Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: This is not good (methane clathrates)  (Read 80037 times)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12987
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #100 on: January 13, 2015, 06:09:19 PM »
Here is another article about methane emissions from the Arctic seafloor west of the Yamal Peninsula, in the Kara Sea:

http://www.adn.com/article/20150112/alarm-over-kara-sea-permafrost-thawing
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12987
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #101 on: January 13, 2015, 07:04:49 PM »
I would like to point out that due to the energy potential for extracting methane from gas hydrates in the seafloor (Arctic or otherwise), that the US DOE has compiled large amounts of information regarding the nature and risks of methane hydrates as can be seen from the information at the following links.  As examples of the risks of methane emissions:

1. The first image indicates that by 2030 the DOE expected that it will be commercially viable to recover methane from some insitu methane hydrate sources; which of course raises the risk of leaks and accidents if this were to occur.

2.  The second image show potential means (for natural and anthropogenic) to trigger methane emissions from shallow polar continental shelves, including both the intrusion of warm bottom ocean water such as GCMs project along the Russian Arctic Shelves in the coming decades; and due to drilling through the submerged permafrost as the Russians are planning to do in the coming decades in the Kara Sea.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-gas/methane-hydrates/graphic-files
http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-gas/publications
http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-gas/methane-hydrates
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2525
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #102 on: April 01, 2015, 10:03:06 PM »
The Arctic climate threat that nobody’s even talking about yet
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/01/the-arctic-climate-threat-that-nobodys-even-talking-about-yet/
The concern is whether such an agreement will arrive soon enough to stop or at least blunt the permafrost problem. It’s “a true climatic tipping point, because it’s completely irreversible,” says Schaefer. “Once you thaw the permafrost, there’s no way to refreeze it.”

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2525
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #103 on: April 09, 2015, 06:48:19 PM »
Permafrost 'carbon bomb' may be more of a slow burn, say scientists
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/09/arctic-carbon-bomb-may-never-happen-say-scientists

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2525
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #104 on: April 24, 2015, 09:57:53 AM »
Warming Climate May Carbon In Arctic Soils
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/warming_climate_may_carbon_in_arctic_soils-155066

"We found that decomposition converted 60 percent of the carbon in the thawed permafrost to carbon dioxide in two weeks," Stubbins said. "This shows the permafrost carbon is definitely in a form that can be used by the microbes."



jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1749
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #105 on: April 27, 2015, 01:57:45 PM »
Sam Carana reports a significant increase in daily maximum methane values 2,845 ppb.

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/04/methane-levels-as-high-as-2845ppb.html

Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Buddy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2087
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #106 on: April 27, 2015, 03:31:51 PM »
There is certainly a "bad setup" for this year (melting wise....heat wise....etc):

1)  Continued rising CO2 levels
2)  Continued rising methane levels
3)  Warm anomaly's in the oceans....especially the mid Pacific (El Nino) and Arctic (melting of Arctic ice sheet and Greenland ice sheet)

Bad mojo for this years melting of Greenland and Arctic....

FOX (TASS) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2525
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #107 on: May 17, 2015, 10:51:35 AM »
Thawing Arctic carbon threatens 'runaway' global warming
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2869575/thawing_arctic_carbon_threatens_runaway_global_warming.html

"We found that decomposition converted 60% of the carbon in the thawed permafrost to carbon dioxide in two weeks", says Aron Stubbins, assistant professor at the University of Georgia's Skidaway Institute of Oceanography. "This shows that permafrost carbon is definitely in a form that can be used by the microbes."

Already posted somewhere, but that page may bring some other links interesting to you !?

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #108 on: May 18, 2015, 11:24:58 AM »
They talk of CO2 but I didn't see methane mentioned. I posted this on another thread. Any comment now?


"Expert says deadly gas released from melting permafrost region will lead to 'awful' consequences for global warming."
http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/opinion/features/f0099-new-warning-about-climate-change-linked-to-peat-bogs/

   
A leading Siberian scientist has delivered another stark warning about climate change and said melting peat bogs could speed up the process.

    Professor Sergey Kirpotin, director of the BioClimLand Centre of Excellence for Climate Change Research in Tomsk, said he has concerns over the 'awful' consequences in Russia’s sub-Arctic region.

    He said that a thaw of the frozen bogs, which take up as much as 80 per cent of the landmass of western Siberia, will release billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide – into the atmosphere. That, he concluded, will greatly speed up the effects of global warming around the world with potentially devastating consequences.
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Gray-Wolf

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 601
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #109 on: May 18, 2015, 01:46:35 PM »
With even some of our own learned posters insisting, over the years,that we have nothing to worry about from Permafrost meltdown I have to wonder just what it will take for the world to wake up to the 'potential' of dangerous feedbacks there beginning to become 'The Reality' on the ground there?

When I first became aware of the possible scale of releases from there I realised that it would only take of small percentage of those releases to push the system into a dangerous feedback cycle. Every year we seem to receive renewed warnings and see even more worrying 'spikes' in CH4 over the Arctic.

Is it really going to end up like the rest of AGW and take an indisputable 'event' to bring folk into clarity over the dangers we face there?
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

Buddy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2087
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #110 on: May 18, 2015, 02:34:24 PM »
Is it really going to end up like the rest of AGW and take an indisputable 'event' to bring folk into clarity over the dangers we face there?

Probably.   We humans are NOT very good at looking ahead.....even with facts in hand.....and being able to truly understand what MAY likely happen.  I think we have a 'bias' towards rose colored glasses.

The feedback effects are only going to continue......and continue to get worse and worse (logarithmically) .  What I am amazed at....is that many people are not underestimating what may happen just within the next 5 years:  More and more heat into the Arctic because of the disappearing ice sheet, creating more and more heat being absorbed rather than reflected, creating more permafrost melt, creating more wild fires, etc..etc...etc..

I believe we are at the beginning of a 3 - 5 year period where all but the most idiotic and immoral humans will finally realize that we are in DEEP S***.  And additional methane releases will come into play....  And it WILL take "events" to wake them up unfortunately...
FOX (TASS) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1749
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #111 on: May 18, 2015, 03:26:28 PM »
With even some of our own learned posters insisting, over the years,that we have nothing to worry about from Permafrost meltdown I have to wonder just what it will take for the world to wake up to the 'potential' of dangerous feedbacks there beginning to become 'The Reality' on the ground there?

When I first became aware of the possible scale of releases from there I realised that it would only take of small percentage of those releases to push the system into a dangerous feedback cycle. Every year we seem to receive renewed warnings and see even more worrying 'spikes' in CH4 over the Arctic.

Is it really going to end up like the rest of AGW and take an indisputable 'event' to bring folk into clarity over the dangers we face there?

One of the problems that I have seen is that the models have used only forcing and not regional temperature impacts to determine permafrost decomposition rates.  If one looks realistically at the potential for total arctic ice loss in mid july 2040 one realizes that the temperature profiles are dramatically understated (by up to 14C averages!) 

Because the models understate the temperature response, the decomposition of permafrost is slowed considerably, since GHG effects operate on a logarithmic scale, by the time there is significant contribution (say 100 Gt of carbon) our abundances under RCP 8.5 are already around 800 ppm and the impacts of that 100Gt are reduced by over 300% (especially when looking at impacts only through 2100).

If, however, we get really serious about decarbonization (I believe we will) AND we have severely underestimated sea ice response (for example underestimate impacts of chinese aerosols on preserving sea ice these last 14 years) and we have already locked in the above ice loss scenario, then that 100 Gt of carbon will likely be the reason that all of our efforts to desperately extract 340 Gt of Carbon from the atmosphere to return to 350 PPM will ultimately fail.

This implies that we wait until 2020 to get REALLY serious with carbon reductions and have accumulated significant atmospheric loading through 2030.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Gray-Wolf

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 601
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #112 on: May 19, 2015, 06:05:58 PM »
Is it really going to end up like the rest of AGW and take an indisputable 'event' to bring folk into clarity over the dangers we face there?

Probably.   We humans are NOT very good at looking ahead.....even with facts in hand.....and being able to truly understand what MAY likely happen.  I think we have a 'bias' towards rose colored glasses.


And this is what really gets me. The misleaders have given their devoted a reason why to be offended by the term 'denier'. Playing the " don't mention the war" card as early as they could to try and staunch the link between a person being 'in denial' of events which is the go to when we take bad news ( esp. bereavement). As we know the first of the stages of bereavement is 'denial' and , to me, this is what happens to most folk who baulk at the prospects AGW lays before us.

 To me the Climate Misleaders are using that 'natural ' response to such terrible ends. would you tell someone who is reeling from the loss of someone dear " its alright, its all just a big mistake" when you know ( as the Misleaders do..... and probably better than us!) the news is for real??

I have spent nearly two decades trying my utmost to find a reason why I should throttle back, relax and not worry but year on year the papers/reports/data just compounds into an ever worsening scenario.

It is the same with the permafrost. in A'Level Geography ( back in 83') my master assured us all that the submerged permafrost was secure for thousands of years........ where are we now?

My greatest fear is the portion of the paleo carbon cycle in hibernation be resurected and re-introduced into today's cycle.

We here that the last time CO2 was at 400ppm West Antarctica was ice free and 2/3rds of Greenland was also. How much of that carbon cycle hibernates beneath that ice? how much is dormant in our peat/permafrost? Go too far and we unleash that old carbon cycle on top of the 'fossil carbon cycle' we appear content to flood the atmosphere with.

450ppm saw East Antarctica under ice. does that mean over 450ppm unburies the carbon buried beneath that? We appear committed to ice free west Antarctica and a lot of Greenland ( and so unleashing some of the 120ppm buried there) , does that mean we are also on a path to lose East Antarctica too as levels spiral beyond 450ppm???

Where it all just CO2 we stood to unleash that would be one thing but CH4????
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

Buddy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2087
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #113 on: May 19, 2015, 07:54:26 PM »
I have spent nearly two decades trying my utmost to find a reason why I should throttle back, relax and not worry but year on year the papers/reports/data just compounds into an ever worsening scenario.

Well....you definitely should NOT "throttle back."  The denier group is well funded by the fossil fuel industry, and just like the tobacco industry before them, they know EXACTLY what they are doing.  If you are ethical (which I believe you are)....then you don't have the "prism" to psychologically "see" how a person can be so dishonest in misleading other people on a topic that has such importance for humanity.

Well...look no further than the likes of Lance Armstrong, tobacco companies, Bernie Madoff, Bill O'Reilly, etc...etc...etc.

One of the frailties of mankind is our propensity to lie.  And there are a LOT of people out there that are prone to lying.  It is my belief.....that the freedom of speech is a special right we have in many democratic countries.  But with that comes obligations:  (1) don't lie yourself, and (2) call out other people who ARE lying.

That is why I have called out Joe Bastardi.  If you go to the link below....and look BELOW the SECOND VIDEO CLIP of Joe Bastardi on that link....you will see me discussing how Joe lied about a Time magazine cover in an article he penned in "The Patriot Post" (the Patriot Post apparently had no problem with posting his lies....as I reported to them....and they shut off my access:).

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3668502585335462792#editor/target=post;postID=3144601249506749062;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=3;src=link

There are a LOT of people who will do ANYTHING FOR MONEY.   And the fossil fuel industries are supporting (directly and indirectly) a LOT of them.

So don't back off.....step it up:)
FOX (TASS) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1749
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #114 on: May 21, 2015, 06:06:01 PM »
The liink to the Bastardi critique is for editorial access, therefore, I cannot access the blog.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

salbers

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #115 on: June 01, 2015, 01:05:31 AM »
Glad to see Vergent picked up this thread over here. I hear that Nunavut Flasks measured by NOAA are picking up with methane. On the other hand there was a recent cruise in the Laptev Sea that was inconclusive about the ESAS.

I saw a few minutes of this NOAA talk on May 19th, casting doubt on large ESAS emissions, in terms of a ship measuring CH4 well offshore in the Laptev Sea.
 
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/annualconference/abs.php?refnum=107-150406-A
 
Shakhova is also quoted in this NOAA paper on Carbon-Tracker Methane. The paper suggests no strong trend in the ESAS yet if you read some of the details:
 
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/8269/2014/acp-14-8269-2014.pdf

In the May 19th talk, the argument was made that rising sea level will stabilize methane in the ESAS since the pressure would rise. However that seems to be a relatively small negative feedback. It was also mentioned that by the time we detect a clear trend it will be too late to stop it. Also, methane extraction activities in the area could contribute to speeding up the release.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2015, 01:40:13 AM by salbers »

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2011
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #116 on: June 01, 2015, 09:09:52 PM »
https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/arctic-methane-alert-ramp-up-at-numerous-reporting-stations-shows-signature-of-an-amplifying-feedback/

Arctic Methane Alert — Ramp-Up at Numerous Reporting Stations Shows Signature of an Amplifying Feedback
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Vergent

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #117 on: June 02, 2015, 04:03:01 AM »
Wili,

Thanks for the link.

+0.01%, +0.03%, +0.1%, +1.0%................................

This is not good.

Verg

« Last Edit: June 02, 2015, 04:18:30 AM by Vergent »

Vergent

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #118 on: June 02, 2015, 02:37:12 PM »
Have a nice day!

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2063
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #119 on: June 02, 2015, 05:13:50 PM »
Verg
I got distracted by threats of Nuclear Winter and had been following other sites for some time. When I returned I found that my sources for atmospheric methane had either closed down or had stopped reporting.
Any chance you could get me up to date on what happened to say the NOAA sites.
Thanks
Terry

Vergent

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #120 on: June 04, 2015, 04:06:03 AM »
TerryM,

Good to hear from you.  ;D

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/

Good news, they now have a station in siberia.

http://gdata1.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/daac-bin/G3/gui.cgi?instance_id=AIRS_Level3Daily

Here is Giovani for visualizing satellite data.

Verg

salbers

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #121 on: June 05, 2015, 09:38:17 PM »
The NOAA site looks like it has some more powerful plotting features we can explore. For example I made an animated time-series plot of the latitudinal dependence of CH4. So far though the plot I made only goes up to 2009.

Also, below is a time-series plot of the new Siberia station.



« Last Edit: June 06, 2015, 08:46:14 PM by salbers »

Vergent

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #122 on: June 07, 2015, 05:58:00 AM »
Ironic, they are building ice breaking tankers to ship methane through the arctic.

http://www.popsci.com/worlds-first-ice-breaking-tanker-ships-open-arctic-route

Verg

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #123 on: June 07, 2015, 06:16:26 AM »
They will soon be there.

http://crewing.in/?p=91
The first vessel from the batch is scheduled for delivery in 2016, the final one joining the fleet in 2019.
The project’s first commercial cargo is due to be shipped in 2017. The chosen route for the LNG cargo is the Northern Sea Route (NSR).

 :'(

salbers

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #124 on: June 07, 2015, 05:30:10 PM »
Hope they don't start punching too many holes in the metastable methane hydrates...

To help evaluate recent measurements, here is the "normal" methane distribution by latitude and season from a book in a Google Search.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2015, 07:40:03 PM by salbers »

salbers

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #125 on: June 07, 2015, 07:41:34 PM »
Here is the longer term trend at Nunavut. The rate is now spiking and is at a record high, though a similar rate of rise did occur during the 1980s. It will be interesting to see if things accelerate beyond this.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2015, 10:48:17 PM by salbers »

salbers

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #126 on: June 26, 2015, 07:32:58 PM »
Interesting about the attached figure from this website: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/controversy.html

It shows a high hourly methane reading at Barrow, though I'm unable to reproduce this figure going directly to NOAA's web site.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2015, 12:31:52 AM by salbers »

salbers

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #127 on: June 27, 2015, 12:33:17 AM »
Also this analysis of the top down vs bottom up methane budget

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/19139

reaches a different conclusion than what was presented at a NOAA/GMD meeting this May.

ghoti

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 591
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #128 on: July 18, 2015, 06:17:22 PM »
No mention of methane levels but the permafrost melting and slumping it quite specatular.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/n-w-t-scientists-predict-catastrophic-lake-drainage-due-to-thawing-permafrost-1.3158206


AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12987
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #129 on: July 19, 2015, 09:05:50 PM »
The following is a re-post of my Reply #1054 in the Conservative Scientists & its Consequences thread in the Consequences folder:

The linked open access reference examines the coastal dynamics and creation of new submarine permafrost in shallow water of the central Laptev Sea (see the first attached image) and concludes: "For this region, it can be summarized that recent increases in coastal erosion rate and longer-term changes to benthic temperature and salinity regimes are expected to affect the depth to submarine permafrost, leading to coastal regions with shallower IBP." (see the second attached image), where IBP means: ice-bonded permafrost.

This research and conclusions may have profound implications if the abrupt collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, WAIS, in the next few decades leads to rapid increase in sea level in the Arctic Sea.  This is because more prior researchers have assumed that the IBP would be covered by a layer of somewhat protective non-ice-bonded sediment.  However, as Overduin (2015) make clear, wave driven coastal erosion (which will increase if/when the Arctic Sea Ice extent seasonally collapses) can/will expose the previously buried but new submarine IBP to relatively rapid warming from the sea water; which would likely result in a multi-decadal period (starting with the ASLR possibly around 2050) of relatively rapid methane emissions as the associated methane hydrates in the new submarine permafrost region decompose:


Overduin, P., Wetterich, S., Günther, F., Grigoriev, M. N., Grosse, G., Schirrmeister, L., Hubberten, H.-W., and Makarov, A.: Coastal dynamics and submarine permafrost in shallow water of the central Laptev Sea, East Siberia, The Cryosphere Discuss., 9, 3741-3775, doi:10.5194/tcd-9-3741-2015, 2015.

http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/9/3741/2015/tcd-9-3741-2015.html
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/9/3741/2015/tcd-9-3741-2015.pdf

Abstract: "Coastal erosion and relative sea-level rise transform terrestrial landscapes into marine environments. In the Arctic, these processes inundate terrestrial permafrost with seawater and create submarine permafrost. Permafrost begins to warm under marine conditions, which can destabilize the sea floor and may release greenhouse gases. We report on the transition of terrestrial to submarine permafrost at a site where the timing of inundation can be inferred from the rate of coastline retreat. On Muostakh Island in the central Laptev Sea, East Siberia, changes in annual coastline position have been measured for decades and vary highly spatially. We hypothesize that these rates are inversely related to the inclination of the upper surface of submarine ice-bonded permafrost (IBP) based on the consequent duration of inundation with increasing distance from the shoreline. We compared rapidly eroding and stable coastal sections of Muostakh Island and find permafrost-table inclinations, determined using direct current resistivity, of 1 and 5 %, respectively. Determinations of submarine IBP depth from a drilling transect in the early 1980s were compared to resistivity profiles from 2011. Based on boreholes drilled in 1982–1983, the thickness of unfrozen sediment overlying the IBP increased from 0 up to 14 m below sea level with increasing distance from the shoreline. The geoelectrical profiles showed thickening of the unfrozen sediment overlying ice-bonded permafrost over the 28 years since drilling took place. Parts of our geoelectrical profiles trace permafrost flooded, and showed that IBP degradation rates decreased from over 0.6 m a−1 following inundation to around 0.1 m a−1 as the duration of inundation increased to 250 years. We discuss that long-term rates are expected to be less than these values, as the depth to the IBP increases and thermal and pore water solute concentration gradients over depth decrease. For this region, it can be summarized that recent increases in coastal erosion rate and longer-term changes to benthic temperature and salinity regimes are expected to affect the depth to submarine permafrost, leading to coastal regions with shallower IBP."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12987
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #130 on: October 27, 2015, 06:01:24 AM »
I would just like to say that the findings of this research is not good:

Travis W. Drake, Kimberly P. Wickland, Robert G. M. Spencer, Diane M. McKnight, and Robert G. Striegl (2015), "Ancient low–molecular-weight organic acids in permafrost fuel rapid carbon dioxide production upon thaw", PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1511705112

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/21/1511705112

Significance

To our knowledge, this study is the first to directly link rapid microbial consumption of ancient permafrost-derived dissolved organic carbon (DOC) to CO2 production using a novel bioreactor. Rapid mineralization of the freshly thawed DOC was attributed to microbial decomposition of low–molecular-weight organic acids, which were completely consumed during the experiments. Our results indicate that substantial biodegradation of permafrost DOC occurs immediately after thaw and before downstream transport occurs. We estimate that, by 2100, between 5 to 10 Tg of DOC will be released from Yedoma soils every year given the most recent estimates for projected thaw. This represents 19–26% of annual DOC loads exported by Arctic rivers, yet it is so far undetectable likely due to rapid mineralization in soils and/or headwater streams.

Abstract
Northern permafrost soils store a vast reservoir of carbon, nearly twice that of the present atmosphere. Current and projected climate warming threatens widespread thaw of these frozen, organic carbon (OC)-rich soils. Upon thaw, mobilized permafrost OC in dissolved and particulate forms can enter streams and rivers, which are important processors of OC and conduits for carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. Here, we demonstrate that ancient dissolved organic carbon (DOC) leached from 35,800 y B.P. permafrost soils is rapidly mineralized to CO2. During 200-h experiments in a novel high–temporal-resolution bioreactor, DOC concentration decreased by an average of 53%, fueling a more than sevenfold increase in dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) concentration. Eighty-seven percent of the DOC loss to microbial uptake was derived from the low–molecular-weight (LMW) organic acids acetate and butyrate. To our knowledge, our study is the first to directly quantify high CO2 production rates from permafrost-derived LMW DOC mineralization. The observed DOC loss rates are among the highest reported for permafrost carbon and demonstrate the potential importance of LMW DOC in driving the rapid metabolism of Pleistocene-age permafrost carbon upon thaw and the outgassing of CO2 to the atmosphere by soils and nearby inland waters.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12987
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #131 on: October 27, 2015, 04:08:46 PM »
The linked reference cites research that is closely related to my last post on this topic, and both indicate a stronger positive feedback (from both CO₂ & CH4 emissions) form permafrost decomposition than assumed in AR5:

Caitlin E. Hicks Pries, Edward A. G. Schuur, Susan M. Natali & K. Grace Crummer (2015), "Old soil carbon losses increase with ecosystem respiration in experimentally thawed tundra", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2830


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2830.html

Abstract: "Old soil carbon (C) respired to the atmosphere as a result of permafrost thaw has the potential to become a large positive feedback to climate change. As permafrost thaws, quantifying old soil contributions to ecosystem respiration (Reco) and understanding how these contributions change with warming is necessary to estimate the size of this positive feedback. We used naturally occurring C isotopes (δ13C and Δ14C) to partition Reco into plant, young soil and old soil sources in a subarctic air and soil warming experiment over three years. We found that old soil contributions to Reco increased with soil temperature and Reco flux. However, the increase in the soil warming treatment was smaller than expected because experimentally warming the soils increased plant contributions to Reco by 30%. On the basis of these data, an increase in mean annual temperature from −5 to 0 °C will increase old soil C losses from moist acidic tundra by 35–55 g C m−2 during the growing season. The largest losses will probably occur where the plant response to warming is minimal."


See also:
http://news.nau.edu/researchers-measure-potential-release-of-permafrosts-old-carbon/#.Vi_ip9KrRxA
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/permafrost/
https://www2.nau.edu/schuurlab-p/publications.html

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12987
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #132 on: November 01, 2015, 07:10:47 PM »
The linked open access reference indicates that differential frost heave & associated cryogenic disturbances to subarctic permafrost can accelerate net carbon emissions from degrading permafrost, thus indicating that recent short-term research showing that undisturbed defrosting permafrost might absorb more carbon than it releases; is probably not true in the long-term when more disruptive cryogenic disturbances are accounted for:
 
Marina Becher, Johan Olofsson and Jonatan Klaminder (30 October 2015), "Cryogenic disturbance and its impact on carbon fluxes in a subarctic heathland", Environmental Research Letters, Volume 10, Number 11.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/114006


Abstract: "Differential frost heave, along with the associated cryogenic disturbance that accompanies it, is an almost universal feature of arctic landscapes that potentially influences the fate of the soil carbon (C) stored in arctic soils. In this study, we quantify how gross ecosystem photosynthesis (GEP), soil respiration (Re) and the resulting net ecosystem exchange (NEE) vary in a patterned ground system (non-sorted circles) at plot-scale and whole-patterned ground scales in response to cryogenic disturbances (differential heave and soil surface disruption). We found that: (i) all studied non-sorted circles (n = 15) acted as net CO2 sources (positive NEE); (ii) GEP showed a weaker decrease than Re in response to increased cryogenic disturbance/decreased humus cover, indicating that undisturbed humus-covered sites are currently the main source of atmospheric CO2 in the studied system. Interestingly, Re fluxes normalized to C pools indicated that C is currently respired more rapidly at sites exposed to cryogenic disturbances; hence, higher NEE fluxes at less disturbed sites are likely an effect of a more slowly degrading but larger total pool that was built up in the past. Our results highlight the complex effects of cryogenic processes on the C cycle at various time scales."

Extract: "Our findings indicate a complex influence of cryogenic activities on C fluxes in the studied systems, occurring over small spatial gradients as well as in different time periods. Currently, cryogenic activities are, in a time scale of years, associated with a lower NEE and thus a higher potential for C accumulation. If cryogenic disturbance processes co-occur with the burial and prevention of a build-up of C in the form of humus at the mineral soil surface, the effect of cryogenic disturbances is expected to generate a lower NEE at a centennial to millennial time scale, as suggested by others (Bockheim 2007, Koven et al 2009). However, it is also clear that cryogenic disturbance has the capacity to lower GEP and thus lower the input of C to the soil at an annual time scale. The outlined complexity is further enhanced because the mineralization rate of organic matter can be accelerated by cryogenically driven processes—either indirectly as soil temperature during summer increases in response to reduced humus cover or directly by the mixing of surface soil, which appears to stimulate heterotrophic respiration. The highlighted complexity is further indicated by the positive relationship between NEE and NDVI found in this study, which stands in complete contrast to the commonly assumed negative relationship used to predict CO2 fluxes in arctic landscapes (Shaver et al 2007, Dagg and Lafleur 2014). Contrasting trends have important implications for how NDVI can be used for upscaling C fluxes in the arctic from satellite data, which suggests that relationships between NEE and NDVI established for sites less affected by cryogenic processes have limited predictive power in soils under the influence of cryogenic disturbance processes. Finally, cryogenic activities are predicted to decrease in large parts of the northern hemisphere (Aalto et al 2014). It is evident from our study that these changes will affect important C fluxes and that changing conditions for cryogenic activities needs to be considered when predicting the fate of C in high latitude ecosystems."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12987
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #133 on: November 03, 2015, 04:51:25 PM »
The linked research documents the relatively large methane emissions from a subarctic lake during spring thaw.  This research is important because projections of future such methane emissions from subarctic lakes indicate a potential for rapid increases in associated atmospheric methane concentrations before 2060:

Mathilde Jammet, Patrick Crill, Sigrid Dengel and Thomas Friborg (2015), "Large methane emissions from a subarctic lake during spring thaw: mechanisms and landscape significance", Journal of Geophysical Research – Biogeosciences, DOI: 10.1002/2015JG003137

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JG003137/abstract

Abstract: "The ice-cover season and subsequent spring thaw are thought to be of particular importance for the biogeochemical cycle of northern lakes and wetlands. Yet, the magnitude of their methane emissions during an entire cold season is uncertain due to scarce measurements. While wetlands are known to be the highest natural emitters of methane, emissions from northern lakes are an uncertain component of terrestrial carbon budgets. To evaluate the importance of methane emissions from a subarctic lake during winter and spring, surface methane fluxes were recorded with the eddy covariance method in a subarctic fen-type wetland and in an adjacent shallow lake, from freeze up to complete ice out. The fen was a steady emitter of methane throughout winter. While no detectable flux was observed from the ice-covered lake surface during winter, it was the largest methane source of the landscape in spring, with a cumulative release 1.7-fold higher than at the fen, accounting for 53% of annual lake emissions. The high temporal resolution of the measurements allowed making a direct link between breakdown of the temperature stratification after ice breakup and the highest release of methane from the lake surface. A sediment upwelling at the end of the thaw season likely contributed to these emissions. We suggest that, unlike wetlands, shallow seasonally ice-covered lakes can have their highest methane emission potential in the cold season, likely dominating the spring methane release of subarctic landscapes with high lake coverage."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

salbers

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #134 on: December 24, 2015, 05:40:30 PM »
There is a September 2015 paper by Natalia Shakhova here that talks about methane fluxes and such from the ESAS:

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

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12987
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #135 on: December 28, 2015, 02:01:03 AM »
There is a September 2015 paper by Natalia Shakhova here that talks about methane fluxes and such from the ESAS:

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

salbers,

Nice catch, and the attached plot for Dec 26 2015 at 469 mb indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations are generally high in the Arctic and in particular over the ESAS (which is not a good sign).

Best,
ASLR
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2152
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #136 on: December 28, 2015, 07:15:59 PM »
What is very interesting is the highest atmospheric methane levels are almost exclusively over water. Can someone explain this to me?

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12987
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #137 on: December 28, 2015, 08:04:03 PM »
What is very interesting is the highest atmospheric methane levels are almost exclusively over water. Can someone explain this to me?

SH,

First, I am not a meteorologist and interpretation of these measurements can be tricky, so my feelings will not be hurt if someone better qualified corrects the following.
Second, note that the grey areas failed to pass the quality control tests (which happens more frequently over land) so do not interpret the grey as low methane concentrations.
Third, methane is lighter than air at STP so it tends to float upward and accumulate at higher altitudes, and while it is floating upward the winds tend to shift it laterally from its point of emission (see the four attached plots [for 1000, 866, 672 and 469 mb, respectively] for Dec 27 2015, with 1000-mb (hPa) being close to the Earth's surface and 469 mb (hPa) being closer to the middle of the troposphere).
Fourth, note that methane concentrations decrease from North to South (due to emissions sources concentrated in the NH), and that mean methane concentrations are at historic high levels so the red color represents the new normal.
Fifth, if Arctic Ocean seafloor hydrate decomposition (such as over the ESAS and the Barent Sea) is an increasing source of methane emissions then this might contribute to the high purple color concentration over the Arctic Ocean area.  Also, note that methane is absorbed by sea water so it is critical that the Arctic Ocean is shallow so that some of the methane has a chance to reach the atmosphere before being absorbed and so that relatively warm ocean water can reach the seafloor in order to decompose the natural gas hydrates.
Sixth, note that dry permafrost land area frequently emits more methane at this time of year (as discussed elsewhere in my Reply #1235 in the Conservative Scientists and its Consequences thread), and this methane may (or may not) be blown over water (like Hudson Bay) by winds.

Best,
ASLR
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Theta

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 169
  • Grips
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #138 on: December 30, 2015, 07:11:38 PM »
Someone brought up a question on reddit regarding the possibility that the current system that is bringing high temps to the north pole will lead to the methane hydrates degassing enough methane to turn it into a self reinforcing feedback loop. What are the thoughts of people here
Can't think of a signature

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12987
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #139 on: December 30, 2015, 08:29:02 PM »
Someone brought up a question on reddit regarding the possibility that the current system that is bringing high temps to the north pole will lead to the methane hydrates degassing enough methane to turn it into a self reinforcing feedback loop. What are the thoughts of people here

I think that the current event (related to storm Frank) is primarily an atmospheric event; which will have little immediate impact on methane hydrates.  My biggest concern is that this event may be followed by other similar events that will bring not only heat, but more importantly humidity to the Arctic; which could set-off a several decade long spiral leading to reduced sea ice extent and more warm ocean water near the seafloor that could progressively degrade the subsea methane hydrates leading to a Clathrate Gun type of scenario with multiple bursts of methane releases in the second half of this century.

Edit: If it is not clear why I am concerned about increasing humidity in the Arctic it is because the Arctic use to have very low humidity and because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so increasing humidity in the polar regions has a much stronger impact (Polar Amplification) on local regional warming than in previously humid area like the equatorial regions.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2015, 09:28:04 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Pmt111500

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1050
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #140 on: January 06, 2016, 04:22:14 AM »
Someone brought up a question on reddit regarding the possibility that the current system that is bringing high temps to the north pole will lead to the methane hydrates degassing enough methane to turn it into a self reinforcing feedback loop. What are the thoughts of people here

Nah, this is primarily an atmospheric event like ASLR said. Even though the above freezing temperatures decrease the albedo of the surface of the ice by making the snow crystals bigger, it's still dark in there so a hefty frost/snow layer on top is likely to develop during the rest of the dark period. What this event may have done to the ice is that the melt period might progress a bit faster once it starts. The scenario of hydrates degassing explosively likely requires a strong positive anomaly in the currents reaching arctic, this sort of thing could be an issue in the autumn some year, not in the deep of winter.  My guess is this would require a significant surface warming in the whole Atlantic so a cold summer in Greenland (with a very warm Atlantic) preventing melting and Gulf Stream slowing could be another sign of an increased threat of hydrates degassing. Not impossible with some long lasting weather extreme during summer-autumn, but in winter, no way.
A quantity relates to a quantum like camel's back relates to camel's _______ ? (back, vertebra, vertebral tendon, spinal disc, paralysis)

johnm33

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 758
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #141 on: January 06, 2016, 07:38:23 PM »
Whilst I agree with whats been said above, that doesn't mean there's no risk. If this represents an upwelling of northbound currents there's a lot of heat below the surface. I guess the question is, is this the basal current?

mati

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #142 on: January 07, 2016, 02:02:33 AM »
i wonder if this excursion into the arctic of a jet stream from deep in the south to the north is a precursor to the failure of the ferrel cell circulation...
and so it goes

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12987
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #143 on: January 07, 2016, 03:36:35 AM »
I note without links to references that I have seen model results indicating that warm ocean currents will not penetrate far enough into the Arctic Ocean Basin to trigger significant Clathrate Gun failure mechanisms until after 2035-2040; and separate model results indicating that the Ferrel Cell should not collapse until well after 2100 even assuming reasonably high climate sensitivity values.  Now neither of these two points mean that methane releases from Arctic marine methane hydrates will not accelerate year by year, only that massive collapses associated with Clathrate Gun (submarine landslides along the Continental Shelves), nor with Ferrel Cell collapse, are likely before 2035-2040 and 2100, respectively.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Pmt111500

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1050
    • View Profile
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #144 on: January 07, 2016, 04:36:42 AM »
i wonder if this excursion into the arctic of a jet stream from deep in the south to the north is a precursor to the failure of the ferrel cell circulation...

Well, I'd say if we take the theory of Jennifer Francis to its logical conclusion then this is the result. Some day the realization of an extreme Warm Arctic/Cold Continents-scenario could indeed do just this.

This though in my opinion cannot totally happen before Arctic is completely free of ice. This doesn't mean there couldn't be weather situations in which a temporary cessation of the Ferrel Cell happens. The great warm Blob of North Pacific disturbed the Ferrel Cell greatly, and the western plains weather was imho like it would be in the case of Ferrel Cell cessation. If we get two blobs of warmth, one in Pacific and one in Atlantic, this still leaves remnants of Ferrel Cell on locations.  What sort of weather would destroy those patches too I don't know. I'm not too well acquainted with the Ferrel Cell generation so I leave this here by saying that this even a temporary stop in the Ferrel Cell is not too good, this could disturb the breadbaskets of the world greatly like in the Midwest or in the Russian heatwave some years back. Too bad this is one bitch of a thing to predict.
A quantity relates to a quantum like camel's back relates to camel's _______ ? (back, vertebra, vertebral tendon, spinal disc, paralysis)

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #145 on: January 07, 2016, 05:01:37 AM »
mati, ASLR and Pmt.
With all the respect for people like Jennifer Francis and others. As far as my meager understanding goes, the coriolis effect seems to be underestimated or forgotten. The earth would have to have the rotational speed of Venus for that to happen in any near time. After 2100, maybe.

In either way, this won't end well.
I wish our leaders would use the same condemning words about AGW that they have expressed recently regarding North Korea.

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1229
    • View Profile
    • Nexpaq Modular ARA iOS Software Mobile Computing Phones Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multipelsklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgie
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #146 on: January 07, 2016, 11:39:54 AM »
it will not end well for some who live in good environment now but then it will do well to others who are now living in the cold or dry zones. this doomsday approach leads nowhere nor does denialists approach. we are a part of nature like any other input to the system and we have to deal with and manage things, not make them good or bad simply because they change. if someone were born into conditions like a few hundred million years ago when there was no ice he as well would have complained to have to leave antartica because live got unbearable there once after it was a beautiful place. things change and are neither good or bad, they are like they are and change as they change and i don't mean to sit still and accept everything as fate, but the doomsday guys are no better than the denialists, they some how get exited and give their lives meaning and importance which is a characteristic that both lead us where we currently are, in the good and the bad stuff.
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #147 on: January 07, 2016, 12:49:12 PM »
magnamentis, it will not end well for the civilisation we have built and the people in it, it does not matter where you live. But the planet will do just fine without us.

Sweden has just closed it's borders to immigrants and id checks everyone entering this cold and dry zone. A lot of them from Syria, those disturbances started because of drought a long time ago. Climate induced drought. Our nature can't cope with these fast swings and nature in general on the rest of this planet can't change as fast as we are changing it.

Here's a link from the UN climate treaty thread today and Kevin Andersson.
http://kevinanderson.info/blog/the-hidden-agenda-how-veiled-techno-utopias-shore-up-the-paris-agreement/
Is he a doomsday guy to you? Or James Hansen?

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1229
    • View Profile
    • Nexpaq Modular ARA iOS Software Mobile Computing Phones Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multipelsklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgie
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #148 on: January 07, 2016, 10:14:39 PM »
no issue with anything but the tendency to apply value which we don't know and just because it's changes the situation as we know it but by no means would i deny that it will end bad for some while i disagree that it's the entire world that will get in more trouble. there have always been wars and entire tribes and ethical groups wandering about the planet, else in sweden would be know one, all europeans descend from imigrants ( from africa btw ) we just see things often in too short a context. no i wouldn't give names to anyone i don't know personally, my post was more referring to the frequent good and bad talk. 3 decadas ago when i wanted my children and now my grand children to grow and prosper i had to guide them without telling them they're bad or give them that feeling because they didn't yet understand, but one has to explain, debate and reson over and over again. the confrontations mostly have their roots in on side taking side far from the middle and vice versa instead of meeting in the middle and decide together what's feasible. so again, 99% of what i read every day in this forum for quite some time, long before i subscribed, is valuable information and exchange, just wanted to throw in my 2cts as to the above mentioned. the more we make up our mind towards one extreme the smaller is the chance to succeed with real world solutions. too short jumped i know but there is no way to put it all in here. not the place and not enough space LOL
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: This is not good.
« Reply #149 on: January 08, 2016, 08:30:17 AM »
A study regarding Svalbard. Open access.

Ice-sheet-driven methane storage and release in the Arctic.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160107/ncomms10314/full/ncomms10314.html

A quote from the results.
The juncture of the ocean–ice sheet
interface critically controls the ground surface temperature
change between the submarine and subglacial environments. It
abruptly decreases from +3.5°C within the ocean to -4.5°C
within the subglacial environment and consequently impacts
significantly on the temperature distribution in the lower
subsurface (Fig. 2; Supplementary Fig. 1).
Fig 1 & 2 attached below.

Also a quote from the end of the discussion.
In the outer continental shelves where the
eustatic signal outpaced isostatic rebound, methane emissions
from recently inundated shallow shelves (first tens of metres)
would have been expelled into the atmosphere, similar to presentday
process of methane transport across the shallow East Siberian
Arctic Shelf. This study not only implies the potential for
significant gas hydrate storage and release capacity during past
glacial/inter-glacial conditions but is also significant in its
implication for current and future greenhouse gas release under
the ongoing thinning and retreat of contemporary ice sheets and
glaciers
.