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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Here is a 2019 paper on the critical role of clouds in arctic cooling https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44155-w#Sec7
https://www.carbonbrief.org/tropical-forests-no-longer-carbo...
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
"... the research didn't measure methane, a greenhouse gas about 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide that is also released from soil."