We could be 16 years into a methane-fueled 'termination' event significant enough to end an ice age

[NickB79]

https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/we-could-be-16-years-into-a-methane-fueled-termination-event-significant-enough-to-end-an-ice-age

Large amounts of methane wafting from tropical wetlands into Earth's atmosphere could trigger warming similar to the "termination" events that ended ice ages — replacing frosty expanses of tundra with tropical savanna, a new study finds. Researchers first detected a strange peak in methane emissions in 2006, but until now, it was unclear where the gas was leaking from and if it constituted a novel trend.

"A termination is a major reorganization of the Earth's climate system," study lead author Euan Nisbet, a professor emeritus of Earth sciences at Royal Holloway, University of London, told Live Science. "These repeated changes have taken the world from ice ages into the sort of interglacial we have now."

"Within the termination, which takes thousands of years, there's this abrupt phase, which only takes a few decades," Nisbet said. "During that abrupt phase, the methane soars up and it's probably driven by tropical wetlands."

[czarjak]

1. To Al Gore and Inconvenient Truths.

We. Was. Robbed!

[Think. Again.]

2. Ha! that's hilarious!....

Trying to pretend (with a straight face!) that CO2 emissions aren't the primary driver of climate change!

What's next..."guns don't kill people..."?

[yourout]

3. Oh they are driving it alright but when it gets warm enough to unlock the perma frost entrained..

methane.....lookout.
There will be areas in the lower latitudes that will be uninhabitable in the summer if they are not close to it already.

[Think. Again.]

4. yep....

And somehow the article neglected to mention that climate change caused by CO2 is why more methane is being released in the first place, instead, the article and headline bend over backward to give the impression that global heating and climate change are the results of natural methane release processes.

How much does the fossil fuel industry actually pay for these obviously transparent spin pieces anyway???

[NickB79]

5. Uh, the article states climate change is causing it

A flurry of studies since 2019 has linked the strange spike to soaring emissions from tropical wetlands, predominantly in Africa. A "significant change" in tropical weather ascribed to human-caused climate change has led wetlands to get bigger and more plants to grow there, thus leading to more decomposition — a process that produces methane, Nisbet said.

[Think. Again.]

6. And goes on to say...

"In the new study, published July 14 in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Nisbet and colleagues compared current trends in atmospheric methane to the abrupt phase of warming during ice age terminations.

"The closest analogy we have to what we think is happening today is these terminations," Nisbet said.

While the evidence remains inconclusive, the scale of such a shift in climate is worth pondering, he added. In the past, terminations have flipped vast expanses of icy tundra in the Northern Hemisphere into tropical grasslands roamed by hippos, Nisbet said. There is no way to know what a termination could signify today, given that we are not in an ice age. "We're not saying we've got proof this is happening, but we're raising the question."

Regardless of whether termination-scale climate shifts are on the horizon, tackling methane emissions should be high on our list of priorities, Nisbet said. "We can do a great deal to bring down methane," he said, and this includes plugging gas leaks, and tackling emissions from manure, landfill and crop waste."

Leaving the reader with the clear impression that a possible current "termination event" would be directly caused by methane releases just like the ones before we started emitting CO2, and that the remedies to reduce the methane releases are only
" ...plugging gas leaks, and tackling emissions from manure, landfill and crop waste."

Not a word about reducing CO2 emissions by stopping the burning of fossil fuels.

[NickB79]

7. And that's the basis of your paid-off researchers claim?

Again, it clearly lays the blame for increased methane emissions at the feet of CO2 emissions in the article. And it uses the effect previous methane releases had as an analogy, much like we use previous Interglacials or the Pliocene Warm Period to communicate what a warmer world will look like. The researchers even say it's an analogy. And as such, it goes without saying that reducing CO2 emissions is important.

You blatantly lied about what the article even said:

And somehow the article neglected to mention that climate change caused by CO2 is why more methane is being released in the first place, instead, the article and headline bend over backward to give the impression that global heating and climate change are the results of natural methane release processes.

I got that the first time reading the article. I'm sorry it was difficult for you to comprehend? That doesn't logically translate into seeing conspiracy theories of fossil fuel greenwashing in every paper.

[Think. Again.]

8. Do you honestly believe...

...the fossil fuel industry is NOT making a massive effort to greenwash and stall the transition away from fossil fuels?

Did you believe the TV ad "doctors" who claimed smoking was good for you?

[NickB79]

9. There's plenty of greenwashing. This isn't greenwashing

It's published in a peer reviewed journal, where it clearly blames human-caused emissions for subsequent massive methane releases pushing us towards a new climate state. If this is greenwashing, it's pretty pitiful greenwashing.

[Think. Again.]

10. oh boy, (sigh)...

Okay, from the top...

YOU first used the term greenwashing when you wrote:

"That doesn't logically translate into seeing conspiracy theories of fossil fuel greenwashing in every paper."

Next, the article (not paper) we are discussing that YOU posted is not from a peer-reviewed journal, it is published in a general public magazine named Live Science. And again, we are discussing, and I am commenting on, that popular audience magazine article. That you posted.

Sure, the magazine writer is writing about a peer-reviewed journal paper, but I am obviously commenting on their article, that they wrote with an obvious effort to minimize, or distract from, the effects of burning fossil fuels.

And finally, no, the article does not clearly blame human-caused emissions for the methane releases. The article refers first to older studies that blamed human-caused emissions, and then, in the next paragraph, explains that a very RECENT study compares the current methane releases to events from the ICE AGES, which as might know, where prior to human-caused CO2 emissions...

"A flurry of studies since 2019 has linked the strange spike to soaring emissions from tropical wetlands, predominantly in Africa. A "significant change" in tropical weather ascribed to human-caused climate change has led wetlands to get bigger and more plants to grow there, thus leading to more decomposition — a process that produces methane, Nisbet said.

In the new study, published July 14 in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Nisbet and colleagues compared current trends in atmospheric methane to the abrupt phase of warming during ice age terminations."

Listen, believe this gaslighting if you need to, but don't think you can intimidate others into being so gullible.