Sentences with phrase «about methane release»
But given what we know now about methane release and global temp spikes and sea level rise and so on, we are poised to soon see the eruption of violent weather events on a scale heretofore unimaginable.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ Not exact matches
Bowen says the two relatively rapid carbon releases (about 1,500 years each) are more consistent with warming oceans or an undersea landslide triggering the melting of frozen methane on the seafloor and large emissions to the atmosphere, where it became carbon dioxide within decades.
It produces less carbon dioxide emissions than coal for electricity or gasoline and diesel for fuel, but even a small amount of natural gas release — which is essentially methane — packs a greenhouse gas punch about 30 times more powerful than the same amount of carbon dioxide.
Research in 2008 led by oceanographer Natalia Shakhova, now at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, estimated the thawing shelf could release a 50 - gigaton pulse of methane from hydrates over 10 years — about 8 percent of the methane stored in the shelf's sediments.
My research indicates that the Siberian peat moss, Arctic tundra, and methal hydrates (frozen methane at the bottom of the ocean) all have an excellent chance of melting and releasing their stored co2.Recent methane concentration figures also hit the news last week, and methane has increased after a long time being steady.The forests of north america are drying out and are very susceptible to massive insect infestations and wildfires, and the massive die offs - 25 % of total forests, have begun.And, the most recent stories on the Amazon forecast that with the change in rainfall patterns one third of the Amazon will dry and turn to grassland, thereby creating a domino cascade effect for the rest of the Amazon.With co2 levels risng faster now that the oceans have reached carrying capacity, the oceans having become also more acidic, and the looming threat of a North Atlanic current shutdown (note the recent terrible news on salinity upwelling levels off Greenland,) and the change in cold water upwellings, leading to far less biomass for the fish to feed upon, all lead to the conclusion we may not have to worry about NASA completing its inventory of near earth objects greater than 140 meters across by 2026 (Recent Benjamin Dean astronomy lecture here in San Francisco).
The current inventory of methane in the atmosphere is about 3 Gton C. Therefore, the release of 1 Gton C of methane catastrophically to the atmosphere would raise the methane concentration by 33 %.
And finally, what about Mark's questions (# 3) and other factors not discussed here — do all these effects re Arctic ice lead scientists to believe there is a greater and / or earlier chance (assuming we continue increasing our GHG emissions — business as usual) of melting hydrates and permafrost releasing vast stores of methane into the atmosphere than scientists believed before the study, or is the assessment of this about the same, or scientists are not sure if this study indicates a greater / lesser / same chance of this?
We are all worried about a possible mass release of carbon dioxide and methane from thawing permafrost.
«For about 3 years AMEG (Arctic Methane Emergency Group), to which I belong, has been doing the sandwich board, sky - is - falling routine about the enormous risk of large methane releases from the greatly warming Methane Emergency Group), to which I belong, has been doing the sandwich board, sky - is - falling routine about the enormous risk of large methane releases from the greatly warming methane releases from the greatly warming Arctic.
I've also been reading some reports about much warmer ocean temperatures in the Arctic, another reason sea - bed methane could be released.
[1] The combined seeps in the field release about 40 tons of methane per day and about 19 tons of reactive organic gas (ethane, propane, butane and higher hydrocarbons); about twice the hydrocarbon air pollution released by all the cars and trucks in Santa Barbara County in 1990.
# 25 What's the source for this: «Semiletov talked about a 100 fold increase in methane release.»
People can speculate about how foreboding the methane releases observed by Dr Semiletov are.
A submarine landslide might release a Gigaton of carbon as methane (Archer, 2007), but the radiative effect of that would be small, about equal in magnitude (but opposite in sign) to the radiative forcing from a volcanic eruption.
If I recall correctly, methane can migrate between ice layers yielding a somewhat false idea about length and intensity of methane release events (sorry, no links on hand; I'd be happy if someone could find them, or correct me if I'm off here).
If I recall correctly, methane can migrate between ice layers yielding a somewhat false idea about length and intensity of methane release events.
When we say «positive» and «negative» feedbacks in the sense of radiation (so I'm not talking about carbon - cycle responses such as methane release from the oceans or such) we're referring to temperature - sensitive variables which themselves affect the radiation budget of the planet.
In terms of the comments about the Holocene record, etc, and Gavin's saying that there is «no evidence» of such methane burps then: first, let us all also acknowledge that some of the world's major paleoclimate and methane experts HAVE seen evidence of exactly that [i.e., Nisbet, Have sudden large releases of methane from geological reservoirs occurred since the Last Glacial Maximum, and could such releases occur again?
Does the response at 7 mean that this article is only about land based release of methane?
No - one at NASA or any other reputable climatological source that I know about is saying that a massive release of clathrate - stored methane into the atmosphere is a serious risk we'll face any time soon.
And finally, what about Mark's questions (# 3) and other factors not discussed here — do all these effects re Arctic ice lead scientists to believe there is a greater and / or earlier chance (assuming we continue increasing our GHG emissions — business as usual) of melting hydrates and permafrost releasing vast stores of methane into the atmosphere than scientists believed before the study, or is the assessment of this about the same, or scientists are not sure if this study indicates a greater / lesser / same chance of this?
The models of destabilization are largely based on variants of diffusive heat transport, but the state of understanding of slope avalanches and other more exotic release mechanisms is rather poor — and even if it turns out that rapid methane degassing isn't in the cards, you still do have to worry about those several trillion metric tons of near - surface carbon and how secure they are.
Indeed the NSIDC / NOAA study I wrote about in February on methane release by the land - based permafrost itself doesn't even incorporate the carbon released by the permafrost carbon feedback into its warming model!
And melting permafrost might release a lot of high - global - warming - potential methane, but we don't have enough experience with that to say anything sensible about it.
Say, did you hear about the record methane releases in the Arctic and Alaska this past summer and this past week?
The material is heated up and kept in the tank for about 20 days, during which time bacteria break up the organic material - the lactose, in the case of whey - and release gases, including methane.
For example, because the mass balance argument says nothing about absolute numbers or attribution it may be that we are also — for example — destroying carbon - fixing plankton, reducing the breaking of waves and hence mechanical mixing with the upper ocean, releasing methane in the tundra which was previously held by acid rain and which can now be converted to CO2, or it may be we are just seeing a deep current, a tiny bit warmer than usual because of the MWP, heating deep ocean clathrate so that methanophage bacteria can devour it and give off CO2.
Finally, while economics may be critical to your definition of «catastrophic» anthropogenic global warming, economics says nothing about the science underlying the projections of sea level rise, the physics of Arctic amplification, changes to albedo that lead to greater warming that may lead to significant releases of methane clathrate deposits, regional projections of reduce (or enhanced) precipitation, and so on.
About a third of the human budget comes from fossil fuel exploration, where methane leaks from oil and gas wells during drilling, the researchers said in a press release.
According to the study published recently in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, about one third of the region's wells could be releasing between 3 and 17 thousand tonnes of methane into the North Sea each year.
In recent years, climate scientists have been concerned about a so - called «methane time bomb» on land, which would be detonated when warming Arctic temperatures melt permafrost and cause frozen vegetation in peat bogs and other areas to decay, releasing methane and carbon dioxide.
and what about the 400 + nuclear reactors worldwide that need workers and constant maintainance to keep them running so they do nt go in to full blown meltdown and make the planet a radioactive wasteland eh + the unstoppable feedback loop of methane release and the earths athmosphere becoming more like venus... the elitists do nt seem so worried that geoengineering is destroying their planet too... maybe because they've got the deep underground military bases or hardened bunkers that can sustain them for many years or might the real manipulators not be from the earth itself??
Dr Nisbet's hypothesis about the tropical wetlands is the most alarming, for it could signal an Arctic - like feedback loop there, whereby global warming could be causing them to release more methane by making them hotter and wetter.
You don't need to go into the details about carbon emissions or chemical processes or quantities of global ice loss or sea level elevations or ocean acidification or the potential feedback loop of tundra methane releases, although there is plenty of available information on all of them.
Everyone knows about the terrible effects of permafrost melt and methane release.
Amplifying methane release in the Arctic has been visible since the mid 2000s and Greenland and West Antarctic melt rates have been increasing at an exponential rate since about 1995.
More and more people are learning about how bad fracking is, even Robert F. Kennedy jr, came out and publicly admitted that Fracking is not a safe bridge away from fossil fuels and is worse for climate change then using coal because of the fugitive methane emissions that are released in the fracking process's.
If dangerous amounts of methane had been released, there would have been lots of publicity about this subject.
Environmentalists, myself included, are often more concerned about the amount of raw methane released in gas development than the much - publicized fracing issue, even though their presentations may lead with the fracing controversy.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83672 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html It will add about 10 feet according to an interview with one of the scientists involved; but over a long time and fairly vague time frame, unless reinforcing processes (carbon release from melting permafrost, shallow ocean bottom warmingn in the form of methane from clathrates), a major reduction in earth's albedo from permafrost, net ice sheet, and total sea ice, continue to increasingly accelerate the process.
Current official inventories of methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas released from landfills, livestock ranches and oil and gas facilities, may be underestimated both nationally and in California by a factor of about 1.5, according to new research from Berkeley Lab and others.
She found that annual bottom water temperatures have increased over the last 14 years, correlating with a release of about 17 teragrammes of methane a year, accentuated by storms.
Schuur and Abbott (2011) polled 41 experts on permafrost decay who estimated that about 3 % of the carbon released from the permafrost will be in the form of methane.
Are disaster scenarios about tipping points like «turning off the Gulf Stream» and release of methane from the Arctic a cause for concern?
Speculations about potential methane releases in the Arctic have ranged up to about 75 Gt C from the land (Isaksen et al., 2011) and 50 Gt C from the ocean (Shakhova et al., 2010a).
BTW, I wonder about how the methane release paper you linked to has been impacted by the rather sudden change in atmospheric methane growth rate (near zero)... that seems not to have been anticipated, AFAIK.
I certainly hope they are NOT wrong about the potentiality for the occurrence of and effects from a relatively rapid release of methane from a rapidly warming Arctic.
[5] One litre of fully saturated methane clathrate solid would therefore contain about 120 grams of methane (or around 169 litres of methane gas at 0 °C and 1 atm), [nb 1] or one cubic metre of methane clathrate releases about 160 cubic metres of gas.
According to Ruddiman (not a direct link to the literature), it was actually the release of methane from rice paddies and other forms of agriculture starting about 5,000 years ago that prevented the same sort of fairly rapid decay in temperature seen in the Vostok ice core record of previous interglacials.
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is releasing around 8 teragrams of methane from subsea sediments each year, about the same amount as the whole of the rest of the ocean.