Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Arctic Methane Release  (Read 245817 times)

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #900 on: February 07, 2019, 05:49:01 AM »
The paper does find other electron acceptors than sulfate in anaerobic methane oxidation.

" horizons of potential AOM coupled either to sulfate reduction in a sulfate-methane transition zone (SMTZ) or to the reduction of other electron acceptors, such as iron, manganese or nitrate. "

I suspect that we won't get to largescale Canfield conditions.

sidd
 

Regarding canfield oceans, I find this video to be very informative
"When the ice goes..... F***

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #901 on: February 07, 2019, 09:09:31 PM »
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131125172113.htm
From 2013

“The seafloor off the coast of Northern Siberia is releasing more than twice the amount of methane as previously estimated, according to new research results.”

And as noted many times upthread, subsequent expeditions found that the estimated releases from S&S were way too high.

Published in 2016, field work done in 2014:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016GL068977

Quote
The Laptev and East Siberian Seas have been proposed as a substantial source of methane (CH4) to the atmosphere. During summer 2014, we made unique high-resolution simultaneous measurements of CH4 in the atmosphere above, and surface waters of, the Laptev and East Siberian Seas. Turbulence-driven sea-air fluxes along the ship’s track were derived from these observations; an average diffusive flux of 2.99mgm2 d1 was calculated for the Laptev Sea and for the ice-free portions of the western East Siberian Sea, 3.80mgm2 d1. Although seafloor bubble plumes were observed at two locations in the study area, our calculate ions suggest that regionally, turbulence-driven diffusive flux alone accounts for the observed atmospheric CH4 enhancements, with only a local, limited role for bubble fluxes, in contrast to earlier reports. CH4 in subice seawater in certain areas suggests that a short-lived flux also occurs annually at ice-out.

Quote
Assuming an average CH4 concentration for the entire water column, we calculated
the necessary sustained fluxes to raise the atmospheric concentrations by various amounts. We
assumed a very shallow 200m mixing height (very low inversions were observed during SWERUS-C3) [Tjernström et al., 2015], a 35m water column, and an 80 ppb atmospheric CH4 enhancement, raising atmospheric CH4 from apparent background levels of about 1.87 ppm to 1.95 ppm. This requires a sustained CH4 flux of about ~12mgm2 d1, similar to the fluxes we observed during SWERUS in areas near subsea gas seeps on the ESAS (Table 2). An average flux near ESAS subsea seeps of 13mgm2 d1 was reported previously [Sergienko et al., 2012]. Sustaining higher atmospheric CH4 concentrations is even more difficult: to sustain 2.1ppm CH4 in the atmosphere (35m water column, 200m mixing height) would require a flux similar to a subarctic wetland (~36mgm2 d1) [Bartlett and Harriss, 1993] or an order of magnitude above the average fluxes we observed in the ice-free ESAS.

Air sampling in October 2014 reported in a paper published in 2018:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/B_Belan/publication/322991438_Distribution_of_Trace_Gases_and_Aerosols_in_the_Troposphere_Over_Siberia_During_Wildfires_of_Summer_2012/links/5b1a7664a6fdcca67b66aad9/Distribution-of-Trace-Gases-and-Aerosols-in-the-Troposphere-Over-Siberia-During-Wildfires-of-Summer-2012.pdf

Quote
Abstract—Data on the vertical distribution of gaseous and aerosol composition of air, measured onboard the Tu-134 Optic airborne laboratory in October 2014 over the Kara Sea and coastal areas of the Russian Arctic, are presented. We revealed the specific features of the altitude distributions of CO2 and aerosol over the Kara Sea as compared to continental conditions. No significant deviations from continental distributions are found for CH4, CO, and O3.

From a study published in 2016 analyzing data from methane concentrations in 2012:

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/4147/2016/acp-16-4147-2016.pdf

Quote
Abstract. Subsea permafrost and hydrates in the East
Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) constitute a substantial carbon
pool, and a potentially large source of methane to the atmosphere.
Previous studies based on interpolated oceanographic
campaigns estimated atmospheric emissions from this area
at 8–17 TgCH4 yr􀀀1. Here, we propose insights based on
atmospheric observations to evaluate these estimates. The
comparison of high-resolution simulations of atmospheric
methane mole fractions to continuous methane observations
during the whole year 2012 confirms the high variability and
heterogeneity of the methane releases from ESAS. A reference
scenario with ESAS emissions of 8 TgCH4 yr􀀀1, in
the lower part of previously estimated emissions, is found
to largely overestimate atmospheric observations in winter,
likely related to overestimated methane leakage through sea
ice. In contrast, in summer, simulations are more consistent
with observations. Based on a comprehensive statistical
analysis of the observations and of the simulations, annual
methane emissions from ESAS are estimated to range from
0.0 to 4.5 TgCH4 yr􀀀1. Isotopic observations suggest a biogenic
origin (either terrestrial or marine) of the methane in
air masses originating from ESAS during late summer 2008
and 2009.

A paper published in 2016 reporting on data collected during a sea cruise in 2015:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Skorokhod/publication/309656440_Observations_of_atmospheric_methane_and_its_stable_isotope_ratio_d13C_over_the_Russian_Arctic_seas_from_ship_cruises_in_the_summer_and_autumn_of_2015/links/59df6fbaaca27258f7d78b26/Observations-of-atmospheric-methane-and-its-stable-isotope-ratio-d13C-over-the-Russian-Arctic-seas-from-ship-cruises-in-the-summer-and-autumn-of-2015.pdf

Quote
In the shelf area of the Laptev Sea, the methane
concentration varied from 1940 to 1960 ppb. In the
delta of the Lena River, it increased, averaging
2000 ppb. In the Sipy area (77° N, 126° E), sonar measurements
revealed gas seeps (presumably methane)
from bottom sediments [10]. At the same time, only
insignificant peaks of methane concentrations (up to
1946 ppb) were registered, when the ship was in the gas
seeping area.


Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #902 on: February 07, 2019, 09:55:30 PM »
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131125172113.htm
From 2013

“The seafloor off the coast of Northern Siberia is releasing more than twice the amount of methane as previously estimated, according to new research results.”

And as noted many times upthread, subsequent expeditions found that the estimated releases from S&S were way too high.

Published in 2016, field work done in 2014:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016GL068977

Quote
The Laptev and East Siberian Seas have been proposed as a substantial source of methane (CH4) to the atmosphere. During summer 2014, we made unique high-resolution simultaneous measurements of CH4 in the atmosphere above, and surface waters of, the Laptev and East Siberian Seas. Turbulence-driven sea-air fluxes along the ship’s track were derived from these observations; an average diffusive flux of 2.99mgm2 d1 was calculated for the Laptev Sea and for the ice-free portions of the western East Siberian Sea, 3.80mgm2 d1. Although seafloor bubble plumes were observed at two locations in the study area, our calculate ions suggest that regionally, turbulence-driven diffusive flux alone accounts for the observed atmospheric CH4 enhancements, with only a local, limited role for bubble fluxes, in contrast to earlier reports. CH4 in subice seawater in certain areas suggests that a short-lived flux also occurs annually at ice-out.

Quote
Assuming an average CH4 concentration for the entire water column, we calculated
the necessary sustained fluxes to raise the atmospheric concentrations by various amounts. We
assumed a very shallow 200m mixing height (very low inversions were observed during SWERUS-C3) [Tjernström et al., 2015], a 35m water column, and an 80 ppb atmospheric CH4 enhancement, raising atmospheric CH4 from apparent background levels of about 1.87 ppm to 1.95 ppm. This requires a sustained CH4 flux of about ~12mgm2 d1, similar to the fluxes we observed during SWERUS in areas near subsea gas seeps on the ESAS (Table 2). An average flux near ESAS subsea seeps of 13mgm2 d1 was reported previously [Sergienko et al., 2012]. Sustaining higher atmospheric CH4 concentrations is even more difficult: to sustain 2.1ppm CH4 in the atmosphere (35m water column, 200m mixing height) would require a flux similar to a subarctic wetland (~36mgm2 d1) [Bartlett and Harriss, 1993] or an order of magnitude above the average fluxes we observed in the ice-free ESAS.

Air sampling in October 2014 reported in a paper published in 2018:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/B_Belan/publication/322991438_Distribution_of_Trace_Gases_and_Aerosols_in_the_Troposphere_Over_Siberia_During_Wildfires_of_Summer_2012/links/5b1a7664a6fdcca67b66aad9/Distribution-of-Trace-Gases-and-Aerosols-in-the-Troposphere-Over-Siberia-During-Wildfires-of-Summer-2012.pdf

Quote
Abstract—Data on the vertical distribution of gaseous and aerosol composition of air, measured onboard the Tu-134 Optic airborne laboratory in October 2014 over the Kara Sea and coastal areas of the Russian Arctic, are presented. We revealed the specific features of the altitude distributions of CO2 and aerosol over the Kara Sea as compared to continental conditions. No significant deviations from continental distributions are found for CH4, CO, and O3.

From a study published in 2016 analyzing data from methane concentrations in 2012:

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/4147/2016/acp-16-4147-2016.pdf

Quote
Abstract. Subsea permafrost and hydrates in the East
Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) constitute a substantial carbon
pool, and a potentially large source of methane to the atmosphere.
Previous studies based on interpolated oceanographic
campaigns estimated atmospheric emissions from this area
at 8–17 TgCH4 yr􀀀1. Here, we propose insights based on
atmospheric observations to evaluate these estimates. The
comparison of high-resolution simulations of atmospheric
methane mole fractions to continuous methane observations
during the whole year 2012 confirms the high variability and
heterogeneity of the methane releases from ESAS. A reference
scenario with ESAS emissions of 8 TgCH4 yr􀀀1, in
the lower part of previously estimated emissions, is found
to largely overestimate atmospheric observations in winter,
likely related to overestimated methane leakage through sea
ice. In contrast, in summer, simulations are more consistent
with observations. Based on a comprehensive statistical
analysis of the observations and of the simulations, annual
methane emissions from ESAS are estimated to range from
0.0 to 4.5 TgCH4 yr􀀀1. Isotopic observations suggest a biogenic
origin (either terrestrial or marine) of the methane in
air masses originating from ESAS during late summer 2008
and 2009.

A paper published in 2016 reporting on data collected during a sea cruise in 2015:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Skorokhod/publication/309656440_Observations_of_atmospheric_methane_and_its_stable_isotope_ratio_d13C_over_the_Russian_Arctic_seas_from_ship_cruises_in_the_summer_and_autumn_of_2015/links/59df6fbaaca27258f7d78b26/Observations-of-atmospheric-methane-and-its-stable-isotope-ratio-d13C-over-the-Russian-Arctic-seas-from-ship-cruises-in-the-summer-and-autumn-of-2015.pdf

Quote
In the shelf area of the Laptev Sea, the methane
concentration varied from 1940 to 1960 ppb. In the
delta of the Lena River, it increased, averaging
2000 ppb. In the Sipy area (77° N, 126° E), sonar measurements
revealed gas seeps (presumably methane)
from bottom sediments [10]. At the same time, only
insignificant peaks of methane concentrations (up to
1946 ppb) were registered, when the ship was in the gas
seeping area.

That was not just estimates, it was field observations. Your denial of the methane threat is in itself a threat. We’re already seeing the methane levels around surrounding methane stations rising
"When the ice goes..... F***

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #903 on: February 08, 2019, 01:40:59 AM »
S&S took their measurements at methane seeps during the summer and then estimated what the entire ESAS methane release would be annually.  Subsequent studies have shown that those estimates for the entire ESAS are too high.

I'm not denying anything.  I'm telling you what the peer-reviewed science says.  You're the one who's denying it.

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #904 on: February 08, 2019, 02:23:56 AM »
S&S took their measurements at methane seeps during the summer and then estimated what the entire ESAS methane release would be annually.  Subsequent studies have shown that those estimates for the entire ESAS are too high.

I'm not denying anything.  I'm telling you what the peer-reviewed science says.  You're the one who's denying it.

And your only willing to look at one side of the picture. There is no consensus that the Arctic methane isn’t a threat. There are papers that conclude what your saying, and there are papers that conclude what I’m saying. My only worry is we all conclude it’s a not a problem or a problem for the grandchildren then we lose the opportunity to do something about it if it is a threat. There is no time for hope, or wishful thinking. We need to do something now. The very existence of our species is on the line.
"When the ice goes..... F***

Lurk

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #905 on: February 08, 2019, 07:11:01 AM »


and pay special note to Dr Hansen's comments above. I think it puts the matter clearly and into perspective for now and the possible futures still up for grabs. Major Arctic CH4 "feedback releases" is still part of future possibilities ... it all depends if man made ghg emissions are stopped or not stopped. 

I’ve posted more clips (BELOW LINK) from the interview with Dr. Ruppel, now up at Yale Climate Connections​
Highly recommended to better understand this critical point.
We have a big, big problem with climate – but it’s not time to run for the hills. It’s not ‘imminent human extinction” as some youtubers would have you believe.
We’re not getting off that easy. We have to turn and fight for the future.


https://climatecrocks.com/2019/02/07/return-of-the-methane-bomb-squad/

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #906 on: February 08, 2019, 08:25:42 PM »
S&S took their measurements at methane seeps during the summer and then estimated what the entire ESAS methane release would be annually.

I am far from convinced by that claim. Can you prove it?

That S&S have outright "cherry-picked" summer only emissions, taken over a couple of weeks and then simply extrapolated that "data" to apply across the entire ESAS for 365 days a year.

I don't believe it. You'll have to show me precisely where they did it and hopefully explain how they managed to get that past "peer review" in multiple papers they have published.

You might also want to make sure that the papers and claims you're relying upon haven't done something like what you are publicly accusing S&S of doing .... which btw amounts to being "fraud" by misrepresenting their own data.

I didn't accuse them of cherry-picking data.  They may have made some assumptions that other scientists don't agree with.  There's a huge difference.

Here's what S&S published in 2013:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2007

Quote
Field observations were conducted over a shallow study area
(18:4  103 km2) located in the southern Laptev Sea, east of
the Lena Delta (Fig. 1). This area was documented as a high-
emissions-activity site (`hotspot'
)5 serving as a source of CH4
to the atmosphere using the following criteria: highly elevated
concentrations of dissolved CH4 (compared with levels in the
surrounding areas, including upstream in the Lena Delta6) observed
annually since 2005 (850nM in summer and 3,000nM in
winter5); numerous bubbles with very high CH4 content entrapped
in the sea ice observed during the winter5; and increased
atmospheric CH4 concentrations documented in the atmospheric
boundary layer5 over the water.

Quote
Present observations provide an opportunity to constrain
the bubble-induced CH4 flux from shallow ESAS hotspots.
Extending the best summer ebullition-induced flux estimation
of 290 mgm􀀀2 d􀀀1 to the studied hotspot area of 18:4103 km2
and assuming that ebullition occurs only 50% of the time
yields a conservative annual flux estimate of 0.9 Tg CH4 for this
hotspot area. Hotspot areas were apportioned on the basis of
two complementary approaches: a statistical approach (using an
empirical distribution function test) and a geological approach
(considering areas of fault zones in the ESAS, Supplementary Fig.
2); both approaches have been described in detail previously5. Given
that the study area covers 10% of the ESAS hotspots5, storm- and
bubble-induced CH4 release from ESAS hotspots to the atmosphere
is estimated at 9 Tg CH4 annually (Table 1), increasing our estimate
of total ESASCH4 emissions to atmosphere to 17 Tg yr􀀀1
.

Other scientists disagree with their estimate of 17 Tg/year.  Most put it a 2 to 4 Tg per year as I've already documented upthread.


Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3293
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #907 on: February 08, 2019, 08:40:20 PM »
I would like to weigh in and thank you for this discussion on methane. From reading the comments, I would conclude that the risk associated with methane release is not quantified as there are still uncertainties as to how much and how fast methane will be released. I want to believe that even the lowest estimates are too large as this issue frightens me but my biggest concern is regardless of the science on methane, we are heading towards catastrophic climate change due to our persistent BAU behavior.

Please continue this discussion with research links.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #908 on: February 08, 2019, 09:15:32 PM »


and pay special note to Dr Hansen's comments above. I think it puts the matter clearly and into perspective for now and the possible futures still up for grabs. Major Arctic CH4 "feedback releases" is still part of future possibilities ... it all depends if man made ghg emissions are stopped or not stopped. 

I’ve posted more clips (BELOW LINK) from the interview with Dr. Ruppel, now up at Yale Climate Connections​
Highly recommended to better understand this critical point.
We have a big, big problem with climate – but it’s not time to run for the hills. It’s not ‘imminent human extinction” as some youtubers would have you believe.
We’re not getting off that easy. We have to turn and fight for the future.


https://climatecrocks.com/2019/02/07/return-of-the-methane-bomb-squad/

You'll note that Dr. Hanson and the other scientists in the video are basically stating what I've been saying in this thread,  there is no threat of a "methane time bomb" if we can get off of fossil fuels in the next few decades and that we can avoid the massive methane release from the Arctic permafrost.  It's not something to lose sleep over.

I'll point posters to the Policy and Solutions forums on this site where we're showing that renewables, EVs, batteries and other solutions make it possible for the transition that's needed.

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #909 on: February 08, 2019, 10:16:04 PM »
"Given the contentiousness of this topic in the scientific community, it may
even be contentious for me to say that there is no scientific consensus on
the sources of current methane emissions or the potential risk and timing of
significant methane releases from either surface and subsea permafrost. A
recent attempt at consensus on methane risk from melting surface
permafrost concluded methane release would happen over centuries or
millennia, not this decade (Schuur et al. 2015). Yet within three years that
consensus was broken by one of the most detailed experiments which
found that if the melting permafrost remains waterlogged, which is likely,
then it produces significant amounts of methane within just a few years
(Knoblauch et al, 2018). The debate is now likely to be about whether other
microorganisms might thrive in that environment to eat up the methane –
and whether or not in time to reduce the climate impact.

The debate about methane release from clathrate forms, or frozen methane
hydrates, on the Arctic sea floor is even more contentious. In 2010 a group
of scientists published a study that warned how the warming of the Arctic
could lead to a speed and scale of methane release that would be
catastrophic to life on earth through atmospheric heating of over 5 degrees
within just a few years of such a release (Shakhova et al, 2010). The study
triggered a fierce debate, much of which was ill considered, perhaps
understandable given the shocking implications of this information (Ahmed,
2013). Since then, key questions at the heart of this scientific debate (about
what would amount to the probable extinction of the human race) include
the amount of time it will take for ocean warming to destabilise hydrates on
the sea floor, and how much methane will be consumed by aerobic and
anaerobic microbes before it reaches the surface and escapes to the
atmosphere. In a global review of this contentious topic, scientists
concluded that there is not the evidence to predict a sudden release of
catastrophic levels of methane in the near-term (Ruppel and Kessler, 2017).
However, a key reason for their conclusion was the lack of data showing
actual increases in atmospheric methane at the surface of the Arctic, which
is partly the result of a lack of sensors collecting such information. Most
ground-level methane measuring systems are on land. Could that be why
the unusual increases in atmospheric methane concentrations cannot be
fully explained by existing data sets from around the world (Saunois et al,
2016)? One way of calculating how much methane is probably coming from
our oceans is to compare data from ground-level measurements, which are
mostly but not entirely on land, with upper atmosphere measurements,
which indicate an averaging out of total sources. Data published by
scientists from the Arctic News (2018) website indicates that in March 2018
at mid altitudes, methane was around 1865 parts per billion (ppb), which
represents a 1.8 percent increase of 35 ppb from the same time in 2017,
while surface measurements of methane increased by about 15 ppb in that
time. Both figures are consistent with a non-linear increase - potentially
exponential - in atmospheric levels since 2007. That is worrying data in
itself, but the more significant matter is the difference between the increase
measured at ground and mid altitudes. That is consistent with this added
methane coming from our oceans, which could in turn be from methane
hydrates.

This closer look at the latest data on methane is worthwhile given the
critical risks to which it relates. It suggests that the recent attempt at a
consensus that it is highly unlikely we will see near-term massive release of
methane from the Arctic Ocean is sadly inconclusive. In 2017 scientists
working on the Eastern Siberian sea shelf, reported that the permafrost
layer has thinned enough to risk destabilising hydrates (The Arctic, 2017).
That report of subsea permafrost destabilisation in the East Siberian Arctic
sea shelf, the latest unprecedented temperatures in the Arctic, and the data
in non-linear rises in high-atmosphere methane levels, combine to make it
feel like we are about to play Russian Roulette with the entire human race,
with already two bullets loaded. Nothing is certain. But it is sobering that
humanity has arrived at a situation of our own making where we now
debate the strength of analyses of our near-term extinction."

https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0095-z

https://arctic.ru/climate/20170809/655109.html
"When the ice goes..... F***

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #910 on: February 09, 2019, 12:21:15 AM »
"Given the contentiousness of this topic in the scientific community, it may
even be contentious for me to say that there is no scientific consensus on
the sources of current methane emissions or the potential risk and timing of
significant methane releases from either surface and subsea permafrost. A
recent attempt at consensus on methane risk from melting surface
permafrost concluded methane release would happen over centuries or
millennia, not this decade (Schuur et al. 2015). Yet within three years that
consensus was broken by one of the most detailed experiments which
found that if the melting permafrost remains waterlogged, which is likely,
then it produces significant amounts of methane within just a few years
(Knoblauch et al, 2018). The debate is now likely to be about whether other
microorganisms might thrive in that environment to eat up the methane –
and whether or not in time to reduce the climate impact.

The debate about methane release from clathrate forms, or frozen methane
hydrates, on the Arctic sea floor is even more contentious. In 2010 a group
of scientists published a study that warned how the warming of the Arctic
could lead to a speed and scale of methane release that would be
catastrophic to life on earth through atmospheric heating of over 5 degrees
within just a few years of such a release (Shakhova et al, 2010). The study
triggered a fierce debate, much of which was ill considered, perhaps
understandable given the shocking implications of this information (Ahmed,
2013). Since then, key questions at the heart of this scientific debate (about
what would amount to the probable extinction of the human race) include
the amount of time it will take for ocean warming to destabilise hydrates on
the sea floor, and how much methane will be consumed by aerobic and
anaerobic microbes before it reaches the surface and escapes to the
atmosphere. In a global review of this contentious topic, scientists
concluded that there is not the evidence to predict a sudden release of
catastrophic levels of methane in the near-term (Ruppel and Kessler, 2017).
However, a key reason for their conclusion was the lack of data showing
actual increases in atmospheric methane at the surface of the Arctic, which
is partly the result of a lack of sensors collecting such information. Most
ground-level methane measuring systems are on land. Could that be why
the unusual increases in atmospheric methane concentrations cannot be
fully explained by existing data sets from around the world (Saunois et al,
2016)? One way of calculating how much methane is probably coming from
our oceans is to compare data from ground-level measurements, which are
mostly but not entirely on land, with upper atmosphere measurements,
which indicate an averaging out of total sources. Data published by
scientists from the Arctic News (2018) website indicates that in March 2018
at mid altitudes, methane was around 1865 parts per billion (ppb), which
represents a 1.8 percent increase of 35 ppb from the same time in 2017,
while surface measurements of methane increased by about 15 ppb in that
time. Both figures are consistent with a non-linear increase - potentially
exponential - in atmospheric levels since 2007. That is worrying data in
itself, but the more significant matter is the difference between the increase
measured at ground and mid altitudes. That is consistent with this added
methane coming from our oceans, which could in turn be from methane
hydrates.

This closer look at the latest data on methane is worthwhile given the
critical risks to which it relates. It suggests that the recent attempt at a
consensus that it is highly unlikely we will see near-term massive release of
methane from the Arctic Ocean is sadly inconclusive. In 2017 scientists
working on the Eastern Siberian sea shelf, reported that the permafrost
layer has thinned enough to risk destabilising hydrates (The Arctic, 2017).
That report of subsea permafrost destabilisation in the East Siberian Arctic
sea shelf, the latest unprecedented temperatures in the Arctic, and the data
in non-linear rises in high-atmosphere methane levels, combine to make it
feel like we are about to play Russian Roulette with the entire human race,
with already two bullets loaded. Nothing is certain. But it is sobering that
humanity has arrived at a situation of our own making where we now
debate the strength of analyses of our near-term extinction."

https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0095-z

https://arctic.ru/climate/20170809/655109.html

Note that the information quoted above is from the first link, which is not a peer-reviewed article.  The author goes on to explain later in the same paper:

Quote
With each of these framings – collapse, catastrophe, extinction – people
describe different degrees of certainty. Different people speak of a scenario
being possible, probable or inevitable. In my conversations with both
professionals in sustainability or climate, and others not directly involved, I
have found that people choose a scenario and a probability depending not
on what the data and its analysis might suggest, but what they are
choosing to live with as a story about this topic. That parallels findings in
psychology that none of us are purely logic machines but relate information
into stories about how things relate and why (Marshall, 2014). None of us
are immune to that process. Currently, I have chosen to interpret the
information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and
possible extinction
.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #911 on: February 09, 2019, 12:44:43 AM »
Plugging the title of Wherestheices' second link (the Nature article on methane emissions from thawing permafrost) and searching the articles that cite it yields this 2019 paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37719-9

Quote
Natural methane emissions are noticeably influenced by warming of cold arctic ecosystems and permafrost. An evaluation specifically of Arctic natural methane emissions in relation to our ability to mitigate anthropogenic methane emissions is needed. Here we use empirical scenarios of increases in natural emissions together with maximum technically feasible reductions in anthropogenic emissions to evaluate their potential influence on future atmospheric methane concentrations and associated radiative forcing (RF). The largest amplification of natural emissions yields up to 42% higher atmospheric methane concentrations by the year 2100 compared with no change in natural emissions. The most likely scenarios are lower than this, while anthropogenic emission reductions may have a much greater yielding effect, with the potential of halving atmospheric methane concentrations by 2100 compared to when anthropogenic emissions continue to increase as in a business-as-usual case. In a broader perspective, it is shown that man-made emissions can be reduced sufficiently to limit methane-caused climate warming by 2100 even in the case of an uncontrolled natural Arctic methane emission feedback, but this requires a committed, global effort towards maximum feasible reductions.

Gray-Wolf

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #912 on: February 09, 2019, 12:46:33 PM »
If my Uncle was a woman he'd be my Aunt.......

If we massively reduce GHG outputs there is no methane issue.....

Sorry guys I'm not sold!

Since the flip flop in 2014 ( that saw the Pacific naturals flip and Antarctic sea ice levels begin to drop to late 1970's levels) global temps have begun to again surge ( I know , we need 'more time' to safely claim that.....but we don't have the time!) Mother N. has been making up for any reductions in GHG's we have managed to achieve. We've been told its Nino, its northern soils outgassing, its methane from meltwater lakes across permafrost regions but what it really is is a warning that we have run into the time where feedbacks will increasingly challenge our attempts to reduce the GHG burden?

There is a new paper out looking at the impacts of mid lat volcanic eruptions. It shows that we massively underestimated the 'cooling' the Sulphate 'dimming' causes around that hemisphere.

Why do I mention it?

China and its mid Lat Sulphate 'dimming' (through the late 90's/noughties) and its 'drop off' alongside the flip , or forcing the flip, in the Pacific naturals in 2014 leading that , in its turn, causes the current surge in Global temps may well prove to be the 'push' that sets off a positive feedback over the northern soils/permafrost seeing naturals keep global CO2 yearly increases will into the B.A.U. figures no matter human reduction in output?


To me it makes more sense to live in this world of B.A.U. outputs and not entertain some make believe world of us 'acting globally' to rapidly reduce GHG forcing over the coming decade?

I'd love to hear the folk who do hold onto the hope that we will act on GHG's and the evidence they see for this to be occurring on our planet. (We will not mention the U.S.'s interest in grabbing Venezuelan oil and what this signals in so far as reducing fossil fuel use is concerned?)

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

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3293
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #913 on: February 09, 2019, 06:42:34 PM »
After I read Ken's last comment which quoted accurately the research conclusions, I felt a compelling urge to respond but then read the followup comments here and realized there was no need. Yes, IF we drastically reduce anthropogenic emissions, we can avoid all sorts of devastating feedbacks. But we are doing nothing of the sort.


If my Uncle was a woman he'd be my Aunt.......

My mother-in-law had a slightly different version of this when someone would begin a statement with "If..."

"If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle."

I'd love to hear the folk who do hold onto the hope that we will act on GHG's and the evidence they see for this to be occurring on our planet. (We will not mention the U.S.'s interest in grabbing Venezuelan oil and what this signals in so far as reducing fossil fuel use is concerned?)

I hold onto one tiny sliver of hope and it has to do with addressing the system issues that are driving us to the brink. The system is the growth system of world capitalism. So long as there is money to be made exploiting our environment, irregardless of the fact that this continued exploitation will kill us all, there will be individuals and corporations willing to do the work needed to make that money.

When we look at evil corporations that are engaging in (fracking oil, industrial agriculture, etc.) we treat these activities as something separate from ourselves, refusing to see the roles we play in this system as consumers. Yet it is consumer demand that creates the economic environment that makes such activities profitable. We need a paradigm shift, recognize our role in propping up a system that is killing us and then individually choose to turn our backs on the system.

The really neat thing is that this paradigm shift can occur in an instant for any of us and the impact of that shift can be instantaneous.

A Little Secret: Such a paradigm shift, while absolutely essential to be adopted by residents of the consumer nations, will drive tremendous change in the behavior of the system. This can be a scary thought. What comes next? I overcome this fear with the clear understanding that this rapid change, driven by a paradigm shift will be far more manageable then the unplanned collapse that is hurtling towards us.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2019, 06:53:05 PM by Shared Humanity »

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #914 on: February 10, 2019, 03:16:22 AM »


and pay special note to Dr Hansen's comments above. I think it puts the matter clearly and into perspective for now and the possible futures still up for grabs. Major Arctic CH4 "feedback releases" is still part of future possibilities ... it all depends if man made ghg emissions are stopped or not stopped. 

I’ve posted more clips (BELOW LINK) from the interview with Dr. Ruppel, now up at Yale Climate Connections​
Highly recommended to better understand this critical point.
We have a big, big problem with climate – but it’s not time to run for the hills. It’s not ‘imminent human extinction” as some youtubers would have you believe.
We’re not getting off that easy. We have to turn and fight for the future.


https://climatecrocks.com/2019/02/07/return-of-the-methane-bomb-squad/

You'll note that Dr. Hanson and the other scientists in the video are basically stating what I've been saying in this thread,  there is no threat of a "methane time bomb" if we can get off of fossil fuels in the next few decades and that we can avoid the massive methane release from the Arctic permafrost.  It's not something to lose sleep over.

I'll point posters to the Policy and Solutions forums on this site where we're showing that renewables, EVs, batteries and other solutions make it possible for the transition that's needed.

May I humbly suggest you are totally missing the point, again? I'll try and explain it in simpler terms.

I am not losing sleep over a methane bomb in the near future. Neither is whereistheice and others from what I can tell.

whereistheice, others and I ALSO agree with Hansen and I suspect (?) with the comments and conclusions of Dr. Ruppel as well. But when you have VARIATIONS in "scientific" estimates between 2Tg and 17Tg it tells us something more important than the actual numbers do - DISAGREEMENTS ABOUNDS ON ESTIMATES .... all of them could be wrong because frankly not enough hard data is actually available in order for SCIENTISTS (not forum folks) to agree with.

Compare that with say MLO CO2 readings where the consensus ppint is 99.9% of all scientists agree the readings are reliable as are Global readings "estimates" and the direct co-relationship between PPMV and actual manmade emissions + natural emissions that are "spiking" in different regions at different times for different reasons ... which my dear friend are INCREASING not decreasing.

So sure alt energy sources are known and minor deployments are being made while simultaneously GHG emissions are INCREASING still.

Therefore it is abundantly clear to almost all that an ASSUMPTION that "there is no threat of a "methane time bomb" if we can get off of fossil fuels in the next few decades" is FALSIFIABLE and that "other solutions make it possible for the transition that's needed" does NOT make it so in the real world in which we live.

So it is one thing thing to posit that in your humble opinion there won't be some kind of a sudden  Methane Bomb erupting anytime in the next 10-20-30 years (in our lifetime) is "reasonable" given the LACK OF HARD DATA at this point .. it is ILLOGICAL and UNFOUNDED BS to then assume "that we can avoid the massive methane release from the Arctic permafrost" in the middle of or toward the end of the century.

And that real genuine solutions for Climate change actually requires STABILIZATION that does not only apply in OUR LIFETIMES but for GENERATIONS AHEAD as well.

And so what Hansen, and I and whereistheice and many others like S&S and many other SCIENTISTS are saying in their papers is that future massive methane release from the Arctic permafrost is almost GUARANTEED at some point if we keep following BAU.

BAU includes the current uptake of Renewable energy and BAU includes the ongoing INCREASES in GHG in the atmosphere that WILL continue to heat the planet.

Therefore NOTHING HAS BEEN SOLVED here .... nothing at all while CO2 continues to break new all time records and 2018 comes in agai8n in the top 4 highest global temps on record.

Every scientifically AGREED Data point right now plus current BAU out 20 years is telling us that a future massive methane release from the Arctic permafrost is almost GUARANTEED this century!

Excuse CAPS but it's really frustrating trying to break thru such barriers.

Total Global human caused GHG emissions must be cut by 80% before Atmospheric CO2 levels even begin to stabilize. We are no where near that point we are still doing the opposite. Recent CO2 is growing at +3 ppm and there is no El Nino happening!!!!

Once CO2 levels stabilize (if, when, maybe) WARMING still continues for DECADES ..... it continues to destabilize the Arctic methane and methane stores all over the world and every other potential Positive Feedback mechanism already known.

People need to stop pretending everything is FINE and everything will be fixed with renewable energy uptake etc. It's a FALLACY ...it's deeply flawed thinking. We are no where near that point of massive energy use changes yet.

Without another single molecule of CH4 escaping from the Arctic the Planet is still TOAST on BAU activity and projections and even on best case scenarios. Therefore every single CH4 molecule can only make it worse. Arctic Permafrost emissions are a concern, are real, and are GUARANTEED to increase in our warming world.

GUARANTEED to increase, not maybe not possibly not perhaps, but Guaranteed to add to the warming.  It's not nothing. Current "estimates" are irrelevant to this simple LOGIC.

PS re quote from above: "We’re not getting off that easy. We have to turn and fight for the future."

We haven't even started to turn around let alone FIGHT!

I agree with this 100%. Thanks for the post Lurk. It’s not that I’m pushing imminent doom, but it’s like. There is a threat. And we need to take this threat seriously. And I’m sorry, adding more electric vehicles or solar panels isn’t gonna do it. We need to transition to green energy, but we need to do a lot more that that. Growth on a finite planet is suicide (even if it’s green)
"When the ice goes..... F***

Tor Bejnar

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2337
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 142
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #915 on: February 10, 2019, 05:48:39 AM »
Thanks, Where...,
I've just taken Lurk off "Ignore", given what you quoted.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Cid_Yama

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #916 on: February 10, 2019, 08:25:38 AM »
I've seen there is still some misunderstanding about the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases will heat up planet 'forever'
Quote
Global warming is forever, some of the world's top climate scientists have concluded. Their research shows that carbon dioxide emitted from today's homes, cars and factories will continue to heat up the planet for hundreds of thousands of years.

It comes as a shock because most governments, and even many scientists, have assumed that carbon dioxide emissions would work their way out of the atmosphere in about a century, enabling it to clean itself fairly rapidly once the world switched to clean sources of energy.

But one of the main researchers – Professor David Archer of Chicago University – warns that "the climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge, longer than time capsules, far longer than the age of human civilisation so far. Ultimate recovery takes place on timescales of hundreds of thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with nuclear waste."

Carbon dioxide mainly leaves the atmosphere by being soaked up by the oceans, but Professor Archer says that "the pervasive notion in the climate science community and in the public at large" that this happens relatively quickly is no longer valid. He and other leading scientists spell out why in a paper to be published in the journal Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences.

"The ocean is getting fed up with absorbing our CO2," he says. The surface waters, about 100 metres deep, which used to sop up the gas quite fast, are now getting saturated with it – turning acid in the process – and so decreasing their uptake. They need to be replaced with fresh water from deep down, but this overturning circulation "takes centuries or a millennium". And global warming is expected to slow this down: the hotter the surface layer becomes, the longer the replenishment takes.

Indeed, the forthcoming paper will add, research shows that even this renewing process will not be enough to remove all the vast amounts of carbon dioxide that humanity is now adding to the atmosphere. Much of it will have to wait hundreds of thousands of years before being removed by another, infinitely slower, process: the natural weathering of rocks, which incorporates the gas into other substances. And the more pollution that is emitted now, the worse this will become.
link


Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide
Quote
The models presented here give a broadly coherent picture of the fate of fossil fuel CO2 released into the atmosphere. Equilibration with the ocean will absorb most of it on a timescale of 2 to 20 centuries. Even if this equilibration were allowed to run to completion, a substantial fraction of the CO2, 20–40%, would remain in the atmosphere awaiting slower chemical reactions with CaCO3 and igneous rocks. The remaining CO2 is abundant enough to continue to have a substantial impact on climate for thousands of years. The changes in climate amplify themselves somewhat by driving CO2 out of the warmer ocean. The CO2 invasion has acidified the ocean, the pH of which is largely restored by excess dissolution of CaCO3 from the sea floor and on land and, ultimately, by silicate weathering on land. The recovery of ocean pH restores the ocean’s buffer capacity to absorb CO2, tending to pull CO2 toward lower concentrations over the next 10,000 years. The land biosphere has its greatest impact within the first few centuries, which is when CO2 peaks. Nowhere in these model results or in the published literature is there any reason to conclude that the effects of CO2 release will be substantially confined to just a few centuries. In contrast, generally accepted modern understanding of the global carbon cycle indicates that climate effects of CO2 releases to the atmosphere will persist for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years into the future.
link


Remember, methane breaks down into CO2 and water vapor.  So the effect of methane is far longer than many of you believe due to it's decomposition products.  (Not to mention that when it decomposes in the stratosphere, the water vapor forms Polar Stratospheric Clouds that act as a blanket.) 

Heating from greenhouse gases does not go back down within human timescales.

The only direction within human timescales is UP.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2019, 08:46:35 AM by Cid_Yama »
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3293
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #917 on: February 10, 2019, 04:06:23 PM »
They quote Professor David Archer of Chicago University. I am not questioning the article but there is no such university in Chicago. There is a Chicago State University and a University of Chicago?

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 224
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #918 on: February 10, 2019, 04:15:24 PM »
They meant University of Chicago.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/people/david-archer/

(Seems like a strange thing to get worked up about. It's a British publication, so maybe give them a bit of a break on not getting US institution's names exactly right. In any case, easily checkable if you really were concerned that Archer, one of the most famous climatologists, by the way, is a real person...)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 380
  • Likes Given: 837
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #919 on: February 10, 2019, 04:45:58 PM »
Cid_Yama, thanks for this sad reminder.
SH, attention to small details is a thankless job... but thanks too.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3293
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #920 on: February 10, 2019, 06:41:37 PM »
They meant University of Chicago.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/people/david-archer/

(Seems like a strange thing to get worked up about. It's a British publication, so maybe give them a bit of a break on not getting US institution's names exactly right. In any case, easily checkable if you really were concerned that Archer, one of the most famous climatologists, by the way, is a real person...)

Hardly worked up about it. What in my comment seemed to suggest this was the case?

Lurk

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #921 on: February 12, 2019, 01:07:41 AM »
thanks to AbruptSLR

Title: "Climate updates What have we learnt since the IPCC 5th Assessment Report?", November 2017 DES5123 ISBN: 978-1-78252-306-2

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf

Extract: "With the next assessment report (AR6) not due until 2022, it is timely to consider how evidence presented since the publication of AR5 affects the assessments made then.


In summary, gradual climate change could trigger abrupt changes – with large regional and potentially global impacts – associated with thresholds in the Earth system. The possibility of crossing any of these thresholds increases with each increment of warming."


---

plus this extract

Perhaps the largest obstruction blocking societies willingness/ability to face the true risks of abrupt climate change can be characterized by what Sir Francis Bacon described as the 'four idols' of the mind (see the first linked article).  Consensus science (as well as other populist movements) get(s) bogged down by various preconceptions of the human mind, ....

 Such scientific mindfulness would enable scientist to consider/address issues beyond the preconceived specialist silos that they typically work within, so as to better address the many 'fat-tailed' risks of abrupt climate change:

Title: "The 17th-century philosopher whose scientific ideas could tackle climate change today"

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/francis-bacon-the-17th-century-philosopher-whose-scientific-ideas-could-tackle-climate-change-today

asif link https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2205.msg188469.html#msg188469

plus these responses very useful imho:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2205.msg188473.html#msg188473
and
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2205.msg188507.html#msg188507

An easier way (for me at least) to pull all those threads together is the notion that: You do not solve paradigm crises by the same kind of thinking that got you into them and which (obviously) continue to sustain them.

When I say "change the system" I don't mean make adjustments I mean dump it for a completely new system from the ground up ... iow a new Paradigm of Thinking and Acting and Values. The one we have is broken and no longer fit for purpose.

IMHO these matters also manifest in all kinds of ways including the two and fros here about is Arctic Methane Release a concern worth being concerned about - and who's science papers are the best ones to rely upon and which consensus is the "real" consensus - all these erupt from foundational thinking, memes, beliefs, paradigms etc.

It's been proven by Cog science and linguistics (see Chomsky Lakoff etc) that our ways of talking and thinking are inseparably one unit. The talk will not change until the thinking changes first. Nor will the Voting which is also "speech". ;)

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3293
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #922 on: February 12, 2019, 06:34:27 PM »

It's been proven by Cog science and linguistics (see Chomsky Lakoff etc) that our ways of talking and thinking are inseparably one unit. The talk will not change until the thinking changes first. Nor will the Voting which is also "speech". ;)

Agreed. Money is also speech.

We need to put our money where our mouth is.

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #923 on: February 12, 2019, 07:38:57 PM »
Latest paper from shakova, with a hefty list of researchers

https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2018-229/tc-2018-229.pdf
"When the ice goes..... F***

vox_mundi

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 541
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 111
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #924 on: February 13, 2019, 04:54:17 PM »
Undersea Gases Could Superheat the Planet
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-02/uosc-ugc021219.php
https://news.usc.edu/153926/how-undersea-carbon-reservoirs-once-helped-superheat-earth/


A deep-sea reservoir near Taiwan spews carbon dioxide when its slurry-like hydrate cap ruptures. Credit: National Academy of Sciences

The new study by scientists at USC, the Australian National University and Lund University in Sweden, focused on the Eastern Equatorial Pacific (EEP) hundreds of miles off the coast of Ecuador. The EEP is a primary conduit through which the ocean releases carbon to the atmosphere.

The new findings challenge a long-standing paradigm that ocean water alone regulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during glacial cycles. Instead, the study shows geologic processes can dramatically upset the carbon cycle and cause global change.

The scientists report evidence of deep-sea hydrothermal systems releasing greenhouse gases to the ocean and atmosphere at the end of the last ice age, just as the oceans were beginning to warm. ...  the new data show that there were major releases of naturally occurring carbon from the EEP, which contributed to dramatic change in Earth's temperature as the ice age was ending, the study says.

If undersea carbon reservoirs are upset again, they would emit a huge new source of greenhouse gases, exacerbating climate change. Temperature increases in the ocean are on pace to reach that tipping point by the end of the century. For example, a big carbon reservoir beneath the western Pacific near Taiwan is already within a few degrees Celsius of destabilizing. Similar discoveries of carbon gas reservoirs have been made off the coast of Okinawa, in the Aegean Sea, in the Gulf of California and off the west coast of Canada.

At issue are expanses of carbon dioxide and methane accumulating underwater and scattered across the seafloor. They form as volcanic activity releases heat and gases that can congeal into liquid and solid hydrates ... These undersea carbon reservoirs largely stay put unless perturbed, but the new study shows the natural reservoirs are vulnerable in a warming ocean and provides proof the Earth's climate has been affected by rapid release of geologic carbon.

Quote
... The federal government's Climate Science Special Report projected a global increase in average sea surface temperatures of up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, given current emissions rates. Temperature gains of that magnitude throughout the ocean could eventually destabilize the geologic hydrate reservoirs.

"The last time it happened, climate change was so great it caused the end of the ice age. Once that geologic process begins, we can't turn it off,"
Stott said.



Open Access: Lowell Douglas Stott et al. Hydrothermal carbon release to the ocean and atmosphere from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during the Last Glacial Termination, Environmental Research Letters (2019).
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafe28

From Abstract:

Quote
... a significant release of hydrothermal fluids entered the ocean at the last glacial termination. The large 14C anomaly was accompanied by a ~4-fold increase in Zn/Ca in both benthic and planktic foraminfera that reflects an increase in dissolved [Zn] throughout the water column. Foraminiferal B/Ca and Li/Ca results from these sites document deglacial declines in [CO32-] throughout the water column; these were accompanied by carbonate dissolution at water depths that today lie well above the calcite lysocline. Taken together, these results are strong evidence for an increased flux of hydrothermally-derived CO2 through the EEP upwelling system at the last glacial termination that would have exchanged with the atmosphere and affected both Δ14C and pCO2.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2019, 12:08:41 AM by vox_mundi »
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #925 on: February 13, 2019, 11:37:23 PM »
Undersea Gases Could Superheat the Planet
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-02/uosc-ugc021219.php


A deep-sea reservoir near Taiwan spews carbon dioxide when its slurry-like hydrate cap ruptures. Credit: National Academy of Sciences

The new study by scientists at USC, the Australian National University and Lund University in Sweden, focused on the Eastern Equatorial Pacific (EEP) hundreds of miles off the coast of Ecuador. The EEP is a primary conduit through which the ocean releases carbon to the atmosphere.

The new findings challenge a long-standing paradigm that ocean water alone regulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during glacial cycles. Instead, the study shows geologic processes can dramatically upset the carbon cycle and cause global change.

The scientists report evidence of deep-sea hydrothermal systems releasing greenhouse gases to the ocean and atmosphere at the end of the last ice age, just as the oceans were beginning to warm. ...  the new data show that there were major releases of naturally occurring carbon from the EEP, which contributed to dramatic change in Earth's temperature as the ice age was ending, the study says.

If undersea carbon reservoirs are upset again, they would emit a huge new source of greenhouse gases, exacerbating climate change. Temperature increases in the ocean are on pace to reach that tipping point by the end of the century. For example, a big carbon reservoir beneath the western Pacific near Taiwan is already within a few degrees Celsius of destabilizing. Similar discoveries of carbon gas reservoirs have been made off the coast of Okinawa, in the Aegean Sea, in the Gulf of California and off the west coast of Canada.

At issue are expanses of carbon dioxide and methane accumulating underwater and scattered across the seafloor. They form as volcanic activity releases heat and gases that can congeal into liquid and solid hydrates ... These undersea carbon reservoirs largely stay put unless perturbed, but the new study shows the natural reservoirs are vulnerable in a warming ocean and provides proof the Earth's climate has been affected by rapid release of geologic carbon.

Quote
... The federal government's Climate Science Special Report projected a global increase in average sea surface temperatures of up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, given current emissions rates. Temperature gains of that magnitude throughout the ocean could eventually destabilize the geologic hydrate reservoirs.

"The last time it happened, climate change was so great it caused the end of the ice age. Once that geologic process begins, we can't turn it off,"
Stott said.



Open Access: Lowell Douglas Stott et al. Hydrothermal carbon release to the ocean and atmosphere from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during the Last Glacial Termination[/b]]Hydrothermal carbon release to the ocean and atmosphere from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during the Last Glacial Termination, Environmental Research Letters (2019).

From Abstract:

Quote
... a significant release of hydrothermal fluids entered the ocean at the last glacial termination. The large 14C anomaly was accompanied by a ~4-fold increase in Zn/Ca in both benthic and planktic foraminfera that reflects an increase in dissolved [Zn] throughout the water column. Foraminiferal B/Ca and Li/Ca results from these sites document deglacial declines in [CO32-] throughout the water column; these were accompanied by carbonate dissolution at water depths that today lie well above the calcite lysocline. Taken together, these results are strong evidence for an increased flux of hydrothermally-derived CO2 through the EEP upwelling system at the last glacial termination that would have exchanged with the atmosphere and affected both Δ14C and pCO2.

Great find thanks for sharing!
"When the ice goes..... F***

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #926 on: February 13, 2019, 11:56:21 PM »
thanks to AbruptSLR

Title: "Climate updates What have we learnt since the IPCC 5th Assessment Report?", November 2017 DES5123 ISBN: 978-1-78252-306-2

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf

Extract: "With the next assessment report (AR6) not due until 2022, it is timely to consider how evidence presented since the publication of AR5 affects the assessments made then.


In summary, gradual climate change could trigger abrupt changes – with large regional and potentially global impacts – associated with thresholds in the Earth system. The possibility of crossing any of these thresholds increases with each increment of warming."


---

Lurk,

I've previously cited that paper to show that the authors' don't believe that the Arctic permafrost is one of those threshold systems:

Here's a link to a 2017 update of the IPCC AR5 report by the UK Royal Society:

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report-references-document.pdf

Excerpts relevant to methane clathrate release:

Quote
Clathrates: Some economic assessments
continue to emphasise the potential damage
from very strong and rapid methane hydrate
release (Hope and Schaefer, 2016), although
AR5 did not consider this likely. Recent
measurements of methane fluxes from
the Siberian Shelf Seas (Thornton et al.,
2016) are much lower than those inferred
previously (Shakhova et al., 2014). A range
of other studies have suggested a much
smaller influence of clathrate release on the
Arctic atmosphere than had been suggested
(Berchet et al., 2016; Myhre et al., 2016). New
modelling work confirms (Kretschmer et al.,
2015) that the Arctic is the region where
methane release from clathrates is likely
to be most important in the next century,
but still estimates methane release to the
water column to be negligible compared to
anthropogenic releases to the atmosphere.
A recent review (Ruppel and Kessler, 2017)
emphasises that there remains little evidence
that clathrate methane is reaching the
atmosphere at present. Although methane that
is oxidised in the water column will not reach
the atmosphere, it will have the effect of further
lowering the pH of the ocean (Boudreau et al.,
2015). A recent modelling study joined earlier
papers in assigning a relatively limited role to
dissociation of methane hydrates as a climate
feedback (Mestdagh et al., 2017).

Excerpt related to permafrost melt:

Quote
Permafrost: A review published in 2015
(Schuur et al., 2015) made new estimates of
the amount of carbon stored in permafrost,
both near the surface and at depth. It also
summarised experimental evidence about
how much carbon would be released, and
in what form, when permafrost melts. This
led to a new estimate that about 100 Pg of
cumulative carbon emissions (with a wide
uncertainty) would be released from thawing
permafrost by 2100 under RCP8.5. This leads
to a significant positive feedback, but the
review emphasised that emissions are “likely
to be gradual and sustained rather than
abrupt and massive”. A recent modelling study
estimated that permafrost carbon releases
could contribute up to 12% of the change in
global mean temperature by 2100 (Burke et al.,
2017). Studies since 2013 therefore confirm the
importance of permafrost carbon release as
a positive feedback, and the need to include
it accurately in Earth system models, but
they do not support considering it to exhibit
threshold behaviour.

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #927 on: February 14, 2019, 04:24:39 AM »
thanks to AbruptSLR

Title: "Climate updates What have we learnt since the IPCC 5th Assessment Report?", November 2017 DES5123 ISBN: 978-1-78252-306-2

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf

Extract: "With the next assessment report (AR6) not due until 2022, it is timely to consider how evidence presented since the publication of AR5 affects the assessments made then.


In summary, gradual climate change could trigger abrupt changes – with large regional and potentially global impacts – associated with thresholds in the Earth system. The possibility of crossing any of these thresholds increases with each increment of warming."


---

Lurk,

I've previously cited that paper to show that the authors' don't believe that the Arctic permafrost is one of those threshold systems:

Here's a link to a 2017 update of the IPCC AR5 report by the UK Royal Society:

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report-references-document.pdf

Excerpts relevant to methane clathrate release:

Quote
Clathrates: Some economic assessments
continue to emphasise the potential damage
from very strong and rapid methane hydrate
release (Hope and Schaefer, 2016), although
AR5 did not consider this likely. Recent
measurements of methane fluxes from
the Siberian Shelf Seas (Thornton et al.,
2016) are much lower than those inferred
previously (Shakhova et al., 2014). A range
of other studies have suggested a much
smaller influence of clathrate release on the
Arctic atmosphere than had been suggested
(Berchet et al., 2016; Myhre et al., 2016). New
modelling work confirms (Kretschmer et al.,
2015) that the Arctic is the region where
methane release from clathrates is likely
to be most important in the next century,
but still estimates methane release to the
water column to be negligible compared to
anthropogenic releases to the atmosphere.
A recent review (Ruppel and Kessler, 2017)
emphasises that there remains little evidence
that clathrate methane is reaching the
atmosphere at present. Although methane that
is oxidised in the water column will not reach
the atmosphere, it will have the effect of further
lowering the pH of the ocean (Boudreau et al.,
2015). A recent modelling study joined earlier
papers in assigning a relatively limited role to
dissociation of methane hydrates as a climate
feedback (Mestdagh et al., 2017).

Excerpt related to permafrost melt:

Quote
Permafrost: A review published in 2015
(Schuur et al., 2015) made new estimates of
the amount of carbon stored in permafrost,
both near the surface and at depth. It also
summarised experimental evidence about
how much carbon would be released, and
in what form, when permafrost melts. This
led to a new estimate that about 100 Pg of
cumulative carbon emissions (with a wide
uncertainty) would be released from thawing
permafrost by 2100 under RCP8.5. This leads
to a significant positive feedback, but the
review emphasised that emissions are “likely
to be gradual and sustained rather than
abrupt and massive”. A recent modelling study
estimated that permafrost carbon releases
could contribute up to 12% of the change in
global mean temperature by 2100 (Burke et al.,
2017). Studies since 2013 therefore confirm the
importance of permafrost carbon release as
a positive feedback, and the need to include
it accurately in Earth system models, but
they do not support considering it to exhibit
threshold behaviour.

There is evidence to suggest the permafrost is a threshold system

"I would expect to see continuous permafrost start to thaw along the boundaries at this threshold of 1.5C [in future]”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/21/temperature-rise-permafrost-melt
"When the ice goes..... F***

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #928 on: February 14, 2019, 06:51:54 PM »
Sorry if this has already been posted, recent Jan 2019 paper

Geosciences 2019, 9(2), 67; doi:10.3390/geosciences9020067
Article
Methane in Gas Shows from Boreholes in Epigenetic Permafrost of Siberian Arctic
Gleb Kraev et al
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/9/2/67/htm?fbclid=IwAR3MpQrNtVVxEajEFEZ2jewMvTwPRXqDjVS4QzYBqX7bCNThatdfE8w5FzI

The details in this ground research study are informative. As have some of S&S studies in river beds and the shelf shown very large disparities in CH4 content/emissions and complex behaviours and geologic formations.

This paper certainly addresses the complexities of this kind of research and how easily incorrect assumptions/conclusions can be drawn. iow there are multiple forms of methane in how it is formed to start with, set in multiple different geological land formations, that produces multiple kinds of releases and rates of release and is therefore susceptible to the type and duration of scientific monitoring being done. 

How correct are they I am unsure but their presentation is first class and more understandable than many other papers. It's  also real world in the field vs theoretical assumptions in models.

a short quote as an example:

Quote
from 3.5. Toward an Understanding of Methane Origin in Geologic Sections
Boreholes represent a very specific kind of permafrost disturbance, which has a very narrow conduit leading methane directly to the atmosphere, and is rare in natural types of disturbance.

Natural conduits like faults usually are initially associated with depressions, which fill with water in the permafrost zone. Much of the gas passing through this environment must have dissolved, dissipated, become buried, or been microbially transformed, and thus did not reach the surface.

Only young features related to gas emission such as boreholes, or gas explosion craters emit methane at the high rates that we observed. However, such types of emission are short-term. In our case, the emission did not exceed 10 days; for deeper boreholes, it may last for months. The Yamal crater emitted methane no longer than several months, because no signs of ebullition were detected on its surface when it was examined [10]. Features in permafrost zone that emit large amounts of gas usually do not do so at a time scale of years.

Given the surface origin of methane in the gas shows, which occured both in gas-bearing West Siberia and non-gas-bearing Kolyma Lowland deposits, we should agree with the published research [3] that in cold continuous permafrost, the methane accumulations are preserved better than in areas that experienced glaciations. It is likely that in the latter regions, methane can emit through the permeable sediments to the air, contributing to the surficial fluxes.

In both regions, we see that gas accumulations are mainly surface features, but in some cases, the geological origin is common. It was pointed out in our previous studies that methane accumulates in epigenetic permafrost, which was formed by the freezing of sediments that already passed the diagenetic stage [33] and were originally saturated with gas. The concentration of methane in such deposits is higher than in syngenetic deposits, which lack methane in most cases [17].

The epicryogenic freezing of methane-rich soils was considered to be the main mechanism of the gas dislocation and the formation of methane accumulations in permafrost [5]. The findings of excessive storages of methane that were reported here, which could be released from the boreholes, further supports the opinion that the history of permafrost formation should be taken into account in order to find the accumulations of methane in either form.


 4. Conclusions
Quote
The gas shows from boreholes in epigenetic permafrost could be a strong source of methane, especially right after drilling. Based on the measured concentration in boreholes, we estimated flux through the borehole mouth from a 25-m deep borehole ranging from 1.6 g CH4 day−1 m−2 to 0.8 × 106 g CH4 day−1 m−2. Such fluxes occur both in oil and gas-bearing regions and outside of them. The fluxes diminish to near-zero values within several days, so we do not find it appropriate to extrapolate the effect of any gas show to an annual timescale. Not all of them could be called seeps.

The emission of methane from boreholes could not be attributed only to the disturbing effect of drilling on permafrost. The volumes and dynamics of gas emission from boreholes point to the occurrence of traps filled with methane in permafrost. There are no visual features pointing to the existence of the trap in sediments. Both the surficial biogenic methane transported during freezing, and the diffusion/filtration of methane from deep-Earth sources via a system of conduits and traps represented by porous deposits unconstrained with ice can be associated with methane accumulation.

The application of indicators such as the equivalent diameter of degassing provides an estimate of the size and, if monitored during drilling, might help to find the location of the source of methane in the borehole. The concentration of methane in permafrost samples also seems to be a good indicator of the occurrence of gas shows in boreholes.

CH4 entrapped in permafrost could constitute some contributions to the fluxes of greenhouse gases in permeable permafrost. The disturbance of permafrost provides a path for the liberation of gas from the traps. The occurrence of lithological traps in permafrost is not ubiquitous, and could be studied using subsurface sounding, studies of permafrost evolution, gas amounts, and gas composition.

Lurk,

That paper is a good find.  They reference the S&S studies in the introduction and they give good reasons why the S&S annual estimates may be too high and other expeditions in the same area found lower methane emissions.  Here's the abstract:

Quote
Abstract: The gas shows in the permafrost zone represent a hazard for exploration, form the surface features, and are improperly estimated in the global methane budget. They contain methane of either surficial or deep-Earth origin accumulated earlier in the form of gas or gas hydrates in lithological traps in permafrost. From these traps, it rises through conduits, which have tectonic origin or are associated with permafrost degradation. We report methane fluxes from 20-m to 30-m deep boreholes, which are the artificial conduits for gas from permafrost in Siberia. The dynamics of degassing the traps was studied using static chambers, and compared to the concentration of methane in permafrost as analyzed by the headspace method and gas chromatography. More than 53 g of CH4 could be released to the atmosphere at rates exceeding 9 g of CH4 m−2 s−1 from a trap in epigenetic permafrost disconnected from traditional geological sources over a period from a few hours to several days. The amount of methane released from a borehole exceeded the amount of the gas that was enclosed in large volumes of permafrost within a diameter up to 5 meters around the borehole. Such gas shows could be by mistake assumed as permanent gas seeps, which leads to the overestimation of the role of permafrost in global warming

And to repeat the conclusion you also posted, but with different emphasis:

Quote
The gas shows from boreholes in epigenetic permafrost could be a strong source of methane, especially right after drilling. Based on the measured concentration in boreholes, we estimated flux through the borehole mouth from a 25-m deep borehole ranging from 1.6 g CH4 day−1 m−2 to 0.8 × 106 g CH4 day−1 m−2. Such fluxes occur both in oil and gas-bearing regions and outside of them. The fluxes diminish to near-zero values within several days, so we do not find it appropriate to extrapolate the effect of any gas show to an annual timescale. Not all of them could be called seeps.

Lurk

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #929 on: February 15, 2019, 03:30:10 AM »
PS "annual estimates may be too high" and "could be mistakes" applies to every paper on every AGW aspect I have ever read. It comes with the territory. They all say that somewhere sometime. It's how scientists and researchers speak.

In the meantime despite "science" being based on the notion that what a scientist does in a paper needs to be "replicable" so that others can repeat the "experiment" when it comes to AGW/CC issues this never or rarely (hens teeth version of rarely) happens.

I have not seen any group actually go and replicate verbatim a S7S research study in the field. Have you? AS in the same place in the same time of year using the exact same MO for measurements and the math used to estimate long-term regional wide emissions?

and then found errors and corrected those assumed errors and made a different estimate for the future or region concerned and then compared the two results side by side and explained them clearly.

I did see Archer use a totally different MO to claim that S&S estimates were "may be" wrong.  But he did not replicate what they did instead using a totally different MO by using long-term Modelling to get a different result. Well why wouldn't he get a different result when they were doing two different thing entirely - like mixing water and oil?

I have no issue in these different outputs, it's just the way it is. It's actually impossible to replicate other studies all the time, there isn't the funding the time or the capacity to do so. I tend though to pay special attention to those groups who replicate their own studies years later. That's what I see as "apples to apples" comparisons worth heeding. Because even if there some errors poor assumptions a fair comparison can still be made. Like happens with MLO CO2 readings over time - same MO for decades. Anyway whoever is more right or more wrong doesn't matter in the least in the big picture anyway.

I'm content knowing that whatever is known today more will be known tomorrow. And reality trumps every science paper ever written. I take it all with a grain of salt - including the IPCC "summaries" :)

Lurk

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #930 on: February 18, 2019, 06:16:13 PM »
[ sorry I accidentally edited this when I was trying to reply to it - doh]

Slightly off-topic as it goes beyond the Arctic (should it go elsewhere?)

AGU Very  strong atmospheric methane growth  in the  four  years 2014 -2017:
Implications for the Paris Agreement E.G.Nisbet et al

Plain Language Summary

The  rise  in  atmospheric  methane  (CH4),  which  began  in  2007,  accelerated  in  the  past  four years.  The growthhas  been  worldwide,  especially  in  the  tropics  and  northern  mid-latitudes. With the  rise  has  come  a  shift  in  the  carbon  isotope  ratioof  the  methane.  The  causes  of  the rise  are  not  fully  understood,  and  may  include  increased  emissions  and  perhaps  a  decline  in the  destruction  of  methane  in  the  air.  Methane's  increase  since  2007  was  not  expected  in future greenhouse gas scenarios compliant with the targets of the Paris Agreement, and if the increase  continues  at  the  same  rates  it  may  become  very  difficult  to  meet  the  Paris  goals. There  is  now  urgent  need  to  reduce  methane  emissions,  especially  from  the  fossil  fuel industry/

10. Conclusion

The  need  to  determine  the  factors  behind  the  recent  rise  in  methane  is  urgent:  indeed, essential  if  global  warming  is  to  be  limited  within  the  Paris  Agreement  limits.  If  the  main causes  are increased anthropogenic emissions,  they need  to  be  reduced.  If  the  increased methane burden is driven by increased emissions from natural sources, and if this is a climate feedback –the warming feeding the warming -then there is urgency to reduce anthropogenic emissions, which we can control.

If, however, the increase in the methane burden is driven by a decline in the oxidative capacity of the atmosphere, and this is a climate feedback, then the implications are serious indeed.

Reducing methane emissions is feasible, especially from fossil fuel sources,and would have rapid impact on the global methane burden. This permits optimism but not complacency: the challenge  is  large.   But  there  is  no  single  silver  bullet:    there  are  many  frontiers  in  methane research,  and  successfully  meeting  the  Paris goals demands  wide-ranging  progress. Unless these questions are addressed, and much more attention paid to reducing methane emissions, especially from fossil fuels and biomass burning, the success of the Paris Agreement may be at risk.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2018GB006009

Quote
Quote

    Guardian article
    Sharp rise in methane levels threatens world climate targets
    Experts warn that failure to act risks spike in global temperatures
    Robin McKie
    Sun 17 Feb 2019

    “What we are now witnessing is extremely worrying,” said one of the paper’s lead authors, Professor Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway, University of London. “It is particularly alarming because we are still not sure why atmospheric methane levels are rising across the planet.”

    “We have only just started analysing our data but have already found evidence that a great plume of methane now rises above the wetland swamps of Lake Bangweul in Zambia,” added Nisbet.

    “However, that does not look so simple any more. We don’t know exactly what is happening.

    “Perhaps emissions are growing or perhaps the problem is due to the fact that our atmosphere is losing its ability to break down methane.

    “Either way we are facing a very worrying problem. That is why it is so important that we unravel what is going on – as soon as possible.”
    https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/17/methane-levels-sharp-rise-threaten-paris-climate-agreement


Quote

    And from 2016 along the same lines by Euan Nisbet, a climate researcher at Royal Holloway, University of London
    Why is atmospheric methane surging? (Hint: It's not fracking)
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/why-atmospheric-methane-surging-hint-its-not-fracking
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 11:09:58 AM by Lurk »

kassy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #931 on: February 19, 2019, 02:48:13 PM »
Arctic Bogs Hold Another Global Warming Risk That Could Spiral Out of Control

Increasing spring rains in the Arctic could double the increase in methane emissions from the region by hastening the rate of thawing in permafrost, new research suggests.

...

"Our results emphasize that these permafrost regions are sensitive to the thermal effects of rain, and because we're anticipating that these environments are going to get wetter in the future, we could be seeing increases in methane emissions that we weren't expecting," said the study's lead author, Rebecca Neumann, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Washington. The study appears in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

...
In the new study, Neumann and colleagues tracked rainfall, soil temperature and methane emissions at a thawing permafrost bog approximately 20 miles southwest of Fairbanks, Alaska, from 2014 through 2016.

In 2016, a year marked by early spring rain, the team saw soil temperatures at the edge of the bog begin to increase 20 days earlier than usual. Methane emissions across the bog were 30 percent higher than in the two previous years which did not have early spring rains.

The study projects that as the temperature and precipitation in the region continue to increase, the rate of increase in methane emissions from the region may be roughly twice that of current estimates that don't account for rainfall.

and more:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19022019/arctic-bogs-permafrost-thaw-methane-climate-change-feedback-loop

kassy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #932 on: February 26, 2019, 01:53:54 PM »
The strong growth they found just confirms what we have seen in recent years.

Quote
The  causes  of  the rise  are  not  fully  understood,  and  may  include  increased  emissions  and  perhaps  a  decline  in the  destruction  of  methane  in  the  air.

I bet many here would love to know how much of the factors above contribute. The bigger the last factor is the bigger the trouble is. I don´t think there is much to discuss since we would just be guessing. We need better data, especially on that last factor.

Quote
in the other, the gas is emanating from tropical wetlands flooded by heavy rains in recent years.

Haven´t read to much about that subject but i am wondering how big that contribution could be. How much more wetlands have been flooded since 2005? And the historical trend is us knocking out ever more nature probably including those wetlands.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 380
  • Likes Given: 837
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #933 on: February 26, 2019, 04:25:36 PM »
I'm surprised at the lack of interest/comments about this Paper. I though that Paper was really thorough, detailed, easy to read (despite being long) and raised some fairly serious (potential ?) issues about methane.
I agree it's a good and well-written paper. I don't have much to add so I usually don't post much in this thread, but I find your summaries here quite useful and to the point.
Bottom line, don't judge the level of interest by the lack of comments, I think that it's a case of silent majority.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 669
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #934 on: February 26, 2019, 05:01:46 PM »
I'm surprised at the lack of interest/comments about this Paper. I though that Paper was really thorough, detailed, easy to read (despite being long) and raised some fairly serious (potential ?) issues about methane.
I agree it's a good and well-written paper. I don't have much to add so I usually don't post much in this thread, but I find your summaries here quite useful and to the point.
Bottom line, don't judge the level of interest by the lack of comments, I think that it's a case of silent majority.

+1

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #935 on: February 26, 2019, 05:55:11 PM »
A good explanation of the recent rise in methane concentrations (which are still below the annual increases that happened in the 1980s to early 1990s) is increased fossil fuel emissions.  The huge increase in fracking oil and natural gas in the US is a probable source.  Also, the growth in agricultural emissions has continued unabated.

See the two studies cross-posted from AbruptSLR in the Antarctica forums:

The first linked 2017 reference used satellite data to reconcile different estimates of methane emissions by correcting for estimates of methane emissions from biomass burning from 2001 to 2014.  This implies that the recent increases in both biomass burning and in fossil fuel use are contributing to the current high rate of increase of atmospheric methane concentrations (see the attached image for Mauna Loa Atmospheric Methane concentration from 2005 to Feb 26, 2019).  That said I also suspect that increases in agricultural methane emissions and natural emissions from wetlands are also contributing:

Worden et al. (2017), "Reduced biomass burning emissions reconcile conflicting estimates of the post-2006 atmospheric methane budget", Nature Communications 8, 2227, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02246-0

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02246-0

Abstract: "Several viable but conflicting explanations have been proposed to explain the recent ~8p.p.b.per year increase in atmospheric methane after 2006, equivalent to net emissions increase of ~25Tg CH4 per year. A concurrent increase in atmospheric ethane implicates a fossil source a concurrent decrease in the heavy isotope content of methane points toward a biogenic source, while other studies propose a decrease in the chemical sink (OH). Here we show that biomass burning emissions of methane decreased by 3.7 (±1.4) Tg CH4 per year from the 2001–2007 to the 2008–2014 time periods using satellite measurements of CO and CH4 nearly twice the decrease expected from prior estimates. After updating both the total and isotopic budgets for atmospheric methane with these revised biomass burning emissions (and assuming no change to the chemical sink), we find that fossil fuels contribute between 12–19 Tg CH4 per year to the recent atmospheric methane increase, thus reconciling the isotopic- and ethane-based results.

See also:

Title: "NASA-led Study Solves a Methane Puzzle"

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-led-study-solves-a-methane-puzzle

& see:

Adam Yeeles (2019), "Coal methane unabated", Nature Climate Change 9, 186, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0432-x

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0432-x

See also:

Julie Wolf et al, Revised methane emissions factors and spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock, Carbon Balance and Management (2017). DOI: 10.1186/s13021-017-0084-y

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13021-017-0084-y

Abstract

Background

Livestock play an important role in carbon cycling through consumption of biomass and emissions of methane. Recent research suggests that existing bottom-up inventories of livestock methane emissions in the US, such as those made using 2006 IPCC Tier 1 livestock emissions factors, are too low. This may be due to outdated information used to develop these emissions factors. In this study, we update information for cattle and swine by region, based on reported recent changes in animal body mass, feed quality and quantity, milk productivity, and management of animals and manure. We then use this updated information to calculate new livestock methane emissions factors for enteric fermentation in cattle, and for manure management in cattle and swine.

Results
Using the new emissions factors, we estimate global livestock emissions of 119.1 ± 18.2 Tg methane in 2011; this quantity is 11% greater than that obtained using the IPCC 2006 emissions factors, encompassing an 8.4% increase in enteric fermentation methane, a 36.7% increase in manure management methane, and notable variability among regions and sources. For example, revised manure management methane emissions for 2011 in the US increased by 71.8%. For years through 2013, we present (a) annual livestock methane emissions, (b) complete annual livestock carbon budgets, including carbon dioxide emissions, and (c) spatial distributions of livestock methane and other carbon fluxes, downscaled to 0.05 × 0.05 degree resolution.

Conclusions
Our revised bottom-up estimates of global livestock methane emissions are comparable to recently reported top-down global estimates for recent years, and account for a significant part of the increase in annual methane emissions since 2007. Our results suggest that livestock methane emissions, while not the dominant overall source of global methane emissions, may be a major contributor to the observed annual emissions increases over the 2000s to 2010s. Differences at regional and local scales may help distinguish livestock methane emissions from those of other sectors in future top-down studies. The revised estimates allow improved reconciliation of top-down and bottom-up estimates of methane emissions, will facilitate the development and evaluation of Earth system models, and provide consistent regional and global Tier 1 estimates for environmental assessments.

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #936 on: February 26, 2019, 06:59:33 PM »
A good explanation of the recent rise in methane concentrations (which are still below the annual increases that happened in the 1980s to early 1990s) is increased fossil fuel emissions.  The huge increase in fracking oil and natural gas in the US is a probable source.  Also, the growth in agricultural emissions has continued unabated.

See the two studies cross-posted from AbruptSLR in the Antarctica forums:

The first linked 2017 reference used satellite data to reconcile different estimates of methane emissions by correcting for estimates of methane emissions from biomass burning from 2001 to 2014.  This implies that the recent increases in both biomass burning and in fossil fuel use are contributing to the current high rate of increase of atmospheric methane concentrations (see the attached image for Mauna Loa Atmospheric Methane concentration from 2005 to Feb 26, 2019).  That said I also suspect that increases in agricultural methane emissions and natural emissions from wetlands are also contributing:

Worden et al. (2017), "Reduced biomass burning emissions reconcile conflicting estimates of the post-2006 atmospheric methane budget", Nature Communications 8, 2227, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02246-0

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02246-0

Abstract: "Several viable but conflicting explanations have been proposed to explain the recent ~8p.p.b.per year increase in atmospheric methane after 2006, equivalent to net emissions increase of ~25Tg CH4 per year. A concurrent increase in atmospheric ethane implicates a fossil source a concurrent decrease in the heavy isotope content of methane points toward a biogenic source, while other studies propose a decrease in the chemical sink (OH). Here we show that biomass burning emissions of methane decreased by 3.7 (±1.4) Tg CH4 per year from the 2001–2007 to the 2008–2014 time periods using satellite measurements of CO and CH4 nearly twice the decrease expected from prior estimates. After updating both the total and isotopic budgets for atmospheric methane with these revised biomass burning emissions (and assuming no change to the chemical sink), we find that fossil fuels contribute between 12–19 Tg CH4 per year to the recent atmospheric methane increase, thus reconciling the isotopic- and ethane-based results.

See also:

Title: "NASA-led Study Solves a Methane Puzzle"

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-led-study-solves-a-methane-puzzle

& see:

Adam Yeeles (2019), "Coal methane unabated", Nature Climate Change 9, 186, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0432-x

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0432-x

See also:

Julie Wolf et al, Revised methane emissions factors and spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock, Carbon Balance and Management (2017). DOI: 10.1186/s13021-017-0084-y

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13021-017-0084-y

Abstract

Background

Livestock play an important role in carbon cycling through consumption of biomass and emissions of methane. Recent research suggests that existing bottom-up inventories of livestock methane emissions in the US, such as those made using 2006 IPCC Tier 1 livestock emissions factors, are too low. This may be due to outdated information used to develop these emissions factors. In this study, we update information for cattle and swine by region, based on reported recent changes in animal body mass, feed quality and quantity, milk productivity, and management of animals and manure. We then use this updated information to calculate new livestock methane emissions factors for enteric fermentation in cattle, and for manure management in cattle and swine.

Results
Using the new emissions factors, we estimate global livestock emissions of 119.1 ± 18.2 Tg methane in 2011; this quantity is 11% greater than that obtained using the IPCC 2006 emissions factors, encompassing an 8.4% increase in enteric fermentation methane, a 36.7% increase in manure management methane, and notable variability among regions and sources. For example, revised manure management methane emissions for 2011 in the US increased by 71.8%. For years through 2013, we present (a) annual livestock methane emissions, (b) complete annual livestock carbon budgets, including carbon dioxide emissions, and (c) spatial distributions of livestock methane and other carbon fluxes, downscaled to 0.05 × 0.05 degree resolution.

Conclusions
Our revised bottom-up estimates of global livestock methane emissions are comparable to recently reported top-down global estimates for recent years, and account for a significant part of the increase in annual methane emissions since 2007. Our results suggest that livestock methane emissions, while not the dominant overall source of global methane emissions, may be a major contributor to the observed annual emissions increases over the 2000s to 2010s. Differences at regional and local scales may help distinguish livestock methane emissions from those of other sectors in future top-down studies. The revised estimates allow improved reconciliation of top-down and bottom-up estimates of methane emissions, will facilitate the development and evaluation of Earth system models, and provide consistent regional and global Tier 1 estimates for environmental assessments.

That is part of it, but not all of it. There has been a drop carbon-13, while the methane is still rising. This implies there is some increases in the system as well. Forest fires, the Arctic, etc
"When the ice goes..... F***

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #937 on: February 26, 2019, 08:43:41 PM »
Here are a couple of studies on US Natural Gas and Oil production methane emissions that indicate the scale of leakage and emissions from well sites:

https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=924889

Quote
Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas
supply chain

Ramón A. Alvarez, et. al 2018

Methane emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas supply chain were estimated using ground-based, facility-scale measurements and validated with aircraft observations in areas accounting for ~30% of U.S. gas production. When scaled up nationally, our facility-based estimate of 2015 supply chain emissions is 13 ± 2 Tg/y, equivalent to 2.3% of gross U.S. gas production. This value is ~60% higher than the U.S. EPA inventory estimate, likely because existing inventory methods miss emissions released during abnormal operating conditions. Methane emissions of this magnitude, per unit of natural gas consumed, produce radiative forcing over a 20-year time horizon comparable to the CO2 from natural gas combustion. Significant emission reductions are feasible through rapid detection of the root causes of high emissions and deployment of less failure-prone systems.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.8b03535#

Quote
Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Production Sites in the United States: Data Synthesis and National Estimate


Mark Omara, et. al. 2018

We used site-level methane (CH4) emissions data from over 1000 natural gas (NG) production sites in eight basins, including 92 new site-level CH4 measurements in the Uinta, northeastern Marcellus, and Denver-Julesburg basins, to investigate CH4 emissions characteristics and develop a new national CH4 emission estimate for the NG production sector. The distribution of site-level emissions is highly skewed, with the top 5% of sites accounting for 50% of cumulative emissions. High emitting sites are predominantly also high producing (>10 Mcfd). However, low NG production sites emit a larger fraction of their CH4 production. When combined with activity data, we predict that this creates substantial variability in the basin-level CH4 emissions which, as a fraction of basin-level CH4 production, range from 0.90% for the Appalachian and Greater Green River to >4.5% in the San Juan and San Joaquin. This suggests that much of the basin-level differences in production-normalized CH4 emissions reported by aircraft studies can be explained by differences in site size and distribution of site-level production rates. We estimate that NG production sites emit total CH4 emissions of 830 Mg/h (95% CI: 530–1200), 63% of which come from the sites producing <100 Mcfd that account for only 10% of total NG production. Our total CH4 emissions estimate is 2.3 times higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s estimate and likely attributable to the disproportionate influence of high emitting sites.

Both studies indicate that methane emissions from oil and natural gas production exceed US EPA estimates by 2.5 to 5 times.  And the scale of leakage is 2 to 4 Tg per year, or about what the natural emissions from the ESAS are annually.  That's just in the US.  The potential emissions reductions worldwide could stabilize methane levels in the atmosphere as was the case in the late 1990s.

Ultimately, natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels to support industrial applications being replaced by renewable electricity powering buildings and transportation.  Since methane's residence time in the atmosphere is about a decade, we can expect to see the concentrations in the atmosphere decrease during our lifetimes.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3293
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #938 on: February 26, 2019, 08:59:50 PM »
The potential emissions reductions worldwide could stabilize methane levels in the atmosphere as was the case in the late 1990s.

Ultimately, natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels to support industrial applications being replaced by renewable electricity powering buildings and transportation.  Since methane's residence time in the atmosphere is about a decade, we can expect to see the concentrations in the atmosphere decrease during our lifetimes.

Of course, there is nothing in the short term or long term trends that supports your statement that "natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels."

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/nat_gas.pdf

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #939 on: February 26, 2019, 09:05:19 PM »
This also assumes methane release doesn’t pick up from natural sources. Kens argument doesn’t seem to be based in reality. ......Everything will be ok. Those who think otherwise should be silenced. We will fix everything!.... sorry but that just isn’t gonna happen. We might try to fix things, but I have high doubts. Renewable energy certainly isn’t the answer. Perhaps we should give up civilization and try to create self sustainable communities. But no that’s to much to ask for. Civilization has to go, as well as capitalism, if we want any decent chance of Saving the world
"When the ice goes..... F***

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #940 on: February 26, 2019, 09:22:38 PM »
The potential emissions reductions worldwide could stabilize methane levels in the atmosphere as was the case in the late 1990s.

Ultimately, natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels to support industrial applications being replaced by renewable electricity powering buildings and transportation.  Since methane's residence time in the atmosphere is about a decade, we can expect to see the concentrations in the atmosphere decrease during our lifetimes.

Of course, there is nothing in the short term or long term trends that supports your statement that "natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels."

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/nat_gas.pdf

If you ignore recent developments then the case looks bleak.  Fortunately, the economics for renewables have improved greatly in recent years, to the point that they are now cheaper than fossil fuel plants.

An article from 2018:

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/04/12/solar-and-wind-plus-storage-to-increasingly-replace-gas-plants/

Quote
Solar and wind plus storage to increasingly replace gas plants



A session at BNEF’s Future of Energy Summit explored how renewables paired with energy storage are successfully competing with new gas plants.
April 12, 2018 Christian Roselund

For some years it has been obvious that increasing deployment of solar and wind is cutting into the market share of coal and nuclear power plants in the United States and Europe. These plants are being increasingly retired, and a negligible number of new plants of either technology are being built in either region.

But this is only part of the story. For the past 15 years, the United States in particular has put a massive capacity of new gas plants online, many of which are combined-cycle designs. These plants use fuel more efficiently than “peaker” plants, but also ramp more slowly, and as such are often meant for “mid-merit” applications.

However, according to a panel at Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s (BNEF) Future of Energy Summit in New York City, the market for new combined cycle gas plants may be coming to a close, in favor of solar and wind paired with energy storage. And this may foreshadow a larger move away from gas.

“Renewables + storage is already much smarter than combined cycle,” stated Javier Cavada, the president of energy solutions at Wärtsilä. “Combined cycles have gone to half in 16, half in 17, and this year we will see if there is any crazy person going for combined cycle.”

And this is coming from a company that supplies gas plants.

California leads the way

Cavada’s statement represents something of a European perspective. The capacity of new gas plants put online in the United States increased from 2016 to 2017, and while pv magazine was not able to find a breakdown by type of plant for the past two years, the majority of deployments have traditionally been combined cycle.

However, in California regulators are repeatedly choosing renewable energy plus storage over not only new gas plants, but even continued operation of gas- and oil-fired power plants, including not only combined cycle, but also single-cycle “peaker” plants. Additionally, the bids for clean energy are often coming in at lower prices than other options.


Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #941 on: February 26, 2019, 09:41:18 PM »
This also assumes methane release doesn’t pick up from natural sources. Kens argument doesn’t seem to be based in reality. ......Everything will be ok. Those who think otherwise should be silenced. We will fix everything!.... sorry but that just isn’t gonna happen. We might try to fix things, but I have high doubts. Renewable energy certainly isn’t the answer. Perhaps we should give up civilization and try to create self sustainable communities. But no that’s to much to ask for. Civilization has to go, as well as capitalism, if we want any decent chance of Saving the world

Not even close to what I said!  You seem to deliberately misinterpret what I've been saying.

I've posted many scientific papers to rebut the doomsday scenarios you keep posting from newspapers and other non-scientific sources.  I haven't silenced you, yet you keep twisting my words in response.

It will take a lot of effort to shift from fossil fuels to carbon free sources.  It can be done.  Giving up and saying we're all doomed because natural emissions are going to increase is a typical denier tactic.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #942 on: February 26, 2019, 09:57:07 PM »
The potential emissions reductions worldwide could stabilize methane levels in the atmosphere as was the case in the late 1990s.

Ultimately, natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels to support industrial applications being replaced by renewable electricity powering buildings and transportation.  Since methane's residence time in the atmosphere is about a decade, we can expect to see the concentrations in the atmosphere decrease during our lifetimes.

Of course, there is nothing in the short term or long term trends that supports your statement that "natural gas and oil use will be reduced to minimal levels."

Back to the replacement of fossil fuels.  When the costs of generating electricity from renewables plus batteries is less than building new fossil fuel plants, you'll see the construction of new fossil fuel plants decline and eventually end.  That point was hit in 2018 in the US:

https://www.theenergytimes.com/solar/batteries-out-distance-gas-burning-generators

Quote
Batteries Out-Distance Gas-Burning Generators


From southern California to Arizona, energy storage units are popping up to make renewables more available when power demand peaks.

Martin.Rosenberg | Feb 14, 2018

Electric batteries linked to renewables can be cheaper than conventional natural gas burning peaker generators, the workhorses of the utility sector in periods of high power demand.

Utilities are scrambling to deploy batteries at a fast clip as a result, reports the Wall Street Journal.

Tucson Electric Power is building a 100-megawatt solar installation backed up with 30-megawatt capacity energy storage facility.

Meanwhile, Fluence Energy, a joint venture of Siemens and AES, is building the largest lithium ion battery in the world that will provide backup power to 60,000 southern California homes, the Journal reported. That battery is triple the size of a mammoth energy storage installation Tesla recently built in Australia.

This trend of changing out energy generation infrastructure in favor of green, climate-change fighting sources of renewable energy is accelerating.


Quote
"The federal government estimates that a new gas-fired peaking plant could generate electricity for about $87 for a megawatt hour, including the cost of building the plant and buying fuel,” the Journal reported. “By comparison, Xcel Energy’s Colorado subsidiary recently ran an open solicitation and received 87 bids for solar-plus-storage projects at a median price of $36 per megawatt hour, one of the lowest such bids to date.”


Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #943 on: February 26, 2019, 10:02:53 PM »
And when the cost of building new renewables plus battery storage is cheaper than operating fossil fuel plants, you'll see those plants close.  We hit that point the USA last year too.

https://thinkprogress.org/colorado-wind-batteries-cheap-12e82b91a543/

Quote
This is how coal dies — super cheap renewables plus battery storage

New Colorado wind farms with batteries are now cheaper than running old coal plants

Joe Romm Jan 10, 2018, 12:35 pm

Solar, wind, and battery prices are dropping so fast that, in Colorado, building new renewable power plus battery storage is now cheaper than running old coal plants. This increasingly renders existing coal plants obsolete.

Two weeks ago, Xcel Energy quietly reported dozens of shockingly low bids it had received for building new solar and wind farms, many with battery storage (see table below).

The median bid price in 2017 for wind plus battery storage was $21 per megawatt-hour, which is 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. As Carbon Tracker noted, this “appears to be lower than the operating cost of all coal plants currently in Colorado.”

And the trend for coal worldwide is not looking good:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/renewables-may-prove-cheaper-than-96-of-coal-plants-2030#gs.u6ErXI9T

Quote
A new global analysis of 6,685 coal plants finds that it is now cheaper to build new renewable generation than to run 35 percent of coal plants worldwide. By 2030, that percentage increases dramatically, with renewables beating out 96 percent of today’s existing and planned coal-fired generation.

The 4 percent exception is in markets with extremely low fuel costs, where coal is cheap and plentiful, or with uncertain policies for renewables, like Russia.

The EIA is notorious for underestimating the growth of renewable energy.  The EIA reports are not reliable for estimates of future energy generation.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 380
  • Likes Given: 837
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #944 on: February 26, 2019, 10:19:54 PM »
Ken, I hope that you are right about renewables taking over, and there is good reason to believe it will happen. But it's a question of pace. For now the trends show continued rise in global fossil fueled electricity, despite the high growth of renewables. Until the trend shifts substantially we cannot assume all will be well. And of course even then there's all the other anthropogenic emission sources which are on much less optimistic trajectories. Not to mention natural feedbacks which will surely grow in time, even if not to doomsday levels. So I am quite pessimistic all in all.

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #945 on: February 27, 2019, 02:10:30 AM »
This also assumes methane release doesn’t pick up from natural sources. Kens argument doesn’t seem to be based in reality. ......Everything will be ok. Those who think otherwise should be silenced. We will fix everything!.... sorry but that just isn’t gonna happen. We might try to fix things, but I have high doubts. Renewable energy certainly isn’t the answer. Perhaps we should give up civilization and try to create self sustainable communities. But no that’s to much to ask for. Civilization has to go, as well as capitalism, if we want any decent chance of Saving the world

Not even close to what I said!  You seem to deliberately misinterpret what I've been saying.

I've posted many scientific papers to rebut the doomsday scenarios you keep posting from newspapers and other non-scientific sources.  I haven't silenced you, yet you keep twisting my words in response.

It will take a lot of effort to shift from fossil fuels to carbon free sources.  It can be done.  Giving up and saying we're all doomed because natural emissions are going to increase is a typical denier tactic.

I’m sorry but this is pure dillusion. Renewable energy is not gonna fix anything. And the “doomsday scenario” can not be dismissed. Why? Because it’s where we’re headed. We have already locked in at least 3 C of warming. That is the optimistic estimate. 4-5 C is where civilization collapses, 6 C and up we start talking about extinction. Renewables would have been great if we had invested in them decades ago. Now instead of “hoping” for a future that will never come. Let’s try and protest the system of “infinite growth on a finite planet”. The doomsday scenario is not some theory or low probability. It’s already Happening
"When the ice goes..... F***

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #946 on: February 27, 2019, 02:17:38 AM »
This will be my last time posting on this thread, as well as ASIF.  The real reason I come to ASIF is for info on the ice. Point is, many posters here lack either urgency or understanding of the entire situation we find ourselves in. I would like to point out I mean no ill will towards people i disagree with. So thanks for all the contributions everywhere. This is a good forum, filled with many good people.
"When the ice goes..... F***

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1738
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #947 on: February 27, 2019, 02:49:05 AM »
Ken Feldman, thank you for that series of posts. They give me hope, however feeble. I agree with you that the transition can be done much faster than anyone thinks. Things are looking good from the technological and financial point of view. The technology to replace fossil fuels exists and it will make our lives better.

But it is by no means a sure thing yet. The seeds have been sown. They are sprouting beautifully. But there is a long way to go before the fruit. Lots of work by lots of great people needs to be done to be safe from climate change. There isn't enough sense of urgency yet. Climate change is a problem for us, today, not in the future.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Lurk

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #948 on: February 27, 2019, 03:10:36 AM »
This will be my last time posting on this thread, as well as ASIF.  The real reason I come to ASIF is for info on the ice. Point is, many posters here lack either urgency or understanding of the entire situation we find ourselves in. I would like to point out I mean no ill will towards people i disagree with. So thanks for all the contributions everywhere. This is a good forum, filled with many good people.

Totally understandable. At least take a break and nurture yourself some. Being compared to "climate deniers" is a shot below the belt. It's uncalled for and it all adds up.
Maybe a meetup with https://xrebellion.org would help you feel a lot better and validated among friends (which you deserve and need - we all need imho)
 Take care.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1738
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #949 on: February 27, 2019, 01:19:32 PM »
Fear is the most important emotion to reach if we want people to defend themselves from climate change. Fear and only fear activates the fight or flight response. But that scientist is worried that he  becomes a scaremonger.

His resistance to becoming a scaremonger has nothing to do with the severity of climate change or protecting people. He just wants to protect his reputation and not feel fear himself. There is no double blind experiment in climate science. 

Fear is the appropriate logical reaction to climate change. Blunting that fear blunts the response to climate change.

But no. People, including scientists don't want to feel fear. They rather prepare for a distant danger in the year 2100.

Caveat: Fear without hope is as paralyzing as hope without fear. While the truth about climate change must be told to people and that truth is scary, a message of hope has to be delivered with it so that people has a means for action and don't fall into panic.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.