Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: This is not good (methane clathrates)  (Read 75738 times)

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3954
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #200 on: December 05, 2016, 10:56:56 PM »
Done.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin


TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #202 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'

Washington Post: Atmospheric levels of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, are spiking, scientists report

The Telegraph: Surging methane emissions imperil climate goals



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

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1723
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #203 on: December 12, 2016, 05:39:49 PM »
2003 7367
2008 8738
2013 9776

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?

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #204 on: December 12, 2016, 07:27:32 PM »
2003 7367
2008 8738
2013 9776

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?


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. "
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

CraigsIsland

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #205 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'

Washington Post: Atmospheric levels of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, are spiking, scientists report

The Telegraph: Surging methane emissions imperil climate goals



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.

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1723
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #206 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.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #207 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.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1723
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #208 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.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #209 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/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/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.“
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #210 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/

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
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 12:20:38 AM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #211 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://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

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

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."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2017
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #212 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/

Cid_Yama

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #213 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

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.   

     
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 01:10:56 PM by Cid_Yama »

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #214 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

nicibiene

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
    • www.nicibiene.de
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #215 on: December 13, 2016, 05:51:46 PM »
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/
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 06:01:53 PM by nicibiene »
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” –“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.” Albert Einstein

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #216 on: December 13, 2016, 06:51:26 PM »
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

Iceismylife

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #217 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.

frankendoodle

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #218 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?

DoomInTheUK

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #219 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+%.

morganism

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #220 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

"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."

Andre

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #221 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

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.



salbers

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #222 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

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

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/

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

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/4147/2016/
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 11:15:53 PM by salbers »

Gray-Wolf

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 591
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #223 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

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?
KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
 
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Buddy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1923
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #224 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.

FOX (TASS) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

mati

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #225 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

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).
and so it goes

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #226 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

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

mati

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #227 on: April 19, 2017, 10:54:29 PM »
ah terry, but what would a newf say?
i be risin
y'ar
and so it goes

Cate

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #228 on: April 20, 2017, 12:24:55 AM »
A Newf would say, "Woof woof."

A Newf is a dog.

I am a Newfoundlander. :)

salbers

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #229 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.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1653
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #230 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/

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
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #231 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


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

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2017
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #232 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


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?

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #233 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

salbers

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good (methane clathrates)
« Reply #234 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