PhillipS
-
Posts
1,210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by PhillipS
-
Your hypothesis is the logical fallacy known as a "False Dichotomy" - asserting that something must be either A or B when the real world is more complex. CO2 is a GHG whose warming effect (the magnitude of its radiative forcing) on the Earth is dependent on its concentration in the atmosphere. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer the globe. Any argument? But CO2 is not the only phenomenon that can warm, or cool the Earth. Any argument? Cold seawater can hold more dissolved CO2 than warm sea water - warming cold seawater can result in the release of CO2. So the ocean can be either a source or a sink for CO2 - depending on conditions. Any argument? The ocean is not the only source for CO2. Volcanism, fires, anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels, thawing of permafrost and other processes all effect the carbon cycle. Any argument? So there are multiple factors, including CO2, that affect the Earth's energy balance. And there are multiple sources of atmospheric CO2, including the oceans under some conditions. So where is the chicken and egg paradox?
-
Interesting article. After reading it I did a quick google scholar search of the authors of the Nature paper and found several related papers by Dr Wadham - so she has been researching this topic for a while. What I am skeptical of is the huge reservoir of organic carbon they claim underlies the Antarctic ise sheet. The reason I"m leery is that glaciers, and ice flows within ice sheets, are very good at bulldozing underlying strata down to bedrock. So most of whatever organic material was present in the distant past was over time scraped into the ocean surrounding Antarctica. But I may be completely wrong and their study will be corroborated by additional research.
-
A fast google search got the values of 10 - 12 years residency for methane.
-
If you think emails to NOAA and our senators and congressmen might help, well, that's easy to do. Sadly, the Texas Senators are in the pocket of the fossil fuel contingent, but my congressman has a good track record with environmental issues.
-
DO you have any insight into why the in-situ CH4 program was shut down at Barrow yet is still on-going at Mauna Loa? I would think Mauna Loa would be an ideal site for flask sampling - it is thousands of miles from the major sources of release so the GHGs are well mixed by the time they reach the observatory. There is a very good match between the flask data and the in-situ data which to me indicates that the two programs are somewhat redundant. By comparison, Barrow is ideal for in-situ sampling because it is very close to areas of concern such as the Alaskan permafrost, the Siberian permafrost, and the ESAS. That's what we should be monitoring in near real-time. We know from the data record that the in-situ monitoring picks up event very quickly. If a large release takes place I don't think it's helpful to wait several weeks to find out about it after the lab analyses the flask samples. The NOAA decision is like being concerned about a rumbling volcano but putting the sensors thousands of miles away and getting results by snailmail. WTF are they thinking?!
-
Interesting timing since that was distributed just two weeks before they pulled the plug on in-situ monitoring of CH4 at Barrow.
-
There is a recent development in NOAA's monitoring of CH4 levels in the arctic - a development which took place without any notice that I am aware of. I believe most of the readers here are familiar with NOAA's ESRLand with the CH4 monitoring program they have had for years at observatories around the globe. Barrow Observatory is one of two in the arctic region and is the closest to the ESAS area where potential CH4 releases are predicted. Any plumes of CH4 released from the ESAS are likely to be detectable at Barrow soon after they occur. Here is the full plot of the hourly CH4 data from Barrow: About 26 years of data that shows the slowly rising average CH4 levels as well as the transient spikes of much higher concentrations. When I looked at the 2012 plot I noticed something odd: Do you see it, too? I don't mean the dropping concentration, that's just the annual cycle in which CH4 levels drop in the spring before rising again in the summer and fall. And I don't mean the spike to about 2500 ppb in the spring (though that is pretty alarming). The oddity is the record halting in June. I emailed the NOAA POC, Kirk Thoning, to ask for info to understand why the data wasn't being displayed and got this reply: Due to budget constraints, the in-situ methane measurement system at Barrow was shut down on June 1. A program that's been in place for a quarter of a century shut down just as its data is sorely needed. Curses! But the CH4 flask sampling program is still active. Trouble is, flask sampling lacks the temporal resolution of in-situ sampling making it less likely to detect transient phenomena and there is a lag of several weeks in seeing the data because the flasks have to be shipped to labs for analysis. Here is the 2012 flask record for CH4: The flask sampling program is much like a rear-view mirror - it shows you where you've been, not where you are. But I suppose it is better than no data at all. And the in-situ CH4 sampling program is still active at Mauna Loa so we should be able to observe any CH4 released from melting of the Hawaiian permafrost.
-
I agree that the scale needs extending, particularly since the typical arctic CH4 readings are currently around 1900 ppm, and transient readings have gone as high as 2500 ppm this year. Here is the Barrow Obervatory in-situ hourly averagereadings for 2012: It will be interesting to see if the summer melt season brings more evidence of undersea CH4 releases.
-
Here are links to two research papers I came across in learning more about the physical processes involved with undersea methane release. The first is an older article: Giant sea-bed pockmarks: evidence of gas escape from Belfast Bay, Maine - Kelley et al 1994 link Here is the abstract from that paper: Circular depressions, or pockmarks, cover the sea floor in many estuarine regions of the western Gulf of Maine. In Belfast Bay, Maine, they are found in densities up to 16/km2, are up to 350 m in diameter and 35 m in relief, and are among the largest and deepest known. The pockmarks appear to form from the escape of biogenic natural gas and pore water and are far larger than features associated with thermogenic gas elsewhere. These pockmarks are thought to have formed (1) catastrophically during earthquake, tsunami, or storm, or (2) slowly over thousands of years. Recent observations of bubble releases suggest continuing activity and potential geologic hazard. The pockmarks involve a poorly documented coastal process of sediment redistribution and methane release, largely unrecognized an the rock record but widespread in middle- to high-latitude embayments. The paper is an easy read and has some great sonar images of these gas escape features. The second paper is paywalled, so only the abstract is available for all, but it more directly deals with methane release and climate change. Atmospheric methane from organic carbon mobilization in sedimentary basins — The sleeping giant? Kroeger et al 2011 link And its abstract: The mass of organic carbon in sedimentary basins amounts to a staggering 1016 t, dwarfing the mass contained in coal, oil, gas and all living systems by ten thousand-fold. The evolution of this giant mass during subsidence and uplift, via chemical, physical and biological processes, not only controls fossil energy resource occurrence worldwide, but also has the capacity for driving global climate: only a tiny change in the degree of leakage, particularly if focused through the hydrate cycle, can result in globally significant greenhouse gas emissions. To date, neither climate models nor atmospheric CO2 budget estimates have quantitatively included methane from thermal or microbial cracking of sedimentary organic matter deep in sedimentary basins. Recent estimates of average low latitude Eocene surface temperatures beyond 30 °C require extreme levels of atmospheric CO2. Methane degassing from sedimentary basins may be a mechanism to explain increases of atmospheric CO2 to values as much as 20 times higher than pre-industrial values. Increased natural gas emission could have been set in motion either by global tectonic processes such as pulses of activity in the global alpine fold belt, leading to increased basin subsidence and maturation rates in the prolific Jurassic and Cretaceous organic-rich sediments, or by increased magmatic activity such as observed in the northern Atlantic around the Paleocene–Eocene boundary. Increased natural gas emission would have led to global warming that was accentuated by long lasting positive feedback effects through temperature transfer from the surface into sedimentary basins. Massive gas hydrate dissociation may have been an additional positive feedback factor during hyperthermals superimposed on long term warming, such as the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). As geologic sources may have contributed over one third of global atmospheric methane in pre-industrial time, variability in methane flux from sedimentary basins may have driven global climate not only at time scales of millions of years, but also over geologically short periods of time. Earth system models linking atmospheric, ocean and earth surface processes at different timescales with the sedimentary organic carbon cycle are the tools that need to be developed in order to investigate the role of methane from sedimentary basins in earth's climate. I'm too cheap to pay for the article but if anybody has it I'd love to read the whole thing.
-
I've only used the term in one context so no goalposts were moved - you are the one has been playing semantic games trying to move the goalposts. Instead, why don't you spend your time and energy providing links to research to back up your claims - or at least read some of the papers and come back better informed.
-
In the context of methane release - yes. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
-
Is English not your native language? I don't see any other way you can so wildly misconstrue the term "large portion" - it is a relative quantity, not an absolute quantity. For example, if I eat a half pound of BBQ brisket, I've eaten a large portion even though the cow it came from weighed about half a ton. Similarly, if I eat an entire Snickers bar I have eaten a large portion of chocolate. The meaning of the term has to be taken from the context it is used in. As I explained in my earlier post, I meant 'large portion' as being enough CH4 to have serious climate effects.. What that amount would be depends on a number or factors, including rate of release, but all research I've seen indicates that the release of even a small percentage of the vast reservoir of CH4 locked up in permafrost and methane hydrates would be very serious. There have been ample links to peer-reviewed research supporting that concern. So keep on playing your semantic games - it is clear to anyone who speaks English that you're just being foolish.
-
You are the only person on this thread, or any other thread, who has used the terms "most" or "majority" in reference to the emission of arctic methane. If you had actually read any of the papers that have been referenced you could have learned that release of even a small percentage (much less than half) of the methane reservoir will have serious climate impact. By continuing your rant you are making yourself look silly and are trashing what little credibility you have.
-
As the poster you responded to - I can safely say that a 'large portion' does not have to mean 'most', it simply means enough to be problematic. I'll grant that I should have been more exact. But as others have pointed out, the peer-reviewed research says that release of even a small percentage (are you happier with that term?) of the CH4 reservoir will have severe climate impacts. If you, and other pseudo-skeptics, were the only ones affected by the risks and consequences of BAU (much like smokers or motorcyclists who ride without helmets) I'd say "your risk, your choice.". But our atmosphere and our climate are the common property (though perhaps legacy would be a better term) of everyone. The actions of anyone inevitably impact others. It sounds like you're claiming the right to pollute to your heart's content and the rest of the world be damned. But mindreading isn't a skill I'm good at (just ask my ex-wife) so I'll ask in all seriousness - do you feel an individual or group or nation has innate or imposed limits on what they can do?
-
Nobody is saying the dangerous amounts of CH4 will, for certain, be released - what I, and others, have said is that dangerous amounts may be released, and that BAU with its inevitable warming increases the likelihood of that happening. Here's another peer-reviewed paper on the topic - Gas Hydrates: past and future Geohazard? Here's the paper's abstract: Gas hydrates are ice-like deposits containing a mixture of water and gas; the most common gas is methane. Gas hydrates are stable under high pressures and relatively low temperatures and are found underneath the oceans and in permafrost regions. Estimates range from 500 to 10 000 giga tonnes of carbon (best current estimate 1600–2000 GtC) stored in ocean sediments and 400 GtC in Arctic permafrost. Gas hydrates may pose a serious geohazard in the near future owing to the adverse effects of global warming on the stability of gas hydrate deposits both in ocean sediments and in permafrost. It is still unknown whether future ocean warming could lead to significant methane release, as thermal penetration of marine sediments to the clathrate–gas interface could be slow enough to allow a new equilibrium to occur without any gas escaping. Even if methane gas does escape, it is still unclear how much of this could be oxidized in the overlying ocean. Models of the global inventory of hydrates and trapped methane bubbles suggest that a global 3°C warming could release between 35 and 940 GtC, which could add up to an additional 0.5°C to global warming. The destabilization of gas hydrate reserves in permafrost areas is more certain as climate models predict that high-latitude regions will be disproportionately affected by global warming with temperature increases of over 12°C predicted for much of North America and Northern Asia. Our current estimates of gas hydrate storage in the Arctic region are, however, extremely poor and non-existent for Antarctica. The shrinking of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets in response to regional warming may also lead to destabilization of gas hydrates. As ice sheets shrink, the weight removed allows the coastal region and adjacent continental slope to rise through isostacy. This removal of hydrostatic pressure could destabilize gas hydrates, leading to massive slope failure, and may increase the risk of tsunamis. Speaking only for myself, I find that alarming. Of course, the only way to be totally certain about the risk is to pull that trigger and see if the gun is loaded. That's the approach to risk that many renowned Darwin Award winners have followed.
-
Anthropogenic warming is melting permafrost on land and under the ESAS seabed and releasing unprecedented amounts of CH4 to the atmosphere - in essence we are opening the spigots on massive CH4 reservoirs with no confidence we can slow of stop future CH4 releases. By all estimates I've seen there is enough CH4 in these reservoirs to cause devestating climate change if a large portion is released over the next century. Remember, CH4 is many times more potent as a GHG than CO2 is. This is not alarmism - it is simply alarming. And the discussion of what is happening and what the consequences may be is a perfect topic for this forum. If the discussion of today's reality and possible future scenarios bothers you for some reason then don't read the thread.
-
I know that you're just trying to be funny with the cow fart reference. And, as we all know, a love of flatulence humor is the hallmark of a serious scientist. Who will ever forget Al "Pull my Finger" Einstein, or the annual whoopee cushion hilarity at the Nobel Awards ceremony each year? If you're at all familiar with the Barrow Observatory, you probably know that the CH4 readings weren't from a wandering cow, or caribou. Here a shot from their live webcam: The webcam is on the 10 meter tower they use for collecting air samples. The area appears solidly snow covered so I think the methane is coming from the ocean and not from land (decomposing vegetation). The observatory is about 8km from the village of Barrow so it's pretty safe to rule out rush hour traffic as the source of the CH4.
-
Looking on the NOAA ESRL site at the data from the Barrow Observatory, they may be sampling the the first weak plumes of CH4 for this melt season. Here's the current in-situ hourly average CH4 plot for 2008 - present: It appears that the recent increase in CH4 levels is continuing and that the current concentration at Barrow is around 1900 ppm. The one data point at 2200 ppb may be a software artifact because it doesn't show up on all plots. What I found interesting is that the brief spikes of anomalously high readings (which are described on the site as "thought to be not indicative of background conditions, and represent poorly mixed air masses influenced by local or regional anthropogenic sources or strong local biospheric sources or sinks", i.e. plumes) seem to be starting earlier this year than in most years on record. Typically this sort of data pattern occurs in late summer to early fall. It will be interesting to see what this summer's melt season brings.
-
Well, you're probably right since it is clear that he is not on speaking terms with reality. But the major reason I write is to provide info for the new readers who may not realize what a troll he is. Hopefully they still have a genuine interest in learning the truth.
-
Actually, I can't tell that you get anything at all - 'clueless' is the kindest description for your posts. Certainly your backward interpretation of Terry's post is a good example. The various posters who have pointed out the seriousness and inevitability of global ice melting and the cosequencial sea level rise don't want it to happen - we are trying to wake people up to the reality that unless we reduce GHG emissions it is going to happen - and, in fact, a strong case can be made that it has already started. How about a quick review of the facts: Fact - global temperatures have been rising for more than a century Fact - global ice is melting Fact - there is ample ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to raise sea levels more than 10 meters if the melting continues. Fact - the global ice melting will continue until a new equilibrium is reached or until the ice is gone. Fact - under BAU we will continue to dump gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere, pushing the global temperatures higher than today's temperature Fact - the cost of adapting or mitigating several meters of coastal inundation in America and worldwide will be staggering. Which of those facts do you either not understand or dispute? All of them can be supported with data so just let us know where your confusion lies and we'll help clear it up. And the only fact that we have any control over is number 5. We can change that amount of GHGs we emit. I'm not saying that would be easy, or inexpensive, But the first four facts are observed data and basic physics. The people who face facts are simply being realistic. Nothing in their actions implies that they want the consequences to occur. But those who deny the facts, or who choose wilful ingorance instead of facing the facts - well, those people are acting in a fashion consistent with wanting, or at least not caring whether, the disaster to occur. So - what are you doing to keep sea level rise from occuring? How are you proving you care about those who would be affected by sea level rise? Posting snark and ill-considered opinions, which is all we've seen from you, seems pretty lame. But maybe that's all you're capable of. .
-
Could you help me understand where you got the 1 ppb per year figure. Just looking at the ESRL chart it appears that the arctic is also increasing at about 6 ppb per year - at least for recent years.
-
I wouldn't take too much comfort in the anomaly plot because it is showing global methane values, not arctic. Globally methane is well mixed that makes it harder to notice sudden increases such as the ones this thread is discussing. Here is the ESRL methane plot from the other pole, the South Pole Observatory, for 2009 to the present: Now that is pretty data - the readings track the annual cycle very closely with little variance. Notice that the values have risen from just over 1740 ppb to 1760 ppb during the period shown - I'd call it around 6 ppb/year. In terms of percentage that's not a huge rate of increase, roughly 0.3%/year, but the rate has accelerated in the past decade and that is why it's worrisome to many people.
-
I think that the polar methane plot is overdue for revision, at least for its scale. Here is the ESRL daily average methane chart for Barrow for 2011 and 1/2012: Notice that the readings have not gone below 1850 ppb in the past 13 months, and most of the readings would fit in the 1870+ ppb color in the AIRS polar plot. Current values are around 1920 ppb - still off the scale on the AIRS plot. That makes it hard to see changes in the methane concentration.
-
To paraphrase Coach Bear Bryant - It ain't arrogance if it's true. There is a mountain of data and observations supporting mainstream AGW. If a person can't (or won't) understand the probability and severity of the consequences we are creating by dumping gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere - what does that say about their intelligence?
-
SkepticalScience has started a new series of posts on arctic methane. The first post is: Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background I think it provides good background context for the discussion.
