NASA - Methane Levels In Parts Of Rapidly Defrosting Alaska "What You Might Find In A Large City"

[hatrack]

EDIT

Over hundreds of millennia, Arctic permafrost soils have accumulated vast stores of organic carbon - an estimated 1,400 to 1,850 petagrams of it (a petagram is 2.2 trillion pounds, or 1 billion metric tons). That's about half of all the estimated organic carbon stored in Earth's soils. In comparison, about 350 petagrams of carbon have been emitted from all fossil-fuel combustion and human activities since 1850. Most of this carbon is located in thaw-vulnerable topsoils within 10 feet (3 meters) of the surface.

But, as scientists are learning, permafrost - and its stored carbon - may not be as permanent as its name implies. And that has them concerned.

"Permafrost soils are warming even faster than Arctic air temperatures - as much as 2.7 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius) in just the past 30 years," Miller said. "As heat from Earth's surface penetrates into permafrost, it threatens to mobilize these organic carbon reservoirs and release them into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and methane, upsetting the Arctic's carbon balance and greatly exacerbating global warming."

EDIT

The CARVE science team is busy analyzing data from its first full year of science flights. What they're finding, Miller said, is both amazing and potentially troubling. "Some of the methane and carbon dioxide concentrations we've measured have been large, and we're seeing very different patterns from what models suggest," Miller said. "We saw large, regional-scale episodic bursts of higher-than-normal carbon dioxide and methane in interior Alaska and across the North Slope during the spring thaw, and they lasted until after the fall refreeze. To cite another example, in July 2012 we saw methane levels over swamps in the Innoko Wilderness that were 650 parts per billion higher than normal background levels. That's similar to what you might find in a large city."

Ultimately, the scientists hope their observations will indicate whether an irreversible permafrost tipping point may be near at hand. While scientists don't yet believe the Arctic has reached that tipping point, no one knows for sure. "We hope CARVE may be able to find that 'smoking gun,' if one exists," Miller said.

EDIT

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130610.html

[stuntcat]

1. "irreversible permafrost tipping point may be near at hand."

The most important word here is MAY!!!

And anyway what does NASA know? Stupid F'in NASA.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Is a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic?

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-197

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Is a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic?[/font]

[font size=3]

The CARVE scientists observed episodic, localized bursts of methane being emitted from the tundra as the spring thaw progressed northward over Alaska's North Slope in May and June 2012. Reds and yellows represent the highest concentrations of methane, and blues the lowest. The methane is released from the topsoil as it thaws. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

…

It's important to accurately characterize the soils and state of the land surfaces. There's a strong correlation between soil characteristics and release of carbon dioxide and methane. Historically, the cold, wet soils of Arctic ecosystems have stored more carbon than they have released. If climate change causes the Arctic to get warmer and drier, scientists expect most of the carbon to be released as carbon dioxide. If it gets warmer and wetter, most will be in the form of methane.

The distinction is critical. Molecule per molecule, methane is 22 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide on a 100-year timescale, and 105 times more potent on a 20-year timescale. If just one percent of the permafrost carbon released over a short time period is methane, it will have the same greenhouse impact as the 99 percent that is released as carbon dioxide. Characterizing this methane to carbon dioxide ratio is a major CARVE objective.

There are other correlations between Arctic soil characteristics and the release of carbon dioxide and methane. Variations in the timing of spring thaw and the length of the growing season have a major impact on vegetation productivity and whether high northern latitude regions generate or store carbon.

…[/font][/font]

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. Most relevant part - "human activities since 1850"

.
.
.

didn't take us long to mess up the climate, now did it?

"Over hundreds of millennia, Arctic permafrost soils have accumulated vast stores of organic carbon - an estimated 1,400 to 1,850 petagrams of it (a petagram is 2.2 trillion pounds, or 1 billion metric tons). That's about half of all the estimated organic carbon stored in Earth's soils. In comparison, about 350 petagrams of carbon have been emitted from all fossil-fuel combustion and human activities since 1850"

Took us white man not much more than a hundred years to pollute the Great Lakes, dumping our shit into them.

Even "dumb" animals know better than to shit in the water they need to drink . . .

We are going to be our own undoing as a human race with our bombs and/or disregard for momma nature.

Earth will not miss us

It will thrive.

CC

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. “Earth will not miss us—It will thrive.”

I really hate this attitude.

We have have not just fouled our own nest. We have fouled the nest of all of the other species at the same time.

We will not simply vanish, leaving the Earth intact (unless by the Earth, you mean this rock traveling through space.) The odds are reasonably good that we will trigger a mass extinction.

No, Earth will not thrive, at least not the Earth you and I know.


And as for the notion that other species do not pollute their environments, please, consider the “Great Oxygenation Event,” in which the composition of the atmosphere was radically altered by obligate anaerobic organisms, poisoning them, and changing the climate.

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. Maybe it will not "thrive"

.
.
.

but it would/will be better off without us.

We have already destroyed habitats for many I know, and drove others into near or complete extinction, especially when we "civilized" the Americas.

Yes, we will leave a mess behind - as we are creating while we are here.

But as an exploring camper, I've discovered places that were once paved roads in the bush, which momma nature didn't take too long covering with soil and new growth coming right through the old pavement.

Re "attitude" - suggest to me a better way to consider our value on Earth.

Dinosaurs had their time here, I think our time is approaching a finale - maybe centuries, even millenniums - but it's coming.

Even if there is a "mass extinction",

momma nature will return.

We will not be invited.

CC

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. “… better off without us …”

This (of course) is simply speculation.

Who is to say that a worse species will not arise?

[NickB79]

7. Of course the Earth will thrive

Just as life thrived after the K/T mass extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs, or the Permian extinction that took out the mammal-like reptiles.

It may take a few million years, but the surviving species (rats, crows, sparrows, pigeons, cockroaches, coyotes, etc) will eventually evolve to fill the empty niches and speciate out across the globe again.

Humans aren't THAT integral to the functioning of this world, after all.

[ConcernedCanuk]

8. +1

.
.
.

"Humans aren't THAT integral to the functioning of this world"

you get it



CC

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. So here’s my primary objection

Your premise boils down to this:

• Nature good
• Humans bad

(Nature is all knowing, and can do no bad.)

But, Humans are a part of Nature.


So, if Humans have screwed up, then… Nature has screwed up.

[ConcernedCanuk]

12. Maybe it wasn't nature that screwed up

.
.
.

dunno if I believe it or not,

but mythology has it

In the beginning, Prometheus brought fire to man. Wrong move.

wrong move for sure . . . we have abused it to the max.

without the control over fire, we could not possibly do the damage we are doing.

And IF Nature gave man this "power"

it won't happen again.

CC

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Oh, OK, if we are going to blame it all on gods…

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Clearly the gods aren’t all that smart either, so I wouldn’t count on them learning from their mistakes.

Do you see the flaw in your reasoning here? You want to blame things on something outside of Nature, since you assume that Nature can do no wrong. (First, you wanted to say that we are not part of Nature, and now you want to say that some other force external to Nature, e.g. gods are to blame.)


It is a fact of Nature, that all living things affect their environments. The root cause of our current problem was we were smart enough, and therefore successful enough, to affect our environment in a big way, but we didn’t get smart enough, fast enough to avoid the situation we now find ourselves in.

[hatrack]

9. My money's on the crows and coyotes

Corvids are scary smart, and I'm sure they'll do well.

They got kicked in the cloaca by West Nile, but seem to be rebounding in pretty short order.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. I don’t think so

Let’s assume for the moment that we are successful in killing ourselves off.

How would we do that actually? Well, let’s see, we could make the climate so unsteady that food crops don’t grow. (Then what will the crows and coyotes eat?)

What if we make the oceans anoxic, leading to an explosion of anaerobic bacteria, releasing hydrogen sulphide? (How will the crows and coyotes survive?)
http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_ward_on_mass_extinctions.html

No, if we bring on a mass extinction, I think it will be a mass extinction. My money is on the single-cellular life forms.

1. They evolve rather quickly
2. There’s lot of them
3. They’ve done it before

[ConcernedCanuk]

14. Unless there is some catastrophe, man-made or not

.
.
.

I do not expect the human race to be wiped out completely.

But the remainder after we finish messing with the atmosphere and bombing the shit out of each other will have to live as natives did. In areas that could support them, migrating when they did not. Also, not shitting in their water, nor depleting their feed sources just for sport.

Ponder this -

How long would New York City, or any city for that matter not decay into major violence when the hydro goes out?

Us humans already kill each other for a small chunk of change - - that will accelerate when the need is basic shelter or food.

We will cull ourselves.

It is needed.

CC

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. A catastrophe seems to be a good guess

An “Anoxic Event” seems reasonably likely.

Take us out of the picture, and the ecosystem is still in a world of hurt.

At this point, I believe, we are (paradoxically) the current ecosystem’s best/only chance, because we are the only species with the demonstrated ability to rapidly effect massive changes in our environment.