Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
Wed Jul 31, 2013, 07:19 AM Jul 2013

Arctic methane catastrophe scenario is based on new empirical observations

A pointed rebuttal to the lame objections of Revkin and Samenow, as well as to Gavin Schmidt's uninformed waffle.

Arctic methane catastrophe scenario is based on new empirical observations

Last week, the journal Nature published a new paper warning of a $60 trillion price tag for a potential 50 Gigatonne methane pulse from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) over 10-50 years this century. The paper, however, prompted many to suggest that its core scenario - as Arctic permafrost thaws it could increasingly unleash dangerous quantities of methane from sub-ice methane hydrates in as quick as a decade - is implausible.

The Washington Post's Jason Samenow argued that "most everything known and published about methane indicates this scenario is very unlikely." Andrew Revkin of the New York Times (NYT) liberally quoted Samenow among others on "the lack of evidence that such an outburst is plausible." Similarly, Carbon Brief concluded: "The scientists we spoke to suggested the authors have chosen a scenario that's either implausible, or very much at the upper limit of what we can reasonably expect."

The problem is that these reservations are based on outdated assumptions that sea floor released methane would not make it into the atmosphere - but all the new fieldwork on the levels of methane being released above the ESAS shows this assumption is just empirically wrong. Atmospheric methane levels in the Arctic are currently at new record highs, averaging about 1900 parts per billion, 70 parts per billion higher than the global average. NASA researchers have found local methane plumes as large as 150 kilometres across - far higher than previously anticipated.

Dr Gavin Schmidt, climate modeller at NASA, was also cited claiming lack of evidence from ice cores of previous catastrophic methane pulses in the Earth's history in the Early Holocene or Eamian, when Arctic temperatures were warmer than today. But the blanket references to the past may well be irrelevant. In the Early Holocene, the ESAS was not an underwater shelf but a frozen landmass, illustrating the pointlessness of this past analogy with contemporary conditions.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Arctic methane catastrophe scenario is based on new empirical observations (Original Post) GliderGuider Jul 2013 OP
kick, for significance. nt wtmusic Jul 2013 #1
Doomy, gloomy kick hatrack Jul 2013 #2
kick and chervilant Jul 2013 #3
I wish I could get to a zen place about all this Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #4
Yeah, it sure helps. GliderGuider Jul 2013 #5
I see now why Gavin didn't respond to my tweet. joshcryer Aug 2013 #6
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
5. Yeah, it sure helps.
Wed Jul 31, 2013, 11:26 PM
Jul 2013

I've noticed that a lot of people who get to a certain point in the grokking seem to be Buddhist to some degree. Whether they start out like that or change on the way I don't know. For me it was the only way to integrate the despair. I had to let go of my attachment to the way I wanted things to be.

If you need it badly enough, it will find you.

joshcryer

(62,274 posts)
6. I see now why Gavin didn't respond to my tweet.
Thu Aug 1, 2013, 06:10 AM
Aug 2013

Wadhams and that article basically agree with my original post on this.

Do you have any idea how fucked up it is that an armchair amateur gets this right when the fucking scientists play minimalist?

The fucking anti-science lobby has got them running fucking scared. Hansen is totally right. Scientific reticence at its core.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Arctic methane catastroph...