Do you think methane release from below melting permafrost will be a key 'tipping point'?

Question

There are 1.5 trillion tons of carbon stored beneath the "permafrost" (which is becoming less and less permanent). The planet continues to warm and the permafrost continues to melt, releasing more and more of this carbon in the form of methane.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101122/ap_on_re_eu/eu_climate_siberian_meltdown

Do you think this will be a key 'tipping point' for global warming?

Answer 1

I note that you have put "tipping point" in inverted commas, indicating an awareness that this is a metaphor with limitations. But if by it you simply mean that it could become a positive feedback that grows larger than human emissions, then yes, that is quite plausible, particularly if we include the methane hydrates stored underwater on the Siberian continental shelf, which (as I understand it) are significantly larger than the likely methane release from land permafrost. Where significant portions of these deposits to be released into the atmosphere, their initial "kick" of warming from the highly potent methane would be significant (and could trigger further release in a positive feedback) and even when (over a few decades) they degraded into CO2, much of this would continue to warm the atmosphere for hundreds of thousands of years.



The crucial question is when that might happen and how much scope we have to mitigate warming before enough becomes "baked in" (another metaphor, of course) through the multi-decadal lag to mean that such a "tipping point" is inevitable. As others have pointed out, this is unlikely to be something that happens on a single day or year (or perhaps even decade), but may instead be an incremental rise in the outgassing of methane. It could become a very significant problem prior to the absolute point at which it is a greater source of GHG than human emissions (which is often how such a tipping point is defined).



Expeller - It is the land ice in Antarctica that is the issue. Sea ice gain is small relative to sea ice loss in the Arctic and much less important since the (small) gain is during the winter, when there is little or no sun to reflect whereas Arctic sea ice loss is during summer during maximum insolation.



Ronald Reagan - The very worst that can happen would be a runaway scenario in which the earth's oceans boil away and we become like Venus. But that is highly unlikely. The second to worst scenario would be the extinction of all life on earth. Also highly unlikely. The next worst scenario would be the extinction of all human life - unlikely, but not inconceivable for higher estimates of climate sensitivity combined with higher end emissions scenarios (or if we turn to nuclear war to resolve climate related tensions). The next worst scenario would be the collapse of contemporary society accompanied by a massive loss of human population and a very significant reduction in global biodiversity. That is not only possible, but far more than a tiny possibility and is worth taking very seriously indeed. And even "better" scenarios than that could still involve wars, famines, floods and the collapse of particular nations. Plenty of scope for some pretty nasty things.

Answer 2

A fantastic question Dana and one that is most pertinent for surely the cause and effect relationship of massive amounts of methane released into the atmosphere will spell the end of many life forms here on earth.

The danger also lurks from the depth of the oceans where especially the methane stored under the ocean floor in the Gulf of Mexico is escaping at an alarming rate through the fissures and the cracks caused by the Deep Horizon oil rig disaster.



http://theyfly.com/The_Crime_Against_All_Life.html

Answer 3

No, considering that about 1000 years ago these same areas were warmer then they are today so we have seen this increase in methane before. Even the IPCC agrees that the past warming periods were regional and most of the permafrost are in these regional areas.



Also, last time I checked, methane is measured at the parts per billion level and we don't fully understand what past amounts were since this is such a minor gas. But you keep trying all different areas and maybe your group will actually find something that hasn't happened before.

Answer 4

Methane is made up of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. When methane burns, the carbon in the methane combines with oxygen (O) to form carbon dioxide (CO2). The hydrogen in the methane combines with oxygen to form H2O, or water.



Methane is a combustible gas and gets burnt of by lightning and creates more CO2 and hydrogen. Methane in liquid form needs to be super heated to combust







Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_gas_is_produced_when_methane_is_burned_in_air#ixzz165cIyrrf

Answer 5

Yep, We are all going to die. Everyone, it is time to start panicking. The tipping point is about to be reached. It should be clear to everyone that this tipping point truly does exist too. If you look at the atmosphere. Clearly we have a three-dimensional planar sitting on an apex. Clearly you need only look at the science and you will see that should more weight hit on the left most side of that plateau, the entire plane will fall off the apex. Just as clearly the world will be hit by this three dimensional planar causing oceans to rise, seas to start boiling. We are looking at becoming a Venus-like climate until we are blissfully swallowed by the sun, or a meteor crashes and kills us all saving us from the hell that the world will become. OK maybe not.



Maybe, Just Maybe, you have no idea what you are talking about when you say "tipping point". This is a meaningless statement, that absolutely no scientist should use without clearly definig what they mean. Likely, the earth is not unstable. It is entertaining that the Earth has been hit by many meteors and managed to come back to equilibrium, but you "scientists" talk about tipping point as if the Earth is some plate precariously sitting atop an apex. Are you trying to demonstrate the scare-mongering garbage that I ahve been talking about?



"But worse is worser than less bad is better."

Ahhh. Now I understand, everything is clear now.



Maybe if the Earth warms any more, it will be too hot for Atlas to hold up and we will find ourselves plummeting in oblivion.



Richard, Antartica is melting??? Look again.



Dana,

Nope Guess again

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/sea_ice.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090421101629.htm

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-increasing.html



Funny, This is coming from warmers sites trying to explain the phenomenon that you pretend isn't even happening. Always love to see the high level of honesty coming from the warmers. Also unfortunatel, because people like you try to tax me, your ignorance is my problem, so either fix it, or do not expect intelligent people who can see through all of the garbage you post to actually support your taxation schemes.



BGS,

Once again you assume all positive feedbacks and no negative feedbacks. This would be fine if the data actually supported this argument. Unfortunately, the data does not, only the silly models which have been overestimating time and time again. You see, if you assume all 0.74 degree of warming over the last 100 years is caused by man, then 40% caused 0.74 degrees, meaning 100% would have to cause ~1.85 degrees of the additional 60% would cause ~1.1 degrees. This is assuming linear when the truth would actually be less than linear or less that 1.1. This does not line up with a bunch of positive feedbacks working nor your idea of insulation. If your data does not match your theories, it is not the data you change. Further, this idea of some frail earth that has a "tipping point" and can easily be knocked off to large temps swings, just does not jive with the same Earth that has been hit by many huge meteors and manages to come back to equilibrium. And if you are going to quote RR as a credible source, then perhaps you should take his advice for health care. Seriously, this a very very very weak call to authority.

Answer 6

A soft tipping point, is the best answer I can give. Increasing release, becoming increasingly unstoppable, but without a single sharp point of no return.



Tragically, people misunderstand this kind of uncertainty. Things may be less bad than the most probable scenario, or worse. But worse is worser than less bad is better. In real life, we don't disregard red lights because maybe we would only have a relatively minor collision.

Answer 7

Do I think it will be a tipping point? Of course I don't.



I notice they are extremely imprecise with their language which I have come to expect from alarmists.



What does it mean, trillions of tons of carbon are stored beneath the permafrost. Is this carbon in CO2, methane, peat, diamonds, what???



There are trillions of tons of carbon stored beneath the Black Hills of South Dakota as limestone formations. There are probably trillions of tons of carbon stored as peat in Siberia. Peat is the accumulation of organic material that builds up in the bogs as it is piled layer upon layer in an anaerobic environment. Methane can be produced ny methanogenic bacteria and temporarily trapped somewhat by the permafrost. The permafrost was never a very good trap, and it would release some methane constantly, much as a full dam would release water over the spillway. Methane can also be seeping from deeper within the earth. The same is true of the lakes. I think the amount of natural emissions of methane are greatly underestimated based on some little known studies. Methane quickly turns to CO2 anyway.



I do think emissions of methane would tend to increase in warmer times which we obviously have been experiencing. I don't think it is unusual or unnatural. I think it probably happened to a greater degree 6000 years ago, or it should have. Their suggestion in the article that it has been getting progressively worse in the last few thousand years is probably completely unsubstantiated. It is a case where they seem to be making claims based on an extremely small amount of data.

Answer 8

Nobody knows that for certain yet, but if you just discovered a ticking time bomb under your bed you might consider checking out the possibility of being blown into spit and air. Knowing that there are a few billion tons of methane locked up in the frozen tundra, and also knowing that if released it could well overwhelm our atmosphere and knowing that in spite of the deniers every decade gets a tiny bit warmer because we're clogging up our paper thin atmosphere with CO2 from burning fossil fuels...I'd say we should consider the possibility of a bad outcome. Of course we won't do anything to deal with this...we're way too busy worrying about gay marriage, gays in the military, getting the 'rich' to kick in a few extra bucks into the national bucket and sticking with fighting two unwinnable wars to worry about the end of human civiliiztion. What the hell..don't worry...be happy!

Answer 9

Well it's kind of common sense isn't it? Releasing 1.5 trillion tons into our atmosphere isn't really natural, its going to have some effect or other on our planet. If the skeptics want to so vehemently deny anthropogenic global warming then maybe they should consider other possibilities as to what this release of methane may cause. Perhaps they should do their own research on global warming from unbiased sources rather than hearing it from rush limbaugh or glenn beck.

Answer 10

Global warming is a serious problem and yet the international community are willingly turning a blind eye to it. As permafrost melts in both the Arctic and Antarctica, it will worsen global warming.



Global warming deniers aren't helping. They are spin doctors paid by conservative special interest groups and multinational corporations to distort the truth. They don't care about what happens to future generations.

Answer 11

“Do you think methane release from below melting permafrost will be a key 'tipping point'?”

“Do you think this will be a key 'tipping point' for global warming?”



Not according to the measurements.



Atmospheric Methane concentration is currently at about 1.8 parts per million and is not exhibiting exponential rise as would be presented in any ‘runaway’ scenario.



Alert, Cananda, 82.4 N, http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/quick_plot.cgi?imagetype=pdf&dataid=200702141537

Guam, Pacific, 13.4 N, http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/quick_plot.cgi?imagetype=pdf&dataid=200702141567

Mahe Island, Seychelles, 4.5 S, http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/quick_plot.cgi?imagetype=pdf&dataid=200702141633

Cape Grim, Australia, 48.6 S, http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/quick_plot.cgi?imagetype=pdf&dataid=200702141557

Palmer Station, Antarctica, 64.9 S, http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/quick_plot.cgi?imagetype=pdf&dataid=200702141620

Answer 12

Most definitely as, molecule for molecule, methane is approximately 20x more greenhouse gas potential than carbon dioxide does and, eventually, it breaks down into carbon dioxide.

Answer 13

i dont think its as simple as a tipping point, or if it is, we have already passed it. the tundra is all going to melt, but total emissions will depend on how fast, and also on how fast new ecosystems establish and start drawing it down again.



some promising stuff in siberia on encouraging quick transition from melting bog to more stable grassland using some drainage with managed grazing by large herbivores.

Answer 14

I read that article and maybe, but I want to know what's the worst that can happen?

Why should we even worry?