Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Arctic Methane Release  (Read 154959 times)

Gray-Wolf

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #350 on: July 09, 2017, 07:24:49 PM »
I wonder if these 'bubbles' are the land based version of what have been measured off the Shore in the shelf Sea? Out there they are called 'chimneys' but is it the weight of water that allows them to form instead of the 'funnels' we see formed on land when they go POP?

The frightening speed of development ,off shore, may be a hint at just how fast the land based versions will grow?
KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
 
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Theta

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 169
  • Grips
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #351 on: July 17, 2017, 12:09:49 PM »
From the linked article....

"Besides the potential for rapidly forming sinkholes and explosions, these bulges also represent a significant addition to greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. The release of methane from Siberian permafrost, a gas more than 25 times more potent than carbon in trapping heat in the atmosphere, rose from 3.8 million tons in 2006 to more than 17 million tons in 2013."

Given the rapid development of these methane bumps, combined with a nearly five fold increase of methane emissions in a mere 7 years, it sure looks like we are on an exponential trajectory for NH methane emissions, likely irreversible.

Any idea of what that would mean for the long term trajectory of earth's temperature?
Can't think of a signature

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2316
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #352 on: July 17, 2017, 03:09:52 PM »
From the linked article....

"Besides the potential for rapidly forming sinkholes and explosions, these bulges also represent a significant addition to greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. The release of methane from Siberian permafrost, a gas more than 25 times more potent than carbon in trapping heat in the atmosphere, rose from 3.8 million tons in 2006 to more than 17 million tons in 2013."

Given the rapid development of these methane bumps, combined with a nearly five fold increase of methane emissions in a mere 7 years, it sure looks like we are on an exponential trajectory for NH methane emissions, likely irreversible.

Any idea of what that would mean for the long term trajectory of earth's temperature?

There are certainly regular contributors here who could provide some insight but I am not one of them. My very layman's fear is that all of the trends related to the chryosphere are growth trends. A five fold increase in methane emissions in 7 years suggests a doubling interval of about 3 years.

We see similar growth trends in the rate of shelf melt in the Antarctic and the expansion of individual methane seeps in the ESS. Once a process is identified and we begin to monitor and measure, we see growth rate increases.

CalamityCountdown

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
    • Calamity Countdown
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #353 on: July 19, 2017, 04:44:27 PM »
From the linked article

Methane Seeps Out as Arctic Permafrost Starts to Resemble Swiss Cheese
Measurements over Canada's Mackenzie River Basin suggest that thawing permafrost is starting to free greenhouse gases long trapped in oil and gas deposits.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18072017/arctic-permafrost-melting-methane-emissions-geologic-sources-study

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2241
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #354 on: July 19, 2017, 06:56:15 PM »
From the linked article

Methane Seeps Out as Arctic Permafrost Starts to Resemble Swiss Cheese
Measurements over Canada's Mackenzie River Basin suggest that thawing permafrost is starting to free greenhouse gases long trapped in oil and gas deposits.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18072017/arctic-permafrost-melting-methane-emissions-geologic-sources-study


Thanks for the link.


I had no idea that such large releases of geologic methane were to be found so far north on this continent. S&S had found huge flares in the ESAS and issued warnings for that region, but as far as I know they hadn't determined if they were observing biologic or geologic methane, or a combination of both.


This doesn't bode well for the future.
Terry

johnm33

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 768
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #355 on: July 19, 2017, 07:54:26 PM »
"This doesn't bode well for the future."
I've looked for a bedrock map for both continents surrounding the arctic, this is all I've found. Makes me wonder just how far south the ocean will reach. A transect from banks to hudson would be interesting.


Thomas Barlow

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #356 on: August 05, 2017, 12:33:43 AM »
This research relates to my previous post about methane mitigation in the Arctic here ---> https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,12.msg113081.html#msg113081
Also can be found here ---> ""Enhanced CO2 uptake at a shallow Arctic Ocean seep field overwhelms the positive warming potential of emitted methane""
---> http://www.pnas.org/content/114/21/5355.abstract

This newer study is in the Antarctic, but I think it is related material, and something to consider, that's why I'm posting it here:
---> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n8/full/ngeo2992.html?foxtrotcallback=true

So now, evidence from both poles is suggesting methane release (will of course be bad) but not perhaps as bad as previously thought (Shakhova, Wadhams, and others have strongly warned about methane danger).

(And this is one you may have seen already --->  https://www.usgs.gov/news/gas-hydrate-breakdown-unlikely-cause-massive-greenhouse-gas-release)
« Last Edit: August 05, 2017, 12:42:27 AM by Thomas Barlow »

Adam Ash

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 263
    • View Profile
    • The 100 metre line
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #357 on: August 05, 2017, 03:27:35 AM »
""Enhanced CO2 uptake at a shallow Arctic Ocean seep field overwhelms the positive warming potential of emitted methane""
-...
Will not higher CO2 uptake only persist until acidification of the water prevents any more?  Given the size of the available methane resource, and the ever-increasing atmospheric CO2 resource, I should think that the water will reach saturation quite quickly, especially given the minimum temperatures in Arctic waters.  I imagine too that there will be quite an 'interesting' CO2 signal in then near surface waters as winter sea ice reforms - driving both salt and dissolved gases back into the sub-ice waters.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2241
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #358 on: August 05, 2017, 03:45:58 AM »
I imagine too that there will be quite an 'interesting' CO2 signal in then near surface waters as winter sea ice reforms - driving both salt and dissolved gases back into the sub-ice waters.
We've all seen the methane bubbles in lake ice. Why would sea ice react differently?
Terry

Thomas Barlow

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #359 on: August 05, 2017, 03:54:23 AM »
""Enhanced CO2 uptake at a shallow Arctic Ocean seep field overwhelms the positive warming potential of emitted methane""
-...

Will not higher CO2 uptake only persist until acidification of the water prevents any more? 

I don't think so, because there will be an explosion of life (algae and other organisms) and a new ecosystem (in summer months) that will absorb CO2 and CH4 like crazy. But there would need to be more studies.
I think the same is true of the tundra, and of Greenland. It seems like a no-brainer to me. When the ice recedes and the permafrost melts under sea and on land, there will be a massive explosion of life that will largely mitigate the methane that does get released to the atmosphere.
The only thing that could prevent that massive upsurge of a CO2-absorbing ecosystem is the mass of micro-plastics floating in the Arctic Ocean. However, I think most of that will be absorbed too. But who knows. These are just a few studies that suggest the methane bursts may not be as devastating as many believe, but more studies and time will be needed. I used to be more concerned about the methane, as much as anyone. Now I am less concerned (I am more concerned about other things around the planet due to global warming and other human activity that are just as dangerous)

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2316
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #360 on: August 06, 2017, 02:57:11 AM »
w/o comment



salbers

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #363 on: August 06, 2017, 09:11:31 PM »
Do these less alarming assessments consider fully the methane gas locked underneath the hydrates?

So now, evidence from both poles is suggesting methane release (will of course be bad) but not perhaps as bad as previously thought (Shakhova, Wadhams, and others have strongly warned about methane danger).

(And this is one you may have seen already --->  https://www.usgs.gov/news/gas-hydrate-breakdown-unlikely-cause-massive-greenhouse-gas-release)

Cid_Yama

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #364 on: August 07, 2017, 07:10:54 PM »
That paper has been debunked repeatedly.  Firstly it is a bait and switch.  They are discussing SLOW methane seeps deeper than 100 meters.

The concern is about the ESAS which covers 2 million sq km with an average depth of 50 meters and a maximum depth of 100 meters.  Methane released from the ESAS does not interact with the water column but is released directly to the atmosphere.  It only takes a few minutes to reach the surface.

Second, they avoided discussing the seasonality of the plankton blooms, whereas, the methane is released year round.

Third, if plankton did offset methane releases, it would be evident in current real world data, which it isn't, as the rise in atmospheric methane concentrations in the Arctic is accelerating.     

Pohlman and Ruppel are petroleum geologists who work for the USGS gas hydrate project, promoting methane hydrate as an energy source in conjunction with the Oil and Gas industry.

Ruppel has been at the forefront of the methane hydrate disinformation campaign, attacking any papers suggesting methane hydrates are unsafe to extract, or may pose a danger to the environment.     

The conclusions in their paper is absolute nonsense.

As for the other paper, yes, methanatrophs evolved in the subglacial lakes as there is no sunlight to provide energy.  Duh.
       

       
« Last Edit: August 07, 2017, 07:54:10 PM by Cid_Yama »

Bill Fothergill

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #365 on: August 10, 2017, 03:48:08 PM »
It can be quite a lengthy process finding the bit you're after in the IPCC publications. To save others the time, here is a relevant bit from Section 2.3.1 in the AR5 Synthesis Report...

"Carbon stored in the terrestrial biosphere is susceptible to loss to the atmosphere as a result of climate change, deforestation and ecosystem degradation (high confidence). The aspects of climate change with direct effects on stored terrestrial carbon include high temperatures, drought and windstorms; indirect effects include increased risk of fires, pest and disease outbreaks. Increased tree mortality and associated forest dieback is projected to occur in many regions over the 21st century (medium confidence), posing risks for carbon storage, biodiversity, wood production, water quality, amenity and economic activity. There is a high risk of substantial carbon and methane emissions as a result of permafrost thawing. {WGII SPM, 4.2–4.3, Figure 4-8, Box 4-2, Box 4-3, Box 4-4}"
{My emphasis added above.}

Woods Hole also issued a permafrost briefing note two years ago...
http://whrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PB_Permafrost.pdf


As a newcomer to this thread, apologies if either of the above have already been posted in preceding pages.


A few comments upthread, "reallybigbunny" posed a question about wildfires. I am particularly interested in the Greenland outbreak, some comments on which were started on the ASIB by Susan Anderson.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143159-largest-ever-wildfire-in-greenland-seen-burning-from-space/

(NB I'm not suggesting Susan had anything to do with starting the fire.    ;))

I have emailed the Wildfire laboratory at Exeter University asking what impact the current peat-based fire might have upon permafrost locked carbon deposits. Will post any such response on this thread if/when it is forthcoming.

Thomas Barlow

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #366 on: August 16, 2017, 04:56:46 PM »
That paper has been debunked repeatedly.
No it has not been debunked. Show your evidence please (not your non-peer-reviewed opinion)

They are discussing SLOW methane seeps deeper than 100 meters.
So now you are discussing what the paper shows, just after you said it was debunked.

Methane released from the ESAS does not interact with the water column but is released directly to the atmosphere. It only takes a few minutes to reach the surface.
That's not the point. Try reading the paper. Or should I explain it again?

Second, they avoided discussing the seasonality of the plankton blooms, whereas, the methane is released year round.
They did discuss the seasonality. Try reading the paper.
And again, not the point of the paper.

the rise in atmospheric methane concentrations in the Arctic is accelerating.
It doesn't say the methane would not be released. Try reading the paper.

Pohlman and Ruppel are petroleum geologists who work for the USGS gas hydrate project, promoting methane hydrate as an energy source in conjunction with the Oil and Gas industry.
I thought you just explained what the paper proves. Now you are saying it is fake-science. Make up your mind.
Besides, people quote USGS all the time here. I guess we'll have to ban NASA and NOAH being discussed as well?
Show your evidence for such outrageous claims about being in-league "with oil and gas industry".

Ruppel has been at the forefront of the methane hydrate disinformation campaign, attacking any papers suggesting methane hydrates are unsafe to extract, or may pose a danger to the environment.     
Show your evidence of such attacks by Ruppel please.
Besides, methane is safe to extract in and of itself, which I'm guessing is the point, but you didn't show the evidence so I don't know what Ruppel would be referring to.
The extraction methods may be unsafe.
But we don't need methane.

The conclusions in their paper is absolute nonsense.
You sound important.

As for the other paper, yes, methanatrophs evolved in the subglacial lakes as there is no sunlight to provide energy.  Duh.

You don't understand that paper either. Try reading it.
""We conclude that aerobic methanotrophy may mitigate the release of methane to the atmosphere upon subglacial water drainage to ice sheet margins and during periods of deglaciation.""

(PS. Condescension - arrogantly saying "duh" to people - is not appropriate here.)

« Last Edit: August 16, 2017, 06:12:13 PM by Thomas Barlow »

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2241
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #367 on: August 16, 2017, 08:09:48 PM »
Thomas
Is a link to this disputed paper available?


It's difficult to follow the discussion without having to page back through the thread. Wouldn't quoting the disputed passages be more productive than asking us to "read the paper", without at a minimum providing a link, then hinting at which sections are being parsed?


Terry


Thomas Barlow

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #368 on: August 16, 2017, 09:51:46 PM »
Is a link to this disputed paper available?
I posted it upthread, but here it is ---> http://www.pnas.org/content/114/21/5355.abstract

Wouldn't quoting the disputed passages
I already did quote some of it upthread.

From the paper:

""These areas of methane seepage may be net greenhouse gas sinks.""

""We found that CO2 uptake in an area of elevated methane efflux was enhanced relative to surrounding waters, such that the negative radiative forcing effect (cooling) resulting from CO2 uptake overwhelmed the positive radiative forcing effect (warming) supported by methane output.""

""Our work suggests physical mechanisms (e.g., upwelling) that transport methane to the surface may also transport nutrient-enriched water that supports enhanced primary production and CO2 drawdown. These areas of methane seepage may be net greenhouse gas sinks.""

""The negative radiative forcing expected from this CO2 uptake is up to 231 times greater than the positive radiative forcing from the methane emissions.""

""These findings challenge the widely held perception that areas characterized by shallow-water methane seeps and/or strongly elevated sea−air methane flux always increase the global atmospheric greenhouse gas burden.""

And From Science (journal)

"In fact, the study finds that in such zones, nearly 1900 times more CO2 is being absorbed than methane emitted. That’s a small but real consolation for those concerned about global warming, Pohlman says.""

---> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/are-methane-seeps-arctic-slowing-global-warming
« Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 03:26:47 PM by Thomas Barlow »

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2241
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #369 on: August 16, 2017, 10:40:35 PM »
Thanx Thomas

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13319
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #370 on: August 18, 2017, 05:41:11 PM »
The linked reference is not all bad news, as it points out that per their 1D models the Arctic continental shelf methane hydrate stability zone (HSZ) can take ~ 10 to 20 kyrs to respond to changes in initial temperature conditions associated with the end of the last ice age.  However, while it is pleasant to think of middle of the 10 to 20 kya range, as the attached image indicates the Holocene began about 11 kya and thus we should now start to see portions of the HSZ becoming unstable due to the global temperature increase leading to the beginning of the Holocene:

Valentina V. Malakhova & Alexey V. Eliseev (2017), "The role of heat transfer time scale in the evolution of the subsea permafrost and associated methane hydrates stability zone during glacial cycles", Global and Planetary Change, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.08.007

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117301273

Abstract: "Climate warming may lead to degradation of the subsea permafrost developed during Pleistocene glaciations and release methane from the hydrates, which are stored in this permafrost. It is important to quantify time scales at which this release is plausible. While, in principle, such time scale might be inferred from paleoarchives, this is hampered by considerable uncertainty associated with paleodata. In the present paper, to reduce such uncertainty, one–dimensional simulations with a model for thermal state of subsea sediments forced by the data obtained from the ice core reconstructions are performed. It is shown that heat propagates in the sediments with a time scale of ∼ 10-20 kyr. This time scale is longer than the present interglacial and is determined by the time needed for heat penetration in the unfrozen part of thick sediments. We highlight also that timings of shelf exposure during oceanic regressions and flooding during transgressions are important for simulating thermal state of the sediments and methane hydrates stability zone (HSZ). These timings should be resolved with respect to the contemporary shelf depth (SD). During glacial cycles, the temperature at the top of the sediments is a major driver for moving the HSZ vertical boundaries irrespective of SD. In turn, pressure due to oceanic water is additionally important for SD ≥ 50 m. Thus, oceanic transgressions and regressions do not instantly determine onset s of HSZ and/or its disappearance. Finally, impact of initial conditions in the subsea sediments is lost after ∼ 100 kyr. Our results are moderately sensitive to intensity of geothermal heat flux."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #371 on: August 19, 2017, 10:48:14 AM »
Thomas Barlow quoting the PNAS paper that I can't get to load at the moment.

"We found that CO2 uptake in an area of elevated methane efflux was enhanced relative to surrounding waters, such that the negative radiative forcing effect (cooling) resulting from CO2 uptake overwhelmed the positive radiative forcing effect (warming) supported by methane output."

Hi Thomas

Any indication of how the relativity of CO2 and CH4 was assessed? (e.g. GWP, GTP instantaneous effect)
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Cid_Yama

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #372 on: August 21, 2017, 09:41:39 PM »
Russian scientists deny climate model of IPCC
Massive emissions of methane in the Arctic become a significant source of greenhouse gases, a study reveals
The rate of vertical degradation of subsea permafrost in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) is 18 cm a year over the past 30 years, which is greater than previously thought. Scientists from Tomsk Polytechnic University received this data after the comprehensive study of subsea permafrost not only in the Russian Arctic but also in the Arctic as a whole.

TPU scientists and co-authors from Russia and Sweden have recently published findings of the study in Nature Communications.

Basing on the repeated drilling of four wells performed by the Institute of Permafrost Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences in 1982-1983, scientists have proved that the rates of vertical degradation of subsea permafrost amount to18 cm a year over the last 30 years (the average is 14 cm a year) which is greater than it was assumed before.

'New data obtained by complex biochemical, geophysical and geological studies conducted in 2011-2016 resulted in the conclusion that in some areas of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf the roof of the subsea permafrost had already reached the depth of hydrates' stability the destruction of which may cause massive releases of bubble methane.

According to our findings published earlier in Nature Geoscience, Science and Philosophical Transactions, Royal Society, the size of CH4 bubble flaw from the bottom sediments into the ESAS water can vary from milligrams to tens or hundreds of grams per square meter a day depending on the state of subsea permafrost, which leads to the concentration increase of atmospheric CH4 in the surface layer to values 2-4 times exceeding background concentrations measured in our planet,' says the first author of the paper Professor Natalia Shakhova, the TPU Department of Geology and Minerals Prospecting.

She notes that these findings were confirmed during the expedition to the East Siberian Arctic Self in 2016. The expedition was organized and conducted jointly with the scientists from the Pacific Oceanological Institute FEB RAS, with the participation of the Institute of Oceanology RAS and the Institute of Atmospheric Physics RAS. More data will be published in 2018.

link


Current rates and mechanisms of subsea permafrost degradation in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf
It was shown that slight changes in seafloor erosion and sedimentation patterns that change the thermal and pressure regime below the seafloor could be viable mechanisms for unroofing underlying gas reservoirs, which can release CH4 in large quantities66. Once initiated, erosion could propagate further downward and migrate laterally to adjacent areas, driven by venting gas. Erosion of a few tens of seafloor metres could unroof over-pressured shallow gas reservoirs and buoyant hydrate-laden sediment accumulations beneath the seafloor, triggering rapid gas release66,67.

link




« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 09:56:02 PM by Cid_Yama »

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2241
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #373 on: August 23, 2017, 01:15:44 PM »
Cid
For shame!


Are you inferring that our perfectly good, (and comforting), Western models should be abandoned just because some Ruskies have proven them wrong by redundant drilling, seismic testing, and actually taking measurements?


When Russian facts dispute Western theories it should be obvious who is to be believed.


[/sarc] - (because of a previous misunderstanding)
Terry

Thomas Barlow

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #374 on: August 24, 2017, 10:49:02 PM »
Any indication of how the relativity of CO2 and CH4 was assessed? (e.g. GWP, GTP instantaneous effect)

This article from Phys.org describes it. It is pretty instantaneous.

""During the study, scientists continuously measured the concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide in near-surface waters and in the air just above the ocean surface. The measurements were taken over methane seeps fields at water depths ranging from 260 to 8530 feet (80 to 2600 meters).""

""Analysis of the data confirmed that methane was entering the atmosphere above the shallowest (water depth of 260-295 feet or 80-90 meters) Svalbard margin seeps. However, the data also showed that significant amounts of carbon dioxide were being absorbed by the waters near the ocean surface, and that the cooling effect resulting from carbon dioxide uptake is up to 230 times greater than the warming effect expected from the methane emitted.""

""If what we observed near Svalbard occurs more broadly at similar locations around the world, it could mean that methane seeps have a net cooling effect on climate, not a warming effect as we previously thought," said USGS biogeochemist John Pohlman, who is the paper's lead author. "We are looking forward to testing the hypothesis that shallow-water methane seeps are net greenhouse gas sinks in other locations.""


https://phys.org/news/2017-05-ocean-absorption-carbon-dioxide-compensates.html
« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 10:57:25 PM by Thomas Barlow »

Thomas Barlow

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #375 on: September 24, 2017, 02:31:48 AM »
More to add to the above.
We still have a chance. This methane scare is likely not as bad as many previously thought, including me.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/natural-methane-time-bomb-unlikely-wreak-climate-havoc
 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2017, 03:52:12 AM by Thomas Barlow »

Capt Kiwi

  • NewMembers
  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #376 on: October 05, 2017, 06:59:21 AM »



""Analysis of the data confirmed that methane was entering the atmosphere above the shallowest (water depth of 260-295 feet or 80-90 meters) Svalbard margin seeps. However, the data also showed that significant amounts of carbon dioxide were being absorbed by the waters near the ocean surface, and that the cooling effect resulting from carbon dioxide uptake is up to 230 times greater than the warming effect expected from the methane emitted.""


https://phys.org/news/2017-05-ocean-absorption-carbon-dioxide-compensates.html


Nice to hear something positive Thomas! Thanks for that!
I would really appreciate a comment from you, or anyone else, on a couple of things that came to the mind of a layman when reading that.
1) Would the water at the ocean surface at some point become "saturated" or in some way altered in composition? For example the algae having other negative effects?
2) Are you aware that on their web site they say: "The USGS Gas Hydrate Project takes part in US and international programs to investigate the potential of deepwater marine and permafrost gas hydrates as an energy resource. Long-term production tests are the next step in this research."
Am I getting too cynical?

longwalks1

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #377 on: October 06, 2017, 04:53:29 PM »
Nice, however photosynthesis is limited some times of the year.   

Cid_Yama

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #378 on: October 07, 2017, 04:34:52 AM »
Subsea permafrost on East Siberian Arctic Shelf in accelerated decline
Dr. Shakhova: As we showed in our articles, in the ESAS, in some places, subsea permafrost is reaching the thaw point. In other areas it could have reached this point already. And what can happen then? The most important consequence could be in terms of growing methane emissions… a linear trend becomes exponential.

This edge between it being linear and becoming exponential is very fine and lays between frozen and thawed states of subsea permafrost. This is what we call the turning point. To me, I cannot take the responsibility in saying there is a right point between the linear and exponential yet, but following the logic of our investigation and all the evidence that we accumulated so far, it makes me think that we are very near this point. And in this particular point, each year matters.

Gas in the areas of hotspots is releasing from the seabed deposits, in which free gas has accumulated for hundreds of thousands, or even for a million years. This is why the amount of this gas and its power in releasing (due to its high pressure) is tremendous.

 Dr. Shakhova: The importance of hydrates involvement in methane emissions is overestimated. The hydrate is just one form of possible reservoirs, in which pre-formed methane could be preserved in the seabed if there are proper pressure/temperature conditions; it is just the layer of hydrates composes just few hundred of meters – this is a very small fraction compared to thousands of meters of underlying gas-charged sediments in the ESAS.

Dr. Semiletov added that the 5 billion tonnes of methane that is currently in the Earth’s atmosphere represents about one percent of the frozen methane hydrate store in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. He finishes emphasising  “…but we believe the hydrate pool is only a tiny fraction of the total.”

Dr. Shakhova: The second point is that the hydrates are not all of the gaseous pool that is preserved in this huge reservoir. This huge area is 2 million square kilometres. The depth of this sedimentary drape is a few kilometres, up to 20 kilometres at places. Generally speaking, it makes no difference if gas releases from decaying hydrates or from other free-gas deposits, because in the latter, gas also has accumulated for a long time without changing the volume of the reservoir; for that reason, gas became over pressurised too.

Unlike hydrates, this gas is preserved free; it is a pre-formed gas, ready to go. Over pressured, accumulated, looking for the pathway to go upwards.

In our observations, we have accumulated the evidence that this gas front is propagating in the sediments. To me as a scientist, these points are enough to be convinced that methane release in the ESAS is related to disintegration of subsea permafrost and associated destabilisation of seabed deposits whether it is hydrates or free gas accumulations.

There is no mechanism to stop permafrost disintegration in the ESAS besides shelf exposure above the sea level that would serve to freeze the gas migration paths so that they integrate with the permafrost. Before that, the amount of methane that is releasing will increase while the supply lasts.

As gas within the sedimentary basins of the ESAS have been accumulating for a million years with no way to be released earlier, the supply for currently occurring emissions is tremendous. Because the shelf area is very shallow (mean depth is less than 50 metres), a fraction of these emissions will reach the atmosphere. The problem is that this fraction would be enough to alter the climate on our planet drastically.
link


When she says "each year matters", she is talking months to years, not decades, and there is no way to turn it off.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2017, 05:29:42 AM by Cid_Yama »

Thomas Barlow

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #379 on: October 07, 2017, 04:34:55 PM »


""Analysis of the data confirmed that methane was entering the atmosphere above the shallowest (water depth of 260-295 feet or 80-90 meters) Svalbard margin seeps. However, the data also showed that significant amounts of carbon dioxide were being absorbed by the waters near the ocean surface, and that the cooling effect resulting from carbon dioxide uptake is up to 230 times greater than the warming effect expected from the methane emitted.""


https://phys.org/news/2017-05-ocean-absorption-carbon-dioxide-compensates.html
Nice to hear something positive Thomas! Thanks for that!
I would really appreciate a comment from you, or anyone else, on a couple of things that came to the mind of a layman when reading that.
1) Would the water at the ocean surface at some point become "saturated" or in some way altered in composition? For example the algae having other negative effects?
I'm no expert (and it's still an unfolding science - ie. I doubt anyone is an expert on all the nuances of what will happen), but I was thinking about that the other day, and I think that, yes, the mush caused by an explosion of algae and plankton could affect sea-ice quality (a lot of it falls to the bottom of the ocean though, taking carbon with it), and perhaps more importantly, all the plastic fragments floating in the Arctic ocean would add to that (as well as all the soot landing on the ice from above, due to increase in forest fires in N. hemisphere). So, in the end, mushy crap (natural, and pollution) all over the place would affect the ice quality I would think, maybe even ocean surface temps. in open water areas.
As far as I understand it, the main places where methane release will happen are in shallow coastal regions, so those areas tend to be ice-free for a longer period anyway, so how algae-mush, light sediments, or other microbes, affect ice-quality, and surface open-water temps, seems limited, since the ice melts away there anyway. Mushy stuff might make it melt a little faster in those peripheral seas (Beaufort, Laptev Sea, etc.) , and ice-free last longer, but not much I think.

2) Are you aware that on their web site they say: "The USGS Gas Hydrate Project takes part in US and international programs to investigate the potential of deepwater marine and permafrost gas hydrates as an energy resource. Long-term production tests are the next step in this research."
Am I getting too cynical?
I don't care about the fossil-fuel industry. I think they are an archaic dinosaur going out of the window, but old farts like Putin and Trump will try to keep it going, but it is going to fade (I hope).
I don't believe the research I posted is based on bias for that industry. I think it's a no-brainer that explosions of algae and life will absorb CO2, creating cooling at a faster rate than the methane can heat the atmosphere. Note: I have railed against industry involvement in research for decades, researching and writing about it, starting fledgling groups to counteract it - eg. GMO research twisted by industry interests, nuclear industry, pesticide industry, etc.
I just don't think this research is like that.
The researchers are at USGS (before Trump era), and Norwegian and German institutions -- Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR), and the Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and Climate (CAGE) at the University of Tromso, Norway, both of which have a track-record of good, straight science. The evidence for false data would have be pretty convincing for me to be worried it is not accurate. It's almost a no-brainer even without the research though.

However, there are plenty other things that are bad news, it's just the doomer memes going around about the methane release being the and of human existence are over-stated - I was on that side of the fence a couple of years ago, based on the evidence available at that time.
 (like I say, plenty other things almost as bad to concern ourselves with)
« Last Edit: October 07, 2017, 07:16:04 PM by Thomas Barlow »

Thomas Barlow

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #380 on: October 07, 2017, 04:46:37 PM »
Nice, however photosynthesis is limited some times of the year.
As is methane release.  :o

Thomas Barlow

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #381 on: October 07, 2017, 04:54:32 PM »

When she says "each year matters", she is talking months to years, not decades, and there is no way to turn it off.
Please limit your point to the bit you think is important, because I've read all that in the past. I'm not reading all of that again, because Shakhova's concerns were aired before a lot of the recent research came out, and I don't know if she has fully absorbed the new stuff yet.
If you understand the research I have been posting, then you would understand that with every degree of warming caused by methane release, there is a simultaneous CO2 absorption that is 200 times that ... in cooling effect. That means, if it's true. we dodge a bullet on this one - EVEN IF THE METHANE IS RELEASED.
It seems like a no-brainer to me. Shakova and others (eg. Wadhams) have not absorbed the new evidence yet. The methane effect will be bad, but nothing like as bad as the doomers have been saying (eg. human extinction).
It is actually one of the reasons I think the Arctic ice may be in slow decline (not super-fast), because of a net COOLING effect - in the Arctic - from methane release (due to algae and other simultaneous explosion of CO2-sequestering lifeforms).
However, we are still screwed for many other reasons, so continue as you were :D No need to get happy yet.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2017, 06:16:52 PM by Thomas Barlow »

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2316
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #382 on: October 07, 2017, 07:15:04 PM »
I think it's a no-brainer that explosions of algae and life will absorb CO2 at faster rate than the methane can heat the atmosphere.

I refrain making such sweeping statements about anything. Yes, the research is interesting but, I suspect, hardly unassailable. Individuals who latch on to new research that presents some hope as absolute truth are no different than doomsdayers.

Here is what I know. Greenhouse gases of all types are rising rapidly. This simple fact means the planet will continue to warm. Do I believe that increased releases of methane due to permafrost degradation will change this growth trend? Call me skeptical.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2017, 08:46:45 PM by Shared Humanity »

Thomas Barlow

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #383 on: October 08, 2017, 12:39:03 AM »
I think it's a no-brainer that explosions of algae and life will absorb CO2 at faster rate than the methane can heat the atmosphere.

I refrain making such sweeping statements about anything. Yes, the research is interesting but, I suspect, hardly unassailable. Individuals who latch on to new research that presents some hope as absolute truth are no different than doomsdayers.
Lol, you really have not been paying attention and do not understand the several studies I posted in this topic. Get back to me when you understand them instead of insulting people. It's a no-brainer, and you have no argument against it because you have no understanding whatsoever of the material. Stop responding with posts that show your complete ignorance of the research posted, and insulting people while you're at it. Whoever you are under that fake name of yours, you are just posting egoistic nonsense that shows a complete lack of understanding of the several research papers posted by me  in several posts on the last few pages. Get back to me when you've read all my posts on this and you actually start to understand it. Your post is completely irrelevant to the research posted, but you don't know that, because you are clueless what that research is, nor do you know anything whatsoever about it.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2017, 12:44:52 AM by Thomas Barlow »

Cid_Yama

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #384 on: October 08, 2017, 01:23:04 AM »
You keep posting the same two papers, that have already been debunked, over and over again.  You stink of desperation.

I've avoided using the same assessment that Tillerson made of the President towards you, mainly because that desperation makes me feel sorry for you.  Like a rat trapped in a cage.

You don't have to live a long life to live a full one.  I know, it seems totally unfair.  But it is what it is.

Now you can waste what time you have left in desperate denials, or live each day as fully as possible as if you had a year to live.  You might have several.  But no matter how it works out, you will be able to say I lived a full life when it's over.

I hope you get the chance, to .

     
   

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4163
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #385 on: October 08, 2017, 10:24:09 AM »
This stops here. I've sent PMs.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin

Thomas Barlow

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #386 on: October 08, 2017, 03:17:14 PM »
You keep posting the same two papers, that have already been debunked, over and over again.  You stink of desperation.

They are not the same two papers, there are at least 5, and you need to stop saying they have been debunked. That is extremist science-denial.
I post 5 or 6 papers that report on a new set of studies, starting a few pages back, and I get called all sorts of things. You can't post science and reason on this forum without people like you coming out and insulting people - ie. Anti-rational. You and the flat-earthers. No brain.

IT'S SCIENCE.
IT HAS NOT BEEN DEBUNKED. I POSTED  5 or 6 STUDIES, NOT 2, YOU ARE LYING, JUST LIKE THE CLIMATE-SCIENCE DENIERS DO.

I've avoided using the same assessment that Tillerson made of the President towards you, mainly because that desperation makes me feel sorry for you.  Like a rat trapped in a cage.
So now you're calling me a moron, and Neven lets you stay on this forum.  Pathetic. What's your real name, we can discuss this over a cup of coffee, see how big your insults are then.

You don't have to live a long life to live a full one.  I know, it seems totally unfair.  But it is what it is.

Oh Doomer is it? Science-denier? Just like the climate-science deniers, you deny anything that goes against your paradigm, and are not worthy of this forum. A whole post of insults.

Now you can waste what time you have left in desperate denials, or live each day as fully as possible as if you had a year to live.  You might have several.  But no matter how it works out, you will be able to say I lived a full life when it's over.
 

We are not on this forum to discuss your one-sided doomer cult which won't listen to any other science. I have never said humans are not in trouble, but this new research is clear about how the methane doom you spread all over the internet is now questionable. Only a science-denier would not  take this FIVE or SIX papers I have posted, and re-think the science.

You are a fool, a science-denier, and a luddite. It's disgusting that Neven let's you, a fake-name guy stay on this forum., but I bet you've got a couple of other fake names.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2017, 05:08:37 PM by Thomas Barlow »

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2316
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #387 on: October 08, 2017, 03:19:58 PM »
This stops here. I've sent PMs.

I reread my comment and do understand that I started it. Won't happen again.

Here is what I should have typed.....

I refrain from making such sweeping statements about anything. Yes, the research is interesting but, I suspect, hardly unassailable.

Here is what I know. Greenhouse gases of all types are rising rapidly. This simple fact means the planet will continue to warm. Do I believe that increased releases of methane due to permafrost degradation will change this growth trend? Call me skeptical.

Thomas Barlow

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #388 on: October 08, 2017, 03:37:08 PM »
This stops here. I've sent PMs.

I reread my comment and do understand that I started it. Won't happen again.

Here is what I should have typed.....

I refrain from making such sweeping statements about anything. Yes, the research is interesting but, I suspect, hardly unassailable.

Here is what I know. Greenhouse gases of all types are rising rapidly. This simple fact means the planet will continue to warm. Do I believe that increased releases of methane due to permafrost degradation will change this growth trend? Call me skeptical.


And I repeat.
Everyone knows that greenhouse gases are increasing. This is a specific discussion about a MAJOR theme in Arctic science, which previously many of us thought would spell the end for humans within 10-20 years. Including me. And climate-scientists Shakova and Wadhams hinted strongly the same or very similar. Now this new research shows nuances to the ecosystem that are new information, that could give more time, compared to a straightforward methane release linear equation. People like Cid-Yama are stuck in a sheeple paradigm in which he lashes out like a science-denier against anything that questions his cult,  instead of discuss actual science, so he just rants against anyone who talks about the NUANCES of climate-change.
This is a discussion about methane in the arctic, not wether we think there are other problems on planet Earth, or not. And how recent studies (at least 5 now) are showing that the mass methane release that would put us over 6 degrees in 10 years, is not as big a problem as scientists previously thought it was, because there is a 200 X balancing cooling effect from a simultaneous CO2 sequestration.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2017, 03:42:55 PM by Thomas Barlow »

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4163
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #389 on: October 08, 2017, 06:55:36 PM »
This stops here. I've sent PMs.

I reread my comment and do understand that I started it. Won't happen again.

Maybe you did start it, but that's no reason for Thomas Barlow to go bonkers like that.

Some think Arctic methane is an imminent threat, others don't. There's no need to get worked about this on some Internet forum. And Thomas also doesn't understand that his aggressive responses make his arguments look weaker. There's reason to think that someone who gets angry so easily, may also lack in reasoned judgement. It's not even anger from passion. It's a tantrum.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2316
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #390 on: October 08, 2017, 08:22:57 PM »

And I repeat.
Everyone knows that greenhouse gases are increasing. This is a specific discussion about a MAJOR theme in Arctic science, which previously many of us thought would spell the end for humans within 10-20 years. Including me.

OK...so I have been visiting this site almost daily for over 4 years. My visits are spent primarily reading interesting posts by people who know far more than me in order to get a grasp of AGW. I certainly have not read every comment but cannot recall reading any comments that suggest the end of humans in 10-20 years and if such comments have been made, I am fairly certain they got laughed off the site as quickly as someone who has suggested that AGW is a Chinese hoax.

I still doubt that subsea permafrost degradation causing increases in the release of methane will be a net positive with regards to general warming of the planet. This is what I believe notwithstanding the research you have posted which I have not read. I believe this because of the same 4 years I have spent on this site and the volumes of research I have read here that indicates the role that methane has had in previous warming episodes.

I admit I am a scientific lightweight. I will assume that the research you reference is accurate. The researchers have identified a process where sub-sea methane releases can trigger an explosive growth in organisms which will increase carbon uptake. This may even mean that there can be specific time periods and locations where this results in a net reduction in atmospheric CO2e. It is one thing to scientifically demonstrate a process and then argue that this natural process should be assumed to absolutely operate continuously on a global scale. There are other things to consider such as growing seasons which will reduce the growth and carbon uptake of these organisms. It is quite incorrect to suggest that methane releases from areas of the sea floor have a similar seasonal periodicity. Once the permafrost in the ESS and Laptev has degraded and begun to release methane, this release occurs year round, no pause during the dark Arctic winter.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2017, 03:48:38 PM by Shared Humanity »

Cid_Yama

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #391 on: October 08, 2017, 08:55:38 PM »
Semiletov and Shakhova were not 'hinting' at anything.  They were telling you point blank.

The area of hotspots of methane are spreading, now encompassing a full 10% of the 2 million sq km of the ESAS. Which is 200,000 sq km.

Not only is the area of release spreading, the rate and volume of release is increasing, and they expect it to increase exponentially 3-5 orders of magnitude.

That there is no way to shut this off, short of sea level dropping and exposing the shelves to temperatures capable of refreezing the permafrost.  We know that isn't going to happen.

That the methane will continue to release until there is no more to release, and that just 1% of the available methane will be enough to cause catastrophic climate change.

The interview with Semiletov and Shakhova was published 24 June 2017.  their paper,  Current rates and mechanisms of subsea permafrost degradation in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, was published 22 June 2017.

You want to challenge their research, I've provided links.     

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2316
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #392 on: October 08, 2017, 08:56:55 PM »
When faced with an intractable (difficult to understand or solve) problem, I will always retreat to mind games, artificial constructs or arguments that help me to illuminate and apply logic to arrive at a conclusion. (I would like to emphasize that the intractable nature of this problem is a direct result of my limited scientific acumen which I alluded to in a prior comment.)

What follows is an example of this.....

Assumptions:

1. Sub-sea methane releases cause an explosive growth of organisms which results in dramatic increases in carbon uptake.
2. The increased carbon uptake overwhelms any increases in atmospheric methane and therefore reduces GHG impacts in the atmosphere and subsequent warming.
3. This process and impact occurs wherever sub-sea methane is being released.

Therefore:

1. Sub-sea methane releases are a powerful negative feedback for global warming.

Conclusion:

We should immediately work to develop a process for increasing sub-sea permafrost degradation in a controlled manner so as to take advantage of this process.

This fails my logic test but I want to be clear that this is not science and should be questioned by anyone who cares to.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2017, 09:24:46 PM by Shared Humanity »

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2316
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #393 on: October 08, 2017, 09:37:59 PM »
Semiletov and Shakhova were not 'hinting' at anything.  They were telling you point blank.

The area of hotspots of methane are spreading, now encompassing a full 10% of the 2 million sq km of the ESAS. Which is 200,000 sq km.

Not only is the area of release spreading, the rate and volume of release is increasing, and they expect it to increase exponentially 3-5 orders of magnitude.

That there is no way to shut this off, short of sea level dropping and exposing the shelves to temperatures capable of refreezing the permafrost.  We know that isn't going to happen.

That the methane will continue to release until there is no more to release, and that just 1% of the available methane will be enough to cause catastrophic climate change.

The interview with Semiletov and Shakhova was published 24 June 2017.  their paper,  Current rates and mechanisms of subsea permafrost degradation in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, was published 22 June 2017.

You want to challenge their research, I've provided links.   

Began to read this paper only to realize why I leave science to the scientists.

logicmanPatrick

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
    • The Chatter Box
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #394 on: October 08, 2017, 11:34:09 PM »
Some thoughts on methane release and feedbacks.

Localised, I stress: localised methane release on land may incorporate a localised positive feedback.

In sunshine, the ground warms and releases methane.  Until dispersed, the methane will linger in the local atmosphere.  The atmosphere is only well-mixed in the larger scales of time, land area and gas volume.  In the short term and over a relatively small geographical area it is not well-mixed.  That is why leaks of LPG can be smelled over a relatively large area, sometimes for days.  It also accounts for the 'smell of the sea' ranging for miles inland.  (Actually the smell of rotting seaweed).

Given the fact that methane concentrations in the air above a seepage must be higher than the global average: it follows that the local air/ground temperature will be higher and will decay more slowly at night than the global average.

It seems to me that methane seepage rates on land are likely to increase over time as GHGs increase globally and are supplemented by methane seeps locally.

Any thoughts, comments, rebuttals?
si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4163
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #395 on: October 09, 2017, 12:03:17 AM »
That is why leaks of LPG can be smelled over a relatively large area, sometimes for days.

And here I was, thinking it was me.  ;)

*sorry, couldn't help self'
Il faut cultiver notre jardin

logicmanPatrick

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
    • The Chatter Box
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #396 on: October 09, 2017, 12:43:10 AM »
That is why leaks of LPG can be smelled over a relatively large area, sometimes for days.

And here I was, thinking it was me.  ;)

*sorry, couldn't help self'

ROFL    ;D
si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

miki

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #397 on: October 09, 2017, 04:37:49 AM »
Thanks Cid_Yama, for the interview and the paper links. I had already read the interview. But I had yet not delved in all the implications of the paper. Again, thanks.

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #398 on: October 09, 2017, 05:00:36 AM »
logicmanPatrick "Some thoughts on methane release and feedbacks."

I've just found a similar  question I asked on RealClimate in 2009. I didn't get an answer then.

Duae Quartunciae #2, reminds me of a question that climate experts have told me that the answer is “No”. They are probably right but on these topics it doesn’t hurt to be sure. The question is

    Does methane emitted in Arctic regions have any local heating effect before it becomes well-mixed?

I have read that

1. Weather over Siberia can have blocking patterns with little wind.

2. Tamino’s blog, if I remember correctly, mentioned that rises in methane levels can vary by several weeks at different measuring stations.

3. Concentrations of methane near the emitting sources can be hundreds of times greater than background levels. Clearly, if these concentrations reached any height there would be a local warming effect. If these concentrations reached one hundred metres above the emitting sources these concentrations would occupy about one percent of the atmosphere above the source. One hundred times a background level would double the warming effect of methane in the locality.

Warming areas where methane is emitted with methane that is not well-mixed is clearly some sort of feedback. Is it vanishingly small? I would be interested to know if anyone has done the work to dismiss it definitively.
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Cid_Yama

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Arctic Methane Release
« Reply #399 on: October 09, 2017, 06:09:06 AM »
Yes, Gavin Schmidt was bought off with Hansen's job. A combination of persuasions were required with Archer.

I've known since 2004.  The logic is straightforward. Over a decade of research has only allowed us to know in greater detail how seriously we are f'd.

If you think our government hasn't known as long as I have, you are wrong.  That is why G.W. Bush commissioned IMPACTS, bringing all the national labs together to address this.

             
« Last Edit: October 09, 2017, 06:17:42 AM by Cid_Yama »