Climatologist says Arctic Carbon Release could mean “We're Fucked”

[Loren Pechtel]

Methane release from the ocean floors.....have the oceans warmed up clean down to the bottom, no. So why blame global warming on that...occurrence.

So far what we are seeing is mostly warming of the permafrost in Siberia.

And what we are seeing at sea is in shallow areas.

 

[barbos]

doubtingt, ignorance is all yours.
Extinction is a normal process, which get accelerated when climate changes.
Species which were sensitive to particular environment died when that environment changed.
Climate change is just that - climate change.

So you don't care if it wipes us out?


Also, the KT impactor was a natural event. Are you saying we shouldn't do anything if we see another one heading for us?

I am saying alarmists/exaggerators are wrong. They are doing great disservice by lowering trust in science.

 

[Clivedurdle]

Hang on, termite nests, beaver dams are natural. I assume discovery of fire is. Are not coal fired power stations and nuclear bombs also natural? I thought the accepted scientific term is "biological artefact". By the way, cyanide and sharks are also natural...

 

[Elixir]

Correct me if am wrong but all methane from permafrost is equivalent to 40% increase of CO2.

Conveniently forgetting that that's just the methane from the *permafrost* (incidentally, it's not like we have exact numbers for how much is under there, it could be many times more than what we think); whereas the article is talking about that which exists under the *seabed*.

The worldwide amounts of methane bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.

When in doubt
Scream and shout
Wring your hands
And run about

 

[barbos]

Conveniently forgetting that that's just the methane from the *permafrost* (incidentally, it's not like we have exact numbers for how much is under there, it could be many times more than what we think); whereas the article is talking about that which exists under the *seabed*.

The worldwide amounts of methane bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.

Bullcrap, nowhere your wiki link says that, you made this shit up.
And quick check on coal shows that amount of coal is order of magnitude higher than methane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon#Occurrence
Intersting that most of the carbon seems to me dissolved in water.
Also previously I said that methane stay in the atmosphere for 100 years, this is not correct.
Half-life of methane in the atmosphere is only 7 years. 100 years is CO2 half-life time I think.
Also, methane in the ocean is not buried, it is constantly leaks and recreated by microbes and such.
So it takes part in global carbon cycle. Coal on the other hand is 300 million years old and was buried for good and once it gets released in the atmosphere it's not going back into coal any time soon.
So this makes burning more dangerous for the climate.

 

[dystopian]

The worldwide amounts of methane bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.

Bullcrap, nowhere your wiki link says that, you made this shit up.

Are you incapable of reading? His link explicitly says exactly that, referencing the US Geological Survey as a source.

And quick check on coal shows that amount of coal is order of magnitude higher than methane.

No, it doesn't. Coal reserves amount to around 900 gigatonnes. There are estimates for many times that in terms of coal *resources*, but it is not currently possible (and may never be) to extract them. They are not at risk of being released haphazardly like Methane is either. Methane clathrates, which ARE subject to being released haphazardly into the atmosphere, are conservatively estimated to occupy between 1×1015 and 3×1015 m³ (0.24 to 1.2 million cubic miles), corresponding to between 500 and 2500 gigatonnes of carbon. Note that that's just the clathrates, and not methane from other sources.

Also, methane in the ocean is not buried, it is constantly leaks and recreated by microbes and such.

Methane clathrates ARE in fact buried beneath the sediment of the ocean floors, with some outcroppings above the sediment. This is a basic undeniable fact. And only small volumes of it are normally released; which doesn't mean the total amount of methane is part of any cycle in any appreciable way.

 

[Elixir]

The worldwide amounts of methane bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.

Bullcrap, nowhere your wiki link says that, you made this shit up

Thank you for confirming my suspicions...

 

[barbos]

Bullcrap, nowhere your wiki link says that, you made this shit up

Thank you for confirming my suspicions...

Yes, my mistake, I clicked on a "full" article which turned out to be wiki page which did not contain any of that.
In any case, I don't think we should be citing 4th year graduate student especially the ones who are into machine learning and not into climatology at all who appears not no be able to teach themself how to write papers.
And she appears to specifically ask not to cite it. So your/her proclamation is not as scary as it sounds.

In any case, amount of ready to release carbon in the form of CO2 dissolved in water is order of magnitude higher than anything else
It also suggest that burning all methane and coal is probably results in most carbon getting into water and not into the air and since amount of water will get higher (thanks to melting ice) overall acidity may not even get that high.

 

[Elixir]

I dunno... he was able to determine that my link here did not say what I C&Ped, without even reading it. Don't underestimate.

I think it's safe to assume that 4th year CS graduate student can not be considered authoritative source in the field of climatology.
So your link should have been sent straight to the garbage based on that alone.

This is not climatology per se, it's just geo-survey stuff. But I think it's safe to say you are going to be dismissive of any information that contradicts your a priori opinion...


The extent of worldwide gas hydrate occurrences in the oceans has been evaluated using seismic exploration, because gas hydrates are characterized by the occurrence of an anomalous reflector parallel to the sea floor (Bottom Simulating Reflector or BSR), and cross-cutting ordinary sedimentary structures, because of the mismatch between the overlying high-velocity clathrates and underlying, low-velocity gas-bearing sediments (e.g., Kvenvolden 1988, MacDonald, 1990). The permafrost reservoir has been estimated at about 400 GtC in the Arctic (MacDonald, 1990), but no estimates have been made of possible Antarctic reservoirs. The oceanic reservoir has been estimated to be about 10,000 to 11,000 GtC (e.g., MacDonald, 1990; Kvenvolden, 1998). This oceanic clathrate reservoir is thus enormous (at almost a third of the size of the deep ocean reservoir; Fig. 2), and only small changes in its extent can have major effects on the atmospheric reservoir. Even the permafrost reservoir is on the order of hundreds of gigatons, not much smaller than the total amount of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere. -Wesleyan


The total global amount of methane carbon bound up in these hydrate deposits is in the order of 1000 to 5000 gigatonnes – i.e. about 100 to 500 times more carbon than is released annually into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels -World Ocean Review

The total quantity of methane hydrates in the ocean sediment is estimated to be around 10,000 GtC. The methane hydrates in sediment considered part of U.S. territory alone could supply U.S. natural gas needs for 1000 years. -Rutgers

So there you have a bunch of contradictory figures, all of which seem to wildly exceed your own... uh... studies? Estimates? GUESSES? You can dismiss them all since they do not agree with each other regarding total amounts of methane bound up in undersea clathrates. Alternately, Barbos, you could (presumably) do a little reading on the subject from sources you trust, if such sources exist.

 

[Malintent]

Hang on, termite nests, beaver dams are natural. I assume discovery of fire is. Are not coal fired power stations and nuclear bombs also natural? I thought the accepted scientific term is "biological artefact". By the way, cyanide and sharks are also natural...

"Natural" can mean many things. Made by man versus made by other animals is sometimes a diferenciater. Highly processed food versus farm-direct can be one too. Then you have natural versuus supernatural - that which exists in the universe versus that which does not.

So, if cyanide and bombs are "natural" in the definition you are using, then name something that is not.

 

[barbos]

I think it's safe to assume that 4th year CS graduate student can not be considered authoritative source in the field of climatology.
So your link should have been sent straight to the garbage based on that alone.

This is not climatology per se, it's just geo-survey stuff. But I think it's safe to say you are going to be dismissive of any information that contradicts your a priori opinion...


The extent of worldwide gas hydrate occurrences in the oceans has been evaluated using seismic exploration, because gas hydrates are characterized by the occurrence of an anomalous reflector parallel to the sea floor (Bottom Simulating Reflector or BSR), and cross-cutting ordinary sedimentary structures, because of the mismatch between the overlying high-velocity clathrates and underlying, low-velocity gas-bearing sediments (e.g., Kvenvolden 1988, MacDonald, 1990). The permafrost reservoir has been estimated at about 400 GtC in the Arctic (MacDonald, 1990), but no estimates have been made of possible Antarctic reservoirs. The oceanic reservoir has been estimated to be about 10,000 to 11,000 GtC (e.g., MacDonald, 1990; Kvenvolden, 1998). This oceanic clathrate reservoir is thus enormous (at almost a third of the size of the deep ocean reservoir; Fig. 2), and only small changes in its extent can have major effects on the atmospheric reservoir. Even the permafrost reservoir is on the order of hundreds of gigatons, not much smaller than the total amount of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere. -Wesleyan


The total global amount of methane carbon bound up in these hydrate deposits is in the order of 1000 to 5000 gigatonnes – i.e. about 100 to 500 times more carbon than is released annually into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels -World Ocean Review

The total quantity of methane hydrates in the ocean sediment is estimated to be around 10,000 GtC. The methane hydrates in sediment considered part of U.S. territory alone could supply U.S. natural gas needs for 1000 years. -Rutgers

So there you have a bunch of contradictory figures, all of which seem to wildly exceed your own... uh... studies? Estimates? GUESSES? You can dismiss them all since they do not agree with each other regarding total amounts of methane bound up in undersea clathrates. Alternately, Barbos, you could (presumably) do a little reading on the subject from sources you trust, if such sources exist.

Your CS graduate student with enormous PNG picture of herself is essentially screaming "We're all gonna die!"
Well, yes, everyone will eventually die, I don't see the reason to scream about it.
I am not disputing your claim anymore. I am disputing your conclusion.
And yes, amount of carbon in methane is minuscule compared with amount of CO2 already dissolved in the ocean.

 

[Elixir]

Your CS graduate student with enormous PNG picture of herself is essentially screaming "We're all gonna die!"

MY CS grad student? Lol! Yes, I keep it chained up in the back yard...
No, Barbos - I linked to Wiki because it is generally written to be informative to laypersons. I substantiated the assertion supported by Wiki with links to Rutgers, Wesleyan and the World Oceans Review, but you chose to harp on the author of the Wiki blurb. Your choice.

I am disputing your conclusion.

What's my conclusion? That you are not conducting a fully forthright conversation here? Or that I think there's a lot of methane under the ocean? I'm just providing links to the effect that there IS a LOT of methane locked up in clathrates in the stability zones under the ocean. Is that what you are disputing? If so, good luck with that. If not, then perhaps it would behoove you to inform me of my own conclusion?

And yes, amount of carbon in methane is minuscule compared with amount of CO2 already dissolved in the ocean.

The total carbon content of the oceans is not at issue. The (remote IMHO) possibility of a massive, sudden (though probably short-lived) increase in atmospheric carbon is the prospect offered by methane bound up in clathrates. Oh - and massive underwater slides that could (and apparently have) produced epic tsunamis...
I guess you are not familiar with the behavior of methane clathrates/hydrates. I won't attempt to educate you on the matter other than to point out that seawater containing a lot of dissolved CO2 (the main form of carbon in seawater) is much more stable under a wider range of pressures and temperatures than are methane clathrates.

Yes, everyone will die, the human species will go extinct, aliens aren't coming to save us and I'm not particularly concerned about it. But I do find methane clathrates pretty fascinating.

 

[barbos]

MY CS grad student? Lol! Yes, I keep it chained up in the back yard...
No, Barbos - I linked to Wiki because it is generally written to be informative to laypersons. I substantiated the assertion supported by Wiki with links to Rutgers, Wesleyan and the World Oceans Review, but you chose to harp on the author of the Wiki blurb. Your choice.

Your original link was a CS graduate student with enormous png picture of herself. Which is kinda tells you about her CS qualification at least.

I am disputing your conclusion.

What's my conclusion? That you are not conducting a fully forthright conversation here? Or that I think there's a lot of methane under the ocean? I'm just providing links to the effect that there IS a LOT of methane locked up in clathrates in the stability zones under the ocean. Is that what you are disputing? If so, good luck with that. If not, then perhaps it would behoove you to inform me of my own conclusion?

And yes, amount of carbon in methane is minuscule compared with amount of CO2 already dissolved in the ocean.

The total carbon content of the oceans is not at issue. The (remote IMHO) possibility of a massive, sudden (though probably short-lived) increase in atmospheric carbon is the prospect offered by methane bound up in clathrates. Oh - and massive underwater slides that could (and apparently have) produced epic tsunamis...

clathrates accumulate there for a reason and reason is that it's deep and cold water. And if there is one thing sure about deep ocean there is is no such thing as sudden.

I guess you are not familiar with the behavior of methane clathrates/hydrates. I won't attempt to educate you on the matter other than to point out that seawater containing a lot of dissolved CO2 (the main form of carbon in seawater) is much more stable under a wider range of pressures and temperatures than are methane clathrates.

I guess you are not familiar with logic and science.

 

[ramoss]

With all that climate change wars, climate in my home town has became noticeably better - less dry and hot, more mild and rainy.
Don't know if it is result of global warming but nobody talks about that, everybody talks about climate changing to worse.

You are mixing up local weather with climate, and the global climate at that.

What is happening is that an unusually warm spot in the Pacific is weakening the trade winds, and allowing the cool weather from the Arctic to come down this year. The Arctic is warming than normal for this time of year. This pattern will probably extend into fall and winter of this year, with it causing a lot of drought in India, but it probably will let the mid west get some much needed rain.

 

[Earl IV]

methane has no smell and therefore can not be "sniffed"

Obviously never been around me after a night of beer drinking and Taco Bell.


Seriously though, I bet them sciencey folk carry gas "sniffers" around with them when they investigate strange bubbles.
Just sayin'

 

[barbos]

With all that climate change wars, climate in my home town has became noticeably better - less dry and hot, more mild and rainy.
Don't know if it is result of global warming but nobody talks about that, everybody talks about climate changing to worse.

You are mixing up local weather with climate, and the global climate at that.

What is happening is that an unusually warm spot in the Pacific is weakening the trade winds, and allowing the cool weather from the Arctic to come down this year. The Arctic is warming than normal for this time of year. This pattern will probably extend into fall and winter of this year, with it causing a lot of drought in India, but it probably will let the mid west get some much needed rain.

But It's not me who is mixing local weather with climate, I merely pointing out that you never hear complains about good "weather".
And I was not talking about this year "weather" I was about last decade of "weather" compared what we had in the 90s which was utter crap.

 

[Elixir]

You are mixing up local weather with climate, and the global climate at that.

What is happening is that an unusually warm spot in the Pacific is weakening the trade winds, and allowing the cool weather from the Arctic to come down this year. The Arctic is warming than normal for this time of year. This pattern will probably extend into fall and winter of this year, with it causing a lot of drought in India, but it probably will let the mid west get some much needed rain.

But It's not me who is mixing local weather with climate, I merely pointing out that you never hear complains about good "weather".
And I was not talking about this year "weather" I was about last decade of "weather" compared what we had in the 90s which was utter crap.

Well, you are located in the milky way galaxy, which everyone knows has its own weather patterns...

 

[bleubird]

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=monty+python+argument&ei=UTF-8&fr=yff80c
Enough.

 

[bleubird]

http://www.livescience.com/37359-nasa-carve-thawing-permafrost-gas.html
Enough.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are mixing up local weather with climate, and the global climate at that.

What is happening is that an unusually warm spot in the Pacific is weakening the trade winds, and allowing the cool weather from the Arctic to come down this year. The Arctic is warming than normal for this time of year. This pattern will probably extend into fall and winter of this year, with it causing a lot of drought in India, but it probably will let the mid west get some much needed rain.

But It's not me who is mixing local weather with climate, I merely pointing out that you never hear complains about good "weather".
And I was not talking about this year "weather" I was about last decade of "weather" compared what we had in the 90s which was utter crap.

Comparing the average weather by decades tells us nothing about climate. It is still weather. For example, weather cycles like the North Atlantic Oscillation or the El Nino - La Nina cycles span decades. Then there are other more poorly understood weather cycles. Climate is a matter of centuries - such as the several hundred year warming trend since the depths of the Little Ice Age even though there has been decades of cooling weather periods during this centuries of warming.