The AGW Methane Bomb...... is a DUD...

[Billy_Bob]

The AGW Methane Bomb...... is a DUD...

A new study out from Princeton University shows that microbes are eating up the methane faster than thawing permafrost can melt. The big earth killing catastrophic emergency doesn't exist... SO just like the "ocean ate my warming" of Trenbreth, the Methane Time Bomb is a DUD simply because microbes common in the soil actively eat methane and increase their ability to eat it by 30 times as they warm..... this effectively kills any methane increase effect globally.

The researchers found that Arctic soils containing low carbon content — which make up 87 percent of the soil in permafrost regions globally — not only remove methane from the atmosphere, but also become more efficient as temperatures increase. During a three-year period, a carbon-poor site on Axel Heiberg Island in Canada’s Arctic region consistently took up more methane as the ground temperature rose from 0 to 18 degrees Celsius (32 to 64.4 degrees Fahrenheit). The researchers project that should Arctic temperatures rise by 5 to 15 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years, the methane-absorbing capacity of “carbon-poor” soil could increase by five to 30 times.

The researchers found that this ability stems from an as-yet unknown species of bacteria in carbon-poor Arctic soil that consume methane in the atmosphere. The bacteria are related to a bacterial group known as Upland Soil Cluster Alpha, the dominant methane-consuming bacteria in carbon-poor Arctic soil. The bacteria the researchers studied remove the carbon from methane to produce methanol, a simple alcohol the bacteria process immediately. The carbon is used for growth or respiration, meaning that it either remains in bacterial cells or is released as carbon dioxide.

Peter Wadhams looks like he will now join Trenbreth looking for shit they lost...

Source

 

[Old Rocks]

Real stupid. It is not the carbon poor soils that are the problem in the first place, it is carbon rich soils and areas like the yedoma. And then we have the clathrates which are presently emitting, and looks to emit even more CH4.

 

[Old Rocks]

Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming : Abstract : Nature

Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming
K. M. Walter1, S. A. Zimov2, J. P. Chanton3, D. Verbyla4 and F. S. Chapin, III1

Topof page
Large uncertainties in the budget of atmospheric methane, an important greenhouse gas, limit the accuracy of climate change projections1, 2. Thaw lakes in North Siberia are known to emit methane3, but the magnitude of these emissions remains uncertain because most methane is released through ebullition (bubbling), which is spatially and temporally variable. Here we report a new method of measuring ebullition and use it to quantify methane emissions from two thaw lakes in North Siberia. We show that ebullition accounts for 95 per cent of methane emissions from these lakes, and that methane flux from thaw lakes in our study region may be five times higher than previously estimated3. Extrapolation of these fluxes indicates that thaw lakes in North Siberia emit 3.8 teragrams of methane per year, which increases present estimates of methane emissions from northern wetlands (< 6–40 teragrams per year; refs 1, 2, 4–6) by between 10 and 63 per cent. We find that thawing permafrost along lake margins accounts for most of the methane released from the lakes, and estimate that an expansion of thaw lakes between 1974 and 2000, which was concurrent with regional warming, increased methane emissions in our study region by 58 per cent. Furthermore, the Pleistocene age (35,260–42,900 years) of methane emitted from hotspots along thawing lake margins indicates that this positive feedback to climate warming has led to the release of old carbon stocks previously stored in permafrost.

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions - Isaksen - 2011 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library


Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions
Authors

• First published: 20 April 2011Full publication history
• DOI: 10.1029/2010GB003845View/save citation
• Cited by: 12 articlesRefreshcitation countCiting literature
• 
  Picked up by 1 news outlets
  
  Blogged by 3
  Tweeted by 2
  Referenced in 2 Wikipedia pages
  Reddited by 1
  74 readers on Mendeley
  See more details | Close this
  × " data-badge-popover="bottom" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; cursor: pointer; color: rgb(47, 123, 174); display: inline-block; background-position: 0px 0px;">
  

Abstract

[1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4 would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of CH4 release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime, and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios, our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry that would amplify climate warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And Old Fraud misses that the same microbes are present there as well. But sadly Old Fraud didn't read the paper because it doesn't match his COMMUNIST COMMAND AND CONTROL world view. So he missed it.. FUCKTARD... ITS THE NATURALLY OCCURRING MICROBES EATING IT! And its not just in the arctic! The earth hits it out of the park leaving environmental midgets looking stupid... as it goes right over their dam heads..

 

[flacaltenn]

Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming : Abstract : Nature

Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming
K. M. Walter1, S. A. Zimov2, J. P. Chanton3, D. Verbyla4 and F. S. Chapin, III1

Topof page
Large uncertainties in the budget of atmospheric methane, an important greenhouse gas, limit the accuracy of climate change projections1, 2. Thaw lakes in North Siberia are known to emit methane3, but the magnitude of these emissions remains uncertain because most methane is released through ebullition (bubbling), which is spatially and temporally variable. Here we report a new method of measuring ebullition and use it to quantify methane emissions from two thaw lakes in North Siberia. We show that ebullition accounts for 95 per cent of methane emissions from these lakes, and that methane flux from thaw lakes in our study region may be five times higher than previously estimated3. Extrapolation of these fluxes indicates that thaw lakes in North Siberia emit 3.8 teragrams of methane per year, which increases present estimates of methane emissions from northern wetlands (< 6–40 teragrams per year; refs 1, 2, 4–6) by between 10 and 63 per cent. We find that thawing permafrost along lake margins accounts for most of the methane released from the lakes, and estimate that an expansion of thaw lakes between 1974 and 2000, which was concurrent with regional warming, increased methane emissions in our study region by 58 per cent. Furthermore, the Pleistocene age (35,260–42,900 years) of methane emitted from hotspots along thawing lake margins indicates that this positive feedback to climate warming has led to the release of old carbon stocks previously stored in permafrost.

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions - Isaksen - 2011 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library


Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions
Authors

• First published: 20 April 2011Full publication history
• DOI: 10.1029/2010GB003845View/save citation
• Cited by: 12 articlesRefreshcitation countCiting literature
• 
  Picked up by 1 news outlets
  
  Blogged by 3
  Tweeted by 2
  Referenced in 2 Wikipedia pages
  Reddited by 1
  74 readers on Mendeley
  See more details | Close this
  × " data-badge-popover="bottom" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; cursor: pointer; color: rgb(47, 123, 174); display: inline-block; background-position: 0px 0px;">
  

Abstract

[1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4 would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of CH4 release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime, and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios, our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry that would amplify climate warming.

Yeah and the best Russian Siberian experts say that geological action and not a few degree increase in "average" temperature is the greatest threat to RELEASE those emissions..

 

[flacaltenn]

How much permafrost melted in the 4 Ice Ages? Compare that to what's left....

How come there wasn't runaway catastrophic climate feedback those four times?? Don't tell me the carbon and calthrate content was LESS -- because all those dinos and dense forests were already making a dirt nap and turning to oil.. (or so we think)

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. Flaceltenn, just when was the CO2 level at 400+ ppm in any of those interglacials? When was the CH4 content at 1850 ppb? The answer is never. The highest the CO2 was ever at during and interglacial is 300 ppm

VostokIceCore

Vostok Ice Core record of variations in air temperature (relative to the current average temperature of �55.5°C at Vostok) and CO2concentrations from gas bubbles in the ice. (Data from Petit et al., 1999.)

And the CH4 level was never above 800 ppb.

AOL Image Search result for "http://www.am.ub.edu/~jmiralda/fsgw/vostok.bmp"

Results from the Vostok ice core analysis:

 

[flacaltenn]

Well this could be fun.. We could actually discuss all that.. What a treat....

First off -- you'll never know if the CO2 levels peaked above 300ppm in any of those interglacials because there is not sufficient time resolution in the data or the chart to see 100 yr "spikes" in temperature or CO2. Even if there WAS resolution in the data from the ice cores -- you'd have to blow up the magnification on any of those interglacials to about 10 times the length of this chart to even SEE IT... Just from the rates of climb you see in those charts -- it seems plausible that peaks above 400ppm are possible.

But the more important point I'm making is that what;'s LEFT of the Calthrates and sequestered CO2 was there WAYYY before our little slice of Interglacial bliss. And if a 12 or 15degC change only managed to double CO2 from 180 to 360 ppm -- and NO POSITIVE Earth destroying feedbacks kicked in to melt the remaining 30% or so -- why didn't they? The amounts of CO2 and Methane released from sequestration were HUGE compared to what is left today.. In fact, most carbon sequestration was strangled to a halt during the icy glacials.

The overzealous estimates of Climate sensitivity (which includes guesses about these feedbacks) were initially estimated from these periods. You got a 12 or 16 degC per doubling of CO2 BECAUSE you started from a frozen condition where the Carbon exchange cycle was largely busted. Your heroes then estimated that our climate today would have something short of that -- say 5 to 6 degC/doubling.

But the problem with that is --- there were VASTLY MORE sequestered CO2 and Methane THEN and not so much now...

 

[flacaltenn]

Ya know... If you DIG for it. You start finding that some of these of leaps to proclaim "the current rate of temperature rise is unprecendented" or the rate of rise of CO2 is unprecedented is contradicted paper by paper.

For instance -- in looking to expand the scale of the ice core records to get greater time resolution you find stuff like this O2 isotope proxy for temperature taken from Greenland cores. This proxy has higher time resolution because it's bound in the ice itself -- not as a migrating trapped gas like CO2. So you get spectacular time proxies on temperatures..


Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Verbage following says ------

Abrupt climate changes
The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.

Kinda blows away that breathless claim (in Marcott and Mann and others) about our 80 year rise of 1degC is and UNPRECEDENTED rate of temperature rise -- doesn't it??

Now take that magnified version of a proxy temperature record --- look at where it fits in your "Vostok" history --- and SEE ALL THE STUFF you MIGHT be missing in that 25,000 yr slice -- by relying on that ONE graph for your "highs and lows".....

 

[flacaltenn]

PS.. Kinda cute the way the work above contradicts the wild claims that melting ice sheet TODAY could introduce enough fresh water to stop the ocean thermal conveyors.. I KNOW that's mentioned many times in the litany of horrors in store for us.. YET -- these blokes just state --- couldn't happen today..

And you wonder why we're skeptics?? And just chuckle about consensus??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Real stupid. It is not the carbon poor soils that are the problem in the first place, it is carbon rich soils and areas like the yedoma. And then we have the clathrates which are presently emitting, and looks to emit even more CH4.

Tell him about those oysters in Oregon!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mr. Flaceltenn, just when was the CO2 level at 400+ ppm in any of those interglacials? When was the CH4 content at 1850 ppb? The answer is never. The highest the CO2 was ever at during and interglacial is 300 ppm

VostokIceCore

Vostok Ice Core record of variations in air temperature (relative to the current average temperature of �55.5°C at Vostok) and CO2concentrations from gas bubbles in the ice. (Data from Petit et al., 1999.)

And the CH4 level was never above 800 ppb.

AOL Image Search result for "http://www.am.ub.edu/~jmiralda/fsgw/vostok.bmp"

Results from the Vostok ice core analysis:

Never: Same answer to "How many times did CO2 drive climate"

 

[Mr. H.]

Exactly why is the EPA demanding that oil and gas operations cut methane emissions by 50%?

And why does not that same EPA inspect the methane emissions of agriculture?

Report: Methane Emissions Decline in Top Oil and Gas Basins

 

[Mr. H.]

Answer: Because they are A$$ F'ing Farmers!

 

[Old Rocks]

Well this could be fun.. We could actually discuss all that.. What a treat....

First off -- you'll never know if the CO2 levels peaked above 300ppm in any of those interglacials because there is not sufficient time resolution in the data or the chart to see 100 yr "spikes" in temperature or CO2. Even if there WAS resolution in the data from the ice cores -- you'd have to blow up the magnification on any of those interglacials to about 10 times the length of this chart to even SEE IT... Just from the rates of climb you see in those charts -- it seems plausible that peaks above 400ppm are possible.

But the more important point I'm making is that what;'s LEFT of the Calthrates and sequestered CO2 was there WAYYY before our little slice of Interglacial bliss. And if a 12 or 15degC change only managed to double CO2 from 180 to 360 ppm -- and NO POSITIVE Earth destroying feedbacks kicked in to melt the remaining 30% or so -- why didn't they? The amounts of CO2 and Methane released from sequestration were HUGE compared to what is left today.. In fact, most carbon sequestration was strangled to a halt during the icy glacials.

The overzealous estimates of Climate sensitivity (which includes guesses about these feedbacks) were initially estimated from these periods. You got a 12 or 16 degC per doubling of CO2 BECAUSE you started from a frozen condition where the Carbon exchange cycle was largely busted. Your heroes then estimated that our climate today would have something short of that -- say 5 to 6 degC/doubling.

But the problem with that is --- there were VASTLY MORE sequestered CO2 and Methane THEN and not so much now...

Mr. Flacaltenn, you do not get rid of an extra 100 ppm of CO2 in 100 years. If it spiked to 400 ppm in 100 years, we would see several centuries of declining CO2 values to get back to 300 ppm. No, your scenerio is not plausable at all.

The amount of change between the glacial and interglacial was, at max, 120 ppm of CO2. 180 ppm to 300 ppm. We are presently above 400 ppm, a 120 ppm increase above the natural max of 280 ppm for this interglacial. So, by a log scale increase, a temperatue change of 4 degrees Celsius is possible. That is what Arrhenius estimated in 1896.

Earth destroying? That damned strawman bullshit, and you know it. We are talking about changes that disrupt infrastructure and agriculture in a world with 7 billion + humans on it. We are talking about the degree of human misery, not the destruction of the world, and you know it.

On what basis do you claim there were more permafrost and clathrates in prior interglacials? Would you care to link me to something to back up those claims?

 

[flacaltenn]

Well this could be fun.. We could actually discuss all that.. What a treat....

First off -- you'll never know if the CO2 levels peaked above 300ppm in any of those interglacials because there is not sufficient time resolution in the data or the chart to see 100 yr "spikes" in temperature or CO2. Even if there WAS resolution in the data from the ice cores -- you'd have to blow up the magnification on any of those interglacials to about 10 times the length of this chart to even SEE IT... Just from the rates of climb you see in those charts -- it seems plausible that peaks above 400ppm are possible.

But the more important point I'm making is that what;'s LEFT of the Calthrates and sequestered CO2 was there WAYYY before our little slice of Interglacial bliss. And if a 12 or 15degC change only managed to double CO2 from 180 to 360 ppm -- and NO POSITIVE Earth destroying feedbacks kicked in to melt the remaining 30% or so -- why didn't they? The amounts of CO2 and Methane released from sequestration were HUGE compared to what is left today.. In fact, most carbon sequestration was strangled to a halt during the icy glacials.

The overzealous estimates of Climate sensitivity (which includes guesses about these feedbacks) were initially estimated from these periods. You got a 12 or 16 degC per doubling of CO2 BECAUSE you started from a frozen condition where the Carbon exchange cycle was largely busted. Your heroes then estimated that our climate today would have something short of that -- say 5 to 6 degC/doubling.

But the problem with that is --- there were VASTLY MORE sequestered CO2 and Methane THEN and not so much now...

Mr. Flacaltenn, you do not get rid of an extra 100 ppm of CO2 in 100 years. If it spiked to 400 ppm in 100 years, we would see several centuries of declining CO2 values to get back to 300 ppm. No, your scenerio is not plausable at all.

The amount of change between the glacial and interglacial was, at max, 120 ppm of CO2. 180 ppm to 300 ppm. We are presently above 400 ppm, a 120 ppm increase above the natural max of 280 ppm for this interglacial. So, by a log scale increase, a temperatue change of 4 degrees Celsius is possible. That is what Arrhenius estimated in 1896.

Earth destroying? That damned strawman bullshit, and you know it. We are talking about changes that disrupt infrastructure and agriculture in a world with 7 billion + humans on it. We are talking about the degree of human misery, not the destruction of the world, and you know it.

On what basis do you claim there were more permafrost and clathrates in prior interglacials? Would you care to link me to something to back up those claims?

You need a LINK to compare a totally frozen over world thawing back to where we are today??
That was in no way "normal" atmosphere nor surface temps.. Or at least we should hope not. All those mile thick glaciers and frozen seas melted and the following "release" of GH gases amounted to a paltry 120ppm??

Well then -- I ask again -- from WHAT"S LEFT to melt --- do you think theres's another 120ppm to act as your accelerant to doom? Extremely doubtful.. Without accelerated positive feedbacks and magic multipliers, you have no way to scare the peasants..

And at the scale of analysis on the Vostok cores that YOU look at all the time -- you would never see 500 year spikes of CO2 ACCURATELY enough to measure peaks.. That's just a fact.. You could ZOOM IN with the analysis and plotting and MAYBE see that those "peaks" are off (definitely on the low side) by 20 even 40%.. As in the more detailed proxy that I showed you that had clear temperature events of 10degC in 50 years that are INVISIBLE in the Vostok records.. You cannot simply toss a million year (nearly) graph around and claim that you can SEE everything you IMAGINE should be seen..

Same deal as in the Marcott and Mann proxy studies. The time resolution issues will decrease PEAK readings and all variances within the data. For Marcott, you'd get something like 50% of response over 400 years, and 20% of the peak response over 200 years. At about 100 years -- you get NOTHING. That's how sampling theory works. Works the same for me in signal processing as it does in ice cores or tree rings.. When you apply a low pass (averaging type) filter -- and/or reduce your sampling rate --- you reduce peaks. When you sample data close to the Nyquist criteria for it's variance frequency -- you need to apply the proper filtration to avoid introducing artifacts.