Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumThe Methane Disaster Bubbling in the Arctic
New research reveals that the amount of the potent greenhouse gas methane escaping from an area in the Arctic is over twice the amount previously estimated.
For the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, researchers looked at the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, a 2-million square kilometer area off the coast of Northern Siberia, and used various techniques including sonar technology to measure the methane escaping.
It is now on par with the methane being released from the arctic tundra, which is considered to be one of the major sources of methane in the Northern Hemisphere, said Natalia Shakhova, a lead author of the study and a scientist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Methane, 25 - 30 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2, can be stored under the sea bed as hydrates if sub-sea permafrost remains frozen. The methane escapes when the permafrost thaws and holes are created. The study found that the release of the gas was abetted by storms, which churn up the waters and help speed release of the gas into the atmosphere.
The researchers found that at least 17 teragrams (1 million tons) of the methane are being released into the atmosphere each year; an ealier study found that the East Siberian Arctic Shelf was releasing 7 teragrams of methane yearly.
Better get busy with those windmills or solar panels or LFTRs or whateverthehell y'all are planning to save the planet, I don't think we have a lot of time left...
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Scientists knew they would not be believed if they used real number, so they fudged the numbers to the conservative side, making it look bad, but not catastrophic. Problem is, reality is turning out to be catastrophic. The methane melt is going to accelerate and it is pretty much all over but the dying by 2020.
I'll be 59.
lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)Do you have links for this?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That it's almost over, or that people have been fudging numbers?
It it's the former, try this: http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/
Lots of links to the science in there...
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)"Our concern is that the subsea permafrost has been showing signs of destabilization already," she said. "If it further destabilizes, the methane emissions may not be teragrams, it would be significantly larger."
Shakhova notes that the Earth's geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.
They found that more than 80 percent of the deep water and more than 50 percent of surface water had methane levels more than eight times that of normal seawater. In some areas, the saturation levels reached more than 250 times that of background levels in the summer and 1,400 times higher in the winter. They found corresponding results in the air directly above the ocean surface. Methane levels were elevated overall and the seascape was dotted with more than 100 hotspots. This, combined with winter expedition results that found methane gas trapped under and in the sea ice, showed the team that the methane was not only being dissolved in the water, it was bubbling out into the atmosphere.
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf, in addition to holding large stores of frozen methane, is more of a concern because it is so shallow. In deep water, methane gas oxidizes into carbon dioxide before it reaches the surface. In the shallows of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, methane simply doesn't have enough time to oxidize, which means more of it escapes into the atmosphere. That, combined with the sheer amount of methane in the region, could add a previously uncalculated variable to climate models.
"The release to the atmosphere of only one percent of the methane assumed to be stored in shallow hydrate deposits might alter the current atmospheric burden of methane up to 3 to 4 times," Shakhova said. "The climatic consequences of this are hard to predict."
Methane Releases From Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated, National Science Foundation
Some people have begun to predict the consequences:
The description of Stage 2: Very rapid and massive release of carbon deficient in ?13C, does put one in mind of the Methane Gun hypothesis. It postulates that methane clathrate at shallow depth begins melting and through the feed-back process accelerate atmospheric and oceanic warming, melting even larger and deeper clathrate deposits. The result: A relatively sudden massive venting of methane - the firing of the Methane Gun. Recent discovery by Davy et al (2010) of kilometer-wide (ten 8-11 kilometer and about 1,000 1-kilometer-wide features) eruption craters on the Chatham Rise seafloor off New Zealand adds further ammunition to the Methane Gun hypothesis.
A significant release of methane due to melting of the vast deposits trapped by permafrost and clathrate in the Arctic would result in massive loss of oxygen, particularly in the Arctic ocean but also in the atmosphere. Resulting hypoxic conditions would cause large extinctions, especially of water breathing animals, which is what we find at the PETM.
Release of ECS methane is already contributing to Arctic amplification resulting in temperature increase exceeding twice the global average. The rate of release from the tundra alone is predicted to reach 1.5 billion tons of carbon per annum before 2030, contributing to accelerated climate change, perhaps resulting in sustained decadal doubling of ice loss causing collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hansen et al, 2011). This would result in a possible sea level rise of ~5 meters before 2100, according to Hansen et al.
In summary, immense quantities of methane clathrate have been identified in the Arctic. Were a fraction of these to melt, the result would be massive release of carbon, initially as CH4 causing deeper clathrate to melt and oxidise, adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Were this to occur, it would greatly worsen global warming.
While natural global warming during the ice ages was initiated by increased solar radiation caused by cyclic changes to Earths orbital parameters, there is no evident mechanism for correcting Anthropogenic Global Warming over the next several centuries. The latter has already begun producing methane and CO2 in the Arctic, starting a feedback process which may lead to uncontrollable, very dangerous global warming, akin to that which occurred at the PETM.
Wakening the Kraken, Skeptical Science
Melting methane deposits mean greater ocean acidification, less oxygen in the water, and greatly speeds up warming of the atmosphere, which melts more methane, which drives acid even higher, and heats the atmosphere further. Also, once the ice sheets vanish, you go from ice reflecting heat (the albedo effect) to heat absorbing water, which increases the rate of methane melt (Al Gore discussed this in "An Inconvenient Truth"
Rinse and repeat.
As to climate scientist being overly conservative with predictions:
In many similar cases, the evidence suggests that changes in climate are occurring faster, and with more intensity, than the IPCC have predicted. It is not credible to suggest the reports were biased in favour of the theory of anthropogenic global warming when the evidence demonstrates the IPCC were, in fact, so cautious.
In fact, there is evidence however to suggest that the exact opposite is actually the case, both in terms of the scientific evidence itself (see below) and the way the work of the IPCC is reported. A recent study (Freudenburg 2010) investigated what it calls 'the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge', the phenomenon in which reports on science fail to evaluate all outcomes, favoring certain probabilities while ignoring others. They found that "...new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective [that disruption through AGW may be far worse than the IPCC has suggested] than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media".
How the IPCC is more likely to underestimate the climate response, Skeptical Science
Update - This just in from AP:
The United States is spewing 50 percent more methane - a potent heat-trapping gas - than the federal government estimates, a new comprehensive scientific study says. Much of it is coming from just three states: Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.
That means methane may be a bigger global warming issue than thought, scientists say. Methane is 21 times more potent at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, the most abundant global warming gas, although it doesn't stay in the air as long.
Much of that extra methane, also called natural gas, seems to be coming from livestock, including manure, belches, and flatulence, as well as leaks from refining and drilling for oil and gas, the study says. It was published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Study: US spewing 50% more methane than EPA says, Associated Press
lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)There are 7+ billion different opinions about what that "should" be. Pick one that feels right to you and do it.
Which is a short way of saying that since the problem entangles most aspects of the human presence on the planet, there are no clear-cut answers.
Humans acting in large groups have very little in the way of common sense, rationality or strategic ability. Instead they are largely driven by short-term emotions - especially whenever the question of loss enters the picture. That doesn't bode well for us being able to thrash our way out of the bag we're in. The problem is global and universal - it affects everyone on the planet, and it's caused to some extent by everyone on the planet. But to do anything serious about it would have required a collective decisions by everyone on the planet to accept lower incomes today and lower expectations for a better life in the future. That's precisely the kind of decision we can't take.
Some people recognize that fact on a subliminal level, and as a result either bury themselves in the minutia of daily life, turn to vociferous denial, or cling to different kinds of "hopium" like wind, solar or nuclear power, electric cars, geoengineering, Permaculture, disaster prepping, Transition initiatives, meditating in groups to raise the vibration level of the species, and other such nonsense.
Imagine your doctor giving you a terminal diagnosis with one full, healthy year left to live. Decide what would be most important for you to do with that year. Then do it for as long as you have left.
I call it "Eat, drink and be mindful."
On edit: Oddly enough, this isn't as bleak as it sounds. If you practice this approach, you may find yourself tapping into a storehouse of presence and joy you never imagined you possessed. Living fully and joyfully in complete awareness of the presence of death is one of the highest forms of personal practice there is. It's hard to do, but more rewarding than you can imagine.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)CRH
(1,553 posts)very well said.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I'm trying to shift my rhetorical gears these days, glad it works for you.
lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)You posted that there's a worldwide environmental disaster unfolding (and it's all our fault) and our response should be hey, do whatever feels good...well I, for one, feel a lot better...
Of all of the problems that we face and would like to do something about, this is the most frustrating. There's absolutely nothing, NOTHING you as an individual, can do about it. You have no control or say so in the matter. It's why some folks don't fly...they can't stand having no control.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It's seriously hard to accept that there's little we can do in the big picture. But I don't advocate hedonism as a response. I advocate mindfulness. Don't bother doing whatever feels good, that's one of the traps of denial. Do what seems right. You're much less likely to feel a loss of control over something you consciously chose to do.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The evidence grows daily that we are beyond the tipping point. There is no credible evidence that the major polluters (China/U.S./Russia) have any intention of cutting back on burning fossil fuels. If we were to stop ALL climate warming behaviour today, the planet would continue to heat for some time on the "momentum" of the CO2 in the atmosphere now.
There is a slim hope that the recent lack of sun spot activity in the current cycle could cause some cooling, or more probably give us a pause in the warming, but you got better odds getting Pat Robertson to kiss Rush Limbaugh on the mouth.
With that depressing thought aside, I LOVE your user name. Big fan of The Wicker Man and Christopher Lee.
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)setting off the Yellowstone volcano to induce a global winter. Heading off one mega-disaster with another? Would we, could we ever even consider it?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)And "we" are certainly considering that...
hatrack
(59,583 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)since one is beyond our technological capability and the other would probably render us just as extinct as the main problem we are trying to solve.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Waiting 20 yrs for hybrids & PHEVs to reach 20% to 25% of the fleet yielding about 10% to 13% GHG reduction for light vehicle transportation certainly won't do it.
We need a much bigger commitment to countering GW - and for ways that produce results in LESS THAN 20 years.
As far as transportation goes, the one area where it's possible to achieve quicker results, a rapid increase in biomass (i.e. renewable) methanol to be added to the ethanol we currently produce is needed. Also, incentivising manufacture and sale of cars with engines that can take advantage of ethanol's and methanol's high octane and thus get better mpg than with gasoline. With renewable fuels and higher efficiency engines using alcohol from biomass, this will produce GHG reductions for the light transportation sector in a shorter time period.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112756853
But we still should keep pushing hybrids and PHEVs for those who can afford them. In time, this will eventually lower the prices on these vehicles - though this will not occur as quickly as we would like.
Subsidize mass transit - making it more attractive to more people.
Greater efficiency in all appliances.
Incentivise the building of more efficient commercial and residential buildings.
More investment in Wind and solar power to increase rate of adoption of these technologies.
Greater efficiency in buildings and industrial operations can produce approx a 25% reduction in GHG emissions.http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/sgradeck/DOCS/Building%20GHG%20reduction.pdf
Actually, we may have already reached a point where it's too late to hope to rein in global warming. But it seems obvious we need to try.
CRH
(1,553 posts)and 'Just put the fucking turkey in the oven'.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Why don't we try and capture some of that gas if it's possible.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The gas is too widely dispersed.