I really hope the AGW denying people are right .

[PeterSibley]

Because things like this will all be irrelevant and all will be well. Good Luck.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18120093

20 May 2012

Arctic melt releasing ancient methane

By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News Many of the sites were bubbling methane that has been stored for millennia


Scientists have identified thousands of sites in the Arctic where methane that has been stored for many millennia is bubbling into the atmosphere.
The methane has been trapped by ice, but is able to escape as the ice melts.
Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this ancient gas could have a significant impact on climate change.
Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas after CO2 and levels are rising after a few years of stability.
There are many sources of the gas around the world, some natural and some man-made, such as landfill waste disposal sites and farm animals.
Tracking methane to these various sources is not easy.
But the researchers on the new Arctic project, led by Katey Walter Anthony from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks (UAF), were able to identify long-stored gas by the ratio of different isotopes of carbon in the methane molecules.
Using aerial and ground-based surveys, the team identified about 150,000 methane seeps in Alaska and Greenland in lakes along the margins of ice cover.
Local sampling showed that some of these are releasing the ancient methane, perhaps from natural gas or coal deposits underneath the lakes, whereas others are emitting much younger gas, presumably formed through decay of plant material in the lakes.
"We observed most of these cryosphere-cap seeps in lakes along the boundaries of permafrost thaw and in moraines and fjords of retreating glaciers," they write, emphasising the point that warming in the Arctic is releasing this long-stored carbon.

[PeterSibley]

"If this relationship holds true for other regions where sedimentary basins are at present capped by permafrost, glaciers and ice sheets, such as northern West Siberia, rich in natural gas and partially underlain by thin permafrost predicted to degrade substantially by 2100, a very strong increase in methane carbon cycling will result, with potential implications for climate warming feedbacks."
Atmospheric methane concentration is rising again after a plateau of a few years
Quantifying methane release across the Arctic is an active area of research, with several countries despatching missions to monitor sites on land and sea.
The region stores vast quantities of the gas in different places - in and under permafrost on land, on and under the sea bed, and - as evidenced by the latest research - in geological reservoirs.
"The Arctic is the fastest warming region on the planet, and has many methane sources that will increase as the temperature rises," commented Prof Euan Nisbet from Royal Holloway, University of London, who is also involved in Arctic methane research.
"This is yet another serious concern: the warming will feed the warming."
How serious and how immediate a threat this feedback mechanism presents is a controversial area, with some scientists believing that the impacts will not be seen for many decades, and others pointing out the possibility of a rapid release that could swiftly accelerate global warming.

[Phillip Allen]

methane may very well be escaping from old ice but not in the pic above... there would not be trees I think

[Paul Pless]

???

[Donn]

Better late than never.

[seanz]

Fart.

ftfy.





C'mon, it's a methane joke. Ha, I nearly said gag.....



Don't worry Peter, it won't do any good anyway.

[The Bigfella]

So, coming out of an ice age, methane is released as the planet warms. Yes. What has that got to do with AGW?

[PeterSibley]

It's warming, it's called a feedback loop.

[The Bigfella]

It's warming, it's called a feedback loop.

Its a natural part of the ice age / warming cycle.

[SamSam]

What causes it is hardly the point. If it comes, and indications are that it feeds off itself and happens quickly, climate patterns will shift, low lying land will flood. Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, vast areas will become unsuitable for farming. Immigrants are not usually welcome in good times, with collapsed economies, food and water shortages, chaos and turmoil are likely. Pollution from sea level power plants, refineries, chemical and other industrial sites will be widespread. Shifting rain patterns will cause floods where floods have never been and deserts where deserts have never been. Sure, it's a natural thing, it's happened many times before, but I don't think there was ever 7-9 billion people here at the time.

[varadero]

What causes it is hardly the point. If it comes, and indications are that it feeds off itself and happens quickly, climate patterns will shift, low lying land will flood. Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, vast areas will become unsuitable for farming. Immigrants are not usually welcome in good times, with collapsed economies, food and water shortages, chaos and turmoil are likely. Pollution from sea level power plants, refineries, chemical and other industrial sites will be widespread. Shifting rain patterns will cause floods where floods have never been and deserts where deserts have never been. Sure, it's a natural thing, it's happened many times before, but I don't think there was ever 7-9 billion people here at the time.

[JimD]

It makes pretty patterns in the ice. I'm glad we've got some photos of it for the record. They will go nicely with the stuffed polar bears in the museums.

[Chip-skiff]

Maybe the WBF could start trading carbon credits on Paul P.'s farts.

He seems to be a significant point source. (Poor Kat.)

[JimD]

What causes it is hardly the point. If it comes, and indications are that it feeds off itself and happens quickly, climate patterns will shift, low lying land will flood. Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, vast areas will become unsuitable for farming. Immigrants are not usually welcome in good times, with collapsed economies, food and water shortages, chaos and turmoil are likely. Pollution from sea level power plants, refineries, chemical and other industrial sites will be widespread. Shifting rain patterns will cause floods where floods have never been and deserts where deserts have never been. Sure, it's a natural thing, it's happened many times before, but I don't think there was ever 7-9 billion people here at the time.

Nothing to be concerned about. We'll press George Bush back into service. He can get get the old FEMA team back together to fix things, just like in The Blues Brothers. DHS will make sure no terrrists try to take advantage of the situation like when starving people try to steal bread. Honest people with nothing to hide will have nothing to worry about. There might even be a new housing boom as millions of obsolete homes are flooded. We'll be fine. Bring it on.

[SamSam]

Nothing to be concerned about. We'll press George Bush back into service. He can get get the old FEMA team back together to fix things, just like in The Blues Brothers. DHS will make sure no terrrists try to take advantage of the situation like when staving people try to steal bread. Honest people with nothing to hide will have nothing to worr about. There might even be a new housing boom as millions of obsolete homes are flooded. We'll be fine. Bring it on.

I'm not worried. We have laws that cover stealing that apply equally to everyone, the rich and the poor, the well fed and the starving.

[JimD]

I'm not worried. We have laws that cover stealing that apply equally to everyone, the rich and the poor, the well fed and the starving.

Right. Its what's made America great and what will keep America great.

PS Had to edit my last post to change 'staving' to 'starving'. Even though technically speaking staving might be correct, it seemed awkward and wasn't quite what I meant. It was one of those typos that could easily go unnoticed. Also, I left off the 'y' on worry. I think my keyboard is a bit sticky.

[skuthorp]

Better late than never.

I hears ya Donn, Oh well............

[skuthorp]

".............it's happened many times before, but I don't think there was ever 7-9 billion people here at the time."
It's happened before in spades, it's just that the species of animals effected will be different this time. So much for much of this civilisation I expect. Sometimes it's good to be old, but frustrating at the same time.

[PeterSibley]

Yes, that is the problem isn't it?

[skuthorp]

Yes, that is the problem isn't it?

Somehow I don't think it's the pampered west that's most adaptable either. Look to Africa and SE Asia again I would think.

[Joe Dupere]

Right. Its what's made America great and what will keep America great.

PS Had to edit my last post to change 'staving' to 'starving'. Even though technically speaking staving might be correct, it seemed awkward and wasn't quite what I meant. It was one of those typos that could easily go unnoticed. Also, I left off the 'y' on worry. I think my keyboard is a bit sticky.

You've been drinking wine with Meli again, haven't you?

[PeterSibley]

Somehow I don't think it's the pampered west that's most adaptable either. Look to Africa and SE Asia again I would think.

It might well be the people who live in the least effected place and that location isn't clear yet.

[The Bigfella]

It might well be the people who live in the least effected place and that location isn't clear yet.

The only thing that is clear is that no-one has a clue.... including the scientists.

[PeterSibley]

The only thing that is clear is that no-one has a clue.... including the scientists.

A resoundingly stupid comment Ian.

[The Bigfella]

A resoundingly stupid comment Ian.

Why? There's no decent data. All they are doing is trying to fit a few snippets of data here and there into a theory. They are a long way from knowing. The big changes to the earth's climate have been from things like meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions.

Incidentally, someone told me yesterday that the spot I'm at now is the world's largest potential source of geothermal energy. I've seen a few hot springs and the like... and last time this place blew, it reduced the human population to 1,000 breeding pairs.

[PeterSibley]

Yes, the genetic choke point, we were lucky to survive.

When it comes to AGW science your opinion fortunately means very little.

[The Bigfella]

Yes, the genetic choke point, we were lucky to survive.

When it comes to AGW science your opinion fortunately means very little.

When it comes to AGW science, no opinion should mean anything... unfortunately, that's what drives it. Opinion - not science.

[PeterSibley]

Amazing ! Have you been into the Lavoisier mob again?

[seanz]

Awww.....it sounded like Ian was coming round, he'd started to doubt all of the science.

But no.......

[The Bigfella]

I don't doubt the science at all. I just keep pointing out that it isn't complete. I think Jeff just showed another piece in the jigsaw puzzle... and explained something about sea level rise.

[PeterSibley]

Um, it's science, it's never complete, that's the way it works.

[The Bigfella]

Exactly. Pity they evangelicise with it, eh?

[PeterSibley]

Evangelicise ? Your probably right Ian , they should stay verwy ,verwy quiet. You don't want to upset the animals .

Fud.

[The Bigfella]

Well, I suppose they could stick to character assassination and data falsification. Gotta keep those grants rolling in.

[John Smith]

Within all the debate over Global warming/climate change, I can't seem to get a very simple question asnwered:

What is the downside to moving forward as if it is a real threat, even if it isn't? We'd get more fuel efficient vehicles, better insulated buidlings, and be less dependent on mid-east oil. All of those are good things anyway.

On the other hand if this is a real danger, and we make no effort to either prevent it, or adapt to it, what is the upside?

[The Bigfella]

There's no downside to increased efficiency - provided it isn't rabid. The problem is that there isn't a uniform means of pricing externalities. I'm sitting in a country with a population almost the size of the US, and a German woman said the other day... "why isn't there any solar energy here"? Duhh, because it isn't economically viable.

[Waddie]

John Smith; On the other hand if this is a real danger, and we make no effort to either prevent it, or adapt to it, what is the upside?

We're WAY past preventing it, if it is happening. BTW; I do believe it's happening, I just don't know how much of it is natural and how much man-made - and neither does anyone else. But adapt to it we will, one way or another. Our only choice is the path of less pain or more pain.

Many "experts" say that the global population will stabilize at around 9 or 10 billion people. I question whether the planet can support that many people, no matter how energy efficient or technically advanced they become. Unless living primitive becomes very popular.

regards,
Waddie

[Dan McCosh]

Within all the debate over Global warming/climate change, I can't seem to get a very simple question asnwered:

What is the downside to moving forward as if it is a real threat, even if it isn't? We'd get more fuel efficient vehicles, better insulated buidlings, and be less dependent on mid-east oil. All of those are good things anyway.

On the other hand if this is a real danger, and we make no effort to either prevent it, or adapt to it, what is the upside?

Their isn't a downside to more fuel-efficient vehicles, better insulated buildings, or even becoming less "dependent" on mid-east oil. (although we are hardly dependent anyway. The problem is that these have nothing much to do with reducing the global production of CO2, which means a significant reduction in the consumption of certain fuels as well as agriculture on a global basis. That reduction in consumption is problematic to most of the world today.

[The Bigfella]

Their isn't a downside to more fuel-efficient vehicles, better insulated buildings, or even becoming less "dependent" on mid-east oil. (although we are hardly dependent anyway. The problem is that these have nothing much to do with reducing the global production of CO2, which means a significant reduction in the consumption of certain fuels as well as agriculture on a global basis. That reduction in consumption is problematic to most of the world today.

It isn't problematic. Most of the world's population is actively seeking to increase it. The steps that we are taking in some countries, such as Australia, do nothing but encourage that.

[Dan McCosh]

People do like to eat.

[The Bigfella]

People do like to eat.

People are aspirational. Those who walk want bicycles. Those with bicycles want motorcycles. Those with motorcycles want cars.

Guess what.... there's billions of them.

Meanwhile, we implement policies that send our jobs to those countries full of aspirational people... and they spend more on oil.

[Waddie]

Their isn't a downside to more fuel-efficient vehicles, better insulated buildings, or even becoming less "dependent" on mid-east oil. (although we are hardly dependent anyway. The problem is that these have nothing much to do with reducing the global production of CO2, which means a significant reduction in the consumption of certain fuels as well as agriculture on a global basis. That reduction in consumption is problematic to most of the world today.

Their isn't a downside to more fuel-efficient vehicles; My observation is that more fuel efficient vehicles and higher speed limits have greatly increased urban sprawl. The commuter who now gets 35MPG and can drive 75mph can now live 20 miles further from work. And we keep building him/her more highways with which to do it. It's how we roll !!!

better insulated buildings; We really haven't done much of that, except for niche builders, but I suspect that if super-insulating could be done much cheaper people would opt for that much bigger homes, thereby negating the energy savings.

regards,
Waddie

[Dan McCosh]

Their isn't a downside to more fuel-efficient vehicles; My observation is that more fuel efficient vehicles and higher speed limits have greatly increased urban sprawl. The commuter who now gets 35MPG and can drive 75mph can now live 20 miles further from work. And we keep building him/her more highways with which to do it. It's how we roll !!!

better insulated buildings; We really haven't done much of that, except for niche builders, but I suspect that if super-insulating could be done much cheaper people would opt for that much bigger homes, thereby negating the energy savings.

regards,
Waddie

Those are real possibilities. The reason is that increasing efficiency has the same economic value as decreasing the price of fuel--which would tend to increase consumption.

[PeterSibley]

Their isn't a downside to more fuel-efficient vehicles; My observation is that more fuel efficient vehicles and higher speed limits have greatly increased urban sprawl. The commuter who now gets 35MPG and can drive 75mph can now live 20 miles further from work. And we keep building him/her more highways with which to do it. It's how we roll !!!

better insulated buildings; We really haven't done much of that, except for niche builders, but I suspect that if super-insulating could be done much cheaper people would opt for that much bigger homes, thereby negating the energy savings.

regards,
Waddie

Unfortunately correct.

[skuthorp]

We found it not much more expensive to super insulate our new house, but it's not a big house and it's design and orientation made it simple to do. The double glazed windows and doors were the most expensive part. Insulating existing stock, especially older buildings, is expensive and standard positioning parallel to existing streets robs many houses of the other plus. But in the longer run it will be less expensive, if all costs are taken into consideration, to at least part insulate older buildings.
Oddly, with all the turmoil in the US housing market, it may be that an opportunity to renovate or rebuild efficiently may be created. A friend's daughter bought a 100 year old house lined with plaster and lath, which was taken off to move the house. Insulation was installed before replastering with foil lined board. Ceilings were intact with roof insulation installed. The windows are still original, but it's 70% better than it was.

[PeterSibley]

Jeff, I don't think most people will think about housing efficiency until inefficiency starts to cost them money, money is the primary consideration.

[JimD]

You've been drinking wine with Meli again, haven't you?

Haven't had a drop in over 8 years, Joe. But if I did, Meli would be the one

[Waddie]

Jeff, I don't think most people will think about housing efficiency until inefficiency starts to cost them money, money is the primary consideration.

The collapse of natural gas prices will delay any real effort at more efficient homes for years.

regards,
Waddie

[SamSam]

The collapse of natural gas prices will delay any real effort at more efficient homes for years.

regards,
Waddie

There is that, but as soon as some LNG terminals are built to export it, and easy access for cars at filling stations is supplied, along with easy conversions of gas engines, supply and demand will balance and the price of NG will be comparable to other energies. Two years or sooner, I'd say. Plus, just having regular winter temps, unlike last winter, will drive prices up and people will think of effeciency.

[PeterSibley]

We have LNG outlets at all the main fuel stations, I can't find a percentage but I'd guess around 10% of all petrol vehicles on dual fuel or LNG alone .