Slashdot Mirror
Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Methane
vinces99 writes: Off the U.S. West Coast, methane gas is trapped in frozen layers below the seafloor. New research from the University of Washington shows that water at intermediate depths is warming enough to cause these carbon deposits to melt, releasing methane into the sediments and surrounding water. Researchers found that water off the coast of Washington is gradually warming at a depth of 500 meters (about a third of a mile down), the same depth where methane transforms from a solid to a gas. The research suggests that ocean warming could be triggering the release of a powerful greenhouse gas (abstract).
Scientists believe global warming will release methane from gas hydrates worldwide, but most of the focus has been on the Arctic. The new paper estimates that, from 1970 to 2013, some 4 million metric tons of methane has been released from hydrate decomposition off Washington's coast. That's an amount each year equal to the methane from natural gas released in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout off the coast of Louisiana, and 500 times the rate at which methane is naturally released from the seafloor.
Scientists believe global warming will release methane from gas hydrates worldwide, but most of the focus has been on the Arctic. The new paper estimates that, from 1970 to 2013, some 4 million metric tons of methane has been released from hydrate decomposition off Washington's coast. That's an amount each year equal to the methane from natural gas released in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout off the coast of Louisiana, and 500 times the rate at which methane is naturally released from the seafloor.
One must note that environmental science is best at observation, and typically poor at prognostication.
One must note that slashdotters are best at making unsubstantiated assertions, and typically poor at well argued comments.
The Cosmos season one Episode 13 explains it quite a bit. And earth is getting warmer since the industrial revolution in the absence of other factors. Most of the debate comes from industries who stand to loose from climate based taxes.
Think of it as the lead debacle.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Methane release also played a key role in the Permian Mass Extinction Event.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
I don't have enough field knowledge to combat every ridiculous claim, coming from either side.
I'd be interested in hearing an example of a "ridiculous" claim from the side which thinks global warming is real.
questions is to what extent the impact of humans may be responsible.
No, this is fairly easily measurable; we're dwarfing natural processes. Aside from natural seasonal variation the biggest natural contributor to atmospheric CO2 is volcanic activity, and the rate at which we're releasing carbon is completely unprecedented. You can figure it as equivalent to 1-2 Yellowstone supervolcano eruptions every year, or two Pinatubos per day. (the article quotes from a paper that I belive is available online but I can't find it at the moment).
The models are well-defined on the lower limit due to the physics of radiation; 3.7 W/m^2 increase per doubling of CO2 is a straightforward result of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. That is equivalent to about 1 degree C global temp, and no one is worried about that. The issue is that water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas and you may have noticed that there's quite a bit of it lying around. Furthermore, air can hold exponentially more water vapor as it heats up. There's a lot of variation possible in the feedback loops but negative feedback is really unlikely.
Personally, I find the most useful way to approach the subject is to take a look at the history of climate science. Thousands of scientists did not wake up one day and accept the movement of the continents, neither did they accept that humans could have any affect on the climate without strong proofs. The Discovery of Global Warming goes over the history of global warming and has useful insights into what exactly a climate model is, and how even one-dimensional models can still tell us useful things even if their long-term predictions are not all that accurate
For a more detailed look into the science, you might check out Science of Doom, but a textbook on atmospheric physics may be more useful. Unfortunately, beyond the basics it starts to get complicated in a real hurry; unless you really want to start diving through papers and textbooks you will probably be best served by the IPCC report.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Just altering the words of a phrase in no way negates the point of his statement.
And a few paid shills like Frank Spencer. Not that he has ever actually published these apparently devastating critiques of AGW in any peer reviewed journal.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
in no way negates the point of his statement.
There is no point to his/her statement; it's just a (pretty random) assertion. There is no reasoned point, no subtantiation, no reference, not even an anecdote that attempts to convince as to why 'one must note' this. So, when it comes to prognostication are environmental scientists hacks? Evil? Lazy? Incompetent? All of the above? Tell us! Don't leave us hanging!
Here is the paper I mentioned, and here is the USGS's take on the matter. From what I understand there are a number of ways to estimate human CO2 output, one being to add up all the fossil fuels that are being consumed globally, which is likely not terribly accurate but we're still talking about two or three orders of magnitude difference. Another estimation method uses carbon isotope ratios. I get the impression that estimating volcanic emissions is somewhat difficult, but there's a fair amount of continuous monitoring for various reasons. Terrence Gerlach, a vulcanologist with the USGS, seems to have done quite a bit of research into the subject. The nice thing about scholarly publications is that they have to tell you where the numbers come from; if one wants to find out more about either part of the estimates then you just follow the references.
In summation, parts of the estimates come from direct measurements and the other parts seem to be estimates based on fossil fuel consumption. I am sure that there's a whole world of study out there for estimating various factors.
As an aside, humans are still far from matching or exceeding the most violent outgassings that have resulted from the formation of Large Igneous Provinces. I believe the Deccan Traps and Siberian Traps released about 3 orders of magnitude more CO2 than humanity has liberated. While our current burn rate would have us match those outgassings in about a thousand years, I don't believe that our fossil fuel reserves are projected to last that long. However, Large Igneous Provinces generally took millions of years to form, not hundreds; there is every reason to believe that what we are doing to the planet is unprecedented. On the other other hand, we're mostly skipping the problems with particulate matter and sulfides that came along with volcanic eruptions. For what it's worth.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Humans are 100% responsible is a claim which makes headlines.
But have you read actual research.
It says, there is enough evidence to prove that most of the warming can be linked to human activities.
Science looks at evidence, and then presents a hypothesis. This is how it has been in the scientific method. When an evidence is discounted science looks at new evidence.
Science is never always right. Scientists make mistakes. And that is why its science. For example, some hypothesis about climate change was proved wrong. Does it mean that entire climate change argument is wrong?
Scientists will update their models, gather more evidence and then present the findings again. Being wrong does not discredit science. It merely improves it.
The problem is, people view science as they have viewed faith. There is no room for error or mistakes. So any process which makes mistakes is ridiculed. IPCC has made mistakes, so have other climate scientists. Some evidence may not be relevant or nonferrous. But it does not matter. We just move on.
There are some things about climate we do not understand. That is also acceptable. Sure, faith based systems have all the answers, but that is not science. You first have to understand what is science, and once you do, you will figure it all out.
Do not fear science. Embibe it. Question. But not because somebody told you to, or some rich publication says so. Question on your own merit. If you do not believe something to be true, instead of ridiculing and pointing to some site on the internet which says its wrong, ask the question.
What site X says, is it true? If not, why? You will find answers to all of it if you start looking for it.
But if you let your faith cloud your judgement, you will never understand. If you want to understand, question. Now ridicule.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Most of the debate comes from industries who stand to loose from climate based taxes.
Or from the various powerful special interests that stand to gain from climate-based spending and taxes.
Here's the list of largest companies by revenue. And that's excluding state owned companies, like Saudi Aramco. I'm not seeing a lot of powerful special interest groups that stand to make money from climate-based spending and taxes in that list . But I sure see a lot who would like to keep the status quo.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
I prefer a limerick.
There once was a statement from popo
It really sounded quite loco
The thing had no point
AC has him coined
As a hater of the treaty of Kyoto
If I observe water temperature rising in a pot of water while I keep adding fuel to the fire, it doesn't take great prognostication skills to predict boiling water in the near future. So your observation is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Oh the poor, defenseless coal, gas and oil industry. Those poor companies, operating at thin margins with little resources, in far away countries that are nothing but desert, and god-forsaken tar sands. Yes, we must help those poor folk defend their livelihood from big business! Think of their children!
You're right, this is comedy gold :)
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Here's a different way to look at it: have you ever heard of the carboniferous period ? It's the 50 million years period between the time plants invented lignin and became trees (300MY ago) and the time when microorganisms evolved a way to digest it. During this period trees that died didn't rot. They just piled up. And other trees grew on top to hundreds of meters of depths. All that accumulated carbon is still around, in the ground, in form of coal of petroleum. But it took humans barely 200 years to release a good part of it into the atmosphere. Draw your own conclusion...
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Is the sort of things that happens with very complex and interrelated systems. We make models, and sometimes don't know how many factors plays in or the importance of some of them. But impredictability is something that should scare you more than dismiss this as a potential danger. If a big possitive feedback mechanism is not yet discovered or understood for global warming (a bit like this big methane release, but maybe worse/faster/whatever) once global climate hit a critical point, things can go wrong very fast, very global, and in a very irrevocable way.
You don't have to believe in climate change to realize dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is a problem. Just look at the acidifying oceans. Yes, it isn't methane (hence the difference in name and molecular structure). The implication of your statement is that since we have no good way of separating out the influence of man made climate change and natural climate change, we can forget about the controversy until the science resolves it. The science around the acidifying ocean is not in doubt except possibly by Sen. Sessions who never met a scientific fact he couldn't contradict.
You do recall the ocean, yes? Base the food chain? Screwing it up means you eventually go hungry.
The impact associated with the Chicxulub crater is associated with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, not the Permian–Triassic.
The impact sites associated with the Permian–Triassic extinction are ones like the Bedout structure, but no impact sufficient (on its own) to explain the kind of extinction we see is known. The Permian–Triassic is special because it was so severe and because of the extreme impact on marine life. This is why the methane hydrate gasification hypothesis enjoys comparatively wide support, although as you say most experts don't think it is enough on its own, possibly being a consequence of some other event (such as increased volcanism or an impact).
So you are new to /. ? ...
Anti global warming propaganda dimished a bit last 2 years. Before that we had 20 years of US based anti AGW propaganda
I don't get your point.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If YOU had read the studies, you would know that the risk of lung cancer was a major talking point only for the anti-smoking marketeers, who felt that the very high risks of smoking induced heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were not scary enough to cause addicts to give up their habit.
To continue smoking or to give it up is the one decision that will have the greatest impact on a person's health twenty years and more down the road. Whether this is from the nicotine addiction or from all the other crud in inhaled tobacco smoke is an unknown.
Will
You say that like it means it might not.
If I park a car at the top of a hill and let off the parking brake...I expect it to roll downhill. Do you think it wouldnt?
If I toss a chunk of ice into a fire...I expect it to melt. Do you think it wouldnt?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Less dangerous form? Really? CO2 is CO2. If what you mean is really that there is a lower QUANTITY of CO2 released by producing one joule of electric or mechanical energy by burning CH4 than by burning oil or coal, just say so.
Also, I find it annoying when people refer to "carbon" in the atmosphere when they really mean CO2. Does anyone say there is a lot of hydrogen in the atmosphere because of the water vapor? Compounds behave chemically completely differently from their elemental constituents.
No actual science went into the creation of the NIPCC.
No actual peer review by actual scientists went into the NIPCC.
What did go into it was substantial sums of money from fossil fuel companies.
The NIPCC is not a scientific document, but a peice of political ideologically driven garbage meant to defend the fossil fuel industry.
http://www.climatesciencewatch...
Using the NIPCC as your "proof" that scientists are wrong is like trying to convince a scientist to believe in God using the Bible.
Its so dumb it's not even ignorant.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
"First, what's pretty definite about the Permian Extinction is that a really big meteor hit near Chicxulub, in the gullf of Mexico, at the right time to contribute to it."
The Chicxulub impact was at the end of the Cretaceous 65 million years ago
The Permian ended 252 million years ago, and the initial event that started that extinction was mass vulcanism, but the methane release added to the CO2 warming, and over 95% of species were wiped out.
If man made C02 emmissions continued at the current rate for long enough then it could happen like that again, some life will survive of course, but probably not H-Sapiens unless we go elsewhere (off of this rock) before it happens.
The Methane Clathrate gun is a pretty well known and understood situation. Methane Clathrates exist, the temperature at which they're released is understood, and the impact of all that methane on the atmosphere is also well understood. The only question that's still open is when exactly ocean temperatures will reach the range in which the gun will be triggered. Just hope you aren't around for it.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
For those interested, this appears to be the paper. The paper itself is paywalled; you can look at the supplementary material, which includes the diagrams. Oddly, the paper does not seem to be online at the university, even though other papers by the various authors are. Why do I know this? Because I wanted to see the temperature data that they used, so I went hunting.
The paper implies that the temperature data is very noisy, but that they were able to extract a signal anyway. The raw data should be provided in the supplementary material, so that people could attempt to replicate/verify this essential finding. Of course, the raw data are no where to be found. So we have no way to check.
Personally, I'm tired of "science" like this. If you're going to make a claim, put your damn data out there where anyone can see it. Raw data, a clear description of how you processed it, program code if you wrote a program. Otherwise, you're no better than the astrologist pontificating about the influence of Venus on your dog's love life.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
one must note that all science is observation.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Methane is more effective at heat trapping than CO2.
Methane also breaks down into CO2.
Methane matters.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
this is why i say you are a troll hiding beneath a veneer of "explain it to me", because evena cursory google search reveals tons of data and the sources of those data, including both direct measurements of trapped atmospehric gases from ancient rocks and ice cores, to the various proxies.
we dont just have 100 years of data, we have many hundreds of thousands. granted the resolution isnt as granular as the recent data (150 years of multiple daily local observations), expecially in proxies, but by its very nature it still provides an overall account of historical data and trends. so while we cant say "On the 5th of March 1304 it was 5F in Iceland" we can say something like "average temperatures indicated by the tree rings of preserved logs in timbuktu are around 5F". It helps that science of climate science isnt concerned with specific observations at specific times in specific locations, but rather with trends over long time periods on a global scale.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
and too lazy to spend the hundreds of hours it would take for me to properly educate myself on all the issues.
This is the only thing you got right.
Yes, you're too lazy to actually know what youre talking about.
That's why you're spouting misinformatoin and BS rather than actual facts.
"Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate"
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
"City sensors account for very few of the data sources and even when city sensors are omitted the trend is apparent."
"Multiple sources of data all show the same thing."
"The temperature increase is not an artifact of declining numbers of stations."
"The temperature increase is not an artifact of stations being located at airports/cities."
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Again: Incorrect.
Solar activity has no correleation whatsoever.
We are currently in a period of LOWER solar activity.
If solar activity were teh culprit we should expect to see lower temperatures.
We do not.
Let me state it again clearly for you just so you do not misunderstand:
For the last 35 years solar activity and global temperature have been going in opposite directions.
Read http://www.skepticalscience.co...
It even includes a handy graph which shows both solar activity and global temperatures over the same time period, so that any idiot, including you, can grasp that is no connection between the current warming trend and solar activity.
And again: Climategate was a completely manufactured scandal. IE, hoax.
Some people hacked a server, and then read statements out of context without any actual idea what they were reading.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
just because you say it doesnt make it true.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You keep saying that, but that doesnt make it true.
First, the Sun:
This is a solar activity compared to global temperatures:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Solar activity has actually declined over the past 40 years, while temperatures have gone up.
I'd challenge you to explain that, except you cant. And neither can the people you mention.
And the fact you even mention them shows your level of ignorance.
Piers Corbyn in particular claims to make accurate weather predictions up to a year in advance.
He isnt even a meteorologist. He is a fraud and a conman.
It's not the sun and there is zero scientific evidence to support such a claim.
If it were the sun, then we should be cooling right now. Which we are not.
End of story.
Next the models:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Same thing: you're wrong.
The models have been very accurate over time and only gotten better.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Without gases which absorb IR, your hot gas would have been able to radiate its heat out to space even without rising in the atmosphere. In that case, even the surface would be able to radiate its heat directly to space.
But in the presence of gases which absorb IR, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation. That's because radiating gases have raised Earth's effective radiating level to ~7 km above sea level.
Nonsense. Without radiating gases, net radiative heat transfer happens directly between the surface and the 2.7K CMBR. Jane seems to understand that net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Conservation of energy means that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing, and a quick calculation yields an equilibrium surface temperature for Earth of -17C.
That's much colder than Earth's actual average surface temperature of +15C because net heat transfer to the frigid 2.7K CMBR is very rapid due to the fact that Tb is a tiny 2.7K. Very rapid net heat transfer means an Earth without radiating gases in the atmosphere could lose heat very rapidly, which would make it very cold.
Adding radiating gases just raises the effective radiating level above the surface. Conservation of energy forces the effective radiating level to have that temperature of -17C, otherwise heat would be building up (or down) below that level, which would cause warming (or cooling).
But in the presence of radiating gases, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Instead, it radiates (and convects) to the effective radiating level. Net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is now the -17C effective radiating level. But this means Tb = 256K, which is much larger than 2.7K. Therefore net radiative heat transfer from the surface is much slower than without radiating gases. Reducing radiative heat transfer while keeping sunlight constant results in surface warming.
I've just described the radiative component, but I've also described the convective component, which doesn't alter the basic fact that adding radiating gases to an atmosphere raises the effective radiating level and warms the surface. That's because the Earth can't convect heat to the near-vacuum of space, it can only radiate heat away. That's why radiative heat transfer dominates Earth's top of the atmosphere energy balance.
Nonsense. Here's a list of 17 correct prognostications and their confirmations, including full citations.