Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Methane Gas And Climate Change


jethro

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

Sorry but even SKS don't subscribe to methane alarmism.

 

Then why not use the many resources available to debunk the claims instead of just dismissing them as "alarmism"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I think folk have been busy relaxing in the glow of an Arctic in recovery....... they might have neglected to digest the 6th lowest ice cover on record or the open water above the deposits that historically had deep ice cover keeping them stable?

 

With such a 'blowy' summer up there I was amazed to see the high levels of Methane concentration , at all levels of the atmosphere, constantly arising there? 

 

I'm getting a little para in my dotage... so much so I wonder why, after such startling evidence from the last international efforts to measure what was happening in the East Siberian sea, we have not read about the ongoing science that this must have provoked? Why ,when the reports were so startling ( ships capt.'s reporting 'boiling oceans' and features on the sea bed growing ten fold over a single year) has it all gone so quiet? 

 

When I look at the data from methane tracker it appears that we are suffering from similar, if not higher, emissions from over the Siberian sector as we did back in 2010/11 and yet I know of no studies that are producing updates on our understanding of what is occurring there and whether it is of concern to us ? Surely I'm missing something  here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

It matters not 4wd as I'm sure some will profit from pedalling this "alleged" threat.

 

Why not post a reasonable explanation of why the information posted by fishthekiller500 is wrong, rather than resorting to accusations of alarmism and pedalling alleged threats for profit?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ribble Valley
  • Location: Ribble Valley

Why not post a reasonable explanation of why the information posted by fishthekiller500 is wrong, rather than resorting to accusations of alarmism and pedalling alleged threats for profit?

I see no evidence to back up such a claim BFTV so my comment still stands as assumptions and conjecture are not evidence, but as ever time will tell but I wouldn't wager any monies on this particular theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Misleaders seem adept at ignoring data if it is not showing what they wish to see? Their first resort is to deny the scientific capacity to collect such data and if this fails to nit pick every single bit of evidence used in any predictions science mat try to make to highlight future dangers.

 

The changes across Siberia have meant that some areas that were permafrost are now melted and the surface is now drying over summer drought allowing for an increased incidence of 'wildfires'. The past summer saw another spate of extensive wildfires but for the first time we were able to track , real-time, the increase in atmospheric methane over the affected regions.

 

The problems of rapid methane increase in our atmosphere are not just centred over the submerged potions of the permafrost off the Siberian coast but also across all off the permafrost in meltdown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ribble Valley
  • Location: Ribble Valley

Misleaders seem adept at ignoring data if it is not showing what they wish to see? Their first resort is to deny the scientific capacity to collect such data and if this fails to nit pick every single bit of evidence used in any predictions science mat try to make to highlight future dangers.

 

The changes across Siberia have meant that some areas that were permafrost are now melted and the surface is now drying over summer drought allowing for an increased incidence of 'wildfires'. The past summer saw another spate of extensive wildfires but for the first time we were able to track , real-time, the increase in atmospheric methane over the affected regions.

 

The problems of rapid methane increase in our atmosphere are not just centred over the submerged potions of the permafrost off the Siberian coast but also across all off the permafrost in meltdown. 

There you go again with slanderous remarks against sceptics ( misleaders ). Just because someone suggest that a particular  event may happen doesn't make it a fact GW, but that's something that has never stopped you before so carry on regardless why not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

I see no evidence to back up such a claim BFTV so my comment still stands as assumptions and conjecture are not evidence, but as ever time will tell but I wouldn't wager any monies on this particular theory.

 

fishthekiller500 posted links, maps and evidence. 

I don't necessarily agree with the methane runaway global warming idea, but if I was going to dismiss it I'd

1) make it clear where the fault lies in the data and evidence he posted

2) provide evidence to the contrary

 

You and 4wd have done neither of these, but just used a broad, generalised dismissal that could be applied in any argument in any topic. They do little to help with any debate, and make ye come across as ignorant of the subject and somewhat of an a-hole.

Just to be clear, I'm not calling ye a-holes, but when broad dismissals and baseless accusations of alarmism, and fear peddling for profit, are yer counterarguments, then that's exactly how ye come across. 

Edited by BornFromTheVoid
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

We live in a world where we 'name' things by looking at their properties. 'climate Misleaders' is a term introduced ( to me) by J.Francis as she discussed atmospheric impacts of the Arctic warming. In line with her 'classification' I remarked that such individuals do not just question the science, or even deny the science, they just omit the science. Odd that you should question the evidence from the metop sats on atmospheric CH4 concentrations, in near real time, across various layers of the atmosphere though? Why should you chose to question such evidence so readily?

 

Measuring atmospheric gas concentrations is on ongoing area of research and , just like the sat images we can now use to watch the Arctic in near real time, we can access current Methane levels across the planet.

 

EDIT: Just seen your post BFTV! Seems I'm not alone in wondering why such evidence can be ignored?

 

And just in case we wonder why we should be seeing this now;

 

http://www.livescience.com/40676-arctic-temperatures-record-high.html

 

If we care to believe the scientists are up to their jobs that is.......

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

There you go again with slanderous remarks against sceptics ( misleaders ). Just because someone suggest that a particular  event may happen doesn't make it a fact GW, but that's something that has never stopped you before so carry on regardless why not!

Not sure that that's entirely called-for, SI...Being quite openly sceptical myself, I'm more 'offended' by being lumped together with folks whose very reason for existing seems to be misdirection. There are 'misleaders' at both ends of the spectrum...

 

But, none of that alters the temperatures/pressures at which methane hydrates become gaseous?

Edited by A Boy Named Sue
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Sorry but even SKS don't subscribe to methane alarmism.

 Well from SKS

 

‘Frozen Dirt’ and Methane … ‘We Cannot Go There’

 

Permafrost: The Tipping Time Bomb

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/frozen-dirt-and-methane.html

 

Edited by knocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ribble Valley
  • Location: Ribble Valley

I see no reason to backdown on my stance that this is nothing more than the usual assumptions and conjecture and yet the clock is ticking and the globe isn't responding to rising CO2 levels, nows that's factual not an assumption so tell me again who is misleading who.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

I see no reason to backdown on my stance that this is nothing more than the usual assumptions and conjecture and yet the clock is ticking and the globe isn't responding to rising CO2 levels, nows that's factual not an assumption so tell me again who is misleading who.

 

The globe is responding in numerous ways to rising CO2 levels.

The oceans are heating, the air is temperatures are rising, the stratosphere is cooling, oxygen levels are falling, the oceans are acidifying, polar vegetation is expanding, etc,etc. So yes, what you're saying is very much misleading.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ribble Valley
  • Location: Ribble Valley

The globe is responding in numerous ways to rising CO2 levels.

The oceans are heating, the air is temperatures are rising, the stratosphere is cooling, oxygen levels are falling, the oceans are acidifying, polar vegetation is expanding, etc,etc. So yes, what you're saying is very much misleading.

Lets stick with the global temps for now BFTV as we were told for many years when they were rising, until they respond upwards or downwards the status quo remains.

Edited by Sceptical Inquirer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

The globe is responding in numerous ways to rising CO2 levels.

The oceans are heating, the air is temperatures are rising, the stratosphere is cooling, oxygen levels are falling, the oceans are acidifying, polar vegetation is expanding, etc,etc. So yes, what you're saying is very much misleading.

Indeed, Sam. While I freely acknowledge no warming since 2010 (that was the warmest wasn't it? That's what Joe B said, anyway...) you are quite right; there are many, many feedback-mechanisms yet to be fully understood...At least there were, prior to 2010.Posted Image 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

The 'Temps record' is not working in a year that saw Alaska in meltdown with highest temp records falling daily over periods through July....and Siberia of course...

 

Tell me SI , what happens when permafrost , frozen since at least the last major glaciation, melts? what does your 'understanding' tell you is the result of what science is busy measuring?

 

Do we have the beginnings of a problem or do you not see any cause for alarm ( in your 'world view'?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I've never been one to sit on my hands when potential catastrophe is at my door SI? Seems a bit clueless to me.

 

The continued study of the meltdown will bring us some notion of what to expect. This is why I'm so concerned over the silence now coming from the international study group charged with checking out the East Siberian Shelf Sea.

 

To me ,had they found nothing of concern, the 'all clear' should have been sounded to calm the fears of the likes of me (esp. after such scary media reporting and released snippets from the lead scientists). It leaves me wondering if they were waiting to confirm some really concerning trend or that the info was so concerning Govt.s decided we were not 'stable' enough to deal with the news? 

 

If 1 year grew sea bed features from tens of metres to over a km then what have the intervening years achieved? Even though we still see warming ocean above the shelf that warmth alone would not be of too great a concern but that 'warmth' entering the deposits via the 'chimney like structures' allows the heat to go deeper and deeper into the reserves as the gas escapes and leaves voids for more ocean water to percolate into (and so release more gas and leave further voids etc.,etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: North Yorkshire
  • Weather Preferences: Extended Mediterranean heatwaves
  • Location: North Yorkshire

GW,

 

Had a look into the most recent work on this. There are two different scenarios to consider: first, the steady, increasing, semi-permanent and persistent increase of CH4 in the atmosphere. Under this scenario, there would be an increasing contribution to warming on certain timescales, but the amount is still relatively lower than the contribution of CO2. 

 

The other scenario, which is also considered in the AR5, is the 'methane burst' situation. The suggestion is that, under some circumstances, it might be possible that an exceptionally large amount of methane is emitted into the atmosphere over a short period (decadal scale). In this event, the whole system would see a sudden increase in temperatures at an almost unimaginable speed. And then there would be the longer term feedbacks resulting from this.

 

Scenario one is identifiably and measurably in progress and has been for some time now. There's no reason to believe it will slow down - on the contrary, it is most likely to continue increasing for centuries yet.

 

Scenario two is harder to evaluate, since it would represent a 'chaotic' (ie, non-standard) event. Current assessments swing from 'it's not determinable' to 'it's not likely'. Can't see anything which says 'it's not possible'.

 

Potential prime candidate for a causal agent of a methane burst is most likely either Fracking in the Gulf of Mexico, or subsea-sub-bottom exploration/activity in parts of the Arctic.

 

I don't think it's appropriate to consider an evaluation of this potential risk as 'alarmist'. It's just common sense to try to understand it and place it in context. If you stand in the middle of an empty road, there is a risk that a truck will run you down. The longer you stand there, the more the cumulative risk increases. Getting out of the road at some point isn't 'alarmist', it's common sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I'm seeing posts, from the folk following methane activity, of another large 'spike' in methane over the Arctic around Nov 9th. Maybe the storms that messed with extent/area figures also released methane collecting below the ice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GW,

 

Had a look into the most recent work on this. There are two different scenarios to consider: first, the steady, increasing, semi-permanent and persistent increase of CH4 in the atmosphere. Under this scenario, there would be an increasing contribution to warming on certain timescales, but the amount is still relatively lower than the contribution of CO2. 

 

The other scenario, which is also considered in the AR5, is the 'methane burst' situation. The suggestion is that, under some circumstances, it might be possible that an exceptionally large amount of methane is emitted into the atmosphere over a short period (decadal scale). In this event, the whole system would see a sudden increase in temperatures at an almost unimaginable speed. And then there would be the longer term feedbacks resulting from this.

 

Scenario one is identifiably and measurably in progress and has been for some time now. There's no reason to believe it will slow down - on the contrary, it is most likely to continue increasing for centuries yet.

 

Scenario two is harder to evaluate, since it would represent a 'chaotic' (ie, non-standard) event. Current assessments swing from 'it's not determinable' to 'it's not likely'. Can't see anything which says 'it's not possible'.

 

Potential prime candidate for a causal agent of a methane burst is most likely either Fracking in the Gulf of Mexico, or subsea-sub-bottom exploration/activity in parts of the Arctic.

 

I don't think it's appropriate to consider an evaluation of this potential risk as 'alarmist'. It's just common sense to try to understand it and place it in context. If you stand in the middle of an empty road, there is a risk that a truck will run you down. The longer you stand there, the more the cumulative risk increases. Getting out of the road at some point isn't 'alarmist', it's common sense.

 

With the different mechanisms for Methane release like slumping or earthquakes having the ability to release methane quickly, would it be possible for the 50 gt methane release to take place overnight or would an extremely unlikely event have to take place for that to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

My eyes are turned to the Arctic region but some of the biggest reserves are at the drop off from major river deltas like the Nile and Amazon. If we saw a major 'slump' of the materials there then we could see releases of a large nature? We also have regions like the Gulf of mexico/bahamas that have large deposits ( the Bermuda triangle losses may be via such degassing episodes with loss of buoyancy from vessels over 'blowouts' etc). 

 

With changes in both ocean temperature and extreme flood events such deposits could fall prey to forcings that they have not encountered in our 'age'              ( imagine massive deposition of silt/muds off a denuded Amazon Basin post a major flood event over a drought ravaged sector causing a major 'slump' event?). The deposits are stable at their current temp/pressure so any change in either could also lead to a destabilisation so if sea levels do not keep pace with ocean temps we could hit problems?

 

FB also touches on our attempts to drill areas and events like the horizon disaster show us how easy it is for such things to run into problems.

 

Of course my biggest concern is the north with both the permafrost meltdowns and the shelf sea permafrost degradation off the East Siberia coast. Change is so rapid in this region that the chances of 'unexpected' escalation in CH4 production/releases must be considered? I was personally shocked to hear that the structures, found in the East Siberian deposits, had grown ten fold over a 1 year period back in 2011? I am more concerned that the 3 year build up to these findings suddenly apparently 'stopped' ( which I cannot believe ) and we have had no reports from there since?

 

Again , on a personal note, I do not know if we should expect to be told if a possible calamitous event was in the offing before we had absolute proof or if Govt's would demand absolute proof that it was occurring before we were told of it? Such considerations may explain why an international team fell quiet after finding such rapid changes on the back of Ships captains reporting 'boiling seas' over the area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078204

 

To me it would seem the more we learn about the permafrost , and its processes, the more of a concern it's melt is. The above paper not only seems to highlight the importance of these small water bodies in the production of CH4 but that these are shallow 'melt pools' and so are active from the onset of permafrost degradation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...