The Fatal Road To 4 Degrees Celsius

The fatal road to +4°Celsius

Extreme GHG and T°C rise rates exceed climate tipping thresholds

Andrew Glikson

Precis

Global CO₂ rise and warming rates have reached a large factor to an order of magnitude higher than those of the past geological and mass extinction events, with major implications for the shift in climate zones and the nature and speed of current extreme weather events. Given the abrupt change in state of the atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere-land system, accelerating since the mid-20ᵗʰ century, the terms climate change and global warming no longer reflect the nature of the climate extremes consequent on this shift. Further to NASA’s reported mean land-ocean temperature rise to +1.18°C for March 2020, relative to the 1951-1980 baseline, large parts of the continents, including Siberia, central Asia, Canada, parts of west Africa, eastern South America and Australia are warming toward mean temperatures of +2°C and higher. The rate exceeds that of the Last Glacial Termination (LGT) (21–8 kyr), the Paleocene-Eocene hyperthermal event (PETM) (55.9 Ma) and the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (K-T) (64.98 Ma) impact event. A principal question arises regarding the relationships between the warming rate and the nature and progression of the current migration climate zones toward the poles, including changes in the atmosphere and ocean current systems. Significant transient cooling pauses, or stadials, are projected as a consequence of the flow of cold ice melt water from Greenland and Antarctica into the oceans.

Figure 1. Global temperature distribution in March 2020, relative to a 1951-1980 baseline. NASA GISS.

The K-T impact and subsequent warming: According to Beerling et al. (2002) the CO₂ change triggered by the K-T impact event 65 Ma years ago involved a rise from about 400-500 ppm to 2300 ppm over 10.000 years from the impact (Fig. 2) at a rate of 0.18 ppm/year. This is less than the mean Anthropocene CO₂ rise rate of 0.415 ppm/year and an order of magnitude less than the 2 to 3 ppm/year rise rate in the 21ˢᵗ century. Likewise the Anthropocene temperature rise rate of ~ 0.0074°C/year is high by an order of magnitude as compared to the K-T impact event rate of~ 0.00075°C/year (Table 1) reported by Beerling et al. (2002).

Figure 2. Reconstructed atmospheric CO₂ variations during the Late Cretaceous–Early Tertiary derived from the SI
(Stomata index) of fossil leaf cuticles calibrated by using inverse regression and stomatal ratios. Beerling et al. (2002).

Beerling et al.’s (2002) estimate, based on fossil fern proxies, implies an initial injection of at least 6,400 GtCO₂  and possibly as high as 13,000 GtCO₂ into the atmosphere, significantly higher than values derived by Pope et al. (1997). This would increase climate forcing by +12 Wm⁻² and mean warming of ~7.5°C, which would have strongly stressed ecosystems already affected by cold temperatures and the blockage of sunlight during the impact winter and associated mass extinction at the KT boundary (O’Keefe et al. 1989).

The PETM hyperthermal event: The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, about 55.9 Ma, triggered the release of a large mass of light ¹³C-depleted carbon suggestive of an organic source, likely methane, has led to a global surface temperature rise of 5 – 9°C within a few thousand years (Table 1; Fig. 3). Deep-sea carbonate dissolution indices and stable carbon isotope composition were used to estimate the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 PgC or less. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by up to 70% compared with pre-event levels, leading to a global surface temperatures rose by 5–9°C within a few thousand years.

Figure 3. Simulated atmospheric CO2 at and after the Palaeocene-Eocene boundary (after Zeebe et al. (2009).

The last glacial termination: Paleoclimate indices based on ice cores and isotopic evidence suggest temperature rise generally correlates with CO₂ during the Last Glacial Termination between 17.5 kyr to 10 kyr. Whereas the rise rates of CO₂ and temperature are broadly parallel the temperature somewhat lags behind CO₂ (Figure 2). Changes of CO₂ – 186 - 265 ppm and of temperature of T°C -3.3°C - +0.2°C (Fig. 4). A rise rate of ~0.010 ppm CO₂/year and of temperature ~0.00046°C/year are indicated (Table 1) (Shakun et al., 2012). Differences between temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere correspond to variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.

Figure 4. Global CO₂ and temperature during the last glacial termination (After Shakun et al. 2012).
(LGM – Last Glacial Maximum; OD – Older Dryas; B-A - Bølling–Allerød; YD Younger Dryas).

Trajectories and rates of global CO₂ rise and warming

The rates at which atmospheric composition and climate changes occur constitute major control over the survival versus extinction of species. Based on paleo-proxy estimates of greenhouse gas levels and of mean temperatures, using oxygen and carbon isotopes, fossil plants, fossil organic matter, trace elements, the rate of CO₂ rise since ~1750 (Anthropocene) (CO₂ ᴀɴᴛʜ) exceeds that of the last glacial termination (CO₂ ʟɢᴛ) by an order of magnitude (CO₂ ᴀɴᴛʜ/CO₂ ʟɢᴛ = 41) and that of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (CO₂ ᴘᴇᴛᴍ) by a high factor (CO₂ ᴀɴᴛʜ/CO₂ ᴘᴇᴛᴍ ~ 3.8–6.9)(Table 1). The rise rate of mean global temperature exceeds that of the LGT and the PETM by a large factor to an order of magnitude (Table 1; Figs 5 and 6). It can be expected that such extreme rates of change will be manifest in real time by observed shifts in state of global and regional climates and the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, including the following observations:

• A shift in climate zones (Fig. 7) including expansion of the tropics and migration of moderate mediterranean-type climate zones toward the poles , estimated at a rate of 56-111 km per decade (Thurton 2017), signifying a fundamental shift in state of the Earth’s climate regime.
• A high rate of ice melt and development of cool ocean pools south of Greenland and around Antarctica (Fig. 8a) developing into cool ocean regions and stadial climate conditions (Fig. 8b).
• Reduced temprature differences between the polar zones and mid-latitudes and thereby weakening of the polar boundaries and the polar jet stream boundary.
• Weakening of the North Atlantic Thermal Circulation.
• Changes in the southern ocean Antarctic oscillation and the Antarctic vortex.

The rapid increase in extreme weather events,including droughts, heat waves, fires, cyclones and storms.

Figure 5. Cenozoic and Anthropocene CO₂ and temperature rise rates.

Figure 6. A comparison between rates of mean global temperature rise during:
(1) the last Glacial Termination (after Shakun et al. 2012);
(2) the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, after Kump 2011);
(3) the late Anthropocene (1750–2019), and
(4) an asteroid impact. In the latter instance, temperature associated with
CO₂ rise would lag by some weeks or months behind aerosol-induced cooling.

Figure 7. An updated Köppen–Geiger climate zones map.

By contrast to linear IPCC climate projections for 2100-2300, climate modelling for the 21st century by Hansen et al. 2016 suggests major effects of ice melt water flow into the oceans from the ice sheets, leading to stadial cooling of parts of the oceans, changing the global temperature pattern from that of the early 21ˢᵗ century (Figs 8, 9a) to the late 21ˢᵗ century (Fig. 9b).

Figure 8. Global temperature patterns during El Nino and La Nina events. NASA GISS

Figure 9. a. An A1B model of surface-air temperature change for 2055-2060 relative
to 1880-1920 (+1 meters sea level rise) for modified forcing (Hansen et al. 2016);
b. A1B model surface-air temperatures in 2096 relative to 1880-1920 (+5 meters sea level rise) for 10 years
ice melt doubling time in the southern hemisphere and partial global cooling of -0.33°C (Hansen et al. 2016).

Summary and conclusions

1. Late 20th century to early 21asrt century global greenhouse gas levels and regional warming rates have reached a high factor to an order of magnitude faster than those of past geological and mass extinction events, with major implications for the nature and speed of extreme weather events.
2. The Anthropocene CO₂ rise and warming rates exceed that of the Last Glacial Termination (LGT) (21–8kyr), the Paleocene-Eocene hyperthermal event (PETM) (55.9 Ma) and the post-impact Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (K-T) (64.98 Ma). 
3. Further to NASA’s reported mean land-ocean temperature rise of +1.18°C in March 2020, relative to the 1951-1980 baseline, large parts of the continents, including central Asia, west Africa eastern South America and Australia are warming toward mean temperatures of +2°C and higher. 
4. Major consequences of the current shift in state of the climate system pertain to the weakening of the polar boundaries and the migration of climate zones toward the poles. Transient cooling pauses are projected as a result of the flow of cold ice melt water from Greenland and Antarctica into the oceans, leading to stadial cooling intervals.
5. Given the abrupt shift in state of the atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere-land system, the current trend signifies an abrupt shift in state of the atmosphere, accelerating since the mid-20th century. Terms such as climate change and global warming no longer reflect the extreme nature of the climate events consequent on this shift, amounting to a climate catastrophe on a geological scale.

Andrew Glikson

Dr Andrew Glikson
Earth and Paleo-climate scientist
ANU Climate Science Institute

ANU Planetary Science Institute
Canberra, Australian Territory, Australiageospec@iinet.net.au

Books:

The Asteroid Impact Connection of Planetary Evolution
http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789400763272
The Archaean: Geological and Geochemical Windows into the Early Earth
http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319079073
Climate, Fire and Human Evolution: The Deep Time Dimensions of the Anthropocene
http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319225111
The Plutocene: Blueprints for a Post-Anthropocene Greenhouse Earth
http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319572369
Evolution of the Atmosphere, Fire and the Anthropocene Climate Event Horizon
http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789400773318
From Stars to Brains: Milestones in the Planetary Evolution of Life and Intelligence
https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783030106027

Asteroids Impacts, Crustal Evolution and Related Mineral Systems with Special Reference to Australia
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319745442 

From Stars to Brains: Milestones in the Planetary Evolution of Life and Intelligence

The Plutocene: Blueprints for a Post-Anthropocene Greenhouse Earth

Added below is a video with an August 6, 2019, interview of Andrew Glikson by Guy McPherson and Kevin Hester, as edited by Tim Bob.

Arctic Hit By Ten Tipping Points

Tipping points are abrupt climate changes that typically occur as self-reinforcing feedback loops start to kick in. Ten tipping points look set to hit the Arctic hard. Such tipping points can coincide and they are in many ways interrelated, making that the danger is compounded by the domino effect of tipping points hitting one another.

1. El Niño

Above image shows March 2020 temperature anomalies, featuring very high temperature anomalies over Russia and over the ESAS, the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

Global warming is a catastrophic development and El Niño is global warming on steroids.

As the Atlantic Ocean heats up along the path of the Gulf Stream, huge amounts of hot water get carried toward the Arctic Ocean, as illustrated by above image

Current conditions still are El Niño-neutral.  Since the temperature rise is amplified in the Arctic, a strong El Niño later in 2020 can hit the Arctic particularly hard, which can act as a catalyst that triggers further tipping points to get crossed, as also discussed in an earlier post. This can in turn cause a steep global temperature rise, as illustrated by the image on the right.

The image below shows that, on the Northern Hemisphere, the March sea surface temperature anomaly for 2020 was higher than previous years.

2. Latent Heat (Loss of Buffer)

Sea ice hanging meters below the surface has until now consumed huge amounts of ocean heat moving into the Arctic Ocean in Spring on the Northern Hemisphere. As a result, there has been a huge reduction in Arctic sea ice volume over the years.

Moreover, Arctic sea ice is getting very thin. The image below shows a sea ice thickness (in meters) comparison below between April 26, 2015 and April 26, 2020, i.e. forecasts for February 26, run on April 25.

Arctic sea ice volume is now past its annual peak and looks set for a steep fall. Arctic sea ice volume has been at a record low for the time of year since the start of 2020.

Ocean heat is on the rise, particularly on the Northern Hemisphere. As the sea ice is getting thinner, there now is little or no buffer left to consume the influx of ever warmer and salty water from the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean. As illustrated by the image below, there is a tipping point at 1°C above the 20th century average, i.e. there are indications that a rise of 1°C will result in most of the sea ice underneath the surface to disappear.

[ from earlier post ]

As long as there is sea ice in the water, this sea ice will keep absorbing heat as it melts, so the temperature will not rise at the sea surface. But there is ever less sea ice volume left to absorb ocean heat, and the amount of energy absorbed by melting ice is as much as it takes to heat an equivalent mass of water from zero to 80°C.

Meanwhile, temperatures keep rising globally and more than 90% of global warming is going into oceans.

3. Loss of Sea Ice Albedo

Disappearance of the sea ice goes hand in hand with albedo changes that mean that a lot more sunlight will be absorbed by the Arctic Ocean, instead of getting reflected back into space as occurred previously.

Arctic sea ice extent was rather large earlier in 2020, but extent on April 26 was only in 2016 smaller than in 2020, and only slightly so.

The annual fall in Arctic sea ice is strongly influenced by weather conditions over the Arctic Ocean, as well as weather conditions over Russia and North America, as discussed in the next point.

4. Loss of Terrestrial Permafrost

Rising heat threatens to have a strong impact across the Arctic. One of the tipping points is abrupt thawing of terrestrial permafrost, resulting in loss of albedo, increased flow of hot water into the Arctic Ocean and mobilization of large amounts of greenhouse gases.

The Rutgers University image on the right shows a strong reduction in Eurasian snow cover in March 2020. 

The albedo changes due to decline of terrestrial permafrost are likely similar in size compared to the changes taking place over over the sea ice.

Furthermore, as the albedo feedback speeds up demise of the permafrost, huge amounts of warm water flow into the Arctic Ocean from rivers and groundwater in Russia and North America, also mobilizing large amounts of carbon and nitrogen, as a recent study indicates.

Emissions across 2.5 million km² of abrupt thaw could provide a similar climate feedback as gradual thaw emissions from the entire 18 million km² permafrost region under the warming projection of Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, a study published in February 2020 finds.

5. Jet Stream Changes

As the temperature difference between the Equator and the North Pole narrows, the Jet Stream gets ever more deformed, resulting in more extreme weather events.

Above image shows Instantaneous Wind Power Density at 250 hPa (Jet Stream) on April 18, 2020, 06:00Z, with wind speed over North Greenland as high as 208 km/h or 129 mph (at green circle).

The image on the right shows the same, but uses a different projection (Northern Hemisphere only).

The Jet Stream is crossing the Arctic Ocean at high speed and circular patterns show up all over the Arctic. Such changes to the jet stream can lead to strong temperature extremes closer to the surface.

On average, Arctic temperature on April 20, 2020, was 5°C or 9°F higher than 1979-2000.

The image on the right is a temperature (air 2m) forecast for April 20, 2020, 21:00 UTC, run that day, showing the temperature in the Arctic to be 5.5°C or 9.9°F higher than 1979-2000. Over parts of the Arctic Ocean, the temperature was more than 20°C or 36°F (red color) higher.

On April 20, 2020, 09:00 UTC, the temperature over parts of the Arctic Ocean was well above 0°C or 32°F, and as high as 2.5°C or 36.5°F at the green circle on the image below.

The situation is dire and threatens to cause early demise of the sea ice and releases of huge amounts of methane from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean.

Later in the year, more extreme weather is likely to cause very high temperatures on land in parts of North America, Russia and Greenland, resulting in ever more fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean.

Fresh water has a very low alkalinity or buffering capacity, which reduces the ability of the Arctic Ocean to take up carbon dioxide, a recently-published study finds, which leads to the following point, i.e. loss of carbon sinks.

6. Loss of Carbon Sinks

While the COVID-19 lockdowns have caused emissions to come down, especially emissions associated with transport and industry, greenhouse gas levels still appear to be rising at accelerating pace.

As above image illustrates, the relentless rise in daily average carbon dioxide isn't slowing down, the rise actually appears to be accelerating. The annual peak in carbon dioxide is typically reached in May, so the recent rise can be expected to continue for some time.

More extreme weather is causing stronger droughts, heatwaves and forest fires. This threatens to destroy farmland as well as forests that were carbon sinks until now.

Important is also what happens in oceans. A recent study finds that one particular layer in the North Atlantic Ocean, a water mass called the North Atlantic Subtropical Mode Water, is very efficient at drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Ocean warming is restricting its formation and changing the anatomy of the North Atlantic, making it a less efficient sink for heat and carbon dioxide.

Indeed, more carbon carbon may already get released from oceans than they can take up from the atmosphere. The Arctic has a pivoting role in this.

7. Seafloor Methane

The image below shows the rise in methane levels at Barrow, Alaska.

Globally, NOAA reports a growth in methane levels of 11.54 parts per billion in 2019, the highest growth rate of the past few years.

The image on the right shows an added trend ominously pointing at a doubling of methane levels by 2026.

A doubling of methane over the next decade would have more warming impact globally than a doubling of carbon dioxide levels.

These are marine surface data; the largest rise in methane has actually taken place at higher altitudes.

The image below shows high methane levels over the Arctic, as well as over Antarctica, with methane levels recorded as high as 2755 ppb.

One explanation for the high levels of methane over Antarctica is that wild pressure and temperature swings are causing cracks to widen and release methane.

While freshwater generally is increasing due to increased melting, the Arctic Ocean can occasionally experience be a huge influx of warm, salty water from the Atlantic Ocean.

Changes to the Jet Stream make that stronger winds push warm water along the path of the Gulf Stream toward the Arctic Ocean, as discussed in a recent post. A recent study finds increasing current velocities in the European Arctic Corridor, an increase, up to two-fold, in North Atlantic current surface velocities over the last 24 years.

Such an influx of warm, salty water could cause another tipping point to get crossed, i.e. the point where temperatures rise at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean and start destabilizing methane hydrates. This can occur when ice melts of the hydrate cages, thus causing methane to erupts, causing it to expand 160 times in volume when changing from a liquid to a gas.

As the temperature of the oceans keeps rising, the danger increases that heat will reach the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean and will destabilize hydrates contained in sediments at the seafloor, resulting in abrupt eruption of vast amounts of methane that further speed up Arctic warming.

8. Nitrous Oxide and Ozone Layer Decline

The image below shows levels of nitrous oxide as high as 354 ppb on April 6, 2020, with very high levels over Antarctica.

One explanation for the high levels of nitrous oxide could evolve around the presence of some very cold areas at the poles. Again, more extreme weather events, including wild temperature and pressure swings, could be behind this. Similarly, this could also be behind ozone depletion in the stratosphere.

The Arctic is particularly vulnerable to a rapid temperature rise. Greenhouse gas levels are already very high over the Arctic. At the same time, hydroxyl levels are low over the Arctic, increasing the lifetime of methane over the Arctic. Furthermore, changes in aerosols can have a strong impact on Arctic temperatures. Black carbon settling on snow and ice hits the Arctic hard, as it is speeding up warming.

Without the dimming impact of other aerosols, the Arctic would have heated up even more in March 2020 is. Dust and sulfate currently mask much of the impact that high levels of greenhouse gas levels have over the Arctic.

9. Aerosols and Falling away of the Aerosol Masking Effect

According to IPCC AR5, dust has a direct impact of -0.1 W/m², while additionally contributing to aerosol–cloud interactions. When taking into account a 0.15 W/m² warming impact found to be caused by coarse dust, dust may well cause net warming, which is the more important since dust is likely to increase due to more fires, stronger winds and further desertification.

[ Dust, from the Aerosols page ]

[ click on images to enlarge ]

Above image shows that τ, i.e. light at 550 nm as a measurement of aerosol optical thickness due to dust aerosols, was as high as 8.9534 on March 28, 2020, at 07:00 UTC. The image also shows that quite a lot of dust ends up over the Arctic.

Globally, sulfur has an even larger impact. The image on the right shows sulfur dioxide emissions over Wuhan, China, reaching peak levels of 2745.54 µg/m³ on April 19, 2020 (top), 3572.28 µg/m³ on April 04, 2019(middle) and 3410.96 µg/m³ on April 27, 2018 (bottom).

As a result of the COVID-19 lockdowns, traffic and large parts of industrial activity have ground to a halt worldwide. Nonetheless, sulfur emissions can still be high, while ship tracks are clearly visible on the top image. The impact of shipping alone is huge, as discussed in a recent post.

Most sulfur emissions are originating from coal-fired power plants, shipping and smelters, which until now appear not to have slowed down much.

Consequently, sulfate aerosol levels can still be high, as illustrated by the image below which shows that τ, i.e. light at 550 nm as a measurement of aerosol optical thickness due to sulfate aerosols, was as high as 5.233 on April 29, 2020, at 07:00 UTC.

[ Radiative Forcing, IPCC, from the Aerosols page ]

According to the IPCC AR5 (image on the right), the direct cooling impact of sulfate aerosols is as much as -0.62 W/m². Additionally, sulfate aerosols strongly contribute to the impact of aerosol–cloud interactions, estimated in AR5 to provide as much as -1.2 W/m² cooling. Taken together, the two add up to as much as -1.82 W/m² of cooling.

As said, sulfate currently has a strong cooling impact on the Arctic, as above image shows. Reductions in the aerosol masking effect could make temperatures in the Arctic and globally  rise abruptly and dramatically.

A steep rise in temperature is in line with unfolding developments that are causing the aerosol masking effect to fall away, such as a decrease in industrial activity due to COVID-19 fears. The danger is illustrated by the image below. The image below shows a potential rise of 18°C or 32.4°F from 1750 by the year 2026.

Above image was posted more than a year ago and illustrates that much of this potentially huge temperature rise over the next few years could eventuate as a result of a reduction in the cooling now provided by sulfate. In other words, a steep temperature rise could result from a decline in industrial activity caused by the virus, as also discussed in the video at an earlier post.

Furthermore, above image also shows strong warming due to black carbon and brown carbon. Indeed, the virus could cause not only a decline in the use of fossil fuel for smelters, transport and energy, including for heating, cooking and lighting. That would be great, since there are cleaner alternatives, but when many people instead switched to burning biomass in woodburners (stoves, heaters and fireplaces, for heating, preparing food and boiling water) and in open fires, while also burning more forests to create more pasture for grazing, and while burning more waste in the absence of appropriate waste management, the net warming (due to increased black carbon and brown carbon) could be a lot higher, especially when combined with a strong increase in forest fires.

10. Collapse of Biosystems and further Tipping Points

Rising temperatures are causing more extreme weather events and are changing the Jet Stream, which further contributes to more extreme weather.

[ from earlier post ]

In the past, Earth's climate zones used to be kept well apart by the Jet Streams. On the Northern Hemisphere, the Northern Polar Jet Stream used to be working hard to keep the Tundra and Boreal climate zones' colder air in the North separate from the Temperate climate and the Subtropical climate zones' warmer air closer to the Equator. This has now changed. More generally, rising temperatures and changes to the Jet Streams are threatening Earth's climate zones to collapse, in turn resulting in biosystems collapse.

As said, more extreme weather is causing stronger droughts, heatwaves and forest fires. This threatens to destroy farmland as well as forests that were carbon sinks until now. The Boreal forests in Siberia and North America and the tundra within the Arctic Circle are particularly vulnerable, but also under threat are the peat fields and forests in Africa and South-east Asia and South America. Forest fires in Australia earlier this year will also have contributed to higher carbon dioxide levels. Links between extreme weather events over the permafrost and methane releases, earthquakes and sudden stratospheric warming were discussed in a recent post.

Further tipping points can exist outside of the Arctic, such as hydrological changes, in particular changes to the monsoons in India and Africa, and rapid melting of the snow and ice cover of mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, which could temporarily cause flooding and eventually drought, famine, heatwaves and mass starvation, further exacerbated by worldwide crop failure, loss of species and entire biosystems, and by collapse of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets causing flooding of coastal areas around the globe.

For more on collapse of biosystems, loss of habitat for many species (including humans) and more, view the video below by Guy McPherson.

Again, the emissions and temperature rises associated with such further tipping points will hit the Arctic particularly hard, given the amplification of the global temperature rise in the Arctic.

Conclusions, further reflections on methane

How important are these points? How much harm could result from, say, seafloor methane releases? Well, such releases can speed up the temperature rise rapidly and dramatically. How fast? In a matter of years. How much? Have another look at the image below, from an earlier post, showing the global warming potential (GWP) of methane.

Why is methane's GWP so important? The trend in above image shows that, over the first few years after its release, methane's GWP is 150 times higher than carbon dioxide. This trend is based on IPCC AR5 figures and is actually conservative, i.e. the IPCC also gives higher values for methane's GWP in AR5, i.e. for fossil methane and when including climate change feedbacks, while there also is additional warming due to the carbon dioxide that results from methane's oxidation. Furthermore, new research has calculated that methane's radiative forcing is higher than reported in IPCC AR5, so methane's GWP will be over 150 for a longer period than just over the first few years.

The trend in the image indicates that methane's GWP over a period of 12.4 years is 100. The IPCC in AR5 gives methane a lifetime of 12.4 years, i.e. the methane in the atmosphere gets broken down in 12.4 years time. Importantly, the methane gets more than replenished, since the overall methane burden keeps rising. In other words, a GWP of 100 applies to all methane in the atmosphere, i.e. the existing burden + new releases that (more than) replenish what gets broken down.

The trend points at a GWP of 150 over the first few years. Given that, as said above, the trend in the image is conservative, methane may well have a GWP of 150 over a period of 5⅔ years, i.e. the time between now and 2026.

When using a GWP of 150 for methane over 5⅔ years, the joint burden of the carbon dioxide and the methane now present in the atmosphere is about 700 ppm CO₂e. When adding a seafloor methane release of twice the size of the methane that's already in the atmosphere and when again using a GWP of 150 for methane over 5⅔ years, such a methane release would be enough to trigger the clouds feedback by 2026, which on its own could raise the global temperature by 8°C in 2026.

Keep in mind that, next to seafloor methane, there are further elements that also contribute to the temperature rise, so the clouds feedback could be triggered with far less methane. In total, a rise of 18°C could eventuate by 2026, as illustrated by the image below and as discussed in an earlier post.

The situation is dire and calls for immediate, comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.

Links

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• NOAA Trends in Atmospheric Methane
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4

• Eurasian Snow Cover Anomalies, 1967-2020 March, Rutgers University
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=eurasia&ui_month=3

• Carbon release through abrupt permafrost thaw - by Merritt Turetsky et al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0526-0

• Groundwater as a major source of dissolved organic matter to Arctic coastal waters - by Craig Connolly et al. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15250-8

• A recent decline in North Atlantic subtropical mode water formation - by Samuel Stevens et al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0722-3

• Freshening of the western Arctic negates anthropogenic carbon uptake potential - by Ryan Woosley
https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/lno.11421

• Why stronger winds over the North Atlantic are so dangerous
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2020/02/why-stronger-winds-over-north-atlantic-are-so-dangerous.html

• Faster Atlantic currents drive poleward expansion of temperate phytoplankton in the Arctic Ocean - by L. Oziel et al. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15485-5

• What's wrong with the weather?
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/07/whats-wrong-with-the-weather.html

• Aerosols
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/aerosols.html

• Climate models miss most of the coarse dust in the atmosphere - by Adeyemi Adebiyi et al.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/15/eaaz9507

• Arctic Ocean February 2020
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2020/02/arctic-ocean-february-2020.html

• 2°C crossed
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2020/03/2c-crossed.html

• Blue Ocean Event
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/09/blue-ocean-event.html

• 2020 El Nino could start 18°C temperature rise
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/11/2020-el-nino-could-start-18-degree-temperature-rise.html

• Stronger Extinction Alert
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/03/stronger-extinction-alert.html

• Methane, Earthquake and Sudden Stratospheric Warming
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2020/03/methane-earthquake-and-sudden-stratospheric-warming.html

• Most Important Message Ever
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/07/most-important-message-ever.html

World's Governments Must Learn About Emissions During COVID-19 Shutdown

WORLD GOVERNMENTS MUST LEARN CORONAVIRUS EMISSIONS SHUTDOWN
AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE - by Albert Kallio

Global Circulation Models (GCMs) are computer models of the world's atmosphere based on observations and assumptions if there are no direct information available.

World emissions shutdowns are a novel opportunity to learn about how climate system responds under different circumstances that cannot be normally experimentally checked. It is vitally important for the world's governments NOT to shut down meteorological measurements. Indeed, efforts must increase to use opportunity to test and search regional responses of the highly unusual situation.

World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and national meteorological organisations must quickly come up with new research proposals to gain every possible bit of information as this helps to understand how world's climate will respond as the world moves towards ZERO emissions. It is a tremendous tragedy if this unique opportunity to find more about how our atmosphere operates is lost.

Sponsors, please look at serious proposals to make research offers right now! Let's make something positive happen out of this coronavirus calamity.


Veli Albert Kallio
Vice President, Sea Research Society
Environmental Affairs Department
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Research_Society

Methane, Earthquake and Sudden Stratospheric Warming

On the morning of March 12, 2020, peak methane levels were as high as 2902 ppb (parts per billion) at a pressure level of 469 mb (millibar, equivalent to an altitude of some 6 km (almost 20,000 feet).

What did cause this very high peak? The image on the right shows the situation at 695 mb.

High levels of methane, colored in magenta, show up over the oceans at high latitudes north, especially around Greenland and around Svalbard.

The image underneath on the right shows methane even closer to sea level, at 1000 mb. At this altitude, such magenta-colored high levels of methane only show up over an area in between Greenland and Svalbard.

It appears that these high methane levels did originate from this area. What could have triggered this?

The image below shows that an earthquake with a magnitude of 4.6 on the Richter scale hit an area in between Greenland and Svalbard on March 11, 2020, at 21:30:03 (UTC), 2020, at depth of 10 km.

It appears that the earthquake did cause destabilization of sediments at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean in between Greenland and Svalbard, containing methane in the form of hydrates and free gas, with the destabilization resulting in the eruption of methane that subsequently reached the atmosphere.

As illustrated by the image on the right, there were strong differences in pressure in the atmosphere over Greenland on the one hand and over the Arctic Ocean on the other hand, on March 11, 2020, 21:00 UTC.

The next question is if there was something that triggered the earthquake. The image below shows a forecast for March 22, 2020, of conditions in the stratosphere at 10 hPa.

Above image shows a forecast for March 22, 2020, of temperatures as high as 6.2°C or 43.2°F and as low as -68.8°C or -91.9°F at another location at 10 hPa (Polar Vortex), with wind reaching speeds as high as 369 km/h or 229 mph.

The image on the right shows a huge temperature difference between two locations in the stratosphere on March 23, 2020, resulting in wind reaching speeds as high as 341 km/h or 212 mph.

This indicates a strong updraft, carrying huge amounts of relatively warm air from low altitudes over the Arctic up into the stratosphere.

Following a steep fall, Arctic sea ice extent was at a record low for the time of year on March 28, 2020, as illustrated by the image below.

Since the start of 2020, Arctic sea ice volume has been at a record low for the time of year, as the image on the right shows.

These conditions may have acted as a sink plunger, triggering the earthquake and destabilizing sediments at the seafloor, resulting in the methane eruptions.

More generally, the events reflect a huge and growing overall imbalance in the temperature of the atmosphere, and the added methane releases further contribute to this imbalance.

Meanwhile, sea surface temperatures off the coast of North America on March 21, 2020, were as much as 13.2°C or 23.7°F higher than 1981-2011 (at the green circle on the image on the right).

With sea ice thickness this low, it looks like there will be no buffer left to consume ocean heat that gets carried along the path of the Gulf Stream into the Arctic Ocean, which threatens to further destabilize sediments containing huge amounts of methane, as also discussed in an earlier post.

On top of this, high temperatures keep showing up over the Arctic Ocean in forecasts, as illustrated by the two forecasts below (for March 21, 2020, and for March 31, 2020).

Temperature anomaly forecast for March 21, 2020

Temperature anomaly forecast for March 31, 2020

Discussion

As said above, it appears that this M4.6 earthquake on March 11, 2020, caused destabilization of sediments at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean in between Greenland and Svalbard.

The image on the right shows that earlier, a M5 earthquake hit an area a bit to the north, i.e. on March 3, 2020.

While not much methane showed up locally following that M5 earthquake, high methane readings were recorded elsewhere over large parts of the Arctic Ocean early March 2020, which could have resulted from destabilization along the fault line that crosses the Arctic Ocean (red line).

The next image on the right shows that earthquakes between Greenland and Svalbard over the past decade did predominantly occur on this fault line.

The high methane readings in between Greenland and Svalbard following the M4.6 earthquake could have occurred for the very reason that this earthquake hit an area outside the fault line, where sediments had until now rarely been shaken.

This could imply there could be huge amounts of methane contained in areas outside the fault line, supporting the above warning that ocean heat that gets carried along the path of the Gulf Stream into the Arctic Ocean threatens to further destabilize sediments containing huge amounts of methane. After all, such destabilization can occur as a result of higher temperatures or changes in pressure, or both.

Update

South Greenland was hit by M4.3 and M4.5 earthquakes on April 17, 2020. North Greenland was earlier hit by a M4.6 earthquake, on March 30, 2020.

Earthquakes that hit the Greenland mainland are rare. Earthquakes typically take place on or close to the faultline (red line) that goes over Iceland and extends north, running in between Greenland and Svalbard, as was the case with the M4.2 east of Greenland on April 2, 2020.

This faultline runs across the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean all the way to Russia. Multiple earthquakes hit this faultline recently, including two M4.3 eartquakes, one east of Severnaya Zemlya on April 12, 2020, and one near Tiksi on March 27, 2020.

The situation is dire and calls for immediate, comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.


Links

• Arctic Ocean January 2020
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2020/02/arctic-ocean-february-2020.html

• Seismic Events
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/seismic-events.html

• Arctic Ocean February 2020
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2020/02/arctic-ocean-february-2020.html

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html