Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 07 Jul 2016, 06:32:29

OMG.

Look up "ad hominem"

It means attacking the person. I was characterizing your argument, not you.

This discussion is clearly getting no where. Good luck with the rest of your life.
User avatar
dohboi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 15390
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 07 Jul 2016, 08:48:36

I guess english is a second language for you

The definition of idiotic is:
of, relating to, or characteristic of an idiot.

By suggesting someone's ideas or arguments are idiotic you are in fact suggesting those arguments were made by an idiot.

And of course that was your intent anyways....you just want to appear to take the high road when in fact the vast majority of what you do here is attack people rather than argue ideas from basis of fact. A quick perusal through your posts is quite demonstrative to that end.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4918
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 07 Jul 2016, 18:08:35

OK, you want me to call you an idiot, I'll call you and idiot. Idiot.

Congratulations, you are now on my ignore list. Because...idiot... :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
dohboi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 15390
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby vox_mundi » Tue 10 Jan 2017, 13:35:23

Effect of methane on climate change could be 25% greater than we thought

Research led by the University of Reading indicates that emissions of methane due to human activity have, to date, caused a warming effect which is about one-third of the warming effect due to carbon dioxide emissions – this methane contribution is 25% higher than previous estimates.

The new study, by Maryam Etminan and colleagues, is published in the American Geophysical Union's journal Geophysical Research Letters. The full report is open access and freely available.

The scientists calculated that, while carbon dioxide remains by far the most significant gas driving human-induced climate change, methane, while much less abundant, is even more potent than previously thought. They found that a one tonne emission of methane has the equivalent warming effect of 32 tonnes of carbon dioxide – up from the previous estimate of 28.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby kiwichick » Wed 11 Jan 2017, 02:01:33

thanks vox.....this will be important for New Zealand......almost half of our emissions come from agriculture
User avatar
kiwichick
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2161
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 10 Feb 2017, 12:29:10

new paper in Review of Geophysics from AGU
Ruppel, C. D., and J. D. Kessler (2017),The interaction of climate change and methane hydrates, Rev. Geophys., 55,doi:10.1002/2016RG000534.Abstract
Gas hydrate, a frozen, naturally-occurring, and highly-concentrated form of methane,sequesters significant carbon in the global system and is stable only over a range of low-temperature and moderate-pressure conditions. Gas hydrate is widespread in the sediments of marine continental margins and permafrost areas, locations where ocean and atmospheric warming may perturb the hydrate stabilityfield and lead to release of the sequestered methane into the overlying sediments and soils. Methane and methane-derived carbon that escape from sediments and soils and reach the atmosphere could exacerbate greenhouse warming. The synergy between warming climate and gas hydrate dissociation feeds a popular perception that global warming could drive catastrophic methane releases from the contemporary gas hydrate reservoir. Appropriate evaluation of the two sides of the climate-methane hydrate synergy requires assessing direct and indirect observational data related to gas hydrate dissociation phenomena and numerical models that track the interaction of gas hydrates/methane with the ocean and/or atmosphere.Methane hydrate is likely undergoing dissociation now on global upper continental slopes and on continental shelves that ring the Arctic Ocean. Many factors—the depth of the gas hydrates in sediments,strong sediment and water column sinks, and the inability of bubbles emitted at the seafloor to deliver methane to the sea-air interface in most cases—mitigate the impact of gas hydrate dissociation on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations though. There is no conclusive proof that hydrate-derived methane is reaching the atmosphere now, but more observational data and improved numerical models will better characterize the climate-hydrate synergy in the future


from the conclusions:

At high latitudes, the key factors contributing to overestimation of the contribution of gas hydrate dissociation to atmospheric CH4concentrations are the assumption that permafrost-associated gas hydrates are more abundant and widely distributed than is probably the case [Ruppel, 2015] and the extrapolation to the entireArctic Ocean of CH4emissions measured in one area. Appealing to gas hydrates as the source for CH4 emissions on high-latitude continental shelves lends a certain exoticism to the results but also feeds catastrophic scenarios. Since there is no proof that gas hydrate dissociation plays a role in shelfal CH4 emissions and several widespread and shallower sources of CH4could drive most releases, greater caution is necessary


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000534/epdf
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4918
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Sat 11 Feb 2017, 09:57:29

Although I am not an ESAS end of the world hysteric, the authors of this paper seem like a collection of smug ignoramuses.

1) Clathrates are associated with biological CH4 production. There are exceptions, such as the Yamal peninsula were it is clear that clathrates are formed by gas seeps from gas reservoirs, but they are not very important.

2) Ocean biotic activity is concentrated in coastal zones due to the availability of essential nutrients and other ecosystem reasons. So clathrates (and carbon) accumulate mostly over coastal seabeds and not inner ocean seabeds.

3) The Siberian shelf has an average depth of 50 meters which is not deep enough to preclude CH4 emissions to the atmosphere and there is plenty of evidence of CH4 evading to the surface. The fuss over whether this evasion is becoming catastrophic is not the issue. Other shelf regions will of necessity contain clathrate deposits that will be sufficiently shallow as to outgas into the atmosphere.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4580
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 11 Feb 2017, 13:37:41

the authors of this paper seem like a collection of smug ignoramuses.


I suspect this is the pot calling the kettle black. This paper is mainly a review of existing knowledge regarding methane hydrate characteristics distribution and stability as should be evidenced by the unusually large list of references (~400 papers).

Carolyn Ruppel is the Chief of the USGS Gas Hydrates Project and has been in that position for the last 6 years, previous to which she hs been a professor of geophysics at Georgia Institute of Technology and was a visiting professor at MIT. She has a list of just over a hundred publications to her credit a large proportion of which deal with the topic of hydrates. I find it difficult to imagine there is anyone more qualified to comment on the state of knowledge of hydrates than the head of the USGS program.

John Kessler is a professor at University Rochester where he is active in investigating chemical oceanography emphasizing isotopic biogeochemistry studies looking into methane and carbon dioxide dynamics in ocean systems. He previously held professorship in the Department of Oceanography at Texas A&M and was an Alfred P Sloan Reseach Fellow in Ocean Sciences. He has a list of 33 refereed publications many of which deal with methane flux from oceans. His background puts him in the ideal place to talk to sources of methane release, one of the main issues when trying to determine what has actually come from hydrate dissociation.

1) Clathrates are associated with biological CH4 production. There are exceptions, such as the Yamal peninsula were it is clear that clathrates are formed by gas seeps from gas reservoirs, but they are not very important


Perhaps you have read a completely different paper ….the authors of this paper state exactly that:

Owing to the concentration of organic carbon on continental margins, these locations are where most gas hydrates occur (Figure 3), and gas hydrates are largely absent beneath abyssal plains. The organic carbon is delivered to the sediment both by the rain of phytoplankton to the seafloor in highly productive continental margin waters and by export of terrestrial sediment from the continents. Remineralization of sedimentary organic carbon produces CO2, and most CH4 formed in sediments by microbial processes is the result of reducing this CO2. Microbial CH4, instead of thermogenic CH4 formed at higher temperatures via the same processes responsible for conventional natural gas, is the type most often found in recovered gas hydrates


2) Ocean biotic activity is concentrated in coastal zones due to the availability of essential nutrients and other ecosystem reasons. So clathrates (and carbon) accumulate mostly over coastal seabeds and not inner ocean seabeds


Perhaps you can quote from the paper where you think they got it wrong? The distribution of methane hydrates globally as determined by direct observation or from boreholes, seismic etc is shown in a map in the paper. As well Table 2 points out the data which was previously published indicating that a full 95.3% of methane gas in place in hydrates is located in the Deep Marine geographic setting.

3) The Siberian shelf has an average depth of 50 meters which is not deep enough to preclude CH4 emissions to the atmosphere and there is plenty of evidence of CH4 evading to the surface. The fuss over whether this evasion is becoming catastrophic is not the issue. Other shelf regions will of necessity contain clathrate deposits that will be sufficiently shallow as to outgas into the atmosphere.


The main point of the paper is that there is little actual evidence for release of methane from hydrates and that estimates of the amount of hydrates is problematic given less than adequate knowledge about how much pore space is actually occupied by methane and whether or not many of the identified hydrates from seismic and other means other than direct observation are are indeed hyrates.

Some relevant quotes from the paper:

Some researchers do infer large amounts of PAGH beneath arctic continental shelves (e.g., 35 Gt C in hydrate beneath the Laptev Sea shelf) [ Shakhova et al., 2010a] ,but several assumptions used in making this estimate may not fully account for the complexity of PAGH systems. Shakhova et al. [2010a] also invoked anomalous shallow gas hydrates beneath the East Siberian Arctic shelf as a potential CH4 source and to explain elevated estimates of CH4 sequestered in gas hydrates. This area was not glaciated at the LGM, as is usually required for shallow gas hydrates to occur, and the origin and existence of possible anomalous gas hydrate deposits remain controversial and require further examination


Despite the expectation that upper continental slopes host the most climate-susceptible gas hydrate populations, widespread upper slope seepage has so far only been recognized on the West Spitsbergen margin [Westbrook et al., 2009], the U.S. Atlantic margin [Skarke et al., 2014], and the northwestern U.S. Pacific margin[Johnson et al., 2015]


Upper continental slope seepage on the other margins has been interpreted in terms of warming of intermediate waters on time scales of years to centuries [Berndt et al., 2014; Biastoch et al., 2011; Brothers et al., 2014; Ruppel,2011a; Stranne et al., 2016b], but so far only the West Spitsbergen margin seepage has been firmly linked to dissociating gas hydrate [Berndt et al., 2014]
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4918
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 11 Feb 2017, 18:57:58

Thanks, dis.
User avatar
dohboi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 15390
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Previous

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests