Readit News logoReadit News
Hongwei · 6 years ago
And it's quite scary if you consider the amount of methane stored in Siberia and northern Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

hannob · 6 years ago
I've been trying to read up a bit on the methane clathrate "bomb" or "gun" theory lately, it seems to be popular among some fringe "we're all gonna die anyway" communities. Though my impression was that the vast majority of climate scientists don't consider it to be a very plausible threat [1]. It is based on some real scientific publications, but as far as I can tell in the realm of "very implausible theory".

There is definitely a concern about multiple feedback loops involving methane from clathrates, permafrost and also wetlands. There's also considerable uncertainty about the origin of methane emissions. But as far as I can tell the methane "bomb" theory shouldn't be our major concern.

[1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic...

Deleted Comment

blueyes · 6 years ago
I believe this same dynamic will apply to the oceans as they warm. They're like a can of Coke. Heat it up and the carbonation goes away. It's a horrifying positive feedback loop of global warming.
the_gastropod · 6 years ago
And then the whole melting of sea ice thing. Sea ice is pretty much the whitest/most reflective surface on the planet. It then melts into the darkest/most absorbent surface on the planet.

Are there any stabilizing forces we know about? I only ever hear about these types of positive feedback loops, and it scares the hell out of me.

rgbrenner · 6 years ago
Here are a few:

increased temp > increased evaporation > increased cloud coverage which reflects more sunlight

increased co2 > increased tree growth

increased co2 > increased algae, plankton growth to absorb co2... other marine animals will also feed on these, increasing their mass, and when they die, they'll sink to the bottom, where they'll mostly remain.

increased co2 > increased diffusion into seawater.. clams, oysters, etc combine this carbon with calcium to produce shells.. and when they die, they accumulate on the sea floor eventually turning into rock.

Unfortunately, the fact that co2 in the atmosphere is growing indicates we're overwhelming these.. I take zero comfort in the fact that these exists.. it actually makes me nervous because once they reach their maximum, co2 will start growing even more rapidly.. and then it'll be so much worse.

DennisP · 6 years ago
Based on geological history, the negative feedbacks seem predominant for small perturbations, but if you push things a little too hard the positive feedbacks take over. It's happened before several times; a little initial heating from orbital variations, which leads to greenhouse gas emissions, which leads to the global average temperature going up several degrees. A good explanation of the evidence for this is in James Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren.

People have long thought the threshold to be around 2 degrees C, but now some are thinking it's more like 1.5. The CO2 level everybody agreed was safe was 350 ppm.

nostrademons · 6 years ago
The primary negative feedback loop is increased photosynthesis. As CO2 concentrations rise, there's more carbon in the air that can support plant life. There also tends to be both more sunlight (warmer air can support more water vapor before it precipitates into clouds) and more water (in absolute terms, from increased evaporation).

Note that in the near term, the negative feedback of photosynthesis may be overwhelmed by changes in ecosystems: if the climate changes rapidly, whole forests may find themselves in a different biome, ocean circulation patterns may change, more freshwater may enter estuaries, etc. Plants evolve quickly, though, and most of their carbon sequestration is through algae and seaweed with short lifespans.

chimi · 6 years ago
Global Dimming is caused by pollution emitted into the air. This has caused a decline in the Pan Evaporation rate. Meaning, less water is evaporating now than decades prior.

My concern is, if we stop polluting the environment and the global dimming is stopped, then climate change will get much worse.

Global Dimming might explain why the climate hasn't changed as much as some would expect.

Dead Comment

hanniabu · 6 years ago
Yup, it's a dangerous runaway train rolling down a parabolic slop
dev_dull · 6 years ago
Yet the rich keep buying waterfront properties.
the6threplicant · 6 years ago
The opposite is happening. We're making the oceans more acidic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

taneq · 6 years ago
At least that'll help with ocean acidification, though, right?
dr_dshiv · 6 years ago
I'm really curious about marine cloudseeding as a potential mitigator to permafrost melt. Essentially, high-efficiency saltwater aerosolization to create nuclei for cloud formation...

Here is a 2019 paper on the critical role of clouds in arctic cooling https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44155-w#Sec7

dr_dshiv · 6 years ago
nkingsy · 6 years ago
Anything that doesn’t impact co2 becomes a permanent crutch.
dr_dshiv · 6 years ago
The climate changes with or without human behaviour. Only 8000 years ago, you could walk from England to Europe! So we need solutions for managing climate stability, not just cleaning up after humans.
tito · 6 years ago
Tropical forests are also now a carbon emitter:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/tropical-forests-no-longer-carbo...

NeedMoreTea · 6 years ago
And I read this morning that some expect the Amazon to stop being a rainforest pretty soon, which would hugely accelerate tree loss.
samvher · 6 years ago
Do you have a source to share on this?
jsnider3 · 6 years ago
The world would be a much better place if Al Gore had won.
dependsontheq · 6 years ago
Well that’s what most people in the pile and gas industry probably thought https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/23/us/oil-and-gas-aid-bush-b...
WhompingWindows · 6 years ago
He did.

Deleted Comment

Deleted Comment

perfunctory · 6 years ago
Worth noting that this research is about co2 specifically and not methane.

"... the research didn't measure methane, a greenhouse gas about 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide that is also released from soil."