Arctic Methane

  

Declaring a Methane Emergency Methane (CH₄) is one of the most powerful and surprising greenhouse gases. It has long been considered a harbinger of climate catastrophe. It is a chemical compound that shows up nearly everywhere on the planet. It is the subject of ongoing study and the results are still surprising researchers when it comes to both anthropogenic methane and Arctic methane sources. Why and where it shows up is often a mystery. In many ways it is an unknown. Even more troubling is that recently, researchers everywhere are noting that methane readings globally are going bonkers. According to NASA, "what we know for sure is that a lot more methane (CH₄) has made its way into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution."

This means that human activity is a major factor in this, as with carbon dioxide (CO₂). Human activity has increased the amount of methane in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. Methane concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up ~150% since the postindustrial age. This has been significantly downplayed by mainstream media. Additionally, there’s tons of this potent greenhouse gas locked up in icy crystals worldwide in the earth's cryosphere — more than the total remaining fossil fuels. When it comes to this crystal form, known as methyl hydrate, the perceived threat is so great, that there’s a collection of scientists that have formed the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG).

Arctic methane release, to be distinguished from industrial sources, is the smaller percentage of release of methane from seas and soils in permafrost regions of the Arctic. While a long-term natural process, it is exacerbated by global warming and polar amplification. This also results in staggering negative effects and dangerous feedbacks that can result in lethal releases over time with significant cascading feedbacks in the climate system. For this reason alone, many notable climate scientists and climate justice workers have said that it's time to declare a methane emergency. Other researchers have postulated a time bomb scenario, or abrupt release from Arctic hydrates.

This has made methane a dramatic and controversial topic of late. There are many factors involved and the Arctic methane cycle is often misunderstood. In the following video lecture with David Archer, climate scientist and methane hydrate expert, a full lecture on this topic is provided:

Despite the controversies, methane from all sources is a clear factor in climate change. It is known to have a greater greenhouse gas (GHG) warming factor than CO₂, a potential of 34 times that of CO₂ over 100 years according to the latest IPCC Assessment Report. Recently shocking reports have emerged showing global atmospheric or gaseous methane literally going off the charts (video). In December 2018, the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) changed its methane scale to address this. The Global Methane Forecast provides continuous data and information on atmospheric composition in an operational mode. Further, methane matters in the climate system because, even though it is relatively short-lived, it is one of a number of trace gases that act to trap outgoing radiation leading to an overall warming of the climate system. Even though it is short-lived its effects are far reaching and powerful. Methane impacts climate sensitivity through a mechanism known as radiative forcing. Methane also matters for other reasons to do with air quality and human health impacts. The risks associated with atmospheric methane are enormous.
The Numbers Let's look at the numbers and trends for atmospheric, gaseous methane concentrations from all sources. The trend for Methane has been going up steadily. The following chart below, based on data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shows variations in the rate of increase in the concentration of methane in the atmosphere between 1984 and 2014. You can see there are many fluctuations, but the overall trend is up. Very strong atmospheric methane growth in the years 2014‐2017 also gives cause to watch this trend closely.

The following charts show the radiative forcing contribution relative to other GHG sources at present. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH₄ is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years. That is, over a 100-year period, it traps 28 times more heat per mass unit than CO₂ and 32 times the effect when accounting for aerosol interactions. Therefore average global temperature (AGT) or climate sensitivity to CH₄ is quite profound. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere is now at 1.83 ppm: Concentrations of methane in the atmosphere are about 220 times lower than carbon dioxide now at over 400 ppm. Methane is a very reactive gas compared to CO₂. However, methane was responsible for 60% of the equivalent radiative forcing caused by carbon dioxide since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Methane is a powerful contributor to the greenhouse gas climate forcing. The following illustration depicts how this works:

CH₄ emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO₂. CH4 breaks down much more quickly than CO₂ and is found at much lower levels in the atmosphere. Simply put, methane has a large effect, but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated lifetime of about 10 years in the atmosphere, whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period, having an estimated lifetime of over 100 years. According to this study "net-zero cost emission reductions can lead to a declining atmospheric burden, but can take three decades to stabilize." If you count methane in terms of atoms of carbon, it is clear that methane emissions add more carbons to an increasingly carbon saturated atmosphere. The following charts distinguishes breakout factors in radiative climate forcing for comparison, but we need to keep in mind that these compounds all work together in complicated synergies that are not reflected here:

It is important to note that Arctic methane is a small percentage of the global methane budget. According to David Archer, climate scientist, compared to natural wetland and anthropogenic sources, Arctic methane represents only a very tiny fraction:

Finally please view "The importance of Arctic Methane Hydrates to Global Warming in Five Pie Charts" for a synopsis of how much Arctic methane contributes to overall warming warming compared to these other sources.

Methane Sources: Anthropogenic Versus Natural As we have seen, methane is a greenhouse gas with many sources, both man-made and natural. Let's look more closely at the sources of methane and how they interact. The specific methane source often dictates how it will impact the climate system. Some of the most prevalent sources of methane come from human activity. This includes emissions from fossil fuel production and coal use. Methane is also a key by-product of the rapidly rising global extraction and processing of natural gas. The oil and gas industry is responsible for extraction leaks, pipeline leaks, and so forth.

According to Robert Scribbler, climate science blogger, "global methane is again hitting a rapid rate of rise. Though the Earth System appears to be providing some ominous rumblings that feedbacks may be on the way, the present spike is likely primarily due to increased fossil-fuel extraction activity, particularly due to fracking." Fracking has become a primary source of human-caused methane emissions. Methane also comes from fires and coal mines. Additionally, methane is produced by cattle, and also comes from decaying vegetation. Top sources of methane come from the digestive process of livestock and from landfills, which emit it as waste decomposes. Some are now saying the emissions from the agricultural industry are actually topping fossil fuel outputs. This is a significant concern, but it is often overlooked. On the other hand, the largest natural sources of methane actually come from wetlands.

Wetland methane emissions. Contributing approximately 200 Tg/yr of methane to the atmosphere per year; wetlands are the largest natural source of atmospheric methane in the world, and therefore remain a major area of concern with respect to climate change. Fermentation is a process used by certain kinds of microorganisms to break down essential nutrients. In a process called acetoclastic methanogenesis, microorganisms from the classification domain archaea produce methane by fermenting acetate and H₂-CO₂ into methane and carbon dioxide. The Arctic region itself is one of the many natural sources of the greenhouse gas methane. This area is only responsible for a very small fraction of the global natural methane budget as we have seen in the chart above (.00003 GTC/yr).

Also in the Arctic, there are vast quantities of sequestered or trapped methane hydrates concentrated in clathrates. These can be found in the Northern hemisphere's great frozen regions of the cryosphere. The total quantity of trapped methane hydrates in the ocean sediment is estimated to be around 11,000 to 18,000 GtC. Global warming and especially the warming oceans threaten to liberate even more methane from existing clathrate stores, and from methanogenesis in rotting biomass generating powerful feedback loops. Large quantities of methane are also stored in the Arctic in natural gas deposits. Other natural sources of methane include submarine taliks, river transport, ice complex retreat, submarine permafrost, permafrost melt at higher latitudes and clathrate dissolution on sea shelves, deep sea, land and more.

Both permafrost and clathrates can potentially degrade on warming. Among the concerns for sources of sudden release there is the permafrost itself, as well as the sequestered hydrates. There is also the subsea permafrost. Subsea permafrost occurs beneath the seabed and exists in the continental shelves of the polar regions. This source of methane is different from methane clathrates, but contributes to the overall outcome and feedbacks.

All of these sources react somewhat differently to warming, but all of them play a part in the feedback dynamics involved. In short, both anthropogenic and natural sources of methane combine to present a formidable problem that we as a global species are largely failing to tackle. On the one hand, the more significant and prevalent anthropogenic methane sources are already cause for concern presenting significant real-time and real world ramifications for increased warming, while on the other hand the Arctic methane situation presents a unique problem. Simply put, the warmer it gets the closer we get to catastrophe.

A Catastrophe in the Making
Methane in the Arctic, is a significant concern in the warming climate because the storage of methane in clathrates and in permafrost is dependent on freezing temperatures to keep it where it is. In a warming world the threat to these frozen assets is significant. Furthermore, the frightening potential for a large, abrupt release from these sequestered clathrates due to rising sea and air temperatures is taking science to task. Gas hydrates are frozen highly concentrated form of methane. These sequester significant carbon in the global system and are stable in very low temperatures with some moderate pressure conditions.

These hydrates are widespread in the sediments of the marine shelves, permafrost areas, and locations where ocean and atmospheric warming can disrupt hydrate stability and drive catastrophic releases. In very cold regions like the Arctic, clathrates even occur on the shallow continental shelf (less than 200 m of water depth) or on the land in permafrost, the deep-frozen Arctic soil that does not even thaw in the summer. Gas hydrate is condensed within its cage-like molecules and for every 1m³ of hydrate there are 180m³ of trapped compressed methane inside it. What causes release of methane hydrates is still poorly understood. This is a science in its infancy. The following diagram illustrates the structure of methane clathrates and some potential pathways for their release:
Today it is assumed that in the worst case, with a steadily warming ocean, around 85 per cent of the methane trapped in the sea floor could be released into the water column. In some locations, a temperature increase of only 1°C would be sufficient to release large amounts of methane from hydrates. The following illustration depicts gas hydrate stability zones:

Despite the concern and drama over the clathrates, permafrost actually represents a larger concern that is already expressing its stress in measurable data. NASA-funded research has discovered that Arctic permafrost’s expected gradual thawing and the associated release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere may actually be sped up by instances of a relatively little known process called abrupt thawing.

Abrupt thawing takes place under a certain type of Arctic lake, known as a thermokarst or thaw lake that forms as permafrost melts creating seeps. Having surveyed Arctic regions using airplanes and field expeditions, more than 150,000 seeps have been identified by scientists. This is a definite cause for concern and this is already happening in real-time right now. Many permafrost areas have been frozen since the last ice age, about 11,000 years ago and some has been around for more than a million years. These areas trap vast stores of carbon in layers of frozen organic soil up to a mile thick.

By some estimates, the Arctic permafrost contains enough carbon to nearly double the amount of CO₂ currently in the Earth's atmosphere. Ted Schuur, a permafrost expert at Northern Arizona University has said that "a rapid meltdown would be disastrous because it could release a lot of CO₂—in addition to methane, a powerful short-lived climate pollutant—to the atmosphere, where it would cause additional warming. (...) This rate of warming suggests substantial change underway." In the following video Paul Beckwith, Climate Systems Scientists provides a thorough lecture on Peter Wadham's chapter from his book A Farewell to Ice: Arctic Methane: A Catastrophe in the Making and begins to answer the question of why the abrupt thaw of Arctic permafrost and the clathrates have become a significant concerns, both with runaway potential:

Beckwith says "since to 2005, the oceans over the shallow continental shelves in the Russian Arctic (ESAS, Laptev) were ice covered, keeping the -100 meter deep oceans near freezing temperatures. Since 2005, the ice cap cover has gone. The water has warmed as high as 17°C there in summer, heating the sea-floor, perforating the permafrost cap, and thawing methane hydrates. Ebulition (bubbling methane) is rising up the water into the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts." The more permafrost melts, the more methane is released.

It is clear the sea ice (video) and ocean temperatures matter when it comes to pathways for methane release. Multi-year ice in the Arctic is nearly gone. The Arctic has declined by over 60% in the last couple decades and it is also said to be half of its previous thickness according to Peter Wadhams. Wadhams further states that "If we look at the Arctic Death Spiral it is clear, in fact it is blindingly obvious, that the summer Arctic sea ice does not have long to live. The downward trend brings the summer months to zero ice cover in 2016 for an ice-free September and October, 2017 for an ice-free August to October, and 2018 for an ice-free July to November."

These are dramatic issues heralding cause for a crisis response though none has yet arrived. There are also many climate feedbacks at work in these processes. The well-known paper, Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene, presents the big picture stating, "these feedback processes include permafrost thawing, decomposition of ocean methane hydrates, increased marine bacterial respiration, and loss of polar ice sheets accompanied by a rise in sea levels and potential amplification of temperature rise through changes in ocean circulation."

Robert Scribbler writes "a report, Explaining Ocean Warming, provides some pretty hard evidence that the oceans are on the move toward a much more harmful global climate state. The study, which has rightly received a great deal of media attention, issues a ‘shot across the bow’ warning to pretty much everyone living today. And it finds serious impacts to the ocean and linked climate systems due to a very rapid human-forced global warming. This has further implications for thawing the polar ice faster which might release more methane and thus start the cascade toward the much feared runaway methane event.

Methane: It's Not Just in the Arctic It is worth noting that these feedbacks due to anthropogenic warming are not only occurring in the Arctic. As glaciers everywhere melt, researchers become increasingly concerned that gas could belch into atmosphere. A study suggests that Antarctic methane could also escape and worsen warming. Paul Beckwith (video) discusses warming in the the most high-elevation regions, like the Third Pole (Tibetan Plateau; Himalayan Mountains), Antarctica, Greenland, Rockies, the Alps, and so forth.

Beckwith says that these regions are experiencing significant warming as well and that "the higher up you go, the greater the rate of warming. This is not commonly known, but the rate of temperature rise is about 2 times or 3 times or even greater, at higher altitudes than at lower altitudes, in a phenomena called Elevation Dependent Warming (EDW); clearly analogous to greater warming at higher latitudes."

Arctic Methane Debate According to Robert Scribbler, "there’s no avoiding it — climate change is a controversial subject; a threat that should unify us all that, due to reticence, denial, fear, and a basic lack of understanding, is instead often quite divisive. But among the subjects that stand out as real fodder for acidic controversy, the issue of methane feedbacks from the global climate system — the oceans, thawing permafrost, and especially the Arctic — is one of the worst. There’s a noted tendency to either downplay or overplay risks. Though this polarization is likely fed by the general mysteriousness and complexity of the subject, its potential existential nature also feeds into the heat that methane feedback-related discussions tend to draw."

Many are aware that the topic of trapped arctic methane hydrate which are briefly discussed above is extremely controversial. The greatest concerns center around the vast stores of methane clathrates in marine sediments under the sea. There are numerous postulations of the “ticking methane time bomb” and many references to the "clathrate gun hypothesis" regarding the release from these methane clathrates. These theories propose that there's going to be a sudden release of methane in at least a gigaton all at once either from methane clathrates on the sea floor due to ocean warming, or from melting permafrost, or both.

Some are talking about a 50-gigaton methane bomb exploding out of nowhere all at once, which would not be survivable by humans. Paleoclimate researchers have pointed out that there is no precedent in the paleoclimate record that shows that anything like this has ever happened before. Yet, according to the Guardian "paleoclimate records will not necessarily capture a large, abrupt methane pulse." This is a lively and ongoing discussion. Debate over the plausibility of a catastrophic release of methane in coming decades due to thawing Arctic permafrost escalated after a paper warned that exactly this scenario could trigger costs equivalent to the annual GDP of the global economy.

The Clathrate Gun and The Time Bomb
Frozen Arctic methane hydrate is uniquely troubling in terms of its potential to unleash a greatly feared and much discussed cascading catastrophe of events due to warming. This is where the clathrate gun hypothesis or time bomb theory comes about. Methyl hydrates are trapped in clathrates that form permafrost layers. When the permafrost thaws these can be released. How fast will this happen is the real question. As many scientists like Paul Beckwith are fond of saying "what happens in the arctic does not stay in the Arctic."

This is an interconnected and complex system that science is constantly attempting to play catch up with. Researchers are contending that we are seeing signs of the beginnings of catastrophe and that phenomena like giant gas blow out craters they are witnessing are proof enough that we’re already moving temperature harder and faster than ever before. It's clear human activity is creating a dangerous situation for destabilizing the cryosphere which many believe could lead to a runaway scenario.

Yet another study has shown that, at as little as +1.5ºC of global average surface temperature increase (since pre-industrial times / pre-1900 / we’re at +0.85ºC now), the release of large amounts of methane — could become an accelerator of rapid, unstoppable, irreversible (self-perpetuated / reinforced) heat feedback. The latest methane concentrations are dramatic and signal a crisis ahead.

The clathrate gun hypothesis is the popular name given to the theory that increases in sea temperatures or drops in sea levels can trigger a strong positive feedback effect on climate: first, warming causes a sudden release of methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in seabeds and seabed permafrost; second, because methane itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, temperatures rise further, and the cycle repeats.

This runaway process, once started, could be as irreversible as the firing of a gun. A 2018 published review concluded that the clathrate gun hypothesis remains controversial, but that better understanding is vital. Actual measurements of methane in the atmosphere don’t show any such sudden, accelerating spike, and climate scientists don’t believe anything like this “clathrate gun” scenario is underway, though they cannot rule out the possibility. Paul Beckwith asks "will the clathrate gun fire only blanks" in the following video lecture discussing the USGS paper on this matter:

According to the Guardian, "scientists of different persuasions remain fundamentally divided over whether such extreme and abrupt scenarios are at all plausible. Carolyn Rupple of the US Geological Survey (USGS) Gas Hydrates Project told NBC News the scenario is 'nearly impossible' citing laws of thermodynamics. Ed Dlugokencky, a research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) said there has been 'no detectable change in Arctic methane emissions over the past two decades.' NASA's Gavin Schmidt said that ice core records from previously warm Arctic periods show no indication of such a scenario having ever occurred. Methane hydrate expert Professor David Archer reiterated that the mechanisms for release operate on time scales of centuries and longer. These arguments were finally distilled in a lengthy, seemingly compelling essay posted on Skeptical Science, concluding with utter finality:

"There is no evidence that methane will run out of control and initiate any sudden, catastrophic effects. Nonetheless, the Arctic is a region that is quite dynamic and is changing rapidly. The high latitudes are currently a CO₂ sink and CH₄ source in the modern atmosphere, and it’s not implausible that the effectiveness of the sink could diminish (or reverse) or that the methane source could enhance in the future, since we expect a transition to a warmer, wetter climate with an extended thawing season."

So who's right? Are these claims of a potentially catastrophic methane release in a time bomb or clathrate gun plausible at all? This is a matter of scientific debate and will remain so for some time to come as this issue unfolds. Most scientists that shy away from an abrupt catastrophe, like Dr. David Archer, methane hydrate expert, say that over time these processes will happen. In essence the debate is not about if this will happen, but when.

In the meantime, scientists at Yale Climate Connections are asking that we begin to distinguish between the larger real world methane threat already happening now due to human activities, and the proposed time bomb or clathrate gun which we could yet trigger with the warming we are causing. Certainly gas hydrate is already breaking down at some locations even now, mostly associated with subsea permafrost on Arctic Ocean shelves and with hydrate at the upper limit of its stability on temperate-latitude upper continental slopes affected by warming ocean waters. However, according to the recent USGS study on this matter this is cause for concern, but this does not mean a time bomb is ticking. According to ArsTechnica, Japan, Korea, India Germany and China have attempted to extract methane hydrate from the seafloor but these gas hydrates are very difficult to release.

Further, it must be noted that recently the time bomb theory is increasingly being reported by researchers to be 'unlikely.' Dr. Caroline Rupple, USGS Scientist, explains trapped methyl hydrate clathrates are very hard to release do to the endothermic nature of the thermodynamics involved. This is a bit difficult for non-scientists to grasp, but this resource summarizes these processes in more detail.

Additionally, rising seas due to warming add pressure to the equation, keeping the sequestered methane from releasing. Generally, researchers explain that biogeochemical sinks and physical processes prevent much of the methane released via gas hydrate degradation from reaching the sea-air interface and being injected into the atmosphere. Further, they say that it's unlikely that these frozen gas fields will destabilize and make it to the atmosphere as they are already trapped (the meaning of clathrate from the Latin) so to speak. Also the methane hydrate stability zone of the Arctic, is typically around 800' to over 4,000' below the surface, and it would take a very long time to thaw out.

The fact is that we just don't know how the climate system will respond if we let the Arctic ice melt as it has in the deep past. We know that during the Eemian the Arctic ice did likely melt in the summers, but the clathrates stayed in place. However, Arctic conditions during the Eemian interglacial lasting from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago are a terrible analogy for today's Arctic. According to Prof Paul Beckwith of the University of Ottawa Laboratory for Paleoclimatology and Climatology, this can be explained by a number of factors that don't necessarily relate in any way to today's conditions. Its clearly very hard to predict what they will do in this case because the human effects that are playing out now are entirely unprecedented.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) further is summarizes this issue as follows:

"There are two potential sources of methane in the Arctic. The first source of methane is called methyl clathrate. Methyl clathrates are molecules of methane that are frozen into ice crystals. They can form deep in the Earth or underwater, but it takes very special conditions, with high pressure and low temperature, to make them. If the temperature or pressure changes, the ice that imprisons the methane will break apart, and the methane will escape. We're not sure how much methane is trapped in methyl clathrates, or how much is in danger of escaping. (...) The other major source of methane in the Arctic is the organic matter frozen in permafrost. This is why permafrost carbon is important to climate study."

There are many questions that are as yet unanswerable in this debate. Some scientists are asking even more ridiculously speculative questions as well, like could bringing back mammoths stop climate the crisis? Additionally, there are many other new findings emerging constantly that make the big picture here even more difficult to ascertain. For example, one study suggests that melting methane in the Arctic is actually absorbing 230 times more greenhouse gas than it releases adding even more contention to this already difficult problem through methane eating bacteria.

We have achieved great knowledge in modern times and it is in many ways one of our profoundest achievements. In other ways, it is an Achilles heel that can lead us to profound hubris. Sometimes we have to admit that we just don't know, and we also have to be aware of the science delusion (video). A heavy reliance on science to answer the unanswerable, does not always get us where we need to be. At some point we must admit that we simply don't have all the answers. In this case, not knowing is a dangerous game to play with a clathrate gun in hand.

Conclusions
We know that methane is a powerful climate forcing agent. It represents a very real threat and one that does not bode well for stabilizing our planetary boundaries. If we address the human causes now, there is a slim chance that we could turn the situation around, but we only have a short window to act. But we need to be aware that the situation is much worse than we think. There's no question that we must do all that we can to stop the great ice from melting in the Arctic and around the globe.

Even though a time bomb may yet be unlikely, the warming we are causing is wreaking havoc with the jet streams, causing extreme weather and will soon lead to an Arctic Blue Ocean Event -- something that has never happened before while modern humans were on the planet. According to David Wasdell of the Apollo-Gaia Project (video), "we are already warming the global climate system by 200 to 300 times what it has ever warmed in the paleoclimate record." There are numerous unknowns. This does not provide an excuse for us to fail to act on the human caused catastrophe playing out in real-time in front of our eyes. We have truly entered uncharted territory.

Eminent climate scientist, Michael Mann PhD says 'we can still prevent some of the worst impacts of human-caused climate change from playing out if we do the right things now, i.e. stop burning fossil fuels, etc.' We have to avoid saying it is too late, this can't be stopped or this is futile and generating defeatism. We know what we need to do to halt this disaster, we just aren't doing it. Many researchers say that while there is still ice on the poles we still have a small chance. The champagne bottle analogy often cited by deniers to say that the cork is off the bottle and can't be put back and to claim it is already too late to do anything about this, is erroneous and premature. It is also dangerously fomenting inaction that feeds a neoliberal agenda of business as usual, now a crime against humanity and the biosphere.

We know that climate is changing. The IPCC concurs with the overwhelming scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant. Methane levels are rapidly increasing globally. Man-made methane climate forcing remains a significant threat as with carbon dioxide. In short, anthropogenic methane sources clearly represent a larger threat at this time. Additionally, methane release in the Arctic from thawing terrestrial and marine permafrost, and from methane clathrates on shallow continental shelves remain a huge and ever increasing risk, whether they play out over decades or in an instant.

The jury is still out on the time frames here. Despite the controversy over when this could happen, scientific consensus contends that these processes have already begun. Paul Beckwith, Climate Systems Scientist says "the global warming potential of methane is enormous." The methane problem is one that cannot be ignored. It's the job of science to speculate. But it's the job of policy makers and people to do the right thing and act on best practices and evidence-based research overwhelmingly pointing to a looming crisis.

Actual climate models (unlike time bomb scenarios that are still not adequately modeled) project a temperature increase of around 4ºC by 2100 if we fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including methane — and that alone should present us with enough of a deeply troubling scenario to act now. As a global species we are playing with fire while losing the great ice, our planetary cooling mechanism. If we let this happen, we will be on a fast track to a Hothouse Earth. 

Learn more:

• Methane: the other greenhouse gas | EDF
• Methane Pollution | David Suzuki Foundation
• Reducing Methane Pollution | Earth Justice
• Interpreting contemporary trends in atmospheric methane
• Arctic ice in death spiral, Stephen Leahy, IPS
• Methane releases in Arctic seas wreak devastation | Sci News
• Methane emissions underestimate | Science Daily
• Methane melt: The most important story you don’t follow
• Methane releases much larger/faster | National Science Fdn
• Stunner: Vast East Siberian shelf methane stores destabilizing/venting | Climate Progress
• Methane levels may see ‘runaway’ rise | Independent
• Defusing the methane time bomb | Scientific American

 
[sc name="Wiki_references_start"]

• AMAP, 2015. AMAP Assessment 2015: Methane as an Arctic climate forcer. Retrieved from https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-2015-methane-as-an-arctic-climate-forcer/1285
• Archer, David (2014) The story of methane in our climate, in five pie charts. Retrieved from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/09/the-story-of-methane-in-our-climate-in-five-pie-charts/
• Doomsday Debunked (2019). Clathrate gun hypothesis. Retrieved from https://doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
• EPA (2016). Climate change indicators: climate forcing. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing
• Guardian (2013). 7 facts you need to know about arctic methane. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/05/7-facts-need-to-know-arctic-methane-time-bomb
• Geophysical Research Letters (2019). Very strong atmospheric methane growth in the four years 2014‐2017. Retrieved from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GB006009
• Geophysical Research Letters (2016). The interaction of climate change and methane hydrates. Retrieved from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016RG000534
• Harris, William (2019). Fire and ice: the chemistry of methane hydrate. Retrieved from https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/energy-production/frozen-fuel1.htm
• IPCC (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1
• NASA (2019). A global view of methane. Retrieved from https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87681/a-global-view-of-methane
• National Geographic (2012). Antarctica methane. Retrieved from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120831-antarctica-methane-global-warming-science-environment/
• Nature (2018). Trajectories of the Earth system in the Anthropocene. Retrieved from https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252
• Nature (2017). Enhanced CO₂ uptake at a shallow Arctic Ocean seep field overwhelms the positive warming potential of emitted methane. Retrieved from https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/05/02/1618926114
• Nature (2013). Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11789
• NOAA (2016). The NOAA annual greenhouse gas index. Retrieved from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi
• Phys.org (2017). Study finds hydrate gun hypothesis unlikely. Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2017-08-hydrate-gun-hypothesis.html
• Reviews of Geophysiscs (2017). Methane feedbacks to the global climate System in a warmer world. Retrieved from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017RG000559
• Schuur, Ted (2019. Permafrost is warming around the globe study shows. Retrieved from https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16012019/permafrost-thaw-climate-change-temperature-data-arctic-antarctica-mountains-study​
• Scribbler, Robert (2018). Analysis of present surface temperature hot spots. Retrieved from https://robertscribbler.com/tag/methane/
• Yale Climate Connections (2019). Methane hydrates: why scientists worry less than you might think. Retrieved from https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/02/methane-hydrates-what-you-need-to-know/?fbclid=IwAR2oV-Fh6STDzCfqmQg6-gbCarUZUKPU7HqOP-hdW9f8-UCJcneKODkIXwY

[sc name="Wiki_references_end"] [sc name="Wiki_history_start"]

• 2:15 pm Feb. 16, 2019 - Science Guy - (Added Methane page and introductory overview of questions to address and introductory content).

[sc name="Wiki_history_end"] Note: This page is in a very early draft stage and as with many wiki pages, it is a work in progress. It aims to introduce the topic of arctic as it is related to climate change. [/three_fourth_last]

Debunked: Near Term Human Extinction (NTHE)

Voltaire said  “those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” 

Restoring Hope
The leader of the NTHE, who shall remain nameless here, has been called a lightning rod for climate science issues and he should be given credit for drawing some crazy attention to this issue fraught with red herrings, cherry picked data, and confirmation bias error. Many credit him with bringing much needed attention to the dire circumstances we now face. He has also highlighted a much faster than expected time frame. In fact, he is known for predicting that all life on the planet will end in the next decade. He is often quoted for saying "there won't be a human on the plant in 2026." While the climate problem is serious, there are many taking advantage of the gullibility of others to convince them that we are doomed and that taking any action is already futile.

According to climate scientist Michael Tobis PhD, this guy "believes that the probability of the end of human life within the next 10 years is so high that acting as if it is uncertain is delusional." Several people, including eminent scientists, have now bet that this just isn't so. It is serious, even an emergency, but there is a lot we can still attempt to do.

"Even if there is no hope, we have to do something. Not having hope is not an excuse for not doing anything. But the thing we need more than hope is action, because once there is action there is hope." -  Greta Thunberg (video)

Who is this Guy? What is NTHE?
There is a retired professor of biology, that is mostly credited with this term who shall remain nameless, but you likely know the name already. He is best known for promoting the idea of near term human extinction or NTHE  (video). This is a term he coined which has come to refer to the possibility of human extinction hinging on various uncertainties related to abrupt climate change. He himself is not a climate scientist, but he makes his current career by aggregating, analyzing and commentating on peer-reviewed literature emerging from this science today.

He has become a notable and controversial figure with some following, at least on social media. He is regularly accused of cherry picking data to paint a dire picture of the coming extinction of all life on the planet. According to this "guy", who has also been accused of a crusade against science, our fate as a species is sealed. It’s not a hard conclusion to come to considering that indisputable science has shown that 200 species a day are going extinct and many researchers are further discussing topics related to extinction domino effects. This is how this "guy" mixes fact with fiction. Even though the results, the time frames and the impacts are all unknowns that we might still modify, this "guy" proposes shocking near term time frames (which constantly change) as well as immediate and large scale catastrophic impacts.



This quickly becomes a cautionary tale. The fans and followers of This "guy" get completely swept into these nihilistic doomsday scenarios and become unwilling to objectively look at the potentials for mitigation. Many in the NTHE online community (video), largely initiated by this "guy", say we are living in the prequel to the Blade Runner film. This is an obscure reference to a 1982 film recently remade.  This shows the NTHE tendency to prefer science fiction and end times fantasies over any discussion of constructive mitigation; which they call hopium. This group seems to work much like an end times cult, rife with apathy and inertia, awash in the glare of multimedia screens.

According to Michael Tobis PhD "it was just after I discovered the vigorous conversation on the Global Warming Fact of the Day Facebook group that this "guy" and his acolytes showed up, accusing anyone having any constructive ideas of peddling “hopium”. And I see him actually offering a guilt-free path toward political apathy to the people most profoundly affected by the ecological and environmental disruption around us."

"This "guy" is not the opposite of a denialist. He is a denialist, albeit of a different stripe. To watch him at work and to watch Tony Watts is to watch birds of a feather. Not evidence-based policy but policy-based evidence. Not part of the solution. Part of the problem" - Michael Tobis PhD

Many of this "guy's" followers simply do not question what they are hearing, even though it is always necessary to critically review what anyone claiming to be a scientist is presenting. It's very important to avoid jumping to conclusions based on convenient truths especially when it comes to these difficult and controversial issues. In addition, it is necessary to review opposing viewpoints such as discussions of how this "guy" gets it wrong.

RationalWiki says that  "analysis of the data by knowledgeable science educators such as Scott K. Johnson and working scientists such as Michael Tobis shows that this "guy" wildly distorts climate science — especially developments about methane emissions from the Arctic — to support his conclusions. They also refute his claims related to runaway climate "feedbacks" as, variously, "not fast enough", not meeting the technical description of positive feedbacks, or actually constituting negative feedbacks."

It's Not Too Late
The unquestionable certainty of coming extinction combined with the diabolical cynicism touted by this guy and his adherents clearly leads to inaction, inertia, and defeatism. What's worse is that the group uses these mechanisms tactically, just like a cult, to suppress and condemn any action by others.



Despite this strong, certain and constant claim that it's too late to act by NTHE and it's leaders, it is extremely important to be aware that there are many credentialed climate scientists working on solving this problem and they are saying that it's not too late. They do recognize that the situation is dire and an emergency. But they do not advise quitting and going home.

According, to eminent climate scientist, Michael Mann “we can still prevent many of the worst impacts of climate change from playing out”. There's a lot each individual can do, but it is likely we only have a small window to act. Get started today.

What is the Paradox?
This "guy's" latest self-promoted theory is the M-------- Paradox. What he alone calls the global dimming phenomenon a.k.a. the aerosol masking effect - an actual scientific theory. He provides some oversimplified explanation of this theory in his video lectures. The explanation comes with an attack on anyone, including environmentalists and scientists working toward ending fossil fuel dominance and lowering pollution rates, in what appears to be an absurd attempt to educate. In several recent articles and a vlog, He even goes so far as to state that anyone calling for the reduction of pollution caused by industrial activities is “trying to destroy all life on earth".

In this video, confidently called “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know” this guy claims that if we cut emissions today by as little as 35% these particles will fall out of the sky resulting in an omnicidal 1°C rise in temperature in a matter of a few weeks, supposedly citing this study by Levy et al.

But actually this study says that this process is completely uncertain and would likely take until at least the end the 21st century. Additionally, the study is careful to state there are enormous unknowns "regarding the role of aerosols in climate [and] the actual magnitude of the aerosol effect, as discussed by Shine et al." Conversely, McPherson claims, in no uncertain terms, that this temperature rise would happen immediately. He also says that the effects of dimming already underway cannot be mitigated or reversed.

According to climate scientist Professor James Renwick from Victoria University's School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences “this is where this guy's grasp of the science seems shakiest. McPherson says cutting aerosol pollution to zero (as would happen when and if industrial society falls over) will unmask another 2.5°C of warming. This is a factor of ten too large, as the actual amount would be around 0.25°C by current best estimates (see figure 10.5).”

In short, this is not a paradox (video), even if it does represent a very real dilemma. It is true that our continued reluctance to reduce carbon emissions fast enough makes the two goals of eliminating air pollution and limiting global warming seem mutually exclusive. This means the real dilemma is, in effect, caused by our inertia and failure to act.

Finally, there is a level of absurdity to the suggestion that we as a society must keep polluting. Also the notion that we should shame or blame those who are trying to stop polluting is unfair and uncalled for now more than ever. Additionally, there is typically no mention or discussion of solutions in this "guy's"work. He preaches acceptance of death as if it were the only answer (essentially, something that we have to do anyway). There are strange suicide hotline references on every page of his blog and more on contemplating suicide all over his website. What does this have to do with climate science?

"The evidence that climate change is a serious problem that we must contend with now, is overwhelming on its own. There is no need to overstate the evidence, particularly when it feeds a paralyzing narrative of doom and hopelessness. - Michael Mann


Not a Paradox
Global dimming is a well-known scientific phenomenon. Climate scientist James Hansen, PhD and former Director of NASA Goddard is among the first to have established this theory. In a formidable program that aired on PBS titled Dimming the Sun, James Hansen estimates that the so called “global dimming" produced by these aerosol particles is cooling the planet by more than a degree Celsius (1.8°F). Hansen also raises the additional concern that if we cut back on pollution, global warming will only increase to a point of no return.  However, no one at NASA has ever referred to this as a paradox, nor have they implied that this is a reason to keep burning fossil fuels.

Learn the solution to this dilemma at Debunked: Global Dimming Dilemma >> We Don't Have to Fear Clean Air. Don't Let the Deniers and Doomers Tell You Otherwise. We have the Technology - it's called a Tree!

  ________________________________

Feel free to leave us comments below. Anyone using the false word "hopium" will be blocked.