9 ms·
Climate change has turned permafrost into a carbon emitter
- Hongwei 7y agoAnd it's quite scary if you consider the amount of methane stored in Siberia and northern Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hannob 7y agoI've been trying to read up a bit on the methane clathrate "bomb" or "gun" theory lately, it seems to be popular among some fringe "we're all gonna die anyway" communities. Though my impression was that the vast majority of climate scientists don't consider it to be a very plausible threat [1]. It is based on some real scientific publications, but as far as I can tell in the realm of "very implausible theory". There is definitely a concern about multiple feedback loops involving methane from clathrates, permafrost and also wetlands. There's also considerable uncertainty about the origin of methane emissions. But as far as I can tell the methane "bomb" theory shouldn't be our major concern. [1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic-and-american-methane-in-context/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic...
- blueyes 7y agoI believe this same dynamic will apply to the oceans as they warm. They're like a can of Coke. Heat it up and the carbonation goes away. It's a horrifying positive feedback loop of global warming.
- the_gastropod 7y agoAnd then the whole melting of sea ice thing. Sea ice is pretty much the whitest/most reflective surface on the planet. It then melts into the darkest/most absorbent surface on the planet. Are there any stabilizing forces we know about? I only ever hear about these types of positive feedback loops, and it scares the hell out of me.
- DennisP 7y agoBased on geological history, the negative feedbacks seem predominant for small perturbations, but if you push things a little too hard the positive feedbacks take over. It's happened before several times; a little initial heating from orbital variations, which leads to greenhouse gas emissions, which leads to the global average temperature going up several degrees. A good explanation of the evidence for this is in James Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren. People have long thought the threshold to be around 2 degrees C, but now some are thinking it's more like 1.5. The CO2 level everybody agreed was safe was 350 ppm.
- mlyle 7y ago(and then obviously negative feedback takes back over, as we don't run away to infinite or zero temperature).
- easymodex 7y agoI suppose, but before that happens the environment could get very, very unpleasant for humans (and animals in general).
- mlyle 7y agoYah, the point is if we draw a set of hills with bumps and stable equilibria for a ball to roll down-- there is resistance to perturbation near an initial point, and then a sufficient "nudge" to get over a hill and roll somewhere else... but the ball always ends up in a stable region at the bottom of a hill. How different a place that new equilibrium is ... is open to debate and not really known. What climate scientists have shown is that it can be, and likely is, pretty bad.
- GoodJokes 7y agoThis website is great at explaining tipping points and feedbacks and what we currently know: https://climatetippingpoints.info/ https://climatetippingpoints.info/
- 7y ago
- hanniabu 7y agoYup, it's a dangerous runaway train rolling down a parabolic slop
- dev_dull 7y agoYet the rich keep buying waterfront properties.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoDidn't Obama just spend 15million for an on-beach estate? (EDIT: Apparently sale is not finalized)
- amaranth 7y agoIt's a nice looking place and it'll be okay for the rest of his life (and probably his kids if they keep it). After that things get more worrying.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoI wish more wealthy people would lead by example though. Like instead if Obamas bought much smaller place and made it carbon neutral. Also, I have no idea, but what is the timeline for ocean's rising to make a place like his on beach uninhabitable? I thought it was much less time, like 12 years or so, there are so many predictions out there.
- not2personal 7y ago>I wish more wealthy people would lead by example though. Like instead if Obamas bought much smaller place and made it carbon neutral. Al Gore's house and travel produces more carbon per day than you will produce all year. Carbon neutrality is for poor people and developing nations. Be quiet about this fact unless you want to be labeled a climate change denier.
- baroffoos 7y ago
- taneq 7y agoAt least that'll help with ocean acidification, though, right?
- the6threplicant 7y agoThe opposite is happening. We're making the oceans more acidic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
- elorant 7y agoWhy on earth is there methane trapped in the permafrost?
- favorited 7y agoInsane amounts of carbon in the frozen soil. Once thawed, soil microbes transform it into carbon dioxide and methane.
- ars 7y agoHydrocarbons, not carbon. Basically plants when they rot emit methane AKA natural gas.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago>> soil microbes transform it into carbon dioxide and methane > rot That's what the previous comment just said. Decomposition of plant matter occurs in many stages. It begins with leaching by water; the most easily lost and soluble carbon compounds are liberated in this process. Another early process is physical breakup or fragmentation of the plant material into smaller bits which have greater surface area for microbial colonization and attack. In smaller dead plants, this process is largely carried out by the soil invertebrate fauna, whereas in the larger plants, primarily parasitic life-forms such as insects and fungi play a major breakdown role and are not assisted by numerous detritivore species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition#Plant_decomposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition#Plant_decomposit...
- jussij 7y agoThe OP is just pointing out that the rotting matter is organic in nature, which means it is made from hydrocarbons and not carbon.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y agoI would have thought that was obvious from the context, fair point though. Although I think carbohydrates is probably more accurate if we’re talking about decaying plant matter.
- dr_dshiv 7y agoI'm really curious about marine cloudseeding as a potential mitigator to permafrost melt. Essentially, high-efficiency saltwater aerosolization to create nuclei for cloud formation... Here is a 2019 paper on the critical role of clouds in arctic cooling https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44155-w#Sec7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44155-w#Sec7
- dr_dshiv 7y agoHere's an article on cloudseeding: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/10/solar-geoengineering-we-better-do-it-or-well-burn/#1d3843e318ad https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/10/solar-geo...
- nkingsy 7y agoAnything that doesn’t impact co2 becomes a permanent crutch.
- dr_dshiv 7y agoThe climate changes with or without human behaviour. Only 8000 years ago, you could walk from England to Europe! So we need solutions for managing climate stability, not just cleaning up after humans.
- dunstad 7y agoWell, if we fail to develop solutions to clean up after ourselves, we won't need to worry about climate stability because we'll all be dead. So that's one way to handle things.
- dr_dshiv 7y agoYou can hold your breath, I want to explore ways of preventing runaway warming from melting permafrost.
- tito 7y agoTropical forests are also now a carbon emitter: https://www.carbonbrief.org/tropical-forests-no-longer-carbon-sinks-because-human-activity https://www.carbonbrief.org/tropical-forests-no-longer-carbo...
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoAnd I read this morning that some expect the Amazon to stop being a rainforest pretty soon, which would hugely accelerate tree loss.
- samvher 7y agoDo you have a source to share on this?
- hnarn 7y agohttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/23/amazon-rainforest-close-to-irreversible-tipping-point https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/23/amazon-r...
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoWas actually this one (warning autoplay video that adds nothing to the text): https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/amazon-rainforest-fire-deforestation-global-warming-latest-a9076876.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/amazon-rainforest-...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- GoodJokes 7y agoFor anyone wanting some more depth on this: https://climatetippingpoints.info/2019/05/13/fact-check-is-an-arctic-methane-bomb-about-to-go-off/ https://climatetippingpoints.info/2019/05/13/fact-check-is-a...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- solarwind 7y agoCarbon is not a synonym for carbon dioxide.
- mlyle 7y agoWhat's your point? No, but when we say "carbon emitter", we're talking about methane and other alkanes... and CO2. CH4 is itself a greenhouse gas that is more potent than CO2 in the short term... and then it decays to water vapor and CO2 in reactions with radicals in the upper atmosphere. So, it's overall somewhat worse than CO2 in the short term (since it's not just CO2), and equivalent in the long term?
- asaegyn 7y agoAs the other comment points out, some of the major GHG's CO2 and CH4 are comprised of carbon. It is often used as a catch-all. For example, the news earlier this year about treeplanting, spoke about removing Carbon from the atmosphere. Typically, the GHG's will be rolled up into either CO2e (CO2-equivalent) or just C. In the latter case, you often just have to do some molar math to get the CO2e from C.
- jsnider3 7y agoThe world would be a much better place if Al Gore had won.
- WhompingWindows 7y agoHe did.
- dependsontheq 7y agoWell that’s what most people in the pile and gas industry probably thought https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/23/us/oil-and-gas-aid-bush-bid-for-president.html https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/23/us/oil-and-gas-aid-bush-b...
- sunkenvicar 7y agoRegardless of the truth of this story and the facts surrounding climate change Canadian media is not a credible source of information. The CBC gets $2 BILLION/yr from the Trudeau Liberal government. All other private news orgs have a hand in a $600 Million/yr pot. For example, the Toronto Star alone receives $5.2 Million/yr from the Canadian federal government. We can all agree this is a bad system apt to produce favourable results for the Liberals. For example, they won re-election on Monday.
- aaronbrethorst 7y agoFor example, they won re-election on Monday. Or Andrew Scheer is completely out of step with 2019.
- sunkenvicar 7y agoI agree that the Conservatives suffered a colossal loss because Andrew Scheer is not leadership material. Also, there will never be another typical Conservative majority due to mass migration. The Liberals bring 1 million Liberal-voting migrants per year into Canada. The population of which is 35 million. Simple math. But none of this invalidates my argument that the Canadian media system is broken.
- asaegyn 7y agoWhat a ridiculous comment. The CBC is reporting on this article published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0592-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0592-8
- sunkenvicar 7y agoBad systems occasionally produce acceptable outcomes. They are still bad systems. This is common sense.
- perfunctory 7y agoWorth noting that this research is about co2 specifically and not methane. "... the research didn't measure methane, a greenhouse gas about 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide that is also released from soil."