Wrt the importance of hydrate/clathrate destabilisation, Semiletov and Shakhova have been running field campaigns like this for over a decade. Every few years we hear dramatic reports of the most methane ever bubbling out of shallow Siberian seas, and social media is set off in a panic over the clathrate gun hypothesis.
So far though, the reality is that there has been no significant increase in methane emissions over the Arctic (at least up to 2017)
Three years ago? You've noticed the extreme heat in the Arctic the last 2 years, no?
and nearly every major study that's looked at the topic in detail disagrees with the clathrate gun hypothesis too.
Not germane. We don't need a clathrate gun for very dangerous climate change. Between the clathrates and the permafrost, I believe there is something like 4 to 5 times the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere. Everything is falling apart at a little over 400 and started falling apart, by my estimate, at just over 315. (The first signs of extent losses started in 1953 according to the graphs. Between lag time and CO2 ppm at that time, I estimate it started, or the effects were first triggered, just after 300ppm, around 1920-1930.) Say we lose 20% of that CH4/CO2, that's 250 to 300 more ppm, and perhaps a lot faster than most people think. And, I repeat, things are already at emergency levels on human time scales.
That's not to say I'd personally rule the hypothesis or the significance of the current field observations, but they definitely require some context.
In my opinion, the wrong context. I have been saying for a decade or so, the mid-range of the science is not what the scientists need to be talking to the public and policy people about, it's the risk. The focus has been on not saying what is not proveable rather than focusing on the risk of what is. And the risk, dear friends, is the collapse of society. We're already triggering a mass extinction (if the lack of bugs doesn't have you waking with the screaming meemies, you may not fully understand what's going on with the ecosystem.)
It does not matter exactly how much CH4 is getting released today; what matters is the risk that rapid emissions could doom us to a future where we just can't decarbonize at all.
It's all well and good to talk science, but it is not ok, at all, to ignore the risk of the results of the changes nor to claim a crystal ball that says, well, by golly, based on today, it's all still there! Should we worry so much? Nah... That the clathrates are almost certainly being perforated at all indicates they may become perforated extensively and that a rather rapid increase in CH4 is entirely plausible.
Show Posts
