Jump to content

Photo

This is not good.

Arctic methane release Semiletov ESAS hydrate clathrate

829 replies to this topic

#491
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

it was a good article. But most folks will see alarmism because they want to believe it's not possible. The link to the other recent paper about the soot and methane was good as well.


Agreed that it is a good article, but it is the facts that are alarming, not the messaging. If S&S are to be believed (and they were the ones entrusted to make the observations) it sounds as though we are in for a rude awakening. I'm waiting for the Skeptical Science interview that should be published next week, and of course S&S's paper that will debut in April.

If you don't see these reports as alarming, you are just not looking.

#492
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

Skeptical Science interview is available.

http://www.skeptical...helf-part2.html

#493
skierinvermont

  • 8,917 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

Agreed that it is a good article, but it is the facts that are alarming, not the messaging. If S&S are to be believed (and they were the ones entrusted to make the observations) it sounds as though we are in for a rude awakening. I'm waiting for the Skeptical Science interview that should be published next week, and of course S&S's paper that will debut in April.

If you don't see these reports as alarming, you are just not looking.


The only thing alarming here is the willful ignoring of science. The science provides these reasons NOT to be alarmed:

1. The new large plumes found are in previously unexplored areas and so there is little basis to conclude that these plumes are a new phenomenon.

2. The new large plumes were found in deeper water farther offshore than that previously explored. This deep water would take longer to respond to recent agw and it should be the shallow water which responds first. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that these deep water plumes are responding to an old long term warming. This conclusion is strengthened by #3.

3. All modeling studies i am aware of conclude that it will take hundreds of years for arctic methane release to occur and that a large increase in methane concentration this century is improbable.

4. Arctic methane release this decade has been insufficient to raise regional methane concentration seriously, nevermind globally.

5. The long term warming of the last 10k years is both a sufficient explanation for these plumes and by far the most probable explanation according to modeling.

#494
skierinvermont

  • 8,917 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

These ideas are insane. We don't know the ramifications of doing either of these things. Big, big mistake.


Most people don't understand the complexity and fragility of nature. There are countless examples of unintended consequences.

#495
The_Global_Warmer

  • F R E S H

  • 8,787 posts
  • Joined November 13, 2010

Skeptical Science interview is available.

http://www.skeptical...helf-part2.html


That was weird. It was clear the interviewee was holding back a bit to not politicize this threw alarmism. but also admitted the 8gt is undeRdone. and that the methane is 6-8k years old.



#496
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011

Skeptical Science interview is available.

http://www.skeptical...helf-part2.html


Thanks!

A couple things stand out. The methane is coming from >50m depth, that means that a greater portion of the methane goes into solution in the water. It also means that the mud cap over the hydrate is thinner. At much greater depth it can be on the surface. This is an a dangerous combination. The methane chimneys must be churning up the sea bottom, the sediment could then be carried away by the current, further destabilizing the hydrate by reducing the pressure on it.

Just in December updates:

ARCTpolar2011.12._AIRS_CH4_400.jpg
ARCTpolar2010.12._AIRS_CH4_400.jpg
70-90N_anomaly_CH4.jpg

The December 70-90 anomaly is over 10ppb higher than any previous December, and is the highest on record.

#497
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011

70-90N_VMR_CH4.jpg
We know that the December anomaly is 14ppb higher than 2010. This means the methane must be up at 1854ppb, off the chart.

#498
WeatherRusty

  • 2,096 posts
  • Joined December 28, 2010

The only thing alarming here is the willful ignoring of science. The science provides these reasons NOT to be alarmed:

1. The new large plumes found are in previously unexplored areas and so there is little basis to conclude that these plumes are a new phenomenon.

2. The new large plumes were found in deeper water farther offshore than that previously explored. This deep water would take longer to respond to recent agw and it should be the shallow water which responds first. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that these deep water plumes are responding to an old long term warming. This conclusion is strengthened by #3.

3. All modeling studies i am aware of conclude that it will take hundreds of years for arctic methane release to occur and that a large increase in methane concentration this century is improbable.

4. Arctic methane release this decade has been insufficient to raise regional methane concentration seriously, nevermind globally.

5. The long term warming of the last 10k years is both a sufficient explanation for these plumes and by far the most probable explanation according to modeling.


Just so people don't carry away the wrong impression, there has been no long term warming trend over the past 10k years. The natural peak temp of the Holocene period occured about 8,000 years ago and slowly declined over the following 6,000 years. The temperature began to rise about 2,000 years ago with the big jump occuring over the past 150 years which has returned temp to near what it was during the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago.

Yes it should take hundreds of years to destablise the deeply buried hydrates, but what about exasperating those already outgasing and those potentially already close to doing so?

#499
The_Global_Warmer

  • F R E S H

  • 8,787 posts
  • Joined November 13, 2010

We know that the December anomaly is 14ppb higher than 2010. This means the methane must be up at 1854ppb, off the chart.




The jump started in July and now soars to a new record high that is quite a bit higher than before. Clearly a "new" source or the ESAS just was a stronger source to feed the Northern Hemisphere.

It is also no wonder the arctic has suffered amplified warming with these gases being strongest and most concentrated up there. This is also the hardest place to keep track of SATs which I hope soon they deploy a new satelitte soley for arctic temperature. That can reach the pole or closer at a more accurate depiction than the current satelittes.


Anyways. Is methane only coming out of the Laptev and ESB or also the Chuchki, Kara, and Barents?

#500
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011

Just so people don't carry away the wrong impression, there has been no long term warming trend over the past 10k years. The natural peak temp of the Holocene period occured about 8,000 years ago and slowly declined over the following 6,000 years. The temperature began to rise about 2,000 years ago with the big jump occuring over the past 150 years which has returned temp to near what it was during the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago.

Yes it should take hundreds of years to destablise the deeply buried hydrates, but what about exasperating those already outgasing and those potentially already close to doing so?

Posted Image
when in the last 800,000 years have we been in a similar situation?

#501
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011

The jump started in July and now soars to a new record high that is quite a bit higher than before. Clearly a "new" source or the ESAS just was a stronger source to feed the Northern Hemisphere.

It is also no wonder the arctic has suffered amplified warming with these gases being strongest and most concentrated up there. This is also the hardest place to keep track of SATs which I hope soon they deploy a new satelitte soley for arctic temperature. That can reach the pole or closer at a more accurate depiction than the current satelittes.


Anyways. Is methane only coming out of the Laptev and ESB or also the Chuchki, Kara, and Barents?


The open waters are also making a significant contribution. 2500% supersaturation over the arctic is not trivial.

#502
The_Global_Warmer

  • F R E S H

  • 8,787 posts
  • Joined November 13, 2010

Just so people don't carry away the wrong impression, there has been no long term warming trend over the past 10k years. The natural peak temp of the Holocene period occured about 8,000 years ago and slowly declined over the following 6,000 years. The temperature began to rise about 2,000 years ago with the big jump occuring over the past 150 years which has returned temp to near what it was during the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago.

Yes it should take hundreds of years to destablise the deeply buried hydrates, but what about exasperating those already outgasing and those potentially already close to doing so?



Posted Image


2011 like 2007 was a bit off the charts...but the length of time that the Laptev was exposed to max sun was absurd. This still though is with ice using up most of the incoming solar energy until early to mid July.

Just a couple decades ago. These areas only had a short window at the end of the summer of open water, And even then the water was still filled with ice floes and cold. Before the early to mid 80s it was nearly ice covered to some extent all year or only open for less than a month.


There is 500,000-1,000,000 mil km2 of water area that used to see a very small amount of direct w/m2 maybe 30-50 watts per year. Now these areas are getting 150-200 w/m2. This is very new. This is concerning to me.

This is pretty simple science IMO.

That seems to me that melting would be accelerated by more than a factor of 2 because the amount of solar energy reaching these areas has gone up by hundreds of percent in some cases on a year to year basis.

#503
WeatherRusty

  • 2,096 posts
  • Joined December 28, 2010

Posted Image
when in the last 800,000 years have we been in a similar situation?


In terms of radiative forcing we have not been in a similar situation for a lot longer than just 800,000 years. More like 15,000,000 years, the last time CO2 consentrations were as high as today. It also happened to be much warmer back then with likely no permanent northern ice cap. The Antarctic ice cap had formed 34,000,000 years ago when CO2 consentration dropped below 600ppm.

In terms of global temperature, current temp is about as it was 8,000 years ago when CO2 levels were no higher than 280ppm. The increasing radiative forcing of today stands to elavate mean global temp to well above that of the Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8,000 years ago. What this will do to arctic sea ice is evident from past periods of higher radiative forcing.

What this will do to destabilize sea bed methane clathrates is anyone's guess. The previous interglacial period 125,000 years ago which attained a global mean temp about 1C warmer than the Holocene max apparently did not unleach a runnaway methane feedback, but what would happen if temp rises another 2C or 3C?

#504
skierinvermont

  • 8,917 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

Posted Image


2011 like 2007 was a bit off the charts...but the length of time that the Laptev was exposed to max sun was absurd. This still though is with ice using up most of the incoming solar energy until early to mid July.

Just a couple decades ago. These areas only had a short window at the end of the summer of open water, And even then the water was still filled with ice floes and cold. Before the early to mid 80s it was nearly ice covered to some extent all year or only open for less than a month.


There is 500,000-1,000,000 mil km2 of water area that used to see a very small amount of direct w/m2 maybe 30-50 watts per year. Now these areas are getting 150-200 w/m2. This is very new. This is concerning to me.

This is pretty simple science IMO.

That seems to me that melting would be accelerated by more than a factor of 2 because the amount of solar energy reaching these areas has gone up by hundreds of percent in some cases on a year to year basis.


Your usage of the phrase "watts per year" tells me you do not know what the term watt means. A watt is a unit of power not energy.

#505
WeatherRusty

  • 2,096 posts
  • Joined December 28, 2010

Your usage of the phrase "watts per year" tells me you do not know what the term watt means. A watt is a unit of power not energy.


From Wikipedia:

The watt, defined as one joule per second, measures the rate of energy conversion.

Confusion of watts, watt-hours, and watts per hour

The terms power and energy are frequently confused. Power is the rate at which energy is generated or consumed.
For example, when a light bulb with a power rating of 100W is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt-hours (W•h), 0.1 kilowatt-hour, or 360 kJ. This same amount of energy would light a 40-watt bulb for 2.5 hours, or a 50-watt bulb for 2 hours. A power station would be rated in multiples of watts, but its annual energy sales would be in multiples of watt-hours. A kilowatt-hour is the amount of energy equivalent to a steady power of 1 kilowatt running for 1 hour, or 3.6 MJ.
Terms such as watts per hour are often misused.[17] Watts per hour properly refers to the change of power per hour. Watts per hour (W/h) might be useful to characterize the ramp-up behavior of power plants. For example, a power plant that reaches a power output of 1 MW from 0 MW in 15 minutes has a ramp-up rate of 4 MW/h. Hydroelectric power plants have a very high ramp-up rate, which makes them particularly useful in peak load and emergency situations.
Major energy production or consumption is often expressed as terawatt-hours for a given period that is often a calendar year or financial year. One terawatt-hour is equal to a sustained power of approximately 114 megawatts for a period of one year.
The watt second is a unit of energy, equal to the joule. One kilowatt-hour is 3,600,000 watt-seconds. The watt-second is used, for example, to rate the energy storage of flash lamps used in photography.

#506
The_Global_Warmer

  • F R E S H

  • 8,787 posts
  • Joined November 13, 2010

Your usage of the phrase "watts per year" tells me you do not know what the term watt melp
ans. A watt is a unit of power not energy.


Your right. Thanks for letting me know.

You could also just refute the point and the affect months of open water will have VS little to no open water.

#507
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011

That was weird. It was clear the interviewee was holding back a bit to not politicize this threw alarmism. but also admitted the 8gt is undeRdone. and that the methane is 6-8k years old.

She was holding back on the current findings because of the rules about prior publication. If she revealed the major findings in the interview, that would be considered publication. They would loose the ability to publish in a journal like Science.

#508
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011

S&S just published a new paper on the ESAS.

http://iopscience.io..._7_1_015201.pdf

On carbon transport and fate in the East Siberian Arctic land–shelf–atmosphere system

It was submitted Aug 5, so it doesn't cover the recent findings.

#509
salbers

  • 489 posts
  • Joined November 26, 2010

I'm waiting for the Skeptical Science interview that should be published next week, and of course S&S's paper that will debut in April.



TerryM,

Do you know what journal S&S's paper will be in? Is this something beyond the SWIPA book chapter draft that is now available?

Also, there is an upcoming S&S seminar on Feb 9th.

http://www.iarc.uaf....d=1323818876406

Looking ahead further, I wonder if this topic will be covered at the next ESRL/GMD global monitoring conference?

http://www.esrl.noaa...nualconference/

Thanks,

Steve

#510
salbers

  • 489 posts
  • Joined November 26, 2010

S&S just published a new paper on the ESAS.

http://iopscience.io..._7_1_015201.pdf

On carbon transport and fate in the East Siberian Arctic land–shelf–atmosphere system

It was submitted Aug 5, so it doesn't cover the recent findings.


Thanks for the link. Any chance some revisions were made prior to the December acceptance date? I see though this is mainly a survey paper of previous findings.

#511
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011

70-90N_VMR_CH4.jpg
We know that the December anomaly is 14ppb higher than 2010. This means the methane must be up at 1854ppb, off the chart.


Using the 14ppb number for 70-90N I get 0.9Mt C. This was for a four month period, so the yearly number would be 2.7Mt/year. This represents a 34% increase in arctic methane sourcing, over the previously reported 8Mt/year. There is a long way to go before it is a global threat. But it has gone from next to nothing to Mt/year in about three years.

BTW
Posted Image

#512
salbers

  • 489 posts
  • Joined November 26, 2010

David archer has an online model for atmospheric methane release.

http://forecast.uchi...ts/methane.html

Posted Image
This is the result of releasing 16Gt over a 20 year period.(a 100 fold increase over the current 8Mt rate). This corrisponds to 1% of the known ESAS reserves being vented. With 5 watt forcing the permafrost would be vanishing very fast so lets release 1% of those reserves over the next 20 years 32Gt over 40 years.

Posted Image


This is not good.


Has it been mentioned yet this calculator has a thread on RealClimate?

http://www.realclima...ere/#more-10545

By the way, the methane concentration Y-axis on the previous post is a bit confusing to me, is it just 0.5 -3.0 parts per billion? That's 1000 times too small. Will be interesting to see the latest hourly data as well.

#513
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011

Has it been mentioned yet this calculator has a thread on RealClimate?

http://www.realclima...ere/#more-10545

By the way, the methane concentration Y-axis on the previous post is a bit confusing to me, is it just 0.5 -3.0 parts per billion? That's 1000 times too small. Will be interesting to see the latest hourly data as well.


Thanks for pointing that out. There is a good discussion there about this model.




The current article is about this cartoon explanation of weather vs climate, should be required viewing for this forum.

#514
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011

By the way, the methane concentration Y-axis on the previous post is a bit confusing to me, is it just 0.5 -3.0 parts per billion? That's 1000 times too small. Will be interesting to see the latest hourly data as well.


The in-sito data is not working for this year yet. I thing the graph rescaled to ppm because the data went over 2000, the label didn't change, is all.

#515
salbers

  • 489 posts
  • Joined November 26, 2010

This is a video of an ESAS expedition from a few years ago - nice to see some views from on the ship.



#516
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011



#517
LakeEffectKing

  • "He tracks hurricanes blindfolded."

  • 2,958 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

Here's another cool example of having fun with methane! :)




#518
prokaryotes

  • 5 posts
  • Joined January 20, 2012

[Video] SWIPA – A Changing Environment
Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA)



Just the melting of all the floating ice in the arctic ocean, will add as much heat to the earth, as all the Co-2 we put in the atmosphere to date.” Dr. James Lovelock


Estimating the Global Radiative Impact of the Sea-Ice-Albedo Feedback in the Arctic
“…a more realistic ice-free-summer scenario (no ice for one month, decreased ice at all other times of the year) results in a forcing of about 0.3 W m−2, similar to present-day anthropogenic forcing caused by halocarbons. The potential for changes in cloud cover as a result of the changes in sea ice makes the evaluation of the actual forcing that may be realized quite uncertain, since such changes could overwhelm the forcing caused by the sea-ice loss itself, if the cloudi- ness increases in the summertime.”


http://climateforce....ng-environment/


#519
prokaryotes

  • 5 posts
  • Joined January 20, 2012

Another impact from more methane and nitrous oxide (denitrification in the water column or from permafrost decomposing)

Drew Shindell of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, suggests that recovery of the ozone layer will be delayed 10 to 20 years by rising levels of two gases—methane and nitrous oxide—that also contribute to greenhouse warming. At low latitudes, methane in the stratosphere breaks down into hydrogen oxides, which attack ozone. Nitrous oxide can decompose to form ozone-eating nitrogen oxides. http://discovermagaz...nov/breakozone/

Second Hole in the Ozone Layer opened over the Artic North Pole in 2011 – Could be Harmful to People

The new tear in the layer of the atmosphere which protects us from the Sun’s harmful UV radiation, is currently smaller than that of the hole over Antarctica. However, the Arctic polar vortex, a persistent large-scale cyclone within which the ozone loss takes place is highly mobile in comparison to the Antarctic vortex.
This means that the Artic Ozone hole has a greater chance of occurring over densely populated northern areas on the earth, as opposed to the virtually unpopulated surface of Antarctica.
Forming in mid August, the Ozone Hole over Antarctica reached a larger than average 26 million square kilometers by September 12, 2011. While the 2011 Antarctic ozone hole briefly extended over the southern tip of South America, if the Arctic Ozone Hole were to eventually reach the size of its polar opposite, researchers estimate that it could expose over 700 million people, wildlife and plants to dangerous UV ray levels. http://newstaar.com/...-people/355050/

#520
prokaryotes

  • 5 posts
  • Joined January 20, 2012

Long lived CFC’s, Methane - Nitrous Oxide uptake and the destruction of the northern hemisphere Ozone Layer http://climateforce....re-ozone-layer/

I still compiling data but from a recent study it is assumed that the destruction of the ozone layer itself affects weather/climate change. Possible feedback mechanism are investigated..

Update

Water vapor breaks down in the stratosphere, releasing reactive hydrogen oxide molecules that destroy ozone. These molecules also react with chlorine containing gases, converting them into forms that destroy ozone as well. So a wetter stratosphere will have less ozone.
Observations of ozone show a thinning of the Earth's protective stratospheric ozone layer by about 3 to 8% overall since the 1970s. In the upper stratosphere, ozone depletion has been from 15 to 20%. Again, the model is better able to reproduce these values when increased water vapor is included. This is especially true in the upper stratosphere, where ozone is most sensitive to water. The model indicates that increased water vapor accounts for about 40% of the ozone loss in the upper stratosphere, and about 20% of the overall loss to date.
There are two driving forces behind the change in stratospheric moisture. Increasing emissions of methane are transformed into water in the stratosphere by chemical reactions. This can account for about a third of the observed increase in moisture there.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_05/

#521
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011


REBUTTAL: DAVID ARCHER WRONG TO DISMISS CONCERN


ABOUT POTENTIAL METHANE RUNAWAY IN ARCTIC:



Why This Threat Is Real and the Imperative to Exercise


the Precautionary Principle When the Stakes Are This High



http://climatechange...alclimates.html

Sorry, I posted the wrong link before.

#522
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

http://climatechange...alclimates.html

Sorry, I posted the wrong link before.



But the other link was interesting anyway ;>)

#523
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011

For lower scenarios, e.g. the mitigation scenario RCP3-
PD, our results suggest that future warming is unlikely to
increase Arctic temperatures enough to release a large fraction
of the carbon stored in permafrost soils, although up to
22% could be thawed already by 2100. If strong mitigation
of emissions is pursued, it seems still possible to prevent the
release of large fractions of this permafrost carbon over the
coming centuries.


http://www.biogeosci...-9-649-2012.pdf

Hope they are right, but every model so far under predicts the arctic warming.

This would not be bad.

#524
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

Verg

The study seems to be relating to permafrost releases if "remedial steps" are taken to lessen Arctic warming.


Our
results also suggest that mitigation action in line with the
lower scenario RCP3-PD could contain Arctic temperature
increase sufficiently that thawing of the permafrost area is
limited to 9–23

It's S&S's observations that scare the bejesus out of me.

#525
Vergent

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined July 29, 2011

Verg

The study seems to be relating to permafrost releases if "remedial steps" are taken to lessen Arctic warming.


Our
results also suggest that mitigation action in line with the
lower scenario RCP3-PD could contain Arctic temperature
increase sufficiently that thawing of the permafrost area is
limited to 9–23

It's S&S's observations that scare the bejesus out of me.


If this turns into an emergency, the ice losses can be reversed quickly by keeping the pacific waters out of the arctic, eliminating 1/3 of the melt.
Posted Image
http://psc.apl.washi...BS2007Heat.html

The problem is, we have opened Pandora's box.

http://www.desdemona...hs-of-2011.html

Posted Image

As a species, we haven't realized it yet.




Reply to this topic



  

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Arctic, methane, release, Semiletov, ESAS, hydrate, clathrate

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users