NASA: Alaska shows no signs of rising Arctic methane

[tentacle]

Despite large temperature increases in Alaska in recent decades, a new analysis of NASA airborne data finds that methane is not being released from Alaskan soils into the atmosphere at unusually high rates, as recent modeling and experimental studies have suggested. The new result shows that the changes in this part of the Arctic have not yet had enough impact to affect the global methane budget.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141113134856.htm

[Wild Cobra]

Another model busted...

[overtone]

 

 

Another model busted...

Only by more of that research you claim is terminally corrupt and invalid.

[swansont]

Somebody jumped the gun.


From the article

Charles Miller of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, the principal investigator for CARVE, noted that results from a single year cannot show how emissions might be changing from year to year. "The 2012 data don't preclude accelerated change in the future," he said.

So with one data point, how can one reach the conclusion about whether the values are rising or not?


From the abstract:

Integrated emissions totaled 2.1 ± 0.5 Tg CH4 for Alaska from May to September 2012, close to the average (2.3; a range of 0.7 to 6 Tg CH4) predicted by various land surface models and inversion analyses for the growing season.

So sure, models are busted — the one that predicted 0.7 Tg as well as the one that predicted 6 Tg. But the average of those two numbers is 3.35 Tg, much higher than the average of all the models, which was 2.3 Tg. Meaning there aren't as many models on the high end.

 

Further,

High concentrations of atmospheric methane have been measured at individual Arctic sites, especially in Siberia

 

So this is not universally the case. If Alaska is at predicted levels but Siberia is higher, what do we conclude?

 

I guess "Data agree with model average" just doesn't have the zing to make people blindly quote it without checking the details first.

Edit: also, the temperatures in Alaska during that data run were below average http://akclimate.org/Statewide/2012/annual.html

[Willie71]

More cherry picking and assuming that only the high end predictions are worth mentioning. Doesn't this get old ever?

[Acme]

Methane release is as methane release does.

 

Millions of Tons of Seafloor Methane Could Be Released

...Researchers now hope to verify the calculations with new measurements. For the past few years, curious fishermen have sent UW oceanographers sonar images showing mysterious columns of bubbles. Solomon and Johnson just returned from a cruise to check out some of those sites at depths where Solomon believes they could be caused by warming water.

 

Those images the fishermen sent were 100 percent accurate, Johnson said. Without them we would have been shooting in the dark.

 

Johnson and Solomon are analyzing data from that cruise to pinpoint whats triggering this seepage, and the fate of any released methane. The recent sightings of methane bubbles rising to the sea surface, the authors note, suggests that at least some of the seafloor gas may reach the surface and vent to the atmosphere. ...

Dissociation of Cascadia margin gas hydrates in response to contemporary ocean warming @ Geophysical Research Letters

 

Abstract

Gas hydrates, pervasive in continental margin sediments, are expected to release methane in response to ocean warming, but the geographic range of dissociation and subsequent flux of methane to the ocean are not well constrained. Sediment column thermal models based on observed water column warming trends offshore Washington (USA) show that a substantial volume of gas hydrate along the entire Cascadia upper continental slope is vulnerable to modern climate change. Dissociation along the Washington sector of the Cascadia margin alone has the potential to release 4580 Tg of methane by 2100. These results highlight the importance of lower latitude warming to global gas hydrate dynamics and suggest that contemporary warming and downslope retreat of the gas hydrate reservoir occur along a larger fraction of continental margins worldwide than previously recognized.

[Wild Cobra]

4.6 Pg of methane by 2100...

 

And why should this concern us with the low forcing and time involved?

[imatfaal]

4.6 Pg of methane by 2100...

 

And why should this concern us with the low forcing and time involved?

 

Sorry if I have my wires crossed - but isn't that a doubling of the world's atmospheric methane in a 100 years solely from one stretch of the pacific coast?

[Wild Cobra]

 

Sorry if I have my wires crossed - but isn't that a doubling of the world's atmospheric methane in a 100 years solely from one stretch of the pacific coast?

 

Yes, but maybe most of what we see since 1750 has been from the same cause as type of outgassing? Do we really know why CH4 has more than doubled since 1750?

 

I'm not sure, but my quick estimate put it at at around doubling as well. You have to remember, over the 80+ years to double, much of that will be reabsorbed by the ocean or break down. The greater than doubling the IPCC puts us at since 1750 is only given a 0.48 W/m^2 forcing. I would expect more than half this extra CH4 to be absorbed and broken down, leaving little forcing for an increase.

 

If I use the formula used by the IPCC, where CH4 more than doubling caused a 0.48W/m^2 forcing for 1750 levels to 2005 levels, then I get a doubling at 0.53 W/m^2 for the IPCC AR5 (2011) levels of 1803 to 3606 ppb. Now if I place the changes of a pure log curve, I get 0.37 W/m^2 for a doubling, when the curve uses a constant to get the 0.48 W/m^2 from the AR4 claimed forcing.

 

Whatever formula you pick, a doubling is significant, but releasing double the amount will surely have much of it absorbed, just like extra CO2 is largely absorbed.

 

Granted, this is an unexpected additional forcing, but once again. Why should it concern us? Do you think a 0.53 W/m^2 increase is alarmning?

[imatfaal]

x-posted with wildcobra

 

And from a little ferreting around it seems that atmospheric methane is reckoned to account for 20-25% of the increase in direct radiative forcing.

 

And really stepping over the line of comfort it seems that radiative forcing due to methane varies (in main) with the square root of the increase of Methane.

 

If that figure you have quoted turns out to be close to a net gain in the atmospheric burden of methane then the impact on global climate will not be insignificant. And I repeat the release seems to be just one stretch of Pacific.

Could you explain why you are so sanguine about it?

 

Yes, but maybe most of what we see since 1750 has been from the same cause as type of outgassing? Do we really know why CH4 has more than doubled since 1750?

 

Why does this matter? You have poo-pooed a report that predicts a doubling in global methane from the releases on ONE STRETCH OF THE PACIFIC. How does uncertainty to the source of the current methane burden allow you to dismiss this?

 

I'm not sure, but my quick estimate put it at at around doubling as well. You have to remember, over the 80+ years to double, much of that will be reabsorbed by the ocean or break down. The greater than doubling the IPCC puts us at since 1750 is only given a 0.48 W/m^2 forcing.

 

What makes you think most will be absorbed. We currently have a flux of about 576 MegaTonnes of Methane being stored and 598 being emitted - giving a net increase of 22 MegaTonnes. This figure (which you have said is insignifcant) is about 50 MegaTonnes per year. If we have capacity to sink an extra 50 MegaTonnes why do we not sink the curren 22MT that is leading to our increase.

 

 

I would expect more than half this extra CH4 to be absorbed and broken down, leaving little forcing for an increase.

 

CH4 breakdown leads to water vapour in areas where it can cause even greater radiative forcing.

 

 

If I use the formula used by the IPCC, where CH4 more than doubling caused a 0.48W/m^2 forcing for 1750 levels to 2005 levels, then I get a doubling at 0.53 W/m^2 for the IPCC AR5 (2011) levels of 1803 to 3606 ppb. Now if I place the changes of a pure log curve, I get 0.37 W/m^2 for a doubling, when the curve uses a constant to get the 0.48 W/m^2 from the AR4 claimed forcing.

 

From my reading the DeltaF of Methane is based on the difference of the roots with logarithmic adjustments. But even at your low ball figure of .37 W/m^2 this is significant - it is going to be in the 10-15pct range

 

Whatever formula you pick, a doubling is significant, but releasing double the amount will surely have much of it absorbed, just like extra CO2 is largely absorbed.

 

I would have to ask why you assert this once again. We know that these are systems that are sensitive to shocks - and perhaps a new sink would appear like magic due to the higher atmospheric conditions; but I would prefer not to bet the future generations livelihood on the off chance that the methane cycle will sudden develop an entirely new sink.

 

Granted, this is an unexpected additional forcing, but once again. Why should it concern us? Do you think a 0.53 W/m^2 increase is alarmning?

 

Yes.

[Wild Cobra]

x-posted with wildcobra

 

And from a little ferreting around it seems that atmospheric methane is reckoned to account for 20-25% of the increase in direct radiative forcing.

Yes, according to the IPCC et. al.

 

 

And really stepping over the line of comfort it seems that radiative forcing due to methane varies (in main) with the square root of the increase of Methane.

Well, it's that and a log formula. If we use the IPCC formula:

 

 

I was going to show you my formula in excel, but I noticed an error, since I didn't update the associated N2O levels to reflect current values. The 0.53 may be slightly a different value.

 

Now I personally think the farther away we get from N2O levels, the more it resembles a log curve.

 

If that figure you have quoted turns out to be close to a net gain in the atmospheric burden of methane then the impact on global climate will not be insignificant. And I repeat the release seems to be just one stretch of Pacific.

Could you explain why you are so sanguine about it?

 

I did say it was significant, but then what does the definition of "significant" really mean? Please don't say I'm "sanguine" about it. It just don't perceive any threat by the increase.

What makes you think most will be absorbed. We currently have a flux of about 576 MegaTonnes of Methane being stored and 598 being emitted - giving a net increase of 22 MegaTonnes. This figure (which you have said is insignifcant) is about 50 MegaTonnes per year. If we have capacity to sink an extra 50 MegaTonnes why do we not sink the curren 22MT that is leading to our increase.

 

 

Well, it has to do with equilibrium. I haven't studied the CH4 budget, and only briefly looked at one today. Still, there is equilibrium of partial pressures that the atmosphere and ocean attempt to achieve. The farther off balance this is, the faster the waters absorb it. I'm not prepared to speculate any solid numbers. It also matters why we are increasing by the 22 megatons. Is it from increased terrestrial sourcing, or is it from the equalization changing because of ocean warming? I suspect it’s a little of both.

 

I’m really out of my element with CH4. I have primarily focused my learning on CO2 and solar changes.

 

An increased sourcing of 50 could easily lead to an increased sinking of half that value. Maybe you’ve seen material on this, I don't recall it for CH4. We do know however, that roughly half the anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, and I would expect for that reason, the same with CH4.

 

Now "roughly half" is by memory, and I might be faulty on that, but do you agree that liquids attempt to equalize with gasses?

OK, I fixed my Excel formula to reflect new starting points of 1803 ppb for CH4 and 324 ppb for N2O. Added cells to make both starting points a variable.

 

=R$2*(SQRT($B58)-SQRT(R$8))-((0.47*LN(1+0.0000201*(R$5*$B58)^0.75+0.00000000000000531*$B58*($B58*R$5)^1.52)-(0.47*LN(1+0.0000201*(R$5*R$8)^0.75+0.00000000000000531*R$8*(R$8*R$5)^1.52))))

 

Feel free to double check my work here, because if it's wrong, I want to correct it.

 

cell R2 is the 0.36 constant.

 

cell R5 is 324 for the static N2O value.

 

cell R8 is 1803 for the starting CH4 level.

 

cell B58 is my value of 3606, for 3606 ppb. The column B, starting at row 17 is my values in ppb. This is the same sheet I use for CO2, so column A is values in ppm.

 

Anyway, this formula gives 0 of course, for the 1803 starting value, and 0.539 for 3603. To get a value close to the AR4 CO2 increase of 1.66, we would need to go from 1803 ppb to 9.5 ppm. 9.5 puts the calculation at 1.657 W/m^2 forcing increase. I forget thye AR5 CO2 levels without looking it up, is it around 1.71? Anyway a 1.71 would require increasing to 9.86 ppm.

[Acme]

...

 

Well, it has to do with equilibrium. I haven't studied the CH4 budget, and only briefly looked at one today. Still, there is equilibrium of partial pressures that the atmosphere and ocean attempt to achieve. The farther off balance this is, the faster the waters absorb it. ...

The absorption of carbon dioxide and methane by the oceans is increasing their acidification and that is a reason for concern beyond the usually mentioned problems of climate change.

 

Millions of Tons of Seafloor Methane Could Be Released

...Still unknown is where any released methane gas would end up. It could be consumed by bacteria in the seafloor sediment or in the water, where it could cause seawater in that area to become more acidic and oxygen-deprived. Some methane might also rise to the surface, where it would release into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, compounding the effects of climate change. ...

Ocean acidification

 

Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of possibly harmful consequences, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching. This also causes decreasing oxygen levels as it kill off algae.

 

Other chemical reactions are triggered which result in a net decrease in the amount of carbonate ions available. This makes it more difficult for marine calcifying organisms, such as coral and some plankton, to form biogenic calcium carbonate, and such structures become vulnerable to dissolution.[10] Ongoing acidification of the oceans threatens food chains connected with the oceans.[11][12] ...

[imatfaal]

I did say it was significant, but then what does the definition of "significant" really mean? Please don't say I'm "sanguine" about it. It just don't perceive any threat by the increase.

4.6 Pg of methane by 2100...

 

And why should this concern us with the low forcing and time involved?

"And why should this concern us..." "I just don't perceive any threat ..."

I would say that is sanguine - you are optimistic in a what most say is a bad situation that practically the definition. Remember this is the increase that this paper claims as possible from the Pacific Coast of Washington - admittedly it is the maximum. But you didn't query the figure you merely said it raised no perception of a threat!

Well, it has to do with equilibrium. I haven't studied the CH4 budget, and only briefly looked at one today. Still, there is equilibrium of partial pressures that the atmosphere and ocean attempt to achieve. The farther off balance this is, the faster the waters absorb it. I'm not prepared to speculate any solid numbers. It also matters why we are increasing by the 22 megatons. Is it from increased terrestrial sourcing, or is it from the equalization changing because of ocean warming? I suspect it’s a little of both.

 

I’m really out of my element with CH4. I have primarily focused my learning on CO2 and solar changes.

You claim of partial pressures is just wrong. The whole of an increase is not going to be absorbed by system of sinks unless that system undergoes some form of change in methodology - you may increase the amount that goes into the sink but more will go into the atmosphere as well. And if the oceans and chemical stores change in qualitative terms then we have potential huge problems as the oceans are the world greatest food source.

 

As you admit you are completely at sea with the methane cycle I am at a loss to see how you can post on a public forum that this is not a cause for concern.

 

 

for your guidance in Excel it makes life really easy if you learn to name cells. Type your names in one column and your values in the next column to right. Then "Create Names" and select "Use Left Column" - this works in Libre/Open as well. THis means you can get a nice function like this

 

=alpha*(SQRT(M_1)-SQRT(M_0))-((0.47*LN(1+0.0000201*(M_1*N_0)^0.75+0.00000000000000531*M_1*(M_1*N_0)^1.52)-(0.47*LN(1+0.0000201*(M_0*N_0)^0.75+0.00000000000000531*M_0*(M_0*N_0)^1.52))))

 

I have not checked those zeroes - I would always use Sci Notation. You can enter as follows 2.10e-5 will be 2.10 x 10^(-5)

 

 

So the upshot of your calcs is that the greenhouse gas component of radiative forcing will increase by around a sixth to a fifth - this is a big deal!

 

Personally the figure smacks of exaggeration to me - but you stated above "4.6 Pg of methane by 2100 ... And why should this concern us with the low forcing and time involved?" which I can only read as stating that even if the figure is correct we should not be concerned.

 

And I will repeat that you are being either unreasonably sanguine about the possibility or you are deliberately nay-saying because that fits with an ideology which denies first and seeks rationale later.

[overtone]

The residence time of atmospheric methane seems to be increasing (compare 12 years in this very recently updated web page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas or here http://chartsbin.com/view/2407

with10 years in this somewhat older data 2014 encyclopedia entry http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/683450/greenhouse-gas/280523/Methane

with earlier calculations of 8 years, the former "standard number" such as this standard textbook example: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%202/Chapter2C2.html

 

Possibly that's an artifact of better data and estimating techniques, but the possibility that we are saturating or disabling some of the sinks is a bit disturbing, since we are facing the likelihood of some sudden boosts in the near future.

Edited December 18, 2014 by overtone

[imatfaal]

The residence time of atmospheric methane seems to be increasing (compare 12 years in this very recently updated web page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas or here http://chartsbin.com/view/2407

with10 years in this somewhat older data 2014 encyclopedia entry http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/683450/greenhouse-gas/280523/Methane

with earlier calculations of 8 years, the former "standard number" such as this standard textbook example: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%202/Chapter2C2.html

 

Possibly that's an artifact of better data and estimating techniques, but the possibility that we are saturating or disabling some of the sinks is a bit disturbing, since we are facing the likelihood of some sudden boosts in the near future.

 

 

I have noticed this as well - I wonder if it is due to the particular form of paradigm shifting that is unique to modern climate change science. The environment is so toxic for climate scientists that any advance in knowledge is artificially held back and new ideas are not promulgated "without an order, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters." The denialist camp is so strong that good science is being shelved because it had not yet reached the super-human levels of accuracy that the (completely unevidenced) denialist position requires

[Acme]

I have noticed this as well - I wonder if it is due to the particular form of paradigm shifting that is unique to modern climate change science. The environment is so toxic for climate scientists that any advance in knowledge is artificially held back and new ideas are not promulgated "without an order, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters." The denialist camp is so strong that good science is being shelved because it had not yet reached the super-human levels of accuracy that the (completely unevidenced) denialist position requires

Has anyone bothered to check dissolved gas levels in that Pierian spring?

[imatfaal]

Has anyone bothered to check dissolved gas levels in that Pierian spring?

 

Last time I was in Macedonia I drank deeply at every spring I could find - and all I got was a bad case of head freeze when I drank too deeply of water that was too cold

[Wild Cobra]

The residence time of atmospheric methane seems to be increasing (compare 12 years in this very recently updated web page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas or here http://chartsbin.com/view/2407

with10 years in this somewhat older data 2014 encyclopedia entry http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/683450/greenhouse-gas/280523/Methane

with earlier calculations of 8 years, the former "standard number" such as this standard textbook example: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%202/Chapter2C2.html

 

Possibly that's an artifact of better data and estimating techniques, but the possibility that we are saturating or disabling some of the sinks is a bit disturbing, since we are facing the likelihood of some sudden boosts in the near future.

 

My only guess to that would be the ocean warming is causing it to sink less.

You claim of partial pressures is just wrong. The whole of an increase is not going to be absorbed by system of sinks unless that system undergoes some form of change in methodology - you may increase the amount that goes into the sink but more will go into the atmosphere as well. And if the oceans and chemical stores change in qualitative terms then we have potential huge problems as the oceans are the world greatest food source.

 

 

I wasn't claiming the whole would be absorbed. I'm quite aware that only some of the increase will be absorbed. Untill I see different, I assume about half the extra sources methane will be sinked. I hope you aren't purposely mistated my words. I start getting testy with people who do that regularly.

 

 

As you admit you are completely at sea with the methane cycle I am at a loss to see how you can post on a public forum that this is not a cause for concern.

 

 

Many of the dynamics are the same, and I never said I was "completely at sea." Is that an intention mistatement from saying I wasn't in my element? I just haven't done much in the way of understanding sources, sinks, and the atmiospheric breakdown that occurs with CH4. I remember reading these things, but haven't focused on them, or remember near as much as I do other factors.

 

 

for your guidance in Excel it makes life really easy if you learn to name cells. Type your names in one column and your values in the next column to right. Then "Create Names" and select "Use Left Column" - this works in Libre/Open as well. THis means you can get a nice function like this

 

=alpha*(SQRT(M_1)-SQRT(M_0))-((0.47*LN(1+0.0000201*(M_1*N_0)^0.75+0.00000000000000531*M_1*(M_1*N_0)^1.52)-(0.47*LN(1+0.0000201*(M_0*N_0)^0.75+0.00000000000000531*M_0*(M_0*N_0)^1.52))))

 

I have not checked those zeroes - I would always use Sci Notation. You can enter as follows 2.10e-5 will be 2.10 x 10^(-5)

 

 

Thank you for the naming suggestion. I will try that at some point.

 

I almost did change the formula with scientific notation, I forget why I did what I did originally. I put that together some years ago.

 

 

So the upshot of your calcs is that the greenhouse gas component of radiative forcing will increase by around a sixth to a fifth - this is a big deal!

 

 

Yes, it is significant. I just don't feel the added forcing is a problem. Right or wrong, that's my belief.

 

 

Personally the figure smacks of exaggeration to me - but you stated above "4.6 Pg of methane by 2100 ... And why should this concern us with the low forcing and time involved?" which I can only read as stating that even if the figure is correct we should not be concerned.

 

 

In the abstract it says:

 

Washington sector of the Cascadia margin alone has the potential to release 4580 Tg of methane by 2100.

 

I simply rounded the 4580 Tg to 4.6 Pg.

 

Please show me where I said "above 4.6 Pg."

 

And I will repeat that you are being either unreasonably sanguine about the possibility or you are deliberately nay-saying because that fits with an ideology which denies first and seeks rationale later.

 

How an I confident or optimistic? I'm just not worried about it. I disagree with your choice of words. To me, your choice of words imply Ilike the prossible increase.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[imatfaal]

I simply rounded the 4580 Tg to 4.6 Pg.

 

Please show me where I said "above 4.6 Pg."

 

If you read what I wrote - and don't change where I put the inverted commas - it is clear:

 

but you stated above "4.6 Pg of methane by 2100 ... And why should this concern us with the low forcing and time involved?"

 

Would it be more obvious if 'above' was replaced with 'up the page earlier in this conversation' ?

[Acme]

... I disagree with your choice of words. ...

This seems to be the thrust of many of your arguments. What are you, the word police? Get over it.

[overtone]

 

 

Possibly that's an artifact of better data and estimating techniques, but the possibility that we are saturating or disabling some of the sinks is a bit disturbing, since we are facing the likelihood of some sudden boosts in the near future.

My only guess to that would be the ocean warming is causing it to sink less.

The ocean has never been much of a sink for methane - most of it has been, traditionally, oxidized in midair.

I'm wondering whether an AGW increase in the partial pressure of gas water, the breakdown product of methane oxidation, could be blocking the reaction path - and where the neurons went that used to provide me with these calculations, all those years ago.