Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Uncle Joe

(65,573 posts)
89. Methane traps 34 more times heat than carbon dioxide and methane's lifespan isn't fixed but subject
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 03:38 PM
Nov 2013

to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

As deforestation continues less oxygen will be produced.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

Atmospheric methane is the methane present in Earth's atmosphere. Atmospheric methane levels are of interest due to methane's impact on climate change, as it is one of the most potent greenhouse gases on Earth. The 100-year global warming potential of methane is 34,[1] i.e. over a 100-year period, it traps 34 times more heat per mass unit than carbon dioxide and 32 times the effect when accounted for aerosol interactions.[2]

(snip)

Early in the Earth's history—about 3.5 billion years ago—there was 1,000 times as much methane in the atmosphere as there is now. The earliest methane was released into the atmosphere by volcanic activity. During this time, Earth's earliest life appeared. These first, ancient bacteria added to the methane concentration by converting hydrogen and carbon dioxide into methane and water. Oxygen did not become a major part of the atmosphere until photosynthetic organisms evolved later in Earth's history. With no oxygen, methane stayed in the atmosphere longer and at higher concentrations than it does today.

(snip)

Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 34 over a 100-year period. This means that a methane emission will have 34 times the impact on temperature of a carbon dioxide emission of the same mass over the following 100 years. Methane has a large effect for a brief period (a net lifetime of 12.4 years in the atmosphere), whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period (over 100 years). Because of this difference in effect and time period, the global warming potential of methane over a 20 year time period is 86. The Earth's methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750, and it accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases.[4] Usually, excess methane from landfills and other natural producers of methane are burned so CO2 is released into the atmosphere instead of methane because methane is such a more effective greenhouse gas. Recently methane emitted from coal mines has been successfully converted to electricity.

(snip)

Although records of permafrost are limited, recent years (1999 to 2007) have seen record thawing of permafrost in Alaska and Siberia. Recent measurements in Siberia show that the methane released is five times greater than previously estimated.[15] Melting yedoma, a type of permafrost, is a significant source of atmospheric methane (about 4 Tg of CH4 per year).

Possible adverse effects projected as the gas escapes into the atmosphere from the Arctic permafrost are estimated to have the potential of a sixty trillion dollar impact on the world economy.[16]



As for large quantities of methane being released, it's already beginning and will accelerate as global temperatures rise.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release


The Arctic region is one of the many natural sources of the greenhouse gas methane.[1] Global warming accelerates its release, due to both release of methane from existing stores, and from methanogenesis in rotting biomass.[2] Large quantities of methane are stored in the Arctic in natural gas deposits, permafrost, and as submarine clathrates. Permafrost and clathrates degrade on warming, thus large releases of methane from these sources may arise as a result of global warming.[3][4] Other sources of methane include submarine taliks, river transport, ice complex retreat, submarine permafrost and decaying gas hydrate deposits.[5]

(snip)

In 2008 the United States Department of Energy National Laboratory system[14] identified potential clathrate destabilization in the Arctic as one the most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change, which have been singled out for priority research. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program released a report in late December 2008 estimating the gravity of the risk of clathrate destabilization, alongside three other credible abrupt climate change scenarios.[15]

Sea ice loss is correlated with warming of Northern latitudes. This has melting effects on permafrost, both in the sea,[16] and on land.[17] Lawrence et al. suggest that current rapid melting of the sea ice may induce a rapid melting of arctic permafrost.[17][18] This has consequential effects on methane release,[3] and wildlife.[17] Some studies imply a direct link, as they predict cold air passing over ice is replaced by warm air passing over the sea. This warm air carries heat to the permafrost around the Arctic, and melts it.[17] This permafrost then releases huge quantities of methane.[19] Methane release can be gaseous, but is also transported in solution by rivers.[5] NewScientist states that "Since existing models do not include feedback effects such as the heat generated by decomposition, the permafrost could melt far faster than generally thought."[20]

There is another possible mechanism for rapid methane release. As the Arctic ocean becomes more and more ice free, the ocean absorbs more of the incident energy from the sun. The Arctic ocean becomes warmer than the former ice cover and much more water vapour enters the air. At times when the adjacent land is colder than the sea, this causes rising air above the sea and an off-shore wind as air over the land comes in to replace the rising air over the sea. As the air rises, the dew point is reached and clouds form, releasing latent heat and further reinforcing the buoyancy of the air over the ocean. All this results in air being drawn from the south across the tundra rather than the present situation of cold air flowing toward the south from the cold sinking air over the Arctic ocean. The extra heat being drawn from the south further accelerates the warming of the permafrost and the Arctic ocean with increased release of methane.[citation needed]



When the other tipping points which you didn't address are taken in to account along with major spikes in methane release, that being more heat absorbing dark land mass and ocean surface area particulary close to Antarctica, Eastern Antarctica will start behaving more as Western Antarctica.




Of course all of Eastern Antarctica doesn't even have to melt to facilitate global catastrophe in regards global warming's impact to human civilization.




Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I tell people we will have beach front property (in Raleigh) as snarky joke - but looking at the map NRaleighLiberal Nov 2013 #1
I'm gonna go build me a dock! (nt) jeff47 Nov 2013 #3
Forget the dock, build an Arc. nt bluestate10 Nov 2013 #64
Yeah, no shit. calimary Nov 2013 #13
beach front for me,i knew living in Alabama would pay off stonecutter357 Nov 2013 #40
Florida, New York City, Boston, D.C., and New Orleans all on the bottom of the sea davidn3600 Nov 2013 #2
Maybe Morgan Freeman should be our next President. n/t woodsprite Nov 2013 #4
I'm guessing the residents of Atlantis will be embarrassed! AAO Nov 2013 #52
Well, some of us have been wanting to cut Florida off for years snooper2 Nov 2013 #5
Well, we would be rid of Florida which would solve some problems right there. Yavin4 Nov 2013 #6
my house is in the blue lame54 Nov 2013 #7
So is mine. Ohio, here I come......some day. nt bluestate10 Nov 2013 #66
And that's why Atlanta is named Atlanta Thirties Child Nov 2013 #8
Wow, I'm very, very east on the Florida coast. GBCW....n/r monmouth3 Nov 2013 #9
Fuuuuuuuck. That's me, on the East coast, underwater. JaneyVee Nov 2013 #10
I guess I'll be moving to Rapture then Dash87 Nov 2013 #11
You and me both! nt CFLDem Nov 2013 #60
apparently, we will end up saving the Salton Sea mitchtv Nov 2013 #12
How unfortunate. 2naSalit Nov 2013 #19
Isn't Hawaii a part of the United States? RC Nov 2013 #14
Maui might be cut in two KamaAina Nov 2013 #34
Huh. Well, I guess that's one way to turn Florida blue. n/t jtuck004 Nov 2013 #15
DUzy! valerief Nov 2013 #23
heh. SammyWinstonJack Nov 2013 #86
We get Canada??? underpants Nov 2013 #16
A lot of Canada will be underwater. Nova Scotia will be gone. nt bluestate10 Nov 2013 #67
But that would mostly come from the Antartic...which is highly unlikely Roland99 Nov 2013 #17
Look at Cuba. grantcart Nov 2013 #18
There is going to be a whole bunch of Cryptoad Nov 2013 #20
I'm sure we will "bail out" the super rich tclambert Nov 2013 #50
Exactly. They'll get bailed out, again and again. Mariana Nov 2013 #79
Is this the only way we can get rid of Rick Scott and Marco Rubio? nt valerief Nov 2013 #21
It can never happen FarCenter Nov 2013 #22
That's ok then....... Theyletmeeatcake2 Nov 2013 #26
Unfortunately, my property will not be beachfront in my lifetime. FarCenter Nov 2013 #36
It won't matter because.. Theyletmeeatcake2 Nov 2013 #80
Besides, I figure that there will be a technologically feasible way customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #37
That's the most horiffic "climate fix" idea i've heard Scootaloo Nov 2013 #43
Yes customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #46
I'm not sure if you're advocating, or just going all sci-fi theory on this Scootaloo Nov 2013 #51
OK, so put you down customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #76
Earth doesn't have *that* much water pokerfan Nov 2013 #53
LOL. Lets burn coal to breakdown water and get rid of it! NoOneMan Nov 2013 #54
I never advocated that customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #77
Most waterfront buildings weren't here in 1900. No reason to believe they'll be here in 2110. FarCenter Nov 2013 #44
Good point customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #47
Do you realize if we could make such a machine.... NoOneMan Nov 2013 #55
Absolutely customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #75
I think that is a very optimistic view NoOneMan Nov 2013 #87
That's what the Borg did... hunter Nov 2013 #74
Yes and the same corporations that ripped us off getting into this situation will.... Theyletmeeatcake2 Nov 2013 #82
So after we burn everything we can get our paws on..... NoOneMan Nov 2013 #58
Thank you for that dose of sanity! CFLDem Nov 2013 #61
Your post doesn't take methane in to account along with other feedbacks and tipping points,ie: Uncle Joe Nov 2013 #62
Most ice is in the East Antarctic; methane has a short lifetime in the atmosphere FarCenter Nov 2013 #83
Methane traps 34 more times heat than carbon dioxide and methane's lifespan isn't fixed but subject Uncle Joe Nov 2013 #89
So you're saying we'll suffocate before we drown? Doctor_J Nov 2013 #85
I'm good..... brooklynite Nov 2013 #24
This Map Doedn't show what will happen to the great loop Heather MC Nov 2013 #25
Cool beans. With a little bit of dredging I could build a marina in lower forty Brother Buzz Nov 2013 #27
It gets rid of Rick Scott, Bully Christie and Sarah Palin...nt joeybee12 Nov 2013 #28
Sorry, the Crisco Kid could just head up to northwest NJ KamaAina Nov 2013 #32
GREAT! Dollysmom Nov 2013 #29
CA's Central Valley becomes an inland sea KamaAina Nov 2013 #30
Look down at the bottom KamaAina Nov 2013 #31
That may end the Ice Ages. FarCenter Nov 2013 #45
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Nov 2013 #33
Well... MissDeeds Nov 2013 #35
Naturally. God favors them, you know. Mariana Nov 2013 #81
Don't shed any tears for Rick Scott Dopers_Greed Nov 2013 #38
Looks like flyover country is the best place to be Catherine Vincent Nov 2013 #39
Unfortunately. nt bluestate10 Nov 2013 #68
Inland seas have their advantages. True Blue Door Nov 2013 #41
Again, people focus too much on this because its easy to illustrate NoOneMan Nov 2013 #57
Most of our staple crops go into feeding farm animals anyway. True Blue Door Nov 2013 #72
Why, that would require some amount of intelligence NoOneMan Nov 2013 #73
But hey! Scootaloo Nov 2013 #42
Goody H. Cromwell Nov 2013 #48
I guess the moral is dipsydoodle Nov 2013 #49
The Bahamas are under water too B Calm Nov 2013 #56
Will we call it the Mississippi bay? The Cuban archipelago? alfredo Nov 2013 #59
Scary possibility Packerowner740 Nov 2013 #63
Safety will be an illusion whether the ocean reaches you or not. Major die offs in biodiversity, Uncle Joe Nov 2013 #65
You're right, that's why I posted the scary part Packerowner740 Nov 2013 #69
No problem, I hate using that "sarcasm" thingy as well, Uncle Joe Nov 2013 #71
And the really cool part? How lifeless and acidic that seawater will be! hatrack Nov 2013 #70
umm..looks like we would have only a Virtual Florida. Perhaps riversedge Nov 2013 #78
Finally my place on Hudson Bay will be temperate Doctor_J Nov 2013 #84
Looking at MN. How far west does the lake expand? jwirr Nov 2013 #88
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What America will look li...»Reply #89