2020 Siberian Heatwave continues

Very high temperatures hit Northern Europe and Eastern Siberia near the Arctic Ocean on June 18, 2020. This is a continuation of the heatwave that hit Siberia in May 2020.

The image below, from an earlier post, shows temperature anomalies that were forecast to be at the high end of the scale over Siberia on May 22, 2020, 06:00 UTC, i.e. 30°C or 54°F higher than 1979-2000. At the same time, cold temperatures were forecast for much of eastern Europe.

What enables such a strong heatwave to develop is that the Jet Stream is getting more wavy as the temperature difference between the North Pole and the Equator is narrowing, causing both hot air to move up into the Arctic (red arrow) and cold air to descend out of the Arctic (blue arrow).

On June 19, 2020, at 03:00 UTC, a temperature of 33.2°C or 91.8°F was recorded in Siberia near the Arctic Ocean (green circle).

The image below shows a temperature forecast of 33.5°C or 92.2°F in Siberia near the Arctic Ocean on June 20, 2020, at 03:00 UTC (green circle).

The image below is a forecast for June 23, 2020, showing how a distorted Jet Stream enables cold air to move down into Russia, while at the same time enabling hot air to move north over Scandinavia and Siberia, near the Arctic Ocean.

The image below is a forecast for June 25, 2020, showing the coast of Siberia near the Arctic Ocean getting hit by temperature anomalies at the top end of scale, i.e. 30°C or 54°F higher than 1979-2000.

The image on the right is an update, showing how wavy the Jet Stream turned out to be on June 25, 2020.

This facilitates hot air getting carried north over Western Europe, East Siberia and through the Bering Strait, while cold air is moving south over the European part of Russia. Blocking patterns that prolong such a situation go hand in hand with a more wavy Jet Stream.

Record High Temperature in Arctic

The image below shows that temperatures in Siberia were as high as 40°C or 104°F at 5 cm above the ground on June 21, 2020, at 3 pm, the Ventusky.com map shows.

This indicates how much the soil of what once was permafrost is heating up. At 2 m above ground level, i.e. the default height for air temperature measurements, it was 30°C or 86°F, as the image below shows. The location marked by the star is at 71°28' North latitude and 142°59' East longitude, and at and altitude of 13 m.

The day before, Verkhoyansk in Siberia reached a temperature of 38°C or 100.4°F on June 20, 2020, a record high for the Arctic. Verkhoyansk is located at 67°55′ North latitude.

Both locations are well north of the Arctic Circle that - at 66°30′ N - constitutes the southern limit of the area within which, for one day or more each year, the Sun does not set (about June 21) or rise (about December 21).

High Ocean Temperatures

The heatwave is heating up the sea surface of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS), as illustrated by above image. The ESAS is quite shallow, making that heat can quickly reach the seafloor.

Additionally, the heatwave is heating up rivers that carry large amounts of hot water into the Arctic Ocean.

The image on the right shows sea surface temperatures in the Bering Strait as high as 18.9°C or 66.02°F on June 22, 2020.

The nullschool.net website shows that sea surface temperatures in the Bering Strait were as high as 16.1°C or 60.9°F on June 20, 2020, in the Bering Strait (in Norton Sound, Alaska), i.e. 15.1°C or 27.2°F hotter than 1981-2011.

In summary, the Arctic Ocean is heating up in a number of ways:

- Sea currents are moving hot water from the Pacific Ocean into the Arctic Ocean. Similarly, sea currents are moving hot water from the Atlantic Ocean into the Arctic Ocean.

- The Siberian heatwave is heating up the sea surface of the ESAS.

- The heatwave is heating up rivers that carry large amounts of hot water into the Arctic Ocean.

- Numerous feedbacks can speed up the temperature rise, such as changes to the jet stream that can prolong heatwaves and make them more intense.

The rising temperatures result in record low Arctic sea ice volume, as illustrated by the image on the right and as also discussed in an earlier post.

Heat threatens to destabilize methane hydrates

As discussed in earlier posts such as this one, this heat threatens to destabilize methane hydrates contained in sediments at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean.

As the panel on the left shows, sea surface temperatures in the Bering Strait were as much as 15.1°C or 27.2°F hotter than 1981-2011 on June 20, 2020 (in Norton Sound, Alaska, at the green circle).

The bathymetry map in the right panel of above image shows how shallow seas in the Arctic Ocean can be. The water over the ESAS is quite shallow, making that the water can warm up very quickly during summer heat peaks and heat can reach the seafloor, which comes with the risk that heat will penetrate cracks in sediments at the seafloor. Melting of ice in such cracks can lead to abrupt destabilization of methane hydrates contained in sediments.

Large abrupt methane releases will quickly deplete the oxygen in shallow waters, making it harder for microbes to break down the methane, while methane rising through waters that are shallow can enter the atmosphere very quickly.

The situation is extremely dangerous, given the vast amounts of methane present in sediments in the ESAS, given the high global warming potential (GWP) of methane following release and given that over the Arctic there is very little hydroxyl in the air to break down the methane.

[ from earlier post ]

Ominously, the MetOp-1 satellite recorded a peak methane level of 2847 parts per billion on the afternoon of June 24, 2020, at 469 mb.

The next day, on the afternoon of June 25, 2020, MetOp-1 recorded a mean methane level of 1903 parts per billion at 293 mb. The 469 mb pressure level on above image corresponds with altitude of 6,041 m or 19,820 feet on the conversion table below. The 293 mb mean on the image below corresponds with a much higher altitude, i.e. 9,318 m or 30,570 feet on the conversion table below.

Methane reaching the Stratosphere

The MetOp satellites typically record the highest annual mean methane level in September. The image below, from an earlier post, shows that on the afternoon of September 30, 2019, the MetOp-1 satellite recorded the highest mean methane level, i.e. 1914 parts per billion, at 293 mb.

Above image shows that methane levels have risen most at higher altitude over the years. As discussed in an earlier post, methane eruptions from the Arctic Ocean can be missed by measuring stations that are located on land and that often take measurements at low altitude, thus missing the methane that rises in plumes from the Arctic Ocean. Since seafloor methane is rising in plumes, it hardly shows up on satellite images at lower altitude either, as the methane is very concentrated inside the area of the plume, while little or no increase in methane levels is taking place outside the plume. Since the plume will cover less than half the area of one pixel, such a plume doesn't show up well at low altitudes on satellite images.

Over the poles, the Troposphere doesn't reach the heights it does over the tropics. At higher altitudes, methane will follow the Tropopause, i.e. the methane will rise in altitude while moving closer to the Equator.

Methane rises from the Arctic Ocean concentrated in plumes, pushing away the aerosols and gases that slow down the rise of methane elsewhere, which enables methane erupting from the Arctic Ocean to rise straight up fast and reach the stratosphere.

The rise of methane at these high altitudes is very worrying. Once methane reaches the stratosphere, it can remain there for a long time. The IPCC in 2013 (AR5) gave methane a lifetime of 12.4 years. The IPCC in 2001 (TAR) gave stratospheric methane a lifetime of 120 years, adding that less than 7% of methane did reach the stratosphere. 

Further Feedbacks

Furthermore, the Siberian heatwave is also threatening to trigger forest fires that can cause huge amounts of emissions, including black carbon that can settle on the snow and ice cover, further speeding up its demise and causing albedo changes that result in a lot more heat getting absorbed in the Arctic, instead of getting reflected back into space as was previously the case. This is illustrated by the image below showing forest fires in East Siberia on June 19, 2020.

Finally, more intense forest fires threaten to cause organic carbon compounds to enter the stratosphere and damage the ozone layer, 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

• Very High Greenhouse Gas Levels
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2020/05/very-high-greenhouse-gas-levels.html

• April 2020 temperatures very high
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2020/05/april-2020-temperatures-very-high.html

• Methane Erupting From Arctic Ocean Seafloor
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/03/methane-erupting-from-arctic-ocean-seafloor.html

• When Will We Die?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/06/when-will-we-die.html

• Could Humans Go Extinct Within Years?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2020/01/could-humans-go-extinct-within-years.html

• Fast Path to Extinction
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2020/06/fast-path-to-extinction.html

• Arctic records its hottest temperature ever
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arctic-records-its-hottest-temperature-ever-2020-06-20/

Lucy-Alamo Projects - Hydroxyl Generation and Atmospheric Methane Destruction

As you know the weather is starting to change rapidly for the worse now and I have been working on Arctic methane induced global warming for about 14 years. There are massive deposits of methane gas trapped in the undersea permafrosts in Russian waters and onland in Siberia as well and if the global warming boils of just 10% of what is there, there is enough to cause a Permian style extinction event that humanity will not survive. Some brilliant work on the Arctic methane threat has been done by a Russian scientist Natalia Shakhova and others who indicate that we are in a very perilous position, if we don't find a way of reducing the atmospheric methane and depressurizing the undersea methane to stop the massive methane eruptions there. I and some other workers have designed a radio-laser Atmospheric methane destruction system based on the early Russian radio-wave induced conversion of methane to nano-diamonds. This radio-laser system can be installed on nuclear powered boats such as the 40 Russian Arctic ice breakers and start immediate work on destroying the atmospheric methane clouds that are building up in the Arctic. An abstract about the system is attached and it has been accepted for presentation at a congress of the American Meteorological Society to be held on January 10 - 14, 2016 at New Orleans in Louisiana, U.S.A. This system should be mounted on the nuclear icebreakers and used onshore. Once the methane is brought under control there should be a reduction in the massive fire hazards, heat waves and severe storms systems that are plaguing Russia and the rest of the world.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm P.R. Light
Earth Scientist

The Abstract follows:-
No. 275345 Lucy - Alamo Projects - Hydroxyl Generation and Atmospheric Methane Destruction.
by
Malcolm P.R. Light (Dr)
Retired, Cortegana, Spain

Congress of the American Meteorological Society, Wednesday 13, January, 2016

Methane formed by organisms in the water becomes trapped in the fabric of water ice crystals when it freezes and is stable below about 300 metres depth in the Arctic Ocean and on the shallow East Siberian Arctic Shelf. There are such massive methane reserves below the Arctic Ocean floor, that they represent 100 times the amount, that is required to cause a Permian style major extinction event, should the subsea Arctic methane be released into the atmosphere because of methane's giant global warming potential (100 to 1000 times CO2) over a short time period (Light and Solana, 2012 - 2014, Carana 2012 - 2014). There are also giant reservoirs of mantle methane, originally sealed in by shallow methane hydrate plugs in fractures cutting the Arctic seafloor and onshore in N. Siberia (Light, 2014, Carana 2013, Light, Hensel and Carana, 2015). The whole northern hemisphere is now covered by a thickening atmospheric methane global warming veil from Arctic methane emissions at the level of the jet streams, which is spreading southwards at about 1 km a day and already totally envelopes the United States (Figure 1). There must therefore be a world-wide effort to capture and thus depressurise the methane in the subsea and surface Arctic permafrost and eradicate the quantities accumulating in the ocean and atmosphere.

Methane produced at the surface diffuses upward and is broken down by photo dissociation (sunlight) and chemical attack by nascent oxygen and hydroxyl (Heicklen, 1967). The Lucy Project is a radio/laser system for destroying the first hydrogen bond in atmospheric methane when it forms dangerously thick global warming clouds over the Arctic (Figure 2, Light & Carana, 2012). It generates similar gas products to those normally produced by the natural destruction of methane in the atmosphere over some 15 to 20 years. Radio frequencies are used in generating nano-diamonds from methane gas in commercial applications over the entire pressure range of the atmosphere up to 50 km altitude (Figure 2, Light and Carana, 2012). Recent experiments have shown that when a test tube of seawater was illuminated by a polarized 13.56 MHZ radio beam, that flammable gases (nascent hydrogen and hydroxyls) were released at the top of the tube (iopscience.iop.org, 2013). In the Arctic Ocean, polarized 13.56 MHZ radio waves will decompose atmospheric humidity, mist, fog, ocean spray and the surface of the waves themselves into nascent hydrogen and hydroxyl over the region where a massive methane torch (plume) is entering the atmosphere, so that the additional hydroxyl produced will react with the rising methane, breaking a large part of it down (Figure 2)(iopscience.iop.org, 2013).

A better system could use Nd: glass heating lasers containing hexagonal neodymium which is stable below 863oC (Krupke 1986 in Lide and Frederickse, 1995). Neodymium glass lasers have extreme output parameters with peak powers near 10 to the power 14 watts when collimated and peak power densities of 10 to the power 18 watts per square cm if focused (Krupke 1986 in Lide and Frederickse, 1995). Velard (2006) states that at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, for inertial confinement nuclear fusion, "192 beams of Nd: glass - plate amplifier chains are being used in parallel clusters to generate very high energy (10 kilojoules) at a very high power (>10 power 12 watts) and at the second and third harmonics of the fundamental, with flexible pulse shapes and with sophisticated spectral and spacial on - target laser light qualities". The Nd: glass laser system is more stable and efficient than the longer wavelength CO lasers and shorter wavelength KrF lasers (Velard, 2006).

The three 13.56 MHZ radio transmitters in the Lucy Project (Figure 2) could be replaced by 3 groups of parallel lasers each forming a giant circular flash lamp. Half the Nd: glass lasers in the flash lamp could be tuned to exactly 21 million times the 13.56 MHZ methane destruction/nano-diamond formation frequency (Mitura, 1976). The adjacent alternate lasers will be tuned to a slightly different frequency exactly out of phase with the primary frequency by 13.56 MHZ.The Nd: glass lasers have a wavelength of 1052 nm equivalent to a frequency of 2.85*10 power 8 MHZ. The methane molecule requires 435 kilo-joules per mole to dislodge the first hydrogen proton and an average of 409.3 kilo - joules per mole for the other three protons (Hutchinson, 2014). Hydroxyl requires 493 kilo - joules per mole to generate it from water (Hutchinson, 2014). A set of four focused Nd; glass lasers will have an energy of about 454.5 kilo-joules per mole, and will be strong enough to dislodge the first hydrogen proton from a methane molecule. Of course this can also be achieved by increasing the number of focused lasers to six or eight. Exactly the same neodymium laser system could be shone on the sea surface, at the base of the rising methane cloud, generating hydroxyls and nascent oxygen and thus breaking down the methane. The power source for these radio transmitters/lasers in the Arctic can come from floating or coastal nuclear or gas electric power stations and the transmitters could be located on shore or on boats, submarines, oil-rigs and aircraft. We have only 1 to 5 years to get an efficient methane destruction radio-laser system designed, tested and installed (Lucy and Alamo (HAARP) projects) before the accelerating methane eruptions take us into uncontrollable runaway global warming. Humanity will then be looking at catastrophic storm systems, a fast rate of sea level rise and coastal zone flooding with its disastrous effects on world populations and global stability.

Links

- Lucy-Alamo Projects - Hydroxyl Generation and Atmospheric Methane Destruction, by Malcolm P.R. Light (Dr) Light
https://ams.confex.com/ams/96Annual/webprogram/Paper275345.html

- North Siberian Arctic Permafrost Methane Eruption Vents, by Malcolm P.R. Light, Harold H. Hensel and Sam Carana 

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/04/north-siberian-arctic-permafrost-methane-eruption-vents.html

- WARNING - Planetary Omnicide between 2023 and 2031 

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/02/warning-planetary-omnicide-between-2023-and-2031.html
and 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155073267455161&set=a.10150592349770161.675455.655795160&type=3

- Poster created for Geophysical Congress on methane hydrates, earthquakes and global warming, Nice, France, 2002, by Malcolm Light and Carmen Solana
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/seismic-activity.html

Poster Presentation at American Meteorological Society's 18th Conference on Atmospheric Chemistry, January 10 - 14,...
Posted by Sam Carana on Monday, October 19, 2015

Rebuttal: David Archer wrong to dismiss concern about potential methane runaway in Arctic

               REBUTTAL:

               DAVID ARCHER WRONG TO DISMISS CONCERN

               ABOUT POTENTIAL METHANE RUNAWAY IN ARCTIC:

               Why This Threat Is Real and the Imperative to Exercise

               the Precautionary Principle When the Stakes Are This High  

  

                                    by Gary Houser

         "We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered

          methane fields of a fantastic scale - I think on a scale not seen before...... 

          This is the first time we've found continuous, powerful and impressive

          seeping structures more than 1,000 meters in diameter. It's amazing."  

              - Dr Igor Semiletov  (crew leader of Sept.-Oct. 2011 U.S.-Russian

                methane expedition in interview with the UK Independent) (1)  

  

In the first sentence of his Jan. 4 entry on the "Real Climate" blog (2) , David Archer links to a rebuttal I wrote to oppose Andrew Revkin's "Dot Earth" dismissal of an article in the UKIndependent about dramatic new observations of methane emissions in the Arctic (3), Archer portrayed this rebuttal as an example of someone getting people un-necessarily "worked up" about the issue. As the co-producer of a documentary which has interviewed several leading edge scientists on this topic  I have asked for space to respond. With all due respect to Archer, the result of these interactions has been a strong sense of urgency that stands in stark contrast to his dismissive stance.  

  

Growing Concern About Rising Arctic Temperatures and Impact on Methane -

It is acknowledged that the Arctic is the most rapidly warming region on earth. As indicators point toward a near term loss of ice cover in the Arctic (with some studies pointing toward a late summer ice-free condition as soon as 2015 (4), there is a growing concern about how amplification of Arctic temperatures will affect the massive deposits of frozen methane in the shallow seabeds of the continental shelf areas. Researchers on the "front line" in the Arctic gathering empirical evidence - such as Igor Semiletov and Natalia Shakhova - are now reporting methane plume activity on a scale not witnessed before now.  

  

These observations were reported in the UK Independent  and since that time have stirred up controversy as to whether humanity may be receiving a first glimpse of a situation that could escalate into one of the scenarios most feared by climate scientists - an unstoppable positive feedback known as a methane "runaway" event. This controversy has been reflected in the above-described exchange on "Dot Earth" and is now expanding to "Real Climate" and even more recently to Joe Romm's "Climate Progress". On Jan.11, Romm wrote about how the methane situation is combining with other factors to create an urgent danger in the Arctic  (5).  The twin issues of contention in this controversy have been whether the methane threat is real and whether it is imminent, therefore deserving the urgent attention of the world.   

  
The Big Picture Context of the Methane Controversy - 

Before launching into a discussion of those two points, it would seem useful to explore the larger context. A key question deserving exploration would be "what is at stake?"  What are the potential consequences if humanity fails to pick up on warning signs and a methane runaway event becomes unleashed?

The topic at hand is what most climate scientists would likely see as the worst case "nightmare" scenario which could lead to a total global catastrophe. We are talking about a greenhouse gas that has a full 72 times more powerful warming impact than CO2 within the first 20 years (6).  We are talking about a global stockpile that contains as much carbon as all the world's known reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas combined. If there is even a chance that significant amounts might be released into the atmosphere by an unstoppable methane "runaway",  a profound moral responsibility exists to approach the topic with utmost care and caution.  

  

What is a Methane "Runaway" Event? -  

The term is defined by Ira Leifer (methane researcher at the Marine Science Institute at Univ. of Calif - Santa Barbara) :

    "A runaway feedback effect would be where methane comes out of the ocean

    into the atmosphere leading to warming, leading to warmer oceans and more

    methane coming out, causing an accelerated rate of warming in what one could 

    describe as a runaway train."  (7)

Due to the enormous size of the methane deposits, this process would "feed" on itself in a way that humanity would most likely be helpless to stop.  

  

Possible Key Role of Methane in Two Mass Extinctions, Including Worst in Earth's History -

In order to ascertain what kind of potential threat methane may be in the present context, it is important to look at earlier periods on earth when methane may well have played a key role in the most devastating mass extinction events in the geological record. Although not a "lock" in terms of absolute "proof", very strong circumstantial evidence points toward a major role of methane in two of these events. One is the "End-Permian" in which severe global warming led to such extreme heat and depletion of oxygen that over 90% of life forms were wiped out. (8)  One attempt to take this association out of the abstract and make it more tangible can be seen in a nine minute segment (highly recommended) from the acclaimed documentary series "Miracle Planet"  (9)     

  

James Hansen relates methane to another extinction event (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - PETM): 

   "There have been times in the earth's history when methane hydrates on the 

    continental shelves melted and went into the atmosphere and caused global

    warming of six to nine degrees Celsius, which is 10 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit." (10)

   "It is difficult to imagine how the methane clathrates could survive, once the ocean  

     has had time to warm. In that event a PETM-like warming could be added on top

     of the fossil fuel warming." (11)   

We are clearly dealing with a destructive force of almost unimaginable power, which underlines my earlier warning that it be approached with utmost caution.  

  

                 

Are the Factors Present Which Could Lead to a Runaway?   

In exercising such appropriate caution in dealing with a force of this magnitude, a logical question would be to ask whether the factors are now existent (or may soon be in the very near future) which could potentially unleash such a runaway. Here are several factors which are already present:

A) The incredible warming power of methane as a greenhouse gas (already quantified);  B) The phenomenally huge volume of methane present in the continental shelf areas of the Arctic;  C) The quite shallow depth of these seabeds, which allows direct venting to the surface and atmosphere (methane otherwise safely oxidizes in deep water);  D) Their location in the most rapidly warming region on earth, where such is accelerating due to the "albedo flip" (open water now absorbing solar heat rather than having it reflected away by ice cover) and warmer water infiltrating at the river mouths;  E) Direct observations confirming that large scale methane plumes are venting to the surface and into the atmosphere;  and F) Direct observations confirming that seabed bottom temperatures are hovering at the thaw point (12).   

  

20 Degree (Fahrenheit) Rise in Arctic Temperature by 2095 -

A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) projects how much temperature rise could be expected in the Arctic by the year 2095 if world governments continue on a business as usual path. Its projection is an astounding 20 degrees (F) (13).  Even more astonishing, this projection does not even consider how feedbacks could amplify this warming even further. According to study co-author Ronald Prinn:  

     "And the odds indicated by this modeling may actually understate the problem, 

      because the model does not fully incorporate other positive feedbacks that can

      occur, for example, if increased temperatures caused a large-scale melting of

      permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of

      methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. Including that feedback “is just going

      to make it worse.”  (14)  

  

While it is not possible to pinpoint any particular time when a release of methane might hit "critical mass" and initiate the runaway, it certainly appears the necessary ingredients are present and a collision course has been set up. The question is no longer "if" but "when". With the Arctic warming so much faster than the rest of the world and arriving at such incredible temperatures within this century, it is clear that the "writing is on the wall" in terms of the future of methane in the shallow Arctic seabeds. Unless there is a major shift away from the "business as usual" scenario, it is inevitable that they will thaw and vent into the atmosphere.  

  

How Soon Could Late Summer Ice-Free Conditions Accelerate the Warm-up? -   

Most climate observers agree that the steady temperature climb in the Arctic will only accelerate once late summer ice-free conditions set in.  Even with such astounding projections as that by M.I.T., the situation is actually more frightening and urgent. Almost every prediction of how rapidly climate impacts will occur has been out-paced by developments in the real world. If this consistent pattern repeats in regard to loss of Arctic sea ice (as it most likely will), the threat to hydrate stability will accelerate even more quickly. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been projecting a late summer ice-free Arctic by summer 2030. But experts who say that loss of ice thickness should be factored in as well as loss of surface ice are pointing toward an ice-free condition as early as 2015 (15)   

  

One of the top experts on Arctic ice - Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge in the UK - supports the PIOMAS sea ice volume model (16).

    Wadhams is concerned that the collapse could prove to be a point of no return for the ice:

   "It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us

    to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious prediction and I think I am pretty 

much persuaded that's when it will happen."  (17)    

  

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archer Acknowledges Power of Methane and Vulnerability (especially in Arctic) -  

In a piece Archer co-authored in 2009 (18), he acknowledged both the destructive power of methane and the fragile and "intrinsically vulnerable" nature of hydrates:     

    "There are concerns that climate change could trigger significant

     methane releases from hydrates and thus could lead to strong positive

    carbon–climate feedbacks. .... Methane hydrate seems intrinsically

    vulnerable on Earth; nowhere at the Earth's surface is it stable to

    melting and release of the methane."

In this same piece, Archer affirms another key factor regarding this vulnerability:

    "Rapid warming well above the global average makes the Arctic hydrates

     particularly vulnerable to climate change."  

In his current post, he alludes to the immense scale of these methane stockpiles and continues to outline the parameters of what is at least an extremely significant potential threat: 

   "The total amount of methane as ocean hydrates is poorly constrained but

    could rival the rest of the fossil fuels combined."  

  

It is significant that Archer acknowledges that the potential exists for a large scale positive methane feedback to occur. Where we disagree is in our assessment of how serious and how urgent this threat is.

  

THE CASE FOR URGENCY REGARDING THE METHANE THREAT:    

 Six Direct Challenges to David Archer  

  

1) Human Warming  *ON TOP OF*  Natural Warming -  

Having acknowledged several key reasons why methane poses at least a very large potential threat to humanity, it is difficult to comprehend why Archer would set himself up as a naysayer and discredit those who see indications that this potential might soon become a reality. One of the ways he tries to do this is to point toward the possibility of natural geothermal warming coming up from below and ask the question: how do we know the plumes are coming from new, human-created warming?  But this question severely misses the point and throws the conversation off track. If indeed there is pre-existing warming coming from below, then this is only going to combine with human-made warming from above to create an even more volatile and dangerous situation.  

If the permafrost cap is becoming perforated (as suggested by Shakhova), then the hydrates may become subject to de-stabilization from both directions.  

  

2)  Arctic Warming Already Approaching Methane Thaw Point in Shallow Seabeds -

Archer does not address the reports of scientists in the field who are describing how close the water temperature in the shallow seabeds is hovering near the thaw point. Igor SemiIetov - the crew leader of the recent U.S.- Russian methane expedition supported by the National Science Foundation - has been tracking the Arctic methane issue for over 15 years. In an interview for our documentary, he shared these remarkable comments on thaw points and warmer water at the surface being driven to deeper depths by increased levels of wind and wave action as the ice cover retreats:

    "When ice has gone, there are stronger winds and waves and a deeper mixing of

     water which causes the comparatively warm upper layer to mix with water at

     deeper levels. There are already studies which confirm that in some areas,

     bottom temperature in summer is 2 to 3 degrees above zero celsius (freezing).

     This means that when we determine average temperature of the year, it is

     already somewhere close to zero degrees celsius (the freezing / thaw point)......  

     As this warming spreads to a larger area, the more that shelf-based permafrost

     will thaw."   (19)     

  

3)  With Methane On Verge of Thawing Within Decades, How Does Archer Defend Complacency? -  

With methane-laden areas already so close to a thaw point, it becomes a critical question to determine how rapidly the temperatures in the Arctic will increase. Once the ice cover undergoes collapse, there is nothing to prevent an escalation of Arctic warming. Under the business as usual scenario, we are seeing stunning projections of how warm the Arctic could become within this century - such as the M.I.T. study. These projections create a collision course whereby currently frozen methane will inevitably thaw. Now a strong case emerges that ice loss could happen even more rapidly than originally speculated, expanding the same open water that Semiletov says is driving warm temperatures downward to the seabed. With such a prospect of a warming Arctic releasing the colossal methane deposits, how does Archer defend the case for complacency?   

     

I would ask him to respond to two science articles - illustrated with graphics - by Sam Carana,  a member of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) which presented a poster, distributed a brochure, and gave a presentation at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco. Carana explores the connection between ice loss, warming temperatures in the Arctic, and the release of methane. (20) and (21)

   

4) Grasping Irreversibility, Dropping Insistence on Absolute Evidence That May Come Too Late -

Archer portrays the "alarmist" crowd as predicting a runaway within the next few years. This is not true. What they are saying is that a process may be initiated which could lead to a runaway. Sam Carana speaks to this point:

   "The danger is that if relatively large amounts of methane are released abruptly into

    the atmosphere in the Arctic, they will persist for decades, triggering yet further

    temperature rises and methane releases, in a vicious cycle leading to runaway

    global warming, even if the world did manage to take the necessary steps to

    dramatically reduce emissions."  (22)   

  

As it is the definition of "runaway" that such a feedback will be all but impossible to stop once it starts, the only option for humanity is to act preventatively. When Archer continues the quest for some kind of absolute "smoking gun" evidence that the methane emissions now occuring are being caused by human-made warming, it seems he is having difficulty - as many of us are, including myself -  in grasping the full meaning of the concept of IRREVERSIBILITY. This quest is wrong not only for the reason shared earlier but because at the point this causal connection may well become unequivocally "proven", it is highly possible that the runaway will have already been triggered and therefore too late to stop.   

  

There will be no chance for a do-over here. For those who advocated complacency and were wrong, there will not be an opportunity to reverse course. With all respect, I must ask  why make a gamble that could lead to such unspeakably tragic consequences?   The  incomparably more relevant question to ask is whether the factors may be lining up that could bring on a runaway, and what our societal response should be if they are.   

  

5)  Amplification and Other Consequences of Complacency  -

We are obviously in a situation where time is of the essence. There are also two other factors that come into play. Huge amounts of fossil fuel industry money are backing orchestrated efforts to discredit climate science in general and most certainly any sense of urgency. In addition, many people are struggling with a very natural form of psychological denial that blocks us from seeing how close humanity may be to oblivion.   

  

I have no reason at all to doubt the sincerity of Archer and believe his stance to be genuine. But when a scientist on a blog as respected as Real Climate downplays urgency, it can inadvertently be used as fodder to support both of these factors. Such a stance can be amplified by the blog universe (such as Scientific American as well as many denialist sites)  to give an impression of a "consensus" in the scientific community when this is emphatically not the case. Archer is delivering a message of complacency (what Joe Romm refers to as "pushing the snooze button" (23) )  at precisely the moment when humanity must be heightening its vigilance to avoid passing a point of no return.   

  

6)  The Case for Invoking the Precautionary Principle and Assigning All Resources Necessary to Confirm Whether A Runaway Situation Is Being Approached -

A methane runaway would qualify as a planetary emergency. It is the view of a growing network of concern that several factors are combining which point toward the near term potential for such to develop in the Arctic. Rather than discredit such concern, humanity would be much better served by a rigorous scientific inquiry that could confirm whether there is merit to it. Igor Semiletov, involved in cutting edge field research on methane emissions, has informed this writer that much more could be accomplished with expanded funding support.  

  

I call upon Archer and all Real Climate contributors to vocally support an immediate and high level escalation of research aimed toward "getting at the facts" on potential runaway - no matter where they lead.  As the stakes could not be higher, it would be unspeakably tragic if world governments failed to provide such and the situation evolved to a point where a catastrophe spun out of control.    

  

Preparation of Safe Geo-Engineering Options Should Humanity Need to Use Them - The concept of geo-engineering has attracted a spectrum of opinions ranging from support to opposition and many shades in between. However, there is a fundamental reality staring in our face. If humanity waits until the point of no return is crossed and a runaway is unleashed, it will be too late to develop any such options. In the opinion of this writer, the prudent position is to work now on developing safe geo-engineering options so that there might at least be a chance to implement them should the world become convinced that a runaway is imminent.          Perceiving a threat that Arctic ice could conceivably collapse as soon as 2013, John Nissen - chairperson of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group  (24) - offers a statement in support of urgent development of safe modes of geo-engineering :    "The Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) has been set up for the express     purpose of drawing the world’s attention to the danger arising from astonishingly     rapid retreat of sea ice, accelerated warming of the Arctic and escalating methane     emissions from the seabed, especially in the area off the Siberian coast. It is the     methane that can produce abrupt climate change, but it is the retreat of sea ice     that has triggered this crisis......  We are approaching a likely point of no return,      and therefore it is essential that emergency measures are taken to avoid passing     this point. This involves intervention on a large scale to cool the Arctic, either     directly or indirectly by cooling currents and rivers flowing into the Arctic. By     definition such intervention constitutes what is called 'geoengineering', but, whereas     geoengineering has generally been considered on a global scale to counter global     warming rising over decades, we need geoengineering geared to cool the Arctic     with a timescale of just months, to prevent a possible collapse in sea ice extent     in September 2013."       Critical Need for the Scientific Community to Speak Out More Forcefully -   In the case of methane, we are not dealing with a dramatic image of an atomic fireball and its capacity to render immediate destruction. But extended over a longer range of time, the global devastation it would inflict would be no less sweeping. The spectre of a methane runaway is real and it is an existential threat to humanity.      In our society, the scientific community holds a position of great respect. In order to protect scientific "objectivity", our tradition has been to separate the institution of science from the realm of public policy. I do not call upon Real Climate to violate its internal agreement and issue specific policy directives. However, I do call upon it to release a generic warning to policy makers that humanity must break out of its state of denial, recognize that the laws of physics do not operate on a political calendar, realize we are dealing with a powerful force that can spin out of control, and therefore quickly educate ourselves as to the severity of the threat. It is my hope that Real Climate - as well as the larger community of climate scientists - will rise to the occasion and show the way.                            Gary Houser          Co-producer and writer                                 "Sleeping Giant of the Arctic:               Could Thawing Methane Trigger Runaway Global Warming?"                                  www.590films.org/methane.html      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMAGES: Methane bubbles from: Sauter et al. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2006.01.041 East Siberian Arctic Shelf map from: Sodahead Arctic sea ice volume decline graph by Wipneus based on PIOMAS data. LINKS and NOTES:   (1)  UK Independent, Dec.13, 2011 Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats ...  (2)  RealClimate: Much ado about methane (3)  Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats ...  (4)   Arctic sea ice 'to melt by 2015' - Telegraph  (5)  RealClimate Is Alarmed by Arctic Methane, Should You Be ... (6)  Global-warming potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (7)  Documentary interview with Leifer  www.590films.org/methane.html  , (in progress);  the crew has interviewed climate scientists Igor Semiletov and Natalia Shakhova (Internat'l Arctic Research Center / IARC at the Univ. of Alaska - Fairbanks), Ira Leifer (Marine Science Institute at Univ. of Calif.-Santa Barbara), Vladimir Romanovsky (IARC), and Katey Walter (Univ. of Alaska - Fairbanks). On geological history and extinction events, paleo-climatologists Michael Benton (Univ. of Bristol in UK, author of book When Life Nearly Died) and Andrew Glikson (Australian National Univ. in Canberra). Also in consultation with Peter Wadhams of the Univ. of Cambridge - one of the top Arctic ice experts in the UK.  (8)  Wipeout: the end-Permian mass extinction  (9)  Nine minute segment from "Miracle Planet" :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exfNNDExxIc&list=PL0200B1524E220C5A&feature=player_embedded  (10)  Interview segment with James Hansen:  http://youtu.be/ACHLayfA6_4    (11)  from Hansen's book Storms of My Grandchildren (12)  Documentary interview with Semiletov   www.590films.org/methane.html  (13)  M.I.T. Study,  M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10°F — with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20°F (14)  M.I.T. Study,  M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10°F — with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20°F (15)  Arctic sea ice 'to melt by 2015' - Telegraph  (16)  PIOMAS graph link: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi (17)  Arctic sea ice 'to melt by 2015' - Telegraph  (18)   Archer, co-author  Gas hydrates: entrance to a methane age or climate ... - IOPscience  (19)  Documentary interview with Semiletov   www.590films.org/methane.html  (20)  http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/warming-in-arctic.html (21)  http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/potential-for-methane-release.html  (22)  http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/warming-in-arctic.html (23)  RealClimate Is Alarmed by Arctic Methane, Should You Be ... (24)  Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) website:   www.arctic-methane-emergency-group.org

North Hole

Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies

A dust storm approaches Stratford, Texas, in 1935. From: Wikipedia: Dust Bowl

During the 1930s, North America experienced a devastating drought affecting almost two-thirds of the United States as well as parts of Mexico and Canada. The period is referred to as the Dust Bowl, for its numerous dust storms.

Rapid creation of farms and use of gasoline tractors had caused erosion at massive scale.

Extensive deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains in the preceding decade had removed the natural deep-rooted vegetation that previously kept the soil in place and trapped moisture even during periods of drought and high winds.

So, when the drought came, the dust storms emerged. But what caused the drought?

A 2004 study concludes that the drought was caused by anomalous sea surface temperatures (SST) during that decade and that interactions between the atmosphere and the land surface increased its severity (see image above right with SST anomalies).

Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in the Arctic

As the above chart shows, SST anomalies in the days of the Dust Bowl were not greater than one degree Celsius. It is in this context that the current situation in the Arctic must be seen. This year, SST anomalies of 5 degrees Celsius or more are showing up in virtually all areas in the Arctic Ocean where the sea ice has disappeared; some areas are exposed to sea surface temperature anomalies higher than 8°C (14.4°F), as discussed in the post Arctic Ocean is turning red.

High SST anomalies can change weather patterns in many places, as discussed in an earlier post on changes to the Polar Jet Stream. The world is now stumbling from one extreme weather event into another, and things look set to get worse every year.

Feedbacks in many ways make things even worse in the Arctic, as described in the post Diagram of Doom. A recent paper by Feng et al. notes that river runoff has significantly increased across the Eurasian Arctic in recent decades, resulting in increased export of young surface carbon. In addition, the paper says, climate change-induced mobilization of old permafrost carbon is well underway in the Arctic. An earlier paper already warned about coastal erosion due to the permafrost melt. In conclusion, the Arctic is hit by climate change like no other place on Earth.

North Hole

As the ice thickness map below shows, holes have appeared in the sea ice in places that once were covered by thick multi-year sea ice.

One such hole, for its proximity to the North Pole, has been aptly named the "North Hole". On the sea ice concentration map below, this hole shows up as a blue spot (i.e. zero ice).

The "Methane Catastrophe"

Why do we care? For starters, methane appears to be rising up from these holes in the sea ice, forming a cloud of high methane concentrations over the Arctic Ocean.

Perhaps this is a good occasion to again look at the methane plume over one km in diameter that appeared in the Laptev Sea end September 2011. The image is part of a paper on the unfolding "Methane Catastrophe".

Back in 2008, Shakhova et al., in the study Anomalies of methane in the atmosphere over the East Siberian shelf: Is there any sign of methane leakage from shallow shelf hydrates? considered release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time.

For more on the methane threat, please read the post methane hydrates or view the FAQ page.

Action

The threat of the "Methane Catastrophe" requires action to be taken urgently, such as discussed at the Climate Plan.


Links

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

• On the Cause of the 1930s Dust Bowl - by Siegfried Schubert
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/303/5665/1855

• Anomalies of methane in the atmosphere over the East Siberian shelf: Is there any sign of methane leakage from shallow shelf hydrates? - by Natalia Shakhova et al.
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/01526/EGU2008-A-01526.pdf

• The degradation of submarine permafrost and the destruction of hydrates on the shelf of east arctic seas as a potential cause of the “Methane Catastrophe”: some results of integrated studies in 2011 - by V. I. Sergienko et al.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1028334X12080144

• Methane hydrates
https://methane-hydrates.blogspot.com/2013/04/methane-hydrates.html

• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
https://arcticmethane.blogspot.com/p/faq.html