This is not good.

[skierinvermont]

If the recently detected activity turns out to represent an uptick in methane emission from natural sources, wouldn't that concern you? I am more concerned with the direction this is headed moreso than the impact of current (increased?) output.

To me this potential is akin to finding the oceans becoming a net emitter of CO2 rather than a sink. Both of these potentails are of valid scientific concern despite BethesdaWX's claims of failure to adhere to "the scientific method".

If it did represent an uptick due to agw that would be concerning but there isn't any evidence of that. The evidence is that this is a normal natural uptick and that the vaste majority of the 3200 gt is stable. This idea that 3200 gt is about to explode is nonsense. "ready" in this case means theoretically releasable given enough warming and especially TIME.

[salbers]

This entire thread has no business being on a scientific forum. The subject I have no problem with but some of the posts in this thread are a joke.

We are trying to use scientific references when possible. That should qualify at least some of the posts in this thread? We are mainly speculating in advance of future publications that should help clarify things.

[salbers]

All you are doing is taking the word ready out of context.

Please try and elaborate further (beyond post #453) on the context with how it fits into the numbers I'm using. Most of the reasoning I'm presenting makes sense I think.

What fraction of the 1400Gt "ready" to release can possibly be released over what time period? Are you confident it is less than 1/2000th of this over a 1 year time period? This in turn is about 100 times the current steady release component. The total release right now probably isn't much more than the 6-8Mt steady component, otherwise we'd have a faster global rate of rise.

As Vergent mentions Archer in 2007 believes it is a relatively small fraction, though as we can see in the recent RC thread Vergent along with others seems to be able to challenge Archer on this. We'll see how the scientific debate continues with players like Shakhova and Archer.

[salbers]

At a lecture from 12/2010 the 3.5 GT figure was used - this was prior to the expedition that found venting orders of magnitude worse than previous observations.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PEIMdPkMpd8J:symposium2010.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/8914/107496/version/3/file/1A_Shakhova_Final.pdf+"esas"+3.5Gt&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=

page 34

Thanks for finding this. I was attempting to find this presentation in the 2011 symposium.

[Vergent]

Another plain vanilla article from the NYT. Although this one did allow one oposing view.

http://dotearth.blog...arctic-methane/

Saw it too late to get a high comment, but the first response made the same point I would have made. I would have added that we have not had much luck modeling arctic ice, how can we have such confidence in our methane hydrate models?

[Vergent]

David archer has an online model for atmospheric methane release.

http://forecast.uchi...ts/methane.html

This is the result of releasing 16Gt over a 20 year period.(a 100 fold increase over the current 8Mt rate). This corrisponds to 1% of the known ESAS reserves being vented. With 5 watt forcing the permafrost would be vanishing very fast so lets release 1% of those reserves over the next 20 years 32Gt over 40 years.

This is not good.

[blue sky]

Worst climate thread ever on Eastern/American. Even Realclimate laughs at this thread.

[dabize]

Worst climate thread ever on Eastern/American. Even Realclimate laughs at this thread.

Then go away

[blue sky]

Then go away

It's like a train wreck...can't stop watching posters making jack asses out of themselves.

Real climate.....AGW champions..founded by Galvin Schmit and Mike Mann....Puke on the idea that methane is a threat.

[PhillipS]

It's like a train wreck...can't stop watching posters making jack asses out of themselves.

Real climate.....AGW champions..founded by Galvin Schmit and Mike Mann....Puke on the idea that methane is a threat.

I feel that you're misreading the RC column - they are not saying the we can ignore the issue of methane releases. From my reading of the RC column they are saying that the worst-case scenarios have not materialized. The issue is serious, but not yet catastrophic. So the difference between the RC blog and the thread here is more a matter of degree of severity.

Now if you have any real contribution to add to the thread, say, a legitimate scientist whose research comes to different conclusions - we'd love for you to share the link to the paper. But your snark really doesn't add as much as you obviously think it does.

[Vergent]

Real climate.....AGW champions..founded by Galvin Schmit and Mike Mann....Puke on the idea that methane is a threat.

You mean this Gavin Schmidt?

Methane and environmental change during the Paleocene‐Eocene

thermal maximum (PETM): Modeling the PETM onset as a

two‐stage event

David A. Carozza,1,2 Lawrence A. Mysak,1 and Gavin A. Schmidt3

For CH4 to reproduce the characteristics of stage 2, however, it

must be abruptly released. These results are therefore consistent

with a catastrophic release of methane hydrate from

sediment, followed by the oxidation of a part of this CH4 in

the water column and the escape of the remaining CH4 to the

atmosphere.

http://magician.ucsd...s/carozza11.pdf

He was speaking of 1000Gt release over a 500 year period. That would look like this.

[blue sky]

I feel that you're misreading the RC column - they are not saying the we can ignore the issue of methane releases. From my reading of the RC column they are saying that the worst-case scenarios have not materialized. The issue is serious, but not yet catastrophic. So the difference between the RC blog and the thread here is more a matter of degree of severity.

Now if you have any real contribution to add to the thread, say, a legitimate scientist whose research comes to different conclusions - we'd love for you to share the link to the paper. But your snark really doesn't add as much as you obviously think it does.

r

Real climate makes fun of methane alarmism. No way you can read it otherwise.

Real Climate is way into alarmism.

[PhillipS]

r

Real climate makes fun of methane alarmism. No way you can read it otherwise.

Real Climate is way into alarmism.

Ah, I think I see the source of your confusion - you need to understand the distinction between alarming and alarmism, Reading reports that Russian scientists are observing a large increase in the rate of methane release - is alarming. Running around screaming that the world is ending - that's alarmism. Nobody is doing that here. All clear now?

BTW - your Nom de Blog is a good one, very appropriate. Blue Sky - empty and devoid of anything of interest. An inspired choice.

[Vergent]

r

Real climate makes fun of methane alarmism. No way you can read it otherwise.

Real Climate is way into alarmism.

http://www.realclima...#comment-224271

In response to comment #22

But 200 Gton is a lot of carbon. Shakhova et al are claiming 50 Gton C. They argue that a release of that size could come out instantaneously, and if it did, I agree with them, the climate impacts would be immense.

Using his own calculator

http://forecast.uchi...ts/methane.html

Shakhova's release of 50Gt would shoot GHG forcing up to 8w/m^2. It would drop down to 6w/m^2 in thirty years.

[Vergent]

For the record, while I am alarmed by a new source of GHG with the potential to multiply the current climate forcing, I am not panicked by it. There is a simple remediation.

• Ignite any strong local vents.
  
• Build a breakwater/railroad bridge across the Bering Strait. This would reduce the thermal import to the arctic by 1/3, and change the Arctic ice cap from a yearly net melt to a yearly net freeze. This would pay for itself.
  

[LithiaWx]

For the record, while I am alarmed by a new source of GHG with the potential to multiply the current climate forcing, I am not panicked by it. There is a simple remediation.

• Ignite any strong local vents.
  
• Build a breakwater/railroad bridge across the Bering Strait. This would reduce the thermal import to the arctic by 1/3, and change the Arctic ice cap from a yearly net melt to a yearly net freeze. This would pay for itself.
  

These ideas are insane. We don't know the ramifications of doing either of these things. Big, big mistake.

[Vergent]

These ideas are insane. We don't know the ramifications of doing either of these things. Big, big mistake.

It would not be like this;

It would be more like this;

The oil industry has been burning off methane from their oil fields since the start. The chemistry is simple CH4+2O2=CO2+2H2O. The resulting CO2 has 5% the environmental impact of the methane. While the methane is not good, the CO2 is 20 times less bad.

The breakwater would have floodgates to allow migration and to regulate the flow of energy. It could be removed as easily as it could be built. It is a project on the scale of Kansai airport, that was built in 30 meter deep water.

If the consequences were worse than the methane, it could of course be removed. But once the methane is in the atmosphere, there is little we can do about it.

[blue sky]

Ah, I think I see the source of your confusion - you need to understand the distinction between alarming and alarmism, Reading reports that Russian scientists are observing a large increase in the rate of methane release - is alarming. Running around screaming that the world is ending - that's alarmism. Nobody is doing that here. All clear now?

BTW - your Nom de Blog is a good one, very appropriate. Blue Sky - empty and devoid of anything of interest. An inspired choice.

Maybe i missed something......Where are Russian Scientists reporting a large increase in the rate of methane release?

[PhillipS]

Maybe i missed something......Where are Russian Scientists reporting a large increase in the rate of methane release?

Start with the opening post for this thread and read the first page of responses - that will give you a good start. And links to papers related to arctic methane releases are scattered throughout the thread.

[blue sky]

Start with the opening post for this thread and read the first page of responses - that will give you a good start. And links to papers related to arctic methane releases are scattered throughout the thread.

I read all that. The authors who reported the methane burbs said that they had no historical data to compare. Observing methane burbs for the first time your observing... is different from observing methane burbs that are occuring for the first time in a long time observation.

This is the crux of the discussion.

[Vergent]

Maybe i missed something......Where are Russian Scientists reporting a large increase in the rate of methane release?

http://www.arctic-methane-emergency-group.org/#/letter-to-leaders/4558749249

Rember; Don't panic!!! and don't forget your towel.

[blue sky]

http://www.arctic-me...ders/4558749249

Rember; Don't panic!!! and don't forget your towel.

No historical data at all. As the source authors said....the methane burbs where from areas they never observed before.

You don't read the things you post and you don't read things other posters post.

[Vergent]

No historical data at all. As the source authors said....the methane burbs where from areas they never observed before.

You don't read the things you post and you don't read things other posters post.

There are thirty pages on that website, dozens of videos, a 16 page booklet, and you read it all in a half hour, I'm impressed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html

Unfortunately the new data is not published yet, but for historical relevance, here is last years paper on the same subject.

http://files.instrument.com.cn/FilesCenter/20100607/SH101432-133263.pdf

[Vergent]

AIRS animations almost alarming.

http://climateforce....ne-airs-videos/

I recommend November.

[LithiaWx]

AIRS animations almost alarming.

http://climateforce....ne-airs-videos/

I recommend November.

The entire scale from one side to to other represents about a 5% increase. Even though the colors look bad the total increase in the arctic is around 2% (give or take a bit) or so over of the course of that video. That's not alarming or even much of a concern for me, but to each their own.

[salbers]

Meanwhile, the land-based permafrost is estimated to increase to about 1 Gt/yr in this abstract:

http://onlinelibrary...0527.x/abstract

[Vergent]

Meanwhile, the land-based permafrost is estimated to increase to about 1 Gt/yr in this abstract:

http://onlinelibrary...0527.x/abstract

Damn paywall. If you add in an equal amount from the arctic ocean you get this;

About 8W GHG forcing by 2030, ignoring albedo feedback, which would be huge in the arctic. How could the permafrost melt not accelerate? How could the ice cap not melt? How could Greenland not melt? It seems that the "worst case scenario" is now the predicted norm. Do we need a new worst case scenario?

[PhillipS]

SkepticalScience has started a new series of posts on arctic methane. The first post is:

Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background

I think it provides good background context for the discussion.

[salbers]

Yes, good summary at Skeptical Science. I look forward to their Part 2, featuring an interview with Dr. Natalia Shakhova covering some of the important questions that remain.

[salbers]

Damn paywall. If you add in an equal amount from the arctic ocean you get this;

About 8W GHG forcing by 2030, ignoring albedo feedback, which would be huge in the arctic. How could the permafrost melt not accelerate? How could the ice cap not melt? How could Greenland not melt? It seems that the "worst case scenario" is now the predicted norm. Do we need a new worst case scenario?

Indeed - nice plot that helps give some perspective. We see methane going from about half the CO2 forcing at the present time to about twice the forcing in a few decades. That's kind of a good benchmark to see if the worst case scenario from either land-based or ESAS based methane could exceed 1Gt/yr of methane flux.

Also, interesting that a 2 Gt/yr sustained release gives about the same maximum radiative forcing as a 50Gt instantaneous release.