildfire on permafrost because that can promote the development of thermokarst lakes that could cause Arctic methane emissions to surge beyond current estimates, if Arctic wildfires continue to increase in size and frequency:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34081-five-new-studies-that-change-our-understanding-of-permafrost (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34081-five-new-studies-that-change-our-understanding-of-permafrost)

Extract: "Until recently, relatively little was known about the repercussions of thawing permafrost. Today, as its role in global carbon cycles grows increasingly apparent, a slew of studies are transforming our understanding of the north's frozen soil. Here are five of the most notable"

See also:
Benjamin M. Jones et al. Recent Arctic tundra fire initiates widespread thermokarst development, Scientific Reports (2015). DOI: 10.1038/srep15865

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15865 (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15865)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 14, 2016, 04:47:25 PM
If policymakers were held accountable for the extra lower bound estimate of USD $43 Trillion in climate change associated damage, then we might see some quick action.  Unfortunately, voters seem to think of themselves as shoppers who do not want to pay for climate action now due to perceived  uncertainties in what they think that they are paying for.  This encourages policymakers to take very limited action; which will likely pass the climate change bill down from current voters/shoppers to future voters/shoppers (which is of course an unethical example of moral hazard).

Chris Hope & Kevin Schaefer (2016), "Economic impacts of carbon dioxide and methane released from thawing permafrost", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 56–59, doi:10.1038/nclimate2807


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n1/full/nclimate2807.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n1/full/nclimate2807.html)


Extract: "The Arctic is warming roughly twice as fast as the global average. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase at current rates, this warming will lead to the widespread thawing of permafrost and the release of hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 and billions of tonnes of CH4 into the atmosphere. So far there have been no estimates of the possible extra economic impacts from permafrost emissions of CO2 and CH4. Here we use the default PAGE09 integrated assessment model to show the range of possible global economic impacts if this CO2 and CH4 is released into the atmosphere on top of the anthropogenic emissions from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenario A1B and three other scenarios. Under the A1B scenario, CO2 and CH4 released from permafrost increases the mean net present value of the impacts of climate change by US$43 trillion, or about 13% (5–95% range: US$3–166 trillion), proportional to the increase in total emissions due to thawing permafrost. The extra impacts of the permafrost CO2 and CH4 are sufficiently high to justify urgent action to minimize the scale of the release."
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 15, 2016, 03:07:03 PM
Vladimir Romanovsky presented findings at the Dec 2015 AGU conference indicating that more than half of Alaska's permafrost could thaw before 2100:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warming-could-mean-major-thaw-alaska-permafrost-19917 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warming-could-mean-major-thaw-alaska-permafrost-19917)


"New work Romanovsky presented at the conference suggests that if warming isn’t tempered, more than half of the permafrost of the North Slope (a region bigger than Minnesota) could thaw by century’s end. Such a thaw would imperil infrastructure, local ecosystems and potentially release more heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 16, 2016, 05:56:50 PM
Vladimir Romanovsky presented findings at the Dec 2015 AGU conference indicating that more than half of Alaska's permafrost could thaw before 2100:

[url]http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warming-could-mean-major-thaw-alaska-permafrost-19917[/url] ([url]http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warming-could-mean-major-thaw-alaska-permafrost-19917[/url])


"New work Romanovsky presented at the conference suggests that if warming isn’t tempered, more than half of the permafrost of the North Slope (a region bigger than Minnesota) could thaw by century’s end. Such a thaw would imperil infrastructure, local ecosystems and potentially release more heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."


And replacing this permafrost will be vast expanses of low, marshy terrain that seasonally freezes and percolates furiously as large volumes of methane are released into the atmosphere.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 18, 2016, 06:14:59 PM
The linked open access reference shows that Alaskan thermokarst lakes are already emitting meaningful quantities of methane:

Lindgren, P. R., Grosse, G., Walter Anthony, K. M., and Meyer, F. J.: Detection and spatiotemporal analysis of methane ebullition on thermokarst lake ice using high-resolution optical aerial imagery, Biogeosciences, 13, 27-44, doi:10.5194/bg-13-27-2016, 2016

http://www.biogeosciences.net/13/27/2016/bg-13-27-2016.html (http://www.biogeosciences.net/13/27/2016/bg-13-27-2016.html)

Abstract. Thermokarst lakes are important emitters of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. However, accurate estimation of methane flux from thermokarst lakes is difficult due to their remoteness and observational challenges associated with the heterogeneous nature of ebullition. We used high-resolution (9–11 cm) snow-free aerial images of an interior Alaskan thermokarst lake acquired 2 and 4 days following freeze-up in 2011 and 2012, respectively, to detect and characterize methane ebullition seeps and to estimate whole-lake ebullition. Bubbles impeded by the lake ice sheet form distinct white patches as a function of bubbling when lake ice grows downward and around them, trapping the gas in the ice. Our aerial imagery thus captured a snapshot of bubbles trapped in lake ice during the ebullition events that occurred before the image acquisition. Image analysis showed that low-flux A- and B-type seeps are associated with low brightness patches and are statistically distinct from high-flux C-type and hotspot seeps associated with high brightness patches. Mean whole-lake ebullition based on optical image analysis in combination with bubble-trap flux measurements was estimated to be 174 ± 28 and 216 ± 33 mL gas m−2 d−1 for the years 2011 and 2012, respectively. A large number of seeps demonstrated spatiotemporal stability over our 2-year study period. A strong inverse exponential relationship (R2 >  =  0.79) was found between the percent of the surface area of lake ice covered with bubble patches and distance from the active thermokarst lake margin. Even though the narrow timing of optical image acquisition is a critical factor, with respect to both atmospheric pressure changes and snow/no-snow conditions during early lake freeze-up, our study shows that optical remote sensing is a powerful tool to map ebullition seeps on lake ice, to identify their relative strength of ebullition, and to assess their spatiotemporal variability.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: jdallen on January 20, 2016, 01:35:26 AM
A couple of thoughts ...

Methane is going to be a serious short/near term forcing problem because of how it will amplify current changes.  As yet though, I've failed to see convincing arguments which support assertions massive prompt conversion of clathrates will take place.

I also think the permafrost thaw may be the bigger issue in this regard.  More carbon, longer duration release.

Sadly, our lack of action will be the headache of people 5-10 generations down the road.  Our chldren and grandchildren will just be getting the foretaste.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Sleepy on January 20, 2016, 05:57:29 AM
As I see it, we are tasting AGW right now, we can't afford natural feedbacks/forcings at all.

But what we emit is what we should be addressing right now. Are we?
As a single world region, the eight Arctic nations emit more anthropogenic methane and have a larger technical abatement potential than any other major world region (e.g. Latin America, Middle East, Africa or China)


That quote is from here.
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC99758 (http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC99758)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Theta on January 20, 2016, 06:49:34 PM
A couple of thoughts ...

Methane is going to be a serious short/near term forcing problem because of how it will amplify current changes.  As yet though, I've failed to see convincing arguments which support assertions massive prompt conversion of clathrates will take place.

I also think the permafrost thaw may be the bigger issue in this regard.  More carbon, longer duration release.

Sadly, our lack of action will be the headache of people 5-10 generations down the road.  Our chldren and grandchildren will just be getting the foretaste.

The current El Nino and possible full on melt of the Arctic Sea Ice, as a result of the warm winter in the Arctic along with the possibility of a summer that is very conductive to melt, would lead to the rapid degassing of Methane from the Arctic Ocean.

Also isn't permafrost on-par with Methane hydrates, or am I misinterpreting that?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 22, 2016, 08:24:06 PM
The linked open access reference indicates that degradation of continuous areas of permafrost (such as in Siberia) currently results in increased local evaporation which in turn promotes local summertime rainfall that promotes snow cover loss, resulting in a current positive feedback for accelerated climate change (global warming).  However, the paper also notes that in the distant future when the permafrost is largely degraded, this pattern should result in less rainfall and a general drying out of the Arctic regions:

Trent Ford & Oliver W. Frauenfeld (January 2016), Surface-Atmosphere Moisture Interactions in the Frozen Ground Regions of Eurasia", Scientific Reports, Vol 6, No 19163, doi: 10.1038/srep19163

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19163 (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19163)

See also:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/future-of-arctic-may-depend-on-permafrost (http://www.newswise.com/articles/future-of-arctic-may-depend-on-permafrost)

Extract: "The researchers analyzed numerous data sources in high-latitude areas and found that permafrost conditions are directly tied to Arctic precipitation. They examined land and atmospheric data from 1979 to 2012 to determine patterns and trends in permafrost conditions across Eurasian high-latitude areas.
“We were able to establish a direct relationship between permafrost and summer rainfall in the Eurasian Arctic,” Frauenfeld explains.
“Humidity, convection and rainfall have all been increasing in areas where there is continuous permafrost, but decreasing in areas where there is only patchy or no permafrost.”
The researchers believe that whether the Arctic lands will turn into wetlands or drylands in the future because of declining permafrost is a big unknown in the scientific community.
“We think we are the first to directly link Arctic precipitation to permafrost,” Frauenfeld adds.
“The study shows that where there is discontinuous or no permafrost at all, there will be a lower likelihood of rainfall. If permafrost degradation occurs, there is less precipitation and therefore this suggests that drying, or a ‘drylands scenario,’ will be the more likely outcome.
“The repercussions of this would be that the wetlands ecosystems that currently exist in the Arctic would disappear in the future, and that Arctic\polar deserts would expand.
“As climate change causes continuous permafrost to decline or disappear, this will likely alter the entire Arctic hydrologic cycle.”"
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 16, 2016, 06:13:19 PM
The researchers of the linked reference suspect that the giant seafloor craters in the Barents seafloor formed bout 11,700 years ago, during the Holocene Optimum, due to the abrupt release of methane.  As sea level during the Holocene Optimum were close to what they are today, we should not find comfort in these findings:


Malin Waage, Stefan Bünz, and Karin Andreassen (2016), "High-resolution 3D seismic investigation of giant seafloor craters in the Barents Sea", Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 18, EGU2016-14375, EGU General Assembly 2016


http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-14375.pdf (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-14375.pdf)

Abstract: "Multiple giant craters exist on the seafloor in an area of ~ 100 km^2 east of Bear Island Trough in the west-central Barents Sea. It has been hypothesized that these craters might have been caused by gas eruptions following the last deglaciation. Gas seepage from the seafloor occurs abundantly in this area. The crater area is still likely to represent one of the largest hot-spots for shallow marine methane release in the arctic. In summer 2015, we acquired high-resolution P-Cable 3D seismic data in this area covering several of the craters and their associated pingo structures. Due to the shallow and hard Triassic bedrock, penetration of the seismic signals is limited to approximately 450 ms bsf. The crater structures are up to 1 km wide and 40 m deep. Pingo structures occur on the rim of some of the craters and are up to 700 m wide and up to 15 m high above the surrounding seafloor. The 3D seismic data reveals faults, fracture networks and weakness zone that resemble pipes or similar vertical, focused fluid-flow structures in the Triassic sedimentary rocks below the craters. The principal orientation of the faults is in a ~NW-SE direction that coincides with regional faulting from Permo-Triassic extension. The seismic data also show high-amplitude anomalies beneath some of representing shallow gas accumulations that might be the intermediate source of the gas seepage. This might suggest that craters are caused by high pressured gas that migrated from deeper petroleum systems and accumulated in the shallow Triassic rocks during the last glaciation.
Previous work indicate that craters of similar size are likely a cause of enormous blow-outs of gas. Our study discusses the formation mechanisms and timing of these potential blow-out craters and whether they formed during the last deglaciation, when this area was likely quite unstable as severe glacial erosion caused localized high isostatic rebound rates here. We also investigate the role of gas hydrates that might have formed within the Triassic rocks beneath the ice sheet during the last glaciation."

See also:

http://www.livescience.com/54069-craters-unrelated-to-bermuda-triangle.html (http://www.livescience.com/54069-craters-unrelated-to-bermuda-triangle.html)

Extract: "The scientists suspected that the craters were caused by methane explosions on the ocean floor that occurred after the last ice age, about 11,700 years ago."
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on March 16, 2016, 08:26:28 PM
IIRC Similar cater & pingo structures on the floor of Hudson's Bay have been dated as post breakup of permanent ice cover. Iceberg keel scars were interrupted by pingos &craters which makes them quite recent.
Similar ages for similar structures isn't a huge stretch.


Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Gray-Wolf on March 18, 2016, 01:38:40 PM
I recall the teams looking at the E.S.S. permafrost noted features that had grown from mere metres across to up to 1km across over a single year? ( the 'chimneys'). Could these structures be precursors to such craters and , if so, how long before the go 'pop'? 
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 19, 2016, 04:29:56 AM
I recall the teams looking at the E.S.S. permafrost noted features that had grown from mere metres across to up to 1km across over a single year? ( the 'chimneys'). Could these structures be precursors to such craters and , if so, how long before the go 'pop'?

I think that that is a question for chaos theory, as the pressure required to form the giant seafloor craters takes sometime to build-up; while smaller features down to small chimneys can take much less time; and their behavior changes from location to location.  Nevertheless, it is safe to say: "This is not good".
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Gray-Wolf on March 19, 2016, 11:12:00 AM
The 'reluctance to pop' is a bad thing in that the pressures needed to initiate such would mean little of the CH4 is 'absorbed' by the ocean, and all becomes atmospheric, as the sea floor 'burps'?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: oren on March 19, 2016, 11:16:01 AM
I recall the teams looking at the E.S.S. permafrost noted features that had grown from mere metres across to up to 1km across over a single year? ( the 'chimneys'). Could these structures be precursors to such craters and , if so, how long before the go 'pop'?

I think that that is a question for chaos theory, as the pressure required to form the giant seafloor craters takes sometime to build-up; while smaller features down to small chimneys can take much less time; and their behavior changes from location to location.  Nevertheless, it is safe to say: "This is not good".

Indeed!
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 19, 2016, 01:13:07 PM
The 'reluctance to pop' is a bad thing in that the pressures needed to initiate such would mean little of the CH4 is 'absorbed' by the ocean, and all becomes atmospheric, as the sea floor 'burps'?

In general terms you are correct that it is typically better to continuously vent methane from the seafloor as in small quantities it can be both absorbed by the water and digested by certain micro-organisms.  However, not every case is the same.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 19, 2016, 06:07:19 PM
The linked (open access) reference cites research indicating that the relatively high temperature sensitivity and heterotrophic respiration of mineral soils in areas of the tundra contribute to Arctic Amplification:

Julia I. Bradley-Cook, Chelsea L. Petrenko, Andrew J. Friedland and Ross A. Virginia (2016), "Temperature sensitivity of mineral soil carbon decomposition in shrub and graminoid tundra, west Greenland", Climate Change Responses, 3:2, DOI: 10.1186/s40665-016-0016-1


http://climatechangeresponses.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40665-016-0016-1 (http://climatechangeresponses.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40665-016-0016-1)

Abstract: "Shrub expansion is transforming Arctic tundra landscapes, but the impact on the large pool of carbon stored in high-latitude soils is poorly understood. Soil carbon decomposition is a potentially important source of greenhouse gases, which could create a positive feedback to atmospheric temperature. Decomposition is temperature sensitive, but the response to temperature can be altered by environmental variables. We focus on mineral soils, which can comprise a substantial part of the near-surface carbon stock at the landscape scale and have physiochemical characteristics that influence temperature sensitivity. We conducted a soil incubation experiment to measure carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from tundra soils collected from west Greenland at two depths of mineral soils (0-20 cm and 20-40 cm below the surface organic horizon) incubated at five temperatures (4, 8, 12, 16, 24 °C) and two moisture levels (40 % and 60 % water holding capacity). We used an information theoretic model comparison approach to evaluate temperature, moisture and depth effects, and associated interactions, on carbon losses through respiration and to determine the temperature sensitivity of decomposition in shrub- and graminoid-dominated soils.
Results
We measured ecologically important differences in heterotrophic respiration and temperature sensitivity of decomposition between vegetation types. Graminoid soils had 1.8 times higher cumulative respiration and higher temperature sensitivity (expressed as Q-10) in the shallow depths (Q-10graminoid = 2.3, Q-10shrub = 1.8) compared to shrub soils. Higher Q-10 in graminoid soils was also observed for the initial incubation measurements (Q-10graminoid = 2.4, Q-10shrub = 1.9). Cumulative respiration was also higher for shallow soils, increased with moisture level, and had a temperature-depth interaction. Increasing soil moisture had a positive effect on temperature sensitivity in graminoid soils, but not in shrub soils.
Conclusion
Mineral soil associated with graminoid-dominated vegetation had greater carbon losses from decomposition and a higher temperature sensitivity than shrub-dominated soils. An extrapolation of our incubation study suggests that organic carbon decomposition in western Greenland soils will likely increase with warming and with an increase in soil moisture content. Our results indicate that landscape level changes in vegetation and soil heterogeneity are important for understanding climate feedbacks between tundra and the atmosphere."
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: 6roucho on March 20, 2016, 02:20:34 PM
Some interesting discussion here about doomsday scenarios vs. climate change denial.

I have to say that as a full-time quantifier of risk I tend towards the doomsday end of the conversation. Our civilization is continuously balanced on a knife-edge of viability. That would not be so much the case if we had a smaller population, but we are where we are. Even small economic shocks de-stabilise us severely.

I don't see how our global systems can survive the kind of fast contraction that climate change threatens to bring.

Why should that be so? Why can't we adapt?

Because we've already adapted, over a century or two of intensive construction work, carried out at the limit of our capabilities. We've built a global physical infrastructure that we'll struggle to reproduce on any timescale, let alone those required to weather a climate change storm.

How will we rebuild our coastal infrastructure, with the teeming populations that live there? Will we just keep moving it inland? The short answer is that we can't. Wealthy America has struggled to rebuild just one city inundated temporarily by a hurricane. Multiply that by a hundred, and combine it with rolling economic crises and resource wars.

How will the users of Asia's great river systems adapt to the melting of the Himalayas' glaciers? They won't. Water limits the size of populations. Relocation isn't an option. They'll die back in huge numbers. Hundreds of millions of people will cease to exist.

If that sounds alarmist, it's because I'm alarmed.

If we don't at some point acknowledge how bad it is really going to be, we won't do anything about it. Catastrophe alarmism is where we need to be. We have to be explicit. Sadly that causes people who aren't comfortable with that to clench their ears. And so we continue to sit on our hands, while we nibble at the edges of the problem, and preserve an inoffensive consensus.

Perhaps we've reached the end of our evolutionary niche.

Or maybe we can regroup in the future, older but wiser, with a smaller population, and a better understanding of how to manage a planet.

If the methane lets us.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 21, 2016, 10:47:32 PM

Or maybe we can regroup in the future, older but wiser, with a smaller population, and a better understanding of how to manage a planet.


It is along these lines of thinking that I have been slowly making posts in the "Adapting to the Anthropocene" thread in the Science folder.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: magnamentis on March 21, 2016, 10:57:30 PM
that's how things will and always have restarted after each major event like wars etc. but if you ever tried to build a community of more than 2-3 guys one can easily observer how soon an to what destructive effect politics start to kick in, no matter how small the scale. EGOs are greating and only EGO-control can change that and it's virtue of only very few. not going there here and i'm not trying to preach anything but all these things are very well described in the bible and they had no internet and lived half as long to get their wits together. hat off from my side to all those guys of old times who understood so much and often got killed for it.

this was meant as an example, not meant to evangelize or anything like that, just stating the obvious.

thanks to all you people for the good read you give me (and others) every day. i'm not a scientist in that field
and cannot contribute much scientific stuff but this forum adds a lot to the learning curve which is good to say at my age of 68 LOL.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: sidd on March 22, 2016, 04:44:29 AM
" ... community of more than 2-3 ... "

There is some kinda Parkinson's law about 5 being a critical number for a committee

but adding the last word reveals one problem already ...

" ... community of more than 2-3 guys ..."
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: magnamentis on March 22, 2016, 09:50:44 AM
numbers are not relevant for what i wanted to say, could have said more than 1 or more than 10 human beings, that's not the point. further it was not a scientific statement. just an expression of agreement with the post before mine and expressing my thanks to the members of the forum and it's interesting how always someone will destroy well meant statements and ride on words. which last word? guys? sorry, should have used persons instead but i don't understand what that reply is about. thanks anyways for confirming what i tried to say so imperfectly. with your reply you have basically just confirmed, 3 guys and one negative among them who is profiling himself with pseudo scientific half sentences in telegram style. :(

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: sidd on March 22, 2016, 07:57:55 PM
I seem to have given offence, albeit inadvertently, and for that I apologize. I was actualy agreeing with the sentiment that it is difficult to make decisions with more than a few involved.

My comment was from a thesis in one of C. Northcote Parkinson's books that a committee of more than five bogs down, and a more recent finding that including women in decision making groups improved the probaility of reaching consensus. I cannot immediately recall the reference for that last statement.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on April 23, 2016, 09:57:11 PM
I fear major clathrate releases from the Greenland continental shelf as ground level rises due to rebound from ice melt. IIRC the clathrates burst if internal pressure increases due to overheating or due to the release of pressure. Both factors could come into play as the cold (but light) melt water accumulates at sea level, warm atlantic waters are trapped below and can't release their heat to the atmosphere & the sediment the clathrates are buried in are topped by less water due to rebound.
 
Under these circumstance the released CH4 would also have less water to work it's way through before being released.

Since abiotic methane was proven last year I've assumed that clathrates form indiscriminately at most depths, however there might be an argument made that they preferentially form at the top of their particular temperature, pressure gradient since free methane would be under huge pressure to ascend. If a clathrate doesn't form the free gas exits into the ocean & or atmosphere, therefor everything above this level has or is vented. The level just below this is where free gas should be most prevalent & or where most clathrates are formed.
Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: wili on April 24, 2016, 07:34:16 PM
Terry, sea level will also probably drop, or at least rise much less near GIS (and Antarctica) than anywhere else in the world, as the gravitational pull shifts away from these melting ice sheets.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 27, 2016, 08:25:41 PM
I provide the attached Mauna Loa Methane Concentration plot from 2008 thru April 24 2016, and I note that the daily methane concentrations are currently above the running average line; which may (or may not) portend an increase of the slope of the trend line:
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 03, 2016, 09:59:12 PM
The linked article discusses a positive feedback mechanism for losing coastal permafrost land to the oceans without coastal erosion:

http://www.hakaimagazine.com/article-short/new-tipping-point-disappearing-arctic (http://www.hakaimagazine.com/article-short/new-tipping-point-disappearing-arctic)

Extract: "“You can lose land to the ocean without coastal erosion, just because land in these Arctic lowlands is so low that any depression of several meters can allow it to fill with seawater,” Romanovsky says. “This process is not commonly known or discussed, but it’s happening.”

Though ice wedge degradation has been previously observed in individual locations, this new research is the first time scientists have been able to show, via remote sensing imagery and on-site observations, that rapid melting has become widespread throughout the Arctic. Ten of the 11 sites surveyed in three countries showed evidence of ice wedge degradation. Though big land subsidence is slowly playing out over several decades, it only takes a few years of warmer weather to trigger the initial onset.



“You can think of [melting] ice wedges as an early warning because it’s really just the beginning,” he says. “This process can accelerate the thawing of permafrost, which will greatly lower down the land’s surface.”

A good example, he says, is Barrow, Alaska, where the land is roughly three meters above the ocean. It’s quite possible, he says, that the region will see three meters of subsidence within the next 100 years."
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: salbers on May 18, 2016, 11:37:01 PM
Couple of points from the NOAA/GMD annual meeting as to why some are less alarmed about Arctic Methane trends.

1) The excess of CH4 ground-based values of north polar latitudes vs south polar latitudes is actually less now than in the 1990s. The main reason is the fall of the Soviet Union.

2) The suggestive spikes in Barrow's CH4 measurements happen during southerly winds, so they are from local land sources.

So this should hopefully be squared with the other evidence being discussed in this thread to have a consistent picture of things?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 19, 2016, 12:04:53 AM
Couple of points from the NOAA/GMD annual meeting as to why some are less alarmed about Arctic Methane trends.

1) The excess of CH4 ground-based values of north polar latitudes vs south polar latitudes is actually less now than in the 1990s. The main reason is the fall of the Soviet Union.

2) The suggestive spikes in Barrow's CH4 measurements happen during southerly winds, so they are from local land sources.

So this should hopefully be squared with the other evidence being discussed in this thread to have a consistent picture of things?

salbers,

I have no problem with the facts that you listed; which seem to me to square with the other information listed on this thread.  However, as to whether people should be alarmed about Arctic methane, while I agree that people should not panic about methane hydrates; nevertheless, they should realize that thermokarst lakes in the tundra could be a major source of methane emissions as indicated in the attached image (and if we have a blue ocean event in the Arctic soon the timeframe for methane emissions would be accelerated from the RCP 8.5 scenario indicated in the plot):

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 28, 2016, 03:08:02 AM
The linked article indicates that huge Canadian wildfires may well accelerate permafrost degradation:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2087214-canadas-huge-wildfires-may-release-carbon-locked-in-permafrost/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2087214-canadas-huge-wildfires-may-release-carbon-locked-in-permafrost/)

Extract: "The effects may extend far beyond Canada and Alaska, because of the frozen organic matter under the forest permafrost. Wildfires can strip away the protective vegetative blanket and release all that stockpiled carbon into the atmosphere, says Merritt Turetsky, an ecosystem ecologist at the University of Guelph in Ontario. The thawing soil could also trigger microbial activity, releasing more carbon dioxide and methane.

In other words, more wildfires can mean more greenhouse gases, accelerating the very climate change that may have helped kick off the fires in the first place — not to mention changing the equation for rest of the globe.

“This is carbon that the ecosystem has not seen for thousands of years and now it’s being released into the atmosphere,” says Turetsky. “We need to start thinking about permafrost and we need to start thinking about deep carbon and everything we can do to inhibit the progression of climate change.”"
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 10, 2016, 11:54:00 PM
The linked article cites research indicating carbon dioxide will play a key role in permafrost degradation:

http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2016/june/carbon-dioxide-biggest-player-thawing-permafrost.html (http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2016/june/carbon-dioxide-biggest-player-thawing-permafrost.html)

Extract: "Carbon dioxide emissions from dry and oxygen-rich environments will likely strengthen the climate forcing impact of thawing permafrost on top of methane release from oxygen-poor wetlands in the Arctic, according to a study in Nature Climate Change. 
The study, published today, was led by Northern Arizona University assistant research professor, Christina Schädel. One of her collaborators is Evan Kane, an assistant professor of soils at Michigan Technological University."
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 19, 2016, 04:02:53 PM
The linked reference provides field evidence that the sub-lake permafrost beneath shallow Arctic lakes is degrading much faster (by 70-years faster) than that projected for terrestrial permafrost thaw in northern Alaska.

Christopher D. Arp, Benjamin M. Jones, Guido Grosse, Allen C. Bondurant, Vladimir E. Romanovsky, Kenneth M. Hinkel & Andrew D. Parsekian (16 June 2016), "Threshold Sensitivity of Shallow Arctic Lakes and Sub-lake Permafrost to Changing Winter Climate", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2016GL068506


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068506/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068506/abstract)

Abstract: "Interactions and feedbacks between abundant surface waters and permafrost fundamentally shape lowland Arctic landscapes. Sub-lake permafrost is maintained when the maximum ice thickness (MIT) exceeds lake depth and mean annual bed temperatures (MABT) remain below freezing. However, declining MIT since the 1970s is likely causing talik development below shallow lakes. Here we show high temperature sensitivity to winter ice growth at the water-sediment interface of shallow lakes based on year-round lake sensor data. Empirical model experiments suggest that shallow (1-m depth) lakes have warmed substantially over the last 30 years (2.4 °C), with MABT above freezing five of the last seven years. This is in comparison to slower rates of warming in deeper (3-m) lakes (0.9 °C), with already well-developed taliks. Our findings indicate that permafrost below shallow lakes has already begun crossing a critical thawing threshold approximately 70 years prior to predicted terrestrial permafrost thaw in northern Alaska."
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: ritter on July 22, 2016, 07:11:53 PM
jplotinus posted this in the Arctic Images thread. I though it should be here as well since it looks "not good."

Yamal Peninsula

([url]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/Mobile%20Uploads/image_3.gif[/url]) ([url]http://s1008.photobucket.com/user/jfibonacci/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_3.gif.html[/url])


"Bubbles of gas have created wobbly waterbed-like patches of ground in the Yamal Peninsula after unseasonably high temperatures sparked bizarre underfoot conditions.
The fun-looking patches of bubbling land were discovered by researchers Alexander Sokolov and Dorothee Ehrich. Some 15 examples of the phenomena were discovered in the area, according to The Siberian Times.
When the patches were punctured, methane and carbon dioxide gases were released, according to the pair. The researchers theorize that unusually high temperatures in the area may have caused permafrost to thaw, releasing gases and forming the bubbles."

Source:

[url]https://www.rt.com/viral/352688-siberia-earth-wobbling-methane/[/url] ([url]https://www.rt.com/viral/352688-siberia-earth-wobbling-methane/[/url])
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Gray-Wolf on July 25, 2016, 06:41:00 PM
I know our bogs ( up on the moors above Hebden Bridge) will wobble when you jump on them when they are filled with rainfall but even that would not be good for so called 'permafrost'?

The heat that liquid water would transfer into the underlying ice layers must increase thaw rates ( and so kick start decomposition of the frozen vegetation ?)

I just wonder if we will see consequences over the coming months?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Gray-Wolf on July 28, 2016, 11:50:06 AM
BBC's 'Newsnight' ended on the Video last night (27th) ? I wonder if anyone noticed?
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 02, 2016, 04:19:47 AM
The linked references (& associated articles) indicates that evidence for the risks of significant GHG emissions from permafrost degradation is increasing:


Donatella Zona. Biogeochemistry: Long-term effects of permafrost thaw, Nature (2016). DOI: 10.1038/537625a

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7622/full/537625a.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7622/full/537625a.html)

Abstract: “Carbon emissions from the Arctic tundra could increase drastically as global warming thaws permafrost. Clues now obtained about the long-term effects of such thawing on carbon dioxide emissions highlight the need for more data.”


Min Jung Kwon et al. Long-term drainage reduces CO2 uptake and increases CO2 emission on a Siberian floodplain due to shifts in vegetation community and soil thermal characteristics, Biogeosciences (2016). DOI: 10.5194/bg-13-4219-2016

http://www.biogeosciences.net/13/4219/2016/ (http://www.biogeosciences.net/13/4219/2016/)

Abstract. With increasing air temperatures and changing precipitation patterns forecast for the Arctic over the coming decades, the thawing of ice-rich permafrost is expected to increasingly alter hydrological conditions by creating mosaics of wetter and drier areas. The objective of this study is to investigate how 10 years of lowered water table depths of wet floodplain ecosystems would affect CO2 fluxes measured using a closed chamber system, focusing on the role of long-term changes in soil thermal characteristics and vegetation community structure. Drainage diminishes the heat capacity and thermal conductivity of organic soil, leading to warmer soil temperatures in shallow layers during the daytime and colder soil temperatures in deeper layers, resulting in a reduction in thaw depths. These soil temperature changes can intensify growing-season heterotrophic respiration by up to 95 %. With decreased autotrophic respiration due to reduced gross primary production under these dry conditions, the differences in ecosystem respiration rates in the present study were 25 %. We also found that a decade-long drainage installation significantly increased shrub abundance, while decreasing Eriophorum angustifolium abundance resulted in Carex sp. dominance. These two changes had opposing influences on gross primary production during the growing season: while the increased abundance of shrubs slightly increased gross primary production, the replacement of E. angustifolium by Carex sp.  significantly decreased it. With the effects of ecosystem respiration and gross primary production combined, net CO2 uptake rates varied between the two years, which can be attributed to Carex-dominated plots' sensitivity to climate. However, underlying processes showed consistent patterns: 10 years of drainage increased soil temperatures in shallow layers and replaced E. angustifolium by Carex sp., which increased CO2 emission and reduced CO2 uptake rates. During the non-growing season, drainage resulted in 4 times more CO2 emissions, with high sporadic fluxes; these fluxes were induced by soil temperatures, E. angustifolium abundance, and air pressure.

Anna K. Liljedahl et al. Pan-Arctic ice-wedge degradation in warming permafrost and its influence on tundra hydrology, Nature Geoscience (2016). DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2674

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n4/full/ngeo2674.html (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n4/full/ngeo2674.html)

Abstract: “Ice wedges are common features of the subsurface in permafrost regions. They develop by repeated frost cracking and ice vein growth over hundreds to thousands of years. Ice-wedge formation causes the archetypal polygonal patterns seen in tundra across the Arctic landscape. Here we use field and remote sensing observations to document polygon succession due to ice-wedge degradation and trough development in ten Arctic localities over sub-decadal timescales. Initial thaw drains polygon centres and forms disconnected troughs that hold isolated ponds. Continued ice-wedge melting leads to increased trough connectivity and an overall draining of the landscape. We find that melting at the tops of ice wedges over recent decades and subsequent decimetre-scale ground subsidence is a widespread Arctic phenomenon. Although permafrost temperatures have been increasing gradually, we find that ice-wedge degradation is occurring on sub-decadal timescales. Our hydrological model simulations show that advanced ice-wedge degradation can significantly alter the water balance of lowland tundra by reducing inundation and increasing runoff, in particular due to changes in snow distribution as troughs form. We predict that ice-wedge degradation and the hydrological changes associated with the resulting differential ground subsidence will expand and amplify in rapidly warming permafrost regions.”

See also:

http://phys.org/news/2016-09-biologist-comments-startling-climate.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-09-biologist-comments-startling-climate.html)

Extract: “"The authors report that the net effect of draining in their study is an increase in the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere, which will ultimately magnify climate change," Zona wrote in her commentary.
Zona published a study about the effects of drainage in permafrost earlier this year in the journal Nature Geoscience. Additionally, she and fellow SDSU ecologist Walt Oechel, along with colleagues at several other institutions, published another study last year showing that the emission of methane, another greenhouse gas, is highest in the Arctic during the region's cold season. That was surprising, as most scientists thought little if any greenhouse gases escaped the frozen soil during the cold season.”



See also:

T. Schneider von Deimling, G. Grosse, J. Strauss, L. Schirrmeister, A. Morgenstern, S. Schaphoff, M. Meinshausen, and J. Boike (2015), “Observation-based modelling of permafrost carbon fluxes with accounting for deep carbon deposits and thermokarst activity”, Biogeosciences, 12, 3469–3488, 2015 www.biogeosciences.net/12/3469/2015/ (http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/3469/2015/) doi:10.5194/bg-12-3469-2015




http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/3469/2015/bg-12-3469-2015.pdf (http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/3469/2015/bg-12-3469-2015.pdf)


Abstract: “High-latitude soils store vast amounts of perennially frozen and therefore inert organic matter. With rising global temperatures and consequent permafrost degradation, a part of this carbon stock will become available for microbial decay and eventual release to the atmosphere. We have developed a simplified, two-dimensional multi-pool model to estimate the strength and timing of future carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) fluxes from newly thawed permafrost carbon (i.e. carbon thawed when temperatures rise above pre-industrial levels). We have especially simulated carbon release from deep deposits in Yedoma regions by describing abrupt thaw under newly formed thermokarst lakes. The computational efficiency of our model allowed us to run large, multi-centennial ensembles under various scenarios of future warming to express uncertainty inherent to simulations of the permafrost carbon feedback. Under moderate warming of the representative concentration pathway (RCP) 2.6 scenario, cumulated CO2 fluxes from newly thawed permafrost carbon amount to 20 to 58 petagrams of carbon (Pg-C) (68 % range) by the year 2100 and reach 40 to 98 Pg-C in 2300. The much larger permafrost degradation under strong warming (RCP8.5) results in cumulated CO2 release of 42 to 141 Pg-C and 157 to 313 PgC (68 % ranges) in the years 2100 and 2300, respectively. Our estimates only consider fluxes from newly thawed permafrost, not from soils already part of the seasonally thawed active layer under pre-industrial climate. Our simulated CH4 fluxes contribute a few percent to total permafrost carbon release yet they can cause up to 40 % of total permafrost-affected radiative forcing in the 21st century (upper 68 % range). We infer largest CH4 emission rates of about 50 TgCH4 per year around the middle of the 21st century when simulated thermokarst lake extent is at its maximum and when abrupt thaw under thermokarst lakes is taken into account. CH4 release from newly thawed carbon in wetland-affected deposits is only discernible in the 22nd and 23rd century because of the absence of abrupt thaw processes. We further show that release from organic matter stored in deep deposits of Yedoma regions crucially affects our simulated circumpolar CH4 fluxes. The additional warming through the release from newly thawed permafrost carbon proved only slightly dependent on the pathway of anthropogenic emission and amounts to about 0.03–0.14 ◦C (68 % ranges) by end of the century. The warming increased further in the 22nd and 23rd century and was most pronounced under the RCP6.0 scenario, adding 0.16 to 0.39 ◦C (68 % range) to simulated global mean surface air temperatures in the year 2300.”

See also:

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/10/permafrost-greenhouse-gases-global-warming-465585.html (http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/10/permafrost-greenhouse-gases-global-warming-465585.html)


Extract: “What’s happening today really started about 22,000 years ago, when the world began to warm at the end of the last Ice Age.


None of the permafrost thawing beneath millions of lakes across the Arctic is accounted for in global predictions about climate change—it’s “a gap in our climate modeling,” says Katey Walter Anthony, a University of Alaska Fairbanks researcher who studies permafrost thaw across Alaska and Siberia. 


But according to the latest estimates, published last year in Biogeosciences, thawing beneath lakes in yedoma permafrost—the oldest, most carbon-rich type of permafrost found in Alaska and Siberia—could, by 2100, increase the amount of methane accumulated in the Earth’s atmosphere by as much as 2.6 billion metric tons.  By 2300, that could spike to 10 billion metric tons. Before 2000, yedoma permafrost hadn’t thawed enough to begin forming these methane lakes. Now there’s no looking back. “It’s like the food for microbes has been locked away in the freezer for 30,000 years,” Walter Anthony says, “and now the freezer door is open.” The degree of warming that implies is catastrophic. “The methane causes climate warming, which causes more permafrost to thaw, which causes more gas to be produced, which causes more warming, so you get a positive feedback loop.” “
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Anne on October 05, 2016, 10:56:09 AM
The Siberian Times is carrying a story about the latest Semiletov research in the Laptev
New expedition in Laptev Sea suggests increase in the rate of underwater permafrost degradation.
The findings come from an expedition now underway led by Professor Igor Semiletov, of Tomsk Polytechnic University, on the research vessel 'Academic M.A. Lavrentyev' which left Tiksi on 24 September on a 40 day mission.

The seeping of methane from the sea floor is greater than in previous research in the same area, notably carried out between 2011 and 2014.

'The area of spread of methane mega-emissions has significantly increased in comparison with the data obtained in the period from 2011 to 2014,' he said. 'These observations may indicate that the rate of degradation of underwater permafrost has increased.'

Detailed findings will be presented at an international conference in Tomsk on 21 to 24 November. The research enables comparison with previously obtained data on methane emissions.
http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/others/news/n0760-arctic-methane-gas-emission-significantly-increased-since-2014-major-new-research/ (http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/others/news/n0760-arctic-methane-gas-emission-significantly-increased-since-2014-major-new-research/)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: johnm33 on November 06, 2016, 07:05:16 PM
How fast and how far?
http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/n0753-vanishing-arctic-how-warming-climate-leaves-remote-permafrost-islands-on-the-precipice/ (http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/n0753-vanishing-arctic-how-warming-climate-leaves-remote-permafrost-islands-on-the-precipice/)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on November 06, 2016, 11:57:30 PM
Saw a documentary about an attempt to row the NWP in 2013, (bad timing). Local Inu located near Banks Island were saying that they were losing ~200 feet per year from their coasts. Elders recalled that in the 1950's their bay remained frozen all year while now it's ice free every summer.


No recriminations for us screwing up their world, just wistful memories.


Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Anne on November 07, 2016, 01:38:45 AM
The thing that gets me is that a good friend of mine, who read physics at university and now works in sophisticated software design and who prides himself on scepticism watched Thin Ice and was contemptuous of the anecdotal evidence of Inuit. He thought it weakened the force of the science and chuntered on about belief in climate change being a religion reinforced by old people going on about "the good old days when I were a lad". To me, it seemed as if his professional training in science (don't get me wrong, I'm all for science, it's the style of training I'm criticising) went much further than making him critical of anecdotal evidence - it made him regard it as the antithesis of science rather than an adjunct. I've come across this a lot with classically educated natural scientists in the UK - a disposition to regard AGW as a religious sect, and inclined to disregard anything that hasn't been scientifically coded and measured.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: abbottisgone on November 07, 2016, 04:02:13 AM
The thing that gets me is that a good friend of mine, who read physics at university and now works in sophisticated software design and who prides himself on scepticism watched Thin Ice and was contemptuous of the anecdotal evidence of Inuit. He thought it weakened the force of the science and chuntered on about belief in climate change being a religion reinforced by old people going on about "the good old days when I were a lad". To me, it seemed as if his professional training in science (don't get me wrong, I'm all for science, it's the style of training I'm criticising) went much further than making him critical of anecdotal evidence - it made him regard it as the antithesis of science rather than an adjunct. I've come across this a lot with classically educated natural scientists in the UK - a disposition to regard AGW as a religious sect, and inclined to disregard anything that hasn't been scientifically coded and measured.
You often find retired engineers telling you everything follows a predator prey-relationship and thermodynamic principles will balance it all out: they're off the head and very aloof people some of them.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 07, 2016, 04:06:43 AM
The thing that gets me is that a good friend of mine, who read physics at university and now works in sophisticated software design and who prides himself on scepticism watched Thin Ice and was contemptuous of the anecdotal evidence of Inuit. He thought it weakened the force of the science and chuntered on about belief in climate change being a religion reinforced by old people going on about "the good old days when I were a lad". To me, it seemed as if his professional training in science (don't get me wrong, I'm all for science, it's the style of training I'm criticising) went much further than making him critical of anecdotal evidence - it made him regard it as the antithesis of science rather than an adjunct. I've come across this a lot with classically educated natural scientists in the UK - a disposition to regard AGW as a religious sect, and inclined to disregard anything that hasn't been scientifically coded and measured.

A word from Asimov on the need to increase the rate our global society's acquisition of wisdom.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: magnamentis on November 07, 2016, 03:36:34 PM
The thing that gets me is that a good friend of mine, who read physics at university and now works in sophisticated software design and who prides himself on scepticism watched Thin Ice and was contemptuous of the anecdotal evidence of Inuit. He thought it weakened the force of the science and chuntered on about belief in climate change being a religion reinforced by old people going on about "the good old days when I were a lad". To me, it seemed as if his professional training in science (don't get me wrong, I'm all for science, it's the style of training I'm criticising) went much further than making him critical of anecdotal evidence - it made him regard it as the antithesis of science rather than an adjunct. I've come across this a lot with classically educated natural scientists in the UK - a disposition to regard AGW as a religious sect, and inclined to disregard anything that hasn't been scientifically coded and measured.

A word from Asimov on the need to increase the rate our global society's acquisition of wisdom.

all true except the "right now" part because it has always been that way and won't change, in parts it's even logical to be like that but of course not the part which is due to human ego-centric behaviours that is obviously meant here. :-)
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: johnm33 on November 07, 2016, 04:59:24 PM
Anne I don't know if you've ever looked into what the 'catastrophists' [as opposed to the uniformitarians] say, but the anecdotal accounts of the ancients tell a very different story to that of science. We [humans] seem to be able to make sense of the world through almost any prism, though of course the truth may be very different to our view. An unfortunate consequence is that whether by default or design we tend to blank out, as simply impossible, anything that contradicts any worldview we've bought into, and rapidly move on.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Anne on November 09, 2016, 07:36:34 AM
I wasn't really talking about the Inuit stories of catastrophe (though they are interesting in themselves) but rather the first hand evidence (if you can call it that - my friend doesn't) of hunters who say that the ice was thicker when they were young men, that the ice stretched further, that they can no longer travel safely by sled on places they always used to when they were young, and so on - the personal stories told in Thin Ice.
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 16, 2016, 09:46:07 PM
The linked SciAm article is entitled: "Thawing Permafrost Would Accelerate Global Warming", the only questions are at what rate and for how long (at least for another 100 years).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thawing-permafrost-would-accelerate-global-warming/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thawing-permafrost-would-accelerate-global-warming/)

Extract: "Thawing Arctic tundra will likely speed up climate change for a century or more. The question is: How drastically?"
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: TerryM on November 28, 2016, 06:33:56 PM
“We have obtained a range of interesting data, but we won’t announce them until scientific papers are published. However, we have proved methane releases are increasing at the shelf. We reached and examined about 20 stations which had been measured earlier and each one showed the releases increasing. To underline that methane mega releases – with the area of over 1 km – are registered only at the East Siberian Shelf,”
said head of the TPU’s Arctic Sea’s Carbon Study International Laboratory, RAS Associate Member Igor Semiletov.
http://tpu.ru/en/news-events/987/ (http://tpu.ru/en/news-events/987/)


The latest word from S&S seems  to be that they won't be giving out more information until their papers are published. :-\


Terry
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: Gray-Wolf on November 30, 2016, 09:07:22 PM
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?cookies=accepted (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?cookies=accepted)

Seems like the soils in higher latitudes are also going to bring us extra GHG forcings along with any permafrost 'burps'
Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 05, 2016, 09:37:33 PM
The linked reference and associate article provide evidence of high carbon release rates from thawed permafrost during the last interglacial period (at rates on the order of seven times current rates):

T. Tesi et al. Massive remobilization of permafrost carbon during post-glacial warming, Nature Communications (2016). DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13653

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13653 (http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13653)

See also:
http://phys.org/news/2016-12-permafrost-carbon.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-12-permafrost-carbon.html)

Extract: "The study, published this week in the journal Nature Communications, documents how Siberian soil once locked in permafrost was carried into the Arctic Ocean during that period at a rate about seven times higher than today."

Title: Re: This is not good.
Post by: idunno on December 05, 2016, 10:50:37 PM
Could some moderator/Vergent (thread starter) consider editing the title of this thread to clarify what is not good, what is being discussed here? I concur that it isn't good, incidentally.
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: Neven on December 05, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
Done.
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: MrVisible on December 12, 2016, 04:07:24 PM
It looks like the methane surge is getting some attention in the press:

BBC: Methane surge needs 'urgent attention' (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38285300)

Washington Post: Atmospheric levels of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, are spiking, scientists report (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/11/atmospheric-levels-of-methane-a-powerful-greenhouse-gas-are-spiking-scientists-report/)

The Telegraph: Surging methane emissions imperil climate goals (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/12/surging-methane-emissions-imperil-climate-goals/)
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: TerryM on December 12, 2016, 05:11:12 PM
It looks like the methane surge is getting some attention in the press:

BBC: Methane surge needs 'urgent attention' ([url]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38285300[/url])

Washington Post: Atmospheric levels of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, are spiking, scientists report ([url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/11/atmospheric-levels-of-methane-a-powerful-greenhouse-gas-are-spiking-scientists-report/[/url])

The Telegraph: Surging methane emissions imperil climate goals ([url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/12/surging-methane-emissions-imperil-climate-goals/[/url])



From the BBC article:




By contrast, global CO2 emissions have flattened somewhat of late, giving hope that the rise in its atmospheric concentration (currently just above 400 parts per million) might also slow.
[/size][/color]

Where on earth did they get that from?


Terry
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: crandles on December 12, 2016, 05:39:49 PM
2003 7367
2008 8738
2013 9776

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2013.ems (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2013.ems)

last 5 years increase 1038
previous 5 years increase 1371


Still growing strongly just not quite as fast after financial crisis as before it?
That context perhaps doesn't sound quite so good.

Passes fact check but possibly still misleading?
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 12, 2016, 07:27:32 PM
2003 7367
2008 8738
2013 9776

[url]http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2013.ems[/url] ([url]http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2013.ems[/url])

last 5 years increase 1038
previous 5 years increase 1371


Still growing strongly just not quite as fast after financial crisis as before it?
That context perhaps doesn't sound quite so good.

Passes fact check but possibly still misleading?


The following is a re-post of crandle's Reply #79 in the "Mauna Loa CO2 2016 Thread", indicating that the October increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration was the highest 12-month increase for any month since the records began in 1980:

"Global not Mauna Loa but

October 2016:       402.31 ppm
October 2015:       398.60 ppm

Increase 3.71 which is a record high increase for any 12 months from any month since record began in 1980!

Edit:
Though not by much - next largest was 3.68 increase for July 2016 over July 2015, and prior to this year the record was 3.59 for Sept 98. Clearly ENSO is one of the main drivers for these departures from normal. So not greatly surprising. "
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: CraigsIsland on December 12, 2016, 07:39:00 PM
It looks like the methane surge is getting some attention in the press:

BBC: Methane surge needs 'urgent attention' ([url]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38285300[/url])

Washington Post: Atmospheric levels of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, are spiking, scientists report ([url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/11/atmospheric-levels-of-methane-a-powerful-greenhouse-gas-are-spiking-scientists-report/[/url])

The Telegraph: Surging methane emissions imperil climate goals ([url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/12/surging-methane-emissions-imperil-climate-goals/[/url])



From the BBC article:




By contrast, global CO2 emissions have flattened somewhat of late, giving hope that the rise in its atmospheric concentration (currently just above 400 parts per million) might also slow.
[/size][/color]

Where on earth did they get that from?


Terry


Great question Terry. I wonder if it was a op-ed piece or actual reporting that the writer was doing? In any case, the writer needs to break down that statement and back it up with analysis. What was written can be interpreted many different ways.
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: crandles on December 12, 2016, 07:45:09 PM
the October increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration was the highest 12-month increase for any month since the records began in 1980:

Yes but 'global atmospheric CO2 concentration increase' does not equal human emissions especially when we know the former is unusually high due to recent very strong El Nino.
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 12, 2016, 09:40:50 PM
the October increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration was the highest 12-month increase for any month since the records began in 1980:

Yes but 'global atmospheric CO2 concentration increase' does not equal human emissions especially when we know the former is unusually high due to recent very strong El Nino.

You seem to believe that the ENSO is random oscillation rather than a Lorenz attractor amplified by global warming, while in fact the ENSO is a classical example of a Lorenz attractor.
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: crandles on December 12, 2016, 10:42:15 PM
Yes but 'global atmospheric CO2 concentration increase' does not equal human emissions especially when we know the former is unusually high due to recent very strong El Nino.

You seem to believe that the ENSO is random oscillation rather than a Lorenz attractor amplified by global warming, while in fact the ENSO is a classical example of a Lorenz attractor.

I agree Lorenz attractor is a better description than 'random oscillation'. Certainly it is endogeneous to the climate system and has some predictability for a limited period in advance rather than being strictly 'random'.

What I am unclear about is how that affects/changes what I wrote. If you want to predict global temperatures and/or natural emissions and/or some other climate variables, a straight line with time and a delayed oscillation with ENSO seems to work pretty well. Yes I accept that does not model changes in frequencies of El Nino or La Nina episodes or of changes in the effect which may well be happening over longer timeframes or even suddenly. However, if our best guess of what will happen to natural emissions & sinks with ENSO is the same as has happened over recent past with ENSO then I don't see how this invalidates what I wrote or even how it makes any significantly different nuance. So please feel free to enlighten me.
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 12, 2016, 11:23:01 PM
So please feel free to enlighten me.


ENSO is but one of several different interacting positive reinforcements of various Earth Systems (Arctic Amplification, Bipolar Seesaw, Permafrost degradation, PDO/ENSO, Ice-Climate Feedback, Hadley Cell expansion, etc.); which Chaos Theory calls Strange (or Lorenz) Attractors.  I believe that such strange attractors can progressively/interactively ratchet-up different Earth System States (see the first attached image) so as to increase the effective climate sensitivity so that some "slow-response" feedbacks (see the second figure from Andrew – Ringberg 2015, where the middle panel indicates an effective climate sensitivity of about 5C) occur within decades rather than millennia. This potential acceleration of the rate of activation of "slow-response" feedbacks close to what happened during the PETM, is supported by such considerations as:

(a) We are radiatively forcing the Earth at well over 10 times the rate experienced during the PETM;

(b) The Antarctic anthropogenically induced ozone hole accelerated the westerly winds over the Southern Ocean; which induced the conveyance of warm Circumpolar Deep Water, CDW, over portions of the Antarctic continental shelves where the CDW has been melting glacial ice at the grounding lines of key marine glaciers, thus initiating Hansen's ice-climate feedback.

(c) Anthropogenic aerosols have been temporarily masking the impacts of anthropogenic radiative forcing; much as dust in paleo times resulted in negative forcing that caused cooling.  However, reticent science has discounted the efficiency of both of these mechanisms leaving the modern world subject to unexpectedly high rates of GMST increases due to the GHGs that accumulated in the atmosphere during the recent faux hiatus.

(d) The ENSO cycle appears to be increasing the frequency of large El Ninos.

Indeed the first linked reference indicates that when analyzing modern day observations: "Severe testing is applied to observed global and regional surface and satellite temperatures and modelled surface temperatures to determine whether these interactions are independent, as in the traditional signal-to-noise model, or whether they interact, resulting in steplike warming."  The reference concludes that indeed steplike warming occurs due to "… a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere…" like the classical Lorenzian attractor case of ENSO decadal cycles.  Such steplike behavior confirms the mechanism that I call "Ratcheting of Quasi-static Equilibrium States" (see the first attachment).  As the authors point-out reticent science likely missed this behavior because: "This may be due in part to science asking the wrong questions."; and they advise that such reticent AR5/CMIP5 researchers should change how they view the output from their models.  For example, the third attached image (see panel "e" of that Figure 6) from the reference shows global warming increasing much faster for a steplike response if ECS is 4.5 than for a the traditional AR5/CMIP5 interpretation; which means that ESLD researchers are exposing society to far more risk of the consequences of high ECS values than AR5/CMIP5 are leading us to believe:

Jones, R. N. and Ricketts, J. H.: Reconciling the signal and noise of atmospheric warming on decadal timescales, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., doi:10.5194/esd-2016-35, in review, 2016.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/ (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/)
&
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/esd-2016-35.pdf (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/esd-2016-35.pdf)


Extract: "This finding does not invalidate the huge literature that assesses long-term (>50 years) climate change as a relatively linear process, and the warming response as being broadly additive with respect to forcing (e.g., Lucarini et al., 2010; Marvel et al., 2015). However, on decadal scales, this is not the case – warming appears to be largely governed by a storage and release process, where heat is stored in the ocean and released in bursts projecting onto modes of climate variability as suggested by Corti et al. (1999). We discuss this further in another paper (Jones and Ricketts, 2016).

This has serious implications for how climate change is understood and applied in a whole range of decision-making contexts.  The characterisation of changing climate risk as a smooth process will leave climate risk as being seriously underdetermined, affecting how adaptation is perceived, planned and undertaken (Jones et al., 2013).

The interaction of change and variability is typical of a complex, rather than mechanistic, system. The possibility of Lorenzian attractors in the ocean-atmosphere acting on decadal time scales was raised by Palmer (1993) and, despite later discussions about the potential for nonlinear responses on those timescales (e.g., Lucarini and Ragone, 2011;Tsonis and Swanson, 2012), very little progress has been made in translating this into applied research that can portray a better understanding of changing climate risk. This may be due in part to science asking the wrong questions.

The signal to noise model of a gradually changing mean surrounded by random climate variability poorly represents warming on decadal timescales. The separation of signal and noise into ‘good’ and ‘bad, likewise, is poor framing for the purposes of understanding and managing risk in fundamentally nonlinear systems (Koutsoyiannis, 2010; Jones, 2015b). However, as we show, the presence of such changes within climate models shows their current potential for investigating nonlinearly changing climate risks. Investigating step changes in temperature and related variables does not indicate a need to fundamentally change how climate modelling is carried out. It does, however, indicate a need to change how the results are analysed."

Furthermore, the second linked (open access) research indicates that the traditional model approach consistently underestimates values of climate sensitivity based on experiments (& paleo data) with dynamic changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations:

Anna S. von der Heydt, Peter Ashwin (Submitted on 12 Apr 2016), "State-dependence of climate sensitivity: attractor constraints and palaeoclimate regimes",    arXiv:1604.03311


http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03311 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03311)
&
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03311v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03311v1.pdf)

Abstract: "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is a frequently used measure to predict long-term climate change. However, both climate models and observational data suggest a rather large uncertainty on climate sensitivity (CS). The reasons for this include: the climate has a strong internal variability on many time scales, it is subject to a non-stationary forcing and it is, on many timescales, out of equilibrium with the changes in the radiative forcing. Palaeo records of past climate variations give insight into how the climate system responds to various forcings although care must be taken of the slow feedback processes before comparing palaeo CS estimates with model estimates. In addition, the fast feedback processes can change their relative strength and time scales over time. Consequently, another reason for the large uncertainty on palaeo climate sensitivity may be the fact that it is strongly state-dependent. Using a conceptual climate model, we explore how CS can be estimated from unperturbed and perturbed model time series. Even in this rather simple model we find a wide range of estimates of the distribution of CS, depending on climate state and variability within the unperturbed attractor. For climate states perturbed by instantaneous doubling of CO2, the sensitivity estimates agree with those for the unperturbed model after transient decay back the attractor. In this sense, climate sensitivity can be seen as a distribution that is a local property of the climate attractor. We also follow the classical climate model approach to sensitivity, where CO2 is prescribed and non-dynamic, leading to CS values consistently smaller than those derived from the experiments with dynamic CO2. This suggests that climate sensitivity estimates from climate models may depend significantly on future dynamics, and not just the level of CO2."

Extract: “... the presence of variability on the attractor on a number of timescales means there are clear and non-trivial distributions of sensitivities, even for unperturbed climates. The distribution of sensitivities depends strongly on the background state as well as on the timescale considered. This suggests that it could be useful to think of the unperturbed climate sensitivity as a local property of the “climate attractor”. For a perturbed system (we have considered instantaneously doubled CO2) this is still useful once an initial transient has decayed. This transient will depend in particular on ocean heat uptake, though also on carbon cycle and biosphere processes that act on time scales roughly equivalent with the forcing time scale. If the climate system has more than one attractor, the perturbed system may clearly evolve to a completely different set of states than the original attractor – a situation that did not occur in the climate model used here. In less extreme cases, there may still be very long transients for some perturbations associated parts of the climate system that are associated with slow feedbacks.

Such perturbations (illustrated in Fig. 1b,d) are not normally applied in climate models used for climate predictions [IPCC, 2013], where climate sensitivity is derived from model simulations considering prescribed, non-dynamic atmospheric CO2. In our conceptual model, we have derived climate sensitivities from both types of perturbations and find that the classical climate model approach (section 2.2, Fig. 4f) leads to significantly lower values of the climate sensitivity than the perturbations away from the attractor with dynamic CO2 (section 2.3, Fig. 11a). This emphasises the importance of including dynamic carbon cycle processes into climate prediction models. Moreover, it supports the idea that the real observed climate response may indeed be larger than the model predicted one, because those models never will include all feedback processes in the climate system.“
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 12, 2016, 11:27:04 PM
So please feel free to enlighten me.


The linked reference compares model projections against the 20th century observations and finds that no model matched all observations and that model projections for ENSO showed the most variability.  Thus if ENSO is a driver for a Lorenz attractor induce amplification of climate sensitivity, then we would not expect the CMIP5 projections to have adequately identified this risk:

Järvinen, H., Seitola, T., Silén, J., and Räisänen, J.: Multi-annual modes in the 20th century temperature variability in reanalyses and CMIP5 models, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4097-4109, doi:10.5194/gmd-9-4097-2016, 2016.

http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/9/4097/2016/ (http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/9/4097/2016/)

Abstract. A performance expectation is that Earth system models simulate well the climate mean state and the climate variability. To test this expectation, we decompose two 20th century reanalysis data sets and 12 CMIP5 model simulations for the years 1901–2005 of the monthly mean near-surface air temperature using randomised multi-channel singular spectrum analysis (RMSSA). Due to the relatively short time span, we concentrate on the representation of multi-annual variability which the RMSSA method effectively captures as separate and mutually orthogonal spatio-temporal components. This decomposition is a unique way to separate statistically significant quasi-periodic oscillations from one another in high-dimensional data sets.

The main results are as follows. First, the total spectra for the two reanalysis data sets are remarkably similar in all timescales, except that the spectral power in ERA-20C is systematically slightly higher than in 20CR. Apart from the slow components related to multi-decadal periodicities, ENSO oscillations with approximately 3.5- and 5-year periods are the most prominent forms of variability in both reanalyses. In 20CR, these are relatively slightly more pronounced than in ERA-20C. Since about the 1970s, the amplitudes of the 3.5- and 5-year oscillations have increased, presumably due to some combination of forced climate change, intrinsic low-frequency climate variability, or change in global observing network. Second, none of the 12 coupled climate models closely reproduce all aspects of the reanalysis spectra, although some models represent many aspects well. For instance, the GFDL-ESM2M model has two nicely separated ENSO periods although they are relatively too prominent as compared with the reanalyses. There is an extensive Supplement and YouTube videos to illustrate the multi-annual variability of the data sets.

Edi, see also:

https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/11/lorenz-attractors-fluids-chaos-and.html (https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/11/lorenz-attractors-fluids-chaos-and.html)
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 12, 2016, 11:51:52 PM
So please feel free to enlighten me.

Also, it is well known that the primary source of CO₂ fluctuations over the ENSO cycle is due to changes in land vegetation in the tropics (from 30N to 30S), rather than due to emissions from the ocean.  Second, the first reference (and associated image) shows that there has been a two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations over the past several decades.  Third, the second reference indicates global warming is increasing the frequency of extreme El Ninos.  As strong El Ninos increase both the temperature and induce droughts in the tropics it is clear that CO₂ emissions increase from the tropical land vegetation during strong El Ninos:

Wang, X., Piao, S., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Myneni, R.B., Cox, P., Heimann, M., Miller, J., Peng, S.P., Wang, T., Yang, H. and Chen, A., (2014), "A two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations", Nature, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/nature12915.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature12915.html#extended-data (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature12915.html#extended-data)

http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/files/2014/01/wang-nature-2014.pdf (http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/files/2014/01/wang-nature-2014.pdf)

Abstract: "Earth system models project that the tropical land carbon sink will decrease in size in response to an increase in warming and drought during this century, probably causing a positive climate feedback. But available data are too limited at present to test the predicted changes in the tropical carbon balance in response to climate change. Long-term atmospheric carbon dioxide data provide a global record that integrates the interannual variability of the global carbon balance. Multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that most of this variability originates in the terrestrial biosphere. In particular, the year-to-year variations in the atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rate (CGR) are thought to be the result of fluctuations in the carbon fluxes of tropical land areas. Recently, the response of CGR to tropical climate interannual variability was used to put a constraint on the sensitivity of tropical land carbon to climate change. Here we use the long-term CGR record from Mauna Loa and the South Pole to show that the sensitivity of CGR to tropical temperature interannual variability has increased by a factor of 1.9 ± 0.3 in the past five decades. We find that this sensitivity was greater when tropical land regions experienced drier conditions. This suggests that the sensitivity of CGR to interannual temperature variations is regulated by moisture conditions, even though the direct correlation between CGR and tropical precipitation is weak. We also find that present terrestrial carbon cycle models do not capture the observed enhancement in CGR sensitivity in the past five decades. More realistic model predictions of future carbon cycle and climate feedbacks require a better understanding of the processes driving the response of tropical ecosystems to drought and warming."

Caption for image: " Figure 1 | Change in detrended anomalies in CGR and tropical MAT, in
dCGR/dMAT and in ªintCGR over the past five decades. a, Change in detrended CGR anomalies at Mauna Loa Observatory (black) and in detrended tropical MAT anomalies (red) derived from the CRU data set16. Tropical MAT is calculated as the spatial average over vegetated tropical lands (23uN to 23u S).  The highest correlations between detrended CGR and detrended tropicalMAT are obtained when no time lags are applied (R50.53, P,0.01). b, Change in dCGR/dMAT during the past five decades. c, Change in cintCGR during the past five decades. In b and c, different colours showdCGR/dMATor cint CGR estimated with moving time windows of different lengths (20 yr and 25 yr). Years on the horizontal axis indicate the central year of the moving time window used to derive dCGR/dMAT or cintCGR (for example, 1970 represents period 1960–1979 in the 20-yr time window). The shaded areas show the confidence interval of dCGR/dMATand cintCGR, as appropriate, derived using 20-yr or 25-yr moving windows in 500 bootstrap estimates."



Wenju Cai, Agus Santoso, Guojian Wang, Sang-Wook Yeh, Soon-Il An, Kim M. Cobb, Mat Collins, Eric Guilyardi, Fei-Fei Jin, Jong-Seong Kug, Matthieu Lengaigne, Michael J. McPhaden, Ken Takahashi, Axel Timmermann, Gabriel Vecchi, Masahiro Watanabe & Lixin Wu (2015), "ENSO and greenhouse warming", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 5, Pages: 849–859, doi:10.1038/nclimate2743


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n9/full/nclimate2743.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n9/full/nclimate2743.html)

Abstract: "The El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the dominant climate phenomenon affecting extreme weather conditions worldwide. Its response to greenhouse warming has challenged scientists for decades, despite model agreement on projected changes in mean state. Recent studies have provided new insights into the elusive links between changes in ENSO and in the mean state of the Pacific climate. The projected slow-down in Walker circulation is expected to weaken equatorial Pacific Ocean currents, boosting the occurrences of eastward-propagating warm surface anomalies that characterize observed extreme El Niño events. Accelerated equatorial Pacific warming, particularly in the east, is expected to induce extreme rainfall in the eastern equatorial Pacific and extreme equatorward swings of the Pacific convergence zones, both of which are features of extreme El Niño. The frequency of extreme La Niña is also expected to increase in response to more extreme El Niños, an accelerated maritime continent warming and surface-intensified ocean warming. ENSO-related catastrophic weather events are thus likely to occur more frequently with unabated greenhouse-gas emissions. But model biases and recent observed strengthening of the Walker circulation highlight the need for further testing as new models, observations and insights become available."


See also, for input from Peter Cox:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v494/n7437/full/nature11882.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v494/n7437/full/nature11882.html)

Extract: "We estimate that over tropical land from latitude 30° north to 30° south, warming alone will release 53 ± 17 gigatonnes of carbon per kelvin."
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: Shared Humanity on December 13, 2016, 04:32:12 AM
Don't know how to cross post so I copied and pasted from "What's New in the Arctic?" thread.

Posted by newbie Cid_Yama

Arctic methane gas emission 'significantly increased since 2014' - major new research
New expedition in Laptev Sea suggests increase in the rate of underwater permafrost degradation.

    'The area of spread of methane mega-emissions has significantly increased in comparison with the data obtained in the period from 2011 to 2014,' Semiletov said. 'These observations may indicate that the rate of degradation of underwater permafrost has increased.'

    Five years ago Semiletov reported:

        'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across....These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere... Earlier we found torch or fountain-like structures like this...

        'This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing. Over a relatively small area, we found more than 100, but over a wider area, there should be thousands of them.'



    'We have reason to believe that such emissions may change the climate. This is due to the fact that the reserves of methane under the submarine permafrost exceed the methane content in the atmosphere is many thousands of times.

    'If 3-4% from underwater go into the atmosphere within 10 years, the methane concentration therein (in the atmosphere) will increase by tens to hundreds of times, and this can lead to rapid climate warming."

    The new expedition was organised by the Laboratory of Arctic Research in Pacific Oceanology Institute of the Far Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences in cooperation with Tomsk Polytechnic University (TPU), the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, and was  funded by the Russian Government and the Russian Science Foundation.


Link....

http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/others/news/n0760-arctic-methane-gas-emission-significantly-increased-since-2014-major-new-research/ (http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/others/news/n0760-arctic-methane-gas-emission-significantly-increased-since-2014-major-new-research/)
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: Cid_Yama on December 13, 2016, 12:41:53 PM
Thank you, SH.  I saw the recommendation to cross post.  If I may I will repost the bracketed version to separate what was said 5 years ago from today.  It needs to be clear that this has been going on for some time and is now far worse.

 Arctic methane gas emission 'significantly increased since 2014' - major new research
New expedition in Laptev Sea suggests increase in the rate of underwater permafrost degradation.
'The area of spread of methane mega-emissions has significantly increased in comparison with the data obtained in the period from 2011 to 2014,' Semiletov said. 'These observations may indicate that the rate of degradation of underwater permafrost has increased.'

Five years ago Semiletov reported:
'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across....These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere... Earlier we found torch or fountain-like structures like this...

'This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing. Over a relatively small area, we found more than 100, but over a wider area, there should be thousands of them.'


'We have reason to believe that such emissions may change the climate. This is due to the fact that the reserves of methane under the submarine permafrost exceed the methane content in the atmosphere is many thousands of times.

'If 3-4% from underwater go into the atmosphere within 10 years, the methane concentration therein (in the atmosphere) will increase by tens to hundreds of times, and this can lead to rapid climate warming."

The new expedition was organised by the Laboratory of Arctic Research in Pacific Oceanology Institute of the Far Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences in cooperation with Tomsk Polytechnic University (TPU), the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, and was  funded by the Russian Government and the Russian Science Foundation.

link (http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/others/news/n0760-arctic-methane-gas-emission-significantly-increased-since-2014-major-new-research/)

If I may expound, the relic permafrost formed when the ESAS was above water.  It was submerged around 8,000 years ago and from that time has degraded from the warmer subsea regime and geothermal flux from below.

This relic permafrost has acted as a cap to methane release, until now, where the methane is finding pathways to release.

As the hydrate stability zone has moved deeper, hydrates have dissociated and free methane gas has been prevented from release by this relic permafrost cap.

So it isn't so much the hydrates dissociating, as the free gas from prior dissociation that is now releasing. (although hydrates continue to dissociate from the geothermal flux from below and the warming pulse from the new warmer regime moving deeper into the sediments.)

Since the permafrost cap formed under far colder conditions when it was exposed to the atmosphere, it will continue to degrade, releasing more and more methane.

Since the average depth of the shelf is 50 meters, the released methane enters the atmosphere without interacting with the water column.

Since the ESAS covers 2 million Km2, there is no way for us to prevent it's release.  It is inevitable.   

     
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: TerryM on December 13, 2016, 03:54:50 PM
Thanks Cid


Your explanation of the ESAS problem agrees with S&S's talks from back in (2011?), and incidentally with my own understanding of the situation.


My only caveat would be that the ESAS is not the only region inundated by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age & that the vast region that once made up Beringia will exhibit similar behavior.


Terry
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: nicibiene on December 13, 2016, 05:51:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mfCaeiy9VE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mfCaeiy9VE)

Really incredible...no word about the real methane source. Found it at a serious German newspaper, with normally a lot news about climate change.

Same news at Spiegel and Stern. All nearly the same text, all without any function for comments, only that article mentions some problems with permafrost. http://m.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/a-1125563.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=https://www.google.de/ (http://m.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/a-1125563.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=https://www.google.de/)
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: TerryM on December 13, 2016, 06:51:26 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mfCaeiy9VE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mfCaeiy9VE)

Really incredible...no word about the real methane source. Found it at a serious German newspaper, with normally a lot news about climate change.



The angel of death has such beautiful wings.


Terry
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: Iceismylife on December 13, 2016, 08:25:05 PM
Don't know how to cross post so I copied and pasted from "What's New in the Arctic?" thread.

...
I am by no means good at this stuff but...

Hit the quote button and see what it does.

{quote} hi {/quote}

Now without the shifts.

hi
Variations on this theme abound.
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: frankendoodle on December 21, 2016, 07:47:51 PM
Approx what percentage of the CH4 released from clathrates is absorbed by sea water and how much escapes our atmosphere?
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: DoomInTheUK on December 23, 2016, 12:49:10 PM
Frankendoodle - it's a function of depth (as well as temperature and saturation). It can be anywhere from 0+ to 99+%.

From the 50M depth of the ESS it's likely to be around 90+%.
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: morganism on March 23, 2017, 10:45:43 PM
Methane Hydrate: Killer cause of Earth's greatest mass extinction

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871174X16300488 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871174X16300488)

"The most significant marker of this event is the negative δ13C shift and rebound recorded in marine carbonates with a duration ranging from 2000 to 19 000 years depending on localities and sedimentation rates. Leading causes for the event are Siberian trap volcanism and the emission of greenhouse gases with consequent global warming. Measurements of gases vaulted in calcite of end Permian brachiopods and whole rock document significant differences in normal atmospheric equilibrium concentration in gases between modern and end Permian seawaters. The gas composition of the end Permian brachiopod-inclusions reflects dramatically higher seawater carbon dioxide and methane contents leading up to the biotic event. Initial global warming of 8–11 °C sourced by isotopically light carbon dioxide from volcanic emissions triggered the release of isotopically lighter methane from permafrost and shelf sediment methane hydrates. Consequently, the huge quantities of methane emitted into the atmosphere and the oceans accelerated global warming and marked the negative δ13C spike observed in marine carbonates, documenting the onset of the mass extinction period. The rapidity of the methane hydrate emission lasting from several years to thousands of years was tempered by the equally rapid oxidation of the atmospheric and oceanic methane that gradually reduced its warming potential but not before global warming had reached levels lethal to most life on land and in the oceans."
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: Andre on March 26, 2017, 03:35:09 PM
More evidence of gas hydrates within the permafrost and how widespread they might be.

Relic Gas Hydrate and Possibility of their Existence in Permafrost within the South-Tambey Gas Field

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Evgeny_Chuvilin/publication/273574764_SPE-166925_Relic_Gas_Hydrate_and_Possibility_of_their_Existence_in_Permafrost_within_the_South-Tambey_Gas_Field/links/5505d5af0cf231de077784d1.pdf (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Evgeny_Chuvilin/publication/273574764_SPE-166925_Relic_Gas_Hydrate_and_Possibility_of_their_Existence_in_Permafrost_within_the_South-Tambey_Gas_Field/links/5505d5af0cf231de077784d1.pdf)

Abstract:

Isolated gas and gas hydrates are serious geohazards in the process of oil and gas field development (Аrе, 1998;Yakushev & Chuvilin, 2000; Dallimore et al., 2001). The particular hazard is the large gas accumulations confined in the sand and loamy sand horizons in the permafrost at depths up to 200 meters. Such gas accumulations are found in a number of Yamal gas fields and South-Tambey gas field (STGF) among them. There are some indirect signs that they may be relic gas hydrates formed earlier in specific hydrate accumulation conditions (Chuvilin et al., 1998; Yakishev, 2009). Up to now, they might be preserved in the permafrost due to the effect of gas hydrate self-preservation at temperatures below zero. These gas hydrates lying above the modern gas hydrate stability zone are in a metastable state and very sensitive to various anthropogenic influences. While drilling and during geotechnical operations in the areas of relic gas hydrates locations, various technical complications up to blow out may occur.

Our research suggest that at the present time in permafrost horizons within South-Tambey gas field relict methane gas hydrates can potentially occur at depths of 150-200 m and deeper into the GHSZ – as interpermafrost and subpermafrost gas hydrates formations with more complex composition. Relict gas hydrate formations in the frozen sediments are characterized by high sensitivity to thermal and chemical effects. Rising of temperatures and melting hydrate-bearing frozen sediments in metastable state due to self-preservation effect, will be accompanied by an active dissociation of gas hydrates and methane emissions. These mathematical and experimental modelings were performed on Yamal peninsula with parameters from South Tambey field. But this situation, with shallow gas inside the permafrost is not a specificity of Yamal. Other Arctic areas which have been under similar glacio-eustatic and PVT changes could also contain shallow relic gas hydrates.


Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: salbers on April 14, 2017, 07:13:42 PM
Thought I'd add this review article in the present thread as well:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000534/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000534/full)

Here are some details on satellite methane observations and modeling methods.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/14371/2016 (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/14371/2016)

They mention an upcoming instrument called TROPOMI that should give some improved methane measurements from space, with a projected launch this August.

http://www.tropomi.eu/ (http://www.tropomi.eu/)

And another article on figuring out how much methane is coming from the ESAS:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/4147/2016/ (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/4147/2016/)
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: Gray-Wolf on April 19, 2017, 11:22:31 AM
http://www.sciencealert.com/photos-reveal-more-than-200-bright-blue-arctic-lakes-have-started-bubbling-with-methane-gas (http://www.sciencealert.com/photos-reveal-more-than-200-bright-blue-arctic-lakes-have-started-bubbling-with-methane-gas)

Lakes 'Bubbling like Jacuzzi's' across parts of the Russian permafrost. With last years photo's of the 'pingo like' gas mounds now growing across Yamal I'm thinking one hot summer could lead us into an uptick in CH4/CO2 across the region?
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: Buddy on April 19, 2017, 01:02:45 PM
I'm thinking one hot summer could lead us into an uptick in CH4/CO2 across the region?

I'm afraid "the table is set" for a nasty summer in Russia.  Warm winter.....melting permafrost.  Even if the spring and summer is "moderate".....Russia could be in for some nasty surprises.

Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: mati on April 19, 2017, 04:56:58 PM
destabilization of sea methane clathrates is i think also a bigger problem..  while the PETM was caused potentially by seafloor rising, could a similar destabilization be caused by the warming of the oceans...

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/July-2008/Puddingstone-second-slice (https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/July-2008/Puddingstone-second-slice)

An early (and still favoured) explanation is that the PETM was triggered by destabilisation of subsea methane hydrate deposits at quite shallow depths within the sediments draping the continental slopes (Dickens, 1999). But what could cause such destabilisation? One possible process is uplift of the sea floor – reducing the weight of water bearing down on the unstable hydrates (Maclennan and Jones, 2006). The key to their idea lies in modern-day Iceland, with its volcanoes, and the hot springs in which field geologists can relax happily in the worst of the weather (Figure 6). The Iceland hotspot already existed 55 million years ago (Figure 7).
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: TerryM on April 19, 2017, 08:07:14 PM
destabilization of sea methane clathrates is i think also a bigger problem..  while the PETM was caused potentially by seafloor rising, could a similar destabilization be caused by the warming of the oceans...

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/July-2008/Puddingstone-second-slice (https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/July-2008/Puddingstone-second-slice)

An early (and still favoured) explanation is that the PETM was triggered by destabilisation of subsea methane hydrate deposits at quite shallow depths within the sediments draping the continental slopes (Dickens, 1999). But what could cause such destabilisation? One possible process is uplift of the sea floor – reducing the weight of water bearing down on the unstable hydrates (Maclennan and Jones, 2006). The key to their idea lies in modern-day Iceland, with its volcanoes, and the hot springs in which field geologists can relax happily in the worst of the weather (Figure 6). The Iceland hotspot already existed 55 million years ago (Figure 7).


This is the possibility I fear for the Newfoundland region. Still rebounding from the ice age & WAW creeping steadily higher and now onto the banks. A tsunami could do major damage.


Terry
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: mati on April 19, 2017, 10:54:29 PM
ah terry, but what would a newf say?
i be risin
y'ar
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: Cate on April 20, 2017, 12:24:55 AM
A Newf would say, "Woof woof."

A Newf is a dog.

I am a Newfoundlander. :)
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: salbers on April 20, 2017, 01:44:11 AM
Frankendoodle - it's a function of depth (as well as temperature and saturation). It can be anywhere from 0+ to 99+%.

From the 50M depth of the ESS it's likely to be around 90+%.
I've seen a diagram (hope I can find it again) where this is a function of bubble size also.
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: jai mitchell on April 21, 2017, 05:18:41 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/21/scientists-just-found-telltale-evidence-of-an-ancient-methane-explosion-in-the-arctic-ocean/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/21/scientists-just-found-telltale-evidence-of-an-ancient-methane-explosion-in-the-arctic-ocean/)

Scientists just discovered telltale evidence of an ancient methane explosion in the Arctic ocean

Grasby, along with a team of scientists from institutes in Canada and Europe, discovered evidence for the ancient methane leak during a recent expedition to remote Ellef Ringnes Island in the Canadian Arctic, which they have described in a paper published this month in the Geological Society of America Bulletin. There, they found a cluster of 139 strange, rocky mounds, which they say were formed by a rapid release of large amounts of methane from the ocean floor.


paper here:
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/early/2017/04/07/B31601.1.abstract (http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/early/2017/04/07/B31601.1.abstract)
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: TerryM on April 21, 2017, 08:50:40 PM
We experienced an eruption at a local golf course a while back.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdYum6v48S8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdYum6v48S8)


I snuck in a few weeks later and found little ongoing excitment. I planned to return in the winter to see if bubble streams were caught in the ice, but it hasn't frozen around here in the last two years. Damn Global Warming!


 The video is short & many will find it disturbing. No gas lines or landfill in the area.


If big eruptions were happening long ago, could my small local event be a precursor of what's to come?


Terry
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: Shared Humanity on April 21, 2017, 11:48:16 PM
We experienced an eruption at a local golf course a while back.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdYum6v48S8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdYum6v48S8)


I snuck in a few weeks later and found little ongoing excitment. I planned to return in the winter to see if bubble streams were caught in the ice, but it hasn't frozen around here in the last two years. Damn Global Warming!


 The video is short & many will find it disturbing. No gas lines or landfill in the area.


If big eruptions were happening long ago, could my small local event be a precursor of what's to come?


Terry

Where is this?
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: TerryM on April 22, 2017, 12:32:40 AM

SH

Just outside London Ontario Canada.


If you're thinking of heading that way I can send a map or gps coordinates.


A huge snapping turtle survived the roil, and interestingly there were small, golf ball sized holes near by that must have pushed through at least 12' of very dense clay to reach the surface.


I had really hoped that during winter I would have been able to pop and light some ice bubbles, but alas, no ice.


Terry
Title: Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
Post by: salbers on May 06, 2017, 11:15:49 PM
Unsure if it was posted yet - this paper suggests a role of methane hydrates in the great Permian Extinction around 230 million years ago.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871174X16300488 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871174X16300488)