Green Group discussion

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/...

To me, this is representative of the scariest aspects of climate change: we don't have anything remotely close to full understanding of all the contributing factors and feedback mechanisms that might trigger rapid acceleration of the warming effects. It feels like we're conducting a massive, uncontrolled global experiment, risking the planet's future on a roll of the dice. If the experiment spins out of control, we can't just evacuate the lab and call the fire department.

Let's hope we as a species wake up in time to at least mitigate the most drastic consequences.

I think the poles have already taken in enough heat to melt in time. To me the polar vortex releases demonstrate the inability of the Arctic to keep it's cold air in place. In the past it was a release of cold air that was replaced. Now every blast is getting harder and harder to replenish.

The methane in the northern hemisphere is under water as well as locked up in the the permafrost, which is turning out to be an unfortunate name. It is not permanent and it is not staying frozen.

Around the world along every coast there are continental slopes which contain monstrous amounts of methane hydrates. It is on the slopes because that is where the optimum depth and sediment compositions are located.

USGS research has determined that gas hydrates are currently contributing to total atmospheric methane and that a catastrophic melting of unstable hydrate deposits is unlikely to send large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. It is assumed that most of these deposits are held in place by a layer of sediment.

That would be true if nothing changes. These are the same people who said the atmosphere would take up all the extra moisture from the melting poles without any change in the world's weather. The atmosphere would simply absorb it and continue to behave as it always has. This kind of talk has nothing to back it up except more talk.

The methane hydrates are held in place by the combined effects of pressure, temperature and water depth. That is a standard relationship that works well in the lab but falls apart on the ocean floors when there is any kind of ocean floor movement. The same way it also fails in places where severe storms are able to stir up fragile ocean floors in places that have been protected by ice caps.

The methane deposits on the slopes are not covered by stable sediment deposits. Mud slopes are never stable. Everything that enters the ocean shores is entering at the high point. After that it can only go downhill on a huge conveyor belt that is powered by gravity. There is always some kind of downhill movement in the continental shelves.

There are many methane deposits called seeps visible on the ocean floor, with extensive ecosystems that are based on methane instead of sunlight. They are similar to the 600 degree black chimney smoker ecosystems based on sulfur. They are widespread and show that there are already areas that are not under a protective cap of sediment. The prevailing wisdom is that these seeps are smaller deposits that are not connected to larger deposits of methane located farther below the ocean floor.

It seems unlikely the complex life would evolve so highly at these sites with small, unpredictable amounts of methane as a source of energy. More likely they are the low pressure exhaust ports for massive methane deposits that are trapped under the sediment. The same way the black chimney smokers are low pressure exhaust ports for the massive volcanic activity that is happening far below the surface. I would say that both systems evolved with a large constant source of energy.

The fly in the ointment is that we have been doctoring the sediments that are sliding down the continental shelves with all kinds of substances not normally found in those mixtures and concentrations. The microbes probably accept them as gifts from the gods and make ample use of them. We are not the only ones practicing better living through chemistry.

Hugely scary. Thanks for this posting.

Melting permafrost back in the news again. In fact, there's more carbon in the permafrost, Dr. Thomas Douglas says, than all the carbon humans have spewed into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution — first with steam trains, then with coal plants, cars and planes.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsand...

I am now studying journalism at a business college, and so far I have met two people writing theses on climate change.
One on how climate change is being presented in the media. One on the psychology associated with climate change. I told the latter about the Schwartzenegger / Nye short film, Climate Change Grief. She was thrilled to hear that this much work had been done for her.

Thanks for sharing the link Jimmy and it gets worse.

Recent cliamte treaties, accords etc are based on the global warming potential of methane over a 100 year period and it being 25 times the GHG as CO2.

But...

That 25 number has been revised upwards by IPPC to about 34 and if we use a more realistic window of 20 years instead of 100, the GWP of methane is more like 86.

I have not read much good news lately... I think I need to watch cat videos for a while.

Ken,

Ugh. God, that's scary.

Yup, keeping a sense of humour in these times is a crucial . Dance cats dance.

The saddest thing for me is seeing little children and wondering what they have to look forward to.

Life on Mars.

Our children and grandchildren will have a tough go of it, I am afraid. Climate change, pollution, water scaricty, another 2 billion people to compete with for jobs and an ever growing gap between the have and have nots are just a few of the factors that they will need to contend with.

That is why I feel that one of the most important things that we can do is to mentor our youth. Prepare them for this as best as we can.

If anyone is interested, send me a message and I can send you a few chapters that I have written on this specific topic that are in my latest book.

The global microbial production of methane is apparently increasing possibly due to warmer and wetter climate conditions. The microbes appear to be taking advantage of changes made to the land by agricultural operations, from clearing land, growing crops, and managing large herds of livestock.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/methan...

A more localised production of methane: lava eating through trees. Hence the blue flames currently seen in Hawaii.


https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/24/us...

https://phys.org/news/2023-08-methane...

"Rivers and streams in boreal forests and polar regions at high latitudes are often tied to peatlands and wetlands, while the dense forests of the Amazon and Congo river basins also supply the waters running through them with soils rich in organic matter. Both systems produce substantial amounts of methane because they often result in low-oxygen conditions preferred by microbes that produce methane while breaking down all that organic matter.

However, not all high methane rivers and streams come by these emissions naturally. In parts of the world, freshwater methane emissions are primarily controlled by human activity in both urban and rural communities.

"Humans are actively modifying river networks worldwide and, in general, these changes seem to favor methane emissions," says Gerard Rocher, lead author of the report and a postdoctoral researcher with both the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and the Blanes Centre of Advanced Studies in Spain.

Habitats that have been highly modified by humans—like ditched streams draining agricultural fields, rivers below wastewater treatment plants, or concrete stormwater canals—also often result in the organic-matter-rich, oxygen-poor conditions that promote high methane production."

More information: Gerard Rocher-Ros et al, Global methane emissions from rivers and streams, Nature (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-06344-6

Journal information: Nature

Provided by University of Wisconsin-Madison

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-delayin...

"A new study by Simon Fraser University researchers shows that efforts to reduce methane emissions are needed immediately if we are to meet global climate change goals.

A key element of the 2015 Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change, is the commitment to limit average global temperatures increases to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This requires reaching net-zero CO2 emissions by or around 2050—and deep reductions in methane and other emissions.

The study, published in Communications Earth & Environment, suggests that global warming levels, relative to the pre-industrial period, could be limited below 2°C if global-scale methane mitigation efforts are initiated before 2030.

However, delaying methane mitigation to the year 2040, or beyond, would increase the risk of global warming levels exceeding 2°C above pre-industrial levels, even if net-zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were achieved."

More information: Claude-Michel Nzotungicimpaye et al, Delaying methane mitigation increases the risk of breaching the 2 °C warming limit, Communications Earth & Environment (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s43247-023-00898-z

Journal information: Communications Earth & Environment

Provided by Simon Fraser University