Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Arctic Methane Release  (Read 330551 times)

Superbudgie1582

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #850 on: January 15, 2019, 11:25:38 PM »
So, it's Armageddon or … not. 

Do we get insurance for the 1% chance?  How about for the 0.001% chance?  I don't know anybody who has asteroid-collision insurance, but lots of people who have more auto liability coverage than what is required by law, but not a $100,000,000 worth (against some rare event, for sure). 

Are we (humans) resigned to suffer and die if the scientific nay-sayers are correct?  Or do we believe they are just wrong and can be ignored?  (Or "I'm old and will be dead by then, surely.")

The IPCC makes a relatively good case as to why it's not a dooms day scenario.




Superbudgie1582

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #851 on: January 16, 2019, 04:56:45 PM »
The IPCC makes a relatively good case as to why all GHG emissions in general presents a dooms day scenario.

Nothing going on in the Arctic in regard methane calthrates and permafrost melting both known facts of life right now today diminishes that point by the IPCC one iota.

Methane Calthrates at the bottom of the ocean should remain stable due to the sheer pressure and the difficulty of warming the bottom depths. It is an overblown concern that has been studied and largely disproven.

As for permafrost, the IPCC suggests an additional .27C of warming from the released methane over the next century.

I will provide links when i get home.

The IPCC is a summary of the general scientific consensus.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #852 on: January 16, 2019, 05:03:48 PM »
That said, can we agree that the IPCC report is rather conservative and newest research our fellow forum members post here on daily basis is not represented in said report?


Superbudgie1582

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #853 on: January 16, 2019, 05:18:37 PM »
That said, can we agree that the IPCC report is rather conservative and newest research our fellow forum members post here on daily basis is not represented in said report?

I cant agree to that.

As Ken Feldman posted earlier, the IPCC does update when new science is released.

Its actually quite frustrating when people think the IPCC is purposefully underestimating or not reporting things.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #854 on: January 16, 2019, 05:38:18 PM »

Its actually quite frustrating when people think the IPCC is purposefully underestimating or not reporting things.

I totally agree, 'purposefully' underestimating is just wrong!

I would phrase it like this: There are processes in place that prevent the IPPC report to be accurate, but there are good reasons for that. To be commonly accepted the science behind it must be peer-reviewed. Peer review takes time! Ergo the report can't include the newest findings.

Superbudgie1582

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #855 on: January 16, 2019, 05:50:12 PM »

Its actually quite frustrating when people think the IPCC is purposefully underestimating or not reporting things.

I totally agree, 'purposefully' underestimating is just wrong!

I would phrase it like this: There are processes in place that prevent the IPPC report to be accurate, but there are good reasons for that. To be commonly accepted the science behind it must be peer-reviewed. Peer review takes time! Ergo the report can't include the newest findings.

Yes, but it also prevents iffy science and outliers from being included. Hence why claiming the IPCC is underestimating things is frustrating and downright dishonest.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8661
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3405
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #856 on: January 16, 2019, 06:03:24 PM »

Methane Calthrates at the bottom of the ocean should remain stable due to the sheer pressure and the difficulty of warming the bottom depths. It is an overblown concern that has been studied and largely disproven.

studied and largely disproven.

At the bottom of the ocean - yes, most methane degraded on the way to the surface
In shallow seas with slow methane escape. Yes, most methane degraded on the way to the surface.

Abrupt release in shallow seas (e.g. a goodly part of the ESAS is below 10 metres depth) - No. Shakhova etc have observed such emissions.
Longer and earlier open water seasons will allow increased insolation and warm water intrusion. This may accelerate warming of ocean bottom permafrost and the clathrate lid on free methane under pressure underneath.

Are current emissions sufficient to make a major impact on global methane ppb? No(t yet).
Can this risk be casually dismissed - no.
Is this risk disproven ? No. We don't really know what lies beneath in this vast area of the ocean.

Are current emissions sufficient to make a major impact on methane ppb? No(t yet).
As of today the subject belongs in the known unknown basket, IM(notvery)HO.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Superbudgie1582

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #857 on: January 16, 2019, 06:42:43 PM »

Methane Calthrates at the bottom of the ocean should remain stable due to the sheer pressure and the difficulty of warming the bottom depths. It is an overblown concern that has been studied and largely disproven.

studied and largely disproven.

At the bottom of the ocean - yes, most methane degraded on the way to the surface
In shallow seas with slow methane escape. Yes, most methane degraded on the way to the surface.

Abrupt release in shallow seas (e.g. a goodly part of the ESAS is below 10 metres depth) - No. Shakhova etc have observed such emissions.
Longer and earlier open water seasons will allow increased insolation and warm water intrusion. This may accelerate warming of ocean bottom permafrost and the clathrate lid on free methane under pressure underneath.

Are current emissions sufficient to make a major impact on global methane ppb? No(t yet).
Can this risk be casually dismissed - no.
Is this risk disproven ? No. We don't really know what lies beneath in this vast area of the ocean.

Are current emissions sufficient to make a major impact on methane ppb? No(t yet).
As of today the subject belongs in the known unknown basket, IM(notvery)HO.

I point you to Kevin Feldmans post on the prior page that directly mentions Shakhova overestimating potential methane release from the ESAS.

Wherestheice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #858 on: January 16, 2019, 09:19:40 PM »

Methane Calthrates at the bottom of the ocean should remain stable due to the sheer pressure and the difficulty of warming the bottom depths. It is an overblown concern that has been studied and largely disproven.

studied and largely disproven.

At the bottom of the ocean - yes, most methane degraded on the way to the surface
In shallow seas with slow methane escape. Yes, most methane degraded on the way to the surface.

Abrupt release in shallow seas (e.g. a goodly part of the ESAS is below 10 metres depth) - No. Shakhova etc have observed such emissions.
Longer and earlier open water seasons will allow increased insolation and warm water intrusion. This may accelerate warming of ocean bottom permafrost and the clathrate lid on free methane under pressure underneath.

Are current emissions sufficient to make a major impact on global methane ppb? No(t yet).
Can this risk be casually dismissed - no.
Is this risk disproven ? No. We don't really know what lies beneath in this vast area of the ocean.

Are current emissions sufficient to make a major impact on methane ppb? No(t yet).
As of today the subject belongs in the known unknown basket, IM(notvery)HO.

I point you to Kevin Feldmans post on the prior page that directly mentions Shakhova overestimating potential methane release from the ESAS.

To not consider the possibility of a methane release is suicidal
"When the ice goes..... F***

Superbudgie1582

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #859 on: January 16, 2019, 09:32:26 PM »

Methane Calthrates at the bottom of the ocean should remain stable due to the sheer pressure and the difficulty of warming the bottom depths. It is an overblown concern that has been studied and largely disproven.

studied and largely disproven.

At the bottom of the ocean - yes, most methane degraded on the way to the surface
In shallow seas with slow methane escape. Yes, most methane degraded on the way to the surface.

Abrupt release in shallow seas (e.g. a goodly part of the ESAS is below 10 metres depth) - No. Shakhova etc have observed such emissions.
Longer and earlier open water seasons will allow increased insolation and warm water intrusion. This may accelerate warming of ocean bottom permafrost and the clathrate lid on free methane under pressure underneath.

Are current emissions sufficient to make a major impact on global methane ppb? No(t yet).
Can this risk be casually dismissed - no.
Is this risk disproven ? No. We don't really know what lies beneath in this vast area of the ocean.

Are current emissions sufficient to make a major impact on methane ppb? No(t yet).
As of today the subject belongs in the known unknown basket, IM(notvery)HO.

I point you to Kevin Feldmans post on the prior page that directly mentions Shakhova overestimating potential methane release from the ESAS.

To not consider the possibility of a methane release is suicidal

I don't recall dismissing it(I mention IPCC estimates for permafrost melt)but you'll have to excuse me if I consider McPherson like rhetoric unhelpful.

Wherestheice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #860 on: January 17, 2019, 12:04:39 AM »

Methane Calthrates at the bottom of the ocean should remain stable due to the sheer pressure and the difficulty of warming the bottom depths. It is an overblown concern that has been studied and largely disproven.

studied and largely disproven.

At the bottom of the ocean - yes, most methane degraded on the way to the surface
In shallow seas with slow methane escape. Yes, most methane degraded on the way to the surface.

Abrupt release in shallow seas (e.g. a goodly part of the ESAS is below 10 metres depth) - No. Shakhova etc have observed such emissions.
Longer and earlier open water seasons will allow increased insolation and warm water intrusion. This may accelerate warming of ocean bottom permafrost and the clathrate lid on free methane under pressure underneath.

Are current emissions sufficient to make a major impact on global methane ppb? No(t yet).
Can this risk be casually dismissed - no.
Is this risk disproven ? No. We don't really know what lies beneath in this vast area of the ocean.

Are current emissions sufficient to make a major impact on methane ppb? No(t yet).
As of today the subject belongs in the known unknown basket, IM(notvery)HO.

I point you to Kevin Feldmans post on the prior page that directly mentions Shakhova overestimating potential methane release from the ESAS.

To not consider the possibility of a methane release is suicidal

I don't recall dismissing it(I mention IPCC estimates for permafrost melt)but you'll have to excuse me if I consider McPherson like rhetoric unhelpful.

*takes deep breath, sighs*
"When the ice goes..... F***

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1316
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #861 on: January 17, 2019, 12:09:54 AM »
I think most people would agree that BAU emissions continuing for decades would be dangerous, increasing the probability for catastrophic tipping points later this century or early next century.

The reason I keep posting the counter-arguments to the near-term human extinction crowd is because we're actually making good progress in getting off of the BAU emissions path.  I'd encourage forum members to read the recent articles in the policies and solutions threads.  You'll see that the progress made in renewable energy and batteries is at the point where they will be deployed to replace fossil fuel power plants and vehicles in the next few decades.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1316
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #862 on: January 17, 2019, 12:14:17 AM »
And I'll also note that Sharkova's extreme claims are made in interviews and press releases, not in the peer reviewed science. 

And being published in a peer-reviewed journal is only the first step in science.  After publication, other scientists then attempt to replicate the measurents or observations.  And as I've noted repeatedly, other teams that have conducted similiar studies to Sharkova and Semilotov have found much lower emissions of methane from the "hot spots" or seeps found in the ESAS and other parts of the Arctic Ocean. 

 

Wherestheice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #863 on: January 17, 2019, 12:23:28 AM »
As i stated above, i think one thing we can all agree on is more research is needed on this topic
"When the ice goes..... F***

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3101
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 753
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #864 on: January 17, 2019, 03:06:17 AM »
 Ken Feldman thanks for the links and for trying to bring relevant peer reviewed science into the conversation. However, none of those links invalidate the very credible and possible danger positive carbon loops may create. 

 Carbon release is exactly the natural mechanism the Earth uses to go from glacial period to warm. We are warming the Earth abnormally fast. We should expect a proportional response from the climate. Instead, it seems that the basic assumption is that because the climate changed slowly in the past it will also change slowly from human induced warming.  That assumption may cost us our world, yet is the most natural. Natural because we have no data on fast climate change. Even the PETM was too slow relative to modern warming.

 The possible sources of positive carbon feedback loops are not just methane from the deep sea and pingos. It is GHGs from frozen ground, under river, under lakes and from burning forests and peat. That's on top of human emissions.  The Earth is reacting as it always does when it warms, it warms more until carbon is depleted or Milankovitch cycles are not favorable to warming.

It really worries me that the IPCC reads almost dismissive of the argument as if it was some far fetched scenario, when it should be the expected scenario. I blame that on the fact that scientist in climate science don't have the luxury of double blind experimentation. They are part of the experiment.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Superbudgie1582

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #865 on: January 17, 2019, 04:04:30 AM »
The IPCC is not perfect, but they are not being dismissive of anything and to act like you know something they don't is downright laughable.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #866 on: January 17, 2019, 07:26:01 AM »
The IPCC is not perfect, but they are not being dismissive of anything and to act like you know something they don't is downright laughable.

The IPCC needs to be beyond all doubt with their publication to be commonly accepted. We agreed on that yesterday, right?

Archimid pointed out, there are findings you can't just easily reproduce. They will not make it into the report. But if you read the papers, you'll find them valid. Dismissing those findings is laughable in my opinion.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 761
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #867 on: January 17, 2019, 09:14:18 AM »
Re: "The IPCC needs to be beyond all doubt with their publication to be commonly accepted."

Disagreed. IPCC reports are the judgement of a couple thousand experts on available, peer-reviewed literature published a year or so before the report.

That is all.

Sometimes the papers are wrong. Sometimes the experts are wrong. Sometimes both.

No serious scientist expects IPCC reports to be "beyond all doubt." What they are, and an incredibly useful thing too, is a comprehensive, informed review of all available literature. The reference lists alone are invaluable.

sidd

Wherestheice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 19
"When the ice goes..... F***

Wherestheice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #869 on: January 17, 2019, 09:20:20 AM »
Re: "The IPCC needs to be beyond all doubt with their publication to be commonly accepted."

Disagreed. IPCC reports are the judgement of a couple thousand experts on available, peer-reviewed literature published a year or so before the report.

That is all.

Sometimes the papers are wrong. Sometimes the experts are wrong. Sometimes both.

No serious scientist expects IPCC reports to be "beyond all doubt." What they are, and an incredibly useful thing too, is a comprehensive, informed review of all available literature. The reference lists alone are invaluable.

sidd

The IPCC is no question a great source, but I don't refer to them often because imo they simply ignore to much.
"When the ice goes..... F***

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 761
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #870 on: January 17, 2019, 09:46:15 AM »
What I see is that IPCC is often accused of ignoring literature published after the cutoff date, and often even attacked for ignoring literature published after the report was.

sidd

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #871 on: January 17, 2019, 09:50:39 AM »
Re: "The IPCC needs to be beyond all doubt with their publication to be commonly accepted."

Disagreed. IPCC reports are the judgement of a couple thousand experts on available, peer-reviewed literature published a year or so before the report.

That is all.

Sometimes the papers are wrong. Sometimes the experts are wrong. Sometimes both.

No serious scientist expects IPCC reports to be "beyond all doubt." What they are, and an incredibly useful thing too, is a comprehensive, informed review of all available literature. The reference lists alone are invaluable.

sidd

Sorry Sidd, i fail to see where we disagree. :)

Perhaps i define 'beyond all doubt' wrongly. Please replace that phrase with 'trustable'.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 761
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #872 on: January 17, 2019, 10:05:16 AM »
Re: IPCC reports "trustable"

I do not give all sections equal trust.

First, i usually skim the summary for policymakers bearing in mind that states like Saudi Arabia have veto control over wording and clauses. But they have no control over the rest, mostly because the politicos dont understand the science.

Then, it depends on how much you trust the experts and the literature they reviewed.

I read WG-1 with care. Even there I certainly do not read all the papers in the references. I follow the few sections i am interested in, and that is a huge task. Fortunately, by the time IPCC report appears, i am usually conversant in those areas and aware of the papers.

As for the rest, i trust the experts to have read and understood the papers and deliver their best judgement. I read WG-2 and 3 but rarely bother to follow references or citation chains.

sidd

Serrara Fluttershy

  • New ice
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #873 on: January 17, 2019, 07:57:43 PM »
Haven't been here in a while, but I can say that people on the Reddit side of things are beginning to discern that "Arctic News" is a bad - if not incoherent - source and shouldn't be trusted.
People like you all really should be more common; this forum reminds me of Metabunk in many ways.

Cheers. :)

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3101
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 753
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #874 on: January 18, 2019, 03:50:12 AM »
Quote
The IPCC is not perfect, but they are not being dismissive of anything and to act like you know something they don't is downright laughable.

 You can laugh if you want. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of science that the consensus is wrong.

 I want to make clear that I have great respect for everyone who have dedicated their lives to understand the climate and how humans fit in it. They are true experts and their strict knowledge is a extremely valuable asset of mankind.  Their work is great and if we can save ourselves from climate change it will be in large part for the work people like the ones at the IPCC have done warning us about climate change. Even then, they are wrong about the risks of climate change.

 I don't think the IPCC is wrong because they are lying or because their data is faulty. They are wrong because they are not framing the problem correctly. For example humanity. The IPCC takes human population for granted, yet the data says we are a fluke. What we have seems permanent but it is unique and new. The kind of climate change we have unleashed is also new and unique, because as far as I know, this much CO2 has never been emitted this fast.

 Another example, methane. I don't think methane will be our killer. The complete loss of ASI during summer will be.

 If the reaction to the loss of ASI is more warming then GHG's will be released from all available sources at rates proportional to the additional warming. That's on top of human induced warming. However, at that point warming will be the least of our problems. Weather chaos caused by the destabilization of the oceanic and atmospheric currents will end humanity as we know it, specially with leadership with blinders on. Plenty of people will survive this. My bet is more than the average human population over the last ten thousand years, probably even a billion in places with good governance and climate luck.

 If the reaction to the loss of ASI is cooling (a very possible event) then I just hope there is enough time to evacuate the north hemisphere. It will be buried by snow for the rest of our existence. Methane will be safe and sound for 130k years during the next glacial period (give or take a few millennia) until the next interglacial. It will eventually become a fossil fuel. Hopefully the next species that learns how to use it learns about our mistakes before it is too late for them.

 Or maybe the reaction is both. Very hot during summer in the North Hemisphere, periodically unlivable. Very snowy after equinox and after the summer heat is dissipated into space, the ocean
 the permafrost and snow.

The 2015-2018 global heat spike gave us just a preview of what happens as the Arctic melts. The hurricanes, the fires, the floods, the droughts, the heat waves were not coincidence.

There is no way to overstate the risks. What risk we face? We risk losing everything. The likelihood of such event? Given the known unknowns, way too high. Given the historical human population way too high. Given the association of warming with mass extinction events, way too high. Given the association of recent warming and natural disasters, way too high. Given the resistance to do something about climate change, way too high.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Wherestheice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #875 on: January 18, 2019, 04:58:36 AM »
Quote
The IPCC is not perfect, but they are not being dismissive of anything and to act like you know something they don't is downright laughable.

 You can laugh if you want. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of science that the consensus is wrong.

 I want to make clear that I have great respect for everyone who have dedicated their lives to understand the climate and how humans fit in it. They are true experts and their strict knowledge is a extremely valuable asset of mankind.  Their work is great and if we can save ourselves from climate change it will be in large part for the work people like the ones at the IPCC have done warning us about climate change. Even then, they are wrong about the risks of climate change.

 I don't think the IPCC is wrong because they are lying or because their data is faulty. They are wrong because they are not framing the problem correctly. For example humanity. The IPCC takes human population for granted, yet the data says we are a fluke. What we have seems permanent but it is unique and new. The kind of climate change we have unleashed is also new and unique, because as far as I know, this much CO2 has never been emitted this fast.

 Another example, methane. I don't think methane will be our killer. The complete loss of ASI during summer will be.

 If the reaction to the loss of ASI is more warming then GHG's will be released from all available sources at rates proportional to the additional warming. That's on top of human induced warming. However, at that point warming will be the least of our problems. Weather chaos caused by the destabilization of the oceanic and atmospheric currents will end humanity as we know it, specially with leadership with blinders on. Plenty of people will survive this. My bet is more than the average human population over the last ten thousand years, probably even a billion in places with good governance and climate luck.

 If the reaction to the loss of ASI is cooling (a very possible event) then I just hope there is enough time to evacuate the north hemisphere. It will be buried by snow for the rest of our existence. Methane will be safe and sound for 130k years during the next glacial period (give or take a few millennia) until the next interglacial. It will eventually become a fossil fuel. Hopefully the next species that learns how to use it learns about our mistakes before it is too late for them.

 Or maybe the reaction is both. Very hot during summer in the North Hemisphere, periodically unlivable. Very snowy after equinox and after the summer heat is dissipated into space, the ocean
 the permafrost and snow.

The 2015-2018 global heat spike gave us just a preview of what happens as the Arctic melts. The hurricanes, the fires, the floods, the droughts, the heat waves were not coincidence.

There is no way to overstate the risks. What risk we face? We risk losing everything. The likelihood of such event? Given the known unknowns, way too high. Given the historical human population way too high. Given the association of warming with mass extinction events, way too high. Given the association of recent warming and natural disasters, way too high. Given the resistance to do something about climate change, way too high.

How would loss of ASI lead to cooling?
"When the ice goes..... F***

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 761
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #876 on: January 18, 2019, 06:50:01 AM »
Re: If the reaction to the loss of ASI is cooling (a very possible event) then I just hope there is enough time to evacuate the north hemisphere

Wait what ? Available evidence indicates that we have suppressed not one but probably the next two glacial cycles. And considering humans did nothing like "evacuate" the Northern Hemisphere in the last glaciation, why would they do so now ?

sidd

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #877 on: January 18, 2019, 08:23:52 AM »
I think Archemid is referring to a possible breakup of the AMOC. When the golf stream ist halting, a lot of heat is missing in Europe.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 761
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #878 on: January 18, 2019, 08:31:31 AM »
Re: AMOC breakdown in present day leading to N. Hemis. glaciation

A citation perhaps ? As far as I am aware, even complete breakdown of AMOC does not result in european or other glaciation under present day conditions. There is too much heat going north in the atmosphere alone, not to mention heat trapping by CO2 and water vapour in present atmosphere.

sidd


b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #879 on: January 18, 2019, 09:15:42 AM »
There where some articles about cooling in the NH. Not saying i think it's going to happen. Only saying this might be what Archimid is talking about.

"“If the more extreme case happened with the shutdown of the circulation then yes it is the case that Britain could cool – and it could cool by quite a lot, maybe 5 degrees Celsius,” said Dr Thornalley." >> https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gulf-stream-ice-age-collapse-climate-change-amoc-global-warming-a8301511.html

"Various lines of evidence suggest that Gulf Stream heat transport profoundly influences the climate of the entire Northern Hemisphere and, thus, Europe's climate on timescales of decades and longer." >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270652051_The_Role_of_the_Gulf_Stream_in_European_Climate

"Many results found are consistent with previous studies and can be considered robust impacts from a large reduction or collapse of the AMOC. These include: widespread cooling throughout the North Atlantic and northern hemisphere in general; ..." >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274716943_Global_and_European_climate_impacts_of_a_slowdown_of_the_AMOC_in_a_high_resolution_GCM

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 761
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #880 on: January 18, 2019, 09:59:09 AM »
Of course turning off AMOC cools europe. I contend that it does not cool enuf to overcome radiative blanket effect and armospheric heat transport in present climate. And I fail to find a cite for glaciation inducement under present conditions, which was the point at issue.

sidd

mitch

  • New ice
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #881 on: January 18, 2019, 05:32:22 PM »
The AMOC shutdown effect on global warming is still being debated:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/07/does-a-slow-amoc-increase-the-rate-of-global-warming/

Most scientists believe that there will be a slight cooling, centered in the NE Atlantic, if AMOC shuts down. However, that means that the heat will be transferred to the Southern Ocean, making melt there greater.

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3101
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 753
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #882 on: January 19, 2019, 12:33:31 PM »
I think cooling might be possible because with an open, warmer Arctic Ocean there will be a whole lot more water in the atmosphere and the Arctic night will be below freezing. The combination of high humidity, freezing temperatures and Arctic cold air intrusions descending upon the NH right now might create enough snow to significantly affect albedo in the NH lowering temperatures. significantly.

If you follow the NH snow trend you can see that snow volume is increasing greatly during fall. It would have to increase a whole lot more to trigger the beginning of an ice age. Extent, however has not increased suggesting that warming is overwhelming the albedo effects. I really don't know which way is going to be honest. But it doesn't matter. Cold or warm, after the ASI disappear the changes in weather is what going to do us in not the temperatures. Specially blind and unprepared as we are.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #883 on: January 19, 2019, 03:16:46 PM »
I think cooling might be possible because with an open, warmer Arctic Ocean there will be a whole lot more water in the atmosphere and the Arctic night will be below freezing. The combination of high humidity, freezing temperatures and Arctic cold air intrusions descending upon the NH right now might create enough snow to significantly affect albedo in the NH lowering temperatures. significantly.

If you follow the NH snow trend you can see that snow volume is increasing greatly during fall. It would have to increase a whole lot more to trigger the beginning of an ice age. Extent, however has not increased suggesting that warming is overwhelming the albedo effects. I really don't know which way is going to be honest. But it doesn't matter. Cold or warm, after the ASI disappear the changes in weather is what going to do us in not the temperatures. Specially blind and unprepared as we are.

All of the scientific studies that I have read here have indicated that we can expect more precipitation with much of this increased precipitation occurring as rain, even over the Arctic Ocean. Global warming is NOT going to trigger a new ice age although the regional impacts may mean more wild winters like what we have been seeing in the Northeast of the U.S.


Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 640
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #884 on: January 19, 2019, 05:37:23 PM »
A little off topic or pedantic prehaps, but ...
For those who use "ice age" to mean periods of glaciation advancement and near-peak ice coverage, know that in glaciology [i.e., "scientific"] terms, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres. So by this definition, we are in the Quaternary Glaciation or Ice Age (and in an interglacial period—the Holocene—within it). We won't leave the current ice age until most (or all) of the ice fields in Greenland and Antarctica melt away.

Colloquially, of course, ice ages are interspersed with interglacial periods of time.  Although I believe Earth was slowly heading for the next glacial stage, human activities during the past 10,000 years or so (especially the last 300 and moreso, 70 years) have turned this Milankovitch Cycle on its head.  (Well, the Cycle is still operative, but (unintentional) geoengineering has overpowered the M. Cycle influences.)  And there are scientific papers out there [e.g. here] that occasionally use the "ice age = glacial stage" definition, so maybe you should just ignore me.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #885 on: January 19, 2019, 05:59:52 PM »
Tor Bejnar...

You are one of the most informed posters on this site. I will never ignore you. I, on the other hand, know only what I know about climate from what I learn here from posters like you of which there are many others.

bbr? Not so much.

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3101
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 753
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #886 on: January 21, 2019, 03:22:19 PM »
A little off topic or pedantic prehaps, but ...

You are correct. Thanks for the clarification. It is important to have clearly defined language but I admit I get confused by the names. I'm going to try and make it clear using images.

Image 1:


Complex life started around 500 million years ago when the planet was much warmer. For the first 497 million years was mostly warmer, with a period of around 50 million years identified in this image as the permian glaciation that was at about the same temperature as today. Probably similar temperatures to modern earth but with a different surface configuration. CO2 levels win the atmosphere were much higher than even today. There were no warm blooded mammals during the warm periods.

Image 2:


The previous graph is the last 500k years. An ice age relative to most of life's history. Within that ice age there are glacial periods and inter glacial periods.

This is the time of the humans. A few thousand humans inhabited the planet for all this time. The human species flourished during the last inter glacial period.

At the scales of time of Image 2  M. cycles have their greatest influence. Specially in the NH in July:

Image 3:


At the scales of time of Image 2  M. cycles have their greatest influence. Specially in the NH in July. Total global irradiance is less influential than NH M. cycle irradiance.
 (see: http://www.climatedata.info/forcing/milankovitch-cycles/)



Image 4:


  It wasn't until the last 10k years that human species really got the hang of things and started burning forests and agriculture. Notice from Image 3 that M. cycles are going down. We should have been entering an ice age. Instead the earth remain at a very nice constant temperature for 10k years, then the industrial revolution happened. At a time when Earth should be descending into the next ice age the Earth is warming.

Now to bring it back on topic.

What does this has to do with methane? The Younger Dryas. It is marked YD in Image 1 but it can be seen at all time scales. The Younger Dryas , probably caused by a meteorite impact, cooled the earth for a few thousand years almost at peak Milankovitch cycle. This fortuitous hit kept the Earth from hitting peak warmth like in the eemian and other interglacials, instead prolonging climate stability at exactly the same time most of the planet was inhabitable for a perfectly adapted human species.

It also kept a whole bunch of methane locked in that could should have been vented out on a warmer planet.  We are now resuming that warming, 10x as fast as nature would have. More and more methane will become accessible. It will be released at pace the planet warms, not at the pace of old release.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1316
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #887 on: January 31, 2019, 06:25:11 PM »
Archimid,

The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores don't support your speculation about the Younger Dryas saving us from a massive methane release.

You'll note that during the last interglacial around 110,000 years ago, global temperatures were about 3 degrees warmer than currently.  Yet the concentration of methane in the ice cores increased from 500 ppb to around 700 ppb during that 3 degree warming.

This study (published in 2017) from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is very informative about how methane concentrations varied between interglacial and glacial periods:

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/29/E5778.full

The researchers studied whether geologic emissions of methane (abbrievated GEM), caused by methane clathrate eruptions or through marine seeps were a dominant cause in the rise of methane concentrations during warming periods.  Here's what they found:

Quote
The Potential of Marine Clathrates and Other Geologic CH4 Emissions.
Decreasing δD(CH4) over all three glacial terminations (Fig. 1) supports the conclusion in refs. 31 and 36 that marine clathrates (gas hydrates) do not significantly contribute to the altered atmospheric CH4 budget during transitions. However, it is not only catastrophic emissions caused by destabilization events of marine clathrates that have been proposed to explain past [CH4] variations (52, 53) but also, more steady emissions through, for example, natural marine hydrocarbon seeps that may have been exposed during times of sea-level low stands. Together with seeps and mud volcanoes, clathrate releases constitute the so-called GEM (27, 28, 54). Concerning the modern Arctic, there is also an ongoing debate on the origin and importance of CH4 releases from the East Siberian Shelf (55⇓⇓⇓–59), which are thought to stem from both organic carbon in thawing subsea permafrost and geologic reservoirs.

Quote
Overall, we conclude that GEMs (seeps and marine clathrates) are at no point the dominant contributor to the global methane budget, and they are not strongly variable players that could explain the observed glacial/interglacial [CH4] variations over the last few hundreds of thousands of years (Figs. 1 and 2 and SI Text) (25, 31⇓–33, 36, 62). Thus, we infer that microbial sources must represent the dominant control for natural atmospheric CH4 changes.

Quote
In summary, we conclude that tropical methane-emitting systems are the key players among all natural methane emitters, reflecting changes in (local) sea level, monsoon strength, and temperature induced by orbital changes.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1316
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #888 on: January 31, 2019, 06:44:17 PM »
In setting the goal to limit warming to less than 2 degrees, there was good scientific evidence for why it would not be catastrophic.  This study from 2018 sums it up well:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0146-0

Quote
Over the past 3.5 million years, there have been several intervals when climate conditions were warmer than during the pre-industrial Holocene. Although past intervals of warming were forced differently than future anthropogenic change, such periods can provide insights into potential future climate impacts and ecosystem feedbacks, especially over centennial-to-millennial timescales that are often not covered by climate model simulations. Our observation-based synthesis of the understanding of past intervals with temperatures within the range of projected future warming suggests that there is a low risk of runaway greenhouse gas feedbacks for global warming of no more than 2 °C.

The article notes that there are substantial problems with warming from 1 to 2 degrees with regional effects and global sea level rise.  However, threshold events that would endanger human existence are not evident in past warming periods.

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3101
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 753
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #889 on: January 31, 2019, 10:58:55 PM »
Thanks for the links. Both good links. Let me call your attention to one sentence of the second article you posted ( i skimmed them). My emphasis.

Quote
Although detailed data are limited, the observed variation of CO2 and CH4 in ice-core records suggests that the risk of a sustained release of permafrost carbon is small if warming can be limited to the modest high-latitude warming encountered during past interglacial periods.

And that's the key. If warming behaves like in the past, then we are good to go. I agree with that.

But it is not behaving like in the past. The rate of CO2 increase by humans far outpaces anything in the geological record including all mass extinctions. We did in 100 years what took nature more than a thousand. Why are we expecting the Earth to change slowly if we are changing it faster everyday?

While paleo warm periods examples are some of the best guides we have for the Earth's behavior, the amount of change exerted by humans has no real analogue on the records. We should assume that it will be worse because CO2 is worse and a myriad of other changes are worse.

About the first paper.

First, ocean clathrates are not the only source of methane, nor the source I'm most worried about. I'm worried about land locked methane in the form of trees and permafrost. This article focuses on ocean clathrates.

Second, during the glacial periods and most parts of the last interglacials the NH was covered in ice sheets, thus land locked permafrost wasn't even at play. Maybe briefly during the very brief temperature peaks land locked methane did play a significant role. This time around the planet is warming without giant ice sheets on the NH to keep the nicely land locked. Instead we have hundreds of years worth of carbon stored in forests adapted to Holocene temperatures.

Third, the fall of methane release during the YD is evident on the data presented by this paper. It got cold and methane dropped. That stored methane for the future, although it was probably released during the early Holocene. More release is in store. How much and how fast will be determined by how fast it warms.

But I repeat. I don't think methane will be released fast enough to cause runway warming while there is ice on the Arctic during summer.

Once the ice is gone, summer heat will cause fires and burning permafrost like never before. The local warming will be significant but we will have much bigger problems than warming.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 01:18:52 AM by Archimid »
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #890 on: February 01, 2019, 01:00:57 AM »
In setting the goal to limit warming to less than 2 degrees, there was good scientific evidence for why it would not be catastrophic.  This study from 2018 sums it up well:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0146-0

Quote
Over the past 3.5 million years, there have been several intervals when climate conditions were warmer than during the pre-industrial Holocene. Although past intervals of warming were forced differently than future anthropogenic change, such periods can provide insights into potential future climate impacts and ecosystem feedbacks, especially over centennial-to-millennial timescales that are often not covered by climate model simulations. Our observation-based synthesis of the understanding of past intervals with temperatures within the range of projected future warming suggests that there is a low risk of runaway greenhouse gas feedbacks for global warming of no more than 2 °C.

The article notes that there are substantial problems with warming from 1 to 2 degrees with regional effects and global sea level rise.  However, threshold events that would endanger human existence are not evident in past warming periods.

I am not a scientist and will thus assume the research conclusions are sound but I have a serious concern anyway. There is very little practical evidence that indicates we will curb CO2 emissions quickly enough to hold warming to 2C.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1316
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #891 on: February 01, 2019, 01:31:25 AM »
In setting the goal to limit warming to less than 2 degrees, there was good scientific evidence for why it would not be catastrophic.  This study from 2018 sums it up well:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0146-0

Quote
Over the past 3.5 million years, there have been several intervals when climate conditions were warmer than during the pre-industrial Holocene. Although past intervals of warming were forced differently than future anthropogenic change, such periods can provide insights into potential future climate impacts and ecosystem feedbacks, especially over centennial-to-millennial timescales that are often not covered by climate model simulations. Our observation-based synthesis of the understanding of past intervals with temperatures within the range of projected future warming suggests that there is a low risk of runaway greenhouse gas feedbacks for global warming of no more than 2 °C.

The article notes that there are substantial problems with warming from 1 to 2 degrees with regional effects and global sea level rise.  However, threshold events that would endanger human existence are not evident in past warming periods.

I am not a scientist and will thus assume the research conclusions are sound but I have a serious concern anyway. There is very little practical evidence that indicates we will curb CO2 emissions quickly enough to hold warming to 2C.

With the decrease in the cost of wind and solar power and current battery technology, it's possible to limit the increase in global temperature to 1.5C. 

A recently published study indicates that if current fossil fuel infrastructure is replaced by renewables when it reaches the end of the useful life, there's a good chance global warming can be limited to 1.5 degrees:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07999-w

Ardeus

  • New ice
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #892 on: February 01, 2019, 01:54:08 AM »
I didn't find any mention of the words "ice" or "arctic" in that article.

These days, whenever I read about climate projections, I can't imagine how the authors can not include the existing data on arctic ice volume.

I honestly fail to understand how anyone doing any climate related research can simply ignore it.

Wherestheice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #893 on: February 01, 2019, 03:29:11 AM »
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11430-017-9265-y

From the Abstract:

The global warming potential of methane (CH4) is about 30 times stronger than that of carbon dioxide (CO2) over a century timescale. Methane emission is hypothesized to have contributed to global climate change events and mass extinctions during Earth’s history. Therefore, the study of CH4 production processes is critically important to the understanding of global climate change. It has been a dogma that biogenic CH4 detectable in the oceans originates exclusively from the anaerobic metabolic activity of methanogenic archaea in hypoxic and anoxic environments, despite reports that many oxic surface and near-surface waters of the world’s oceans are CH4-supersaturated, thereby rendering net sea-to-air emissions of CH4. The phenomenon of CH4 production in oxic marine waters is referred to as the “ocean methane paradox”. Although still not totally resolved, recent studies have generated several hypotheses regarding the sources of CH4 production in oxic seawater. This review will summarize our current understanding of the importance of CH4 in the global climate and analyze the biological processes and their underpinning mechanisms that lead to the production of CH4 in oxic seawater environments. We will also tentatively explore the relationships of these microbial metabolic processes with global changes in climate and environment.

"When the ice goes..... F***

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3101
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 753
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #894 on: February 03, 2019, 03:49:04 PM »
Drunken Forests” In Alaska Are Another Sign Of Melting Permafrost

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

kassy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2202
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1183
  • Likes Given: 904
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #895 on: February 03, 2019, 09:27:58 PM »

Quote: "We do not seek to assess the practical feasibility of this transition, but merely to report on the consequences in the context of keeping global mean temperature rise below 1.5 °C."

Then their paper is pretty much a waste of space, time and effort. It's more like hypothesizing how many angels can fit on the end of a pin than anything really practical or useful imo. It should be ignored as not having much relevance to anything useful or insightful beyond 'purist acadmic' mind experiments.

But that is just another subject about which other people publish studies for example citations 16 -20 in the line above the quote.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1316
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #896 on: February 07, 2019, 01:57:31 AM »
Here's a 2018 study on microorganisms that oxidize methane in subsea permafrost:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19505-9

Quote
Thawing submarine permafrost is a source of methane to the subsurface biosphere. Methane oxidation in submarine permafrost sediments has been proposed, but the responsible microorganisms remain uncharacterized. We analyzed archaeal communities and identified distinct anaerobic methanotrophic assemblages of marine and terrestrial origin (ANME-2a/b, ANME-2d) both in frozen and completely thawed submarine permafrost sediments. Besides archaea potentially involved in anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM) we found a large diversity of archaea mainly belonging to Bathyarchaeota, Thaumarchaeota, and Euryarchaeota. Methane concentrations and δ13C-methane signatures distinguish 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. Analysis of functional marker genes (mcrA) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) corroborate potential activity of AOM communities in submarine permafrost sediments at low temperatures. Modeled potential AOM consumes 72–100% of submarine permafrost methane and up to 1.2 Tg of carbon per year for the total expected area of submarine permafrost. This is comparable with AOM habitats such as cold seeps. We thus propose that AOM is active where submarine permafrost thaws, which should be included in global methane budgets.

Quote
Taken together our molecular and biogeochemical data from two submarine permafrost cores indicate several microbial assemblages that have the potential to prevent the release of trapped or recently produced methane into the overlying unfrozen sediment following submarine permafrost thaw. Therefore, we challenge the assumption that high methane emissions reported for the Siberian Arctic Shelves originate from degrading submarine permafrost itself9 and suggest different mechanisms to be responsible, such as diffusion or ebullition through discontinuities in permafrost or the release from gas hydrates8,68 at a limited spatial scale.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1706
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 349
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #897 on: February 07, 2019, 02:08:47 AM »
Here's a 2018 study on microorganisms that oxidize methane in subsea permafrost:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19505-9

 . . .
Quote
Taken together our molecular and biogeochemical data from two submarine permafrost cores indicate several microbial assemblages that have the potential to prevent the release of trapped or recently produced methane into the overlying unfrozen sediment following submarine permafrost thaw. Therefore, we challenge the assumption that high methane emissions reported for the Siberian Arctic Shelves originate from degrading submarine permafrost itself9 and suggest different mechanisms to be responsible, such as diffusion or ebullition through discontinuities in permafrost or the release from gas hydrates8,68 at a limited spatial scale.


Interesting and highly relevant to the discussion.
Of course, Drs S+S have emphasized that their observations may relate to potentially vast stores of free methane trapped under submerged permafrost.  All the naysayers of their work seem to focus only on methane hydrates.  So the note here about ebullition being a possible explanation does not reduce the risk of free methane release, but might confirm the fears.

Another oft-ignored concern is that microbial anaerobic oxidation of undersea methane simply shifts the risk from atmospheric release to increased marine levels of hydrogen sulfide, H2S.  Highly toxic.  A prominent component of the Canfield ocean interpretation of the "Great Dying." 

I don't have a good grasp of how much methane must be oxidized to critically reduce deep ocean oxygenation--already a rapidly expanding problem.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 761
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #898 on: February 07, 2019, 05:34:16 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
 

Wherestheice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #899 on: February 07, 2019, 05:35:45 AM »
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.”
"When the ice goes..... F***