Messages

1

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release

« on: March 02, 2021, 11:28:38 PM »

Two things about this:
1. The research was conducted on the Oden expedition from 2014, so this is not new research per se.
2. Most of the methane was dissolved in the water column since the depths were greater than 50m.

2

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release

« on: February 23, 2021, 07:30:19 PM »

It is somewhat significant, but I doubt it has mainly to do with Arctic sources. Probably a combination of different sources

3

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 22, 2021, 09:57:13 PM »

To Argonne no we do not need to specify everything since that can not be done. If you have questions ask them.

Kassy, I'm not asking you to specify everything, just that you're talking about summer ice loss when saying "most of the ice will disappear". It makes it sound like you're claiming the sea ice year-round will disappear. And I would appreciate it if whoever is deleting my posts would at least have the courtesy to inform me first

4

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 22, 2021, 08:30:16 PM »

I really don't think you can make an argument that most Arctic ice will be gone by 2050, especially year-round, based on a few pictures

5

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 21, 2021, 03:28:16 PM »

It should, but it isn't. If net zero goal is placed within a decade, people currently in power would have to make the tough decisions. They don't want to do that.

As net zero goal is placed further into the future, it's all business as usual until the powers-that-be conveniently retire. Technology may reduce some emissions so everybody can pretend things are being done, when in fact nothing isn't.

This is a rather simplistic and untrue explanation

Simplistic, absolutely. Untrue? I wouldn't be so sure about that.

I suppose most here agree that coal is yesterday's fuel and a revolution in energy is underway. But we disagree on it's pace. Global emissions keep on rising. We need a pandemic scale emission cuts every year.

If, as some here claim, renewable technology is soon bringing emissions to net-zero, why are governments and corporations placing their net-zero goals decades into future? I doubt their leaders are stupid. Maybe they just don't want to be held accountable on promises they cannot keep?

Read this executive order by President Biden issued on his first day in office and tell me he doesn't care about dealing with climate change: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/

This proves your premise is untrue

6

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 21, 2021, 04:12:20 AM »

cran is much more polite than I

Are you addressing this to me?

7

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 20, 2021, 11:45:19 PM »

I gave evidence regarding coal and India, which you then chose to completely disregard. Also, you and Blu Ice trotted out the same crappy talking points to basically say nothing has been done and the world is doomed. Neither of which is true I might add. You must have fallen asleep while renewables surged globally, the EU agreed to more stringent targets, and Biden put out an aggressive climate plan.
Maybe look up the concept of reconciliation in the Senate before shooting your mouth off about what Dems can or can't do. Also, try keeping up with renewables development in China: https://mobile.twitter.com/laurimyllyvirta/status/1351916159642324994

I am pleased to see someone else argue optimistically that BAU has changed dramatically. Too many around here believe in climate catastrophe is imminent. However saying they "completely disregarded" what you said when in fact what they did was point out that electricity grid is only part of our energy usage. This comes across as you ignoring them not them ignoring you.

Heating homes is much tougher than electricity. Heat pumps seem much more expensive than a ff boiler. Maybe they will get cheaper with volume, that has worked brilliantly with wind and solar electric but I am not sure we can rely on that again.

So I think you and I should admit they have a point. Yes electric is not all of our ff use but BAU has changed dramatically. Of course it would be better for climate if we did more and I want us to do more. However the economic case of being less expensive to do things about climate than suffer the consequences was based on BAU scenarios that are now clearly way off what we should expect and obviously had way worse climate outcomes under the assumed BAU which made action to avoid the worst look cheap. Now we know BAU has changed dramatically the economic case needs to be re-examined and made again.

 

Well-said, Crandles. Much more needs to be done, for sure. That being said, if Biden can get his plan through the Senate (it will sail through the House), then it would be an excellent start

8

The politics / Re: Biden’s Presidency

« on: January 20, 2021, 10:31:26 PM »

A really dumb comic strip. Biden isn't a tool of the so-called military-industrial complex, and he actually does give a damn about climate change. Whoever wrote this junk would know that if they bothered to look at his climate plan.

It is cerainly true that the term "military-industrial complex" is somewhat last century (warning by Eisenhower at the end of his Presidency).

The military-industrial complex is very much a junior partner these days.
It has been replaced mostly by Wall Street / Financial Institutions and now also by Big-Tech (though they may have blown it).

It is also certainly true that Biden is a Corporate Democrat to the core. I was interested to note that Amazon was one of the corporate donors invited to the inauguration. (Were any ordinary members of the public invited?)

The smart Wall Street money has clocked that the real money is to be made in the new industries linked to climate change. Fossil fuel companies and legacy automakers are already feeling the chill. Hence a bold climate change plan is pushing at an open door. Though will that just be promoting renewables + EVs, or will it include actively erecting obstacles to fossil fuel investments?

The smart Wall Street money also knows it needs internationalism - including smart immigrants. Though that internationalism is likely to be limited as it seems many Democrats and Republicans share various shades of protectionism.

The real test will be doing something about economic / education / housing etc etc inequality. Infrastructure spending - no problem $$$.

A more progressive taxation regime? Now we are talking hardball.

I hope Biden gets much of his agenda through. Though if he does I will be jealous as our idiot Boris leads us into permanent decline on this side of the pond.

An excellent analysis

9

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 20, 2021, 10:02:50 PM »

Kassy, I've been posting information to support my conclusions. You have not been doing the same, so perhaps you should follow your own advice before calling me out

10

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 20, 2021, 09:22:56 PM »

I gave evidence regarding coal and India, which you then chose to completely disregard. Also, you and Blu Ice trotted out the same crappy talking points to basically say nothing has been done and the world is doomed. Neither of which is true I might add. You must have fallen asleep while renewables surged globally, the EU agreed to more stringent targets, and Biden put out an aggressive climate plan.
Maybe look up the concept of reconciliation in the Senate before shooting your mouth off about what Dems can or can't do. Also, try keeping up with renewables development in China: https://mobile.twitter.com/laurimyllyvirta/status/1351916159642324994

11

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 20, 2021, 08:56:23 PM »

Global concentrations of Carbon Dioxide are averaging about 412 ppm, which is in line with the RCP 2.6 scenario.  RCP 8.5 would have the 2020 global average at 415 ppm.

Ken, what counts is CO2eq which is well above 415 ppm. And the main negative force, aerosols, is gonna go down fast if we transition to renewable.

This not a very good argument

12

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 20, 2021, 08:55:27 PM »

No, that is not the case with Arctic sea ice. We will lose the summer ice, but not even close to year-round.  Also, summer sea ice can come back if temperatures cool. So not being on an RCP8.5 track is very relevant.

No it is not because we will lose it regardless. It will take decades to get to zero so we have decades of incoming heating and an icepack that is in a really bad state.

The ice provides it´s own isolation layer of cold water but if bigger areas are ice free for a long time that gets diluted down.

Also ice grows from ice so growing it back is not that easy.

When do you expect temperatures to cool anyway?

Again, this is incorrect. We are not going to lose all the sea ice year-round unless we go business-as-usual and fail to stabilize temperatures, which is clearly not going to happen.
As far as cooling goes, SRM, which is due to have a field experiment this year under SCOPEX, would achieve that. If temps cool, sea ice forms.
Also, the year-round sea ice topic has been the subject of study ad nauseam. I recommend you ask scientists Zack Labe or Samuel Hayes on Twitter before you make such claims

13

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 20, 2021, 06:05:24 PM »

No, that is not the case with Arctic sea ice. We will lose the summer ice, but not even close to year-round.  Also, summer sea ice can come back if temperatures cool. So not being on an RCP8.5 track is very relevant.

14

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 20, 2021, 05:10:38 PM »

Yes, I have. You've just ignored the links I presented and trotted out the same, tired talking points that don't hold relevance anymore

We must be old boomers who just don't get it. I hope you are right but unfortunately I know you are not

You don't know a thing, apparently

15

The politics / Re: Biden’s Presidency

« on: January 20, 2021, 02:52:56 PM »

A really dumb comic strip. Biden isn't a tool of the so-called military-industrial complex, and he actually does give a damn about climate change. Whoever wrote this junk would know that if they bothered to look at his climate plan.

16

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 20, 2021, 02:03:40 PM »

Yes, I have. You've just ignored the links I presented and trotted out the same, tired talking points that don't hold relevance anymore

17

The politics / Re: Biden’s Presidency

« on: January 20, 2021, 01:45:54 AM »

As do I

18

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 20, 2021, 01:43:03 AM »

Ah, yes it does. The idea of India going on a mega coal binge has not borne out, and it's not likely to. And there are many climate scientists and energy analysts who think RCP8.5 is no longer a likely scenario: Richard Betts, Michael Mann, Ken Caldeira, Glen Peters, Joeri Rogelj, Twila Moon, and Ruth Mottram, just to name a few.
Of course we must do more, but it is somewhat encouraging that some progress is being made. Anyone saying that countries and politicians don't care and will continue with business as usual until 2050 doesn't know what they're talking about.

19

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 19, 2021, 09:42:53 PM »

No, neither of you are right. Nor do you understand the dynamics of what is going on in India with the energy transition: https://mobile.twitter.com/TimBuckleyIEEFA/status/1351432139213058048
https://ieefa.org/ieefa-india-the-false-promise-of-second-life-coal/

So, the idea that countries are going to continue BAU until 2050 is utterly ridiculous and false.

20

The politics / Re: Biden’s Presidency

« on: January 19, 2021, 05:38:52 PM »

It is good news, but you guys seem to be forgetting reconciliation in the Senate. Also, the idea that conservative Dems along with Repubs in the Senate will curtail climate legislation is unfounded. The only Senate Dem who would do that is Manchin, and he'll go along with most of what Dems want as long as West Virginia gets a piece of the pie

21

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 19, 2021, 05:26:45 PM »

Because businesses are exiting coal at a rapid rate, sparked in part by Blackrock: https://mobile.twitter.com/TimBuckleyIEEFA/status/1351390735627554819

Also, the Dems can use reconciliation in the Senate to achieve most of Biden's goals: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/budget-reconciliation-offers-democrats-pathway-to-act-on-climate-change-62118325

Manchin will go along with a great deal of it as long as he gets some "pork" for West Virginia.
Blu Ice should have mentioned these things instead of his or her innate pessimistic view

22

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 19, 2021, 04:06:23 AM »

the Us and Europe still talk like they should be aplauded for getting to net zerro by 2050. we need a ban on new ff infrastructure ice vehicles today. net zero by 2030 or 2035 should be our goal.

It should, but it isn't. If net zero goal is placed within a decade, people currently in power would have to make the tough decisions. They don't want to do that.

As net zero goal is placed further into the future, it's all business as usual until the powers-that-be conveniently retire. Technology may reduce some emissions so everybody can pretend things are being done, when in fact nothing isn't.

This is a rather simplistic and untrue explanation

23

The politics / Re: Biden’s Presidency

« on: January 19, 2021, 04:01:28 AM »

Would it kill you guys to focus on solutions and what can be achieved rather than indulge in the US becoming a dictatorship or lamenting what could be? I don't think that's too much to ask. The rampant negativity on this thread isn't helpful

24

Permafrost / Re: Permafrost general science thread

« on: December 26, 2020, 12:48:15 AM »

I tend to think it will probably be in the moderate range

25

Permafrost / Re: Permafrost general science thread

« on: December 25, 2020, 05:47:14 AM »

From what I've heard about the MOSAIC expeditions, CH4 measurements were taken all over the Arctic seas, including the Siberian ones. It will be interesting to see what they reveal. I tend to think there will be a lean on that

26

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release

« on: December 02, 2020, 06:51:20 AM »

Kassy, so I had a think about this, and tried to come up with sites that are more likely to have increased in methane faster than the global average.
I tried Niwot Ridge, Colorado, United States (NWR) due to the local fracking activity and Mt. Waliguan, Peoples Republic of China (WLG) due to increased rice production and increased industrial activity. I don't have any local knowledge of these places, so it was a bit of a guess.

There is a slight increased trend on both sites vs south pole data. While the trend for Barrow  (BRW) is flat.

Now I did deliberately pick these sites because I thought would have the largest increase in emissions. But then I originally expected to see the same trend in Barrow and Tiksi and didn't find it.

I'm no expert on this, so I'm happy for any challenge of these methods.

Great data! I've asked around on Twitter for a couple of scientists about what happened to the Tiksi station. I'll let you guys know if they get back to me

27

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release

« on: December 01, 2020, 03:54:15 AM »

I was curious to see if the methane concentrations in the arctic, especially around the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, were increasing any faster than the rest of the world.

Turns out it's not.

Using the NOAA average monthly flask data from Tiksi (for the relatively short time it was running),
 comparing to Barrow, Mona Loa, and Antarctic. Looking at the difference between the sites.
And over a longer term, looking at the difference between Barrow and Mona Loa, and Antarctic.

I'd like to know what the readings would say for 2019  and 2020. If it's more of the same, then that's a pretty powerful argument

28

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release

« on: November 29, 2020, 11:33:53 PM »

[The underwater sources are likely to increase in number and provide more emissions with further warming. However, the pycnocline, increased stratification, anaerobic/aerobic oxidation, and more productive phytoplankton are likely to result in more of a steady feedback than a huge pulse

The pycnocline/stratification means nothing to methane bubbles.
In really deep waters the methane gets dissolved but in shallow arctic waters the bigger bubbles go straight up.

There is no steady feedback there but the important question is how much can come out and what is actually happening inside. It´s a huge pile of ice and frozen and not so frozen organic matter combining with whatever bacteria and viri can do down there.

We do not actually know how big the problem is and it will grow with however much we will grow our carbon pulse.

This is incorrect. The bubbles are for the most part dissolved/oxidized in the water column, even in the shallow Arctic waters. The atmospheric CH4 levels have not been affected by Siberian Shelf emissions, as a number of exhaustive studies have shown

29

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release

« on: November 29, 2020, 11:29:40 PM »

I think we may have liftoff of the CH4 rocket. The annual cycle didn't really have a low point this year.

I think this is an incorrect conclusion

30

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release

« on: November 29, 2020, 05:40:49 AM »

In the historical scale it is still a sudden pulse.

Are you referring to the tundra pingos or the marine emissions? If it's marine, I'm not sure the paleoclimate record supports the idea of it being anomalous

31

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release

« on: November 27, 2020, 08:37:31 PM »

Cool so someone is keeping count of them.

I suggest dropping the bomb metaphor because it is not accurate.
It´s a gas leak. And yes sometimes they explode as with these pingos.

The ones underwater don´t but it will be interesting how much they grow over time.

This won´t stop until it freezes over so rate of change is interesting.

The underwater sources are likely to increase in number and provide more emissions with further warming. However, the pycnocline, increased stratification, anaerobic/aerobic oxidation, and more productive phytoplankton are likely to result in more of a steady feedback than a huge pulse

32

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release

« on: November 22, 2020, 08:41:05 PM »

It will be interesting to see the growth rate.

The fact that it's not affecting the atmospheric concentrations and most is getting dissolved in the water column leads me to think there will be an increase in methane emissions from the region, but far from the level of a "bomb"

33

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release

« on: November 21, 2020, 03:46:07 AM »

Bubbling methane craters and super seeps - is this the worrying new face of the undersea Arctic?

http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/bubbling-methane-craters-and-super-seeps-is-this-the-worrying-new-face-of-the-undersea-arctic/

   
Bubbling methane craters and super seeps - is this the worrying new face of the undersea Arctic?
By Valeria Sukhova, Olga Gertcyk
19 November 2020

Video and pictures from latest research mission show gas release in the Laptev and the East Siberian seas.

A team of 69 scientists from ten countries documented bubble clouds rising from a depth of around 300 metres (985ft) along a 150km (93 mile) undersea slope in the Laptev Sea, and confirmed high methane concentrations by hundreds of onboard chemical analysis. Picture: TPU

Scientists have shared the first results of a trip to the world’s largest deposit of subsea permafrost and shallow methane hydrates.

Fields of methane discharge continue to grow all along the East Siberian Arctic Ocean Shelf, with concentration of atmospheric methane above the fields reaching 16-32ppm (parts per million).

This is up to 15 times above the planetary average of 1.85ppm.

The preliminary results are from this year’s only international scientific expedition to the eastern Arctic.

Methane bubbling in the Eastern Arctic, video from this autumn international expedition to the Laptev and to the East Siberian Sea 

A team of 69 scientists from ten countries documented bubble clouds rising from a depth of around 300 metres (985ft) along a 150km (93 mile) undersea slope in the Laptev Sea, and confirmed high methane concentrations by hundreds of onboard chemical analysis.

A second discovery is pockmarks and craters sunk deep in shelf sediments of both the Laptev and East Siberian seas, actively venting bubbles and strong methane signals.

‘All previously discovered fields of methane discharge showed an increase to various degrees, now we need to figure out exactly how much they grew,’ said the head of the expedition Professor Igor Semiletov.

‘One of the new discoveries was a field of sea bottom craters in the shallow part of the Laptev Sea, some of them 30 metres (98 ft) in diameter.

‘They look like holes in the permafrost and, as our studies showed, they were formed by massive methane discharge.

‘Also two more powerful seeps emitting methane through iceberg furrows were discovered in the East Siberian Sea

For the first time the scientists managed to take samples of bottom sediments in a methane seep near the delta of River Lena, one of Siberia’s giant waterways.

This is a very interesting article from scientists who have experience studying CH4 concentrations in marine and terrestrial permafrost. The words of Frans-Jan Parmentier and Paul Overduin are key:
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/guardian-article-on-arctic-methane-emissions-lacks-important-context-jonathan-watts/

34

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release

« on: November 16, 2020, 04:42:55 AM »

Welcome ArgonneForest.

Thanks Oren. I made this account partly to give context to the last couple of posts on this thread about the "methane bomb".

35

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release

« on: November 15, 2020, 11:50:13 PM »

New upload from JHAT covering the ISSS preliminary research on the current state of methane release from the ESAS.

I feel compelled to point out there's been substantial pushback on this. The words from Paul Overduin, who's led expeditions to the ESAS since 2005, are particularly noteworthy: https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/guardian-article-on-arctic-methane-emissions-lacks-important-context-jonathan-watts/