How worried should I be about sudden methane release

[Anonymous No.9343162]

the video at the 8 minute mark is straight out of of a doomsday sci-fi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ


https://arctic-news.b(replacethispart,incudingbracketswitha3letterwordforcutdowntreetrunk)spot.ca/p/extinction.html

I know, I know the website isn't a scientific journal, but it references them

and this
https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/

that guy goes overboard with the timeline of extinction, but we will surely be here to see it

download and backup the first video, once it gets a million views it is sure to get removed

[Anonymous No.9343175]

>>9343162
Guy McPherson is a crank.

[Anonymous No.9343179]

>>9343175
what about Dr. Natalia Shakhova?

[Anonymous No.9343195]

>>9343179
No but she's definitely on the fringe.

[Anonymous No.9343197]

>>9343162
>How worried should I be about sudden methane release
When did you last eat a meal from Taco Bell?

[Anonymous No.9343203]

>>9343195
by what evidence?

Methane is under ice, ice melts, water warms methane, methane evaporates.

seems pretty logical.

[Anonymous No.9343216]

>>9343203
Basically, the methane hydrates are too deep,in the oceans for rapid warming to release them. This is backed up by the fact that we don't see such releases in the past. The consensus among climatologists is that catastrophic methane release is highly unlikely.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/methane-hydrates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790

[Anonymous No.9343482]

>>9343216
The Arctic sea is very shallow, this is where Dr. Shakhova does her work, Furthermore you are getting methane release from land sediment too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm5GOvXw-lM

surely you have heard of the methane sinkholes in Siberia,

You cannot deny the existence of methane craters on land or sea

pic related(of the arctic seafloor) is from this talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmb3S5I1rUY

[Anonymous No.9343656]

>>9343203
+4C water is the heaviest
so the bottom water's temperature tends to be stable

[Anonymous No.9343690]

>>9343656
there is also the issue of the land methane

if the temeperature of the water would prevent methane crater than what is the cause of the craters in the presentation in this post >>9343482

there are the craters as clear as day, there is video of methane bubbling up

[Anonymous No.9343722]

>>9343162
>How worried should I be about sudden methane release
Just cut down on the cabbage, beans, and cheese and you should be ok. If it happens anyway, frown at someone else and everyone will think they did it.

And remember: "Always check state of matter before engaging flatulator!"

[Anonymous No.9344094]

>>9343690
Yes, the permafrost melting + CO2 release from seas warming (like warm beer going flat, can't hold on to all CO2 absorbed before) will get us in the following decades.
The Methane clathrate explosion would happen in a single summer, that is seen as unlikely.

The land methane is main stream science, and as you say, even at this early stage there are plenty of pictures and videos of it.

[Anonymous No.9344294]

-Yellowstone going off
-Meteor impact
-False vacuum decay
-Global warming
-nuclear war
-massive solar flare
-alien invasion
-entropy
etc

Take your pick anon. We’re not getting off this rock, so just enjoy the ride

[Anonymous No.9344455]

>>9344294
We could unify under the Pan-European 4th Reich. It can be done!

[Anonymous No.9344495]

lol
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rain-forests-release-carb/

we are fucked

[Anonymous No.9344540]

>>9343482
The link I posted discusses that. Only a small percentage of the methane is in Arctic shallows. The clathrate gun hypothesis tests on a large amount of methane being released from the deep oceans.

[Anonymous No.9344545]

>>9344495
>near term extinction
If you see this phrase you know it's crank science from Guy McPherson.

[Anonymous No.9344548]

>biology is brainlet science they say
>biology thread is a bunch of math cucks spouting bullshint

[Anonymous No.9345456]

>>9344545
not an argument

[Anonymous No.9345460]

>>9344540
>The link I posted discusses that
give me the tl;dr

[Anonymous No.9345486]

>>9345460
Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth's gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 103 yr. Even when CH4 is liberated from gas hydrates, oxidative and physical processes may greatly reduce the amount that reaches the atmosphere as CH4. The CO2 produced by oxidation of CH4 released from dissociating gas hydrates will likely have a greater impact on the Earth system (e.g., on ocean chemistry and atmospheric CO2 concentrations; Archer et al. 2009) than will the CH4 that remains after passing through various sinks.
Contemporary and future gas hydrate degradation will occur primarily on the circum-Arctic Ocean continental shelves (Sector 2; Macdonald 1990, Lachenbruch et al. 1994, Maslin 2010), where subsea permafrost thawing and methane hydrate dissociation have been triggered by warming and inundation since Late Pleistocene time, and at the feather edge of the GHSZ on upper continental slopes (Sector 3), where the zone's full thickness can dissociate rapidly due to modest warming of intermediate waters. More CH4 may be sequestered in upper continental slope gas hydrates than in those associated with subsea permafrost; however, CH4 that reaches the seafloor from dissociating Arctic Ocean shelf gas hydrates is much more likely to enter the atmosphere rapidly and as CH4, not CO2. Proof is still lacking that gas hydrate dissociation currently contributes to seepage from upper continental slopes or to elevated seawater CH4 concentrations on circum-Arctic Ocean shelves. An even greater challenge for the future is determining the contribution of global gas hydrate dissociation to contemporary and future atmospheric CH4 concentrations.

[Anonymous No.9345504]

>>9345456
Posting a meme image is not an argument in the first place. Post published research supporting this nutjob's claims if you want an argument.

[Anonymous No.9345530]

>>9345456
https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/category/science-doing-it-wrong/

[Anonymous No.9346085]

>>9344540
>Only a small percentage of the methane is in Arctic shallows. The clathrate gun hypothesis tests on a large amount of methane being released from the deep oceans.
incorrect on 5 gigatons is needed to cause runaway warming, this can easily be achieved through a combination of land and shallow sea methane release

https://robertscribbler.com/2015/03/09/cause-for-appropriate-concern-over-arctic-methane-overburden-plumes-eruptions-and-large-ocean-craters/

fact is methane release is increasing and that will be a feedback loop for more methane release
https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/files/2012/11/AGU12ch4v2.pdf

I don't see what is so hard to understand about this?
>>9345486
this seems a little disingenous emphasizing methane hydrates and claiming that methane will go through sinks before getting to the atmosphere.

5 gigatons is all that is needed

>>9343656
methane hydrate need to be 2C to be stable
https://www.reef2rainforest.com/2016/04/22/dragon-watch/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS1028334X12080144

http://cirrus.unbc.ca/454/lec/LawrenceSlater2005.pdf
methanes hydrates

[Anonymous No.9346100]

>>9343162
be more worried about global ecological collapse

[Anonymous No.9346113]

>>9346085
>methane hydrate need to be 2C to be stable
so it never even accumulates at the bottom

[Anonymous No.9346123]

>>9346100
>be more worried about global ecological collapse

Every single thing ties into the next. Global warming, methane releases, plastic particulates.. in this alone we have ocean heating, acidification and the destruction of the ecological web of the entire ocean (plastic concentration in the food chain).

Say hello to massive algae blooms killing entire coastlines. (Ocean acidity + heating).

Lack of biodiversity starts creeping near the shores and impacting land ecology. Lack of fishing stocks put higher pressure on land use and hunting (where subsistence is still a big deal).

It's never one thing, it's a million fucking things all going to shit and interacting with the others. The fundamental problem is too many people demanding too many resources. But exactly nobody can or will address that, they're just hoping population plateau is real, even though we've blown past previous predictions thanks to Africa alone.

And it's all just based on the hope natural population plateau and decline will occur before the nasty consequences.

[Anonymous No.9346151]

>>9346123
Or simply start reverse climate change engineering... Granted, that'd require us to first get the rich on board with the program, and it might be a lot harder to reverse, by the time things are bad enough for them to take action, rather than counter action.

[Anonymous No.9346155]

>>9346085
>incorrect on 5 gigatons is needed to cause runaway warming, this can easily be achieved through a combination of land and shallow sea methane release
Easily achieved according to whom? As far as I can tell, only the fringe believes that this is likely.

>fact is methane release is increasing and that will be a feedback loop for more methane release
Yes but this is true right now and it's occurring quite gradually.

>this seems a little disingenous emphasizing methane hydrates and claiming that methane will go through sinks before getting to the atmosphere.
Why would it be disingenuous to emphasize methane hydrates when we are discussing the methane clathrate hypothesis? Did you even read the paper you're trying to argue against? I'll post it again:

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/methane-hydrates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790

>I don't see what is so hard to understand about this?
I don't see where you've shown that a large release of methane is likely. Most climatologists seem to say it isn't.

[Anonymous No.9346164]

>>9346085
fap fap fap fap

I want catastrophic global warming soo fucking bad. Kill off 90+% of the global population. Fap fap fap fap.

The r/k selection has been fucking the human race for so god dammed long its time to reverse that. Kill off all the poor people that cant afford to live in nuclear powered under ground bunkers. Fap fap fap fap. Boil the god dammed oceans already. Fap fap fap fap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzddAYYDZkk

[Anonymous No.9346165]

>>9344455
hello operator, there's something wrong with these quints

[Anonymous No.9346181]

>>9346164
Autism

[Anonymous No.9346890]

>>9346113
seawater=/=freshwater
what you said about 4C applies to freshwater
saltwater has lower freezing temperature
neat video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAupJzH31tc
>>9346155
the main point I am trying to make is even under the underestimation that methane release is quite gradual is very dangerous due tot he positive feedback nature of the gas and the the fact that there is warming due to other sources also.

warming means warmer oceans and arctic which means methane release which means more warming.

>>9346123
this, it is not just global warming, plastic are everywhere, groundwater is being depleted and toxins abound.

The research here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rain-forests-release-carb/

should be pretty worrying, the cycles that kept co2 down are being disrupted

[Anonymous No.9347027]

>>9346890
>the main point I am trying to make is even under the underestimation that methane release is quite gradual is very dangerous due tot he positive feedback nature of the gas and the the fact that there is warming due to other sources also.
Again, this is taken into account by climatologists studying this. We know the radiative forcing and climate sensitivity of methane. It's simply not true that the large release of methane required to cause a catastrophic "gun" event is likely to occur. The people who spread this misinformation are doing harm to the public's perception of climatology and fooling people into thinking that there is nothing we can do to mitigate climate change.

[Anonymous No.9347133]

>>9343179
A real scientists. Methane emissions are going to be trouble. Have you noticed how fucked the weather is? In a decade, many countries will be in trouble with food production and the weather being a disaster.

[Anonymous No.9347199]

>>9347027
>there is nothing we can do to mitigate climate change
this is a fact

You can't cool the planet. We are already at the stage of arctic methane release and loss of ice (albedo cooling effect lost)

All the CO2 sinks are shrinking or expelling CO2 such as the rainforest and ocean

[Anonymous No.9347202]

>>9343162
Just don't do it in front of other people.

[Anonymous No.9347208]

>>9347199
>albedo cooling effect lost

[Anonymous No.9347216]

I'm not saying totally forget about global warming, but there is hope. There are positive feedback loops that both heat and cool the Earth (on top of the negative feedbacks that keep everything the same). So we CAN reverse the damage (to the climate, ecosystems are another story) it'll just take work.

[Anonymous No.9347274]

>>9347208
sorry I meant to say heat reflecting albedo effect
>>9347216
>There are positive feedback loops that...cool the Earth
name one?
The only one I can think of is expanding ice sheets reflecting more radiation out and cooling the earth and leading to more glaciation(albedo), but that is not the case right now
>CAN reverse the damage (to the climate, ecosystems are another story) it'll just take work.

How are you going to remove mercury and other toxins from the ecosystem?

[Anonymous No.9347288]

>>9347274
The chemical weathering feedback for one.
The Earth climate system is pretty resilient, if we just stop pushing it it'll normalize itself. The mass extinctions going on and legacy pollution might be related to climate change but they don't go away on their own. In a lot of ways a potential runaway greenhouse effect is kind of the easiest thing about climate change to fix.

[Anonymous No.9347514]

>>9347199
First of all, mitigating coinage change does not necessarily mean cooling the planet. It means reducing future warming. Second, your doomsday prophecy is not supported by the science. Again, you are as harmful as people who deny AGW.

[Anonymous No.9347681]

>>9347288
>The chemical weathering feedback for one
explain
>The Earth climate system is pretty resilient, if we just stop pushing it it'll normalize itself
this is a horible assumption, do you think the Earth is a stable state system that prepares itself for life? Not at all, mass extinctions and climate changes happen constantly. There is no "normal" for the Earth and there is certainly no process to keep it there. Homeostasis applies to animals not planets.
>>9347514
>you are as harmful as people who deny AGW.
the truth is the truth, whether it is harmful or not is not up to me.


in the end that science is simple the positive feedback loops will cause runaway climate change whether we will live to see its worst effect is uncertain, but don't plan on having children, unless they have built an immunity to mercury and other toxins

it might be hard to accept, but mass extinctions happen, it is nature's course. rejecting simple positive feedback models because it threatens your worldview is understandable but certainly is not science.

[Anonymous No.9348065]

>>9347681
>the truth is the truth, whether it is harmful or not is not up to me.
But it's not the truth according to most climatologists.

>rejecting simple positive feedback models because it threatens your worldview is understandable but certainly is not science.
I didn't reject any feedback, what happened to the truth?

Why do you continue to ignore the analysis I presented?

[Anonymous No.9348361]

>>9348065
please present one climatologist who specializes in methane in the arctic who is telling everyone to chill. If you do this I will shut up for good.

Most Climate scientist are CO2 people or study paleoclimate. They simply don't know enough about methane in the arctic.

You analysis are mostly CO2 people opining on arctic methane. I think the arctic methane scientists are the more reliable ones.

[Anonymous No.9348428]

>>9348361
>please present one climatologist who specializes in methane in the arctic who is telling everyone to chill.
OK, here's David Archer: "There is enough carbon in frozen sediments in the Arctic to drive a substantial carbon release in response to climate warming, but only on time scales of thousands of years."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_me4QBImBU

Vasilii Petrenko:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5996/1146.2.full

The U.S. Geological Survey:

https://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/climate.html

Ed Dlugokencky

https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/the-heat-over-bubbling-arctic-methane/

Carolyn Ruppel

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/21/5355.abstract

Bill Reeburgh

https://www.ess.uci.edu/~reeburgh/

Oh sorry, that was a little more than one.

>You analysis are mostly CO2 people opining on arctic methane.
Completely wrong, the analysis I posted was written by Carolyn Ruppel, who heads the Gas Hydrates Project at the U.S. Geological Survey

[Anonymous No.9348473]

>worried at all about spoopy doopy hoopy methane n shiiieeett

[Anonymous No.9348482]

>>9347681
>There is no "normal" for the Earth and there is certainly no process to keep it there. Homeostasis applies to animals not planets.
Bruh you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.9348492]

>>9348428
anon gets btfo

[Anonymous No.9348494]

>>9348428
>"There is enough carbon in frozen sediments in the Arctic to drive a substantial carbon release in response to climate warming, but only on time scales of thousands of years."
vaguest statement ever, is he aware that methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2?

[Anonymous No.9348497]

>>9348428
Actual cimate scientist here, nice list of citations anon, I'm proud of you.

Carolyn Ruppel actually just published a really nice definitive review paper a couple months ago
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/21/5355.abstract

Basically it combines all available evidence from various research studies and conclude that catastrophic methane release into the atmosphere is unlikely. In short, there were a couple of game changer studies

1. Improved analytical method on ice core analysis. Not only CH4 concentrations, now we can measure CH4 isotopes. Analysis of 14CH4 back in the last deglaciation concludes that there were no abrupt CH4 release from hydrates back then (Petrenko et al. 2009). The radiocarbon analysis are backed up by stable isotope analysis of CH4 (Sowers et al. 2006 and Schaefer et al. 2006).

2. Deepwater horizon oil spill. This is a dream crazy experiment for people who study CH4 in seafloor. No sane scientists could've proposed such preposterous experiment, but there is opportunity in catastrophe. BP drilled into CH4 hydrate deposit and it explodes, releasing tons of CH4 into the ocean. However, none, literally zero of this CH4 made it to the atmosphere because they were eaten by methanotropic bacteria in the water column (Kessler et al. 2011)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6015/312

[Anonymous No.9348501]

>>9348494
>vaguest statement ever, is he aware that methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2?
Jesus Christ you are dense as fuck. David Archer is a methane expert at UChicago.

[Anonymous No.9348503]

>>9348501
You and your gay lover can both suck my dick

[Anonymous No.9348505]

>>9348497
Is that you icecore anon? Lately I feel like it's just you and me against the hordes of retarded people.

[Anonymous No.9348508]

>>9348497
>Carolyn Ruppel actually just published a really nice definitive review paper a couple months ago
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/21/5355.abstract
Yeah I posted that one.

[Anonymous No.9348515]

>>9348508
Sorry messed up my link, I meant
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000534/abstract;jsessionid=EC7FE3104C76AE15521FFA988C403754.f02t02

>>9348505
>Is that you icecore anon? Lately I feel like it's just you and me against the hordes of retarded people.
Yep it's me. You should check out the other thread there's a crazy denier who doesn't believe in thermometer

[Anonymous No.9348516]

it doesn't have to be catastrophic methane release, it'll still accelerate climate change

[Anonymous No.9348518]

>>9348515
Yeah I'm the other guy responding to him. I don't think I'm going to post in there any more, the stupid is just too strong. >.>

[Anonymous No.9348549]

>>9348516
>it'll still accelerate climate change
Not if none of the CH4 got eaten by bacteria and never made it to atmosphere. It'll cause anoxic event, deplete O2 and bunch of fish gonna die, which is terrible, but it is a localized event

[Anonymous No.9349502]

>>9348497
>Improved analytical method on ice core analysis. Not only CH4 concentrations, now we can measure CH4 isotopes. Analysis of 14CH4 back in the last deglaciation concludes that there were no abrupt CH4 release from hydrates back then (Petrenko et al. 2009). The radiocarbon analysis are backed up by stable isotope analysis of CH4
paleoclimate data is irrelevant. We are not looking at if ancient warming were caused by a "disastrous" methane release. Disastrous is a word no one has yet to define.
> However, none, literally zero of this CH4 made it to the atmosphere because they were eaten by methanotropic bacteria in the water column

the gulf of Mexico is not the same as the arctic ocean, assuming the microbes in the water column in the gulf of mexico are going to be present in the much colder darker arctic ocean but equally shallow (only at the edges of the gulf) is a horrible assumption
>>9348549
>Not if none of the CH4 got eaten by bacteria and never made it to atmosphere. It'll cause anoxic event, deplete O2 and bunch of fish gonna die, which is terrible, but it is a localized event
horrible assumption

[Anonymous No.9349852]

>>9349502
>paleoclimate data is irrelevant
In the last glacial maximum (LGM) the extent of methane hydrate zones are much much more widespread than today. The warmer the water, the larger the water depths must be to form the hydrate see pic related of example for hydrate stability zone. Mean ocean temperature during the LGM was about 2.6C colder than preindustrial. Because of colder ocean overall, there were more areas in the LGM that is within hydrate stability zone than it is today.

During the Deglaciation, all those stored hydrates dissociated. We have tons of evidence and well documented geology in currently inactive subsea pingos that used to hold these hydrates.

Analysis of CH4 isotopes (radiocarbon and stable) from ice core suggests that NONE of these gigatons worth of hydrates that dissociates during the Deglaciation reaches the atmosphere. That is a pretty solid evidence that the majority of seafloor hydrates today would also not reach the atmosphere if they become destabilized.

[Anonymous No.9349854]

>>9348549
What about permafrost? And all that carbon goes somewhere, is it just sequestered by the ocean?

[Anonymous No.9349864]

>>9349502
This is a good point. Methyl calthrates are ice, there's not that much ice in the Gulf of Mexico. When I think methyl calthrates I think the east coast of Canada.

[Anonymous No.9349890]

>>9343197
kek

[Anonymous No.9349896]

>>9349864
It's methane clathrate, not methyl. Anyway the Gulf of Mexico thing, at deep enough pressure and low enough temperature, hydrates can exist. See the stability zone graph >>9349852. They drilled into one, it explodes and released gigatons worth of CH4 into the water column. The deepwater horizon research was not about clathrate stability, but rather the oxidative capacity of water column. being the most reduced form of C there is, dissolved CH4 gets oxidated in water column pretty quickly. The deep water horizon spill released CH4 at several order of magnitude higher rate than even the worst case scenario for complete collapse of hydrates in East Siberian Arctic shelf. As long as there is a healthy oxygenated water column above, chances are the CH4 are not gonna make it into the atmosphere

>What about permafrost? And all that carbon goes somewhere, is it just sequestered by the ocean?
Land permafrost melting goes straight to the atmosphere, so it is a different issue and are legitimate problem. However at least with respect to CH4, based on NOAA monitoring network run by Ed Dlugokencky it seems like the Arctic region is not yet a net source of CH4. They know this because CH4 in the Arctic region lags CH4 increase in the tropics, hence most CH4 must be coming from the tropics.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/4147/2016/acp-16-4147-2016.pdf

[Anonymous No.9350381]

>>9349852
>In the last glacial maximum (LGM) the extent of methane hydrate zones are much much more widespread than today.

You are assuming the zones held methane hydrates.
>During the Deglaciation, all those stored hydrates dissociated. We have tons of evidence and well documented geology in currently inactive subsea pingos that used to hold these hydrates.
this is evidence of lack of hydrates, not of disassociation of hydrates. This is like looking at an empty cereal bowl and saying it is evidence of gold vaporization instead of evidence of lack of gold. the assumption of disassociation assumes the existence of hydrates.
>>9349896
>but rather the oxidative capacity of water column
this is a function of the microbes metabolizing the methane. the quality and quantity of microbes in the gulf of mexico cannot be assumed to be the same as that of the arctic oceans, which are in darkness for 6 months of the year and are much colder.

[Anonymous No.9350388]

>>9349852
adding to >>9350381

the last glacial maximum didn't have fossilized continental self environment like we do now, in other words the last glacial maximum did not have organic rich sediments(methane hydrate source) under the seas as is the case right now. In facts the last glacial maximum had no formerly terrestrial sediment undersea. due to low sea level