Acceleration of Methane release

[Little Fish]

blind fish anyone

blind faith anyone.

[Von Bismarck]

Methane as a component of the atmosphere has risen pretty much in sync with warming. When warming leveled off in 1998, so did methane concentration. But in 2008, methane started up again. Still too early to tell if warming started up again at the same time. Global temps were slightly higher during the latter half of the last decade than during the earlier half. I'm not expecting much change for another year, yet. Then we'll see.

Doug

Because of the same reason given in the article. This is nothing new. We have seen it many times in the past.

[Swamptick]

You can't EVER take an article regarding Russian scientists seriously.

[David Thomson]

Keep in mind that methane is the byproduct of decomposing organic matter. The organic matter grew and deposited in the ground and seabed long before the permafrost came. The ice is the anomaly, not the carbon compounds. The Earth has been thawing out since the last advance of ice over 10,000 years ago, and we are witnessing that process in action. Even the growth of human population in the past 300 years is due to the gradual thawing of the planet. We should be grateful to witness life returning to the Earth. Don't forget, there is only 1/1000 of the biomass on the surface of the Earth today than what there was just a couple hundred million years ago. This planet can handle a lot more carbon than what we are used to.

[Leonardo]

still ignoring what I said three times previously.

it's meaningless since CH4 breaks down quickly in the atmosphere, after 10 years its all gone, all converted to co2 and water. if it takes 100 years to emit all the methane in the permafrost, the first 90 years of methane emission has all gone. so there is no accumulation of "greenhouse potential" after a few years. you are describing an impossible theoretical scenario which can only happen if ALL the methane is released in an instant, and even then its effect diminishes to near zero after 10 years, and even then its greenhouse potential would not be that great, equivalent of ~4 months human co2 emissions. do you want to present some revised estimates of your own? numbers not adjectives.

You are making the mistake of assuming a 10 year lifetime for atmospheric methane means that after 10 years all the atmospheric methane has disappeared. That is false because continuing emissions will replenish what is lost.

You also quoted a figure of 500 million tons of methane trapped beneath the Arctic permafrost. Where did you get that figure from?

As far as I know, there are no estimates on how much methane will be emitted from permafrost through warming. In fact, climate scientists calculate how much carbon is stored in permafrost, and indicate that carbon will be released either as CO2 or as methane dependent on whether oxygen is available to microbes processing that carbon.

As this site indicates, there is nearly twice as much carbon stored in the Arctic permafrost (1400 gigatons) as there is currently in the atmosphere in gaseous form.

Atmospheric methane accounts for approx. 20% of the forced warming we observe, yet it accounts for only 0.00017% (1.7 parts/million) of our atmosphere. Increases in the amount of atmospheric methane will have consequences proportional to this, so it will not take a very large increase to have a significant warming effect.

[Doug1029]

if it takes 100 years to emit all the methane in the permafrost, the first 90 years of methane emission has all gone.

Except that the problem is CARBON in the atmosphere and that's still there. Carbon's residence time is on the order of a century or so.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Its not 2.75 tons. Its 2.74 tons.

Rounding error.

Doug

[Doug1029]

The organic matter grew and deposited in the ground and seabed long before the permafrost came.

Some interesting thoughts on permafrost:

1. It doesn't form under water. It only forms on land, so the melting sub-sea permafrost has been frozen since the sea level rose to cover it. It occurs only on the now-flooded part of the continental shelf that was once dry land.

2. Most of the vegetative matter trapped in permafrost was once in a soil profile. Soil profiles are only a few inches thick, so the reservoir of carbon from this source is not very great. The supply will exhaust itself and the emissions will decline. How long might that take?

3. A bigger worry in the methane department is methane anhydride from the ocean deeps. Those deposits are several hundred feet thick and are found in most oceans, even in the tropics.

Doug

[Little Fish]

You are making the mistake of assuming a 10 year lifetime for atmospheric methane means that after 10 years all the atmospheric methane has disappeared. That is false because continuing emissions will replenish what is lost.

you are making the same mistake as cornelius.

the question is how much extra warming can you expect if this extra methane is released. 100 million tons of methane is equivalent to the supposed warming of co2 from mans burning of fossil fuel over 2.7 months, and that's if the methane stays in the atmosphere forever, it doesn't, it's all converted to co2 after 10 years, so its warming effect asymptotes to near zero over a 10 year period.

if my numbers are wrong then show me your numbers. why should I worry about it?

You also quoted a figure of 500 million tons of methane trapped beneath the Arctic permafrost. Where did you get that figure from?

from the article in the first post under discussion in this thread.

Atmospheric methane accounts for approx. 20% of the forced warming we observe, yet it accounts for only 0.00017% (1.7 parts/million) of our atmosphere. Increases in the amount of atmospheric methane will have consequences proportional to this, so it will not take a very large increase to have a significant warming effect.

very large is not a number, it is an adjective. the planet's atmosphere is tiny compared to jupiters, the planets atmospshere is overwhelmingly massive compared to the air I breathe. so its meaningless to use adjectives, where are your numbers? I can drop a lit cigarette into the ocean and it will warm the ocean, should I worry about it? Edited December 14, 2011 by Little Fish

[Little Fish]

Except that the problem is CARBON in the atmosphere and that's still there. Carbon's residence time is on the order of a century or so.

Doug

I don't see any numbers in your post.

after 10 years of warming from 100 million tons of methane (equivalent to warming from co2 from 2.7 months of man's fossil fuel burning), that methane (after 10 years) will have decayed asymptotically to 100 million tons of co2 (multiply by your 2.74 if you want), 100 million tons of co2 is 1.2 days worth of burning of fossil fuels.

why should I worry?

Edited December 14, 2011 by Little Fish

[Von Bismarck]

you are making the same mistake as cornelius.

the question is how much extra warming can you expect if this extra methane is released. 100 million tons of methane is equivalent to the supposed warming of co2 from mans burning of fossil fuel over 2.7 months, if that number is wrong then show me your numbers. why should I worry about it?

This is not the main problem.

The main problem is how will the CH4 affect the Ozone. It will reduce the intensity of UV radiation and help the newly discovered Ozone hole, but at the same time it will contribute to major air pollution problems.

[Doug1029]

I don't see any numbers in your post.

after 10 years of warming from 100 million tons of methane (equivalent to warming from co2 from 2.7 months of man's fossil fuel burning), that methane (after 10 years) will have decayed asymptotically to 100 million tons of co2 (multiply by your 2.74 if you want), 100 million tons of co2 is 1.2 days worth of burning of fossil fuels.

You seem to be providing the numbers. By your own admission "that methane (after ten years) will have decayed asymptotically to 100 million tons of co2" ... That's 27 million tons of carbon. That's IN ADDITION to what's being put out by burning of fossil fuels in addition to what's being released by soil microbes, etc. etc.

why should I worry?

I don't know if you should. It's only important if this represents a change in the status quo. The paper suggests that is the case. The upturn in atmospheric methane since 2008 suggests that this is the case.

But is it important? If it indicates destabilization of the climate system, then it's extremely important. But if not, we can probably blow it off. Now we need to figure out which one it is.

Doug

[oly]

But is it important?

Doug

Hi doug, if you've got a minute, someone's waiting for your reply on "Durban demands 2c drop", or have you got selective vision? Common problem among scientists apparently!

[Little Fish]

You seem to be providing the numbers. By your own admission "that methane (after ten years) will have decayed asymptotically to 100 million tons of co2" ... That's 27 million tons of carbon. That's IN ADDITION to what's being put out by burning of fossil fuels in addition to what's being released by soil microbes, etc. etc.

that's right, and that's why its negligible compared to what nature throws out. there is naturally 5.6 billion tons of methane in the atmosphere. 500 million tons of methane (the total locked in the permafrost as mentioned in the article) if it were all to be released immediately (which it won't) would be an 8% increase in methane. even assuming a linear (not a decaying logarithmic warming as it is with co2), 8% increase of methane which supposedly contributes 28% of warming = 0.08x28= 2.24% increase in warming. global warming is ~0.1C/decade, so if all the methane was released instantly (unlikely), warming would increase by 0.0024 celcius which would be impossible to even measure, which would tail off towards zero over 10 years as it degraded to co2. the extra co2 that would come from all that methane degrading would have even less of an effect on warming.

why should I worry?

I don't know if you should.

let me put my rhetorical question differently then - there is nothing to worry about.

[Doug1029]

that's right, and that's why its negligible compared to what nature throws out.

Maybe you didn't read my post about permafrost and methane from submerged permafrost being mostly derived from submerged soils. That would seem to indicate that the long-term potential of methane from this source is rather limited. But it wouldn't hurt to find out.

let me put my rhetorical question differently then - there is nothing to worry about.

I would like to see some work on the rate of change. Your assumption holds only if there is no change.

You are trying to argue without enough facts on either side of the issue for either of us to make an argument. I simply don't know - and neither do you.

Doug

[Little Fish]

I would like to see some work on the rate of change. Your assumption holds only if there is no change.

all the assumptions I have made favour the alarmist position, so I have given the alarmist position every chance of being correct - I am not assuming there is no change, I am assuming that all the methane is released in one fell swoop, and its still bugger all warming.

[liteness]

methane is ultimately food for plant life, as is c02.

It's understandable, how AGW theorists can worry about this new find.

I'm not one of them though...

I do understand that most models by AGW theorists fail to realize the counter-effects of greenhouse gases.

Nature is and always will stable itself out, though I do not think AGW theorist need to understand that. I think they do, and are only worried about human life (those who are truly worried, and not getting payment to make others worry).

How long c02 stays in the atmosphere is still debatable BTW.

How much of the greenhouse gases leave the atmosphere is also still debatable...

[liteness]

And even with new findings this year by researchers from NASA: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

It is still debatable how much of the heat is trapped in the atmosphere and how much is released.

Many previous models (I believe from 2008 and earlier) made the mistake of thinking most of the heat stays and isn't released into space...

Article about it here too: http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Edited December 14, 2011 by liteness

[Doug1029]

all the assumptions I have made favour the alarmist position, so I have given the alarmist position every chance of being correct - I am not assuming there is no change, I am assuming that all the methane is released in one fell swoop, and its still bugger all warming.

That was a rhetorical statement. I don't think the research has been done yet. And you're still trying to argue against something that hasn't been thoroughly researched and you're arguing based on your own speculation.

So you have a different opinion. With nothing more than guesses to support your position, I really don't care what you think.

Doug

Edited December 14, 2011 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

And even with new findings this year by researchers from NASA: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

Yet temperatures keep going up. Doug

[Guest]

More details and it seems that the Russian scientists have recorded an acceleration since the 1990's

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html

The potential for methane release from the Arctic tundra is virtually unlimited, so talk of a few million tonnes of methane do not even come close to estimating the true magnitude of the issue.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

More details and it seems that the Russian scientists have recorded an acceleration since the 1990's

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html

The potential for methane release from the Arctic tundra is virtually unlimited, so talk of a few million tonnes of methane do not even come close to estimating the true magnitude of the issue.

Br Cornelius

The methane concentration in the atmosphere leveled off from about 1998 to 2008. How does this match up with the Russian's numbers?

If the potential is unlimited, then we're not just talking about old soils. Have there been any surveys? What other sources have been found?

Doug

[Cryptozological Mascot]

Atlas shrugged and the earth farted. This'll get nasty...

[oly]

Atlas shrugged and the earth farted. This'll get nasty...

Might even follow through...Then we'll all be in the 5#!+

[Guest]

The methane concentration in the atmosphere leveled off from about 1998 to 2008. How does this match up with the Russian's numbers?

If the potential is unlimited, then we're not just talking about old soils. Have there been any surveys? What other sources have been found?

Doug

The paper will be out soon so we will see. The article suggests a connection to the localised warming that has recently occurred in Siberia.

Br Cornelius