The image below illustrates the dramatic drop in sea ice extent (total area of at least 15% ice concentration) for the last 7 years, compared to the average 1972-2011, as calculated by the Polar View team at the University of Bremen, Germany.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Arctic sea ice decline continues
The image below, from The Cryosphere Today, shows that Arctic sea ice has shrunk in area by 11.446871 million square km from March 28, 2012, to September 11, 2012, a fall of over 83.66 percent in 167 days.
The image below illustrates the dramatic drop in sea ice extent (total area of at least 15% ice concentration) for the last 7 years, compared to the average 1972-2011, as calculated by the Polar View team at the University of Bremen, Germany.
The image below illustrates the dramatic drop in sea ice extent (total area of at least 15% ice concentration) for the last 7 years, compared to the average 1972-2011, as calculated by the Polar View team at the University of Bremen, Germany.
Russia: 74 million acres burned through August 2012
 |
| NASA image, acquired September 11, 2012 |
From NASA Earth Observatory
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79161
The summer of 2012 has proven to be the most severe wildfire season Russia has faced in a decade. Unlike 2010, when severe fires raged in western Russia, most of the fires in 2012 have burned through taiga in remote parts of eastern and central Siberia.
On September 11, 2012, the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite captured this image of fires burning in Tomsk, a region of south central Siberia where severe wildfires have burned throughout the summer. Thick smoke billowed from numerous wildfires near the Ob River and mixed with haze and clouds that arrived from the southwest. Red outlines indicate hot spots where MODIS detected the unusually warm surface temperatures associated with fires.
More than 17,000 wildfires had burned more than 30 million hectares (74 million acres) through August 2012, according to researchers at the Sukachev Institute of Forest in the Russian Academy of Sciences. In comparison, 20 million hectares burned last year, which was roughly the average between 2000 and 2008, according to an analysis of MODIS data published in 2010.
Another way to gauge the severity of a wildfire season is to consider the smoke emissions. Fires emit a range of gases and particles into the atmosphere that can be detected by ground-based, aircraft, and satellite instruments. The two most common emissions are carbon dioxide and water vapor; however, incomplete combustion also generates carbon monoxide, an odorless and poisonous gas. In fact, fires are the source of about half of all carbon monoxide in the atmosphere.
Though ground and aircraft sensors provide the most accurate measurements of carbon monoxide for a localized area, satellites offer the best way to monitor wildfire emissions over broad regions, particularly in remote areas where there are fewer ground-based instruments. Christine Wiedinmyer, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has developed a model that ingests MODIS observations of fires and combines them with other information about vegetation (such as the percentage of tree cover and the type of forest) to calculate the quantity of emissions.
In September 2012, Wiedinmyer used her model to calculate Russian fire emissions for every year dating back to 2002. She found that the amount of carbon monoxide produced in 2012 was significantly more than what was produced in 2010 and the second most in a decade. Through August 31, the model showed that Russian wildfires had released an estimated 48 teragrams of carbon monoxide since the beginning of 2012. By comparison, the model estimated fires yielded just 22 teragrams of carbon monoxide in all of 2010.
Only one year—2003—had higher overall emissions. In that year, when severe fires burned in eastern Russia, wildfires produced an estimated 72 teragrams of carbon monoxide.
References
- Wiedinmyer, C. (2011). The Fire Inventory from NCAR (FINN): a High Resolution Global Model to Estimate the Emissions from Open Burning. Geoscience Model Development.
- Vivhar, A. (2010, July 13). Wildfires in Russia in 2008-2008: Estimates of Burn Areas Using Satellite MODIS MCD45. Remote Sensing Letters.
- Langmann, B. (2009, July 13). Vegetation Fire Emissions and Their Impact on Air Pollution and Climate. Atmospheric Environment.
Further Reading
- Russian Government. (2012, August 6). Dmitry Medvedev on a Working Visit to the Tomsk Region Holds a Meeting on the Situation in the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation Suffering from Abnormally High Temperatures in 2012.Accessed September 12, 2012.
- Russian Government. (2012, August 6). Dmitry Medvedev Holds a Meeting With Tomsk Region Governor Sergei Zhvachkin. Accessed September 12, 2012.
- Ranson, J. (2012, July). Siberia 2012: A Slow and Smoky Arrival. Notes from the Field.
NASA image courtesy Jeff Schmaltz, LANCE MODIS Rapid Response Team, Goddard Space Flight Center. Caption by Adam Voiland, with information from Christine Wiedinmyer, Jon Ranson, and Vyacheslav Kharuk. Instrument: Aqua - MODIS
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Call for help
 |
| Malcolm Light, PhD, University of London Earth science consultant |
We're at the Alamo
I am an earth scientist and I have been working continuously on the severe methane threat posed by the destabilization of the Arctic subsea methane hydrates for more than a decade. It is absolutely clear to me that methane is now being expelled into the Arctic atmosphere by the subsea methane hydrates at a fast increasing rate and that this expulsion began in earnest in August 2010.
Noctilucent clouds
The methane is rising into the stratosphere and mesosphere where some of it is being oxidized to produce larger quantities of noctilucent clouds between 76 and 85 km altitude. These noctilucent clouds were seen north of Norway but are now occurring at much lower latitudes over Colorado. An early figure from NASA indicates that noctilucent clouds were originally confined to the southern polar regions (Figure 2).
Prof. James Russel of Hampton University argues that the build up of methane in the atmosphere is the reason for the increase in noctilucent clouds. Prof Russel says: “When methane makes its way into the upper atmosphere it is oxidized by a complex series of reactions to form water vapor. This extra water vapor is then available to grow ice crystals for noctilucent clouds”.
Methane decomposition
Therefore, if we succeed in breaking down the methane in the stratosphere and mesosphere using the HAARP - IRIS (Ionospheric Research Intrument) using the 13.56 MHz methane destruction frequency, it could lead to an increase in noctilucent cloud formation in a circular zone directly above the HAARP transmitters, which could be detected by optical cameras or radar.
The HAARP tests should be conducted in the summer when the temperatures are at their lowest in Alaska (140 degrees to 160 degrees Kelvin) increasing the chances of noctilucent cloud formation from the radio frequency oxidised methane. The HAARP IRIS transmitters normal frequency range is from 2.8 MHz to 10 MHz. If for example a 10 MHz carrier wave is modulated by a 3.56 MHz signal, it will produce an Upper Side Frequency of 13.56 MHz, the required methane destruction frequency and a Lower Side Frequency of 6.44 MHz (Penguin Dictionary of Physics, 2000).
NASA modelling shows a wide equatorial band of stratospheric methane reaching 1.8 ppmv, much higher than occurs in the troposphere indicating that the methane is rising up to the stratosphere where it is now accumulating and it will soon form a continuous global warming veil causing extreme heating of the Earth's surface by trapping the suns heat below it (Figure 3).
The problem is that the methane being released into the Arctic atmosphere from destabilization of the submarine methane hydrates has an extremely high global warming potential compared to carbon dioxide, close to 100 times for the first 15 years of its life. Hence a methane concentration of 2 ppmv is approximately equivalent to adding 200 ppmv of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, i.e. multiplying the present carbon dioxide content by 1.5. But 2 ppmv is only 2 ten thousands of a percent of methane and you need about 15 percent of methane in the air for it to burn.
Can't we just burn the methane?
Therefore you cannot burn these giant clouds of methane erupting into the Arctic atmosphere and they are rising so fast through the troposphere into the stratosphere that they become impossible to deal with without some action at a distance method such as radio waves or laser. We could of course try to get chemicals up there and into the Arctic but that would lead to even more pollution in the long run. Vibrating the ionosphere at the correct methane destruction radio frequency using HAARP may help to oxidize some of the methane throughout the entire stratosphere and troposphere, but more localised radio/laser destruction of the rising methane clouds will be required if we are going to make any dent at all in the volume of methane that is now being released into the atmosphere from the Arctic ocean.
Can't we get the methane out of the soil and use it as fuel?
I have no doubt that ground penetrating radar and other electrical systems can release methane from terrestrial permafrost deposits and the conversion of methane to fuel oils was used long ago by the Germans in World War Two and further improved by SASOL in South Africa.
Can't we get the methane out of the soil and use it as fuel?
I have no doubt that ground penetrating radar and other electrical systems can release methane from terrestrial permafrost deposits and the conversion of methane to fuel oils was used long ago by the Germans in World War Two and further improved by SASOL in South Africa.
However, we are dealing with oceanic methane being released in increasing quantities into the atmosphere from destabilised methane hydrates over which we have no control at all and once it is in the air and in the stratosphere we presently have no way to break it down.
The situation is dire
This Stratospheric methane reservoir is going to increase in density, thickness and extent until it encompasses the entire Earth and will eventually cause catastrophic global warming and the extinction of all life on earth. Furthermore because the methane remains mostly in the stratosphere, it is not recorded when average atmospheric compositions are determined at Mauna Loa and other locations, so we don't know how much is up there yet. When the German-French Merlin Lidar methane detecting satellite is launched in 2014 we should have a better idea of the methane distribution from the surface to 50 km altitude.
When the Arctic ice cap melts towards the end of 2015, there will be a massive increase in the amount of heat being absorbed by the Arctic ocean from the sun and the Gulf Stream which presently feeds the Arctic with Atlantic water along the west side of Svalbard and through the Barents Sea. Normally, the Gulf Stream is cooled when it hits the floating ice pack and this will cease to happen bringing even vaster amounts of Atlantic heat via the Gulf Stream into the Arctic. Consequently, the Arctic subsea methane hydrates will destabilize at an even faster rate, because of the increasing Arctic ocean temperature, pouring methane into the Arctic atmosphere and stratosphere.
The extreme weather events in the United States this year which included record heating and drought conditions, massive loss of food crops with farmers going bankrupt, more hurricane flooding in New Orleans and tornadoes in New York is just a small sample of what will come in the next four or five summers as the Arctic ice finally melts. The Arctic ice cap works like the Earth's air conditioner, because of the latent heat of melting and freezing of the floating ice and its effect on atmospheric temperatures.
The extensive stratospheric methane warming veil that is spreading over the United States is undoubtedly the reason for the extreme weather events and very high temperatures. The livelihoods of all the American people are going to be totally compromised in the next few years, unless we develop a system of destroying the atmospheric methane that is erupting in the Arctic from the destabilization of submarine methane hydrates and the methane that is accumulating as a global warming veil in the stratosphere and mesosphere.
We need to act
We are facing impossible odds with regard to the Arctic ocean methane release and in the same way that Colonel Travis drew a line at the Alamo to ask for volunteers to help him defend the mission against Santa Ana's massive Mexican army, I am drawing a virtual line through the snow on the top of the Arctic ice pack to ask for volunteers to defend the American people from the fast-gathering Arctic methane global firestorm.
When the Arctic ice cap melts towards the end of 2015, there will be a massive increase in the amount of heat being absorbed by the Arctic ocean from the sun and the Gulf Stream which presently feeds the Arctic with Atlantic water along the west side of Svalbard and through the Barents Sea. Normally, the Gulf Stream is cooled when it hits the floating ice pack and this will cease to happen bringing even vaster amounts of Atlantic heat via the Gulf Stream into the Arctic. Consequently, the Arctic subsea methane hydrates will destabilize at an even faster rate, because of the increasing Arctic ocean temperature, pouring methane into the Arctic atmosphere and stratosphere.
The extreme weather events in the United States this year which included record heating and drought conditions, massive loss of food crops with farmers going bankrupt, more hurricane flooding in New Orleans and tornadoes in New York is just a small sample of what will come in the next four or five summers as the Arctic ice finally melts. The Arctic ice cap works like the Earth's air conditioner, because of the latent heat of melting and freezing of the floating ice and its effect on atmospheric temperatures.
The extensive stratospheric methane warming veil that is spreading over the United States is undoubtedly the reason for the extreme weather events and very high temperatures. The livelihoods of all the American people are going to be totally compromised in the next few years, unless we develop a system of destroying the atmospheric methane that is erupting in the Arctic from the destabilization of submarine methane hydrates and the methane that is accumulating as a global warming veil in the stratosphere and mesosphere.
We need to act
We are facing impossible odds with regard to the Arctic ocean methane release and in the same way that Colonel Travis drew a line at the Alamo to ask for volunteers to help him defend the mission against Santa Ana's massive Mexican army, I am drawing a virtual line through the snow on the top of the Arctic ice pack to ask for volunteers to defend the American people from the fast-gathering Arctic methane global firestorm.
We desperately need dedicated scientists and engineers to volunteer to develop an effective 'action at a distance' method of destroying the Arctic oceanic methane clouds as they are erupting from the sea surface and entering the stratosphere and mesosphere. If the United States can land giant rovers on the mars with a skycrane, surely American engineers and scientists are up to this challenge. We need to get rid of as much of this atmospheric methane as we can, to drop the polar temperatures to reasonable levels. This will of course have to go hand in hand with a massive cut back in carbon dioxide emissions from all developed and developing countries.
To receive updates or post comments and suggestions, join the Alamo Project email group at:
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
An accounting is now due
| By Nathan Currier Arctic Crisis: Far From Sight, the Top of the World's Problems |  Nathan Currier, senior climate advisor for Public Policy Virginia |
As this year's sea ice extent bottoms out, it's high time that more people recognize we're in a global crisis -- the Arctic crisis. I'm sorry if this sounds “alarmist”, but the Arctic, fundamental to the stability of our weather patterns, climate and agriculture, is rapidly coming apart. In the end, of course, this will just be a sub-plot to the bigger drama, the climate crisis, but by naming this the arctic crisis, I am suggesting that it needs to be treated independently, right away. It is the heart of the near-term climate issue, and its outcome could greatly alter the outcome of the larger story, which will be the saga of the century no matter what we do.
A crisis above all means this: a compression of time. In a medical crisis, for example, we expect that there will initially be the need to regain stability through some immediate means, and then other courses of treatment will be added subsequently to address the underlying problems. If the initial steps are not taken quickly enough, the whole trajectory can be different, rendering something quite manageable more dire, potentially even fatal. Because the arctic, which has received the brunt of warming, seems poised to pass a profound state shift in the very near future (in fact it's already underway), and because it offers such vital 'services' to the planet, one could say that the urgency of the larger climate crisis is for the time being mostly contained within this arctic crisis.
But before looking at what to do, or even describing what's at stake, there's another order of business to turn to. An accounting is now due. Today I want to look back at the most authoritative recent opinions suggesting that this isn't a crisis, and see how they've been holding up. In our pre-election season of fact-checking, let's call this the 'Arctic crisis debate' fact-checking 101. But since no one else has really been referring to an Arctic crisis, what we'll be looking at are some prominent statements from 2012 concerning the two great interrelated features of arctic stability: the state of its cryosphere, and the state of its carbon stocks. In particular, the sea ice and methane.
An accounting
is now due!
is now due!
When I last wrote, it was after a flurry of methane articles, including the front page New York Times article last December on the danger of increasing arctic methane emissions, followed by David Archer's curious Much Ado about Methane piece in RealClimate, the leading climate science blog. That article put strangeness into high gear by essentially discounting the value of near-term climate altogether. But Much Ado about Methane was valuable, too, in that Archer unwittingly demonstrated, with all his authority, just how far from 'Nothing' reasonably likely arctic methane releases could be. Archer provided a graph in his follow-up showing the radiative impact of a 10Gt release, only about 20% of what leading researchers of the Eastern Siberian Shelf (ESAS) think could potentially come from that region alone in the relatively near future. [Very little methane hydrate need be involved, incidentally: imagine some seismic event there, where a little shallow hydrate, a mere .05% of the hydrate there, gets released, destabilizing just .5% of the permafrost cap along with it, which gets metabolized to methane, and all this creates increased gas migration pathways for just 1% of the free gas from below -- that's 10Gt.] Radiative forcing, the measure scientists use to describe global warming, would jump globally to about 300% of its current level of increase since industrialization, and this would begin to express itself in the climate system almost right away. Much ado, indeed: that methane wouldn't be nothing.
In my last piece, I said I would quickly follow up with another one discussing what should be done to avoid such dangers, but have since remained silent. That's for a variety of reasons, one of them being a growing involvement with a group based in the UK called the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG), focused on just this question. And almost as soon as this began, RealClimate published a piece on arctic sea ice predictions, in which AMEG -- which has projected that summer sea ice could approach an ice-free minimum just a few years from now -- seemed a primary target.
Called Arctic Sea Ice Volume: PIOMAS, Prediction and the Perils of Extrapolation, it was written by a guest, Axel Schweiger (with Ron Lindsay and Cecilia Bitz), part of the team that runs the PIOMAS sea ice model at the Polar Science Center. The 'perils' it discussed were those of AMEG's use (or misuse) of their PIOMAS model, and some of us were actually flattered that our ragtag army of citizen scientists, along with a few major climate figures willing to brave academic censure for taking positions outside the status quo, like renowned sea ice expert Peter Wadhams, were receiving cannonballs lobbed from the heart of the climate establishment.
Now, it's almost a half year later, the sea ice minimum is upon us, and the ice has been doing just what AMEG predicted. As Neven Acropolis, who runs the Sea Ice Blog, wrote last week, he's particularly at a loss for words because the 2007 record has been shattered without this summer's arctic temperatures being particularly conducive to such large ice loss, which perhaps suggests something about the extraordinary underlying nature of what is taking place.
Meanwhile, AMEG had already presented its case, both in writing and orally, before a panel of the UK Parliament, on both sea ice and methane release, back at the beginning of the year. AMEG's testimony was rebutted by Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist for the UK Met Office. Now, how has this Met Office testimony held up since?
Unlike RealClimate, the Met Office chief scientist dismissed PIOMAS modeling altogether, saying that she expected better data, fitting their Hadley Center climate models, to come in soon. That data hasn't come. Far from it. Instead, just last month, the media was filled with news pieces about how the European Space Agency's new CryoSat-2, a satellite designed to read ice volume, showed far greater volume losses than expected -- much in line with PIOMAS modeling, and supportive of AMEG's position. Near the opening of her testimony, Prof. Slingo said that the 2007 melting event was really an “advecting” of ice, coming from extreme weather over the arctic, and not really a melting event per se. Of course, we have just noted how that 2007 record has now been widely surpassed, without such weather (nor with losses coming primarily from advection).
And when it came to methane, and the danger of releases from the arctic seabed, the UK Met Office's chief scientist said: “I think there is a lack of clarity in thinking about how that heating at the upper level of the ocean can get down, and how rapidly it can get down into the layers of the ocean.”
The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 has perhaps provided her with a little more clarity. Beyond that, the Chief Scientist's statement was embarrassing: after all, even those most convinced that there is little danger of large immediate methane releases do not doubt the well established and drastic warming of the sea bottom precisely in the most methane-rich areas (see this paper), and Lena river discharge also greatly impacts the seabed in some of this same region, providing yet another mechanism for seabed warming. Prof. Slingo said: “At the moment, our estimates are that the increases in sea floor temperatures that have been observed have at the most been about one-tenth of a degree, except in one or two regions, like the West Spitsbergen Current.”
Clearly, Prof. Slingo doesn't seem to have studied the ESAS, where anomolies of 5ºC at the seabed have been recorded, where almost all of it has warmed some 20 times more than she says (and is still currently warming, ten times more than she suggests per decade), where significant areas of permafrost cap are thawing or already thawed, and where methane is starting to be released (see my own last post on all these points). Unlike the phony “Climategate” scandal, this is a true embarrassment for climate science. And if such “expert” testimony helps the arctic climate to pass through some invisible gate without our society lifting a finger to stop it, it will also turn out to have been one of the greatest tragedies of modern times.
So, how now, for the ice and methane? Schweiger's Perils of Extrapolation piece clearly stated how PIOMAS shows September sea ice volumes having dropped by a breathtaking 75% over just the last few decades (1979-2011). It might even seem simple to deduce that ice-free minima would be arriving quite soon, given this. But it is, I would agree, a vastly complex situation. Fully coupled models - those that do not, like PIOMAS, leave out the atmosphere, the weather, etc., but that try to create a realistic world that can be run into the future -- almost all suggest an eventual dampening effect on the underlying feedbacks leading to ice loss once it is mostly gone, thus leading to a long 'tail' of one or more decades in which a small amount of thinner summer ice remains, rather than an imminent disappearance, as both AMEG's Peter Wadhams and Wieslaw Maslowski, whose work Gore cited in his 2007 Nobel speech, have suggested.
That dampening, however, isn't happening. One almost feels sorry for Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate these days. After their latest sea ice update, he repeated in its comment thread how there is no reason to extrapolate PIOMAS into the future using an exponential curve (which shows a collapse just a few years from now). RealClimate wants to deal with the real underlying physical mechanisms involved, not just take some simple line that best fits the ice's past behavior and then extrapolate that line into the future. But, darn! The newest PIOMAS data have just been released last week, and, again, that exponential curve is being eerily followed by the real world's sea ice! In fact, Wieslaw Maslowski has also developed a new model recently, a fully coupled model free from 'perilous extrapolations,' which shows much the same thing as his prior research -- that a summer sea ice collapse is likely in the coming years, not decades.
As you can see, the reasons for thinking that there isn't an arctic crisis are about as firm as cotton candy. Next you'll need to learn the more solid reasons for suspecting that there is one. Then, after that, the big questions -- What real climate perils could this entail? What should we be doing about it right now? -- are what one needs to turn to next.
[First posted at the Huffington Post; posted with author's permission]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)