By Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius, Tumblr and Facebook. GP article archive here. Originally published at DownWithTyranny
Quick and dirty (very dirty).
I’ve written many times that things are happening on the climate front much more quickly than anyone anticipates. (Just one example: “The Greenland Ice Sheet Is Melting 600% Faster Than Any Model Predicted,” but there are dozens of other pieces that could be cited.)
I’ve called this tendency to under-anticipate the pace of climate change “being wrong to the slow side.” We have a strong (and encouraged) tendency to believe that the relentless march out of the climate range that nurtured human civilization will happen slowly, incrementally, gradually — yet we consistently find out, again and again, in instance after instance, that these changes can also occur in unanticipated leaps and collapses as well.
These leaps and collapses are going to become more frequent, as the pace of change accelerates and larger and more significant elements of the climate system destabilize. Leave a glass of ice sitting at room temperature, and the ice will melt slowly at first, but that melt-rate will inevitably accelerate. Same with a destabilized, out-of-equilibrium climate system.
You could call the accelerating pace of climate change a kind of Snowball Effect — a mirror of what happens when a snowball starts rolling down a hill. After a period of slow and gradual movement, it picks up both speed and momentum (added mass) until it becomes a large, destructive force.
This is another of those stories of rapid change. Via Inside Climate News:
Massive Permafrost Thaw Documented in Canada, Portends Huge Carbon Release
Study shows 52,000 square miles in rapid decline, with sediment and carbon threatening the surrounding environment and potentially accelerating global warming.
Huge slabs of Arctic permafrost in northwest Canada are slumping and disintegrating, sending large amounts of carbon-rich mud and silt into streams and rivers. A new study that analyzed nearly a half-million square miles in northwest Canada found that this permafrost decay is affecting 52,000 square miles of that vast stretch of earth—an expanse the size of Alabama.
According to researchers with the Northwest Territories Geological Survey, the permafrost collapse is intensifying and causing landslides into rivers and lakes that can choke off life downstream, all the way to where the rivers discharge into the Pacific Ocean.
Similar large-scale landscape changes are evident across the Arctic including in Alaska, Siberia and Scandinavia, the researchers wrote in a paper published in the journal Geology in early February. The study didn’t address the issue of greenhouse gas releases from thawing permafrost. But its findings could help quantify the immense global scale of the thawing, which will contribute to more accurate estimates of carbon emissions.
Arctic permafrost, as the name implies, is soil that has remained frozen — both on land and underwater — since before the last ice age. That soil is now thawing at an accelerating rate. This releases both methane locked into the soil, and CO2.
About Arctic methane:
Large quantities of methane are stored in the Arctic in natural gas deposits, permafrost, and as undersea 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]
But thawing permafrost also releases CO2 itself:
As the permafrost thaws, microbes wake up and begin digesting the newly available remains of ancient plants and animals stored as carbon in the soil. This digestion produces either carbon dioxide or methane, depending on soil conditions. Scientists want to understand the ratio of carbon dioxide to methane gas released by this process because it affects the strength of the permafrost carbon feedback loop: greenhouse gases released due to thawing permafrost cause temperatures to rise, leading to even more thawing and carbon release.
How much carbon (in aggregated methane and CO2 form) are we talking about?
[T]he Arctic permafrost is like a vast underground storage tank of carbon, holding almost twice as much as the atmosphere. At that scale, small changes in how the carbon is released will have big effects. [emphasis mine]
There’s twice as much carbon in the permafrost as there is in the air today. Let that sink in. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm (parts per million by volume). Pre-Industrial atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm. There’s enough carbon in the permafrost to more than double today’s 400 ppm number before natural processes start to remove it — and that net-removal of CO2 assumes that humans stop adding their own, something we show no sign of doing.
As the report cited at the top noted, scientists haven’t quantified the amount of carbon release yet; they’ve simply documented the accelerated thawing. Later studies will do that.
Your takeaway, though, is simple — the snowball is picking up speed. Is it an emergency yet? Time, perhaps, to act?
(Update: The sudden-change stories just keep coming in. As I write, a science station on the Antarctic peninsula has just recorded a record-breaking high of 63.5° Fahrenheit, or 17.5 degrees Celsius. Ninety percent of the earth’s fresh water is locked up as ice in Antarctica, the melt of which would raise sea levels a stunning 200 feet.)
70 comments
Comments are closed.
It’s METHANE that is the killer and it’s GHG warming potential is far more than twice the existing CO2 in the atmosphere. Also note that the greatest amount of methane is stored in shallow sea beds in Siberia (which are also thawing). Start over with this article and get it right next time, please. Report on the Russian research findings including the blow holes that have left huge craters.
Here’s wiki version of the relative impact numbers. Methane is 86 times CO2 over 20 years. Ouch.
———–
Global warming potential (GWP) is a relative measure of how much heat a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere. It compares the amount of heat trapped by a certain mass of the gas in question to the amount of heat trapped by a similar mass of carbon dioxide. A GWP is calculated over a specific time interval, commonly 20, 100 or 500 years. GWP is expressed as a factor of carbon dioxide (whose GWP is standardized to 1). In the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, methane has a lifetime of 12.4 years and with climate-carbon feedbacks a global warming potential of 86 over 20 years and 34 over 100 years in response to emissions. User related choices such as the time horizon can greatly affect the numerical values obtained for carbon dioxide equivalents. For a change in time horizon from 20 to 100 years, the GWP for methane decreases by a factor of approximately 3.[1] The substances subject to restrictions under the Kyoto protocol either are rapidly increasing their concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere or have a large GWP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
I read a Russian paper on a multiyear study of Siberian methane release +20 years ago. The thumbnail calcs were not encouraging. Fantastic store of organic detritus that runs out to a methane release that overwhelms the warming potential of CO2 when digested. Better yet as the methane releases progress, one may speculate methane concentration intensifying to the point of achieving the lower flammability ratio (CH4:O2) at the liquid/gas interface in the bogs and lighting off. then you’ll have CO (–>C02), CO2 and Methane.
http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/opinion/features/f0099-new-warning-about-climate-change-linked-to-peat-bogs/
My conclusion then was Earth is in for inexorable warming and nothing we are going to do about that other than fewer people different clothing and a different diet.
Incidentally, I think worth pointing out Microbes don’t digest plant and animals stored as Carbon. Carbon is an Element. Microbes digest organic detritus which contains Carbon at the molecular level as organic compounds. Someone debating the subject would loose credibility with the shorthand contention …plants animals stored as carbonrogress,
I don’t know about the cartoon. It doesn’t seem appropriate to show a snowball in a blizzard if the earth is in a toaster oven melting.
It makes you wonder, privately, whether there are psychological experiments being conducted on humanity without it’s knowledge or consent. It’s admittely hard to conduct a psychological experiment with somebody’s consent, since that biasess thhe results. I wonder about that alot and think the answer is “Yes”. It’s a deep thought.
At any rate, if this isn’t a good time to buy a sailboat I don’t know what time is a good time. It’s like Pascal’s wager — if the sea level’s dont rise 200 feet you still have a sailboat you can get drunk on and have fun. If they do rise 200 feet, well, at least you have a house! If we go into a new ice age, well, you can stiil sail in cold weather. Yoou really can’t lose with this onee.
All the science tech talk gets kind of complicated. Even evidently for scientists. Or maybe it’s not complicated for them, but they argue about it anyway.
I was thinking that everyone in New Yawk with a 20th floor condo has got it made. Turn the balcony into a boat hitch. That would be so cool!
You worry though about food delivery. Most of the restaurants are at street level & you don’t want any problems when you phone in your order. If they’re underwater, you may not be sure they’ll get your order rite. Forget about the language problem, that’s just another obstacle! This is really going to be annoying, if it happens. It’s already hard, especially if it’s a Mexican delivery. You say your apartment is G like George and they send it to “J”.
I’d worry more about there being anything to eat than how it would be delivered
You are totally out of line.
1. The article very clearly discusses methane. You didn’t bother reading it. Commenting without having read the article is a violation of our site Policies. Gaius has previously written posts, plural, on how Obama’s greenhouse gas policies failed to include methane emissions.
2. Methane is a carbon compound.
3. You aren’t right on methane v. CO2 either. This is not clear cut. How one views the severity of the damage depends on the measurement period:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/dec/03/doha-climate-talks-co2-methane
The main take away for me from the article is the fact that our models may be far underestimating the rate of global warming. HIs use of the NW Canada permafrost is just an example of what may be causing that to occur. Your example of the Siberian seabeds is just another shoe ready to drop.
And there is this in the Pacific;
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/underwater-greenhouse-gas-pacific-ocean-hawaii-source-bacteria-discovered-methane-qmul-a7598051.html
I agree with Yves: the article was quite clear about its purview, which was the amount of permafrost melting, and specifically NW Canada. It mentioned the clathrates, which as you say are mostly in Siberia because it’s so long. I believe the blowholes have been reported before, probably here.
Perhaps you could send NC a report on the blowholes, to supplement this short article? They make for spectacular pictures.
To add to Yves’ comment: methane is more powerful but shorter term, because it degrades a lot faster than CO2. That means it contributes to CO2 levels in the long run, though.
A sentence seems to be missing from your final paragraph, which would say that one of the breakdown products of methane is carbon dioxide (CO2). Of course, the conclusion in your final sentence directly follows from that.
Yep – we’re screwed! Add this to what is happening in Siberia and there goes all predictable weather patterns for the next couple of centuries.
Millennia more like it, and that is probably a conservative estimate which doesn’t take enough account of threshold and domino effects
Siberia, is the give-away: the whole thing is a Russian plot. Look for Mr Putin in Canada– I’m sure it’s his agents hacking away at the permafrost. There are no limits to his evil !
yes yes the Russians figured long ago that global warming would be 90% beneficial to Russia and doom the west. All they had to do was help an increase of 150 parts million of CO2 in the atmosphere and voila! the west was doomed. Of course some science observations put a damper on this conspiracy – about the Methane even Gavin Schmidt of NASA, a bigtime man made CO2 induced climate change believer doesn’t think this will happen One line of evidence Schmidt cites comes from ice core records, which include two warm Arctic periods that occurred 8,000 and 125,000 years ago, he said. There is strong evidence that summer sea ice was reduced during these periods, and so the methane-release mechanism (reduced sea ice causes sea floor warming and hydrate melting) could have happened then, too. But there’s no methane pulse in ice cores from either warm period, Schmidt said. “It might be a small thing that we can’t detect, but if it was large enough to have a big climate impact, we would see it,” Schmidt told LiveScience. or Carol Ruppel – But Ruppel, a methane hydrate expert at the U.S. Geological Survey who authored a review of research on gas hydrates in 2011, also called the sudden-thawing scenario unrealistic.
“I would say it’s nearly impossible,” Ruppel, chief of the USGS Gas Hydrates Project in Woods Holes, Mass., told LiveScience.”
But of course the science is decided, Consensus rules doesn’t it.
You mean it’s all a Russian plot to destroy the world?
Siberia is warming faster than anywhere in the world, warns top Russian geophysicist, distinguished Russian meteorological authority, Valentin Meleshko, former head of St Petersburg-based Voyeikov Geophysical Observatory.
http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/opinion/news/siberia-is-warming-faster-than-anywhere-in-the-world-warns-top-russian-geophysicist/
In Russia climate impacts on permafrost are particularly important. Projected changes in the permafrost seriously threaten the Russian economy, primarily due to the increased risk of damage to the infrastructure of the Far North warns Professor Oleg Anisimov, from the State Hydrological Institute in St Petersburg.
http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/features/f0065-global-warming-could-happen-quicker-in-russias-coldest-region/
Warning of ‘collapse’ of buildings in Siberia’s permafrost cities in next 35 years.
http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0280-warning-of-collapse-of-buildings-in-siberias-permafrost-cities-in-next-35-years/
Russia and Climate Change: A Looming Threat
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/russia-and-climate-change-a-looming-threat/
“We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet will be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.” – George Carlin
So maybe if Russia/Putin urges Trump et al. to do something about global warming, he’ll listen?
[This is a snark on the “all Russia, all the time” focus of the Dems. But I would not be surprised if they decided to try this angle.]
“We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either
No, not due to global warming anyway,, I think that is overstated, and overstating undermines credibility.. more likely just fewer humans.. and I’ll probably be gone at that inflection point anyway.
OK, but you are quoting George Carlin, not a climate scientist.
he’s gone too ;o/
I have a good friend who rails almost daily about the up-coming climate disaster under Trump and his cabal of climate deniers. This same friend commutes about 45 minutes to work every day in a large truck. I believe it was Pogo who said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
“This same friend commutes about 45 minutes to work every day in a large truck.”
One of the tactics of climate deniers, if forced to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change, is to reduce the problem to isolated moralistic market “choices” of individuals. This deflects attention away from the massive state-imposed solutions that are needed, and deflcts attention from away from ssytemic problems in capitalism (and the power of the small class that benefits from it). It also engenders a feeling of hopelessness.
So, why do you choose to contribute to the climate change denial apparatus in this way?
Excellent point; if a reliable nationwide electric vehicle charging network was in place, power by wind/solar/storage-based grids, and a wider variety of electric vehicles (including vans and trucks) was available, the vast majority of people would switch to electric transportation – particularly when they realize that per-mile travel costs are reduced by at least 75% for electric vehicles vs. gasoline/diesel vehicles.
The easiest way for government to facilitate this is to strip all subsidies, tax breaks and supports from fossil fuel production and fossil fuel-powered vehicle manufacturing, and instead deliver them (in an intelligent, market-enhancing manner) to the renewable energy and electric vehicle industries.
Can I just say that I’m not a fan of continuing the automotive addiction by supplementing with electric vehicles? Mind you, I’m speaking as someone who actually owns one and this is the second one we’ve owned (we’re a one car family; an anomaly in this country to be sure). EVs and PHEVs solve only one part of the automotive problem, air pollution. They don’t solve the other problems: congestion, resource consumption, space usage, etc. Don’t count on autonomous vehicles to solve any of these either. They might make a dent, but these problems will continue to be problems, and this is assuming they see widespread adoption. I am not convinced yet that we will see widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles. I’ve observed that many drivers, if not most, do not use their cruise control, a technology that’s been around for decades. Instead, we’ll probably see them applied to specific use cases.
Just want to emphasize this, all of it.
GP
Yes, an endless addiction to growth is going to be the downfall of capitalism and probably humanity, simply because the Earth is not growing, only us. Each year we clear, mine, farm and pollute more of the planet in the interest of growth, both economic and human population. This growth is at the expense of most of the other species on the planet , which we are making extinct – thirty percent gone in the last 40 years according to WWF – the sixth great extinction of the planet’s history and entirely man( and woman) made
Hi, new commenter but have been following NC for some months…
I just want to say that you’ve captured something I’ve felt for a long time now. You have given me a way to articulate a response whenever people give me the “personal choice” BS.
Yves
As someone who follows the science of climate change fairly closely and has done so for going on 15 years now I think we need to be a bit more clear about the kinds of stuff which Gaius Publius writes on the subject. He is clearly not well read on the subjects and has frequently pushed conclusions which are not supported by the overwhelming majority of the world’s established experts on the subject.
To wit: The issues and concerns about runaway releases of methane from the permafrost and from beneath the Arctic seas are being wildly exaggerated by a diverse group of well intentioned people who have jumped to conclusions which are not backed by the state of knowledge on the subject.
For example the academic article linked from which his post is derived never mentions methane at all nor the potential for massive releases of CO2 or methane. He is extrapolating from the discussion of the melting permafrost which dates from the last ice age to imply that this melting will trigger the postulated runaway methane releases and thus lead to rapid warming. There is no scientific justification to be doing this at all.
It is true that vast amounts of carbon and methane are depositied across the arctic and along the continental shelves beneath the seas. There is certainly melting going on and releases of (to date) minor amounts of it (minor being used to describe the amount in scale to what would be required to result in the runaway effect). It is certainly possible the we may someday reach conditions which result in a runaway but we are far – very far – from the conditions which would result in that runaway. The fear is that our current trajectory could eventually deliver us to that place. And this results in the extremists coming out of the woodwork as always – see the Arctic Methane Emergency Group for one example of this and Guy McPherson for another. The claims they make are wild exaggerations.
The Russian researchers on these issues so often referred to do not actually make the claims for an imminent runaway in arctic methane and carbon releases which are so frequently attributed to them. They are talking about what ‘could’ happen and not what ‘is’ happening. A frequently sited item from their research concerns the bubbles of methane rising to the surface of the Arctic Ocean from the East Siberian Arctic Sea. This is certainly an example of what can happen but the releases of today are considered to most likely be the natural result of the ebbing of the last ice age. In a natural cycle – which anthropogenic conditions are preventing from happening – the swing into the next ice age would bring this off gassing to a halt. This is not going to happen it looks like.
But when will this large emission of methane and carbon which we are baking into the system happen? Bottom line is not anytime soon – as in well beyond 2100. This data point is the group conclusion of the worlds best experts on this situation – see Gavin Schmidt and the other scientists at Real Climate. All of them say that the ball to keep our eyes on is our own emissions of CO2 and methane. If we don’t get our own CO2 and methane emissions stopped then nothing else will matter. Our emissions are the driver of climate change.
I believe what is happening with these alarmist articles and the blogs associated with them is they are an attempt to scare the hell out of people. The goal being triggering doing just what the main stream scientists are saying we should do – stop our own emissions. They cherry pick data points such as a couple of day spike in methane emissions somewhere over the arctic sea, or permafrost melting in an interesting way, or a methane blowout and start screaming. But this is not scientifically different than Sen Inhofe seeing a big snow storm and discounting climate changes existence. So they have fundamentally given up on reason and science and are trying to initiate ‘panic’ as our last resort (not necessarily an invalid strategy I must admit).
Calm heads, sticking to facts are my foundation however. So I must take exception.
None of this is to say that our situation is not dire and the prospects not grim…as they certainly are both of those things. We need to be lucky more than smart at this point since smartness has not gotten us very far.
First, a non-rhetorical question: what other times has the influx of carbon to the atmosphere been this quick? I would like to know, and the knowledge-base has advanced significantly since I was following it daily.
The point about extrapolation is important. Unless we have a situation where conditions are similar, we are extrapolating. Those conditions cannot be understood simply by rate of release, but the higher dimensions, the rate of change of the rate of change, and beyond. (This is known as jerk, subsequently followed by snap, crackle, and pop.)
The antonym of alarmist is optimist. Two sides of the bias of Janus. Can you provide an investigated time-period where the conditions are quite similar (again, non-rhetorical)? If not, the distinction between calm heads and extremists is a matter of opinion and not objectivity.
I agree with Steve H’s point above, that either way the future is an extrapolation – informed speculation shall we say, and thus “the distinction between calm heads and extremists is a matter of opinion and not objectivity”.
Given that the IPCC has been way conservative in every prediction thus far (someone correct me if I’m wrong!), and even more importantly, with the masses of fossil fuel industry funding influence, the mainstream discussion is very slanted to an extremely unlikely optimistic scenario, and therefore, it is entirely appropriate for some discussion to be skewed to the pessimistic side. The pessimistic side having been show to be most accurate over the past 20 years or so.
The most recent numbers on the CO2 ppm levels accelerating increase each year, and global temperatures, as well as melting arctic, and now antarctic ice, well beyond any normal deviation is enough to get ones attention. While I think talk of human extinction is not exactly helpful (McPherson), as it can encourage people to give up, and it is still speculative, there is a massive devastation ongoing among non-human species.
Lots more to think and write about, but I never seem to have the time!
the rate of change of the rate of change
that is the crux..
The article stated “As the report cited at the top noted, scientists haven’t quantified the amount of carbon release yet; they’ve simply documented the accelerated thawing. Later studies will do that.”
I agree that we shouldn’t jump to conclusions without the data. I assume that the current climate models factor in the carbon/methane release from natural deposits? Just how sensitive are the models to this “natural” release. It seems that there are a number of things that can happen to throw off the climate models if the rate is higher than expected.
Call me a skeptic, but my experience with modeling the natural world (i.e. Groundwater flow models) is that it’s very difficult to get it right without understanding the dynamics of all the variables. In the early days, 80’s or so, our models were off by orders of magnitude because we basically assumed that we were dealing with an isotropic medium for groundwater flow (i.e. in a sandbox). Models showed that groundwater could be cleaned up in 5-10 years by pumping and treating. 40 years later we are still at it and basically will be pumping for many more unless we try something else.
You commented, “But when will this large emission of methane and carbon which we are baking into the system happen? Bottom line is not anytime soon – as in well beyond 2100. This data point is the group conclusion of the worlds best experts on this situation – see Gavin Schmidt and the other scientists at Real Climate.”
I hope these guys are right or, if they are wrong, that we have much longer to get our act together.
I have to disagree, because this issue is critically important to what kind of future climate we will be experiencing, even with rapid transition off fossil fuels. What it clearly says is that warming will not be stopped or reversed in the lifetime of anyone alive today, and that means adaptation to warming is just as important for human civilization (and wildlife and biodiversity conservation) as rapid deployment of renewable energy technology. This means infrastructure projects designed to handle rising sea levels, droughts and floods are a must.
If there’s a simple one-line message here, it’s that warming is inevitable and we have to prepare for it, but the sooner we get off fossil fuels, the lower the rate of warming will be.
Now if you want scientific details on permafrost emissions from some widely-cited papers
http://thetippingpoints.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Schaefer_et_al_2011.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/085003
Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, Science, 2010 [via Google Scholar]
Faced with an eminent threat common wisdom suggests maintaining a calm cool head and avoiding panic. The calm supports identifying clear action for responding to the threat and supports best execution of that action.
Global Warming presents a conundrum to this common wisdom. The time scale of the threat is unknown and difficult to predict. The severity of the threat as it unfolds over time is difficult to assess for any given time period — even the present. But we know from study of past eras of Earth climate large changes have occurred and some of them occurred rapidly. We also know the rate of carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere over the last few decades is unprecedented within the span of millions of years of past eras.
The scale of Global Warming requires the kind of large scale response only a government or more likely the actions of a combine of governments might mount. But we have governments controlled by large Corporations and our wealthy who believe there is no such thing as a society or the common good or anything except the Market. Repeating an apt quip ” … it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” [Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher].
I agree with thoughtfulPerson “… talk of human extinction is not exactly helpful (McPherson), as it can encourage people to give up ….” But on the other hand I’m not sure what sober actions a calm cool head might direct. Sometimes I feel as a Roman citizen might have felt around the middle of the 4th Century A.D. — except I don’t see the equivalent of a Constantinople where I might migrate.
I am also disturbed by the way discussion of Global Warming can get caught in either-or arguments about the crises Global Warming presents — either don’t worry things aren’t as bad as disaster ‘X’ or do worry disaster ‘X’ is coming soon. The disaster ‘X’ is usually something along the lines of a dramatic movie scenario. Collapse does not require a dramatic movie disaster — a thousand cuts or fewer will suffice. The thousand cuts have already started.
[No I’m not suggesting this post presents an argument for a disaster ‘X’. This post quite calmly reports that large sections of the Canadian tundra have melted and elaborates why this could portend a major increase in the rate of accumulation of greenhouse gases — including the badboy methane. This is one of several tipping point phenomena anticipated as a consequence of Global Warming. Whether this is a movie scale disaster ‘X’ or not remains a matter of time — but how much disaster do we need before we should lose our cool?]
“matter of time” … should be “matter only time may tell”
I’m still going to side with the “alarmists”, even if they are actually being alarmists. Besides the erosion of the scientific principles (which I will challenge in a moment) what negative comes out of being alarmist in our current situation? So it leads to a more dire call to reduce energy and resource consumption, this has benefits not just for mitigating climate change but also to give civilized society a fighting chance for another 1000 years by not starving itself of the resources that it needs to survive.
WRT science being politicized (degrading the impartiality), which is the assumed position of an alarmist in the scientific profession, I ask, when was science not political? From Bruno to the climate scientists of today it will always have a political dimension. I trust the process enough to think that the hypotheses that are invalid will be weeded out. If some of these scientists make alarmist hypotheses, so be it, they are completely within the bounds of the scientific process and they engage in politics in a way that motivates us to do something. I think that is needed now more than ever. As I see it, one of the biggest problems with the field of climate change for the past 50 years is that it was not political enough. Fortunately, this has changed in the last 20 years.
Wyoming, mine is hardly an alarmist piece in the “methane bomb” sense — in fact, I was just roundly attacked upthread for not being at all in the methane bomb crowd. I’m agnostic about the methane bomb being an imminent threat, and have said so for the record any number of times.
I must say, I do find this response dismissive in tone, and worse, inaccurately so. For example, from just the beginning:
A number of statements in the above are simply not true. To start, I’m quite well read in the literature, have been keeping up for at least half a decade, and I’ve conducted reasonably technical interviews with, for example, Dr. Michael Mann, people who don’t at all find that I’ve “pushed conclusions which are not supported by the overwhelming majority of the world’s established experts”.
As I said, I’m entirely agnostic on methane bomb alarmism, as are most good scientists, including Dr. Mann. Yes, it could happen. Most think it’s not likely based on current science, but most will also admit … Who knows?
About the part I bolded in your statement above, I want to push back on it. This is just one of your points, but a telling one as I see it.
The “academic article linked from which [my] post is derived”— the Inside Climate News piece — includes this sentence:
The link above is to a Science Daily article that references a study published in Nature Climate Change. The Science Daily piece starts this way:
Clearly methane-aware, at least as regards the soil, but the opposite of “methane bomb” talk, on the part of the source study, the article I cited referencing the study, or on my part.
But tellingly for this discussion (your assertion that “the academic article linked from which his post is derived never mentions methane at all”), Science Daily also includes this sentence:
While not an explicit methane mention, it clearly comprehends the vast stores of Arctic carbon in all forms, including CO2 and CH4, and in all Arctic locations, including as undersea clathrates. Which means that the Inside Climate News writer, who inserted the link into his own sentence referencing the Arctic as a carbon storehouse, also gets that idea. It’s just not a leap to see this as a reference to Arctic CO2 and CH4 in the aggregate.
(I got this by clicking through, by the way, and reading both the primary source and its supporting sources as I prepared my own piece.)
And as to this, your second part:
This is just not true. I’m (a) just reading the sources, all of which are aware of both the CO2 and CH4 issues, and (b) nowhere advancing the runaway methane theory.
Can you see why this degree of mischaracterization is disturbing, especially in a comment this dismissive? And this reply just addresses the first few paragraphs of your much longer comment. (Later you characterize my pieces in general and Naked Capitalism as a site as “these alarmist articles and the blogs associated with them”. Again, pretty dismissive, all based on an idea none of us is advancing.)
GP
As I said, I’m entirely agnostic on methane bomb alarmism, as are most good scientists, including Dr. Mann. Yes, it could happen. Most think it’s not likely based on current science, but most will also admit … Who knows
Not a Climate Scientist but I am in the very likely crowd on methane release.
Where (alarmist) people go into the ditch is their natural impatience, thinking in terms of their human lifespan rather than in more expansive geologic time frames. That is an egotistical preference that most dooms-dayers have in common. the end is near!.
Now if I were a climate scientist, say like MM,an I was without bulletproof data, a publically non-agnostic position would be credibility suicide. Sitting in the bar w MM, I’m guessing he would quietly offer a non-agnostic opinion.
If we accept that Geography is on average sloooowly warming and it can be observably seen releasing methane we know that biological digestion process is happening. It may even be fairly quiescent in very large temperature fluctuations below 0C. But when the fluctuation is on average above 0C and that 1,000btu/lb phase change from ice to water happens, and it cannot get far enough below 0C to recover, the whip comes down and it will be spectacular
.
Your last sentence claims that you are not advancing this alarmism when in fact there seems to be no other way to perceive your post and then your response to me doubles down on that very point.
Also, do not try to include this blog – Naked Capitalism – into my critique of this post of yours in some weird attempt to gain credibility by bringing in some phantom victim. My language clearly did not involve NC in my critique of what you are doing above and have done many other times on the subject of climate change. I read your blog also so I am familiar with many of your articles. When you tried to paint my response as tying you and this blog together you lost pretty much any chance of convincing me I might have misconstrued what you seem to be clearly doing.
Your language supports the radical positions of the kinds of unscientific posts one sees from AMEG and McPherson in that it starts with a title which clearly leads one in that direction. Contrary to what the general scientific consensus actually is. And the rest of the article serves that same function. Much of your response heads in that direction as well. There is good reason that folks like Gavin Schmidt and Mann clearly state on their blog that the ball to keep our eyes on is CO2 emissions and not the ‘methane bomb’. Yes there is a great amount of carbon in the arctic which may be released someday. If it happens then all bets are off as it constitutes catastrophe of epic proportions. But focusing on that issue is a huge mistake and gets us no where – it even retards progress. Our only chance to solve this existential problem is to focus on what we can effect and that is carbon emissions generated by human activity. If we deal with that issue we deal with the others at the same time.
Perhaps you don’t mean to be doing this misdirection and giving out wrong impressions, I doubt it but perhaps. In any case that is what I see you doing.
Being well read does not mean one has read a lot of the literature and talked to a lot of experts. It means one comprehends what one is reading and hearing and puts it all together systemically. It means one understands it. Anyway that is it for me on this subject as we can only go in one direction I think at this point.
You replied “My language clearly did not involve NC in my critique.” What you originally wrote and GP reiterated was, “I believe what is happening with these alarmist articles and the blogs associated with them is they are an attempt to scare the hell out of people.”
When doubling down, you write “(m)y language clearly did not involve NC in my critique . .”
NO! It can be interpreted either way. Was the reference to blogs implicitly to include NC? Or were the blogs you referring to the ones that were just in your comment? It’s possible I can see ‘intent’ in what you write but the apparent aggressive tone you have alienates the reader(or some). Your comment contains a plethora of modal verbs and no footnotes that a reader can verify. You, WYOMING, are certainly NOT CLEAR.
What I read is possibly a misdirect or may be an intent to create confusion. I surmise that your interjection is meant to be divisive and misleading. Which leads me to speculate. How does the state of WYOMING makes its income? Through coal extraction, much of which is sent to China and Fracking; a dubious energy source that was secretly introduced by Cheney Inc et al. With the yuge investments of dollars, somewhere in the 10’s of trillions of dollars, meaningful carbon reductions MEANS shutting these industries down immediately and starting with the civil suits, and redirecting of capital towards sustainable strategies, post haste. “THIS” is what WYOMING fears the most. I mean, Wyoming has made tons of money and continues to off of Carbon based fuel sources. So much so, they built and renovated many of their public schools where they can preach the gospel of the Lord.
And, putting up your guard when it comes to responses like “these” in the comments section?
Ultimately one cannot ignore reality. The IPCC claimed that the Arctic wouldn’t be ice free until 2050 to 2100. In 2013 the US Naval Postgraduate School’s Department of Oceanography projected that the Arctic would be ice free in 2016, plus or minus three years. This prediction, from what I have seen, was met with scorn and ridicule. It seems like a common pattern, just ask Guy McPherson, Peter Wadhams, or Jason Box. The likelihood of the Arctic being ice free this decade is very real.
The IPCC did not include the appropriate, if any, feedback loops in their modeling. A recent study found that the albedo (the amount of light reflected) change in the Arctic is equivalent to 25% of warming attributed to carbon dioxide. This was not taken into account by the Paris Accords.
The Arctic region has shallow continental shelves that contain large quantities of methane hydrate. Many expeditions have shown increasing amounts of methane being released. Some of these plumes are over a kilometer long. The Russian researchers you mentioned are not only deeply concerned, but they no longer rule out a catastrophic methane release.
Soot, dust, and microbial algae make the problem worse by absorbing more sunlight, increasing the snow melt and further warming the Arctic. Siberia has been on fire this summer, literally. Temperatures have reached an incredible 95°F. There have been massive forest fires enhanced by climate change, that have not only burned trees, but also peat and thawed permafrost. The heat and soot are a very troubling addition to the pink algae bloom that is absorbing even more sunlight. We are starting to see the effects of a feedback loop from hell.
Let’s keep in mind that that the Arctic soil has roughly 1600 billion metric tons or organic carbon, about half of all the earth’s organic carbon soil. To put this in perspective, only 350 billion metric tons of carbon have been emitted from all fossil fuel activities since 1850. Most of these carbon stores are within 10 feet of the surface. If this heating becomes a runaway process, stopping all emissions will not reverse it. Given this amount of carbon deposits, the result would be a major turning point for humanity.
Deadhorse, Alaska, just six miles from the Arctic coast, set the state record for any Arctic location with a temperature of 85°F. The statewide average temperature for this first six months of the year was 9 degrees Fahrenheit above average, smashing the previous record of 2.5 degrees.
The models are not just conservative, they are becoming detached from reality. Observations are very expensive and computers are cheap. The hubris displayed by the modelers to Dr. Peter Wadhams, a scientist that has traveled under the polar ice over fifty times, is reminiscent of your two posts.
I find this kind of soft denialism very perverse. The time for alarm is now. We might not know when, but we do know that without a Manhattan Project effort we will very likely reach a point of no return.
projected that the Arctic would be ice free in 2016, plus or minus three years.
The entire Artic or a northwest passage? I would like to se a link for the claim of the former
The defintion of an ice-free Arctic is a bit of a misnomer. It is often defined as having less than 1 million square kilometers of sea ice.
The paper is behind a paywall, but the following link should provide you some information:
US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016
In regards to the Northwest Passage, it has been ice-free in the past, including last summer.
Northwest passage now ice free and easier to traverse
This is a political-economy blog, not a scientific journal.
The scientists say it is at least this bad. You seem to be saying we should ignore the possibility that it may be much worse. I say bollocks.
Forget ‘methane bombs’ and focus on CO2? And when the bomb goes off they’ll say ‘why didn’t you tell us? we might have done something if we’d known.’
And then we have this: Trump administration seeks steep cuts from NOAA budget
Top on the list for cuts at NOAA, research on protecting coastal areas from flooding and storm surges.
200 feet of ocean rise is possible; could happen over a shorter time frame than we have imagined; there is every indication already that this will happen; there is no plan – no way – to prevent it, nada, zip. The smartest thing we could do is rationalize a massive inland migration globally. It could accomplish a lot. Like the obvious, achieving high ground; but it is also a good opportunity to clean up our mess as we go, mitigate as much toxic pollution as possible, plant trees, build sustainable new towns. This actually sounds like a very good long term investment strategy. We might want to rethink old plans for infra; maybe scrap those maglev trains at low altitudes, etc. The downside to getting started now is minimal even if the ocean does not rise 200 feet all that fast. And not a word. Just a few dribbles from the military about the threat of GW. That is the most telling thing – it tells us that this is a very serious situation.
Sorry — I don’t follow the last sentence of your comment: “Just a few dribbles from the military about the threat of GW. That is the most telling thing – it tells us that this is a very serious situation.” Please explain further.
I think susan the other is referring to dribbled news releases such as this;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/
Here is a nice molecular chemistry perspective;
http://slideplayer.com/slide/6283554/
Here is another one. Scroll down the question, “Why are some gases more effective at absorbing longwave radiation”;
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-two/
Different Topic: Can you point me to presentations describing the absorption properties of silicon glass? I am curious about the most energy efficient means for bringing it to a working temperature.
Thanks for the link to the chemistry perspective — it contains information helpful to other interests I have.
I was curious about susan the other’s comment because I thought the military had — in the recent past — made several explicit assessments of Global Warming as a threat and used it as a point of argument in their mission statements. Has the military toned down their warnings recently — perhaps in response to Trump?
smartest thing we could do is rationalize a massive inland migration globally
People of Detroit.. hang on , property value speculators are on there way!
Impossible.
Where is that water to come from ?
The Arctic ice cap and Ross ice shelf DON’T qualify.
‘Cause they’re ‘floaters.’
200 feet of ocean rise — requires an astounding amount of ice to melt.
But.
There’s practically nothing left — after 20,000 years of global warming.
Stop straw manning readers and saying things that are patently false. Susan the other made NO mention of the Arctic or Ross ice shelf. Do this one more time and you will be banned.
From Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-ice-melts-cause-rising-sea/
Her 200 foot comment is consistent with this article.
Betcha FLIR will soon be outlawed, aside from gunsites? https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LBtHE4cfeJQ/V8gRqWkdvKI/AAAAAAAAVZU/Qy5FkCisYGMHbRgu-cd2hidnrh1a1qITgCLcB/s320/August-30-2016.png http://www.climatechangenews.com/2014/08/06/were-fed-scientist-on-danger-from-ocean-methane-plumes/ http://www.texassharon.com/2015/09/10/icymi-proof-epa-methane-rules-needed/ https://youtu.be/NKkZUDpyKJA?t=173 http://priceofoil.org/2016/07/22/a-bridge-too-far-report/ https://www.fractracker.org/2015/03/organic-farms-near-drilling-1/ http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/n0681-now-the-proof-permafrost-bubbles-are-leaking-methane-200-times-above-the-norm/
Given the extreme complexity of the subject and the high volume of scientific publication (see, for example http://www.permafrostcarbon.org/publications.html for a fairly comprehensive bibliography of relevant work year by year, and http://www.permafrostcarbon.org/syntheses.html for a listing of syntheses) I am extremely chary of blog posts and pop science articles on permafrost melting, or any other aspect of climate change. I have more confidence in the special issues or news sections of serious scientific journals, even though they are a tougher read.
A Nature “Special” a couple of years ago brought together then-recent work: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/permafrost/
Phys.org, which I only just discovered, publishes daily news articles in many scientific fields, linking to the original research publications and other material. They had an article last summer on a recent publication on permafrost in Nature Climate Change: https://phys.org/news/2016-06-carbon-dioxide-biggest-player-permafrost.html
This study reportedly found that changes in soil moisture content played an important role. “As the permafrost thaws, microbes wake up and begin digesting the newly available remains of ancient plants and animals stored as carbon in the soil. This digestion produces either carbon dioxide or methane, depending on soil conditions. Scientists want to understand the ratio of carbon dioxide to methane gas released by this process because it affects the strength of the permafrost carbon feedback loop: greenhouse gases released due to thawing permafrost cause temperatures to rise, leading to even more thawing and carbon release. Furthermore, the Arctic permafrost is like a vast underground storage tank of carbon, holding almost twice as much as the atmosphere. At that scale, small changes in how the carbon is released will have big effects.”
I would suggest that any non-specialist who is serious about trying to understand any aspect of climate change at least try exploring some of these sources. I am not in Wyoming’s league on this subject but have all the more reason to beg for care in how we try to understand it.
Katharine,
EurekAlert is a good daily source of abstracts of research and public announcements from researchers. Look under the headings Atmospheric Science and Earth Science. There are no ads–the site is hosted by AAAS, the publisher of the journal Science, and funded by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the National Institutes of Health.
Nature Geoscience is monthly and the single best source for climate-related work I’ve found. The articles in the front part of the journal help with the research articles in the remainder of each issue.
Thank you!
Briefly, historically, the Army (and the other branches of the military) is always a step ahead of the government, sometimes at its peril, – on Integration, on gays-in-the-military, and now on anticipating and adapting to climate change, the DoD is moving forward in its mission of national security, despite intense political pressure to do otherwise. recent National Geographic article, ffs
Meet Gen. Gordon Sullivan
CC is test of deep neoliberalism. Climate disasters will hit the poor hardest, most often and most powerfullly, and are already starting to do so. Deep down those with denialist streaks find this reassuring. At this point, in their minds, physics itself becomes ‘problematic’ and ‘political’, and ‘apocalyptic’.
Now meet the craaazies.
How much does a hotter atmosphere mean it can hold more moisture? Thus more violent weather. This seems a more likely threat, for most people, than rising sea levels.
I note that there are novel phenomena counteracting GW. First, cover crops are getting adopted on a massive scale. That is a lot of CO2, even if the CC are adopted only in the US. Ray Archuleta, USDA NRCS, says that cover crops just over the whole Deplorastan (Great Plains) could absorb all excess man made CO2. Second, with the world warming Russia and Siberia (and Canada) will start growing C4 crops, which store much more carbon. Specially Siberia which has too acid soil to grow regular grains. There are massive irrigation projects in Central Asia and the open water near the poles will photosynthesize.
monsanto/bayer may have a problem because I guess that as permafrost melts the amount of global prime acreage inreases, e.g. in parcels the size of alabama. is exxon angling already to keep the plows off as much as possible of it? maybe that’s why the markets haven’t reacted and made monsanto/bayer a penny stock.
Methane has an astoundingly SHORT half-life in our oxygenated atmosphere — bombarded by UV rays.
That’s why it CAN’T build up.
It gets converted to water vapor and carbon dioxide — at a crazy tempo.
That’s why it takes exotic scientific gear to even detect methane partial pressures in the atmosphere.
Garbage. 20 years is not “astonishingly short” and it still decomposes to CO2.
Various people use different measurement measurements and time frames. Some claim they aren’t that different over 100 years but methane is way worse over 20 years. Others find it is still worse over 100 years:
https://thinkprogress.org/more-bad-news-for-fracking-ipcc-warns-methane-traps-much-more-heat-than-we-thought-9c2badf392df#.zbxrtzkwu
So in no way is methane to be treated as a nothingurger.
With all due respect, this discussion is not seeing the tundra for the permafrost.
I was at a climate conference this past weekend. The keynote speaker was Dr. Veerabhadran Ramanathan, discoverer of the greenhouse effects of CFC’s back in 1975. Dr. Ramanathan began his talk with what seemed like a wry personal anecdote — that was anything but. He spoke of his small ambitions when he arrived at JFK in 1969, with the intention of simply getting an engineering degree so that he could achieve the dream of every boy from small town South India: a new Chevrolet Impala.
There are 7.4 billion human beings. This population level is unprecedented in the history of the planet. Each and every one of them is striving for self-actualization, especially personal mobility. The biggest “snowball” is human population. If we don’t get a handle on this population explosion, there will eventually be a collapse driven by climate change. Even if boys give up their Chevrolet Impalas, Dr. Ramanathan showed us that so many people simply cooking their food is already too much for the climate to handle.
Methane was not factored into the calculations done originally in the 60s & 70s. I certainly never heard it much of it when tape recording all the ecology lectures given in ’75 or ’76 at UNC-G.
(At that time there was a worry that there was some tipping point that somehow would cause a fast cooling. I believe now that is still out there, somehow in the future.)
Back then we heard that there was a Population Bomb.
“The Life & Death of NSSM 200” (National Security Study Memorandum 200) by Stephen D. Mumford tells the story of the Vatican’s influence on quashing Intelligence given Nixon warning that the major threat to US security was overpopulation.
This theocratic influence on US & International population policy continues to this day.
I said and can still say that if the Vatican deserves a seat at the UN, so does Disneyland. They both like selling to children.
The estimates at the time were that a sustainable world population was in the 9 Billion area. What is it today? 6 Billion?
Looks to me that we are already at what the 9 billion number meant with what we have to deal with.
Solutions to our problems in the “bottleneck” are in the hands of the engineers.
Great leaders call on great engineers to solve their problems.
We do not hear from the engineers as much as we ought. Henry Petroski is notable. Read Henry Petroski.
Otherwise we see that the time wasting misdirected current US Administration is a horror clown circus.
It is good more people are coming to finally understand real Modern Economics.
Naked Capitalism is very important in this regard & I am desperate to sell it for Prime Time Television. The TV Show would be perfect if it brought Naked Capitalism & David Cay Johnston together.
& of course without a universal in the world level of scientific & social understanding that comes from education, we may not make it to Universes Big Time Species Status.
The goal is to survive forever as a unique self conscious animal in a universe of flames & fast big rocks.
@Sluggeaux, I agree, and I hope that’s where Wyoming and GP would agree with you, leaving aside discussions of “fear-mongering” tone vs Vulcan impassivity: the tragedy of the commons must somehow be overcome. The Japanese showed how to do it with their forestation program; the US National Parks still exist. There are examples of successful curation of shared resources, but they are always done by sovereign powers. Where is the global sovereign power to address the tragedy of the commons that will lead to global desertification? Heck, not everyone can even agree to curate maritime food stocks, or whales, and that is happening right now today.