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 - Wherestheice

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
102
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 13, 2019, 09:45:34 AM »
https://ac.els-cdn.com/S187661021830136X/1-s2.0-S187661021830136X-main.pdf?_tid=eee50895-b956-4247-b680-05b40841615e&acdnat=1547362884_25f9510dab638f26a19dc31ade625ded

So what are you thinking? Instant venusifocation in a day once a blowout occurs?

No. I don’t think earth will be anything like Venus for hundreds of millions of years. If not billions

104
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 13, 2019, 07:50:01 AM »
The Siberian permafrost is very thick, 700m - 1000m onshore, 300m - 600m offshore.  The fastest meltrates of the offshore permafrost, due to warm water in contact with the surface of the ground is 1.4 m per year.  It would take several centuries to melt through all of the permafrost.

The methane is distributed in pockets throughout the permafrost, so a little bit will be released each year.  Most will be consumed by bacteria, dissolved in water or reduced by reaction with OH in the atmosphere.

We've had a lot of discussion about the pingo-like structures in Siberia upthread.  Review the discussions on previous pages.  They contain less methane that is released by fossil fuel extraction operations, especially fracking, each year.  Even if 7,000 went poof in the same year, there wouldn't be a very large spike in atmospheric methane concentrations.

Here's an image showing how pingos can form.
https://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/02afa0b0-7772-4b96-8852-e61a835840ca/grl22378-fig-0002.png
It's from a paper dating back to 2007.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL027977

Ocean heat can travel down via pingos and reach greater depth where more methane is contained in hydrates. Note what Natalia Shakhova said seven years ago:
https://skepticalscience.com/arctic-methane-outgassing-e-siberian-shelf-part2.html

The sea surface near Svalbard is warming strongly, as much as 17.4°C or 31.4°F warmer recently than in 1981-2011. Stronger storms increase the possibility of large influx of warm salty water from the Atlantic Ocean that can easily destabilize hydrates, given that much of the Arctic Ocean is very shallow and the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is on average only 45 m deep.


Also some of the recent ESAS work from S&S is interesting
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-08/tpu-rsd081517.php

105
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 13, 2019, 05:41:56 AM »
The Siberian permafrost is very thick, 700m - 1000m onshore, 300m - 600m offshore.  The fastest meltrates of the offshore permafrost, due to warm water in contact with the surface of the ground is 1.4 m per year.  It would take several centuries to melt through all of the permafrost.

The methane is distributed in pockets throughout the permafrost, so a little bit will be released each year.  Most will be consumed by bacteria, dissolved in water or reduced by reaction with OH in the atmosphere.

We've had a lot of discussion about the pingo-like structures in Siberia upthread.  Review the discussions on previous pages.  They contain less methane that is released by fossil fuel extraction operations, especially fracking, each year.  Even if 7,000 went poof in the same year, there wouldn't be a very large spike in atmospheric methane concentrations.

Ken,

your not convincing me that this is not a problem

106
Science / Re: Ocean temperatures
« on: January 13, 2019, 02:05:39 AM »
The 60% number was updated and the update shows its about 40-50%, not 60%. Just wanted to point that out.

107
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 11, 2019, 08:00:14 PM »
There are a lot of McPherson and carana haters, but honestly. In my opinion there not far off. Maybe just a few decades

108
Science / Re: Ocean temperatures
« on: January 05, 2019, 11:17:21 PM »
There is other research that seems to disagree

https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/disrupting-deep-ocean-warming-reaches-abyss
https://oceanbites.org/is-the-deep-ocean-warming-too/

I have a hard time buying the claim that the deep ocean is still warming

109
Science / Re: Ocean temperatures
« on: January 05, 2019, 11:10:51 PM »
Yay back to BAU

110
Arctic sea ice / Re: January Poll 2019: JAXA Maximum
« on: January 05, 2019, 11:09:54 PM »
Things could change, but i expect somewhere around 13.90-14

111
Arctic sea ice / 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: January 01, 2019, 11:31:48 PM »
To a good year everyone. I feel an interesting melt season coming.

<Thanks for opening, I've edited the title, and here's the 2018 version of this thread; N.>

112
Consequences / Re: Heatwaves
« on: December 30, 2018, 10:26:23 PM »
Looking at summer temperatures is a bit misleading to a warming planet. We should be looking At fall, winter, and spring temps

113
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 29, 2018, 06:58:22 AM »
Arctic sea ice extent is now 2nd lowest on record. December 28th, a gain of 25,805 Km2.

2018 is only 108,505 Km2 above 2017 for record lowest.

I see a new record low happening in the next few weeks!

114
The rest / Re: 2019 Predictions
« on: December 22, 2018, 08:04:49 PM »
I’ll be the doomer and say we will get near ice free conditions, As well as learn a lot more about the arctic methane.

115
The rest / Re: Immortality
« on: December 18, 2018, 04:43:14 AM »
Worst idea I’ve heard in a long time. If humans became immortal, the destruction of the planet now would look like child’s play

116
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 17, 2018, 05:29:07 AM »
I think this one might be a data error.

117
Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: December 15, 2018, 08:09:58 PM »
Hi Cid,

I know what you're saying, but I disagree (mostly). How can we know exactly how bad things will get, or how much of a difference can be made?

Your argument works if we are 100% sure of complete and total disaster, I mean like zero humans left, scorched earth type of thing. I don't think we are in that situation (although don't get me wrong, I'm very sure that there is a hell of sorts approaching). What we know for sure is that changing nothing guarantees disaster. Trying to change things might help a bit. It might not, but it might. It won't save everybody, but it might save some.

The truth is coming whether people like it or not - to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

There's maybe a stronger argument to be made that having civilization burn out faster is better in the long run, but actually I'm not convinced by that either. Since the ideal result for me would be a new and non-destructive civilization rising out of the ashes; and the sooner the collapse, the less thought has gone into how that might happen.

Anyway, for me the main point is that we don't know exactly how any of this is going to play out. We can see something terrifying approaching, but we don't know what's on the other side.

Finally though I want to reiterate that I think I do understand your line of thinking, and certainly there's an extent to which blind optimism or hope is totally unrealistic (not that hope has to be realistic, in my view).

The simple fact is. Humans can’t live on a dead planet. And the amount of species that will go extinct in the future and the fact that human animals will lose habitat is everything. Keeping civilization going will make matters worse.

119
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: December 15, 2018, 05:50:41 AM »
Beckwith is pretty much a scientist though, and often references the U of Ottawa climate lab in his videos.

"He is in a Ph.D. program, with a focus on Abrupt Climate System Change (atmosphere, oceans, Arctic, methane…)."

Some of his material is helpful, but the problem with whipping people into a frenzy is that it's unsustainable. Too much leads to either defeatism, or even a strange kind of climate change denial.

If everyone treats the the problem as something for the grandchildren to worry about, then we’re all dead.

120
Science / Re: Solar cycle
« on: December 10, 2018, 12:09:30 AM »
Repeat after me....

The sun is not causing current warming
The sun is not causing current warming
The sun is not causing current warming

121
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: December 06, 2018, 10:49:50 PM »
Are you calling David Archer, the IPCC, other Arctic researchers who've found lower levels of methane release than S&S deniers?

The IPCC is way way to conservative. They ignore self reinforcing feedback loops. Their information is diluted under politics and intense speculation. David Archer is not a specialist in the Arctic. He works at the university of Chicago.

And then there is this.....
“The risk of large-scale releases of the deadly greenhouse gas, methane, from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) may be a subject of debate in the scientific community, but to purposefully exclude one side of the debate and openly denounce their findings is not just immoral, it is reckless.”

https://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/blogs/99-russian-scientists-excluded-from-presenting-important-research-as-nasa-goddard-director-tries-to-discredit-observational-scientific-research

I fear a lot of research into the Arctic has been held back or shut down

https://robertscribbler.com/2014/10/15/ignoring-the-arctic-methane-monster-royal-society-goes-dark-on-arctic-observational-science/

Recent research suggests that ice melt Can cause methane hydrates to release, and it may have happened in the past.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6341/948

I could go on and on with very much evidence. The thing is, it’s not just S&S who think the methane release threat is real. It’s very many scientists. To answer your question yes. I think those people and the IPCC are deniers. It comes down to are you gonna look at data and observations from people who have spent decades up there, or a bunch of models and people that create those models that insist they must not be wrong. We are on the brink of catastrophic collapse of the planet. If we want to save humanity we need to be wise about all possible threats. Saying the methane release won’t happen and is nothing to worry about is insanity.

122
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: December 06, 2018, 07:49:03 PM »
If you watch those videos on abrupt climate change, around the 8:00 mark there's a slide summarizing the abrupt changes.

It  has a bullet stating: "Others concerning, but not abrupt:  permafrost melting"

And at the 8:10 mark, he addresses the permafrost melting directly and says it's not abrupt, it "probably has brakes on it".

Well the permafrost is thawing quite abruptly, especially in recent years. I suggest looking at the actual observations in the field. Because it’s clear what’s going on here. The denial of this stuff is insane.


123
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2018-2019 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: December 05, 2018, 09:00:54 PM »
Greenland is not heading towards glaciation. It is melting. This is scientific fact. And there is no evidence to suggest the loss of ice will stop. A few years of little gain mean nothing in a downward trend. Weather is not climate.



With all do respect bbr, come back in 10 years with clear evidence that support your claims, because the current science of climate science does not.

124
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: December 05, 2018, 08:37:23 AM »
He's been comparing apples to oranges the whole time.  Abrupt Climate Change is real and reflected in the ice and sediment cores.
 


You think IPCC is political, The SWIPA update to their 2011 report is even more so, since the Arctic Council members (except the Inuits) are pursuing fossil fuel exploitation in the Arctic.

No longer is it climate change denial, it is abrupt climate change denial

125
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: December 04, 2018, 08:58:33 PM »
Here's a link to the first paper (results of a survey of 40 scientists done in 2009).

https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt3c84h27d/qt3c84h27d.pdf

Some excerpts:

Quote
The survey was filled out by a group of 40 international scientists, including myself, who publish on various aspects of permafrost. The results are striking. We collectively hypothesize that the high warming scenario will degrade 9-15% of the top 3 metres of permafrost by 2040, increasing to 47-61% by 2100 and 67-79% by 2300. Ranges represent 95% confidence intervals around the mean estimate of the collective group. The estimated carbon release from this degradation is 30-63 billion tonnes of carbon over the next three decades, reaching 234-380 billion tonnes by 2100 and 549-865 billion tonnes over the next several centuries. These values, expressed in billions of tons of carbon in CO2 equivalents, combine the effect of carbon released both as CO2 and as CH4.

Here's a free version of the second linked paper:

http://whrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/SchuuretalNature.15.pdf

Here's an excerpt from the introduction (with emphasis added):

Quote
Bringing together this wealth of new observations, we propose that greenhouse
gas emissions from warming permafrost are likely to occur at a magnitude
similar to other historically important biospheric carbon sources
(such as land-use change) but that will be only a fraction of current fossil-fuel
emissions. At the proposed rates, the observed and projected emissions of
CH4 and CO2 from thawing permafrost are unlikely to cause abrupt climate
change over a period of a few years to a decade
. Instead, permafrost carbon
emissions are likely to be felt over decades to centuries as northern regions
warm, making climate change happen faster than we would expect on the
basis of projected emissions from human activities alone. This improved
knowledge of the magnitude and timing of permafrost carbon emissions
based on the synthesis of existing data needs to be integrated into policy
decisions about the management of carbon in a warming world, but at the
same time may help temper the worst fears about the impact of carbon
emissions from warming northern high-latitude regions
.

It would appear that the 2015 study (Lurk's second link) including a "wealth of new observations" contradicts the 2009 survey of 40 scientists (Link's first link). 

Edit:  It's interesting to note that the first author on both of these papers is the same.  It's E.A.G. Schuur.  Good to see that they followed up on their guesses from the survey by summarizing more recent observations and publishing the results.

Even note recent research concludes that 20% of surface permafrost may melt by 2040.

https://www.amap.no/swipa

126
Science / Re: 2018 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 04, 2018, 07:40:02 AM »
2.93, Wow!


Will we even get a flat horizontal line before we reach 2 C above pre-industrial, or without civilizational collapse?
Though aware of the need to reduce CO2 for decades, we've instead increased the rate at which they're accumulating.
This inability to cooperate even in the face of extinction is the Achilles heel that doomed our culture, and possibly our species.


It's impossible to claim any progress at all until Dr Keeling's curve has turned back on itself.
How can we possibly explain this to the grand kids?
Terry

Don’t worry to much. Human emissions should be around zero in a few decades. Oh and getting there will be a ride. Rip 8 billion people

127
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: December 03, 2018, 10:10:24 AM »
Unless something drastic happens In the 2020’s I don’t see humanity surviving the 21st century
We (US, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel) could launch a nuclear attack on the developing world and halt food exports. That would probably kill off 5-6 billion humans pretty easily. Thereafter, China would still be mostly extant, leaving enough human labor for whatever may be, and we could position troops across Central America, Gibraltar, Turkey, and the Himalayas for any would-be migrants, guaranteeing an invigorated military-industrial complex and lots of jobs for the Middle Classes. Everyone wins! (except for most people currently alive, but whatever).

The only nuclear powers that need to be targeted are India and Pakistan, that could be done pretty easily as their missiles only have limited range, so a first strike with no retaliation would be quite easy for the US. China can have all their land after the fact as long as they maintain population and promise not to increase.

If we go down that road, just nuke everything

128
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: December 03, 2018, 06:25:40 AM »
Unless something drastic happens In the 2020’s I don’t see humanity surviving the 21st century

129
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: December 02, 2018, 10:30:44 AM »
Watch this


130
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: December 01, 2018, 11:04:55 AM »
Whereistheice, in the defense of scientists please remember lack of appropriate budgets. Humanity should have been spending billions monitoring the ESAS (and west Antarctica, and more), and then scientists would actually measure methane fluxes and be done with it. This is part of the reason for the different estimates.

I agree, funding in the science department has always been lacking. Especially now, but at the same time scientists have done a horrible job of communicating the problem to the public. Many have made mistakes, the time has come to fix our errors.

131
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: December 01, 2018, 08:41:32 AM »
The ESAS is releasing at least 17 Tg, not 2.9.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131125172113.htm

Different field studies give very different results.

Shakhova et al. 2014 says  17 Tg/yr
Berchet et al. 2016 says 0.0 to 4.5 Tg/yr
Thornton et al. 2016 says 2.9 Tg/yr

There are probably others I'm forgetting...

Quite maddening imo. Scientists need to get there shit together. We simply don’t have time to play games anymore. The public won’t take any of this seriously if we are so divided about certain individual things.

132
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: December 01, 2018, 03:06:43 AM »
Some here are very convinced the methane threat isn’t real. I’m out

I believe upthread someone said something along the lines of 'What could change ( in the science) in 2 years?' Yet in 2014 we got the first reports/images of a yamal 'blowout' and 2 years later we have reports of over 1,000 newly heaved up 'pingo like structures' then the 'on the ground' ,eyes on the prize, info would suggest that a lot can change in 2 years?

I never got my question answered either so I guess the guys who were busy telling us it could never happen ,even as the 'Pingo like structures' were heaving out of the permafrost, have no opinion on the events of the real world just what their models are telling them?

I believe the info since the 'Boiling Oceans' reports from the ESS in 2010 point to the start of a release episode and , should Semiletov's timings be correct for the length of time it takes from formation to blowout crater, Yamal goes POP this coming summer?

EDIT: I suppose the Anchorage quake is a timely reminder that 'natural' events will also continue on and degraded permafrost caps for clathrate deposits on continental shelf areas could find themselves destabilised at any time?

Gray-Wolf,

I did respond, and you even paraphrased my comment about not much changing in two years (between Real Climate's response about methane craters discovered in 2014 and the new Yamal craters appearing in 2016). 

Submarine methane craters have been known about for decades.  Here's a paper from 1992 discussing them:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=post;quote=182696;topic=12.750

What's new is that scientists have found craters in the permafrost on land (starting in 2014) and that a methane explosion that was near enough to humans was witnessed in 2016 or 2017.  However, the existence of vast amounts of methane in permafrost has been know about for decades and the possibility of it warming enough to release that methane has been acknowledge.  One of the reasons for the goal of keeping global warming to less than 2 degrees C as agreed upon in international treaties is to avoid some of the impacts, like massive releases of methane from the permafrost.

I think the important part of to think about these craters is how much methane they can release into the atmosphere and how much that would increase the global warming.  The short answer is it would take about 20 million of these explosions occurring within about a decade (after which time the methane is converted to CO2 and other gases) to release enough methane to raise the global temperature by about 2 degrees C.  If the methane continues to leak out a current rates, or even at 10 times current rates, it wont really impact warming much.   Based on field observations, methane emissions from the ESAS are less than 2.9 Tg per year.  Global methane emissions are around 550 Tg per year.  So even if the arctic emissions were to increase by ten-fold, they'll still be pretty low compared to other GHG emissions.

Not many scientists believe that is very likely with the warming in the oceans and land that we've seen to date.  These include scientists who have gone to the Arctic and measure the methane coming out of the methane seeps.

The ESAS is releasing at least 17 Tg, not 2.9.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131125172113.htm

133
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 30, 2018, 11:43:00 PM »
Some here are very convinced the methane threat isn’t real. I’m out

134
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 30, 2018, 10:09:54 AM »
If I may be so bold, according to Archer's 2015 Paper: Model of the methane cycle, permafrost, and hydrology of the Siberian continental margin, the following could not possibly be happening in 2011 or in 2100 either:

2011 "Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."

Who should I believe in 2018?

Archer's model or Semiletov's eyes?

That’s the thing. Do we listen to a modeler sitting behind a desk, or perhaps the actual researchers in the field who say it’s a problem

135
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 30, 2018, 02:43:02 AM »
I also think it is frustrating, as a scientist, to see so much of the discussion of this topic be both non-quantitative and lacking in context.

When someone publishes a paper saying that (for example) there will be a huge increase in methane emissions from thermokarst lakes in the Arctic ... how do you evaluate that?  How do you decide whether it is just a minor piece of bad news, or "game over for the climate"?

Do you look through the results to check the magnitude of the increase?  Do you compare it to the expected forcing from all methane globally (of which thermokarst lakes are actually a small part)?  Do you compare it to the expected forcing from all greenhouse gases, not just methane?

Likewise, when someone publishes a paper saying (for example) that methane has been discovered outgassing from sediments on the Arctic continental shelf, do you ask "Is this a new source, or just a newly discovered source?"

And so on.  I would humbly suggest that we on ASIF, collectively, are often not great at evaluating information and placing it in context.  And thus when we see what seems to us like a shocking, extraordinary result, and mainstream scientists respond to it  by saying "Well, actually, you need to consider that in the larger context of blah, blah, blah" we tend to assume they are just "erring on the side of least drama" or "being politically correct when you depend on grants to fund your research" as has been said around here.

This can be said for both sides. I agree the methane in the Arctic is still debatable, but those that suggest it is impossible this century and leave it at that are not being very smart. Critical thinking is required and we need to listen to both sides.

136
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 29, 2018, 02:35:10 AM »
This is why it’s so hard to fix the climate problem. People are so divided on facts.

One way to make sure people have the facts is to check incredible claims on credible websites.  I recommend these.

Real Climate:  http://www.realclimate.org/

Skeptical Science: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Both great sources, but when it comes to Arctic methane, I tend to side with the Arctic methane specialists. A lot of those that argue against the methane release, aren't always actually working in the Arctic.

" In a global review of this contentious topic, scientists concluded that there is not the evidence to predict a sudden release of catastrophic levels of methane in the near-term (Ruppel and Kessler, 2017). However, a key reason for their conclusion was the lack of data showing actual increases in atmospheric methane at the surface of the Arctic, which is partly the result of a lack of sensors collecting such information. Most ground-level methane measuring systems are on land. Could that be why the unusual increases in atmospheric methane concentrations cannot be fully explained
by existing data sets from around the world (Saunois et al, 2016)? One way of calculating how
much methane is probably coming from our oceans is to compare data from ground level
measurements, which are mostly but not entirely on land, with upper atmosphere
measurements, which indicate an averaging out of total sources."

"This closer look at the latest data on methane is worthwhile given the critical risks to which it
relates. It suggests that the recent attempt at a consensus that it is highly unlikely we will see
near-term massive release of methane from the Arctic Ocean is sadly inconclusive. In 2017
scientists working on the Eastern Siberian sea shelf, reported that the permafrost layer has
thinned enough to risk destabilising hydrates (The Arctic, 2017). That report of subsea
permafrost destabilisation in the East Siberian Arctic sea shelf, the latest unprecedented
temperatures in the Arctic, and the data in non-linear rises in high-atmosphere methane
levels, combine to make it feel like we are about to play Russian Roulette with the entire
human race, with already two bullets in the chamber. "

http://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf

137
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 29, 2018, 02:22:11 AM »
This is why it’s so hard to fix the climate problem. People are so divided on facts.

People can not be divided on facts. Facts are facts. People have opinions which are either based on facts or - more often - on partial facts or no facts at all.

Well it seems people take facts from here, and there, to support their argument. I am guilty of this, as many are, but here are some facts.

FACT: We know there is a massive amount of methane in the ESAS alone

"The total amount of carbon preserved within the ESAS as organic matter and ready to release CH4 from seabed deposits is predicted to be ∼1400 Gt. Release of only a small fraction of this reservoir, which was sealed with impermeable permafrost for thousands of years, would significantly alter the annual CH4 budget and have global implications, because the shallowness of the ESAS allows the majority of CH4 to pass through the water column and escape to the atmosphere."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JC005602

FACT: We know the permafrost is a key factor to keeping the methane in the ground, if we lose the permafrost we risk these big methane releases.

"Degradation of subsea permafrost and the consequent destabilization of gas hydrates could significantly if not dramatically increase the flux of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2007EO130001

"In 1982-1983, the Permafrost Research Institute of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences drilled four wells, and based on this data we found that the rate of vertical underwater permafrost degradation in the area has gone up to 18 centimeters per year (14 centimeters on average) in the past 30 years, which is ten times faster than expected,"

https://arctic.ru/climate/20170809/655109.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11392

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50735

FACT: The 50 gigaton release should not just be ignored

"we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly
possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause ∼12-times increase of modern
atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming"

https://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/01526/EGU2008-A-01526.pdf

FACT: If only a small amount of the methane is released, we are screwed

"Even if a small fraction of the Arctic carbon were released to the atmosphere, we're fucked,"

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vvb3pa/if-we-release-a-small-fraction-of-arctic-carbon-were-fucked-climatologist

SO we know the permafrost is holding in the methane, we also know its melting fast. Sorry to those that don't think this is a big threat, but i think it is unwise to do so. Now i will admit it remains to be seen how bad this ends up being, but considering how much methane is up there, I see it as a threat.

138
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 28, 2018, 08:28:21 PM »
This is why it’s so hard to fix the climate problem. People are so divided on facts.

139
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: November 28, 2018, 08:36:37 AM »
There is - what is, and
there is - what may be.
Indeed, and then, there is - what may likely be.

GFS, CMC, EURO all show same thing.  ;)
Still way to far out.  There were lots of forecasts last fall that suggested all kinds of dire stuff - worse for ice creation than 2016 - but which moderated dramatically when we got closer to the 4 day window.  What you are seeing at day 8 is still so general and has such high probability of error that it has little utility beyond tweaking our curiosity.
All ensembles are also in agreement. This is partially due to the recurving WPAC storm / typhoon which becomes a major low near AK. I think this leads to a higher probability forecast vs. normal. But if I am wrong, feel free to throw this in my face come D8 (I will post verification then, myself!).
What you are doing is effectively rolling dice.  Like in craps, you eventually might make your point, but the advantage remains with the house. Like in craps, the success of your predictions when they happen are overwhelmingly luck rather than skill.
So you don't believe in forecast models? OK.

I believe it is the longer term models he doesn’t have faith in. Anything over 4 days. It is true. Weather is very unpredictable and with our current technology and understanding, anything beyond 4 or 5 days should be taken with a grain of salt. Considered, yes, but not taken very seriously

140
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 28, 2018, 08:24:34 AM »
The Eemian was warmer in the Arctic than current temperatures and we probably lost most of the sea ice during that time (ie. things were worse icewise than today) and yet there was no runaway CH4 feedback, so it is hard to argue that this time is different. Why didn't we have Arctic Methane feedback then?

The key distinction is that the warming today is from Greenhouse gases being higher and occurs 'twenty-four seven', namely the cooling at night is much less (diurnal variation smaller); in the Eemian the tilt of the Earth was much greater so there was much more seasonality, thus winters were much colder so the sea ice extent, thickness, and thus volume could build up much more, and the summers were warmer in the daytime, however the cooling at night was much greater than now (less greenhouse gas [GHG], more diurnal variation); net result is that the ice was much more durable in the Eemian. Greenland temps were higher during the daytime, but cooled off much more during the nighttime in the lower GHG concentration world.

Another thing to think about it time. The length of time for the methane pulse is very important here. If most of the methane came out in a decade, for example then within a subsequent decade or so most of the methane will have been broken down to CO2 and H20 and also been dispersed/distributed around the planet, away from the pulse source area in the Arctic. The CO2 produced would have been small (CO2 stayed within 180-280 ppm range). It takes about 50 years or even more (depending on the snowfall rate and surface melt rates) for snow at the surface to be compacted into firn that closes off the air spaces creating the bubbles in the ice that are reservoirs of the methane and other atmospheric gases. Because of that 50 year bubble closure time, the large pulse of methane that was burped out of the marine sediments and terrestrial permafrost would be long gone and not result in a detectable signal in the ice core record. Just because the record does not capture it does not mean that it was not produced.

The levels of methane in the atmosphere currently are higher than they have been in at least 400,000 years. Here are some links as well.

https://m.phys.org/news/2012-06-climate-cold-arctic-eemian.html
https://m.phys.org/news/2012-06-climate-cold-arctic-eemian.html

141
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 28, 2018, 02:31:04 AM »
The study referred to by Ken Feldman was at a water depth of 380 metres.
The study was about clathrates

The ESAS depth is 50 metres or less, all 2 million km2 of it.
And as already stated, the question is about free methane, not clathrates.

The study is not just irrelevant but is misleading.

And yes, it is not showing up in the data - yet. The Russian scientists are suggesting that the tipping point may be very close for the ESAS.

One can only wait for the NOAA data over the next few years as I doubt resources exist for a big expansion in relevant studies.

One of the findings from the Beaufort Sea study (Sparrow, et. al. 2018), off of Prudohoe Bay, AK, was that in shallower waters (the graphic accompanying the study indicates that the samples were taken at depths ranging from 10 to 40 meters), the ancient methane isn't found.  Here's a quote from the study:

Quote
These results demonstrate that ancient C–sourced CH4 offshore Prudhoe Bay is largely not reaching the atmosphere beyond, approximately, the 30-m isobath. Our findings are consistent with other Arctic Ocean studies that have found CH4 removal processes to be highly efficient in sediment (36) and relatively shallow water columns (<100 m depth)

There is plenty of research from field scientists that actually work on this subject. They are very worried. The ESAS is a very dangerous area in regards to potential global warming. This problem cannot be downplayed. The main concern appears to be ESAS.

142
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 28, 2018, 01:07:21 AM »
The methane threat is real! Those that choose to ignore it are setting a bad example for the future of this planet

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/20140451

143
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 27, 2018, 11:32:58 PM »
The ones sounding the alarm about the methane in the Arctic Ocean are the ones actually doing research IN the Arctic. Will methane cause human extinction? That’s not the question we should be asking. The question we should be asking is.... how much warming will the methane cause that could lead to extinction?

144
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 26, 2018, 07:20:35 AM »
So now the implication is that stopping BAU is a bad thing? We need to keep the aerosols in the air to prevent a rapid increase of EFR by ~1.2 w/m2, which would throw off radiative imbalance so much over such a short period that the consequences would be catastrophic...

More catastrophic than continuing BAU?

Both end up the same. Continuing BAU just kicks the can down the road. Two ways to die: bullet to the head, or a slow painful death

145
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 26, 2018, 07:19:05 AM »
Even at the lower end of estimations, it is the rate of change that is significant.

Any science on how lomg it will take ?

Don’t remember where, but I heard something like 6 weeks

146
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 26, 2018, 06:01:40 AM »
Quote
Except we know that aerosols will increase warming by only around .25-.4C...
Do we? My quick guess would be much more than that. Any reference for this estimate?

Don’t know where that came from. But I’ve read much different values. I’ve read 1.2 +/- .2, I’ve also seen estimates as high as almost 3 C of all industrial activity stopped. .25-.4 is bad, but I think that is also very conservative

147
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: November 25, 2018, 05:42:49 AM »
Bbr - does the "oncoming ice age" really have to be inserted into every thread?
I apologize, I will create a new thread for everyone's guesses re: political map of the world in 2100. I did not intend to make it about ice age just severe climate change (although obviously in my head that is where much of the NHEM is heading).

Let me know when the ice age comes :P

148
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 23, 2018, 02:19:28 AM »
I think one of the biggest arguments against large scale methane spikes is the absence of isotopic evidence in the ice cores. Why don't we see evidence of methane in the Eemian (where we are, temperature wise, roughly) or MIS 11 ?

sidd
I would think the answer to this is because when extant ice sheets are in existence, any rapid methane release triggers freshwater release / +warming / +H2O / higher albedo, which ends up resealing the beast before it can contribute any significant amount. I would think the same thing will happen with the current event, maybe it will be worse than normal, but we won't be around anyways because it isn't the 1% release of the area's methane that kills everything, it is rapid cooling due to the negative feedbacks associated with ^ which occurs as the release starts to get going in any substantial capacity (IMO). We have historical evidence for these very rapid drops in Greenland temperatures and coincidentally or not, 2018 has seen Greenland's coldest November temp on record (or was it October)?

In any case, the rapid warming due to methane release probably stops when sea ice is sufficient to re-stabilize the shelves, which probably happens when continental albedo begins spiraling. That may still be a decade or two from now, but IMO we are quickly heading there.

So, good news: it isn't the methane that will kill everyone!
Bad news: the negative feedbacks that result from methane release are more than sufficient to get the job done, and occur well before any substantial % of methane is released, giving us even less time than in a clathrate-gun scenario.

Doom!  ;D ;D ;D

Can you provide some links to these negative feedbacks you speak of? That will usher in an ice age....
Hansen's papers have a good link, but besides those, I would argue that 2018 anomalies illustrate these negative feedbacks quite well. It is interesting that the huge + anomalies over Siberia and over the methane traps are still intact and worse than ever this year while Greenland has plunged back below normal alongside Canada. I think there is a good chance we see this worsen next year but I'll hold off until spring to make that prediction.

Here are the last six months of temp anomalies. I think the melting permafrost in Siberia is becoming a major component as to its ever-increasing + temperature departures. Perhaps the negative feedbacks need to become substantially worse before Siberia begins to cool again and the traps re-stabilize, and if that is the case, then things will only get warmer and warmer over Siberia / Laptev / etc until that occurs.

A. Can you share the link to the Hansen paper? B. The climate system is a bit more complex than the way you present it. Do you have data going back 10 years to support your claim?? Do you really think an ice age is happening? Because i haven’t seen any evidence to support that. I have to disagree. But I would like to see that Hansen paper.

All the best,

WTI

149
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 23, 2018, 01:26:07 AM »
I think one of the biggest arguments against large scale methane spikes is the absence of isotopic evidence in the ice cores. Why don't we see evidence of methane in the Eemian (where we are, temperature wise, roughly) or MIS 11 ?

sidd
I would think the answer to this is because when extant ice sheets are in existence, any rapid methane release triggers freshwater release / +warming / +H2O / higher albedo, which ends up resealing the beast before it can contribute any significant amount. I would think the same thing will happen with the current event, maybe it will be worse than normal, but we won't be around anyways because it isn't the 1% release of the area's methane that kills everything, it is rapid cooling due to the negative feedbacks associated with ^ which occurs as the release starts to get going in any substantial capacity (IMO). We have historical evidence for these very rapid drops in Greenland temperatures and coincidentally or not, 2018 has seen Greenland's coldest November temp on record (or was it October)?

In any case, the rapid warming due to methane release probably stops when sea ice is sufficient to re-stabilize the shelves, which probably happens when continental albedo begins spiraling. That may still be a decade or two from now, but IMO we are quickly heading there.

So, good news: it isn't the methane that will kill everyone!
Bad news: the negative feedbacks that result from methane release are more than sufficient to get the job done, and occur well before any substantial % of methane is released, giving us even less time than in a clathrate-gun scenario.

Doom!  ;D ;D ;D

Can you provide some links to these negative feedbacks you speak of? That will usher in an ice age....

150
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 23, 2018, 01:22:45 AM »
I think one of the biggest arguments against large scale methane spikes is the absence of isotopic evidence in the ice cores. Why don't we see evidence of methane in the Eemian (where we are, temperature wise, roughly) or MIS 11 ?

sidd

Big methane burps might have happened very abruptly in the past. As most know, methane only lasts for about 13 years or whatever until it turns into co2. This could be a good explanation for why the evidence is lacking in ice cores. It happens so fast it becomes undectable. Silent killer, just like the old grandpa farting at the dinner table tonight

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7