Climate-gate

[Trippy]

I was not trying to contradict you. Just extending your discussion about world's largest sink for CO2 - the oceans.

A comment that was referring to the gas dynamic, not the organic cycles.

Yes most focus only the well understood physical gas dynamic at the air ocean interface, but that is not the only factor that is important. Fact that biological up take of CO2 is limited by other trace elements is important too as when they die they take carbon to the bottom of the ocean.

Of which Iron has been found to be the most important, hence the German plan to seed the ocean with it at one stage.

Thus if that process is slowed, then the CO2 in the top layers increases more rapidly and as it does so the return of CO2 to the air rate increases too. In the case of acidification, which has already killed at least 30% of pre-industrial coral, their "death carbon" does not go into the deep ocean. In fact a good part stays where it is in the bleached white dead coral, at least for many years.

Where their bleached white skeletons, composed mostly of calcium carbonate, and above the carbonate compensation depth, remain in the oceans contributing to the oceans ability as a carbon dioxide sink.

 

[Trippy]

I agree with all this, but was referring mainly to the current deep ocean currents that are driven by the dense gulf steam water cooling and sinking - The Thermal-Haline piston I called it (as other have). Below you will find clear statement, in bold, that this transport of well oxygenated surface water to the deep ocean will be at least slowed, if not stopped.

I'm well aware of what you were referring to, thankyou, my statements still stand.

The gulf stream is largely driven by the wind and both are bent eastward by the Corollas force, while flow is northbound. That wind may be changed in intensity by global warming (how I don't know, but think it will become weaker on average). There is evidence that the Gulf Stream flow / volume has already decreased ~20%, but it will not stop as winds will continue to blow it ALONG THE SURFACE - Again, I spoke specifically of the Thermal-Haline flow along the bottom - that could completely stop. - No one knows if it will or not, but a drastic reduction is to be expected.

Again, I'm well aware of what you were referring to, my statements still stand, and that last sentence of yours "No one knows if it will or not, but a drastic reduction is to be expected", specifically the first clause, was precisely the point I was making. You were speaking as if these things were certainty or near certainty, they are not, and even if they do occur there are other possible outcomes besides the one you seem to favour.

* It is very simple physic: Oxygen, enters surface waters from the air. If they don't fall down the bottom becomes anaerobic as many processes consume oxygen that was down there.

The bottom of the ocean beoming anerobic does not neccessarily follow from a reduction in the flow of oxygen from the surface.

 

[Billy T]

... Of which Iron has been found to be the most important, hence the German plan to seed the ocean with it at one stage. ...

Yes I remember reading some details about it 15 or more years ago - mainly showing that plan would be economical with the increase of the fish catch it would produce.

... Where their bleached white skeletons, composed mostly of calcium carbonate, and above the carbonate compensation depth, remain in the oceans contributing to the oceans ability as a carbon dioxide sink.

Yes - why I said it would be there for many years, but nothing last forever. - Some sea animals chew on coral - their stomach acid may release the carbon. Storms break it up and redistribute it to various depths.

See seven photos pairs taken years apart that show how dry US's SW has become here: http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/08/25/california-drought-7-gifs

 

[iceaura]

Well, no one can give any good reasons why a gamma-ray burst capable of sterilizing most of the Earth won't arrive tomorrow. Perhaps that means there aren't any good reasons that it won't happen. And perhaps that also means that there is some urgency in calculating the exact probability, but any such calculation is going to be little more than an educated guess.

1) I have seen the guess made, with educated argument and evidence - the probability calculated, from evidence and argument, and its vanishingly small nature estimated by reasonable and educated people not presenting me with obviously unsound logic or overlooked circumstances.

And that in a matter without direct import - regardless of the number, nothing can be done and humans have no recourse or influence on it. This makes the absence of such a calculation or estimate for the threat of a methane burst heat boost even more puzzling - because that estimate would, if large enough, have meaning for recommended human behavior, right now.

From what I've seen we have, on the one hand Billy T arguing for the possibility of the extinction of human civilization within a generation or two, and on the other hand billvon seems to be saying not much more than "While anthropogenic climate change is bad, that particular outcome seems unlikely."

And apparently the content of my posts is invisible to you. Or you don't have three hands, so you have no place to put it.

That's fine - I was simply making the point that there are two explanations other than the one that you seem to prefer.

I don't have a "preferred" explanation, and all those you posted agree with everything I've said on the topic. My observation remains unchanged regardless, nothing I have posted depends on any particular reason for the absence of evidence and sound argument supporting the reassurances.

They are empty. And that is worrisome. Because without sound evidence or argument, they are more likely to be wrong. And presented as they are without sound evidence or argument, they imply that their presenters don't understand the situation - and they're (often) the experts.

 

[billvon]

This makes the absence of such a calculation or estimate for the threat of a methane burst heat boost even more puzzling - because that estimate would, if large enough, have meaning for recommended human behavior, right now.

It sounds like we are talking about two different things. One is a methane "burp" - a sudden release of a lot of methane that causes some increased retention, potentially accelerating warming. This is close to certainty, since such burps have already been observed, and have led to transient and local increases in methane concentrations. Indeed, such effects are included in the error bars of the various IPCC prediction scenarios, and if you were to seek reassurance, you might find it there within their scenarios.

The other is the runaway greenhouse effect that BillyT was talking about, one that could kill all humans by 2020, lead to a permanent steam-atmosphere "Venus hell" etc. That is what I was referring to as extremely unlikely. If you'd like some citations:
===================================
WATER VAPOR FEEDBACK AND GLOBAL WARMING
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment

Vol. 25: 441-475 (Volume publication date November 2000)

Isaac M. Held and Brian J. Soden
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Princeton, New Jersey 08542

ABSTRACT

Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere. As the concentrations of other greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, increase because of human activity, it is centrally important to predict how the water vapor distribution will be affected. To the extent that water vapor concentrations increase in a warmer world, the climatic effects of the other greenhouse gases will be amplified. Models of the Earth's climate indicate that this is an important positive feedback that increases the sensitivity of surface temperatures to carbon dioxide by nearly a factor of two when considered in isolation from other feedbacks, and possibly by as much as a factor of three or more when interactions with other feedbacks are considered. Critics of this consensus have attempted to provide reasons why modeling results are overestimating the strength of this feedback.
. . .
On this basis, one might expect runaway conditions to develop eventually if the climate warms sufficiently. Although it is difficult to be quantitative, primarily because of uncertainties in cloud prediction, it is clear that this point is only achieved for temperatures that are far warmer than any relevant for the global warming debate.
====================
Cornell University Library

The Runaway Greenhouse: implications for future climate change, geoengineering and planetary atmospheres
Colin Goldblatt, Andrew J. Watson
(Submitted on 8 Jan 2012)

The ultimate climate emergency is a "runaway greenhouse": a hot and water vapour rich atmosphere limits the emission of thermal radiation to space, causing runaway warming. Warming ceases only once the surface reaches ~1400K and emits radiation in the near-infrared, where water is not a good greenhouse gas. This would evaporate the entire ocean and exterminate all planetary life. Venus experienced a runaway greenhouse in the past, and we expect that Earth will in around 2 billion years as solar luminosity increases. But could we bring on such a catastrophe prematurely, by our current climate-altering activities? Here we review what is known about the runaway greenhouse to answer this question, describing the various limits on outgoing radiation and how climate will evolve between these. The good news is that almost all lines of evidence lead us to believe that is unlikely to be possible, even in principle, to trigger full a runaway greenhouse by addition of non-condensible greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
=========================

 

[iceaura]

One is a methane "burp" - a sudden release of a lot of methane that causes some increased retention, potentially accelerating warming. This is close to certainty, since such burps have already been observed, and have led to transient and local increases in methane concentrations. Indeed, such effects are included in the error bars of the various IPCC prediction scenarios, and if you were to seek reassurance, you might find it there within their scenarios.

The other is the runaway greenhouse effect that BillyT was talking about,

Neither of those. I am talking about a sudden feedback accelerated release of large amounts of methane on far more than a local scale, causing a quick increase in atmospheric temps sufficient to render some of the densely populated areas of the planet occasionally (and therefore essentially) uninhabitable during heat waves. This, I submit, would be catastrophic. This possibility accepts the asymptotic approach of a maximum upper temperature far below the runaway greenhouse, as apparently indicated by various articles linked here.

 

[billvon]

Neither of those. I am talking about a sudden feedback accelerated release of large amounts of methane on far more than a local scale, causing a quick increase in atmospheric temps sufficient to render some of the densely populated areas of the planet occasionally (and therefore essentially) uninhabitable during heat waves. This, I submit, would be catastrophic. This possibility accepts the asymptotic approach of a maximum upper temperature far below the runaway greenhouse, as apparently indicated by various articles linked here.

Good treatment of that question from a post on RealClimate:
==========================================
An Arctic methane worst-case scenario
7 January 2012

Let’s suppose that the Arctic started to degas methane 100 times faster than it is today. I just made that number up trying to come up with a blow-the-doors-off surprise, something like the ozone hole. We ran the numbers to get an idea of how the climate impact of an Arctic Methane Nasty Surprise would stack up to that from Business-as-Usual rising CO2

Walter et al (2007) says that Arctic lakes are 10% of natural global emissions, or about 5% of total emissions. I believe that was considered to be remarkably high at the time but let’s take it as a given, and representing the Arctic as a whole. If the number of lakes or their bubbling intensity suddenly increased by a factor of 100, and it persisted this way for 100 years, it would come to about 200 Gton of carbon emission, which is on the same scale as our entire fossil fuel emission so far (300 Gton C), or roughly the amount of traditional reserves of natural gas (although I’m not sure where estimates are since fracking) or petroleum. It would be a whopper of a surprise.

Scaling Walter’s Arctic lake emission rates up by a factor of 100 would increase the overall emission rate, natural and anthropogenic, by about a factor of 5 from where it is today. The weak leverage is because the high latitudes are a small source today relative to tropical wetlands and anthropogenic sources, so they have to grow a lot before they make much difference to the sum of all sources.

The steady-state methane concentration in the air scales nearly linearly with the emission rate. Actually, the concentration goes up somewhat faster than a constant times the emission rate, because the lifetime in the atmosphere gets longer (IPCC TAR). Let’s err on the side of flamboyance (great word in this context) and say the concentration of methane in the air goes up by a factor of 10 for the duration of the extra methane emission (meaning that the lifetime doubles).

Using the modtran model on line I get a radiative forcing from 10 * atmospheric methane of 3.4 Watts/m2 (the difference in the instantaneous IR flux out, labeled Iout, between cases with and without 10x methane). Using the TAR estimates of radiative forcing gives 2.7 Watts/m2.

But methane is a reactive gas and its presence leads to other greenhouse forcings, like the water vapor it decomposes into. Hansen estimates the “efficacy” of methane radiative forcing to be 1.4 (Hansen et al, 2005, Shindell et al, 2009), so that puts us to 4 or even 5 Watts/m2.

This is about twice the radiative forcing today from all anthropogenic greenhouse gases today, or (again according to Modtran) it would translate to an equivalent CO2 at today’s methane concentration of about 750 ppm. That seems significant, for sure.

Or, trying to “correct” for the different lifetimes of the gases using Global Warming Potentials, over a 100-year time horizon (which still way under-represents the lifetime of the CO2), you get that the methane would be equivalent to increasing CO2 to about 500 ppm, lower than 750 because the CO2 forcing lasts longer than the methane, which the GWP calculation tries in its own myopic way to account for.

But the methane worst case does not suddenly spell the extinction of human life on Earth. It does not lead to a runaway greenhouse. The worst-case methane scenario stands comparable to what CO2 can do. What CO2 will do, under business-as-usual, not in a wild blow-the-doors-off unpleasant surprise, but just in the absence of any pleasant surprises (like emission controls). At worst comparable to CO2 except that CO2 lasts essentially forever.
======================

So again you have a case close to the IPCC worst-case prediction (A1F1.) Which is good because then you also have their fairly exhaustive analyses of what that sort of temperature increase would do.

 

[Photizo]

We interrupt this program for an important news bulletin:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I34uF3fJ_zM

 

[iceaura]

But the methane worst case does not suddenly spell the extinction of human life on Earth. It does not lead to a runaway greenhouse. The worst-case methane scenario stands comparable to what CO2 can do.

So we're good right up to the end, there, where we once again are handed the reassurance that a methane explosion limited to Arctic methane would not run away and greenhouse sterilize the planet.

OK, fine. My question, however, runs more like this: What are the odds that a twofold boost in global methane expulsion would feed back into a tenfold boost, and that suddenly make the Seven Ovens of China and all comparable cities uninhabitable for two weeks or so; and what are the odds of that boost happening?

Because this kind of thing

Or, trying to “correct” for the different lifetimes of the gases using Global Warming Potentials, over a 100-year time horizon (which still way under-represents the lifetime of the CO2), you get that the methane would be equivalent to increasing CO2 to about 500 ppm, lower than 750 because the CO2 forcing lasts longer than the methane, which the GWP calculation tries in its own myopic way to account for

seems to be missing the point.

 

[billvon]

We interrupt this program for an important news bulletin:

Breitbart! One of my favorite deniers. Like Anthony Watts but with half the intelligence and twice the vitriol.

 

[billvon]

OK, fine. My question, however, runs more like this: What are the odds that a twofold boost in global methane expulsion would feed back into a tenfold boost, and that suddenly make the Seven Ovens of China and all comparable cities uninhabitable for two weeks or so; and what are the odds of that boost happening?

Well, very close to zero, since the post above calculates what would happen with a HUNDRED fold boost, and the answer is that it would put us onto the worst-case IPCC scenario. And a twofold boost would have correspondingly less impact.

 

[iceaura]

Well, very close to zero, since the post above calculates what would happen with a HUNDRED fold boost, and the answer is that it would put us onto the worst-case IPCC scenario. And a twofold boost would have correspondingly less impact.

No, the post calculated the effects of a hundred fold boost in Arctic methane only, not global, and made only a general calculation of overall effects being similar to the worst case CO2 IPCC calculation of overall effects in a century - that is, the equilibrium level of methane under that Arctic emission rate assumed to be unchanged for a century would hand us the same effect as 500ppm level of CO2 attained as we are heading for it now.

In other words, the matter of a short term feedback amplification of a global increase in methane emissions was not analyzed, the possibility of a sharp feedback accelerated rise in methane levels temporarily past that equilibrium was not considered, and the effect of such a feedback regime on the fluctuations in temperature over vulnerable major cities was not analyzed, even the error bands on their assumptions and probabilities of extremes were not presented, and so forth and so on.

Missing the point, with regard to my question, they were. No bad - they had other fish to fry - but it's a bit disturbing how difficult it is to find anything even relevant to what seems like a reasonable and obvious concern.

 

[billvon]

In other words, the matter of a short term feedback amplification of a global increase in methane emissions was not analyzed, the possibility of a sharp feedback accelerated rise in methane levels temporarily past that equilibrium was not considered, and the effect of such a feedback regime on the fluctuations in temperature over vulnerable major cities was not analyzed, even the error bands on their assumptions and probabilities of extremes were not presented, and so forth and so on.

Do you believe that no climate analyses take the positive feedback cycle of warming->methane releases into account?

 

[Billy T]

Do you believe that no climate analyses take the positive feedback cycle of warming->methane releases into account?

Many do consider the effect of positive feed back - and come to dire conclusions; unfortunately the IPCC's LINEARIZED models do not, as I explained several pages back:

{post 988, in part} I did not say IPCC was unaware of theses feed backs. They just ignore them in the LINEARIZED model of a NON-linear problem. I.e. they put forth a great deal of effect in a complex areas, say like net effect of aerosols, and then assign each of the effects investigated a radiative forcing function Fn where "n" is integer that might be 6 for aerosols. Then add these forcing function up to get an overall forcing function F.

F = F1 +F2 + F3 +.... +Fn where currently n should be about 31, at least (because 31 different positive feed backs are known), but I think the IPCC only includes less than 10 effects in its linearized model.

I.e. The IPCC's F is an incomplete, linear sum which totally neglects, for example, F(F3,F6) where this F(3,6) is a function that reflects the increase of F3 by positive feed back from F6 PLUS increase of effect F6's contribution to Global Warming by positive feed back from F3. Many of these omitted contribution are very small admittedly but there are more than 31 of them mutually interacting: factorial (31 !). I.e. #1 interacts with 30 others; #2 interacts with 29 others (interaction with #1 is already counted); #3 with28 others etc.) 31 ! = 8.2228387E33 So if the magnitude of the average positive feed back contribution to Global Warming is only 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 = 1E(-23) as important as factors IPCC does include in their linearized calculation of the overall forcing F then the amount the IPCC underestimates the Global Warming effect is by a factor of ~8E10 = 80,000,000,000.

Such a gross error would be obvious (near term extinction tomorrow) EXCEPT for fact Earth is an "oceanic planet" with a 30 to 40 year (or greater for some effects) thermal time constant. I.e. the obvious indicators (more flooding, air temperature rise, ice melting, more frequent and stronger storms, sea level rising, jet stream wander, droughts, more fires, etc.) are only beginning to show, but NTE is very likely impossible to avoid in cultures that value current profits more than the conditions they leave to their grandchildren. ...

 

[iceaura]

Do you believe that no climate analyses take the positive feedback cycle of warming->methane releases into account?

Dunno - but i do know I've not seen an analysis that does so with sound arguments and relevant evidence, dealing with the issue as it concerns me, and arriving at reassurance. I'd like to see one. i can't find one. And it's not just me - they are apparently hard for anyone to find. We're 54 pages into this thread, and crickets - granted, we got off on a photizo foot.

 

[Trippy]

And apparently the content of my posts is invisible to you. Or you don't have three hands, so you have no place to put it.

Two possible interpretations, I suppose. Neither of which is the correct one.

I don't have a "preferred" explanation, and all those you posted agree with everything I've said on the topic. My observation remains unchanged regardless, nothing I have posted depends on any particular reason for the absence of evidence and sound argument supporting the reassurances.

Distressingly, the response I expected - based on a fairly literal interpretation of the word 'preferred' rather than a contextually correct one. I didn't mean preferred in the context of the one that you like the most or find the most favourable, but rather, preferred in the context of the one you seem to default to most frequently.

They are empty. And that is worrisome. Because without sound evidence or argument, they are more likely to be wrong. And presented as they are without sound evidence or argument, they imply that their presenters don't understand the situation - and they're (often) the experts.

The explanations are not empty - they simply allow for the possibility that the reassurances you refer to may be yet to come, rather than assuming they are impossible.

 

[Trippy]

Hey Billy, you're aware that clathrate decomposition is endothermic right?

 

[iceaura]

And apparently the content of my posts is invisible to you. Or you don't have three hands, so you have no place to put it.
Two possible interpretations, I suppose. Neither of which is the correct one.

The first seems well supported - like this:

- I didn't mean preferred in the context of the one that you like the most or find the most favourable, but rather, preferred in the context of the one you seem to default to most frequently.

Which would make more sense if I had ever "defaulted" to any of them.

The explanations are not empty - they simply allow for the possibility that the reassurances you refer to may be yet to come, rather than assuming they are impossible.

The reassurances are empty. Your list of possible explanations for their emptiness is irrelevant.

So we are agreed that my sole and central observation here - that no such arguments or evidences are available or visible, and that the possibility then exists that they do not - is completely valid without qualification? Because that is a bother - we're getting reassurances that are empty, mere assertions backed by no adequate evidence or sound reasoning, that a catastrophe with a visible mechanism and symptoms of onset will not happen. And if it doesn't worry you that no one seems to have a good reason for dismissing the possibility of a feedback accelerated methane burst temperature boosting, labeling its likelihood so low it's not worth considering, why is that?

 

[Trippy]

I have to be honest. I am, unfortunately spent in some regards. The flipside is that I currently have 14 browser tabs open (I think) I unfortunately lack the willpower or the energy to do much more than skim-read through them.

No, I have not read them in depth.
No, I am not suggesting the support anything I have said.
No, I am not neccessarily endorsing their conclusions.

It's more like a shotgun spread of a bunch of discussions of the problem of methane stability both in the arctic and broader continental shelf deposits, as well as other potentially more important sources of methan such as wetlands. To some extent there is an element of 'so I can find them later' to this.

And so, without prejudice, and without further a-do:
http://ifaran.ru/persons/arzhanov/pdfs/referred/DenisovEtAl2011_DANen.pdf
http://www.geotimes.org/nov04/feature_climate.html
http://energyskeptic.com/2014/pnas-abrupt-impacts-of-climate-change-anticipating-surprises/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/ps-fmc020606.php
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/29/78/82/PDF/bgd-4-993-2007.pdf
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0081648
http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templa...n/sondergutachten/sn2006/wbgu_sn2006_ex01.pdf
http://www.netl.doe.gov/File Library/Research/Oil-Gas/methane hydrates/ICGH_5803_ESD07-014.pdf
http://www.imedea.uib-csic.es/maste...od101603/Bibliograf%EDa/Metano%20reciente.pdf
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1860/2675.full
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v490/n7421/full/nature11528.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20121025 (paywalled)
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/methane-pulse.html

 

[Trippy]

The first seems well supported - like this: Which would make more sense if I had ever "defaulted" to any of them.

Is it?
Let's examine what I actually said shall we?

...preferred in the context of the one you SEEM to default to most frequently.

I've emphasized the salient point - I can not speak to which of three positions you actually default to (if any), I can only comment on the apperance that you give in this thread which seems to be overwhelmingly the third.

So we are agreed that my sole and central observation here - that no such arguments or evidences are available or visible, and that the possibility then exists that they do not - is completely valid without qualification?

No.
The only things that can be said with any certainty is that:
1. You have not managed to find them under your own violition, or if you have you either haven't recognized them or haven't found them sufficient.
2. They have not been presented in this thread yet for reasons as yet unknown.

Neither of which is exclusive of the possibility that they do not exist, it is simply a reflection of the fact that they are not available or visible to you or in this thread. Non existence implies a lack of availability and a lack of visibility, the reverse is not neccessarily true.

Because that is a bother - we're getting reassurances that are empty, mere assertions backed by no adequate evidence or sound reasoning, that a catastrophe with a visible mechanism and symptoms of onset will not happen.

I don't recall ever actually arguing that - the closest I've come is pointing to work suggesting that the large thermal inertia of ocean floor sediments suggests that any large release is more likely to occur over a timescale of centuries or millena than years or decades.

And if it doesn't worry you that no one seems to have a good reason for dismissing the possibility of a feedback accelerated methane burst temperature boosting, labeling its likelihood so low it's not worth considering, why is that?

Apparently we have different understandings of the available material, for one thing.