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 ... 7
51
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: June 05, 2019, 06:57:49 AM »
The worst consequence of climate change? The end of modern civilization and the reduction of the population to historical levels or less. There will be millions of humans around, but they won't be living. They will be surviving on an alien planet. But that only happens if the Arctic collapses and we are as unprepared as we are now. If we mount serious response in time we can completely avoid apocalypse and the opposite will come true. A new era of prosperity awaits.

I would like to answer a spin of this question. What is the most scary consequence of climate change? Heatwaves. Particularly after ASI is gone in the summer, deep inside the continents. The temperatures will rise to levels that no hominid have ever experienced in nature. Powerstations will blow up, rods will melt, metal will buckle. Very few people will survive.

Sure hurricanes and floods can be scary, but at least they are fast. Heatwaves may last weeks. I find it terrifying.

If we take unprecedented actions, I can't say I agree that there will be a "new era of prosperity". We've already baked in enough crap for things to get worse than they are now

52
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: June 02, 2019, 08:38:23 PM »
This pretty much confirms more of what I have been saying about methane releases from hydrates, even tho many choose to downplay or ignore

https://m.phys.org/news/2019-05-deep-sea-carbon-reservoirs-superheated.html

53
Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: May 31, 2019, 10:15:01 AM »
5-6 C. Feedback loops tend to be forgotten often. Tons of people think we just have to stop emitting co2 and then we will be fine, but that is false.

This 5-6 C rise in temp is likely going to wipe out most life on the planet as well as our species.... or at least a large percent of us. Civilization probably has till mid century

55
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 15, 2019, 01:52:27 AM »
Saying the arctic will go ice free before 2030 is just as valid as saying it won’t

56
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 11, 2019, 10:17:56 PM »
Lets get back on topic, If you want to create a thread for who's right Mann or McPherson please do so.

57
Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 29, 2019, 09:02:39 AM »
Global temperatures about 0.2 degrees C warmer than now.  As the warming is not uniform some areas maybe be 0.4 warmer than now.

Sea level rises to be about 3cm higher than now.  Even under the most alarmist predictions of ice sheet collapse unlikely to be more than 5cm.

Frequency of hurricanes etc to be statistically indistinguishable from now.

Climate change deniers who predicted a reversal of the steady warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s, will ignore the failure of cooling to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Catastrophists who predicted a major acceleration of the warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s will ignore the failure of catastrophe to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Food security?  Climate change will steadily erode our ability to supply food.  The worlds population will steadily grow.  Science will steadily improve our ability to supply food.  At some stage food production might fall short of demand and cause serious problems for society.  Hard to predict whether it will be this decade (how much will advances in science, that is learning to do stuff we don't know how to do know help us out?), but considering the number of golf courses, non productive ornamental gardens and protected wilderness parks on the planet I think we might have a way to go yet.  Of course when these are being converted to agriculture because we need to eat its probably too late to avoid the food crisis.

You say this like there wasn't a great acceleration in warming between 2000 and now. I think we would need some serious luck to only warm .2 C by 2030.......We are emitting more greenhouse gases than ever. So just with that warming will continue to accelerate. Were almost certainly gonna lose more ice by 2030 (probably even a BOE), and theres a good chance we will lose some of the aerosol masking affect. And this is just a few of many factors that are causing warming.

Things are picking up fast. If we continue to underestimate and downplay the situation, there isn't gonna be a civilization around in a few decades to tell the tale of how we failed.

58
Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 16, 2019, 10:16:07 PM »
Ok, let's be optimistic:

I expect significant investments in renewable energy by 2030 and the phasing out of ALL fossil fuels by 2050. Humanity will also say goodbye to most plastics, and there will be a serious turn towards all things sustainable and the circular economy. Agriculture will move towards regenerative practices and there will be very serious carbon (and other pollutant) taxes everywhere. Politics will move left towards more redistribution and more role of the government in green investments.
The planet will keep warming even after 2050 but it will be managable. By 2100 we will be 3-4 C above baseline; definitely no summer and possibly no/very little winter ice in the Arctic. The UK will be called the Sunny Isles due to persistent high pressure systems during summer, Greenland will be a popular destination as well, and Canada and Russia will become the real breadbaskets of the globe. Africa will unite in a real African Union and by using modern and regenerative practices will be able to feed its population of 3 billion.

Fairy tale? I don't think so. A possible future

I don’t share the optimistic view here if we’re talking 3-4 C warmer. When the planet gets to those kind of temperatures, it’s gonna be really hard to grow crops and people will have to retreat to the high northern latitudes. Our population is gonna probably be 2 billion<. One major reason is simply that the planets biosphere will not be able to adapt to that kind of change. And I think using the year 2100 is also very optimistic.

But on the other hand I hope your right

59
Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 15, 2019, 10:32:08 PM »
If humanity continues down the path it’s on rn. In 2030 things will be much worse than now. Collapse of civilization IMO, is most likely by mid century, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was by 2030 either

60
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 09, 2019, 06:58:30 AM »

April 8th, 2019:
     an increase of 17,572 km2.     

Is this due to a real small re-freeze, or is it just ice spread around by winds?

Probably most of it is spread. The ice is breathing, but slower

61
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 08, 2019, 07:38:19 AM »

It looks as if the line will continue downward in at least as steep an incline as the rest of the years which will make 2019 the record lowest extent!
...
I'm starting to take near term human extinction forecasts more seriously!

You'll come to see that the Arctic is out there to fool you. Noone in my experience can forecast, not even a single year but the next month either.

As for extinction, I don't believe in that. Humanity is quite versatile.

Extinction is the rule
Survival is the exception
~ Carl Sagan

62
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 27, 2019, 02:17:38 AM »
This will be my last time posting on this thread, as well as ASIF.  The real reason I come to ASIF is for info on the ice. Point is, many posters here lack either urgency or understanding of the entire situation we find ourselves in. I would like to point out I mean no ill will towards people i disagree with. So thanks for all the contributions everywhere. This is a good forum, filled with many good people.

63
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 27, 2019, 02:10:30 AM »
This also assumes methane release doesn’t pick up from natural sources. Kens argument doesn’t seem to be based in reality. ......Everything will be ok. Those who think otherwise should be silenced. We will fix everything!.... sorry but that just isn’t gonna happen. We might try to fix things, but I have high doubts. Renewable energy certainly isn’t the answer. Perhaps we should give up civilization and try to create self sustainable communities. But no that’s to much to ask for. Civilization has to go, as well as capitalism, if we want any decent chance of Saving the world

Not even close to what I said!  You seem to deliberately misinterpret what I've been saying.

I've posted many scientific papers to rebut the doomsday scenarios you keep posting from newspapers and other non-scientific sources.  I haven't silenced you, yet you keep twisting my words in response.

It will take a lot of effort to shift from fossil fuels to carbon free sources.  It can be done.  Giving up and saying we're all doomed because natural emissions are going to increase is a typical denier tactic.

I’m sorry but this is pure dillusion. Renewable energy is not gonna fix anything. And the “doomsday scenario” can not be dismissed. Why? Because it’s where we’re headed. We have already locked in at least 3 C of warming. That is the optimistic estimate. 4-5 C is where civilization collapses, 6 C and up we start talking about extinction. Renewables would have been great if we had invested in them decades ago. Now instead of “hoping” for a future that will never come. Let’s try and protest the system of “infinite growth on a finite planet”. The doomsday scenario is not some theory or low probability. It’s already Happening

64
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 26, 2019, 09:05:19 PM »
This also assumes methane release doesn’t pick up from natural sources. Kens argument doesn’t seem to be based in reality. ......Everything will be ok. Those who think otherwise should be silenced. We will fix everything!.... sorry but that just isn’t gonna happen. We might try to fix things, but I have high doubts. Renewable energy certainly isn’t the answer. Perhaps we should give up civilization and try to create self sustainable communities. But no that’s to much to ask for. Civilization has to go, as well as capitalism, if we want any decent chance of Saving the world

65
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 26, 2019, 06:59:33 PM »
A good explanation of the recent rise in methane concentrations (which are still below the annual increases that happened in the 1980s to early 1990s) is increased fossil fuel emissions.  The huge increase in fracking oil and natural gas in the US is a probable source.  Also, the growth in agricultural emissions has continued unabated.

See the two studies cross-posted from AbruptSLR in the Antarctica forums:

The first linked 2017 reference used satellite data to reconcile different estimates of methane emissions by correcting for estimates of methane emissions from biomass burning from 2001 to 2014.  This implies that the recent increases in both biomass burning and in fossil fuel use are contributing to the current high rate of increase of atmospheric methane concentrations (see the attached image for Mauna Loa Atmospheric Methane concentration from 2005 to Feb 26, 2019).  That said I also suspect that increases in agricultural methane emissions and natural emissions from wetlands are also contributing:

Worden et al. (2017), "Reduced biomass burning emissions reconcile conflicting estimates of the post-2006 atmospheric methane budget", Nature Communications 8, 2227, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02246-0

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02246-0

Abstract: "Several viable but conflicting explanations have been proposed to explain the recent ~8p.p.b.per year increase in atmospheric methane after 2006, equivalent to net emissions increase of ~25Tg CH4 per year. A concurrent increase in atmospheric ethane implicates a fossil source a concurrent decrease in the heavy isotope content of methane points toward a biogenic source, while other studies propose a decrease in the chemical sink (OH). Here we show that biomass burning emissions of methane decreased by 3.7 (±1.4) Tg CH4 per year from the 2001–2007 to the 2008–2014 time periods using satellite measurements of CO and CH4 nearly twice the decrease expected from prior estimates. After updating both the total and isotopic budgets for atmospheric methane with these revised biomass burning emissions (and assuming no change to the chemical sink), we find that fossil fuels contribute between 12–19 Tg CH4 per year to the recent atmospheric methane increase, thus reconciling the isotopic- and ethane-based results.

See also:

Title: "NASA-led Study Solves a Methane Puzzle"

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-led-study-solves-a-methane-puzzle

& see:

Adam Yeeles (2019), "Coal methane unabated", Nature Climate Change 9, 186, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0432-x

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0432-x

See also:

Julie Wolf et al, Revised methane emissions factors and spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock, Carbon Balance and Management (2017). DOI: 10.1186/s13021-017-0084-y

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13021-017-0084-y

Abstract

Background

Livestock play an important role in carbon cycling through consumption of biomass and emissions of methane. Recent research suggests that existing bottom-up inventories of livestock methane emissions in the US, such as those made using 2006 IPCC Tier 1 livestock emissions factors, are too low. This may be due to outdated information used to develop these emissions factors. In this study, we update information for cattle and swine by region, based on reported recent changes in animal body mass, feed quality and quantity, milk productivity, and management of animals and manure. We then use this updated information to calculate new livestock methane emissions factors for enteric fermentation in cattle, and for manure management in cattle and swine.

Results
Using the new emissions factors, we estimate global livestock emissions of 119.1 ± 18.2 Tg methane in 2011; this quantity is 11% greater than that obtained using the IPCC 2006 emissions factors, encompassing an 8.4% increase in enteric fermentation methane, a 36.7% increase in manure management methane, and notable variability among regions and sources. For example, revised manure management methane emissions for 2011 in the US increased by 71.8%. For years through 2013, we present (a) annual livestock methane emissions, (b) complete annual livestock carbon budgets, including carbon dioxide emissions, and (c) spatial distributions of livestock methane and other carbon fluxes, downscaled to 0.05 × 0.05 degree resolution.

Conclusions
Our revised bottom-up estimates of global livestock methane emissions are comparable to recently reported top-down global estimates for recent years, and account for a significant part of the increase in annual methane emissions since 2007. Our results suggest that livestock methane emissions, while not the dominant overall source of global methane emissions, may be a major contributor to the observed annual emissions increases over the 2000s to 2010s. Differences at regional and local scales may help distinguish livestock methane emissions from those of other sectors in future top-down studies. The revised estimates allow improved reconciliation of top-down and bottom-up estimates of methane emissions, will facilitate the development and evaluation of Earth system models, and provide consistent regional and global Tier 1 estimates for environmental assessments.

That is part of it, but not all of it. There has been a drop carbon-13, while the methane is still rising. This implies there is some increases in the system as well. Forest fires, the Arctic, etc

66
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: February 26, 2019, 08:03:10 AM »
In my dreams - News from North America next weekend...

"Snow melts as warmth heads south from the Arctic"

The jetstream must be moving slow because these weather patterns do not want to budge. Everywhere thats cold right now is gonna be boiling hot come summer i bet

67
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2018-2019 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: February 26, 2019, 04:38:46 AM »
Snow extent is average
Not in North America



Even in North America snow extent has been average most of the year. Yes there will be above average and below average. That’s how weather works. Nothing this winter is either surprising or of much significance to trends

68
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2018-2019 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: February 26, 2019, 02:37:05 AM »
Snow extent is average

69
Arctic sea ice / Re: January Poll 2019: JAXA Maximum
« on: February 25, 2019, 06:11:00 AM »
I’m calling max

70
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: February 16, 2019, 10:08:00 AM »



Note how the cool conditions on the Atlantic Front and the high gains in the previous 2 days let this writer guess at continuing high gains. And what happens? - extent loss. There are times when one is drawn back to James Lovelock's original concept of earth as GAIA - a sentient being, able to mock us even as she is abused by us. Anthropomorthism?


Interesting you note that. Because nature is so fricken hard to predict

71
Arctic sea ice / Re: January Poll 2019: JAXA Maximum
« on: February 14, 2019, 05:11:19 AM »
With the century gain today, indeed its almost impossible now for a new record low

72
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 14, 2019, 04:24:39 AM »
thanks to AbruptSLR

Title: "Climate updates What have we learnt since the IPCC 5th Assessment Report?", November 2017 DES5123 ISBN: 978-1-78252-306-2

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf

Extract: "With the next assessment report (AR6) not due until 2022, it is timely to consider how evidence presented since the publication of AR5 affects the assessments made then.


In summary, gradual climate change could trigger abrupt changes – with large regional and potentially global impacts – associated with thresholds in the Earth system. The possibility of crossing any of these thresholds increases with each increment of warming."


---

Lurk,

I've previously cited that paper to show that the authors' don't believe that the Arctic permafrost is one of those threshold systems:

Here's a link to a 2017 update of the IPCC AR5 report by the UK Royal Society:

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report-references-document.pdf

Excerpts relevant to methane clathrate release:

Quote
Clathrates: Some economic assessments
continue to emphasise the potential damage
from very strong and rapid methane hydrate
release (Hope and Schaefer, 2016), although
AR5 did not consider this likely. Recent
measurements of methane fluxes from
the Siberian Shelf Seas (Thornton et al.,
2016) are much lower than those inferred
previously (Shakhova et al., 2014). A range
of other studies have suggested a much
smaller influence of clathrate release on the
Arctic atmosphere than had been suggested
(Berchet et al., 2016; Myhre et al., 2016). New
modelling work confirms (Kretschmer et al.,
2015) that the Arctic is the region where
methane release from clathrates is likely
to be most important in the next century,
but still estimates methane release to the
water column to be negligible compared to
anthropogenic releases to the atmosphere.
A recent review (Ruppel and Kessler, 2017)
emphasises that there remains little evidence
that clathrate methane is reaching the
atmosphere at present. Although methane that
is oxidised in the water column will not reach
the atmosphere, it will have the effect of further
lowering the pH of the ocean (Boudreau et al.,
2015). A recent modelling study joined earlier
papers in assigning a relatively limited role to
dissociation of methane hydrates as a climate
feedback (Mestdagh et al., 2017).

Excerpt related to permafrost melt:

Quote
Permafrost: A review published in 2015
(Schuur et al., 2015) made new estimates of
the amount of carbon stored in permafrost,
both near the surface and at depth. It also
summarised experimental evidence about
how much carbon would be released, and
in what form, when permafrost melts. This
led to a new estimate that about 100 Pg of
cumulative carbon emissions (with a wide
uncertainty) would be released from thawing
permafrost by 2100 under RCP8.5. This leads
to a significant positive feedback, but the
review emphasised that emissions are “likely
to be gradual and sustained rather than
abrupt and massive”. A recent modelling study
estimated that permafrost carbon releases
could contribute up to 12% of the change in
global mean temperature by 2100 (Burke et al.,
2017). Studies since 2013 therefore confirm the
importance of permafrost carbon release as
a positive feedback, and the need to include
it accurately in Earth system models, but
they do not support considering it to exhibit
threshold behaviour.

There is evidence to suggest the permafrost is a threshold system

"I would expect to see continuous permafrost start to thaw along the boundaries at this threshold of 1.5C [in future]”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/21/temperature-rise-permafrost-melt

73
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 13, 2019, 11:37:23 PM »
Undersea Gases Could Superheat the Planet
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-02/uosc-ugc021219.php


A deep-sea reservoir near Taiwan spews carbon dioxide when its slurry-like hydrate cap ruptures. Credit: National Academy of Sciences

The new study by scientists at USC, the Australian National University and Lund University in Sweden, focused on the Eastern Equatorial Pacific (EEP) hundreds of miles off the coast of Ecuador. The EEP is a primary conduit through which the ocean releases carbon to the atmosphere.

The new findings challenge a long-standing paradigm that ocean water alone regulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during glacial cycles. Instead, the study shows geologic processes can dramatically upset the carbon cycle and cause global change.

The scientists report evidence of deep-sea hydrothermal systems releasing greenhouse gases to the ocean and atmosphere at the end of the last ice age, just as the oceans were beginning to warm. ...  the new data show that there were major releases of naturally occurring carbon from the EEP, which contributed to dramatic change in Earth's temperature as the ice age was ending, the study says.

If undersea carbon reservoirs are upset again, they would emit a huge new source of greenhouse gases, exacerbating climate change. Temperature increases in the ocean are on pace to reach that tipping point by the end of the century. For example, a big carbon reservoir beneath the western Pacific near Taiwan is already within a few degrees Celsius of destabilizing. Similar discoveries of carbon gas reservoirs have been made off the coast of Okinawa, in the Aegean Sea, in the Gulf of California and off the west coast of Canada.

At issue are expanses of carbon dioxide and methane accumulating underwater and scattered across the seafloor. They form as volcanic activity releases heat and gases that can congeal into liquid and solid hydrates ... These undersea carbon reservoirs largely stay put unless perturbed, but the new study shows the natural reservoirs are vulnerable in a warming ocean and provides proof the Earth's climate has been affected by rapid release of geologic carbon.

Quote
... The federal government's Climate Science Special Report projected a global increase in average sea surface temperatures of up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, given current emissions rates. Temperature gains of that magnitude throughout the ocean could eventually destabilize the geologic hydrate reservoirs.

"The last time it happened, climate change was so great it caused the end of the ice age. Once that geologic process begins, we can't turn it off,"
Stott said.



Open Access: Lowell Douglas Stott et al. Hydrothermal carbon release to the ocean and atmosphere from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during the Last Glacial Termination[/b]]Hydrothermal carbon release to the ocean and atmosphere from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during the Last Glacial Termination, Environmental Research Letters (2019).

From Abstract:

Quote
... a significant release of hydrothermal fluids entered the ocean at the last glacial termination. The large 14C anomaly was accompanied by a ~4-fold increase in Zn/Ca in both benthic and planktic foraminfera that reflects an increase in dissolved [Zn] throughout the water column. Foraminiferal B/Ca and Li/Ca results from these sites document deglacial declines in [CO32-] throughout the water column; these were accompanied by carbonate dissolution at water depths that today lie well above the calcite lysocline. Taken together, these results are strong evidence for an increased flux of hydrothermally-derived CO2 through the EEP upwelling system at the last glacial termination that would have exchanged with the atmosphere and affected both Δ14C and pCO2.

Great find thanks for sharing!

74
Arctic sea ice / Re: January Poll 2019: JAXA Maximum
« on: February 13, 2019, 08:50:12 AM »
If the Arctic wants to be a new record low maximum, it only has 125,000 Km2 left to grow. Will it continue to grow as it has the last few days and not beat the record or taper off?

75
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: February 13, 2019, 05:11:12 AM »
[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.
 
February 12th, 2019:
     13,755,722 km2, an increase of 60,522 km2.
     2019 is now the 7th lowest on record.

The back and forth fluctuations continue. This has been an interesting freezing season

76
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2018-2019 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: February 12, 2019, 08:11:44 PM »
Snow water equivalent is an interesting way to look at the snowpack, but extent tells whats really going on. With the SWE, it just shows that some areas got heavier snow.

77
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 12, 2019, 07:38:57 PM »
Latest paper from shakova, with a hefty list of researchers

https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2018-229/tc-2018-229.pdf

78
Policy and solutions / Re: US Green New Deal
« on: February 11, 2019, 10:09:39 AM »
I support the green new deal, but I don’t expect much to happen

79
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 10, 2019, 03:16:22 AM »


and pay special note to Dr Hansen's comments above. I think it puts the matter clearly and into perspective for now and the possible futures still up for grabs. Major Arctic CH4 "feedback releases" is still part of future possibilities ... it all depends if man made ghg emissions are stopped or not stopped. 

I’ve posted more clips (BELOW LINK) from the interview with Dr. Ruppel, now up at Yale Climate Connections​
Highly recommended to better understand this critical point.
We have a big, big problem with climate – but it’s not time to run for the hills. It’s not ‘imminent human extinction” as some youtubers would have you believe.
We’re not getting off that easy. We have to turn and fight for the future.


https://climatecrocks.com/2019/02/07/return-of-the-methane-bomb-squad/

You'll note that Dr. Hanson and the other scientists in the video are basically stating what I've been saying in this thread,  there is no threat of a "methane time bomb" if we can get off of fossil fuels in the next few decades and that we can avoid the massive methane release from the Arctic permafrost.  It's not something to lose sleep over.

I'll point posters to the Policy and Solutions forums on this site where we're showing that renewables, EVs, batteries and other solutions make it possible for the transition that's needed.

May I humbly suggest you are totally missing the point, again? I'll try and explain it in simpler terms.

I am not losing sleep over a methane bomb in the near future. Neither is whereistheice and others from what I can tell.

whereistheice, others and I ALSO agree with Hansen and I suspect (?) with the comments and conclusions of Dr. Ruppel as well. But when you have VARIATIONS in "scientific" estimates between 2Tg and 17Tg it tells us something more important than the actual numbers do - DISAGREEMENTS ABOUNDS ON ESTIMATES .... all of them could be wrong because frankly not enough hard data is actually available in order for SCIENTISTS (not forum folks) to agree with.

Compare that with say MLO CO2 readings where the consensus ppint is 99.9% of all scientists agree the readings are reliable as are Global readings "estimates" and the direct co-relationship between PPMV and actual manmade emissions + natural emissions that are "spiking" in different regions at different times for different reasons ... which my dear friend are INCREASING not decreasing.

So sure alt energy sources are known and minor deployments are being made while simultaneously GHG emissions are INCREASING still.

Therefore it is abundantly clear to almost all that an ASSUMPTION that "there is no threat of a "methane time bomb" if we can get off of fossil fuels in the next few decades" is FALSIFIABLE and that "other solutions make it possible for the transition that's needed" does NOT make it so in the real world in which we live.

So it is one thing thing to posit that in your humble opinion there won't be some kind of a sudden  Methane Bomb erupting anytime in the next 10-20-30 years (in our lifetime) is "reasonable" given the LACK OF HARD DATA at this point .. it is ILLOGICAL and UNFOUNDED BS to then assume "that we can avoid the massive methane release from the Arctic permafrost" in the middle of or toward the end of the century.

And that real genuine solutions for Climate change actually requires STABILIZATION that does not only apply in OUR LIFETIMES but for GENERATIONS AHEAD as well.

And so what Hansen, and I and whereistheice and many others like S&S and many other SCIENTISTS are saying in their papers is that future massive methane release from the Arctic permafrost is almost GUARANTEED at some point if we keep following BAU.

BAU includes the current uptake of Renewable energy and BAU includes the ongoing INCREASES in GHG in the atmosphere that WILL continue to heat the planet.

Therefore NOTHING HAS BEEN SOLVED here .... nothing at all while CO2 continues to break new all time records and 2018 comes in agai8n in the top 4 highest global temps on record.

Every scientifically AGREED Data point right now plus current BAU out 20 years is telling us that a future massive methane release from the Arctic permafrost is almost GUARANTEED this century!

Excuse CAPS but it's really frustrating trying to break thru such barriers.

Total Global human caused GHG emissions must be cut by 80% before Atmospheric CO2 levels even begin to stabilize. We are no where near that point we are still doing the opposite. Recent CO2 is growing at +3 ppm and there is no El Nino happening!!!!

Once CO2 levels stabilize (if, when, maybe) WARMING still continues for DECADES ..... it continues to destabilize the Arctic methane and methane stores all over the world and every other potential Positive Feedback mechanism already known.

People need to stop pretending everything is FINE and everything will be fixed with renewable energy uptake etc. It's a FALLACY ...it's deeply flawed thinking. We are no where near that point of massive energy use changes yet.

Without another single molecule of CH4 escaping from the Arctic the Planet is still TOAST on BAU activity and projections and even on best case scenarios. Therefore every single CH4 molecule can only make it worse. Arctic Permafrost emissions are a concern, are real, and are GUARANTEED to increase in our warming world.

GUARANTEED to increase, not maybe not possibly not perhaps, but Guaranteed to add to the warming.  It's not nothing. Current "estimates" are irrelevant to this simple LOGIC.

PS re quote from above: "We’re not getting off that easy. We have to turn and fight for the future."

We haven't even started to turn around let alone FIGHT!

I agree with this 100%. Thanks for the post Lurk. It’s not that I’m pushing imminent doom, but it’s like. There is a threat. And we need to take this threat seriously. And I’m sorry, adding more electric vehicles or solar panels isn’t gonna do it. We need to transition to green energy, but we need to do a lot more that that. Growth on a finite planet is suicide (even if it’s green)

80
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 08, 2019, 10:16:04 PM »
"Given the contentiousness of this topic in the scientific community, it may
even be contentious for me to say that there is no scientific consensus on
the sources of current methane emissions or the potential risk and timing of
significant methane releases from either surface and subsea permafrost. A
recent attempt at consensus on methane risk from melting surface
permafrost concluded methane release would happen over centuries or
millennia, not this decade (Schuur et al. 2015). Yet within three years that
consensus was broken by one of the most detailed experiments which
found that if the melting permafrost remains waterlogged, which is likely,
then it produces significant amounts of methane within just a few years
(Knoblauch et al, 2018). The debate is now likely to be about whether other
microorganisms might thrive in that environment to eat up the methane –
and whether or not in time to reduce the climate impact.

The debate about methane release from clathrate forms, or frozen methane
hydrates, on the Arctic sea floor is even more contentious. In 2010 a group
of scientists published a study that warned how the warming of the Arctic
could lead to a speed and scale of methane release that would be
catastrophic to life on earth through atmospheric heating of over 5 degrees
within just a few years of such a release (Shakhova et al, 2010). The study
triggered a fierce debate, much of which was ill considered, perhaps
understandable given the shocking implications of this information (Ahmed,
2013). Since then, key questions at the heart of this scientific debate (about
what would amount to the probable extinction of the human race) include
the amount of time it will take for ocean warming to destabilise hydrates on
the sea floor, and how much methane will be consumed by aerobic and
anaerobic microbes before it reaches the surface and escapes to the
atmosphere. 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. Data published by
scientists from the Arctic News (2018) website indicates that in March 2018
at mid altitudes, methane was around 1865 parts per billion (ppb), which
represents a 1.8 percent increase of 35 ppb from the same time in 2017,
while surface measurements of methane increased by about 15 ppb in that
time. Both figures are consistent with a non-linear increase - potentially
exponential - in atmospheric levels since 2007. That is worrying data in
itself, but the more significant matter is the difference between the increase
measured at ground and mid altitudes. That is consistent with this added
methane coming from our oceans, which could in turn be from methane
hydrates.

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 loaded. Nothing is certain. But it is sobering that
humanity has arrived at a situation of our own making where we now
debate the strength of analyses of our near-term extinction."

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

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0095-z

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

81
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 08, 2019, 02:23:56 AM »
S&S took their measurements at methane seeps during the summer and then estimated what the entire ESAS methane release would be annually.  Subsequent studies have shown that those estimates for the entire ESAS are too high.

I'm not denying anything.  I'm telling you what the peer-reviewed science says.  You're the one who's denying it.

And your only willing to look at one side of the picture. There is no consensus that the Arctic methane isn’t a threat. There are papers that conclude what your saying, and there are papers that conclude what I’m saying. My only worry is we all conclude it’s a not a problem or a problem for the grandchildren then we lose the opportunity to do something about it if it is a threat. There is no time for hope, or wishful thinking. We need to do something now. The very existence of our species is on the line.

82
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 07, 2019, 09:55:30 PM »
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131125172113.htm
From 2013

“The seafloor off the coast of Northern Siberia is releasing more than twice the amount of methane as previously estimated, according to new research results.”

And as noted many times upthread, subsequent expeditions found that the estimated releases from S&S were way too high.

Published in 2016, field work done in 2014:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016GL068977

Quote
The Laptev and East Siberian Seas have been proposed as a substantial source of methane (CH4) to the atmosphere. During summer 2014, we made unique high-resolution simultaneous measurements of CH4 in the atmosphere above, and surface waters of, the Laptev and East Siberian Seas. Turbulence-driven sea-air fluxes along the ship’s track were derived from these observations; an average diffusive flux of 2.99mgm2 d1 was calculated for the Laptev Sea and for the ice-free portions of the western East Siberian Sea, 3.80mgm2 d1. Although seafloor bubble plumes were observed at two locations in the study area, our calculate ions suggest that regionally, turbulence-driven diffusive flux alone accounts for the observed atmospheric CH4 enhancements, with only a local, limited role for bubble fluxes, in contrast to earlier reports. CH4 in subice seawater in certain areas suggests that a short-lived flux also occurs annually at ice-out.

Quote
Assuming an average CH4 concentration for the entire water column, we calculated
the necessary sustained fluxes to raise the atmospheric concentrations by various amounts. We
assumed a very shallow 200m mixing height (very low inversions were observed during SWERUS-C3) [Tjernström et al., 2015], a 35m water column, and an 80 ppb atmospheric CH4 enhancement, raising atmospheric CH4 from apparent background levels of about 1.87 ppm to 1.95 ppm. This requires a sustained CH4 flux of about ~12mgm2 d1, similar to the fluxes we observed during SWERUS in areas near subsea gas seeps on the ESAS (Table 2). An average flux near ESAS subsea seeps of 13mgm2 d1 was reported previously [Sergienko et al., 2012]. Sustaining higher atmospheric CH4 concentrations is even more difficult: to sustain 2.1ppm CH4 in the atmosphere (35m water column, 200m mixing height) would require a flux similar to a subarctic wetland (~36mgm2 d1) [Bartlett and Harriss, 1993] or an order of magnitude above the average fluxes we observed in the ice-free ESAS.

Air sampling in October 2014 reported in a paper published in 2018:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/B_Belan/publication/322991438_Distribution_of_Trace_Gases_and_Aerosols_in_the_Troposphere_Over_Siberia_During_Wildfires_of_Summer_2012/links/5b1a7664a6fdcca67b66aad9/Distribution-of-Trace-Gases-and-Aerosols-in-the-Troposphere-Over-Siberia-During-Wildfires-of-Summer-2012.pdf

Quote
Abstract—Data on the vertical distribution of gaseous and aerosol composition of air, measured onboard the Tu-134 Optic airborne laboratory in October 2014 over the Kara Sea and coastal areas of the Russian Arctic, are presented. We revealed the specific features of the altitude distributions of CO2 and aerosol over the Kara Sea as compared to continental conditions. No significant deviations from continental distributions are found for CH4, CO, and O3.

From a study published in 2016 analyzing data from methane concentrations in 2012:

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/4147/2016/acp-16-4147-2016.pdf

Quote
Abstract. Subsea permafrost and hydrates in the East
Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) constitute a substantial carbon
pool, and a potentially large source of methane to the atmosphere.
Previous studies based on interpolated oceanographic
campaigns estimated atmospheric emissions from this area
at 8–17 TgCH4 yr􀀀1. Here, we propose insights based on
atmospheric observations to evaluate these estimates. The
comparison of high-resolution simulations of atmospheric
methane mole fractions to continuous methane observations
during the whole year 2012 confirms the high variability and
heterogeneity of the methane releases from ESAS. A reference
scenario with ESAS emissions of 8 TgCH4 yr􀀀1, in
the lower part of previously estimated emissions, is found
to largely overestimate atmospheric observations in winter,
likely related to overestimated methane leakage through sea
ice. In contrast, in summer, simulations are more consistent
with observations. Based on a comprehensive statistical
analysis of the observations and of the simulations, annual
methane emissions from ESAS are estimated to range from
0.0 to 4.5 TgCH4 yr􀀀1. Isotopic observations suggest a biogenic
origin (either terrestrial or marine) of the methane in
air masses originating from ESAS during late summer 2008
and 2009.

A paper published in 2016 reporting on data collected during a sea cruise in 2015:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Skorokhod/publication/309656440_Observations_of_atmospheric_methane_and_its_stable_isotope_ratio_d13C_over_the_Russian_Arctic_seas_from_ship_cruises_in_the_summer_and_autumn_of_2015/links/59df6fbaaca27258f7d78b26/Observations-of-atmospheric-methane-and-its-stable-isotope-ratio-d13C-over-the-Russian-Arctic-seas-from-ship-cruises-in-the-summer-and-autumn-of-2015.pdf

Quote
In the shelf area of the Laptev Sea, the methane
concentration varied from 1940 to 1960 ppb. In the
delta of the Lena River, it increased, averaging
2000 ppb. In the Sipy area (77° N, 126° E), sonar measurements
revealed gas seeps (presumably methane)
from bottom sediments [10]. At the same time, only
insignificant peaks of methane concentrations (up to
1946 ppb) were registered, when the ship was in the gas
seeping area.

That was not just estimates, it was field observations. Your denial of the methane threat is in itself a threat. We’re already seeing the methane levels around surrounding methane stations rising

83
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 07, 2019, 05:49:01 AM »
The paper does find other electron acceptors than sulfate in anaerobic methane oxidation.

" horizons of potential AOM coupled either to sulfate reduction in a sulfate-methane transition zone (SMTZ) or to the reduction of other electron acceptors, such as iron, manganese or nitrate. "

I suspect that we won't get to largescale Canfield conditions.

sidd
 

Regarding canfield oceans, I find this video to be very informative

84
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 07, 2019, 05:35:45 AM »
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131125172113.htm
From 2013

“The seafloor off the coast of Northern Siberia is releasing more than twice the amount of methane as previously estimated, according to new research results.”

85
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 01, 2019, 03:29:11 AM »
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11430-017-9265-y

From the Abstract:

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


86
Chicago is gonna be back in the 40's by next week. Yes it's cold in some areas right now, but most of the world is warmer than average. More heat records are being broken than cold, by a significant margin.

87
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: January 29, 2019, 01:55:02 AM »
DMI N80 hit the mean line in winter for the first time since 2015.

This is QUITE significant, I think. Not spozed to happen anymore.

I wouldn't call it significant at all frankly. Weather is variable, even more so in the Arctic.

88
Anyone got the doi for the Bevis paper on GIS ? i searched the PNAS site but it didnt appear for 2019

Re: Wolf: I think i agree with Wolf's results on CO2 at high concentrations increasing sensitivity. What I don't trust is the cloud albedo feedback bit.

sidd

Wouldn't a warmer planet cause the cloud albedo to lessen, due to there being more water vapor in the atmosphere, causing clouds to have more rain droplets, therefore making them darker. This isn't my field of study, but that makes sense to me

89
Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 20, 2019, 12:59:27 PM »
Maybe, when climate change has fully set in (T > 5°C than today), our ancestors may plant some pine trees on that island in a wind sheltered and sunny corner, if it is not inundated until then...  ;)

Once we warm 5 C, there won’t be many people around to call ancestors

90
Arctic sea ice / Re: Winter Temperatures in the Arctic
« on: January 20, 2019, 05:47:57 AM »
The DMI graph is showing this winters temps quite a bit lower than recent years. It will probably spike up, but nonetheless, it’s been a bit of a cooler freezing season this year. I wonder how the pack will respond

92
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 18, 2019, 04:58:36 AM »
Quote
The IPCC is not perfect, but they are not being dismissive of anything and to act like you know something they don't is downright laughable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How would loss of ASI lead to cooling?

93
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 17, 2019, 09:20:20 AM »
Re: "The IPCC needs to be beyond all doubt with their publication to be commonly accepted."

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

That is all.

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

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

sidd

The IPCC is no question a great source, but I don't refer to them often because imo they simply ignore to much.

95
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 17, 2019, 12:23:28 AM »
As i stated above, i think one thing we can all agree on is more research is needed on this topic

96
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 17, 2019, 12:04:39 AM »

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

studied and largely disproven.

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

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

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

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

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

To not consider the possibility of a methane release is suicidal

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

*takes deep breath, sighs*

97
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 16, 2019, 09:19:40 PM »

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

studied and largely disproven.

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

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

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

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

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

To not consider the possibility of a methane release is suicidal

98
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 15, 2019, 10:10:06 PM »
It’s not even that the methane release is a 1% chance. We know the permafrost is melting, we know global warming is accelerating. We know a BOE is coming. The only question is when. Will it be in our lifetimes, or our grandchildren’s. More research needs to be done I think we can all agree on that

99
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: January 15, 2019, 06:07:57 AM »
This is one very back and forth freeze season. Lowest on record to 14th to 3rd to 8th and on and on and on

The Arctic is playing with our feelings  ;)
I just wish that it will not play too rough on August and September…
True that. 2019 is gonna be an interesting year. Perhaps one of the unforgettable ones

100
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: January 15, 2019, 05:47:29 AM »
This is one very back and forth freeze season. Lowest on record to 14th to 3rd to 8th and on and on and on

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