Burp.
July 25, 2013 2:42 AM Subscribe
A new article in Nature warns that "the costs of a melting Arctic will be huge", thanks in part to the likely release of "a 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane, stored in the form of hydrates" beneath the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, "either steadily over 50 years or suddenly". An abrupt release is "highly possible at any time", says Natalia Shakhova of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, who has observed plumes of methane up to a kilometre wide bubbling to the surface in the area.
We calculate that the costs of a melting Arctic will be huge, because the region is pivotal to the functioning of Earth systems such as oceans and the climate. The release of methane from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea, off northern Russia, alone comes with an average global price tag of $60 trillion in the absence of mitigating action — a figure comparable to the size of the world economy in 2012 (about $70 trillion). The total cost of Arctic change will be much higher. (Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope and Peter Wadhams, "Vast costs of Arctic change", Nature 499, 25 July 2013, p. 401)
A 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane, stored in the form of hydrates, exists on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly. Higher methane concentrations in the atmosphere will accelerate global warming and hasten local changes in the Arctic, speeding up sea-ice retreat, reducing the reflection of solar energy and accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. (p. 402)
The methane pulse will bring forward by 15–35 years the average date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2°C above pre-industrial levels — to 2035 for the business-as-usual scenario and to 2040 for the low-emissions case. (p. 402)
Methane hydrates (or clathrates) and Shakhova previously on Mefi.
We calculate that the costs of a melting Arctic will be huge, because the region is pivotal to the functioning of Earth systems such as oceans and the climate. The release of methane from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea, off northern Russia, alone comes with an average global price tag of $60 trillion in the absence of mitigating action — a figure comparable to the size of the world economy in 2012 (about $70 trillion). The total cost of Arctic change will be much higher. (Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope and Peter Wadhams, "Vast costs of Arctic change", Nature 499, 25 July 2013, p. 401)
A 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane, stored in the form of hydrates, exists on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly. Higher methane concentrations in the atmosphere will accelerate global warming and hasten local changes in the Arctic, speeding up sea-ice retreat, reducing the reflection of solar energy and accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. (p. 402)
The methane pulse will bring forward by 15–35 years the average date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2°C above pre-industrial levels — to 2035 for the business-as-usual scenario and to 2040 for the low-emissions case. (p. 402)
Methane hydrates (or clathrates) and Shakhova previously on Mefi.
This note discusses the design problems of a system to deploy kilometre-sized areas of plastic film to collect methane from suitable areas of the sea bed. The gas can be flared off at sea to convert it to less damaging carbon dioxide or perhaps, if there are very high flow rates, recovered by a gas carrier and used ashore.
There seem to be solutions to what appeared initially to be an insoluble problem.
posted by chavenet at 3:30 AM on July 25, 2013
There seem to be solutions to what appeared initially to be an insoluble problem.
posted by chavenet at 3:30 AM on July 25, 2013
So, you're saying the costs of global annihilation of our species' civilization, and possible complete extinction, may be high?
posted by IAmBroom at 3:43 AM on July 25, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by IAmBroom at 3:43 AM on July 25, 2013 [11 favorites]
In other news, there is a lake over the North Pole.
posted by ardgedee at 3:45 AM on July 25, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by ardgedee at 3:45 AM on July 25, 2013 [8 favorites]
We'd better get on that quick, then, chavenet. It would suck to turn up with a giant roll of plastic film half an hour after the big belch. We'll only need about a million square kilometres of it...
posted by rory at 3:45 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by rory at 3:45 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Oh crap ardgedee :(
posted by panaceanot at 4:05 AM on July 25, 2013
posted by panaceanot at 4:05 AM on July 25, 2013
Argedee, that should be front page news. With a shot from 13:25 yesterday as illustration.
posted by rory at 4:15 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by rory at 4:15 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Dammit! I was having a good morning until I read this :( Oh well. Hopefully there'll be something positive and uplifting elsewhere in Nature.
Dammit!
posted by Wordshore at 4:37 AM on July 25, 2013
Dammit!
posted by Wordshore at 4:37 AM on July 25, 2013
There are some hydrate effects that are not modeled here - this assumes a 'worst case scenario' of a full and fast release of methane into the atmosphere.
1) Methane hydrate dissolution is endothermic. They dissolve by heating, but the reaction cools them. This could slow down the overall release.
2) Methane is soluable in seawater, so for a given release of methane from the ocean floor, only a fraction of it should reach the atmosphere (what fraction would need calculation) - they assume all of it is released to the atmosphere.
3) Methane, unlike CO2, has a short residence time in the atmosphere (a few years). If the time scale of release is long (given points 1 and 2), the overall greenhouse effects are somewhat mitigated. How much would also need calculation.
I'm not at all saying their conclusions are wrong, but it is an end-member scenario. Further work should be done to see what the realistic case would be.
posted by grajohnt at 5:01 AM on July 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
1) Methane hydrate dissolution is endothermic. They dissolve by heating, but the reaction cools them. This could slow down the overall release.
2) Methane is soluable in seawater, so for a given release of methane from the ocean floor, only a fraction of it should reach the atmosphere (what fraction would need calculation) - they assume all of it is released to the atmosphere.
3) Methane, unlike CO2, has a short residence time in the atmosphere (a few years). If the time scale of release is long (given points 1 and 2), the overall greenhouse effects are somewhat mitigated. How much would also need calculation.
I'm not at all saying their conclusions are wrong, but it is an end-member scenario. Further work should be done to see what the realistic case would be.
posted by grajohnt at 5:01 AM on July 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
This whole methane release thing scares the crap out of me. Has ever since I first learned about it. I've spent years working on climate issues. long before it became a big thing. I find it hard to keep going with possibilities like this looming. It brings up feelings of helplessness and despair if I think about it too much.
posted by Jalliah at 5:09 AM on July 25, 2013 [8 favorites]
Grajohnt, their Supplementary Information answers much of that:
A set of 10,000 PAGE09 runs with the emissions over a 20 year period from 2015 to 2035 on top of the BAU scenario gives a mean NPV of extra impacts of $64.5 trillion, and $66.2 trillion if they are released over a 30-year period between 2015 and 2045. The 30-year release has a slightly but significantly higher increase in mean impacts than if they are released over 10 years. This is because more of the methane remains in the atmosphere in the period when impacts are expected to be higher in the latter half of this century. The effects are roughly linear in size of methane release. A release half as big, 25 Gt, on top of the BAU scenario between 2015 and 2025 gives a mean NPV of extra impacts of $33.4 trillion, with a standard error of the mean of $0.5 trillion.
And:
The analysis assumes that the methane pulse has the same atmospheric residence pattern and radiative forcing effect as normal anthropogenic emissions. This may lead to an underestimate of the effects as there is some evidence that such a large pulse in the Arctic would take longer to disperse than more diffuse emissions elsewhere. The reason is that the main method of atmospheric methane removal is through oxidation by the hydroxyl radical (OH), mainly in the troposphere (CH4 + OH ⇒ H2O + CH3) , and that a sufficiently large pulse exhausts available hydroxyl, allowing the methane to remain in the atmosphere for a longer lifetime of up to 15 years. It also assumes the temperature rise from the methane pulse does not trigger other methane releases that would not otherwise have occurred. This may also lead to an underestimation of the effects.
posted by rory at 5:10 AM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
A set of 10,000 PAGE09 runs with the emissions over a 20 year period from 2015 to 2035 on top of the BAU scenario gives a mean NPV of extra impacts of $64.5 trillion, and $66.2 trillion if they are released over a 30-year period between 2015 and 2045. The 30-year release has a slightly but significantly higher increase in mean impacts than if they are released over 10 years. This is because more of the methane remains in the atmosphere in the period when impacts are expected to be higher in the latter half of this century. The effects are roughly linear in size of methane release. A release half as big, 25 Gt, on top of the BAU scenario between 2015 and 2025 gives a mean NPV of extra impacts of $33.4 trillion, with a standard error of the mean of $0.5 trillion.
And:
The analysis assumes that the methane pulse has the same atmospheric residence pattern and radiative forcing effect as normal anthropogenic emissions. This may lead to an underestimate of the effects as there is some evidence that such a large pulse in the Arctic would take longer to disperse than more diffuse emissions elsewhere. The reason is that the main method of atmospheric methane removal is through oxidation by the hydroxyl radical (OH), mainly in the troposphere (CH4 + OH ⇒ H2O + CH3) , and that a sufficiently large pulse exhausts available hydroxyl, allowing the methane to remain in the atmosphere for a longer lifetime of up to 15 years. It also assumes the temperature rise from the methane pulse does not trigger other methane releases that would not otherwise have occurred. This may also lead to an underestimation of the effects.
posted by rory at 5:10 AM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
So. Metafilter commune. Someplace northerly. Plans? I'll bring the vegetable seeds.
posted by BlueJae at 5:11 AM on July 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by BlueJae at 5:11 AM on July 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
And they laughed at me when I said the earth is a giant cow.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:13 AM on July 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:13 AM on July 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
Wadhams interviewed by the Guardian about the article's claims.
posted by rory at 5:25 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by rory at 5:25 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
And everyone keeps dancing as they did in Masque of the Red Death
posted by double block and bleed at 5:51 AM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by double block and bleed at 5:51 AM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
In other news, there is a lake over the North Pole.
Dammit! I was having a good morning until I read this :( Oh well. Hopefully there'll be something positive and uplifting elsewhere...
This?
posted by fairmettle at 6:22 AM on July 25, 2013
Dammit! I was having a good morning until I read this :( Oh well. Hopefully there'll be something positive and uplifting elsewhere...
This?
posted by fairmettle at 6:22 AM on July 25, 2013
A new article in Nature warns that "the costs of a melting Arctic will be huge"
-- my first reaction upon reading this was "why is there even a budget for that! shouldn't we spend our money elsewhere?!"
posted by bigendian at 6:26 AM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
-- my first reaction upon reading this was "why is there even a budget for that! shouldn't we spend our money elsewhere?!"
posted by bigendian at 6:26 AM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Looks like I picked the right week to start sniffing glue.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:29 AM on July 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:29 AM on July 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
I'd forgotten that discussion, Joe in Australia - yeah, we discussed a lot of this back then. What I found new and compelling in this article were their calculations about how much sooner we may reach a 2-degree increase and the economic effects of the additional methane. Sometime in the next few years we could be hit with a bill equivalent to what we make in a year, due immediately. Good luck getting a mortgage for that, World.
There are people in the Guardian comments below the Wadham interview mocking his predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2015, as if he'll somehow be a laughing stock if it turns out to be 2025. As if a decade's difference matters. A decade ago we were watching the start of the Iraq War and singing "Hey Ya!" - for someone like me in his 40s it feels like yesterday.
posted by rory at 6:34 AM on July 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
There are people in the Guardian comments below the Wadham interview mocking his predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2015, as if he'll somehow be a laughing stock if it turns out to be 2025. As if a decade's difference matters. A decade ago we were watching the start of the Iraq War and singing "Hey Ya!" - for someone like me in his 40s it feels like yesterday.
posted by rory at 6:34 AM on July 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
someplace northerly
The arctic's pretty northerly.
posted by windykites at 6:35 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
The arctic's pretty northerly.
posted by windykites at 6:35 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think it's worth mentioning that the meltwater ponds like the one at the pole in the links above are a normal part of the summer sea ice melt. Also, this summer has been one of the slower melts in recent years. The Beaufort and Canadian Archipelago in particular have been slow to melt. Mostly, the weather has been to blame, with a huge persistent low keeping the sea ice mostly covered by cloud. This might be a negative feedback kicking in that will at least delay an ice-free arctic for a decade or more.
That said, the net effect of this will probably be to just further delay any action. After all, those ivory tower eggheads said global agriculture could collapse in 40 years, no you're saying we got HALF A CENTURY!?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 6:37 AM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
That said, the net effect of this will probably be to just further delay any action. After all, those ivory tower eggheads said global agriculture could collapse in 40 years, no you're saying we got HALF A CENTURY!?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 6:37 AM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Ah well. Chin up; looks like we'll starve to death well before then, anyway.
How does that Monty Python film end?
posted by Wordshore at 6:46 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
How does that Monty Python film end?
posted by Wordshore at 6:46 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Um.....Light a match?
posted by TDavis at 6:52 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by TDavis at 6:52 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Guys... I'm sure it'll be okay. That lake over the ice... perfectly normal. It's probably a direct result of all of the rain at my house in the last month. I mean, that water had to go somewhere, right?
posted by Blue_Villain at 7:07 AM on July 25, 2013
posted by Blue_Villain at 7:07 AM on July 25, 2013
I'm going to keep living my life as though my choices can make some difference (no car, using fewer resources), but I may just have to start pretending that this shit is not happening, or else risk spending the rest of my days in a mental institution.
posted by orme at 7:11 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by orme at 7:11 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
3) Methane, unlike CO2, has a short residence time in the atmosphere (a few years). If the time scale of release is long (given points 1 and 2), the overall greenhouse effects are somewhat mitigated.
Methane breaks down in the atmosphere - into CO2 which lasts for centuries. Typically calculations that say "methane is 25 times worse than CO2" factor in the CO2 part of its lifespan as well.
posted by stbalbach at 7:31 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Methane breaks down in the atmosphere - into CO2 which lasts for centuries. Typically calculations that say "methane is 25 times worse than CO2" factor in the CO2 part of its lifespan as well.
posted by stbalbach at 7:31 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
All in all, I'm thinking I probably would have preferred instant nuclear incineration in the 1980s to gradual boiling in the 21st century.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:39 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by entropicamericana at 7:39 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
All in all, I'm thinking I probably would have preferred instant nuclear incineration in the 1980s to gradual boiling in the 21st century.
I dunno, the '90s were kinda fun....
posted by Floydd at 7:44 AM on July 25, 2013
I dunno, the '90s were kinda fun....
posted by Floydd at 7:44 AM on July 25, 2013
They were alright, but I think we can all agree the 00s sucked.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:52 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 7:52 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
And for us curious non-scientists, I was recently reading a sci-fi novel from a few years back that includes among its plot points this very thing: "Transcendant," by Stephen Baxter. It's peripheral to the main narrative, but it describes quite vividly the effects.
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 7:53 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 7:53 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Seems that the Washington Post is calling shenanigans, in that a large scale methane release appears to be extremely unlikely.
"Ultimately, the devastating flaw in the Nature commentary is its failure to include more than a cursory discussion of the plausibility of such a high impact event."
posted by grateful at 8:08 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
"Ultimately, the devastating flaw in the Nature commentary is its failure to include more than a cursory discussion of the plausibility of such a high impact event."
posted by grateful at 8:08 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Wow -- I read a novel on this very premise, Mother of Storms, by John Barnes. It was published in 1994, and set in 2028, so we appear to be well ahead of the author's projections. [SPOILER ALERT] It, uh, did not end well.
posted by mosk at 8:30 AM on July 25, 2013
posted by mosk at 8:30 AM on July 25, 2013
I just want to live long enough to watch the ecosystem turn to liquid shit and be able to point and shriek "WE TOLD YOU SO," but not long enough to suffer the worst effects of it.
Fine-tuning my age to hit that sweet spot is going to be tricky.
posted by delfin at 8:47 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Fine-tuning my age to hit that sweet spot is going to be tricky.
posted by delfin at 8:47 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I really just need a definite timeline here. When should I quit my job and sell all my stuff to begin my travels around the world to hug all the puppies?
posted by elizardbits at 8:55 AM on July 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by elizardbits at 8:55 AM on July 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
Seems that the Washington Post is calling shenanigans, in that a large scale methane release appears to be extremely unlikely.
Real Climate's Gavin Schmidt is similarly tempering the hysteria on his Twitter feed right now.
The whole feed's worth a read (and a follow), but here's the pullquote: "this means that we are not currently near a threshold for dramatic CH4 releases. (Though we may get there)."
posted by gompa at 9:00 AM on July 25, 2013
Real Climate's Gavin Schmidt is similarly tempering the hysteria on his Twitter feed right now.
The whole feed's worth a read (and a follow), but here's the pullquote: "this means that we are not currently near a threshold for dramatic CH4 releases. (Though we may get there)."
posted by gompa at 9:00 AM on July 25, 2013
Seymour, that 50 Gt is located in a relatively small proportion of the total area of the Arctic Ocean.
I was just looking at the 2011 Ruppel article cited by the WaPo as evidence of the new article's "devastating flaw". One thing she writes there:
Water column CH4 oxidation mitigates the direct GHG impact of CH4 that is emitted at the seafloor, but it also depletes water column O2, acidifies ocean waters, and leads to the eventual release of the product CO2 to the atmosphere after residence times (Liro et al. 1993) of <50 years (water depths up to 500 m) to several hundred years (more profound water depths).
Meanwhile, here's some more recent Shakhova et al. at Nature, on Activation of old carbon by erosion of coastal and subsea permafrost in Arctic Siberia:
Inverse modelling of the dual-carbon isotope composition of organic carbon accumulating in ESAS surface sediments, using Monte Carlo simulations to account for uncertainties, suggests that 44 ± 10 teragrams of old carbon is activated annually from Ice Complex permafrost, an order of magnitude more than has been suggested by previous studies.
(A teragram is a megatonne.)
posted by rory at 9:05 AM on July 25, 2013
I was just looking at the 2011 Ruppel article cited by the WaPo as evidence of the new article's "devastating flaw". One thing she writes there:
Water column CH4 oxidation mitigates the direct GHG impact of CH4 that is emitted at the seafloor, but it also depletes water column O2, acidifies ocean waters, and leads to the eventual release of the product CO2 to the atmosphere after residence times (Liro et al. 1993) of <50 years (water depths up to 500 m) to several hundred years (more profound water depths).
Meanwhile, here's some more recent Shakhova et al. at Nature, on Activation of old carbon by erosion of coastal and subsea permafrost in Arctic Siberia:
Inverse modelling of the dual-carbon isotope composition of organic carbon accumulating in ESAS surface sediments, using Monte Carlo simulations to account for uncertainties, suggests that 44 ± 10 teragrams of old carbon is activated annually from Ice Complex permafrost, an order of magnitude more than has been suggested by previous studies.
(A teragram is a megatonne.)
posted by rory at 9:05 AM on July 25, 2013
The Guardian article linked by rory has an excellent comment section that looks at all the naysayer arguments and counter-arguments. It's a complex topic to be sure. In the end though, I give weight to the most recent findings by specialists in Arctic sea-floor science. The science is evolving as rapidly as the methane is releasing.
posted by stbalbach at 9:27 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by stbalbach at 9:27 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
It brings up feelings of helplessness and despair if I think about it too much.
10 Things to Do When You Are Feeling Hopeless
#11. Write, paint, compose, create ... while you still have time. Good luck.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:38 AM on July 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
10 Things to Do When You Are Feeling Hopeless
#11. Write, paint, compose, create ... while you still have time. Good luck.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:38 AM on July 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
Well, delfin, you know what they say is painless?
The people who say that are the ones who've never succeeded at it, so their opinions are a bit suspect.
posted by delfin at 9:43 AM on July 25, 2013
The people who say that are the ones who've never succeeded at it, so their opinions are a bit suspect.
posted by delfin at 9:43 AM on July 25, 2013
Is methane a useless gas? Could it be mined and used? If we're so desperate for carbon fuels that we'll wreck water supplies with fracking, why would we not want to capture methane? Real question - would be happy to get an answer.
posted by theora55 at 9:44 AM on July 25, 2013
posted by theora55 at 9:44 AM on July 25, 2013
I'll move to Night Vale; Carlos or the town council will certainly have a plan to survive this, unlike those morons over at Desert Bluffs. Sheesh.
posted by detachd at 10:02 AM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by detachd at 10:02 AM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
But of course. There's a fully functional shelter in the Night Vale Dog Park; just walk up and knock three times on the gates. They'll be happy to let you in.
posted by delfin at 10:07 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by delfin at 10:07 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Hey, maybe the Night Vale harbor and drawbridge will get some use after all.
posted by echo target at 12:27 PM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by echo target at 12:27 PM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
theora55: Yes, it could be possible to produce methane hydrates, and there are several organizations looking into it, with the most advanced being the Japanese (JOGMEC), who have recently had a successful production test.
This site from UNEP has a lot of good information on this, and as discussed in the last thread on hydrates, UNEP currently believes that, on balance, mankind is better of trying to produce methane from gas hydrates than we are leaving them alone. This could change in the future, but right now, having a huge supply of natural gas would provide a 'transition fuel' for moving into a post-fossil-fuel world in a more orderly fashion. More research is needed to see if this can be done safely and economically.
posted by grajohnt at 1:51 PM on July 25, 2013
This site from UNEP has a lot of good information on this, and as discussed in the last thread on hydrates, UNEP currently believes that, on balance, mankind is better of trying to produce methane from gas hydrates than we are leaving them alone. This could change in the future, but right now, having a huge supply of natural gas would provide a 'transition fuel' for moving into a post-fossil-fuel world in a more orderly fashion. More research is needed to see if this can be done safely and economically.
posted by grajohnt at 1:51 PM on July 25, 2013
I think this is the first time I've ever read all the comments on a MeFi climate post and ended up more optimistic than when I started.
posted by Andrhia at 3:21 PM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Andrhia at 3:21 PM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I thought those 2008-2011 sources the WaPo blog relied on seemed too early to be reassuring, given the dramatic summer melt of last year (and, it appears, this year).
posted by rory at 2:10 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by rory at 2:10 PM on July 26, 2013
Climate Change Will Flood Oregon in the Winter and Dry Up Its Rivers in the Summer
posted by homunculus at 4:24 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by homunculus at 4:24 PM on July 26, 2013
grateful: That rebuttal was very interesting, and somewhat confirms and somewhat alters my first comment.
"I do not agree that our commentary was misleading. What we did was take one prediction of the magnitude and timing of methane emissions from the thawing of Arctic offshore permafrost (a prediction made by the person who has done more field work on this part of the ocean bed than anyone else) and calculated the financial implications over a century for the world economy."
They are assuming that X amount of methane will dissolve, and therefore X amount of methane will be released to the atmosphere with no intermediate steps. That is certainly one approach to this problem, but they have intentionally checked themselves out of thinking about any of the science of the intervening steps - like oceanic dissolution. Just so you know that I am not sugarcoating this, ocean dissolution creates its own problem - acidification.
Their point about the timing not being relevant but the scale being relevant is interesting (I didn't catch that earlier), but then you should be thinking really hard about the realistic scale. There are a lot of physical effects (like the endothermic reaction that I mentioned before) that could reduce and/or self-limit the dissolution. These are worth thinking about and calculating, if indeed the economic impact is directly related to the magnitude of release.
posted by grajohnt at 4:51 AM on July 27, 2013
"I do not agree that our commentary was misleading. What we did was take one prediction of the magnitude and timing of methane emissions from the thawing of Arctic offshore permafrost (a prediction made by the person who has done more field work on this part of the ocean bed than anyone else) and calculated the financial implications over a century for the world economy."
They are assuming that X amount of methane will dissolve, and therefore X amount of methane will be released to the atmosphere with no intermediate steps. That is certainly one approach to this problem, but they have intentionally checked themselves out of thinking about any of the science of the intervening steps - like oceanic dissolution. Just so you know that I am not sugarcoating this, ocean dissolution creates its own problem - acidification.
Their point about the timing not being relevant but the scale being relevant is interesting (I didn't catch that earlier), but then you should be thinking really hard about the realistic scale. There are a lot of physical effects (like the endothermic reaction that I mentioned before) that could reduce and/or self-limit the dissolution. These are worth thinking about and calculating, if indeed the economic impact is directly related to the magnitude of release.
posted by grajohnt at 4:51 AM on July 27, 2013
The biggest thing nature did to fight climate change is no longer working
posted by homunculus at 11:38 AM on July 27, 2013
posted by homunculus at 11:38 AM on July 27, 2013
Greenland’s ice sheets are disappearing faster than anyone predicted. Climatologist Jason Box has a radical theory why – and even more radical ideas about upending the global-warming science establishment.
posted by homunculus at 4:26 PM on July 27, 2013
posted by homunculus at 4:26 PM on July 27, 2013
Seymour Zamboni, this article says: " In 2010 a Russian marine survey conducted more than 5000 observations of dissolved methane showing that more than 80% of East Siberian shelf bottom waters and more than 50% of surface waters are supersaturated with methane."
posted by wilful at 4:45 PM on July 28, 2013
posted by wilful at 4:45 PM on July 28, 2013
More Wildfires = More Warming = More Wildfires: Why scientists are scared of the link between bigger wildfires and rapid thawing of northern permafrost.
posted by homunculus at 2:07 PM on July 29, 2013
posted by homunculus at 2:07 PM on July 29, 2013
Oh, well, problem solved, then. Pip, pip, et cetera. Let's go for brandies, shall we?
posted by entropicamericana at 3:08 PM on August 1, 2013
posted by entropicamericana at 3:08 PM on August 1, 2013
Climate Change Occurring Ten Times Faster Than at Any Time in Past 65 Million Years
posted by homunculus at 2:57 PM on August 2, 2013
posted by homunculus at 2:57 PM on August 2, 2013
Rise in violence 'linked to climate change: Shifts in climate are strongly linked to increases in violence around the world, a study suggests.
posted by homunculus at 2:57 PM on August 2, 2013
posted by homunculus at 2:57 PM on August 2, 2013
Extreme Heat Is Killing Off Thousands Of Fish In Alaska
posted by homunculus at 11:09 PM on August 5, 2013
posted by homunculus at 11:09 PM on August 5, 2013
How Much Should You Worry About an Arctic Methane Bomb? Recent warnings that this greenhouse gas could cost us $60 trillion have received widespread publicity. But many scientists are skeptical.
posted by homunculus at 4:25 PM on August 9, 2013
posted by homunculus at 4:25 PM on August 9, 2013
« Older It's not a conspiracy, it's a business opportunity | A is for ... aah you guessed Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rory at 2:43 AM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]