A Note: Global Warming Threads

[Billy T]

Let’s see what adoucette has to say about this video on YouTube?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa3M4ou3kvw&feature=related

Or this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YegdEOSQotE&NR=1 which has the following text:
“University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Katey Walter Anthony takes us onto a frozen lake in Fairbanks, AK to demonstrate why methane gas has "exploded" onto the climate change scene.” She estimates that the release could make a 10 fold increase in the methane in the atmosphere. - One reason why concern about methane has "exploded onto the climate change scene.”

Billy T notes that no one knows if that would deplete the OH radical in the lower atmosphere, which is the first step in the destruction of CH4. I.e. CH4 + OH --> CH3 + H2O Then ultimately with three more interaction with OH --> CO2 + 4H20 in the end. I think each CH4 removes four OH radicals, which can only be regenerated slowly very high in the atmosphere by UV splitting H2O and many may recombine to form H2O again before diffusion can deliver then down to where they are needed to destroy the CH4 bubbling up from arctic sources, but I have forgotten the details of these chemical processes. Also in time, the ocean warming associated with much higher CH4 atmospheric concentrations will begin to destabilize methane hydrates in, for example, near Mississippi delta ocean waters.

Or this one, from BBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVpQnpWS2wU&feature=related which has the following text:
"In an explosive clip from the BBC's landmark series, scientists drill into a frozen lake to ignite methane gas that is trapped in bubbles beneath the surface."

These last two discuss the problem for most of their presentation and only set fire to the escaping CH4 at the end of the video. The BBC's introductory voice calls Methane “a potential planetary disaster.”

That resembles NSF’s calling the recent great increase in arctic methane release: “the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle.”

Thus far, adoucette has been more interested in stating that the sources are lying about it being methane shown disturbing the waters in videos. Or calling people who suggest this could be a serious NEW climatic problem “fools.” After all he can cite 20 to 40 year of data that shows little CH4 in the atmosphere or that in water with oxygen there are bacteria the eat CH4 as if that were important process that removes CH4 from the atmosphere.

Unlike the prior YouTube links given, these videos terminate with in methane flames, which is hard to dismiss as water currents or steam coming up below the water. Adoucette relies on the IPCC studies and falsely claims they include the positive feedback of tundra and arctic near shore CH4 release, but NSF states this new data on surprisingly greater magnitude* of the CH4 release and positive feedback is NOT included in any prior studies.
-----------
* More than 50 billion tons of methane could be unleashed from Siberian lakes alone, more than 10 times the amount now in the atmosphere.…” {Note the original text is red. That is not a "Billy T addition" to scare} From post 369 with link to original text there.

I have been trying without much success for several years to get people to pull their head out of the sand (or some other more smelly spot) but now that NSF is also concerned, perhaps it will be more difficult to dismiss me as a "pessimistic fool."

 

[adoucette]

All Katey was showing, as she dug through VERY THIN ICE, is that this release of Methane is what has been happening forever. That very thin ice was not going to last through the spring, hence all we are seeing is just the build up of methane over the course of the winter which is normally released in the spring.

We of course already see this cycle of spring/summer time release in the annual charts of Methane concentration:

And YES, that cycle you see is from the current seasonal variations in the Northern Hemisphere (where most of our global methane comes from, note these are Mercator projections and thus this GREATLY distorts the size of the areas in high latitudes, making them appear FAR larger than they are)

Now this last set of pictures is instructive when you compare it to the SCARY line Billy already posted:

The amount of methane emitted by that one patch of seabed roughly equals the amount scientists believed was released by all of the world's oceans.

Because as it shows, the oceans are NOT currently a big source of our global Methane. Which is why if you find a large release of methane from the sea bed then it might equal all the other oceans but if that is a small amount then clearly it simply doesn't matter. But it SOUNDS SCARY to those who PRESUME when you make that statement that the oceans are a major source of methane release. They aren't.


And from the Arctic which has been warming for some time now:

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

All Katey was showing, as she dug through VERY THIN ICE, is that this release of Methane is what has been happening forever. That very thin ice was not going to last through the spring, hence all we are seeing is just the build up of methane over the course of the winter which is normally released in the spring. ... Arthur

Agreed that is an annual reocuring event (for thousands of years, probably); but that is not the positive feed back system NSF is concerned about due to more rapid than ever before global warming. A NEW, rate-based, effect they called: “The most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle.”

What you still do not seem to understand, even though I have been stating it for a few years, is that it is the unprecedented RATE of CO2 release, which is causing an unprecedented RATE of methane ice decomposition which may very well remove (not claiming it will, or that it will not - I think no one knows) the OH radical from the lower atmosphere where it is needed to destroy the CH4 being release (Perhaps 50 billion tons from first time melting of Siberian lakes alone.)

I have several times stated that I would not be much concerned by a doubling of atmospheric CO2, if it were to happen slowly as it has in the past. There is no serious problem if the methane hydrates all are destroyed, if it is done slowly as it has been in the past after ice ages end. What is new is that many processes have been greatly accelerated by the release of CO2 by burning fossil fuels:

That has greatly accelerated the RATE of Arctic Ocean warming. That has greatly accelerated the RATE of near shore (shallow water)* methane ice decomposition. That is greatly accelerating the RATE of OH radical removal from the lower atmosphere.

Can you offer any reason to believe that 50 billion tons of CH4 released into the air in a few decades will not entirely deplete the lower levels OH and effectively stop the destruction of the CH4 being released? It is unprecedented RATE of these processes that may be able to cause Earth to switch to its hot stable state as Venus did, long ago (for other reasons - there were not men burning fossil fuels there to cause the switch.)
----------------
* Not only do both measurements and IPCC models show the most rapid global warming is in the Arctic region, but also there is now in operation the albedo change positive feedback system. I.e. the floating ice reflected about 95% of incident solar heating and much of the 5% that was absorbed, did not heat the waters below as ice is a poor thermal conductor. (It was carried away by the winds when air temperature was above 0 C.) Now as that near shore ice melts at least 80% of the solar flux is heating the water; further accelerating the global heating release of methane from the ocean floor hydrates below.

SUMMARY: I agree that the seasonally reoccurring cycles are not a problem. It is the NEW positive feedback systems that are the concern (to me for years, and now the NSF) and that 50 billion tons of no longer safely stored methane. = Potentially a ten fold increase in the atmospheric CH4.

 

[adoucette]

Again Billy it doesn't work that way.

Let me rephrase the question for you:

Can you offer any reason to believe that 50 billion tons of CH4 will be released into the air in a few decades and if so can you show that it will entirely deplete the lower levels OH and effectively stop the destruction of the CH4 being released?

The person with the EXTRODINARY CLAIM has the burden of PROOF.

It is not my job to show that every wild claim you make is wrong when you don't show up with any facts to support it.

Some facts you MIGHT want to consider though.

The global CH4 emissions from humans is considered to be about 350 Gigatons per year already so an additional 50 Gigatons over several decades would be quite a bit less than a 1% increase per year and thus is unlikely to have ANY impact at all on either OH levels or atmospheric Methane levels.

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/part_CH4.php


Arthur

 

[Billy T]

... Some facts you MIGHT want to consider though.
The global CH4 emissions from humans is considered to be about 350 Gigatons per year already so an additional 50 Gigatons over several decades would be quite a bit less than a 1% increase per year and thus is unlikely to have ANY impact at all on either OH levels or atmospheric Methane levels.

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/part_CH4.php Arthur

Your link states: “Global methane (CH4) emissions show an increase from ~260 Tg CH4 in 1970 to ~350 Tg in 2005”
“T” is for Tera or E12 and “g” is for grams and billion is E9. I also think that there are 1016E3 grams in a ton. (I had to look that up at wiki.answers.com) but let’s call it E6 grams/ton.

Thus 50 billion tons of CH4 is 5E10xE6grams = 5E16 grams of CH4 which compared to your link’s 350E12 grams of CH4 released in 2005 or 3.5E14grams is more than 100 times larger. There is a big difference between your “Siberian lake release is less than 1% of that is already being released” and my conclusion that it is more than 100 times larger.

Did I make a mistake? Or was it your mistake?

 

[adoucette]

No my mistake, but even so you are just making up numbers on the CH4 release.

So AGAIN:

Can you offer any scientific reason to believe that 50 billion tons of CH4 will be released into the air in a few decades and if so can you show that it will entirely deplete the lower levels OH and effectively stop the destruction of the CH4 being released?

Be SPECIFIC about the rate of heating of the oceans below 300 meters and rate of warming of Siberian lakes below that depth as well (hydrates don't form above that depth), hence they can't BUILD UP, as in those SHALLOW lakes the video showed before where that is simply the annual production of CH4 trapped under the ice, no 50 GT store.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Again Billy it doesn't work that way. ... The person with the EXTRODINARY CLAIM has the burden of PROOF.
It is not my job to show that every wild claim you make is wrong when you don't show up with any facts to support it ... Arthur

First it is not my claim but that of the NSF researchers, published in Science, and I already gave it in post 369 as Follows:

“… Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming according to the National Science Foundation. Methane release from the not-so-perma-frost is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle. Research published in the journal Science finds a key “lid” on “the large sub-sea permafrostcarbon reservoir” near Eastern Siberia “is clearly perforated, and sedimentary CH4 [methane] is escaping to the atmosphere.”

"Scientists learned last year that the permamelt contains a staggering 1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon, about twice as much carbon as contained in the atmosphere, much of which would be released as methane.* Methane is 25 times as potent a heat-trapping gas as CO2 over a 100 year time horizon, but 72 times as potent over 20 years. The carbon is locked in a freezer in the part of the planet warming up the fastest. Half the land-based permafrost would vanish by mid-century on our current emissions path. ...

If I made the calculation mistake in las post, I don’t want to repeat it here by showing how 1.5 Trillion tons compares to the annual release – I’ll wait to see if you will or who you think made the calculation error.

I note that my “few decades” is not much different than the bold text above and I was speaking only of the release from Siberian Lakes, which warm much more quickly than the Arctic Ocean’s “methane stored in the {continental} shelf”

 

[Billy T]

No my mistake, but even so you are just making up numbers on the CH4 release. ... Arthur

No I am QUOTING NSF's numbers. See condensed version in post 407 or full quote in post 369.

 

[adoucette]

No I am QUOTING NSF's numbers. See condensed version in post 407 or full quote in post 369.

Yes and a little investigation shows that this is ONCE AGAIN a SCARE story.

The SCIENCE is this:

Remobilization to the atmosphere of only a small fraction of the methane held in East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming, yet it is believed that sub-sea permafrost acts as a lid to keep this shallow methane reservoir in place. Here, we show that more than 5000 at-sea observations of dissolved methane demonstrates that greater than 80% of ESAS bottom waters and greater than 50% of surface waters are supersaturated with methane regarding to the atmosphere. The current atmospheric venting flux, which is composed of a diffusive component and a gradual ebullition component, is on par with previous estimates of methane venting from the entire World Ocean. Leakage of methane through shallow ESAS waters needs to be considered in interactions between the biogeosphere and a warming Arctic climate.

Yet look at the SCARY quote:

Half the land-based permafrost would vanish by mid-century on our current emissions path. ...

But you missed the SWITCH.

LAND BASED permafrost DOES NOT sequester Methane Hydrates which don't exist at PRESSURES found on land.

Hydrates have to be at 300 meters below sea level or lower.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

... LAND BASED permafrost DOES NOT sequester Methane Hydrates which don't exist at PRESSURES found on land. Hydrates have to be at 300 meters below sea level or lower. Arthur

Not that it makes much difference, but you seem to be correct that methane hydrates are stored only below about 300 meters deep in the ocean. The on land storage of methane, while in the billions of tons (Perhaps 70 billion tons in just one sub-Arctic Siberian peat bog that has been forming for 1100 years) is trapped below the permfrost. This huge store has just started (less than four years ago) to release CH4 and at current rates, which in fact are accelerating as the dark peat soil replaces ice reflections, that are expected to be half gone in a few decades:

“… A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today. Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined – has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. …

The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times* more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.
Climate scientists yesterday reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards. … "

This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing." Siberia's peat bogs have been producing methane since they formed at the end of the last ice age, but most of the gas had been trapped in the permafrost. According to Larry Smith, a hydrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, the west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world.

In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions. "These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren't known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming," said Dr Viner.

Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws. It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures.

"If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide," ..."

From:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1 But you probably think this is all just another "scare story" designed to sell the Guardian's newspapers - right? :shrug:

That last paragraph is still far short of my suggestion of some years ago, that the Earth could switch to its hot stable state with a high pressure steam atmosphere at the surface, but does it really make much difference if instead there is "only" an uncontrolled global disaster / devastation?
-----------------
* "20 times" I think is on a molecule to molecule basis and "25 times" more often quoted is by weight.

PS Again, for what must be the tenth time, let me say I am not predicting the Earth will switch to its hot stable state, - In fact I think it unlikely, but I do not know of any physical reason why it could not, and that is scary. Man has a long history of not fully understanding what will follow from his actions. I have also speculated that "intelligent" life forms with man's capabilities are not stable for much more than 10,000 years.

 

[adoucette]

Relax

Just more SCARE stories.

Because actually the melting ONLY occurs for about 2 to 3 months of the year, so it takes a long time for the warming to progress even one foot lower in the peat bog than it did the years before, so any release of CH4 will be GRADUAL and the small additonal amount of CH4 that is released in this short period of time will be taken care of by natural forces before the next melt season.

Example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT004630

the frost-free period only exceeds six months in the North Caucasus and varies with latitude from five to three months in the European section and from three months to less than two in Siberia. The average yearly temperature of nearly all of European Russia is below freezing, and the average for most of Siberia is freezing or below.

http://www.travelsignposts.com/Russia/russia-weather.php

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Relax Just more SCARE stories. ...Arthur

Thank you, for reassuring me. I guess the scientist probably just made up these comments given in the same article:

“… Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years … The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across. …”

I bet they are all (several dozen of them) are getting “kickbacks” from the Guardian for fabricating these lies about rapid climate change in this region and it being the first time ever that the permafrost has melted in 1100 years, the lakes of mud forming, etc. "tipping points" ha, LOL everyone knows the Earth can't tip!

Nice to know you know the true facts.

 

[adoucette]

You're welcome Billy.

You know I wonder if you visited Siberia today, do you think you would find it a broken landscape of mud and lakes, or at MINUS 53 F, frozen solid?

http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/24959.html
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/21908.html
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=Zyryanka,+Russia

The problem with your "it's 3C warmer" is that MOST of that warming is in the WINTER and so it really doesn't matter too much if it is -53 or -48F, it's STILL frozen rock solid during most of the year.

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

Because actually the melting ONLY occurs for about 2 to 3 months of the year, so it takes a long time for the warming to progress even one foot lower in the peat bog than it did the years before, so any release of CH4 will be GRADUAL and the small additonal amount of CH4 that is released in this short period of time will be taken care of by natural forces before the next melt season.

That may well be true today, but the "100-year forecast" is for longer and warmer summers in the Arctic region. You seem to be saying that the permafrost is going to stay frozen because TODAY, the summers aren't warm enough, or last long enough, to cause significant methane release.

"The next melt season" is apparently guaranteed to be the same temperature and duration as the last, but you haven't got any evidence for this, all you have is "confidence".
Confidence in what, exactly, a travel guide?

The problem with your "it's 3C warmer" is that MOST of that warming is in the WINTER and so it really doesn't matter too much if it is -53 or -48F, it's STILL frozen rock solid during most of the year.

How much doesn't it matter too much?

 

[iceaura]

And YES, CH4 has increased ONE PART PER MILLION over 22 years.

So, NO, the sky is not falling (at least because of atmospheric CH4).

LOL

Why do these people keep emphasizing the tiny absolute values, and ignoring the percentage increases?

Could it be that these guys actually believe that because the fractions are tiny, increases in them are insignificant? That tiny means unimportant? Or are they just trying to deceive other people?

The Age Old Question when dealing with this crowd - - -

The problem with your "it's 3C warmer" is that MOST of that warming is in the WINTER and so it really doesn't matter too much if it is -53 or -48F, it's STILL frozen rock solid during most of the year.

If you ignore the importance of average winter and average nighttime temperatures on the creation and maintenance of frozen stuff in marginal areas, the meaning of "average", and the fact that seasons come and go, you can say any damn fool thing you want to about permafrost, I suppose.

 

[arfa brane]

It's probably a more comforting and easier thing to do, believe in "natural" processes and conservative estimates, rather than the civilised world having to bend over and kiss its ass goodbye in about a century, if the permafrost melts.

But a century is a long time, which sounds reassuring.

 

[adoucette]

That may well be true today, but the "100-year forecast" is for longer and warmer summers in the Arctic region. You seem to be saying that the permafrost is going to stay frozen because TODAY, the summers aren't warm enough, or last long enough, to cause significant methane release.

No, I'm saying based on the IPCC projections it is not going to get THAT much warmer or longer in Siberia.

Look at the graph

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT004630

Jan, Feb, March, April, Oct, Nov and Dec are NOT going to warm sufficiently to get to the point where their average Maximum gets above freezing, let alone their minimum.

"The next melt season" is apparently guaranteed to be the same temperature and duration as the last, but you haven't got any evidence for this, all you have is "confidence".
Confidence in what, exactly, a travel guide?

How much doesn't it matter too much?

Not the same, slightly longer, but the FACT is for about 7 to 8 months of the year the place will be frozen rock solid, just like it is today.

Global warming is NOT going to make winters disappear.

GHGs slow the radiation leaving the planet a small amount, but in the Winter in the high latitudes you don't have much radiation to work with to start with.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Why do these people keep emphasizing the tiny absolute values, and ignoring the percentage increases?

Could it be that these guys actually believe that because the fractions are tiny, increases in them are insignificant? That tiny means unimportant? Or are they just trying to deceive other people?

No, I do it that way because I'm trying to be SCIENTIFIC about it.

If instead of 1 ppm over 20 years I said it went up ~4% over 20 years you could NOT use that data to figure out what the increase in Forcing from the additional CH4 was.

BUT

By stating the amount of increase in PPM you can easily determine the increase in the forcing of CH4 on the atmosphere.

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

By stating the amount of increase in PPM you can easily determine the increase in the forcing of CH4 on the atmosphere.

You aren't doing that, however.

So why are you stating it, and attempting to conclude that everything is OK because it is so small? Trying to fool people into thinking these fractions of atmosphere are too small to matter much?

Jan, Feb, March, April, Oct, Nov and Dec are NOT going to warm sufficiently to get to the point where their average Maximum gets above freezing, let alone their minimum

So? Lots of places have winter, with temps below freezing much of the time, without permafrost or sequestered methane.

 

[nietzschefan]

Burn the methane - clean.

It's gonna happen Billy, we can't stop it now.