This is not good.

[Vergent]

"Retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly greenhouse gas."

http://www.independe...as-6276134.html

It looks like the sst anomaly is destabilizing methane hydrate big time.

Could this be the missing feedback that explains why the models are underestimating the melt?

[dabize]

"Retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly greenhouse gas."

http://www.independe...as-6276134.html

It looks like the sst anomaly is destabilizing methane hydrate big time.

Could this be the missing feedback that explains why the models are underestimating the melt?

We've been waiting for this shoe to drop ever sent those guys went up to the Laptev two months ago (or whenever it was) to investigate initial reports of this. The acceleration mechanism for AGW has made its entrance and taken a bow.

I'll bet it make no impression whatever on our little cadre of "skeptics" here though. They'll dig up a bunch of emails from the Climatology Department of the University of Krasnoyarsk to demonstrate that nothing out of the ordinary is happening.

Sigh

[tacoman25]

DEADLY gases?!? That does sound bad.

[dabize]

DEADLY gases?!? That does sound bad.

Methane is deadly.

Your point?

[superjames1992]

Methane is deadly.

Your point?

Clearly it's being used as a fear-mongering attention-grabber in the article, though. Its usage there really wasn't necessary.

We shall see what happens with the methane. That's the problem with the climate; there are so many feedbacks that feed other feedbacks, ect.

[dabize]

Clearly it's being used as a fear-mongering attention-grabber in the article, though. Its usage there really wasn't necessary.

We shall see what happens with the methane. That's the problem with the climate; there are so many feedbacks that feed other feedbacks, ect.

Jesus - you think a little emphasis isn't called for here?

What part of .....continuous fountains of methane being injected directly into the atmosphere over 10,000 square miles of seabed......... do you find so reassuring that it calls for such reticence?

And this in a country that waxes so hysterical at the slightest excuse that we have become tolerized to hyprebole.

We ARE SEEING what is happening with the methane.....

These guys, for instance, are living with the consequences of all this polite understatement of the consequences of AGW

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=81079

And if that doesn't bother you, maybe the fact that we will be living with them - and lots more like them - as refugees because of AGW will.

Better brush up on your Bengali

[ORH_wxman]

Jesus - you think a little emphasis isn't called for here?

What part of .....continuous fountains of methane being injected directly into the atmosphere over 10,000 square miles of seabed......... do you find so reassuring that it calls for such reticence?

And this in a country that waxes so hysterical at the slightest excuse that we have become tolerized to hyprebole.

We ARE SEEING what is happening with the methane.....

These guys, for instance, are living with the consequences of all this polite understatement of the consequences of AGW

http://www.irinnews....?ReportId=81079

And if that doesn't bother you, maybe the fact that we will be living with them - and lots more like them - as refugees because of AGW will.

Better brush up on your Bengali

There's always going to be spots in the world worse off with climate changing either direction. Its a poor analogy. Its a good thing we aren't as cold as 200 years ago, otherwise crop production would be a lot worse and we'd see more famine on the globe. That's another way to look at it. I can't imagine the amount of famine we'd have if some of those colder years during the LIA happened again now.

[dabize]

There's always going to be spots in the world worse off with climate changing either direction. Its a poor analogy. Its a good thing we aren't as cold as 200 years ago, otherwise crop production would be a lot worse and we'd see more famine on the globe. That's another way to look at it. I can't imagine the amount of famine we'd have if some of those colder years during the LIA happened again now.

The point is that this is change in ONE direction, not either direction.

Talk about a poor analogy........

[Vergent]

"The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years."

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."

A 100 fold increase in diameter equals a 10,000 fold increase in area or a 1,000,000% increase in methane venting from the arctic. In one year.

I am alarmed!

Lets talk about a hockey stick.

Or a tipping point.

We are no longer in control.

The arctic can increase its GHG faster than we can diminish (lol) ours.

Have a nice day,

[TerryM]

I've been following this since they left on their "emergency mission" in September. Didn't expect to hear anything until their report comes out in April, but expected the worst when they answered few questions on their return.

Don't see this as a hockey stick - more like a scythe.

[gracetoyou]

If it's from the ice melt then it's a natural factor & not anthropological. Either way it's not good!

But I wouldn't sound this as a trump card for AGW. Ice melt has happened before, not because of man. Anyway, like I said this isn't good either way. I'm not sure there's anything anyone can do about it.

[tacoman25]

I've been following this since they left on their "emergency mission" in September. Didn't expect to hear anything until their report comes out in April, but expected the worst when they answered few questions on their return.

Don't see this as a hockey stick - more like a scythe.

Shocking.

A scythe, huh? Like the grim reaper?

No sir, no overhyped, fear-mongering alarmism here!

[Vergent]

Shocking.

A scythe, huh? Like the grim reaper?

No sir, no overhyped, fear-mongering alarmism here!

So, now the arctic is boiling methane, by a factor of 1,000,000%, in one year, and this is not alarming? You must be on Gilligan's island.

[tacoman25]

So, now the arctic is boiling methane, by a factor of 1,000,000%, in one year, and this is not alarming?

1. I'm pretty sure the Arctic is not boiling.

2. How did you arrive at that million percent factor?

3. The article comes from a source that is known to be tabloidish and alarmist. Just look at their silly title.

4. What historical records of methane release in that particular area, or even the Arctic as a whole, do we have to compare this to?

5. Even if your figure was correct and the Arctic had released a millions times more methane this year, wouldn't that be bringing out the "severe and sudden" warming the article references? Instead, we've seen global temperature drop rapidly over the past several months.

[dabize]

1. I'm pretty sure the Arctic is not boiling.

2. How did you arrive at that million percent factor?

3. The article comes from a source that is known to be tabloidish and alarmist. Just look at their silly title.

4. What historical records of methane release in that particular area, or even the Arctic as a whole, do we have to compare this to?

Jesus. This is pure idiocy.

Nothing but an emoticon of methane jumping a shark will do here........

[The_Global_Warmer]

This might sound like a dumb question but how much will actually stay in the atmosphere?

Compared to say being absorbed by the oceans or plants and other things?

[ORH_wxman]

The point is that this is change in ONE direction, not either direction.

Talk about a poor analogy........

No its not...you are pointing out an article that tries to show that things are worse in Bangladesh because of global warming....does that mean we should root fro global cooling now which may make Bangladesh better off but drastically hurt other regions? The point of my post was that most of these articles only show how it could be bad for spots and that nobody ever benefits from warmer temps.

They basically sensationalize the Little Ice Age as this climate utopia and the current state we are in as so much "worse than we thought".

[The_Global_Warmer]

I get called an alarmist. And whatever BS, but this report is sickening.

I guess some of the folks reading this want to deny it. But this isn't good. Let's hope this is a seasonal event. And was in response to high end in situ warming and not a long term thaw. But that is not the likely reality.

Can we tell how long this particular methane has been there?

Is there any studies out with their actual measurements?

How long before the Methane shows up on obs like Barrow or Hawaii?

What is the methane forcing formula? Like w/m2 per how much?

[donsutherland1]

"Retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly greenhouse gas."

http://www.independe...as-6276134.html

It looks like the sst anomaly is destabilizing methane hydrate big time.

Could this be the missing feedback that explains why the models are underestimating the melt?

This situation could provide insight into why atmospheric methane has again begun to rise after a period of stabilization. From the WMO:

Methane (CH4) contributes about 18% to the overall global increase in radiative forcing since 1750 and is the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide.

Before the start of the industrial era, atmospheric methane was about 700 parts per billion (number of molecules of the gas per billion molecules of dry air) Since 1750, it has increased 158%, mostly because of activities such as cattle-rearing, rice planting, fossil fuel exploitation and landfills. Human activities now account for 60% of methane emissions, with the remaining 40% being from natural sources such as wetlands.

After a period of temporary relative stabilization from 1999 to 2006, atmospheric methane has again risen. Scientists are conducting research into the reasons for this, including the potential role of the thawing of the methane-rich Northern permafrost and increased emissions from tropical wetlands.

http://www.wmo.int/p.../pr_934_en.html

[dabize]

No its not...you are pointing out an article that tries to show that things are worse in Bangladesh because of global warming....does that mean we should root fro global cooling now which may make Bangladesh better off but drastically hurt other regions? The point of my post was that most of these articles only show how it could be bad for spots and that nobody ever benefits from warmer temps.

They basically sensationalize the Little Ice Age as this climate utopia and the current state we are in as so much "worse than we thought".

No they don't

You dragged the Little Ice Age in by the heels - and maybe you should read up on the LIA - it was a time of profound climatic variability, and it was this variability as much as anything that (presumably) caused much of the misery of the time (e.g. drought, crop failure in the 1300-1350 period leaving the population of Europe particularly vulnerable to the Great Plague of 1347-1353).

[LakeEffectKing]

Well, if anything, this "alarming" release should provide a further testing for global temperatures.

So does this mean that the thoughts recently opined by many AGW proponents (that we may have a 2 decade stall in global temps) are out the window??? Or is this explosive methane release already factored in? What's the prediction NOW for the next few decades....because as it sounds like right now, if we have stable temperatures over the next 2 decades, it would be consistent with AGW....or if we have rapid warming, it will be DUE to AGW.

[ORH_wxman]

No they don't

You dragged the Little Ice Age in by the heels - and maybe you should read up on the LIA - it was a time of profound climatic variability, and it was this variability as much as anything that (presumably) caused much of the misery of the time (e.g. drought, crop failure in the 1300-1350 period leaving the population of Europe particularly vulnerable to the Great Plague of 1347-1353).

So you are saying "the dice were loaded" in the LIA?

In all seriousness, the common famines of the 1600s and 1700s and starvation due to particularly harsh winters is not something unknown about the LIA. I brought up that period because if we are going to go bananas over a degree of warming, then we should probably talk about how ugly a temp decrease of that same magnitude would be.

The bottom line is the climate is not stable no matter how much we want it to be. Would 4C of warming by 2100 have catastrophic consequences? It sure would but that is unlikely to happen. The biggest debate in AGW vs skeptics is the climate sensitivity which has recently been gaining evidence of projections initially too high.

[TerryM]

I get called an alarmist. And whatever BS, but this report is sickening.

I guess some of the folks reading this want to deny it. But this isn't good. Let's hope this is a seasonal event. And was in response to high end in situ warming and not a long term thaw. But that is not the likely reality.

Can we tell how long this particular methane has been there?

Is there any studies out with their actual measurements?

How long before the Methane shows up on obs like Barrow or Hawaii?

What is the methane forcing formula? Like w/m2 per how much?

Google Igor Semiltov methane also Natalia Shakhova methane

You will find much of the background information needed to bring you up to speed.

[dabize]

The bottom line is the climate is not stable no matter how much we want it to be. Would 4C of warming by 2100 have catastrophic consequences? It sure would but that is unlikely to happen. The biggest debate in AGW vs skeptics is the climate sensitivity which has recently been gaining evidence of projections initially too high.

These two bolded statements don't exactly support each other. Just saying.

And how on Earth can you assert that such an increase is "unlikely to happen"? What are your grounds?

Findings such as the East Siberian CS methane release rates reported by the OP link suggest that such an increase is quite possible.

Is it actually "likely" (i.e p < 0.5)? I don't know, but even a 10% chance that something that "sure would be catastrophic" might happen justifies some actual preparations.

It certainly does not justify the doctrinaire and condescending dismissal of those concerned as "alarmists".

[WeatherRusty]

So you are saying "the dice were loaded" in the LIA?

In all seriousness, the common famines of the 1600s and 1700s and starvation due to particularly harsh winters is not something unknown about the LIA. I brought up that period because if we are going to go bananas over a degree of warming, then we should probably talk about how ugly a temp decrease of that same magnitude would be.

The bottom line is the climate is not stable no matter how much we want it to be. Would 4C of warming by 2100 have catastrophic consequences? It sure would but that is unlikely to happen. The biggest debate in AGW vs skeptics is the climate sensitivity which has recently been gaining evidence of projections initially too high.

The latest study ( not shown here ) places most likely climate sensitivity at 2.4C. Right in line with earlier studies, but below the 2.7C average.

Notice the long tails to the right in the graphs. How can you say 4C is unlikely given these studies? Obvious not as likely as 2.7C, yet not so unlikely as to not be of concern.

[WeatherRusty]

Well, if anything, this "alarming" release should provide a further testing for global temperatures.

So does this mean that the thoughts recently opined by many AGW proponents (that we may have a 2 decade stall in global temps) are out the window??? Or is this explosive methane release already factored in? What's the prediction NOW for the next few decades....because as it sounds like right now, if we have stable temperatures over the next 2 decades, it would be consistent with AGW....or if we have rapid warming, it will be DUE to AGW.

LEK,

The magnitude of ocean oscillations is significantly greater short term than any greenhouse warming could be. Who knows what the next few decades will bring? In the longer run the greenhouse warming will prevail because it adds energy to the system while internal variability does not.

I know that does not meet your required test of AGW, but the physics is what it is.

[tacoman25]

Jesus. This is pure idiocy.

Nothing but an emoticon of methane jumping a shark will do here........

So in other words, you are unable to address my points/questions.

The only rationale answer is PANIC!!!

[WinterWxLuvr]

I can understand the interest in climate change. It's science, it's physics, it's weather. Many are interested in those very things. I guess that's why we have a weather board with about 10000 members.

What I can't understand is the fear. Regardless of the change, we'll adapt and so will the other life on the planet. That which does not, will die. It's not like there haven't been extinctions since life first appeared on this planet.

To hear these statements of how "unliveable" the planet will be is a "head scratcher". Unliveable for whom? The guy with a house on the beach? Yeah, might be a problem for him. For cold climate animals. Yeah, might be tough for them. But for humans, who don't live very well in the cold, you'd think that warmth would be a better scenario. Wet areas that become dry would most likely be replaced by dry areas that become wetter. Regions that can't support crop growth now would be able to if it were warmer in certain areas.

I love the science discussion here, but the sensationalism is a bit too much. Whatever happens, we'll adapt. Or we won't. Move on. Time waits for nobody.

[Vergent]

1. I'm pretty sure the Arctic is not boiling.

2. How did you arrive at that million percent factor?

3. The article comes from a source that is known to be tabloidish and alarmist. Just look at their silly title.

4. What historical records of methane release in that particular area, or even the Arctic as a whole, do we have to compare this to?

5. Even if your figure was correct and the Arctic had released a millions times more methane this year, wouldn't that be bringing out the "severe and sudden" warming the article references? Instead, we've seen global temperature drop rapidly over the past several months.

"1. I'm pretty sure the Arctic is not boiling."

Its not boiling steam, its boiling methane"

"2. How did you arrive at that million percent factor?"

The methane vents increased from "tens of meters " to "over a thousand meters in diameter" a factor on the order of 100. Area is the square of diameter so the area factor is 10,000 or 1,000,000%. Also they reported that the vents had also increased in number and strength.

"3. The article comes from a source that is known to be tabloidish and alarmist. Just look at their silly title."

The article is primarily quotes in context from a known and respected researcher. Unless they are lying, and if they are I am sure the researcher will soon correct the record, the information comes from a reliable source, the researcher.

" 4. What historical records of methane release in that particular area, or even the Arctic as a whole, do we have to compare this to?"

The blow out in the Gulf of Mexico caused a methane vent tens of meters in diameter. So, this is like 1,000,000 blow outs without the oil slick. We haven't had a blow out in the arctic that I am aware of ... yet.

"5. Even if your figure was correct and the Arctic had released a millions times more methane this year, wouldn't that be bringing out the "severe and sudden" warming the article references? Instead, we've seen global temperature drop rapidly over the past several months."

Not, "a millions times" 10,000 times or a million %. The past several months, since mid August, the arctic insolation has been next to zero or zero. GHG trap sunlight. There has been no sunlight to trap. The effect of this will be felt in the spring.

[tacoman25]

"1. I'm pretty sure the Arctic is not boiling."

Its not boiling steam, its boiling methane"

"2. How did you arrive at that million percent factor?"

The methane vents increased from "tens of meters " to "over a thousand meters in diameter" a factor on the order of 100. Area is the square of diameter so the area factor is 10,000 or 1,000,000%. Also they reported that the vents had also increased in number and strength.

"3. The article comes from a source that is known to be tabloidish and alarmist. Just look at their silly title."

The article is primarily quotes in context from a known and respected researcher. Unless they are lying, and if they are I am sure the researcher will soon correct the record, the information comes from a reliable source, the researcher.

" 4. What historical records of methane release in that particular area, or even the Arctic as a whole, do we have to compare this to?"

The blow out in the Gulf of Mexico caused a methane vent tens of meters in diameter. So, this is like 1,000,000 blow outs without the oil slick. We haven't had a blow out in the arctic that I am aware of ... yet.

"5. Even if your figure was correct and the Arctic had released a millions times more methane this year, wouldn't that be bringing out the "severe and sudden" warming the article references? Instead, we've seen global temperature drop rapidly over the past several months."

The past several months, the arctic insolation has been next to zero or zero. GHG trap sunlight. There has been no sunlight to trap. The effect of this will be felt in the spring.

Thank you for the response.

1. I understand, but using the phrase "the Arctic is boiling methane" sounded kind of misleading and overly dramatic to me.

2. I understand the math (though it is a rough approximation), but what is that number saying? For one area they have looked at, at one point in time, there was roughly that much more methane being released? It's not like there's a million times more methane being released from the Arctic this year, though you wouldn't know it from the OP.

3. I'm talking about the Independent, that newspaper. They are not exactly an objective source. Alarmists don't like it when skeptic websites or other skeptic-leaning sources are cited.

4. Ok...but that doesn't answer my question. What Arctic records of methane release do we have to compare this to? And how much of area has actually been studied/documented? If we can't answer these questions, we don't know the historical signficance of this occurrence.

5. Wait, so methane release only warms the Arctic? I thought GHGs are distributed throughout the atmosphere, warming the globe?