""Analysis of the data confirmed that methane was entering the atmosphere above the shallowest (water depth of 260-295 feet or 80-90 meters) Svalbard margin seeps. However, the data also showed that significant amounts of carbon dioxide were being absorbed by the waters near the ocean surface, and that the cooling effect resulting from carbon dioxide uptake is up to 230 times greater than the warming effect expected from the methane emitted.""
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-ocean-absorption-carbon-dioxide-compensates.html
Nice to hear something positive Thomas! Thanks for that!
I would really appreciate a comment from you, or anyone else, on a couple of things that came to the mind of a layman when reading that.
1) Would the water at the ocean surface at some point become "saturated" or in some way altered in composition? For example the algae having other negative effects?
I'm no expert
(and it's still an unfolding science - ie. I doubt anyone is an expert on all the nuances of what will happen), but I was thinking about that the other day, and I think that, yes, the mush caused by an explosion of algae and plankton could affect sea-ice quality
(a lot of it falls to the bottom of the ocean though, taking carbon with it), and perhaps more importantly, all the plastic fragments floating in the Arctic ocean would add to that
(as well as all the soot landing on the ice from above, due to increase in forest fires in N. hemisphere). So, in the end, mushy crap
(natural, and pollution) all over the place would affect the ice quality I would think, maybe even ocean surface temps. in open water areas.
As far as I understand it, the main places where methane release will happen are in shallow coastal regions, so those areas tend to be ice-free for a longer period anyway, so how algae-mush, light sediments, or other microbes, affect ice-quality, and surface open-water temps, seems limited, since the ice melts away there anyway. Mushy stuff might make it melt a little faster in those peripheral seas
(Beaufort, Laptev Sea, etc.) , and ice-free last longer, but not much I think.
2) Are you aware that on their web site they say: "The USGS Gas Hydrate Project takes part in US and international programs to investigate the potential of deepwater marine and permafrost gas hydrates as an energy resource. Long-term production tests are the next step in this research."
Am I getting too cynical?
I don't care about the fossil-fuel industry. I think they are an archaic dinosaur going out of the window, but old farts like Putin and Trump will try to keep it going, but it is going to fade
(I hope).
I don't believe the research I posted is based on bias for that industry. I think it's a no-brainer that explosions of algae and life will absorb CO2, creating cooling at a faster rate than the methane can heat the atmosphere. Note: I have railed against industry involvement in research for decades, researching and writing about it, starting fledgling groups to counteract it - eg. GMO research twisted by industry interests, nuclear industry, pesticide industry, etc.
I just don't think this research is like that.
The researchers are at USGS
(before Trump era), and Norwegian and German institutions -- Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR), and the Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and Climate (CAGE) at the University of Tromso, Norway, both of which have a track-record of good, straight science. The evidence for false data would have be pretty convincing for me to be worried it is not accurate. It's almost a no-brainer even without the research though.
However, there are plenty other things that are bad news, it's just the doomer memes going around about the methane release being the and of human existence are over-stated - I was on that side of the fence a couple of years ago, based on the evidence available at that time.
(like I say, plenty other things almost as bad to concern ourselves with)