This is not good.

[TerryM]

The warming impact of CH4 is minimal to near nil and most anyone with credibility will tell you the warming from CH4 is

nearly non -existent. Also the idea that methane is venting from cracks in the ice is very weak. Unless the methane is right below the large cracks it's not venting from them. We have no idea exactly where the methane is being vented so the idea that it's hitting one of these very small areas with large cracks is a huge stretch. This thread is still a joke and I'd be embarrassed to be pushing the "CH4! OMG we are all going to die!" agenda. This thread needs to be closed and if you guys really wanted to have an honest discussion about methane a new thread should be created free of alarmism. Right now this thread is not helping current perceptions about alarmism.

Everything you have said is wrong - amazing.

[SVT450R]

Everything you have said is wrong - amazing.

I would have to disagree even Skier has pointed out a few pages back that this thread is a joke.

[PhillipS]

I would have to disagree even Skier has pointed out a few pages back that this thread is a joke.

Anthropogenic warming is melting permafrost on land and under the ESAS seabed and releasing unprecedented amounts of CH4 to the atmosphere - in essence we are opening the spigots on massive CH4 reservoirs with no confidence we can slow of stop future CH4 releases. By all estimates I've seen there is enough CH4 in these reservoirs to cause devestating climate change if a large portion is released over the next century. Remember, CH4 is many times more potent as a GHG than CO2 is.

This is not alarmism - it is simply alarming. And the discussion of what is happening and what the consequences may be is a perfect topic for this forum. If the discussion of today's reality and possible future scenarios bothers you for some reason then don't read the thread.

[LithiaWx]

Anthropogenic warming is melting permafrost on land and under the ESAS seabed and releasing unprecedented amounts of CH4 to the atmosphere - in essence we are opening the spigots on massive CH4 reservoirs with no confidence we can slow of stop future CH4 releases. By all estimates I've seen there is enough CH4 in these reservoirs to cause devestating climate change if a large portion is released over the next century. Remember, CH4 is many times more potent as a GHG than CO2 is.

This is not alarmism - it is simply alarming. And the discussion of what is happening and what the consequences may be is a perfect topic for this forum. If the discussion of today's reality and possible future scenarios bothers you for some reason then don't read the thread.

It's not going to be. There are no peer reviewed papers that suggest such a thing. Hence why this thread is a joke. There is a reason people like Don S and wxtrix have not said word one in this thread. They would never associate with such a crackpot theory. Skier did drop in but basically to call some of you out on how ridiculous the claims are.

[salbers]

If you review this thread you would find peer reviewed papers such as this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.abstract

[LithiaWx]

If you review this thread you would find peer reviewed papers such as this:

http://www.sciencema...0/1246.abstract

if a large portion is released over the next century.

I missed the part that suggests a large portion of the methane trapped in the ESAS will be released in the next century.

[salbers]

It's not 100% definite, though this paper and other papers/letters that cite it suggest it is enough of a possibility to take seriously.

Also, there's enough methane in the ESAS so only a relatively small proportion would still have a climate impact.

[LithiaWx]

It's not 100% definite, though this paper and other papers/letters that cite it suggest it is enough of a possibility to take seriously.

Also, there's enough methane in the ESAS so only a relatively small proportion would still have a climate impact.

I read through it and didn't read that. If you have time could could show me this information? I would love to read it. I've heard the opposite that it is highly improbable that the vast amounts of methane stored there could have a large portion released in less than 100 years. I've heard a timescale more on the order of thousands of years.

[LithiaWx]

It's not 100% definite, though this paper and other papers/letters that cite it suggest it is enough of a possibility to take seriously.

Also, there's enough methane in the ESAS so only a relatively small proportion would still have a climate impact.

You may have misread my OP. I was objecting to the idea that a large portion of the methane trapped in the ESAS has reasonable potential to be released in the next hundred years.

[dabize]

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20120422.html

This is weird, and unsettling if true.

NASA has detected CH4 coming from the ocean in the Arctic - seems to be leaking out from under the icepack.

They do not think it is from the seabed, as the sites sampled were relatively deep.

I thought that the ocean would fairly efficiently turn any CH4 produced into CO2, no?

If not, then it could be a bit of a problem.

Where the hell is it coming from - jellyfish?

[PhillipS]

I missed the part that suggests a large portion of the methane trapped in the ESAS will be released in the next century.

Nobody is saying the dangerous amounts of CH4 will, for certain, be released - what I, and others, have said is that dangerous amounts may be released, and that BAU with its inevitable warming increases the likelihood of that happening.

Here's another peer-reviewed paper on the topic - Gas Hydrates: past and future Geohazard? Here's the paper's abstract:

Gas hydrates are ice-like deposits containing a mixture of water and gas; the most common gas is methane. Gas hydrates are stable under high pressures and relatively low temperatures and are found underneath the oceans and in permafrost regions. Estimates range from 500 to 10 000 giga tonnes of carbon (best current estimate 1600–2000 GtC) stored in ocean sediments and 400 GtC in Arctic permafrost. Gas hydrates may pose a serious geohazard in the near future owing to the adverse effects of global warming on the stability of gas hydrate deposits both in ocean sediments and in permafrost. It is still unknown whether future ocean warming could lead to significant methane release, as thermal penetration of marine sediments to the clathrate–gas interface could be slow enough to allow a new equilibrium to occur without any gas escaping. Even if methane gas does escape, it is still unclear how much of this could be oxidized in the overlying ocean. Models of the global inventory of hydrates and trapped methane bubbles suggest that a global 3

^°

C warming could release between 35 and 940 GtC, which could add up to an additional 0.5

^°

C to global warming. The destabilization of gas hydrate reserves in permafrost areas is more certain as climate models predict that high-latitude regions will be disproportionately affected by global warming with temperature increases of over 12

^°

C predicted for much of North America and Northern Asia. Our current estimates of gas hydrate storage in the Arctic region are, however, extremely poor and non-existent for Antarctica. The shrinking of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets in response to regional warming may also lead to destabilization of gas hydrates. As ice sheets shrink, the weight removed allows the coastal region and adjacent continental slope to rise through isostacy. This removal of hydrostatic pressure could destabilize gas hydrates, leading to massive slope failure, and may increase the risk of tsunamis.

Speaking only for myself, I find that alarming. Of course, the only way to be totally certain about the risk is to pull that trigger and see if the gun is loaded. That's the approach to risk that many renowned Darwin Award winners have followed.

[salbers]

You may have misread my OP. I was objecting to the idea that a large portion of the methane trapped in the ESAS has reasonable potential to be released in the next hundred years.

Well this potential has been discussed in many posts so far. Perhaps you might want to clarify how many Gt per year of methane and the percent probability to give us a point of reference?

[WeatherRusty]

You may have misread my OP. I was objecting to the idea that a large portion of the methane trapped in the ESAS has reasonable potential to be released in the next hundred years.

Two things to remember:

1) Any increase in the rate of methane emission from the arctic represents an uncontrolled release of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.

2) The threat is not in the short term. Long term this will add to the eventuality for atmospheric CO2 concentration to exceed 600ppm.

[LithiaWx]

Well this potential has been discussed in many posts so far. Perhaps you might want to clarify how many Gt per year of methane and the percent probability to give us a point of reference?

idk... A large portion typically means most of it... From what I hear there are massive amounts down there. I was looking for peer reviewed papers that suggest most of that methane is unstable enough to be released in the next 100 years. Honestly, you are one of the only people in this thread who I feel is even worth responding to in a good faith manner. So there you have it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The warming impact of CH4 is minimal to near nil and most anyone with credibility will tell you the warming from CH4 is

nearly non -existent. Also the idea that methane is venting from cracks in the ice is very weak. Unless the methane is right below the large cracks it's not venting from them. We have no idea exactly where the methane is being vented so the idea that it's hitting one of these very small areas with large cracks is a huge stretch. This thread is still a joke and I'd be embarrassed to be pushing the "CH4! OMG we are all going to die!" agenda. This thread needs to be closed and if you guys really wanted to have an honest discussion about methane a new thread should be created free of alarmism. Right now this thread is not helping current perceptions about alarmism.

http://www.nasa.gov/...th20120422.html

This is weird, and unsettling if true.

NASA has detected CH4 coming from the ocean in the Arctic - seems to be leaking out from under the icepack.

They do not think it is from the seabed, as the sites sampled were relatively deep.

I thought that the ocean would fairly efficiently turn any CH4 produced into CO2, no?

If not, then it could be a bit of a problem.

Where the hell is it coming from - jellyfish?

[dabize]

idk... A large portion typically means most of it... From what I hear there are massive amounts down there. I was looking for peer reviewed papers that suggest most of that methane is unstable enough to be released in the next 100 years.

This suggests that we have more of a difference in attitude toward uncertainty than we may with the facts themselves (as they are known,) at least in regard to the CH4 question.

If I knew there was a high likelihood that massive amounts of CH4 would be released from the ESAS in the next 100 years, I'd be terrified. But the uncertainty around the question makes the risk impossible to assess accurately just now. As it is, I'm very much concerned that this MIGHT be true.

You seem to be not worried at all unless there is "peer reviewed evidence" that the catastrophe is going to happen, never mind all of the circumstantial indications that there is real (if unquantifiable) risk of this.

I can't understand this. The same approach to the terrorism risk after 9/11 would have us giving free flying lessons and plane tickets to all members of Al Qaeda..........

[LithiaWx]

This suggests that we have more of a difference in attitude toward uncertainty than we may with the facts themselves (as they are known,) at least in regard to the CH4 question.

If I knew there was a high likelihood that massive amounts of CH4 would be released from the ESAS in the next 100 years, I'd be terrified. But the uncertainty around the question makes the risk impossible to assess accurately just now. As it is, I'm very much concerned that this MIGHT be true.

You seem to be not worried at all unless there is "peer reviewed evidence" that the catastrophe is going to happen, never mind all of the circumstantial indications that there is real (if unquantifiable) risk of this.

I can't understand this. The same approach to the terrorism risk after 9/11 would have us giving free flying lessons and plane tickets to all members of Al Qaeda..........

You are 100% correct wrt to the bold text I highlighted.

[dabize]

You are 100% correct.

OK, but one threat is a lot bigger in overall magnitude than the other.

How many planes would have to be hijacked and flown into buildings per year to generate the same aggregate death toll that will be generated by 115 degree heat waves lasting 3 weeks at a time or more (to mention only one of the better characterized risks of AGW)?

That will be happening pretty soon at the rate we're going, methane or no methane.

What we're doing now (nothing) is a hell of a lot WORSE for our collective safety than materially aiding terrorists.

OK, I'll edit too........

Peer review is unnecessary for detecting the presence of large fish in our milk supply.............

[LithiaWx]

OK, but one threat is a lot bigger in overall magnitude than the other.

How many planes would have to be hijacked and flown into buildings per year to generate the same aggregate death toll that will be generated by 115 degree heat waves lasting 3 weeks at a time or more (to mention only one of the better characterized risks of AGW)?

That will be happening pretty soon at the rate we're going, methane or no methane.

What we're doing now (nothing) is a hell of a lot WORSE for our collective safety than materially aiding terrorists.

You should be ashamed to compare methane release to one of the biggest tragedy's in American history, 9/11.

[salbers]

idk... A large portion typically means most of it... From what I hear there are massive amounts down there. I was looking for peer reviewed papers that suggest most of that methane is unstable enough to be released in the next 100 years. Honestly, you are one of the only people in this thread who I feel is even worth responding to in a good faith manner. So there you have it.

The thing is that even a minority of the available methane would still be sufficient to cause a significant climate impact. And Wx Rusty is right about the short term CH4 being in tandem with the long term conversion to CO2. The latter is more of an irreversible process, as the mechanisms to pull CO2 from the atmosphere are somewhat limited. Which is more of a threat depends on the exact rate of release of CH4.

The S&S and related papers are fairly suggestive of instability, aren't they?

Over time more journal papers will likely be coming out, as it takes time to publish. So this is a nuanced discussion of risk assessment to be sure.

[LithiaWx]

The thing is that even a minority of the available methane would still be sufficient to cause a significant climate impact. And Wx Rusty is right about the short term CH4 being in tandem with the long term conversion to CO2.

The S&S and related papers are fairly suggestive of instability, aren't they?

Over time more journal papers will likely be coming out, as it takes time to publish. So this is a nuanced discussion of risk assessment to be sure.

I wasn't talking about a minority amount and neither was the guy's post I was originally responding to. So the answer appears to be there is not peer reviewed papers that suggest a majority of the methane in the ESAS is in danger of being released in the next 100 years.

[dabize]

You should be ashamed to compare methane release to one of the biggest tragedy's in American history, 9/11.

You should be ashamed to pretend that the death toll of 9/11 is not trivial compared to the one we will bear from AGW.

Good Godwin!

[salbers]

I wasn't talking about a minority amount and neither was the guy's post I was originally responding to. So the answer appears to be there is not peer reviewed papers that suggest a majority of the methane in the ESAS is in danger of being released in the next 100 years.

Well I agree you've been talking about a majority amount, so in that context I'd suggest it's a somewhat irrelevant point.

[TerryM]

I wasn't talking about a minority amount and neither was the guy's post I was originally responding to. So the answer appears to be there is not peer reviewed papers that suggest a majority of the methane in the ESAS is in danger of being released in the next 100 years.

Could you at least quote the person you are responding to?

[salbers]

http://www.nasa.gov/...th20120422.html

This is weird, and unsettling if true.

NASA has detected CH4 coming from the ocean in the Arctic - seems to be leaking out from under the icepack.

They do not think it is from the seabed, as the sites sampled were relatively deep.

I thought that the ocean would fairly efficiently turn any CH4 produced into CO2, no?

If not, then it could be a bit of a problem.

Where the hell is it coming from - jellyfish?

Yes, weird and not good ?

It's interesting that the article mentions possible biological activity in surface waters being the source. However the link below has an informative video that does show the flight path north of Alaska on the edge of the ESAS, and they do mention the shallow ocean sediments being a possible source of their enhanced methane measurements.

http://hippo.ucar.ed...ns-from-hippo-i

[PhillipS]

I wasn't talking about a minority amount and neither was the guy's post I was originally responding to. So the answer appears to be there is not peer reviewed papers that suggest a majority of the methane in the ESAS is in danger of being released in the next 100 years.

As the poster you responded to - I can safely say that a 'large portion' does not have to mean 'most', it simply means enough to be problematic. I'll grant that I should have been more exact. But as others have pointed out, the peer-reviewed research says that release of even a small percentage (are you happier with that term?) of the CH4 reservoir will have severe climate impacts.

If you, and other pseudo-skeptics, were the only ones affected by the risks and consequences of BAU (much like smokers or motorcyclists who ride without helmets) I'd say "your risk, your choice.". But our atmosphere and our climate are the common property (though perhaps legacy would be a better term) of everyone. The actions of anyone inevitably impact others. It sounds like you're claiming the right to pollute to your heart's content and the rest of the world be damned. But mindreading isn't a skill I'm good at (just ask my ex-wife) so I'll ask in all seriousness - do you feel an individual or group or nation has innate or imposed limits on what they can do?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yes, weird and not good ?

It's interesting that the article mentions possible biological activity in surface waters being the source. However the link below has an informative video that does show the flight path north of Alaska on the edge of the ESAS, and they do mention the shallow ocean sediments being a possible source of their enhanced methane measurements.

http://hippo.ucar.ed...ns-from-hippo-i

Well, it's obviously coming from the Clathrates. But it is also obviously coming from the Permafrost as well.

The Russians have proof of it coming out of the Russian Sea's especially the shore area in the Laptev. Where they measured a 3C temp on the arctic floor(al beit in very shallow water. Doesn't matter. These Clathrate sit 30-75M deep. all over the region. Clearly some are in much deeper water.

We know Spring snow cover has declined rapidly in recent years, especially in Russia.

We know arctic sea ice has declined to an average summer min around 3.1 mil km2 in area the last 5 years. Allowing unprecedented heating of the arctic sea's, especially the Russian side.

We have Observed this getting a stronger out let for Methane.

We have observation record of Methane picking up and our charts show it's coming from the Arctic region and Permafrost higher than before.

We have real humans with real technological devices, going to real Russian Sea's flying real helicopters over Russians Sea's, tracking and observing tens of thousands of individual samples the last decade.

We have photographs of the methane clathrates blowing out methane from the arctic floor, we have photographs of the methane bubbling out into ice crack, ice floes, pancake ice, open seas,stormy seas.

We have measured and extrapolated large quantities of this.

If you brought this much evidence to prove anything else it would be accepted at first glance.

Does it mean it will blow out in a catastrophic way? Absolutely Not.

is it Alarming? Umm, Yeah, arctic methane clathrates melting out is quite alarming.

Does even this little bit that came out so far enhance warming? Yep.

Is there reason to believe it will get much worse?

Yeah. Let's see how warm the Laptev can get if the arctic ice melts out to 2 million square kilometers butting up against Canada/Greenland. With the Laptev Ice free since June. Those 10-15C water temps over the shallow areas won't be good.

[dabize]

Well, it's obviously coming from the Clathrates.

Friv, the clathrate story, as you say, is unsettling enough.

I've decided that it is just too unclear to say much about that without better data, which should be available soon.

But the link I posted suggested that release from clathrates couldn't be responsible for the low level emission of CH4 from wide areas of the ocean surface, since the CH4 would be exposed to seawater and would be converted to CO2 before it reached the surface.

The CH4 clathrate outgassing would be seen only as the "fountains" described by Semelitov and Sharapova in the ESAS, since only in this way would it escape oxidation by the seawater.

Broad, low-level CH4 emergence from the ocean surface can be expected only if:

a) the water has become saturated and maximally acidified by clathrate CH4, and thus incapable of converting it to CO2, or

the CH4 is actually being produced locally at the ocean surface by micro-organisms.

Possibility B is bad enough, since it suggests that there is a whole new source of CH4 that we haven't yet accounted for.

It's better than A, though.

[LithiaWx]

You should be ashamed to pretend that the death toll of 9/11 is not trivial compared to the one we will bear from AGW.

Good Godwin!

shameful.... Terrorism and the methane in the ESAS are not comparable. You should be called out and shunned for this terrible judgement.

[dabize]

shameful.... Terrorism and the methane in the ESAS are not comparable. You should be called out and shunned for this terrible judgement.

MauMau tactics of the worst kind.

I like the shunning, though.

Were you Cotton Mather in a previous life?