Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - zworld

Pages: [1]
Permafrost / Re: This is not good.
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:09:21 PM »
Methane seeps reported off the US Atlantic coast:

The fear I have had for sometime is that warming ocean waters wont just release the hydrates in the Arctic circle. The biggest stores of methane hydrates occur in temperate waters where greater input from organic debris exists.

In 2009 methane plumes reaching the surface were observed off the N Cal coast. In 2011 off the Atlantic seaboard. Since then the plumes have increased. Now it appears that they may be starting to release over wide areas, as the recent Atlantic data show.

At this point in time, modeling shows that it wont take much more temp increase to release the stores of methane in the upper limit in these areas. When this starts occurring worldwide, we can kiss our asses goodbye.

From the report;

Extrapolating the upper-slope seep density on this margin to the global passive margin system, we suggest that tens of thousands of seeps could be discoverable.

That's the same wording Shakova used about the Arctic findings.

Permafrost / Re: Major Arctic Methane Research - SWERUS-C3
« on: August 20, 2014, 05:20:50 PM »
I think this is why there hasn't been a follow up to their first posting of methane release. They were only doing real time tracking for a couple of days. Leg 2 starting soon however will track 24/7 (I believe is what the poster is saying).

"This combination of real-time methane-in-air data and methane-in-water data allowed for some days of “methane hunting” (looking for areas of very high methane) earlier during Leg 1 of SWERUS-C3........
Our equipment will run in nearly unattended mode, with some daily monitoring, during Leg 2 of SWERUS-C3."

Permafrost / Re: Major Arctic Methane Research - SWERUS-C3
« on: August 15, 2014, 05:02:31 PM »
Be careful, Carana doesn't shun hyperbole, to put it mildly. Keep that in mind.

I agree. At the same time what should we feel in this situation. I don't agree with his action plan, especially the part about using geo engineering and trying to relocate methane hydrate beds, which is impossible as they would dissociate. But I feel his passion and concern, and am scared with the situation we are in. Methane is the hidden dragon, and I too feel that we are right now at the point of no return, and just watching and waiting for the next shoe to drop is the worst thing we could do. Whether it's fugitive emissions from O&G ops or methane dissociation from hydrates, the MSM refuses to acknowledge the dangerous situation, and maybe the Caranas and Hansens of the world are our last hope.

James Hansen has been showing the way for sometime, but just a few dissenters taking action isnt enough. We need the rest of the scientists of the world to join him and put their bodies on the line. Trying to prove deniers wrong is wasting time. We need to shut down the fossil fuel demons before it's too late or we will be saying too late that it's getting too late.

Sorry about the rant but like I said, Im scared, and I dont scare easily.

Permafrost / Re: Major Arctic Methane Research - SWERUS-C3
« on: August 14, 2014, 11:40:35 PM »
As it is all is quiet and I get the feeling that  I should either put my concerns to bed or consider the possibility that we are not being told of any 'exceptional behaviours' discovered due to 'protocol' ( don't put out unnecessary frighteners'?) already agreed upon before the mission set sail?

or am I just sounding crazy?

I have a feeling that their report will be very informative. They are currently putting together a rough outline summary that will be available shortly. In the meantime the expulsion of methane from the ESS continues. Sam Carana has a good piece at his Arctic News site. In the last week methane levels in the atmosphere have been very high.

Here is an excerpt.

"Horrific Methane Eruptions in East Siberian Sea

A catastrophe of unimaginable propertions is unfolding in the Arctic Ocean. Huge quantities of methane are erupting from the seafloor of the East Siberian Sea and entering the atmosphere over the Arctic Ocean."

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 12, 2014, 05:39:18 PM »

5.  In a similar diversion of nonsense, I believe you asserted that tritium emissions from Fukoshima would dramatically alter ice dynamics in the arctic.  That's a profoundly STUPID assertion, seemingly swallowed whole from the paranoia-ridden site.  You are a serial nonsense peddler here.  Please cease and desist.

I brought up tritium, and wasn't asserting anything. I was seeking data from a more knowledgeable group than I. Same with methane hydrates, which I have spent the last 15 years trying to make people aware of the dangers it represents, both from extraction and natural dissociation.

And you my friend are doing everything you are accusing others of doing, and it is you who should be banned.

No need to respond, I wont be coming back to this dog and pony show.

Permafrost / Re: Major Arctic Methane Research - SWERUS-C3
« on: August 08, 2014, 07:51:34 PM »
Very interesting that she argues clearly against geoengineering, going so far as to joke about it. She said, what are we to do, flip the poles so we get the climate of Antarctica in the Arctic? I suspect she's succeeded in talking AMEG out of pushing this idea. I see all the links to their 'strategic plan' are dead now.

It all sounds seriously 'not good'.

Surprises to me (and I've been following her and Semiletov since 2010):

    The part of the East Siberian Arctic Sea closest to shore has only been under water a geologically short time. On this winter's expedition they were surprised to find the permafrost there at the thawing point rather that at the expected minus 7. It should be more stable than the deeper areas.........

The gist of the interview is that things have been changing very fast.

Thanks Lynn. So what I could make out was true. No, not good at all.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 08, 2014, 07:44:00 PM »
The arctic is not being geo engineered.

It's called weather

 :)   :D  ;D Who Hoo!  ;D  :D  :)

I totally agree with Friv for a change............

Especially in a closely observed region like the Arctic, where any attempt at geo-engineering would be spotted by the scientists studying the region and reported in journals. I'll believe it when I read about it in a journal.

I totally agree with Chris for a change..... :)

Though some have been calling for the start of geo engineering in the Arctic, we would know if had really been going on as Chris states. The grid patterns of geo engineering have never, as far as I know, appeared in the Arctic Circle. If they have I would love to know about it.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 08, 2014, 06:14:49 PM »
I keep seeing "standard deviation" being invoked as an occult incantation rather than anything vaguely related to the scientific method. The term is meaningless unless there is a statistically significant baseline against which to measure the next sample.

Good point. The term baseline shouldn't even be used when discussing AGW and Arctic conditions, because no baseline study was ever done way back when it would have been representative of natural conditions. All we see is the death spiral we started sometime ago.

Same reason the term recovery should never be used. It's like saying an AIDS patient is in recovery because their temperature went down from 102 to 101. There is no recovery in sight as far as I can tell.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 08, 2014, 06:06:07 PM »
You are not seriously suggesting that Tritium from Fukushima has a significant impact on arctic sea ice melt, are you?

No, I was just thinking out loud wondering if it had any impact at all. One of the hardest aspects of investigation work these days is the fact that modeling no longer works, not just for ice melt and the Arctic, but across the board in other environmental domains as well. And I am always looking for other possibilities that may be influencing things.

Earlier I brought up methane release from hydrates after the report came out that the big influx from permakarst didn't exist, and the melt lakes were actually storing carbon, not releasing it. Which meant the input from hydrates might be much greater than previously thought, so I threw that one out.

The reason I started to look at tritium is because of the ozone hole that formed right after the accident. Were they related, I don't know. Did the ozone hole affect the 2011 and 2012 melt, I don't know. I was just adding it to the list of possible influences.

But significant, probably not at this point. The summer of 2011, maybe.

To me, though some have already argued against this point, I believe we have entered territory that can no longer be charted, or even understood using the old parameters. The damage we have already done to the atmosphere is too far gone. We are cooking the earth while drenching it in a sea of toxic substances that never existed, or never in the quantities we now see.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 08, 2014, 01:58:27 AM »

i.e. Fukushima was around 0.00000000001 of natural emission. Here in the realm of engineering in UK the technical term for such an effect is 'bugger all'.

You can readily try the same sort of thing for the other meterials you mentioned.

PS - don't go trying the radiation angle with regards the iodine until you've looked at things like the solar wind and neutron flux from cosmic rays.

EDIT - check out the Pacific North American Pattern if you want a reasonable starting point for why the last two years have been as they have.

Thanks Chris. Actually tritium is the only concern I have, and that is because it is still the most common contaminant being released from Fukushima, can not be measured in the atmosphere (if memory serves), and would have an effect on both ice formation and melt.

One thing that needs to be understood is that all reports on levels of release for all radionuclides from TEPCO, NRC, UN etc are considered far off the mark. Most who did deep research on Fukushima suspect many times the levels reported. The classic example is the lawsuit brought by the Navy personnel from the carrier that was stationed off the coast of Japan. They were subjected to far higher levels of contaminants than TEPCO admitted to.

But it is as DITUK stated, a possible contributor to add to the list, and we will probably never know if it did and to what extent.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 08, 2014, 01:27:53 AM »

Interesting. I can certainly imagine that it would have some effect, but it wouldn't be the main cause. As ever with these things, there is never just one cause, or even usually an overriding main cause. It's a combination of lots of positive and negative effects that combine in multiple ways over a season.

Just one more thing to add into the mix along with smoke from wildfires, river runoff, weather, industrial pollution, and on and on.

Thanks DoomInTheUK. I guess that's what I was doing, just adding a possible factor to the equation.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 07, 2014, 06:59:46 PM »
In 2011 thru 2012 I worked on investigating effects from Fukushima. One effect noticed instantly was the largest ever Arctic ozone hole that appeared within days after the accident. Being caused by atmospheric tritium, iodine and xenon from Fukushima was at the time suggested.

I have since lost track of the ozone situation, but have wondered if it wasn't partly to blame for the big melt in 2012. (If memory serves though the hole was much smaller for 2012).

If this is off the wall, please ignore. My question isn't concerning the ozone hole, but what might have caused it. If it was caused by Fukushima, likely the tritium and iodine expulsion, could this be one reason that the melt this year and last are not in the same league as 2012, or for that matter 2011, especially considering the freezing point of tritium.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 06, 2014, 04:36:52 AM »
Leave that to Hansen (if he is still around with his hat, into the circus business losing his credibility and making good bucks).

James, while in declining health, has dedicated the rest of his life to working on a lawsuit that may be the last hope this planet has. So please, no disparaging remarks. I don't agree with James on a couple of points, but his heart is rock solid. I got him involved in the suit he's taken on concerning the public trust and our atmosphere and AGW, and he will always be a hero to me.

Concerning baseline guys, it doesn't exist for the Arctic. Baseline is before perturbations began and that data doesn't exist.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 03, 2014, 07:54:19 PM »
I am not convinced by the idea that we're now in an unpredictable regime. I am not aware of evidence for a decline in prediction accuracy in the Arctic and haven't noticed it myself.

Thanks Chris. Still dont totally understand but its getting clearer. Sort of. The thing that still nags at me is the concept of an unpredictable regime.

Example, NASA has found a distinct correlation between noctilucent clouds in Antarctica and winter air temperatures in North America. A teleconnection they call it. It has been theorized that the increase in these clouds is related to methane overabundance making it's way into the upper atmosphere, and so far I have seen no one dispute this hypothesis. They also found that the strato winds in the Arctic affect noctilucent cloud formation in the Antarctic on a two week time scale.

Im think Im beginning to believe in the GAIA concept. Affect a local area that produces change in another area that then produces change locally in a few weeks timescale. So the concern isn't necessarily just with temps increasing locally under a methane blanket, but that the blanket may be causing other effects that come back to the localized area.

I know this is all a big unknown, but I give it as a possible example of how we may need to question what is happening outside the context of all that has happened before.

As an investigator my job is to take the pieces of a puzzle and try and form a larger picture, and AGW influenced by methane more than anything else keeps coming back into the picture. And since we have never calculated the full emission scope of methane, especially from offshore and onshore O&G drilling operations that experience a gas blowout, or fugitive emission rates, the question of how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere started out as methane release still lurks.

And as stated, I believe the Arctic is the place to learn the answers to these questions. Im probably wrong but must still keep an open mind to the possibilities.

Hope I havent been too confusing. And thanks again for all of your input.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 03, 2014, 04:33:10 PM »
take any one week and cloud variations will likely swamp the effect of even 96,000ppm of methane because cloud blocks IR (and emits back to the surface) at the peak of surface emission temperatures, whereas methane's effect is on the declining upward end of the emission spectrum.

If I've not been clear here, just ask me to explain.

Chris, I hope Im not being a bother cause alot of what you present goes over my head, but wouldn't that great an increase in atmospheric methane overwhelm the ability for the system to degrade the methane to water vapor, and not produce the same cloud effect as it normally would. I can see that a certain amount would still be converted in the lower atmosphere to water vapor, but would the outcome be the same.

Just like 7 day weather modeling which earlier posters have pointed out repeatedly can now no longer be considered even slightly valid as things change, wouldn't this be true for methane dispersion as well. With concentrations running 10 times background at the moment, and spikes consistently at 2+ ppm and growing, at what point do we say that the old way of analyzing emissions, degradation and dispersion are no longer valid.

I guess the question is, just like weather modeling, can any of the old way of looking at things apply, or do we need to consider new ways of understanding the processes at work.

Either way, thank you for your input. Though hard for a non scientist like me to understand, it is obviously well thought out and informative.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 02, 2014, 11:12:46 PM »

We have AIRS retrievals of methane (IIRC in gridded format). We have Cryosat 2 thickness (surely this is gridded somewhere?) and NSIDC gridded extent. Those of you that think there is a local effect should perhaps demonstrate it rather than asserting/guessing.

That's the rub. It's kinda like trying to prove cigarettes caused lung cancer when the person worked in a plastic recycling plant. It can't really be done. And if there ever was a time when it could be done it would have been last summer when the plumes went from isolated to massive and yet we still saw the August melt not happen, and since fall of 2012 the ESS has been the quickest to recover ice during the freeze, followed by the Laptev, and Im assuming those are the areas that have been experiencing the most dissociation.

So no, ground truthing doesn't turn up a smoking gun here. But it's important I think to look at it all cumulatively with the thought that methane may be having a greater influence than we currently consider.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 02, 2014, 07:25:57 PM »

Slightly OT, but given the large shift in US gas production towards fracking, and similar moves here in the UK and elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, this is an AGW aggravating factor, rather than a mitigating step as has been sold to us. Since methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2 over a 20-year period, this has profound short- to mid-term implications for, well, everything we're discussing on this forum. In particular, this means that we are probably accelerating, rather than delaying, an ice-free Arctic during the summer season.

That has been my concern for some time. The problem is that we have never added fugitive methane emissions to the global register, and it indeed looks like leakage rates from drilling, storage and transporting natural gas is in the 10% to 20% range, and not the 2% to 3% needed to make methane an alternative fuel.

If it is indeed in the upper range as you say of 17%, then natural gas is much worse than coal as far as GHGs go, and we are committing harakiri.

As far as amounts in the Arctic go, the latest Shakhova interview seems to say that dissociation is still on the increase. When you add this to that which is coming from land, things look dangerous indeed.

Another question for youze guys. When we talk about permafrost on land, isn't a portion of this in hydrate form. If it is, could the big cavities that are popping up (no pun intended) in Siberia be the result of warming that is going deep enough to melt these hydrates, which in turn builds up pressure until......boom. Not an explosion, just a pressure release.

Permafrost / Re: Major Arctic Methane Research - SWERUS-C3
« on: August 02, 2014, 07:11:29 PM »
I'll watch later - after I get through the Shakhova interview.

Is there a written transcript of her interview. Ive tried to listen to a couple of different sites and I can not understand alot of what she says.

Is this correct. Is she saying that large areas of the shallower hydrates have already dissociated, areas they thought would take many years to melt out,
that releases are currently increasing.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 02, 2014, 06:51:13 PM »

And finally, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE can we drop the political stuff? There are much better places for it and it will utterly ruin the environment here if it continues. Thank you in advance.

Sorry about that. I'll definately keep the political out of any posts herewith. Right after posting the thought occurred that I shouldnt have posted that.

And thanks all for the information. Im still just learning this stuff.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 02, 2014, 04:02:05 PM »
Now the author of the comment is, I am sure, aware that local impact for atmospheric warming is as much as 75 times the impact of CO2.  Given that this local impact may only hold for as much as one month, we might think that this is of no significance.  Yet, were that month to be July or August, this would be of very significant impact.

Thanks for the responses all.

My concern is with our limited knowledge of the potency of methane itself. We talk in terms of it's heat trapping abilities 20 to 100 years after release into the atmosphere, which means we are calculating CO2 and water vapor impact, and not methane itself. I believe Sam Carana hypothesized that methane itself, before degradation, was up to 1000 times as potent as CO2. I have also heard hundreds used. (Someday maybe we will know the exact figure).

If there are no reactive changes occurring to methane due to the ever shrinking OH budget allowing it to persist, and if methane is hundreds to a thousand times deadlier than CO2 to the atmosphere, AND we see continued hydrate releases as Shakhova did last year, at what point is the effect immediate and alarming.

I realize that the answers to these questions are blowing in the wind, but I feel strongly that we need to include methane release in current observations.

One reason I am so concerned about methane is due to the fact that the world is retooling itself to run on the supposedly clean nat gas methane fuel, and we need to get science ahead of that cart, and the Arctic is probably the best place to learn the science as the methane releases are primarily local and short lived.

I hope Im making sense.....

I also prefer using the term hydrate over clathrate as the energy industry uses the hydrate term and it's important for people to know that the fuel of the future is the same one scientists are so concerned about causing a possible extinction event. (Possible, on it's way or on going, take your pick).

(PS. Just for the record I dont visit Real Climate. I was banned from that site for suggesting in 2009 that Obama was not going to do the things needed to curb climate change. The head honcho insulted me and deleted my comments. And they weren't harsh, just factual, as the Copenhagen Summit showed us when it became obvious that the US was the main glitch to an agreement with teeth.)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 01, 2014, 10:08:08 PM »
The whole thing was about (in my eyes unreasonable comments) that this year should see some particular melt due to methane levels.
Okay, so methane levels are rising at a rapid rate, but they won't affect melt this year for some magic reason. Got it.

Concerning methane. As Im not a scentist Im sure you are all aware of the following. Emissions last year by Shakhova and others were reported as much worse than previous years. Methane plumes that reached the surface and emitted into the atmosphere were seen over wide areas of the Siberian Shelf.

At the same time, OH radicals have been decreasing in the atmosphere. A paper from the Goddard Space Center in 2009 suggested that the loss of sea ice will reduce OH numbers even further, with late-summer OH concentrations over northern high latitudes reduced 30-60% when removing sea ice in that season, due to the reduction in photo-dissociation rates.

“These results suggest that the tropospheric oxidizing capacity could change dramatically over the Arctic if summer sea ice is to retreat in the future, something that could impact the removal of important gases (methane, carbon monoxide) in this region.”

Since we have lost much more summer sea ice since this paper was published, how could methane, if hydrates release is similar to last years expulsion, or worse, not have an effect on current melt. Since the methane molecule (before any degradation has taken place) is probably hundreds of times more heat trapping than CO2, I cant see this not having a serious effect. If it's there in the atmosphere, why would it not have an effect?

Pages: [1]