Arctic Methane - This Does Not Sound Good...

[Bob Wallace]

"Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide – have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.

The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.

In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them.""

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html

Semiletov published a study in 2010 in which he estimated methane emissions from this region were about eight million tonnes a year.

Some of the plumes observed were a kilometer or more wide. The concentration of methane in the area was a hundred times higher than normal.

[XemaSab]

1. .

[fascisthunter]

2. Known about this for Years....

the earth is farting....

[Bob Wallace]

3. Please show me the data...

Some published reports of methane emissions on this scale....

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. As Arctic Ocean warms, megatonnes of methane bubble up

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17625-as-arctic-ocean-warms-megatonnes-of-methane-bubble-up.html

[font face="times, serif"][font size="5"]As Arctic Ocean warms, megatonnes of methane bubble up[/font]
17:02 17 August 2009 by Michael Marshall

…

Over 250 plumes of gas have been discovered bubbling up from the sea floor to the west of the Svalbard archipelago, which lies north of Norway. The bubbles are mostly methane, which is a greenhouse gas much more powerful than carbon dioxide.

The methane is probably coming from reserves of methane hydrate beneath the sea bed. These hydrates, also known as clathrates, are water ice with methane molecules embedded in them.

The methane plumes were discovered by an expedition aboard the research ship James Clark Ross, led by Graham Westbrook of the University of Birmingham and Tim Minshull of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, both in the UK.

…

None of the plumes the team saw reached the surface, so the methane was not escaping into the atmosphere and thus contributing to climate change – not in that area, at least. "Bigger bubbles of methane make it all the way to the top, but smaller ones dissolve," says Minshull.

…

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. Understanding methane’s seabed escape

noc.ac.uk/news/understanding-methane’s-seabed-escape

[font face="times, serif"][font size="5"]Understanding methane’s seabed escape [/font]
September 05, 2011

[font size="4"]A shipboard expedition off Norway, to determine how methane escapes from beneath the Arctic seabed, has discovered widespread pockets of the gas and numerous channels that allow it to reach the seafloor.[/font]

Methane is a powerful “greenhouse” gas and the research, carried out over the past week aboard the Royal Research Ship James Clark Ross, will improve understanding of its origins in this area, its routes to the sea floor and how the amount of gas escaping might increase as the ocean warms. This could have important implications for global climate change and ocean acidification.

At the high pressures and low temperatures which are found at the bottom of the deep ocean, methane gas and water combine to form a solid, crystalline substance - methane hydrate. It is very widespread in the parts of the deep ocean nearest to the continents. If the ocean warms, the hydrate can become unstable and methane gas is unlocked and can make its way into the ocean, forming plumes of bubbles.

A research cruise to the same area in 2008, also aboard RRS James Clark Ross, discovered numerous such plumes, as well as evidence for the presence of gas and the movement of fluids beneath the seabed. What was unclear though was how the gas was escaping into the ocean.

…

Ifremer’s SYSIF sonar system produced detailed images reaching 100 to 200 metres beneath the seafloor, which show how gas is in some places trapped and in some places is travelling upwards through narrow fractures and pipes to the seafloor. A seismic system towed across the sea surface provided images of deeper gas pockets beyond the reach of the towed sonar.

…[/font]

[OKIsItJustMe]

52. Methane release 'looks stronger'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8437703.stm

Page last updated at 17:17 GMT, Wednesday, 6 January 2010
[font size="5"]Methane release 'looks stronger'[/font]
By Michael Fitzpatrick
Science reporter, BBC News

Scientists have uncovered what appears to be a further dramatic increase in the leakage of methane gas that is seeping from the Arctic seabed.

The findings come from measurements of carbon fluxes around the north of Russia, led by Igor Semiletov from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

…



Previously it was thought much of this gas was absorbed into the sea.

But according to a recent report that Professor Semiletov and his team compiled for the environmental group WWF, the shallow depth of arctic shelves means that methane is reaching the atmosphere without reacting to become CO2 dissolved in the ocean.

…

[joshcryer]

4. Feedbacks.

[Viking12]

5. Arctic lakes, too

[XemaSab]

6. That video rules

[wtmusic]

7. All the more reason - nuclear now. nt

[Bob Wallace]

8. Impossible...

Can't do nuclear now. We could build a little and get it going in a decade or so.

What we can do quickly is wind and solar.

But you knew that....

[wtmusic]

9. Other way around.

"If we are to stabilize the emission of carbon dioxide by the middle of the 21st century, we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean? Tidal power can produce large amounts of energy, but can we find a new Severn estuary and build a barrage costing £9bn every five weeks?

Nuclear power, however, is a well tried and reliable source, whereas the alternatives listed by Anderson are mainly hope for the future and have yet to prove themselves. At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable.

I hold no special brief for nuclear power. If there were another way of providing our energy needs without destroying the Earth, I would support it. I am not, I must admit, happy about the dangers of nuclear radiation. I know that, in the hands of engineers at, say, Sizewell, nuclear power is extremely safe, but I can think of many places that would not inspire me with the same confidence. There is always the fallibility of human nature, and the danger that politics will domineer engineering prudence, although the same could be said of all modern technology. Strict controls and eternal vigilance are therefore the price we must pay for its benefits."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128/2

Without nuclear, we are screwed. But you knew that.

[Bob Wallace]

10. Where did you get these numbers?

Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?

They sound like something Robert Bryce would publish.

---

BTW, solar panels are rarely cleaned. A study of a solar array in Phoenix found that after two years of zero cleaning there was only a 1% power loss, not enough to justify cleaning.

[XemaSab]

11. You have a link?

What kind of solar was that?

'Cause my old boss said that solar takes a lot of cleaning.

[Bob Wallace]

12. Sorry...

I didn't bookmark that study and haven't found it with a quick search.

It was listed in a discussion on Green Tech Media and at least one person who works in large scale solar confirmed that they don't clean their panels.

I did find this study from Google. They found that flat mounted panels do need cleaning, but not ones mounted at an angle...

"The rooftop solar panels are a different story. Our data indicates that rain does a sufficient job of cleaning the tilted solar panels. Some dirt does accumulate in the corners, but the resulting reduction in energy output is fairly small — and cleaning tilted panels does not significantly increase their energy production. So for now, we'll let Mother Nature take care of cleaning our rooftop panels."

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/should-you-spring-clean-your-solar.html

I'll dig some more and see if I can find the AZ study....

[XemaSab]

13. Thanks

[Bob Wallace]

14. Found it...

"One partnering PV module manufacturer recently
retested PV modules which had been in service in Tucson for 28 months to test for dirt
and time related output degradation. Modules were tested first without cleaning and then
after cleaning. Results indicated soiling effect was less than 1% output degradation from
modules which had not been cleaned in two years and overall time related degradation of
clean modules much less than that expected. 9,000 of these modules are used in the SGS
solar system. SGS modules have historically been cleaner than Tucson located modules
due to no oily deposits and the ability of snow to very effectively remove solid deposits
like bird droppings."

Page 9

http://www.greenwatts.com/docs/HansenPGDec2003.pdf

[XemaSab]

15. Interesting article

Coincidentally, I was in Springerville this week last year.

Lemme tell ya, camping out in the mountains near Springerville in December is not recommended.

[joshcryer]

16. Hah, what the heck were you thinking?

Were you caught there during that 2-3 day cold snap that hit the entire country?

[XemaSab]

17. I'll just say that it wasn't the best planned trip I've ever taken

I was down there chasing birds.

I got black rosy-finch, brown-capped rosy-finch, Aplomado falcon, and streak-backed oriole, but I dipped on Baikal teal and bean goose, among others.

We also saw the Very Large Array, which was pretty rad.

[wtmusic]

18. I gave you a link.

Do the math yourself. How many windmills does it take to generate the equivalent of a 1GW coal plant (and not nameplate - baseload)?

How many km² of solar panels? (don't forget to multiply nameplate by .15% equivalence factor).

Not that it matters, but you're not even within an order of magnitude with your ultra-clean imaginary solar panels:

"How much electricity do dirty solar panels lose?
While many factors impact solar power production in solar panels, experts agree that you will lose power. That loss may range as high as 25% in some areas according to the National Renewable Energy laboratory. Individual dealers have reported losses as high as 30% for some customers who failed to ever clean their panels."

http://www.solarpanelcleaningsystems.com/solar-panel-cleaning-services.php#pl

"A study of a solar array in Phoenix"...how comprehensive.

[Bob Wallace]

19. Sorry...

I overlooked the link.

OK, let's look at your numbers. 500km2 for 4,000 turbines.

That's about 31 acres per turbine. As I suspected, a common trick attempted by anti-renewable people. 31 acres might reflect spacing of turbines but it does not represent the amount of land needed to site a turbine. The footprint of turbine is quite small, roughly 98% of the land in a wind farm is left usable for original purposes - ranching, farming, wildlife.

10km2 for solar panels. Assuming we were to try to power the world with nothing but solar, which isn't likely. Cut that down by at least 50%. A couple of square miles a day. Start by covering existing rooftops, parking lots, brownfields, landfills, played out farmland, highway right of ways. Then use up a tiny bit of the desert.

No problem.

Those were "Bryce" numbers.....

--

I gave data from two studies of solar panel cleaning. Apparently flat mounted panels do need some cleaning. Angled panels do not. I'll include them again for you...

"The rooftop solar panels are a different story. Our data indicates that rain does a sufficient job of cleaning the tilted solar panels. Some dirt does accumulate in the corners, but the resulting reduction in energy output is fairly small — and cleaning tilted panels does not significantly increase their energy production. So for now, we'll let Mother Nature take care of cleaning our rooftop panels."

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/should-you-spring-clean-your-solar.html


"One partnering PV module manufacturer recently
retested PV modules which had been in service in Tucson for 28 months to test for dirt
and time related output degradation. Modules were tested first without cleaning and then
after cleaning. Results indicated soiling effect was less than 1% output degradation from
modules which had not been cleaned in two years and overall time related degradation of
clean modules much less than that expected. 9,000 of these modules are used in the SGS
solar system. SGS modules have historically been cleaner than Tucson located modules
due to no oily deposits and the ability of snow to very effectively remove solid deposits
like bird droppings."

Page 9

http://www.greenwatts.com/docs/HansenPGDec2003.pdf


Your link - a company selling panel cleaning equipment. Now that is convincing. They certainly have no dog in the fight....

[wtmusic]

25. Your modest solar proposal would cost about $740 million - every day.

This is what I mean when people who suggest we can get by on renewables only are not only looking at them through rose-colored glasses, they're in firm denial of facts.

“If Nevada Solar 1 were scaled up to produce the equivalent annual electrical production of a AP-1000 nuclear plant. Our solar power plant would occupy about 42 square miles of desert, and would cost $17 Billion. Overnight storage of heat, electrical transmission lines, and interest would carry additional costs. Our 1 GW solar facility would annually consume nearly 27000 acre feet of rare desert water.

In contrast, the two 1.7 GW Mitsubishi’s Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (APWR) Luminant Energy is planing to build at Comanche Peak are currently estimated to cost $5-6 billion each. ”

“Ausra (line focus) claims $100/m2, BrightSource (power tower heliostats) $150/m2, Matrix Solar Dish (me) $100/m2.

Let’s do a little analysis. A square kilometer at $100 per square meter would cost $100X1000X1000 = 100,000,000 per square kilometer or $247,000,000 per square mile. This represents an improvement over the $260,000,000 for 400 acres figure we got for Nevada Solar 1, or the $1 billion fir 1900 acres figure we got for Solana, but again the word inflation did not appear in the discussion.

The 150/m2 estimate gives us $370500000 per square mile, still a little better than Nevada Solar 1 in price."

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/peter-lang-solar-realities.pdf

If you feel the need to reply, please be prepared to refute Lang's thorough analysis. I'm not going to debate "what-ifs".

He concludes:

"Solar power is totally uneconomic and is not as environmentally benign as another lower-cost, lower-emissions option – nuclear power. Advocates argue that solar is not the total solution, it will be part of a mix of technologies. But this is just hiding the facts. Even where solar is a small proportion of the total energy mix, its high costs are buried in the overall costs, and it adds to the total costs of the system…

The capital cost of solar power would be 25 times more than nuclear power to provide the NEM’s demand [$2.8 trillion for the least-cost solar solution with backup versus $120 billion for nuclear]. The minimum power output, not the peak or average, is the main factor governing solar power’s economic viability. The least cost solar option would emit 20 times more CO2 (over the full life cycle) and use at least 400 times more land area compared with nuclear (not including mining; the mining area and volumes would also be greater for the solar option than for the nuclear option)…

Government mandates and subsidies hide the true cost of renewable energy, but these additional costs must be carried by others."

Dirty PV cells are the least of solar's problems.

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. “Solar power is totally uneconomic“

Last edited Tue Dec 13, 2011, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/solar-power-much-cheaper-produce-most-analysts-realize-study-finds

[font face="Times, Serif"][font size="5"]Solar power much cheaper to produce than most analysts realize, study finds[/font]

2011-12-07

The public is being kept in the dark about the viability of solar photovoltaic energy, according to a study conducted at Queen’s University.

“Many analysts project a higher cost for solar photovoltaic energy because they don’t consider recent technological advancements and price reductions,” says Joshua Pearce, Adjunct Professor, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering. “Older models for determining solar photovoltaic energy costs are too conservative.”

Dr. Pearce believes solar photovoltaic systems are near the “tipping point” where they can produce energy for about the same price other traditional sources of energy.

…

Dr. Pearce says some studies don’t consider the 70 per cent reduction in the cost of solar panels since 2009 . Furthermore, he says research now shows the productivity of top-of-the-line solar panels only drops between 0.1 and 0.2 percent annually, which is much less than the one per cent used in many cost analyses.

…[/font]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.104


See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=591

[wtmusic]

30. Dr. Pearce believes solar panels last 300 years, does he?

"the productivity of top-of-the-line solar panels only drops between 0.1 and 0.2 percent annually"

They would still be generating at 70% after...300 years.

Dr. Pearce is much crazier than most analysts realize.

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. Oh good!

Glad to see you’re using faces.

That means you’ve realized that, logically, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

[wtmusic]

32. It means your posts have reached the point of charming imbecility

which results from being caught in a corner.

Waiting for your explanation of how solar panels last 300 years. Not holding breath.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. How much does the productivity of a nuclear plant decrease in a year?

Do they last forever?

[Bob Wallace]

35. Obviously we don't have 300 year data...

But we do have multi-decade performance data on which we can predict. At the observed 0.5% loss per year for older silicon panels we can expect that the array will still be kicking out 78% of its initial power rating after 50 years. 61% after 100 years.

(That's many decades of essentially free electricity.)

And there is no known "solar cliff" over which panels might tumble after a given number of years.

We do have pretty good data that tells us how only it takes a thermal plant to become unusable.

[OKIsItJustMe]

38. But the situation is even better than that (according to Pearce)

…

Dr. Pearce says some studies don’t consider the 70 per cent reduction in the cost of solar panels since 2009 . Furthermore, he says research now shows the productivity of top-of-the-line solar panels only drops between 0.1 and 0.2 percent annually, which is much less than the one per cent used in many cost analyses.

…

[Bob Wallace]

41. At 0.2% loss per year...

Panels would still be producing 82% of their initial power after 100 years.

It's time someone released "whole roof" systems in which you rack the trusses and bolt on a 100+ year roof of solar panels.

Design the trusses to give easy passageway underneath the panels for wiring access. That would also get the connectors and micro inverters out of the weather and lower future maintenance costs.

Just think about the power produced if new housing was designed to optimize panel orientation. With the rapidly dropping price of panels it would probably make sense to cover east and west facing roofs in order to extend the solar day.

[OKIsItJustMe]

42. Solar roof tiles

http://www.premierpower.com/solar_energy_residential/roof_solar_tile.php

…

Streamlined, interlocking solar roof tiles fit the exact shape of your roof. With their exclusive interlocking mechanism, the tiles easily blend with the style and architecture of your home. Traditional solar panels sit on top of your roof; Premier’s solar roof tiles are integrated directly into it. Becoming a solar power producer with a Premier Power turnkey system has never been easier or more attractive.

…

[Ghost Dog]

34. The glass windows in thirteenth-century Westminster Abbey

are still in good condition



(With a bit of maintenence work over the centuries (== jobs!), sure). Depends on your time-horizon and your philosophy...

[OKIsItJustMe]

40. What I find even more amazing is the building of the things to start with

I visited the Cathedral of Toledo (Spain) as I stood in the structure, realizing it took generations to build.

http://www.frommers.com/destinations/toledo/A26888.html

…

Ranked among the greatest Gothic structures, the cathedral actually reflects several styles, since more than 2 1/2 centuries elapsed during its construction (1226-1493). Many historic events transpired here, including the proclamation of Joanna the Mad and her husband, Philip the Handsome, as heirs to the throne of Spain.

…[/font]

I stood there in wonder, thinking of generations saying, “Our ancestors started this, some day, our descendents will finish it.” I don’t think our society thinks like that today.

[Ghost Dog]

43. I was rendered immediately breathless, and was made to sit and meditate deeply

on first entering La Mezquita (now Cathedral) of Córdoba.



And, a lot of what you see are recycled Roman materials...

With the right philosophy we can do what needs to be done.

[tinrobot]

20. Conservation, Efficiency, Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Thermal...

We have many options at our disposal. We don't have to pick just one.

Put solar on every rooftop. Build windmills. Tidal. And yes, nuclear.

But don't forget that we also need to make things more efficient and waste less energy.

[wtmusic]

28. Agree.

Home solar (including passive) is the most practical form. Efficiency will create huge savings in the developed world, less in the developing world.

The problem is we're running out of time for experimentation.

[Bob Wallace]

36. We don't need to experiment...

We need to implement.

The wind turbines and solar panels we install today won't be as good as the ones we will be installing ten years from now but they will have given us ten years of carbon avoidance. And they will continue to replace carbon based fuel for many more decades.

[Nihil]

60. Excellent post.

Totally agree - especially with your last point!

[Ghost Dog]

21. Also, tech-fix mitigation responses are required. Capture this methane

at these still relatively-discrete sources and sequester it. Use it to improve soil fertility and biomass production, perhaps.

[XemaSab]

44. How does methane

improve soil fertility?

[Ghost Dog]

47. I didn't do well in chemistry class (bad teacher, I claim) but does this make sense

and lead one to seek out further r&d opportunities?

This is simple organic chemistry, isn't it? As regards industrial processes, I don't know. But I can use my imagination...

... In the early 20th century, chemists sought eagerly for a process that could make ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen. Germans Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch succeeded where their rivals had failed. The technique they invented, the Haber-Bosch process, is now the source for much of the world's fertilizers.

Features

Plants and other living organisms need nitrogen to make protein and DNA. Atmospheric nitrogen, however, is largely inert or nonreactive. Combining atmospheric nitrogen with hydrogen (usually derived from methane) is the crucial step in fertilizer production.

Function

Methane reacts with hot steam in the presence of a catalyst to release carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas combines with nitrogen under high pressure and temperature and in the presence of a catalyst to yield ammonia. The reaction between nitrogen and hydrogen has an unfavorable equilibrium, meaning that if left to its own devices very little ammonia would form. The increased pressure, however, helps to shift the equilibrium to increase the ammonia yield from the reaction.

Significance

According to the International Fertilizer Association, almost all nitrogen fertilizers are produced from ammonia. Common nitrogen fertilizers include ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate. Roughly 44 percent of the world's population depends on fertilizer inputs for their food.


Read more: How Is Methane Combined With Nitrogen to Make a Fertilizer? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_7014969_methane-combined-nitrogen-make-fertilizer_.html#ixzz1gRh2u0ic

/... http://www.ehow.com/facts_7014969_methane-combined-nitrogen-make-fertilizer_.html

[XemaSab]

49. Gotcha

[Bob Wallace]

50. It's even more carbon brought to the surface...

Even if we might use it for fuel or fertilizer it's still a bad thing.

In the quantities reported, especially if the quantities increase, it could be a very, very bad thing.

We need to leave as much carbon in the ground as possible. We don't have any practical ways to put it back.

[Ghost Dog]

51. Yes. But it's coming out of the ground, at present

in an uncontrolled manner.

We could do something with it, using our intelligence.

Biomass cultivation would not of course lock it up again forever, but something useful and less destructive could perhaps be done with it meanwhile... on the decade- or even century-long timescale...

So, do business with Putin et al. and the Russian Academicians. And Canada and Northern Europeans. Icelanders. Forget petty nationalisms and overrule Wall St. and City of London. This is more important. That kind of profit would be more real, mid-to-long-term, than any fiat currency and its defenders or whatever political system of the day.

[Bob Wallace]

46. Let's do it...

All we've got to do is build a dome over the northern oceans.

And we could paint it white to replace the albedo we've melted away.

All it would cost would be.................................

[Ghost Dog]

48. Well, I did say, while we're dealing with

relatively discrete natural sources of this gas.

As for the cost........ I'll look forward to seeing you discussing Economics (grovel grovel, great god, grovel) where I mostly hang out, sometime......

Horatio.

[joshcryer]

55. I'm not sure that's technically feasible, we're talking thousands of square kilometers.

The magnitude is enormous. And I doubt that climate science funding is going to go up any time soon so we may not have a really good estimate as to how much and how much it's increasing for a while yet.

[hatrack]

22. Oops!

I find myself saying that a lot lately . . . .

[Javaman]

23. Imagine a person with two different sized feet...

one is a normal sized foot and the other is enormously huge, grossly huge, freakishly huge.

Now imagine that person has to have to special shoes to be made. one for the normal foot and one for the oversized cartoon foot.

Further imagine that person has had a long day and their feet are really tired. They decide to take off their shoes...in a crowded room. The first one this person takes off and drops on the floor has a curious name. This person named this normal sized shoe "Carbon".

And so it drops on the floor. Some people in the room were first bothered by the fact that this person chose to take off their shoes in a public place, but when this first shoe hit the floor, only a few concerned people noticed and politely said something to the offending shoe remover.

Now, the person is unlasing the second shoe. The bizarrely oversized monster shoe. This shoe has a name as well, it's called, "Methane".

As the shoe wearing begins the slow process of untying the gigantic laces, not only are the first people who noticed the carbon shoe drop complaining, but other people, the less interested people have actaually turned their head in the direction of the potentially life threating social faux pas.

And when this shoe finally hits the ground, those who didn't complain, will complain the loudest.

(I will not correct my awful spelling until a spell check is reinstituted in DU. So point out my mistakes all you want, I don't care)

[Dead_Parrot]

37. lol. Nice analogy...

Beware, the unmatching socks of destiny!

[Control-Z]

67. That was well put.

Thank you.

[stuntcat]

27. oh right, "Shock"

Anyone paying attention would have read years ago that methane would be released by that ice melting.

"Shock" my ass. That makes it sound like the people with the controls had no way of knowing. Oh gosh don't blame them for this, how could they have known?! Housewives with highschool degrees knew, but why should they?

[Ghost Dog]

45. That's just the way "the Media" works

at present.

The Independent is quite consistent when it comes to publicising such research and such concerns.

[Dead_Parrot]

39. It's not good

It's several teratons of bad.

[aletier_v]

53. Luckily, I have no kids! My ancestral carbon footprint shrinks to zero by 2040.

[joshcryer]

54. hatrack saw this coming:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2661411&mesg_id=2661801

I don't know whether to 'thumbsup' or 'sad smiley.'

[stuntcat]

63. yes.

ty. I mean :kick:

thumbsup & sad smiley

[Nederland]

56. Two points

1) Methane does not stay in the atmosphere like CO2 does. It dissipates in about 10 years.

2) Even if new studies indicate a higher level of methane release from melting permafrost than previously thought, it will likely pale in comparison to the amount of methane released by wetlands and animals every year. For example, termites alone are estimated to release 20 million metric tons of methane every year. (http://www.epa.gov/outreach/pdfs/Methane-and-Nitrous-Oxide-Emissions-From-Natural-Sources.pdf)

[Bob Wallace]

57. Two poor points...

While methane does drop out of the atmosphere faster it is a much stronger greenhouse gas while it's there. And this is (almost certainly) not a one time big burp. It might very well be the early days of even larger amounts of methane coming from places where it hasn't previously. What drops out 10 years from now is likely to be replaced with even more seabed methane.

The amount may pale compared to termites or even cow burps, but it's one more log on the fire that's promising to cook us.

It's one more atmospheric input that we will have to offset if we're going to avoid runaway climate warming.

[joshcryer]

59. Right, a little over a long time is nothing, a lot over a little time is an issue.

Clathrate gun hypothesis is basically the idea that tens of Gt of methane becomes released in a short period of time.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,547976,00.html

The main point that methane is increasing in the atmosphere and natural sinks are tapped, they can't absorb any more over a set period of time, so any large increases won't be absorbed as rapidly.

[joshcryer]

58. 20 year GWP of methane is 72x.

Termite emissions fall into natural sinks (why didn't you cite livestock which are a much larger contributer than termites, and aren't 'natural'?). The problem is that with landfills, livestock, and other human methane waste, the natural sinks have been tapped. A "clathrate gun" will be catastrophic if it happens, because no sink can absorb it nearly fast enough, which is what the data may be indicating is happening.

[Nederland]

68. That is just one theory

Meanwhile back in the real world, temperatures are not rising as fast as models predicted:





What exactly will it take for you to admit that the theory is not matching up with reality?

[joshcryer]

69. We'll see.

I was amused when Roy Spencer predicted a major drop in temperatures for Nov. and they never happened. He hasn't updated his temps for that, either. One drop doesn't say anything about the long term trend.

[Nederland]

71. One drop doesn't say anything about the long term trend?

How exactly would you like to define the "long term trend"? Here, pick whatever period you'd like to (feel free to cherry pick, because none of the choices support the CAGW view):



And if I were you I wouldn't make too much of the fact that Roy Spencer predicted a major drop in November that didn't happen and now hasn't updated his temps yet. If you recall, you posted new temperature numbers every week during 2010 when it was hot, but now that things have cooled down you seem to have forgotten how.

[joshcryer]

73. I might do it again for 2012.

I've seen that graphic you're showing here. I don't know what you're trying to prove.

I know the temps are not as Roy predicted because he's not the only one with the instrument record.

The whole "can't get the data" thing is just amusing because such incidents are usually used by deniers to pretend that something is amiss.

[Nederland]

79. The point is simple

You wrote:

One drop doesn't say anything about the long term trend.

In response, I posted numerous long term trends for numerous temperature records. I'm not exactly sure what you are having a hard time understanding...

[joshcryer]

83. Yes, and all of the long term trends indicate warming.

[Nederland]

80. Spencer posted Nov temps today

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

And admitted he got November wrong. I'm not a big fan of Spencer, but I'll give him kudos for admitting he was wrong. It would be nice if people on your side demonstrated the same level of integrity.

[joshcryer]

82. Thanks. Yes I respect Roy for that.

And of course, I wouldn't actually use the whole "missing data" thing as an indicator that there's a conspiracy. I take scientists like Roy at their word, and, usually, they come through.

[Nederland]

85. Yeah, Spencer is ok

Like I said, I'm not a huge fan. Personally I can't get past the fact that he is a proponent of intelligent design. That belief seems so...unscientific.

[Bob Wallace]

76. You suggested we use 18 years...

I'm fine with that. And that means that the five and ten year records you highlight are not acceptable measurements.

Let's look at the part of the graphic which meets the 18 year minimum...

100 years = increasing temperature.
70 years = larger increase.
50 years = larger increase.
30 years = larger increase.
20 years = larger increase.

What does that graphic tell us, if we think about it for a moment? That even with a downturn in the last 20 years those 20 years have still been hotter than any global temperatures in the historical record. The 1990s ended hot with the third hottest year on record, 1998. The first decade of the 2000s was even higher with the 2005 and 2010 roughly tying for the record high temperature.

And you (or whomever created this "most creative" graphic) included the HadCRUT3, a database which does not fully measure global temperature. It under-measures polar temperatures where the largest amount of warming has occurred. You can see how it distorts the "10yr trend" bar. And it's from where denier "cherry pickers" fabricate their incorrect claim that the planet hasn't warmed since 1998. They pick a single data point from a incorrect database and spin a tale from it.

Why don't you put aside the pseudo-science and make yourself acquainted with the factual record? It would put you in a much better position to make intelligent decisions....

[Nederland]

77. You are missing the point

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to give you a little background since you are new. I believe in AGW. I believe that the world is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible for that change. What I don't believe in is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, or CAGW.

The point of the graphic therefore is simply to demonstrate that the rate of warming is below what IPCC models predict, and far far below what many people around here claim will happen. You really should have picked up on that from the prior post. Regardless, the bottom line is that there are a fair number of people around here that routinely talk about how temperatures will rise 5 or 6 degrees by 2100. Current temperature trends simply do not support that notion. If anything, recent findings suggest that IPCC predictions have been too high with regard to temperature.

Regarding your dismissal of HadCRUT3, I would point out that it was included so as to appear as unbiased as possible. I could have displayed only the temperature record that most strongly supported my view, but unlike many around here I try hard to avoid cherry picking and so I displayed all the land based records. I would have included the satellite records, but I've learned from experience that people around here don't respect them so I don't bother (the funny thing is in this case, it would have been to their advantage).

Naturally you are completely free to bash the HadCRUT3 record if you want to. I believe that Phil Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)), one of the most respected experts in the field with credentials that far exceed your own would take issue with that assessment, but you can take that up with him. Perhaps you could write him an email to explain why the temperature record he has spent his career refining sucks. Best of luck with that.

Finally, I have to laugh at the notion that I should make myself a little more acquainted with the factual record. I know the factual record quite well, much better than you evidently, since the point I was making in that last post has to be explained to you step by step. A person more familiar with the arguments would have grasped immediately both my position on the issue and the reason for posting the graphs.

[Bob Wallace]

84. Current trends?

"routinely talk about how temperatures will rise 5 or 6 degrees by 2100. Current temperature trends simply do not support that notion"

You mean trends based on 17-18 years of data or on something shorter? Remember, short runs do not establish a valid trend due to occurring noise in the data.

Now, I'm not sure how I could possibly determine your position form what you've posted. So far what I've seen from you is typical denier stuff. Cherry picking one single data point form a noisy dataset and posting a graph clearly designed to support the denier position.

That said, are you aware how fast the Arctic sea ice is disappearing? That the most conservative have backed off an 'end of the century' to something more like 'in 30 years' while the data is looking like we'll see summer melt within the next five years?

How about the Greenland ice cap melting faster than predicted? About how we're losing glaciers faster than most predicted?

How about the fact that CO2 levels are continuing to rapidly rise?

How about the observation that methane emissions from the Siberian continental shelf have apparently greatly increased.

What data do you use for your prediction that temperatures won't rise in a catastrophic manner? And, please, no short year slump in air/land temps.

[Nederland]

86. It would be helpful...

...if you actually took the time to read and look at what I post. I've never used short year slump data anywhere.

Let's review.

Look at the graphic I posted in #71. The point of that graphic is that regardless of what trend you believe is the "correct" one, they are ALL well below a rate that would put us at 5 or 6 degrees by 2100. Even if you cherry pick the highest trend--the 20 year trend--you end up with something slightly under 0.2 degrees per decade. Given that IPCC models show a fairly flat rise in temperature over the next 100 years, that suggests that we are not anywhere close to the 0.5 or 0.6 degree rise per decade trend you would need to get to 5 or 6 degrees total by 2100.

Now look at the graphics in post $#71. That is not "short year slump" data either--it shows 12 and 22 years of data respectively. Those graphs show that ALL of the land based temperature records have slopes under 0.2 degrees per decade, and that actual temperature numbers have been coming in UNDER model predictions for as long as they have been predicting (keep in mind that the models displayed are AR4 models whose runs were done in 2006--anything before that is hindcasting and doesn't count). Most significantly, the line has just dropped below the one sigma line, which is where you need to be to claim 68.3% likelihood. When people like Al Gore said "the science is settled", I'm pretty sure most people thought he was talking about something probabilities higher than 68%.

Now, is it possible that the temperature line will rise back up above the sigma one line? Absolutely. In fact, it is downright likely. However, every year that passes makes it harder and harder to get back where you really need to be--between the sigma two lines--the typical scientific standard for saying something has been "proven correct". Just look at the graph and where we are today. At this point you will need several years of temperature increases beyond those we saw in the blistering 1990's just to get back into a trend that yields the mean IPCC predicted 2.5 degree rise by 2100. To push the numbers high enough to get to a trend that yields a 5 or 6 degree rise by 2100 you would have to have consistent increases that we have never seen before for ten years or more in a row.

Could that happen? Of course. But until it actually does happen I'm going to repeat what I said earlier: current temperature trends simply do not support that notion that we are in for a 5 or 6 degree rise by 2100.

[Bob Wallace]

70. Latest statistical review I read...

Found that, based on noise in the data, it takes approximately 17 years to determine trend.

Those who get excited about short term variability are probably misleading themselves....

[Nederland]

72. Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate says 18 years

...but I'll be happy to use your definition

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

Most temperature records have 1998 as the warmest year on record, and we have have not even come close to a new unambiguous record (defined in the above link as a record that is 0.1 degrees warmer). This means we only have to see four more years of merely mildly increasing temps before Gavin and the rest of you CAGW doomers have some explaining to do. Have you seen the PDO numbers lately? I'm not liking your odds...

[Bob Wallace]

74. Nope...

"Most temperature records have 1998 as the warmest year on record"

That's incorrect.

"Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html

The World Meteorological Organization combines the NASA, NOAA and UK Meteorological Office Hadley Center, as well as the satellite data and finds the following...

"In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998."

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/02/global-temperature-in-2010-hottest-year/

As far as I can tell the only database which shows 1998 being the warmest year on record comes from the Hadley Center's HADCRUT3 which is measurement system begun in the 1800s and under-measures polar temperatures. The "3" is based on 'certain land bases and ships at sea'. Not many land bases and ships at sea at either pole.

The HADCRUT3 is not viewed as an accurate measurement of global temperature but continues to be maintained for historical reasons. The Hadley Center has more advanced databases which better measure global temperatures.

[Nederland]

78. There are FIVE major temperature records

Two satellite (UAH and RSS) and three land based (GISS, NCDC and HadCRUT3). The fact you do not even know this basic fact is simply more evidence that you are not very familiar with the issues involved in AGW.

Three of the five, UAH, RSS, and HadCRUT3, have 1998 as the warmest year on record. Two of the five, GISS and NCDC, have 2010 as the warmest year on record. The fact that three of the five major temperature records have 1998 as the warmest year on record is the reason I said: "Most temperature records have 1998 as the warmest year on record".

More importantly, you again miss the larger point. Regardless of what record you choose, none of the records show a new unambiguous record since 1998. I suggest you take the time to actually read the RealClimate post to understand the implications of that fact.

[Bob Wallace]

81. I don't think so...

"All five of the major temperature indices — NASA’s GISTemp, National Climate Data Center (NCDC), Hadley Centre/UAE (HadCRUT3v), University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) — have published their estimates of 2010 global surface or close-to-surface temperatures.

NASA reports that 2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record. NCDC also reports that 2010 was tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record, and Hadley, UAH, RSS reported 2010 as the second hottest year on record.

In all cases, except perhaps RSS, the 2010 temperature was close enough to other years to be within the margin of measurement error, so the ranking of individual years as hottest is not necessary the most meaningful metric."

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/02/global-temperature-in-2010-hottest-year/

Clearly the folks at the Yale Forum don't agree that "Most temperature records have 1998 as the warmest year on record".

I've already posted the analysis of the World Meteorological Organization who also disagree with you.

1998 temperatures were pushed way above normal by an extremely strong El Nino. In 1998 there was a large transfer of heat from the ocean to the air. The record set in 1998 was summer sea surface temperatures.

Which brings up the issue of judging global warming by measuring only atmospheric temperature. Most of the human created warming has been absorbed by the oceans. If we look at the larger issue, here's what we get...



Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content anomaly from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008. Land + Atmosphere includes the heat absorbed to melt ice.

As you squint to see if you can find one year in the past that might have been as hot as more recent years and pretend that a spike a decade back is somehow meaningful, you loose contact with the important facts. We've created a major problem for ourselves. One that cannot be argued away with cherry/nit picking.

[Nederland]

87. Do you understand the phrase "More importantly"?

Can we please put the nitpicking behond us? You said this:

NASA reports that 2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record. NCDC also reports that 2010 was tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record, and Hadley, UAH, RSS reported 2010 as the second hottest year on record.

I completely agree. NASA and NCDC say 2010 was the warmest year, Hadley, UAH and RSS say 2010 was the second hottest with 1998 as the hottest. In my numbering system that makes 1998 the hottest year for 3 out of 5 temperature records, which in my english dictionary fits the definition of the word "most".

Since we agree about the temperature records, can we move on to the point that I said was "more important"? To wit:

More importantly, you again miss the larger point. Regardless of what record you choose, none of the records show a new unambiguous record since 1998. I suggest you take the time to actually read the RealClimate post to understand the implications of that fact.

Thanks.

[Bob Wallace]

75. Here's the study I recall...

ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2011) — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.

To address criticism of the reliability of thermometer records of surface warming, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet.

...

"One individual short-term trend doesn't tell you much about long-term climate change," Santer said. "A single decade of observational temperature data is inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving human-caused warming signal. In both the satellite observations and in computer models, short, 10-year tropospheric temperature trends are strongly influenced by the large noise of year-to-year climate variability."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111117141241.htm

[CJvR]

61. Torch them.

They should burn them, at least the bigger ones when they find them.
CO2 is nasty but CH4 is worse.

[Bob Wallace]

62. That's not clear...

Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas, but it does not stay in the atmosphere for many years. Roughly ten.

Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere, stays in the carbon cycle, for many, many more years.

It comes down to the net increased heating over many years.

[CJvR]

64. Depends.

Methane probably breaks down into CO2 anyway so burning it would buy a decade of time.

[hatrack]

65. This was a GRL article I posted on the topic of submarine methane releases back in 2007

Paull, Charles K.; Ussler, William, III; Dallimore, Scott R.; Blasco, Steve M.; Lorenson, Thomas D.; Melling, Humfrey; Medioli, Barbara E.; Nixon, F. Mark; McLaughlin, Fiona A.

<1> The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10°C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost. A search for gas venting on the Arctic seafloor focused on pingo-like-features (PLFs) on the Beaufort Sea Shelf because they may be a direct consequence of gas hydrate decomposition at depth. Vibracores collected from eight PLFs had systematically elevated methane concentrations. ROV observations revealed streams of methane-rich gas bubbles coming from the crests of PLFs. We offer a scenario of how PLFs may be growing offshore as a result of gas pressure associated with gas hydrate decomposition.

EDIT

<3> This paper focuses on evidence of degassing from decomposing Arctic gas hydrate deposits beneath the southern Beaufort Shelf. This area is arguably one of the most gas-hydrate-rich regions in the Arctic . During the Pleistocene much of the Beaufort Shelf was an emergent, unglaciated coastal plain exposed to very cold mean annual surface temperatures , which aggraded thick permafrost. The geothermal regime is conditioned by this permafrost interval and as a result methane hydrate may be theoretically stable to depths as great as 1500 m . Marine transgression during the Holocene has caused much of the Beaufort Shelf to be inundated by relatively warm marine and estuarine waters. This has imposed a step change from mean annual land surface temperatures perhaps as low as &#8722;20°C during glacial times to present bottom water temperatures which are no colder than &#8722;1.8°C. The consequence of this warming is to reduce the vertical extent of both permafrost and the stability zone in which gas-hydrate-bearing sediments may occur. Because of the slow process of heat conduction, the transient effects of the transgression are still occurring . Thus, methane gas release, if it is occurring, should be continuing today.



Figure 1. (top) A strip of multibeam data, core locations (open circles), and (bottom) a seismic profile (A-A&#8242; associated with the Kaglulik PLF. Note the PLF is surrounded by a collapse moat (M) filled with layered sediments containing normal faults (F) in Figure 1 (bottom). General location of the study area is indicated with the yellow box within the regional map in Figure 1 (top, left inset). A map of the Beaufort Sea Shelf shows locations of vibracoring sites in Figure 1 (top, right inset). Dots indicate PLFs at which multiple cores were taken, crosses indicate background shelf cores, and the red box outlines the area covered with more detailed map of Kaglulik PLF. Enhanced TIF <7.5 MB>



Figure 2. Schematic drawing outlining PLF and moat formation (M) associated with gas hydrate decomposition. (a) Cross-section of the permafrost-bearing Arctic seafloor (SF) (previously <&#8722;10°C) after being transgressed by Arctic Ocean water (<&#8722;1°C). As the subsurface warms, the top of the gas hydrate stability zone will move downward. Warming results in gas hydrate decomposition in a gradually thickening zone (brown), releasing gaseous methane into the sediments (yellow). Bubble formation associated with this phase change will create overpressured conditions. (b) Shows how material may flow (red arrows) both laterally and vertically in response to overpressure. Displaced sediments rise upward to form the PLF and allow the gas to vent (VG). As the pressure is dissipated through both the transfer of solids and degassing, subsidence in the area immediately surrounding the PLF (black arrows) creates the moat. Enhanced TIF <9.9 MB>

<18> We propose that gas release and bubble formation associated with decomposing gas hydrates at depth causes expansion of the sediment matrix that drives the upward extrusion of sediment to form the PLFs. Decomposition of intra-permafrost methane hydrate can supply substantial quantities of methane gas that generate large localized over-pressures. At the pressure and temperature conditions at the top of the gas hydrate stability field, gas hydrate will decompose into water ice and gas. Because ice has essentially the same density as gas hydrate, any gas released during decomposition will create gas expansion voids and create local over pressures. Substantial overpressures will not be maintained because they will exceed the mechanical strength of shallow sediments. As pressures build within subsurface horizons, gas is forced through weaknesses in the overlying permafrost layers (Figure 2). Extruded material builds up on the seafloor to form the PLF. The observed amount of vertical displacement of the PLFs implies that material moves laterally within the over-pressured horizons to these zones of weakness, then upward to the seafloor. The source of the displaced material and pressure to drive the vertical expansion may extend over a much larger area than the PLF itself. As sediment migration and gas venting proceeds, subsurface volume losses ultimately result in the collapse and formation of moat basins around the sites of sediment expulsion (Figure 2).

<19> Several lines of evidence suggest that these processes may be operative in the formation of Beaufort Sea PLFs. Elevated formation pressures, up to 1.6 times hydrostatic conditions, have been measured in several offshore exploration wells, including the Kopanoar PLF site where sub-permafrost gas hydrate has been documented . Venting of gas at PLF summits has been observed in video footage from ROV dives. High methane concentration and a rapid decrease in sulfate concentration in cores from PLF crests, contrasting with the absence of these features in moat and background sites, suggest a focused methane flux occurs through the PLF from a gas source at depth. The molecular composition and carbon isotope signature indicate that the venting gas is microbial and derived from pre-Holocene carbon sources. Gas with similar chemistry occurs within the permafrost interval above deeper gas hydrate deposits in the Mackenzie Delta .

No link, subscription service.

What I'm wondering about is the difference between the venting observed from the surface of the PLFs discussed here a few years back and the (apparently) more widespread and higher-volume venting taking place in the E. Siberian and Laptev Seas. The Russian reports seem to be discussing much larger areas of release, and a great many more methane "torches" as they're referred to than discussed here.

Is more energetic and possibly higher-volume methane venting a result of warming conditions changing the behavior or structure of these kinds of formations over the past five or six years, or is what's on the seafloor different on the Siberian side of the Arctic Ocean?

[XemaSab]

66. Might also be tied to isostatic rebound

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/12/greenland_lurches_upward/

[OKIsItJustMe]

89. See below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=1050

[OKIsItJustMe]

88. Methane Time Bomb in Arctic Seas – Apocalypse Not

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arctic-seas-apocalypse-not/

[font face="Times, Serif"]December 14, 2011, 5:43 pm
[font size="5"]Methane Time Bomb in Arctic Seas – Apocalypse Not[/font]
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

A very important research effort has been under way during recent summers in the warming, increasingly ice-free shallows off Russia’s Siberian coast. There, an international array of scientists has been investigating widening areas of open water that are disgorging millions of tons of methane each year.

…

If you read the Independent of Britain, you’d certainly be thinking the worst. The newspaper has led the charge in fomenting worry over the gas emissions, with portentous, and remarkably similar, stories in 2008 and this week.

If you read geophysical journals and survey scientists tracking past and future methane emissions, you get an entirely different picture:

A paper published in Dec. 6 in the Journal of Geophysical Research appears to confirm pretty convincingly that the gas emissions seen in recent years are from a thawing process that has been under way for 8,000 years — since seas rose sufficiently to cover the near-shore seabed. Sharp warming of the sea in the region since 1985 has clearly had an influence on the seabed, according to the paper, led by Igor Dmitrenko of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany.

…[/font]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007218

[font face="Times, Serif"]…

Summer hydrographic data (1920–2009) show a dramatic warming of the bottom water layer over the eastern Siberian shelf coastal zone (<10 m depth), since the mid-1980s, by 2.1°C. We attribute this warming to changes in the Arctic atmosphere. The enhanced summer cyclonicity results in warmer air temperatures and a reduction in ice extent, mainly through thermodynamic melting. This leads to a lengthening of the summer open-water season and to more solar heating of the water column. The permafrost modeling indicates, however, that a significant change in the permafrost depth lags behind the imposed changes in surface temperature, and after 25 years of summer seafloor warming (as observed from 1985 to 2009), the upper boundary of permafrost deepens only by &#8764;1 m. Thus, the observed increase in temperature does not lead to a destabilization of methane-bearing subsea permafrost or to an increase in methane emission. The CH4 supersaturation, recently reported from the eastern Siberian shelf, is believed to be the result of the degradation of subsea permafrost that is due to the long-lasting warming initiated by permafrost submergence about 8000 years ago rather than from those triggered by recent Arctic climate changes. A significant degradation of subsea permafrost is expected to be detectable at the beginning of the next millennium. Until that time, the simulated permafrost table shows a deepening down to &#8764;70 m below the seafloor that is considered to be important for the stability of the subsea permafrost and the permafrost-related gas hydrate stability zone.

[font size="4"]5. Summary and Conclusions[/font]

|32| Summer hydrographic data (1920–2009) show a dramatic warming of the bottom water layer over the eastern Siberian shelf coastal zone (<10 m depth) since the mid-1980s, by 2.1°C. We attribute this warming to changes in the Arctic atmosphere. The enhanced summer cyclonicity results in warmer air temperature and a reduction in ice extent, mainly through thermodynamic melting. This leads to a lengthening of the summer open-water season and to more solar heating of the water column.

|33| The permafrost modeling shows that a significant change in the permafrost depth lags behind the imposed changes in surface temperature. Thus, a significant degradation of subsea permafrost is expected to be detectable only at the beginning of the next millennium. Until that time (the year 3000), the simulated permafrost table shows a deepening down to ~70 m below the seafloor (Figure 5). This depth of the frozen permafrost is still less than that of the GHSZ, but only within errors of the simulated depth of the GHSZ upper boundary. Taking into account the uncertainties in the simulated results and lack of direct observations, this deepening is considered to be important for the stability of the subsea permafrost and the GHSZ.

|34| In summary, our results do not support the hypothesis that the recent CH4 supersaturation, reported by Shakhova et al. |2010|, was triggered by recent Arctic climate changes. Instead, it is more likely the result of the continuous degradation of subsea permafrost associated with the warming initiated by permafrost submergence ~8000 years B.P.. Overall, while our data provide evidence of drastic bottom layer heating over the coastal zone during summer, the increase in temperature could not produce an immediate response in thawing the subsea Arctic permafrost causing the increase in methane emission. In this context, we share a viewpoint of Petrenko et al. |2010| that “a newly discovered CH4 source is not necessarily a changing source, much less a source that is changing in response to Arctic warming.” Marine hydrates are destabilized on timescales of millennia because of the large inertia associated with oceanic circulation and heat propagation in sediments |O'Connor et al., 2010|. Continuing climate change, however, may significantly increase summer seafloor bottom temperatures over the coastal zone, which may have an important impact on the stability of offshore submarine permafrost already in the next millennium.

…[/font]

[Bob Wallace]

90. Apocalypse Not...

But a marker along our route toward cooking ourselves.

And in this particular location it seems like some sort of threshold has been passed.

[OKIsItJustMe]

91. Let’s put it this way

It appears that the current releases are not caused by global warming.