This is not good.

[LithiaWx]

MauMau tactics of the worst kind.

I like the shunning, though.

Were you Cotton Mather in a previous life?

What's funny is your little followers won't disown you for this egregious error. That just goes to show you how terrible even the sheep that follow you are.

[WeatherRusty]

I'm a democrat who supports President Obama and can't stand Bush. Try again.

In 2008 the United States Department of Energy National Laboratory system^[14] identified potential clathrate destabilization in the Arctic as one the most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change, which have been singled out for priority research. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program released a report in late December 2008 estimating the gravity of the risk of clathrate destabilization, alongside three other credible abrupt climate change scenarios.

To say this is a joke or should not be taken seriously is your opinion, but it is not shared by those charged with those investigating this phenomenon. This sort of thing can happen and has likely happened before in the paleo record.

We don't know what is going to happen, but this methane time bomb is definitely worthy of serious concern, especially if human activities raise arctic temps several degrees above what has naturally occurred for potentially many millions of years.

[LithiaWx]

To say this is a joke or should not be taken seriously is your opinion, but it is not shared by those charged with those investigating this phenomenon. This sort of thing can happen and has likely happened before in the paleo record.

We don't know what is going to happen, but this methane time bomb is definitely worthy of serious concern, especially if human activities raise arctic temps several degrees above what has naturally occurred for potentially many millions of years.

Peer reviewed papers please.

Some of you (not you in particular) scream about the peer review process. You won't find serious scientists who believe the ESAS is on the verge of a catastrophic methane release. We are thousands of years away from such an event if it ever does happen.

[BeastFromTheEast]

I'm a democrat who supports President Obama and can't stand Bush. Try again.

Pwned!

I gotta give you a big round for sticking around in this place as long as you have dude! I know I couldn't stand it for more than a day

[WeatherRusty]

Peer reviewed papers please.

Some of you (not you in particular) scream about the peer review process. You won't find serious scientists who believe the ESAS is on the verge of a catastrophic methane release. We are thousands of years away from such an event if it ever does happen.

Like I said, we don't know what will happen. Don't count me as one who claims a catastrophic methane release is immanent. I doubt it actually, at least in terms of a human lifetime. As I have pointed out before, the previous interglacial period 125,000 years ago appears to have attained global warmth about 1C warmer than today and did not trigger a run away methane release.

The actual concern involves an increased rate of methane release from thawing permafrost and potentially the sea floor clathrates, rather than some sudden burst. Added to the anthropogenic rise in CO2, upwards of 400ppm and likely much higher, a slow but hastening arctic methane release stands to accelerate the process in a way humans would have little to no control over.

[LithiaWx]

I hear you Rusty... I just keep going back to the thread title that not many seem to object to.

catastrophic climatic calamity could commence.

catastrophic climatic calamity? really?

[BeastFromTheEast]

Nothing about this is really funny.

This is the kind of thing that wingnuts like you used after 9/11 to allow that b*stard Bush to destroy our country

You did it by appealing to groupthink and hysteria.

F*ck you and yours for doing that.

I'm a democrat who supports President Obama and can't stand Bush. Try again.

BUMP for dabize

[TerryM]

The dangers from ESAS CH4 release are pretty well documented by S&S. Those that wish to ignore the threat are of course welcome to do so, but I'd suggest a little research, even if it's just going back in this thread, before rejecting it out of hand.

Terry

[Vergent]

Peer reviewed papers please.

Some of you (not you in particular) scream about the peer review process. You won't find serious scientists who believe the ESAS is on the verge of a catastrophic methane release. We are thousands of years away from such an event if it ever does happen.

Arctic Methane Flux from Wet-Sedge Tundra: Impact of Fe (III) additions, Spatial Heterogeneity and Season

K Miller, D Lipson… - AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 2011 - adsabs.harvard.edu

Abstract Arctic wetlands release significant volumes of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times

more potent than CO2, to the atmosphere. However, the mechanisms governing methane

emissions are not fully understood. This research asks the following two questions: Will ...

Permafrost and gas hydrate related methane release in the Arctic and its impact on climate change-European cooperation for long-term monitoring: COST Action …

J Greinert, T Treude - EGU General Assembly 2010, held 2- …, 2010 - adsabs.harvard.edu

Abstract The Arctic is a key area in our warming world as massive releases of terrestrial and

oceanic methane could increase atmospheric methane concentrations much faster than

expected. The vast Arctic shelf might become a major emitter of methane in the future. ...

All 3 versions

The use of atmospheric measurements to constrain Arctic methane emissions and to locate and identify major sources.

EG Nisbet, RE Fisher, D Lowry… - AGU Fall Meeting …, 2011 - adsabs.harvard.edu

Abstract Arctic and boreal methane emissions come from various sources, most of which will

respond strongly and rapidly both to year-on-year meteorological variations and to

sustained climate warming. These sources, which may have played a major role both in ...

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions

[TXT] from mblwhoilibrary.org

ISA Isaksen, M Gauss, G Myhre… - 2011 - darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org

The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are

unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with

thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future ...

Cited by 3 - Related articles - All 11 versions

Rising Arctic Ocean temperatures cause gas hydrate destabilization and ocean acidification

LH Rüpke, A Biastoch, T Treude, U Riebesell… - 2012 - eprints.ifm-geomar.de

... Here we present the results of a recent comprehensive study of the future fate of Arctic methane

hydrates [5]. Our multi-disciplinary analysis provides a closer look into regional developments

of submarine Arctic gas hydrate deposits under future global warming scenarios and ...

Cached

[PDF] Arctic methane sources: Isotopic evidence for atmospheric inputs

[PDF] from nilu.no

RE Fisher, S Sriskantharajah, D Lowry… - Geophysical …, 2011 - zardoz.nilu.no

[1] By comparison of the methane mixing ratio and the carbon isotope ratio (d13CCH4) in

Arctic air with regional background, the incremental input of CH4 in an air parcel and the

source d13CCH4 signature can be determined. Using this technique the bulk Arctic CH4 ...

Related articles - View as HTML - All 8 versions

High methane flux from an arctic floodplain (Indigirka lowlands, eastern Siberia)

J Van Huissteden, TC Maximov… - Journal of geophysical …, 2005 - europa.agu.org

Methane fluxes from arctic tundra soils on a river terrace and floodplain in northeastern

Siberia, measured with flux chambers, show a high spatial variability. The methane fluxes on

the river terrace compare well with fluxes reported in other studies on tundra methane ...

Cited by 31 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 7 versions

Microbial perspectives of methane fluxes from melting permafrost

D Wagner - 2009 - epic.awi.de

... This hampers prediction of the effects of climate warming on arctic methane fluxes, in particular

when these predictions are based on models that do not take into account the specific nature

of microbial populations in permafrost soils and sediments. ...

Cached - All 6 versions

Arctic Methane Workshop: An assessment of threats to Arctic and global warming; and an evaluation of techniques to counter these threats

J Nissen - AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 2011 - adsabs.harvard.edu

Abstract This is a report from a workshop especially convened in order to identify means to

reduce the threat of methane being emitted from sources in the Arctic in such quantities as to

have a major impact on global warming. Major factors in the assessment of this threat are ...

Extensive methane venting to the atmosphere from sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf

[PDF] from instrument.com.cn

N Shakhova, I Semiletov, A Salyuk, V Yusupov… - Science, 2010 - sciencemag.org

Abstract Remobilization to the atmosphere of only a small fraction of the methane held in

East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming, yet it is

believed that sub-sea permafrost acts as a lid to keep this shallow methane reservoir in ...

Cited by 82 - Related articles - All 22 versions

http://scholar.googl...%2C5&as_sdtp=on

Is that enough or do you want more?

[LithiaWx]

Is that enough or do you want more?

You haven't showed me what I asked for. You don't read very well. I'll ask again.

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.

[PhillipS]

You haven't showed me what I asked for. You don't read very well. I'll ask again.

You are the only person on this thread, or any other thread, who has used the terms "most" or "majority" in reference to the emission of arctic methane. If you had actually read any of the papers that have been referenced you could have learned that release of even a small percentage (much less than half) of the methane reservoir will have serious climate impact.

By continuing your rant you are making yourself look silly and are trashing what little credibility you have.

[BeastFromTheEast]

You are the only person on this thread, or any other thread, who has used the terms "most" or "majority" in reference to the emission of arctic methane. If you had actually read any of the papers that have been referenced you could have learned that release of even a small percentage (much less than half) of the methane reservoir will have serious climate impact.

By continuing your rant you are making yourself look silly and are trashing what little credibility you have.

lolwut?

[LithiaWx]

You are the only person on this thread, or any other thread, who has used the terms "most" or "majority" in reference to the emission of arctic methane. If you had actually read any of the papers that have been referenced you could have learned that release of even a small percentage (much less than half) of the methane reservoir will have serious climate impact.

By continuing your rant you are making yourself look silly and are trashing what little credibility you have.

"Large Portion" isn't any different.... You were the first to use the verbiage.

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.

again, nothing suggests that a "large portion" (did I get it right this time?) is in danger of being released in the next 100 years. You shouldn't have suggested such a thing if you weren't willing to take the heat for such a ridiculous statement. Why would you talk about a "large portion" being released in the next 100 years if it's accepted that it won't happen?

[Vergent]

Peer reviewed papers please.

Some of you (not you in particular) scream about the peer review process. You won't find serious scientists who believe the ESAS is on the verge of a catastrophic methane release. We are thousands of years away from such an event if it ever does happen.

Please back this statement up with some facts, or peer reviewed papers. And who said that the majority of the arctic methane was going to be released? An abrupt 1% release would be devastating. S&S have stated that a 50GT release is possible. That would look like this:

[LithiaWx]

Please back this statement up with some facts, or peer reviewed papers. And who said that the majority of the arctic methane was going to be released? An abrupt 1% release would be devastating. S&S have stated that a 50GT release is possible. That would look like this:

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.

^

The asinine statement that started the debate. Why talk about "a large portion" being released in the next 100 years if it's not a possibility? Answer = alarmism. You guys can enjoy your circle jerk of doom and gloom about the end of the world.

This is a joke thread. If you wanted to have a serious debate about methane you shouldn't have started the way you did.

[A-L-E-K]

^

The asinine statement that started the debate. Why talk about "a large portion" being released in the next 100 years if it's not a possibility? Answer = alarmism. You guys can enjoy your circle jerk of doom and gloom about the end of the world.

This is a joke thread. If you wanted to have a serious debate about methane you shouldn't have started the way you did.

lol @ doing the same thing in your reply that you pretended to be mad about

[LithiaWx]

lol @ doing the same thing in your reply that you pretended to be mad about

It's been stated in the monstrosity of a thread that we are talking about a timescale of thousands of years not a 100 years for a "large portion" to be released. The accepted numbers are 50Gt of the 1,400Gt is subject to sudden release. The amount of warming that would be necessary for "a large portion" to be released would take many centuries to millenniums. Wake me up when the world is ending when a catastrophic climatic calamity commences.

http://www.cosis.net...008-A-01526.pdf

[WeatherRusty]

It's been stated in the monstrosity of a thread that we are talking about a timescale of thousands of years not a 100 years for a "large portion" to be released. The accepted numbers are 50Gt of the 1,400Gt is subject to sudden release. The amount of warming that would be necessary for "a large portion" to be released would take many centuries to millenniums. Wake me up when the world is ending when a catastrophic climatic calamity commences.

http://www.cosis.net...008-A-01526.pdf

Just to note that a release producing 12X (see above link) the current atmospheric burden of methane would result in a radiative forcing (3.7W/m^2) the equal of a doubling of CO2 at current concentrations.

Taking a doubling over pre-industrial of CO2 in the next half century for granted and a climate sensitivity equaling 3C, we would expect a 6C global increase in temperature at equilibrium.

[TerryM]

It's been stated in the monstrosity of a thread that we are talking about a timescale of thousands of years not a 100 years for a "large portion" to be released. The accepted numbers are 50Gt of the 1,400Gt is subject to sudden release. The amount of warming that would be necessary for "a large portion" to be released would take many centuries to millenniums. Wake me up when the world is ending when a catastrophic climatic calamity commences.

http://www.cosis.net...008-A-01526.pdf

Have you researched the effect of the sudden release of up to 1,400Gt of CH4?

I apologize for not looking it up myself, but I'm distracted by a large tax problem that requires my attention between now and the end of the month.

Terry

[Vergent]

It's been stated in the monstrosity of a thread that we are talking about a timescale of thousands of years not a 100 years for a "large portion" to be released. The accepted numbers are 50Gt of the 1,400Gt is subject to sudden release. The amount of warming that would be necessary for "a large portion" to be released would take many centuries to millenniums. Wake me up when the world is ending when a catastrophic climatic calamity commences.

http://www.cosis.net...008-A-01526.pdf

Since the area of geological disjunctives (fault zones, tectonically and seismically

active areas) within the Siberian Arctic shelf composes not less than 1-2% of the total

area and area of open taliks (area of melt through permafrost), acting as a pathway for

methane escape within the Siberian Arctic shelf reaches up to 5-10% of the total area,

we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly

possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause 12-times increase of modern

atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.

From the paper you link to. Do you actually ever read anything? This paper is from 2008. The first ebullition was observed in 2009, patches tens of meters in diameter. In 2011, they observe patches over a kilometer across, a 2,500 fold increase in area. Do you have some sort of crystal ball that tells you a 50GT release is not starting?

[WeatherRusty]

Have you researched the effect of the sudden release of up to 1,400Gt of CH4?

I apologize for not looking it up myself, but I'm distracted by a large tax problem that requires my attention between now and the end of the month.

Terry

Hint: 12X the atmospheric load of methane derives from 50Gt.

Hypothetically, in the low likelihood of course...............

[PhillipS]

"Large Portion" isn't any different.... You were the first to use the verbiage.

again, nothing suggests that a "large portion" (did I get it right this time?) is in danger of being released in the next 100 years. You shouldn't have suggested such a thing if you weren't willing to take the heat for such a ridiculous statement. Why would you talk about a "large portion" being released in the next 100 years if it's accepted that it won't happen?

Is English not your native language? I don't see any other way you can so wildly misconstrue the term "large portion" - it is a relative quantity, not an absolute quantity. For example, if I eat a half pound of BBQ brisket, I've eaten a large portion even though the cow it came from weighed about half a ton. Similarly, if I eat an entire Snickers bar I have eaten a large portion of chocolate. The meaning of the term has to be taken from the context it is used in.

As I explained in my earlier post, I meant 'large portion' as being enough CH4 to have serious climate effects.. What that amount would be depends on a number or factors, including rate of release, but all research I've seen indicates that the release of even a small percentage of the vast reservoir of CH4 locked up in permafrost and methane hydrates would be very serious. There have been ample links to peer-reviewed research supporting that concern.

So keep on playing your semantic games - it is clear to anyone who speaks English that you're just being foolish.

[Vergent]

Have you researched the effect of the sudden release of up to 1,400Gt of CH4?

I apologize for not looking it up myself, but I'm distracted by a large tax problem that requires my attention between now and the end of the month.

Terry

Methane jumps up to 700ppm, with radiative forcing of 16w/m^2

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/methane.html

[LithiaWx]

Is English not your native language? I don't see any other way you can so wildly misconstrue the term "large portion" - it is a relative quantity, not an absolute quantity. For example, if I eat a half pound of BBQ brisket, I've eaten a large portion even though the cow it came from weighed about half a ton. Similarly, if I eat an entire Snickers bar I have eaten a large portion of chocolate. The meaning of the term has to be taken from the context it is used in.

As I explained in my earlier post, I meant 'large portion' as being enough CH4 to have serious climate effects.. What that amount would be depends on a number or factors, including rate of release, but all research I've seen indicates that the release of even a small percentage of the vast reservoir of CH4 locked up in permafrost and methane hydrates would be very serious. There have been ample links to peer-reviewed research supporting that concern.

So keep on playing your semantic games - it is clear to anyone who speaks English that you're just being foolish.

I see so now a small percentage equals "a large portion"

[The_Global_Warmer]

I see so now a small percentage equals "a large portion"

your a pretty abrasive guy for posting that you saw MYI growth where there was none. You still haven't posted how the MYI is growing.

You cliamed there were Countless papers on cryosat2. You posted ZERO of them.

You completely dismissed out right methane leaking through ice cracks and again you were wrong.

Is ironic that your in this thread grilling these guys on this when you continue to not back up

the claims you make.

You may want to be more fair

[LithiaWx]

your a pretty abrasive guy for posting that you saw MYI growth where there was none. You still haven't posted how the MYI is growing.

You cliamed there were Countless papers on cryosat2. You posted ZERO of them.

You completely dismissed out right methane leaking through ice cracks and again you were wrong.

Is ironic that your in this thread grilling these guys on this when you continue to not back up

the claims you make.

You may want to be more fair

You're

[BeastFromTheEast]

your a pretty abrasive guy for posting that you saw MYI growth where there was none. You still haven't posted how the MYI is growing.

You cliamed there were Countless papers on cryosat2. You posted ZERO of them.

You completely dismissed out right methane leaking through ice cracks and again you were wrong.

Is ironic that your in this thread grilling these guys on this when you continue to not back up

the claims you make.

You may want to be more fair

Claimed

It is

[PhillipS]

I see so now a small percentage equals "a large portion"

In the context of methane release - yes. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

[LithiaWx]

In the context of methane release - yes. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

I understand. You moved the goalposts when you realized how ridiculous the statement was.

[PhillipS]

I understand. You moved the goalposts when you realized how ridiculous the statement was.

I've only used the term in one context so no goalposts were moved - you are the one has been playing semantic games trying to move the goalposts. Instead, why don't you spend your time and energy providing links to research to back up your claims - or at least read some of the papers and come back better informed.