A Note: Global Warming Threads

[adoucette]

Again: why are ... remaining confident there is no reason for concern?

Studies like this help:

Methane was the most abundant hydrocarbon released during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Beyond relevancy to this anthropogenic event, this methane release simulates a rapid and relatively short-term natural release from hydrates into deep water. Based on methane and oxygen distributions measured at 207 stations throughout the affected region, we find that within ~120 days from the onset of release ~3.0 × 10^10 to 3.9 × 10^10 moles of oxygen were respired, primarily by methanotrophs, and left behind a residual microbial community containing methanotrophic bacteria. We suggest that a vigorous deepwater bacterial bloom respired nearly all the released methane within this time, and that by analogy, large-scale releases of methane from hydrate in the deep ocean are likely to be met by a similarly rapid methanotrophic response.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6015/312.abstract?keytype=ref&siteid=sci&ijkey=0mWSDQdfse43A

Research suggests that as much as 500,000 tons of gas was injected into the ocean in addition to the more than 200 million gallons of crude oil that spilled.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Studies like this help: ... Arthur

Not much for two reasons:
(1) those CH4 eating "bugs" only act on the CH4 that stays dissolved in the sea water, but Arctic shelf sea is already saturated and bubbles of CH4 are now entering the air as more is escaping thru the failing permafrost cap at the sea bottom.
(2) The sea water temperature is about 4 degrees C - much too cold for you CH4 eating bugs to live.

Reason (1) will eventually apply to even the Gulf of Mexico, if the leakage thru the bottom permafrost fails there too.

 

[arfa brane]

So, you could surmise, given all the "what if" scenarios, that the methane problem is still under investigation, which means it's too early to pronounce an outcome.

Then we should neither be relaxed and reassured, nor start to panic (there will be plenty of time for that).

But it's a little optimistic to start making pronouncements about how nature "has it under control"; that doesn't seem to be based on anything more than wishful thinking. The cold hard facts (ahem) in the Arctic are: 1) not enough is known about the dynamics of melting permafrost, 2) there aren't enough satellites in orbit or research teams on the ground, 3) the IPCC bases its estimates on conservative data, and 4) nature appears to be able to exceed estimates, without prior notice.

 

[adoucette]

Not much for two reasons:
(1) those CH4 eating "bugs" only act on the CH4 that stays dissolved in the sea water, but Arctic shelf sea is already saturated and bubbles of CH4 are now entering the air as more is escaping thru the failing permafrost cap at the sea bottom.
(2) The sea water temperature is about 4 degrees C - much too cold for you CH4 eating bugs to live.

Reason (1) will eventually apply to even the Gulf of Mexico, if the leakage thru the bottom permafrost fails there too.

False.

The temp below 3,000 ft in the Gulf is ~4 C, just right for these bugs, and no, the CH4 from those depths mostly stays in the water column.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2007/07013forrest/images/03.htm

Did you and arlfa brane NOT understand the latest reports that I posted?

Latest results from 2008 & 2009:

Measurements of atmospheric CH4 from air samples collected weekly at 46 remote surface sites show that, after a decade of near-zero growth, globally averaged atmospheric methane increased during 2007 and 2008. During 2007, CH4 increased by 8.3 ± 0.6 ppb. CH4 mole fractions averaged over polar northern latitudes and the Southern Hemisphere increased more than other zonally averaged regions. In 2008, globally averaged CH4 increased by 4.4 ± 0.6 ppb; the largest increase was in the tropics, while polar northern latitudes did not increase.

As the data Trippy and I have posted previously shows there is more then enough ground, air and satellite data to monitor CH4 many times a day and do it on a global basis.

As to IPCC being CONSERVATIVE on CH4, again FALSE, their projections were for well more than TWICE the growth rate then we have experienced for the last decade and for every year from now till mid century.

So, no at this point they are quite over-stating the growth of CH4.

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

As to IPCC being CONSERVATIVE on CH4, again FALSE, their projections were for well more than TWICE the growth rate then we have experienced for the last decade and for every year from now till mid century.

So, no at this point they are quite over-stating the growth of CH4.

So the IPCC projections take permafrost melting into account? They've known about the large amounts of methane bubbling up from the bottom since 2006? Or are you saying that because they overestimated the contributions from all other sources there is plenty of slack, or something?

 

[Billy T]

False.
The temp below 3,000 ft in the Gulf is ~4 C, just right for these bugs, and no, the CH4 from those depths mostly stays in the water column.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2007/07013forrest/images/03.htm ...Arthur

I am well aware that the lower levels of the ocean even at the equator are about 4 degrees C, and further more I have explained why that is the densest state of water. It is quicker to briefly tell again why than find any of my old posts (some several years old):

H2O is a permanently polarized molecule with both H+ ion on one side, 105 degrees apart as seen from position of the O-- negative charge center. Until about 4C the thermal energy is able to keep the polymerization in to chains of H2O linked molecules small.

As I cannot type the 105 angle I represent the permanent dipole as: (--O 2H++) Then these weakly bound chains are:
(--O 2H++)(--O 2H++)(--O 2H++)(--O 2H++) etc. But of course, they are twisted, not linear, as shown here.

As the short chains form (and are broken) when cooling down towards 4C the average space between H2O molecules (some of which are now joined) decreases so water grows more dense. But at and below 4C most H2O molecules are now joined to at least another and some of the chains are many units long - sort of like short pieces of well cooked spaghetti. As the average length of these “spaghetti chains” grows, so so does the void volume between them in their “jumbled pile.” Thus as water cools below 4C towards 0C it is expanding again. I.e. 4 C is as dense as water gets, so that is common on the ocean floor unless it is relatively clean of debris so internal heat of the Earth is well conducted into the floor water.
------
Now, let’s see if you can give some reason for your belief that the “bugs” are eating CH4 in 4degree C water, and not only in the higher warm Gulf of Mexico waters. If you can do that then my point (1) may be false, as you claimed. I.e. give a reference to their biological metabolism at 4C.

Note in the Arctic Ocean with floating ice, the top level of water is colder and less dense than 4C, say at 1C just to given an example. Thus NO Where in the water column is it warmer than 4C. It is a simple fact that the CH4 is bubbling up, un-eaten by your bugs as they are too cold.

 

[adoucette]

So the IPCC projections take permafrost melting into account? They've known about the large amounts of methane bubbling up from the bottom since 2006? Or are you saying that because they overestimated the contributions from all other sources there is plenty of slack, or something?

Did you miss the part about the most recent measurements of methane levels: "polar northern latitudes did not increase"

Clearly the amounts of methane being released in the polar regions is NOT unusual.

And yes, the IPCC estimates assumed that humans wouldn't have cut back on their methane releases nearly as fast as they have, so their GCM models were run with higher then actual methane levels.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Now, let’s see if you can give some reason for your belief that the “bugs” are eating CH4 in 4degree C water, and not only in the higher warm Gulf of Mexico waters.

What part of a vigorous deepwater bacterial bloom respired nearly all the released methane did you not understand?

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

... Arthur

Your quote from your reference includes:
"… During 2007, CH4 increased by 8.3 ± 0.6 ppb. CH4 mole fractions averaged over polar northern latitudes and the Southern Hemisphere increased more than other zonally averaged regions. In 2008, globally averaged CH4 increased by 4.4 ± 0.6 ppb; the largest increase was in the tropics, while polar northern latitudes did not increase."

Where you have made last part bold, as if to discredit the idea that CH4 increase is coming from the arctic CH4 bubbling up. This only reflects you poor understanding of global air flow patterns, so I will teach you some, but to keep it simple, will first consider a non-spinning Earth:

Near the equator, at the surface the air is warmed and rises, but it cannot leave a vacuum behind so colder SURFACE AIR FORM REGIONS CLOSER TO THE POLES FLOWS TOWARDS THE EQUATOR.

The warmed air that rose adiabatically cools and flows towards the poles AT HIGH ALTITUDE. During it high altitude trip it is exposed more to harsh UV which can both brake the H to C bonds in CH4 and also of H2O, forming the OH radical, which chemically reacts with the CH4 + OH ----> CH3 +H2O. Thus by the time the air gets to the poles, its methane content has been reduced. It must (and does) sink down towards the surface (to fill the void of the surface air heading towards the equator). That is why there is not much CH4 increase in the arctic air, except just at the surface over the bubbling up CH4.

Now let’s turn on the Earth's spin, going towards the east:

Consider a big chunk of air over Oslo. It is moving east with the Earth's spin as well as moving towards the equator to help balance out the greater heating at the equator than at the poles. That "Oslo air" makes one 360 degree trip in 24 hours., but as the distance around the Earth at Oslo's latitude is only about half that at the Equator it is not going, with tangential speed of 1000mph as that of the equator air is to make no wind with the 1000mph surface speed of the equator. Thus as it moves south, as seen from the surface of the earth it is going too slowly to the east to keep up with the ground below it. This is why the surface "Trade winds" blow from the east to the west in the tropics, which Columbus knew of, exist. Why the hurricanes form near North African and then are carried to the west. Likewise why, especially at high altitude at NYC latitude or further north, the wind comes out of the west towards the East. At very high altitude and latitudes, they are called the "jet stream." Even at the surface the friction drag of the higher altitude air makes it common for NYC's winds to come from the west, etc.

But I don't need to teach about these Corriolis effects to make my main point:

SURFACE ARCTIC AIR HEADS FOR THE EQUATOR AND IS REPLACED BY TROPICAL AIR THAT HAS MADE A HIGH ALTITUDE TRIP WITH UV AND OH RADICAL REMOVING MUCH OF ITS CH4 BEFORE IT SINKS DOWN TO THE LOW ALTITUDES NEAR THE POLE.

If you understood this you would realize your quoted "no increase in CH4 in arctic, but in the tropics" is completely consistent with the a main source of CH4 being the arctic CH4, bubbling up. I.e. does not cast any doubt on this fact.

However, I agree that arctic CH4 is still a small release compared to release, both man-made and natural, in more temperate zones. The thing scary about the arctic release is that it seems to be in a positive feedback system now and there is at least 100 years of the temperate zone release that could come up in a decade.

 

[Billy T]

What part of a vigorous deepwater bacterial bloom respired nearly all the released methane did you not understand?
Arthur

I did not see that in any of your links - where did that come from? And at what temperature did the bugs eat the CH4? I don't believe they can in arctic waters which are NO WHERE in the water column are warmer than 4C for reasons I explained about temperature effect on water density.

 

[adoucette]

I did not see that in any of your links - where did that come from?

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2690861&postcount=501

We suggest that a vigorous deepwater bacterial bloom respired nearly all the released methane within this time, and that by analogy, large-scale releases of methane from hydrate in the deep ocean are likely to be met by a similarly rapid methanotrophic response

.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

If you understood this you would realize your quoted "no increase in CH4 in arctic, but in the tropics" is completely consistent with the a main source of CH4 being the arctic CH4, bubbling up. I.e. does not cast any doubt on this fact.

Not at all Billy,

Measurements of atmospheric CH4 from air samples collected weekly at 46 remote surface sites show

So since they sample by flask at the surface and CH4 is heavier than air so takes a long time to mix, and so if the increases were coming from the bubbling up methane and permafrost being released at surface level then you would indeed see it in the surface samples.

You don't.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2690861&postcount=501 Arthur

There is no indication there that the bugs destroying the CH4 were doing that at 4C or colder as all the arctic ocean water column is.

I am not questioning that bugs ate CH4 (and other releases from BP's failed well in the Gulf of Mexico); however, I still don't believe they can in 4C or colder water and that claim of yours is what I am asking you to support.

 

[Billy T]

... So since they sample by flask at the surface and CH4 is heavier than air* so takes a long time to mix, and so if the increases were coming from the bubbling up methane and permafrost being released at surface level then you would indeed see it in the surface samples. You don't.
Arthur

Even with no wind, only diffussion and vertical convection currents due to surface heating in sunlight the CH4 would be well mixed in less than a day, but of course there are strong winds in the Arctic almost all the time.

Thus to know what dilution of the escaping CH4 there is, you need to know the volume per unit time of both: (1) The CH4 flux bubbling up and (2)The once tropical air now sinking down in the Arctic, after it high altitude trip from the tropics during which most of the CH4 in it was destroyed by UV and OH radical exposure. (Both in the same cross section area air column, say a square mile)

If (2) is 10 times larger than (1) a very conservative guess, I think as the high altitude winds are often with speed of 100 mph, then there would be a 10 fold reduction in the CH4 concentration in the "surface samples" collected. Just telling CH4 is low is low in the samples does not prove anything until this dilution effect is measured too.

*Not by much. On atomic mass scale C = 12, O = 8 & N = 7 thus CH4 = O2 = 16 and N2 = 14. If what you were telling about slow mixing were true, we would all be dead, trying to breath in the argon surface layer (A = 18, the same two atomic numbers heaver that CH4 has only compared to N2, not the O2. I am too lazy to look it up, but bet there is at least 10,000 times more A in the air than CH4.)!

 

[Thinkaboutit]

Sorry seen your post on global warming wanted to ask. Was not the earth a molten mass at one time? I figure in it's inception the earth's surface tempature was so high nothing could live on it. So if the earth has cooled enough to allow animals to live on it's surface that mean it is naturally desperately cooling no? If it's cooling (expelling lava) don't we have to one day worry about it completely cooling and freezing completely? Earth is using energy but has no source for new. So shouldn't we be worrying more about global cooling than global warming. On that note. Laws of nature say "for EVERY action there is opposite and equal reaction". So if there was a natural ice age what is the equal and opposite reaction? A warming period?

 

[occidental]

Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels, figures show
Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane

The change in the Arctic is enough to explain a recent increase in global methane levels in the atmosphere, he said. Global levels have risen steadily since 2007, after a decade or so holding steady.

The new study, published in the journal Science, shows that methane emissions from the Arctic increased by 31% from 2003-07. The increase represents about 1m extra tonnes of methane each year. Palmer cautioned that the five-year increase was too short to call a definitive trend.

The findings are part of a wider study of methane emissions from global wetlands, such as paddy fields, marshes and bogs. To identify where methane was released, the researchers combined methane levels in the atmosphere with surface temperature changes. They did not measure methane emissions directly, but used satellite measurements of variations in groundwater depth, which alter the way bacteria break down organic matter to release or consume methane.

They found that just over half of all methane emissions came from the tropics, with some 20m tonnes released from the Amazon river basin each year, and 26m tonnes from the Congo basin. Rice paddy fields across China and south and south-east Asia produced just under one-third of global methane, some 33m tonnes. Just 2% of global methane comes from Arctic latitudes, the study found, though the region showed the largest increases. The 31% rise in methane emissions there from 2003-07 was enough to help lift the global average increase to 7%.

And heres the original article from the journal Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5963/322.abstract

Wetlands are the largest individual source of methane (CH4), but the magnitude and distribution of this source are poorly understood on continental scales. We isolated the wetland and rice paddy contributions to spaceborne CH4 measurements over 2003–2005 using satellite observations of gravity anomalies, a proxy for water-table depth Γ, and surface temperature analyses TS. We find that tropical and higher-latitude CH4 variations are largely described by Γ and TS variations, respectively. Our work suggests that tropical wetlands contribute 52 to 58% of global emissions, with the remainder coming from the extra-tropics, 2% of which is from Arctic latitudes. We estimate a 7% rise in wetland CH4 emissions over 2003–2007, due to warming of mid-latitude and Arctic wetland regions, which we find is consistent with recent changes in atmospheric CH4.

Hmmm, who to believe...

 

[adoucette]

Even with no wind, only diffussion and vertical convection currents due to surface heating in sunlight the CH4 would be well mixed in less than a day, but of course there are strong winds in the Arctic almost all the time.

Thus to know what dilution of the escaping CH4 there is, you need to know the volume per unit time of both: (1) The CH4 flux bubbling up and (2)The once tropical air now sinking down in the Arctic, after it high altitude trip from the tropics during which most of the CH4 in it was destroyed by UV and OH radical exposure. (Both in the same cross section area air column, say a square mile)

If (2) is 10 times larger than (1) a very conservative guess, I think as the high altitude winds are often with speed of 100 mph, then there would be a 10 fold reduction in the CH4 concentration in the "surface samples" collected. Just telling CH4 is low is low in the samples does not prove anything until this dilution effect is measured too.

Once again Billy, you are not a Climate Scientist, as has been shown, you thought the entire effect of CH4 wasn't worth including, so clearly you don't have any special knowledge about CH4 in the climate system, but NOW you are trying to act like you are an expert and trying to show that the actual climate scientists who study CH4 levels don't know as much as you do.

Sorry Billy, but I'll take their words over yours every day of the week.

So when they say:

globally averaged CH4 increased by 4.4 ± 0.6 ppb; the largest increase was in the tropics, while polar northern latitudes did not increase."

I'll presume they actually know more than you do on how to measure CH4 by latitude.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Once again Billy, you are not a Climate Scientist, as has been shown, you thought the entire effect of CH4 wasn't worth including, so clearly you don't have any special knowledge about CH4 in the climate system, but NOW you are trying to act like you are an expert and trying to show that the actual climate scientists who study CH4 levels don't know as much as you do.

Sorry Billy, but I'll take their words over yours every day of the week.

So when they say:

I'll presume they actually know more than you do on how to measure CH4 by latitude.

Arthur

I see you have returned to your former ways - attack me when you can not back up your claim that bugs eat CH4 at temperatures below 4C or that measurements of arctic surface CH4 concentrations MUST be understood as after the dilution effect of a huge mass of falling, formerly tropical air that had it CH4 greatly reduced by UV and OH radical during its high altitude trip from the tropics to the pole. etc.

Is in not time to again misrepresent me as predicting a black hole is coming too?

Why not just admit you can not back up you "bugs eat CH4 at < 4C " claim or have no logical reply to the dilution of the measured CH4 concentration?

 

[adoucette]

I presented SCIENTIFIC evidence for BOTH claims Billy.
You just think you are smarter than the people who study this.

As to the decreased CH4 in the upper atmosphere, AGAIN you are so wrong:

AIRS 2006-2009 annual mean upper troposphere(359Hpa) methane concentration(ppm). Data source:http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Hmmm, who to believe...

Your own source perhaps?

Our work suggests that tropical wetlands contribute 52 to 58% of global emissions, with the remainder coming from the extra-tropics, 2% of which is from Arctic latitudes.

Arthur