The Arctic may have crossed key threshold in a long-dreaded climate feedback(adn.com)
adn.com
The Arctic may have crossed key threshold in a long-dreaded climate feedback
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2019/12/10/the-arctic-may-have-crossed-key-threshold-in-a-long-dreaded-climate-feedback/
57 comments
I watched the entire interview with Dr. Peter Carter. At about 19:50 in the interview, he talks about a "Massive! Massive increase in methane." He talks about an incredible eruption of methane, almost in apocalyptic terms, he says he knows of no other source it could be other than methane hydrates, and he is shocked that it hasn't received more media attention.
He then kind of vacillates a bit when asked to quantify it. He talks about historic methane concentrations from ice core samples and then compares that to current methane concentrations in Barrow, AK, the site of the methane eruption.
This was intriguing to me, so I tried to find the original report he's talking about. What it shows is absolutely nothing like he represents. Indeed, there has been large and rapid increase in methane concentrations in Barrow, Alaska over the past few years. But it's a change of about 5-10% [1]. And there were similar-scale eruptions in years past, such as in 2003.
The change is certainly more rapid than the trend. It's probably noteworthy. Clearly something is happening in that area. But this sort of silly exaggeration is one of the reasons why so many dismiss climate science.
If you want people to believe you, don't exaggerate the science.
[1] https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/09/arctic-met...
He then kind of vacillates a bit when asked to quantify it. He talks about historic methane concentrations from ice core samples and then compares that to current methane concentrations in Barrow, AK, the site of the methane eruption.
This was intriguing to me, so I tried to find the original report he's talking about. What it shows is absolutely nothing like he represents. Indeed, there has been large and rapid increase in methane concentrations in Barrow, Alaska over the past few years. But it's a change of about 5-10% [1]. And there were similar-scale eruptions in years past, such as in 2003.
The change is certainly more rapid than the trend. It's probably noteworthy. Clearly something is happening in that area. But this sort of silly exaggeration is one of the reasons why so many dismiss climate science.
If you want people to believe you, don't exaggerate the science.
[1] https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/09/arctic-met...
> What it shows is absolutely nothing like he represents
The report you linked doesn't sound much less alarming:
"To spot methane levels breaking the 2000ppb mark so sharply in this fragile region is unprecedented, as the chart below illustrates."
The report you linked doesn't sound much less alarming:
"To spot methane levels breaking the 2000ppb mark so sharply in this fragile region is unprecedented, as the chart below illustrates."
Are you qualified to evaluated what makes a change large or small?
Is it possible that a 5-10% change is actually "massive"?
Is it possible that a 5-10% change is actually "massive"?
Perhaps not, I am not a climate scientist. I guess that precludes me from looking at a dataset and forming an independent conclusion. But since I'm not qualified to comment on the data, is Michael Mann qualified enough?
https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1172947818069352451
https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1172947818069352451
He doesn't argue with increase and only argues what is source of this spike.
Not true. He says:
> The 2019 measurements are consistent with the trend over the past decade. Outliers (i.e. isolated data points that lie well above the average) are seen throughout the record. Do not over-interpret them.
He goes on to say there's no evidence this is from methane hydrates, or permafrost:
> That is not to say that we shouldn't worry about the potential for increased methane release from melting permafrost. But there is no evidence to support breathless claims that we have e.g. crossed some "tipping point" with regard to such processes.
> The 2019 measurements are consistent with the trend over the past decade. Outliers (i.e. isolated data points that lie well above the average) are seen throughout the record. Do not over-interpret them.
He goes on to say there's no evidence this is from methane hydrates, or permafrost:
> That is not to say that we shouldn't worry about the potential for increased methane release from melting permafrost. But there is no evidence to support breathless claims that we have e.g. crossed some "tipping point" with regard to such processes.
>The increased trend over the past decade is also part of a larger trend.
Right, I don't disagree with the plain fact that methane concentrations are increasing, both globally, and apparently in Barrow. There is a decades-long trend of increased methane concentrations.
The question is whether there has been a massive eruption of methane that is unprecedented, and could only come from methane hydrates.
Michael Mann says the "eruption" is consistent with past outliers and we shouldn't over-interpret the data. He says there is no evidence the increase is from permafrost, and that it appears likely to be from anthropogenic (i.e., non-tipping point) sources.
I'm not making an argument against climate change science. I'm making an argument against Dr. Peter Carter exaggerating climate science.
The question is whether there has been a massive eruption of methane that is unprecedented, and could only come from methane hydrates.
Michael Mann says the "eruption" is consistent with past outliers and we shouldn't over-interpret the data. He says there is no evidence the increase is from permafrost, and that it appears likely to be from anthropogenic (i.e., non-tipping point) sources.
I'm not making an argument against climate change science. I'm making an argument against Dr. Peter Carter exaggerating climate science.
That sounds reasonable. Thanks for the sourcing!
My impression (as a nonscientist who sometimes works with climate scientists) is that very few experts believe we have a realistic chance of holding to 2 degrees.
Personally, I think the situation is likely much worse than reported in the mainstream media. There's a fear of scaring people too much, or making them give up in despair, so we keep hearing about how we "could" meet these increasingly farcical reduction targets, even as we're blowing past them.
Personally, I think the situation is likely much worse than reported in the mainstream media. There's a fear of scaring people too much, or making them give up in despair, so we keep hearing about how we "could" meet these increasingly farcical reduction targets, even as we're blowing past them.
Climate changes news are chokeful of "may" but one thing is for sure is the lack of actual human response to fix anything.
What am I supposed to go and do? Re-freeze Siberia?
It's interesting, because re-freezing Siberia is exactly what some Russian scientists are attempting.
Their logic is that by reintroducing megafauna like elk and moose into more parts of Siberia, these animals will graze during winter to survive, thus exposing more of the soil, which lets the frost permeate down to further depths and slows down the recession of permafrost.
Their logic is sound and experiments have demonstrated that grazing animals do help to reintroduce permafrost, but I seriously doubt their operation is scalable (they are something like a 3-5 man team)
Their logic is that by reintroducing megafauna like elk and moose into more parts of Siberia, these animals will graze during winter to survive, thus exposing more of the soil, which lets the frost permeate down to further depths and slows down the recession of permafrost.
Their logic is sound and experiments have demonstrated that grazing animals do help to reintroduce permafrost, but I seriously doubt their operation is scalable (they are something like a 3-5 man team)
Thanks, that's fascinating
Whatever you _can_ do. Consider your footprint and ask yourself what can you reduce in fuel, energy and water usage. An immediate contributor is eating meat, which is crazy energy intensive.
Veganism has no immediate effect - it takes a couple 1000 other people to do likewise for it to cause a change. It’s like voting - 1 persons vote changes nothing until several others do.
If you want to make an immediate, large impact, without having to rely on other people’s actions, start taking public transportation everyday.
If you want to make an immediate, large impact, without having to rely on other people’s actions, start taking public transportation everyday.
if you have money and time:
- reinsulate your house
- if you live in a sunny place, build/buy a solar heated water tank
- plant trees
- try zero waste lifestyle
- fund lithium recycling plants
- buy electric companies stock
- fund a local veggies club
- fund a repair / recycling shop
- harass your family and neighbors to use the two above
- walk any distance below 5 miles that doesn't require heavy loads (or rain)
- stop buying
- go to an AWS datacenter and cut some wires at random
If you don't have money nor time:
- paste this comment to people you don't know on the internet
- reinsulate your house
- if you live in a sunny place, build/buy a solar heated water tank
- plant trees
- try zero waste lifestyle
- fund lithium recycling plants
- buy electric companies stock
- fund a local veggies club
- fund a repair / recycling shop
- harass your family and neighbors to use the two above
- walk any distance below 5 miles that doesn't require heavy loads (or rain)
- stop buying
- go to an AWS datacenter and cut some wires at random
If you don't have money nor time:
- paste this comment to people you don't know on the internet
> reinsulate your house
Meh, it's at that threshold point where there'd be some advantage but it would never put me ahead financially to do it
>if you live in a sunny place, build/buy a solar heated water tank
alas
> plant trees
there are trees in every place that could hold a tree where I am, but i've done what I can in the yard
> try zero waste lifestyle
i hate plastic but everything comes wrapped in it. what do?
> buy electric companies stock
it's a crown corporation, i just pay my taxes
> fund a local veggies club
seems like the local asian supermarket sources these things as locally as it can already tbqh
> fund a repair / recycling shop
i like this idea a lot
> harass your family and neighbors to use the two above > walk any distance below 5 miles that doesn't require heavy loads (or rain) > stop buying
all in on these already
> go to an AWS datacenter and cut some wires at random
violence usually results in more energy expenditure, centralizing all that compute actually probably saves us a ton of energy compared to running idle machines everywhere
Meh, it's at that threshold point where there'd be some advantage but it would never put me ahead financially to do it
>if you live in a sunny place, build/buy a solar heated water tank
alas
> plant trees
there are trees in every place that could hold a tree where I am, but i've done what I can in the yard
> try zero waste lifestyle
i hate plastic but everything comes wrapped in it. what do?
> buy electric companies stock
it's a crown corporation, i just pay my taxes
> fund a local veggies club
seems like the local asian supermarket sources these things as locally as it can already tbqh
> fund a repair / recycling shop
i like this idea a lot
> harass your family and neighbors to use the two above > walk any distance below 5 miles that doesn't require heavy loads (or rain) > stop buying
all in on these already
> go to an AWS datacenter and cut some wires at random
violence usually results in more energy expenditure, centralizing all that compute actually probably saves us a ton of energy compared to running idle machines everywhere
> walk any distance below 5 miles that doesn't require heavy loads (or rain)
what's wrong with the rain?
what's wrong with the rain?
I was just being understanding, I don't mind walking in a bit of rain but 5 miles under water can often be a problem (catching a cold, soaked clothes etc).
> go to an AWS datacenter and cut some wires at random
You say that as a joke, but I know some of you work in the tech industry.
Go into work and make sure your company isn't running twenty physical machines when twenty virtual machines on one physical machine would do.
If you're in charge of buying desktops for a corporation, check the power consumption of different models and take it into consideration when making your choice. One watt times a thousand desktops is a thousand watts.
If you're writing code that runs on hundreds of machines or more, write more efficient code.
And any power you save is also saving your company/customers money, so make the same case to your boss/coworkers.
You say that as a joke, but I know some of you work in the tech industry.
Go into work and make sure your company isn't running twenty physical machines when twenty virtual machines on one physical machine would do.
If you're in charge of buying desktops for a corporation, check the power consumption of different models and take it into consideration when making your choice. One watt times a thousand desktops is a thousand watts.
If you're writing code that runs on hundreds of machines or more, write more efficient code.
And any power you save is also saving your company/customers money, so make the same case to your boss/coworkers.
If you're really asking, the simplest way for all of us to help is to stop consuming meat, eggs, and dairy, for one.
And then what, wither away into a vegan? I'd honestly rather it get warmer.
"Wither away" uhh, that's not how it works. Beans, lentils, grains, bread, nuts, seeds, there are tons of foods that are both filling and caloric. We're in the age of information on a site called HACKER NEWS of all things, and you're still pulling the "I'll die of a protein deficiency!" card?
Lacto-ovo vegetarism is viable
Original source: https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019
Wil anything be done about it? Does any “world leaders” really care ?
We have all the technology available to solve this issue, will we be given the political support and permissions to use it ?
We have all the technology available to solve this issue, will we be given the political support and permissions to use it ?
If pitched properly (as a relatively conservative, "small government" alternative to the Green New Deal), I think a Carbon Dividend could be very popular, not least because it would be net-cash-positive for most working folks. It may not move the needle as fast as we want (need?), but if a price is set on carbon, behaviors will start to change, both from consumers and industry.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
> Wil anything be done about it?
Not if you and I don't demand it. And demanding takes more then simply voting.
Not if you and I don't demand it. And demanding takes more then simply voting.
It is being gradually addressed. Battery technology, biofuels, renewables, electric vehicles, etc. have greatly advanced over the past decade and are continuing to improve. Also when the climate effects become more observable by an average person, the public interest in those areas will rise and we will likely see faster progress.
I think this is the key point. Effects are becoming more impacting to “common folk”, this seems to be spurring bigger turnouts to climate rallies and pushing politicians to dig deeper on solutions.
100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. Projects that you have listed are important but more likely only help individuals to feel that something is being fixed instead of any real impact.
"100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions" is referring to the fossil fuel energy companies. They're responsible for it in the sense that they pulled the carbon out of the ground.
That doesn't mean that if you buy an electric car or replace your oil furnace with electric heat pumps there is no difference being made. They sold it but somebody bought it.
That doesn't mean that if you buy an electric car or replace your oil furnace with electric heat pumps there is no difference being made. They sold it but somebody bought it.
Lets do the math. We will assume that 100% individuals switched to electric cars and heat.
Commercial and Residential Sector Emissions for US - 12% All Transportation for US - 29% (It includes rail and aircraft. Only 60% of it is light duty vehicle and I couldnt find what percentage of it is commercial transport)
So we have 12%+ 29%0,6 = 32%. It is big number but now we have to produce same amount of energy in electricity. 79% of all electricity generation was fossil fuels.
32% (0.21) = 7%
So even if all individuals will stop using fossil fuels for heat and will use electric cars for transportation. We will have less than 10% of reduction.
Commercial and Residential Sector Emissions for US - 12% All Transportation for US - 29% (It includes rail and aircraft. Only 60% of it is light duty vehicle and I couldnt find what percentage of it is commercial transport)
So we have 12%+ 29%0,6 = 32%. It is big number but now we have to produce same amount of energy in electricity. 79% of all electricity generation was fossil fuels.
32% (0.21) = 7%
So even if all individuals will stop using fossil fuels for heat and will use electric cars for transportation. We will have less than 10% of reduction.
> It is big number but now we have to produce same amount of energy in electricity. 79% of all electricity generation was fossil fuels.
Where are you getting that number? It's 63.6% in the US:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Moreover, most of the fossil fuel generation is natural gas, which emits less carbon per unit energy than gasoline and large scale generation is significantly more thermodynamically efficient than small gasoline engines. And heat pumps are significantly more thermodynamically efficient than oil furnaces.
Meanwhile power generation from non-carbon sources is growing at a fast pace while coal is dying out, so that number will only improve over the lifetime of the vehicle/heat pumps, and if you want to get ahead of the curve you can install some solar panels on your roof.
Where are you getting that number? It's 63.6% in the US:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Moreover, most of the fossil fuel generation is natural gas, which emits less carbon per unit energy than gasoline and large scale generation is significantly more thermodynamically efficient than small gasoline engines. And heat pumps are significantly more thermodynamically efficient than oil furnaces.
Meanwhile power generation from non-carbon sources is growing at a fast pace while coal is dying out, so that number will only improve over the lifetime of the vehicle/heat pumps, and if you want to get ahead of the curve you can install some solar panels on your roof.
mrlala(2)
Spoiler: it's not about polar bears. Their numbers are through the roof.
Yes, thanks to conservation efforts.
Bogus Norton security alert. I'm outta there.
Also on WaPo, but paywalled https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/12/10/arctic-may...
Ditto.
Assuming now that we are past the point of no return and the world has gone mad voting in people who will do the opposite of what is necessary, what is left to do?
Do we all simply wait for the inevitable like frogs in a slowly boiling pot? I guess I could practice survival skills but I'd rather die than live in what I expect will be absolute hell come 20 - 30 years.
Do we all simply wait for the inevitable like frogs in a slowly boiling pot? I guess I could practice survival skills but I'd rather die than live in what I expect will be absolute hell come 20 - 30 years.
> what is left to do?
what people always do when they are dissatisfied with the government. organise with like minded people and rebel.
what people always do when they are dissatisfied with the government. organise with like minded people and rebel.
Rebel against the majority? Because the government doesn't act because the majority doesn't want it to, despite vague propositions. Want to tax your own fuel and heating? Want to stop flying? Want to put millions out of business in your country because the cost of energy and materials went through the roof? This is what we're talking about. Of course it's very satisfying to not want these things and spend the time blaming politicians for their inaction.
It may not seem like it, but poll after poll shows that the majority is concerned about climate change and supports government actions to tackle it. Worldwide. Just a few examples [0][1].
Also, you don't need to wait for the majority to rebel [2]
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/support_en [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-h... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w
Also, you don't need to wait for the majority to rebel [2]
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/support_en [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-h... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w
As I said, the majority "is concerned", but at the same time doesn't really want to take actions. Because being concerned is free, taking initiatives can be very, very expensive.
Just look at what happened in France when the government decided to increase taxes on fuels.
Just look at what happened in France when the government decided to increase taxes on fuels.
Please contact me, a friend, or family member - my contact info is in my profile. If you're struggling with some pretty hard & depressing subjects, that is ok, just please don't become suicidal.
The world temperature is not going to run away in 30 years, there's nothing to worry about.
The problem that is going to affect most people most directly is not raising sea levels or being too hot outside, it's the disruption of just in time food production chains that have centralized in fewer and fewer places. Alaska might benefit by turning into a good production powerhouse in the long term, but in the meantime things aren't going to be pretty because very little change is needed for crops to be unviable in the locales they're currently grown.
To imply that there will be wide-spread food problems due to a marginal increase in temperatures is fantasy.
It's already happened and will happen again.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/3/150302-syria-...
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/3/150302-syria-...
Indeed, the extra CO2 is increasing plant growth rates.
As a result, the carbon budget for keeping warming under two degrees over postindustrial (widely thought to be catastrophic but survivable) has shrunk. Dr. Peter Carter, one of the IPCC's reviewers, explains how we are likely to miss 1.5 and 2 degree targets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa13KrOvE2s