[HN Gopher] Wetland emission and atmospheric sink changes explai...
___________________________________________________________________
Wetland emission and atmospheric sink changes explain methane
growth in 2020
Author : pseudolus
Score : 49 points
Date : 2022-12-15 13:42 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| torcete wrote:
| I literally just finished watching this video with a presentation
| by astrophysicist Valentina Zharkova titled:
|
| "In next 30 yrs, global warming prob. will be last thing in our
| mind"
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYOMKLDbeYE
|
| And to be honest, I don't know what to think anymore.
| mturmon wrote:
| About VZ: No time to watch that video, but she has been
| proposing solar explanations for the observed temperature
| changes, so I assume that's the topic.
|
| There are a lot of reasons to reject changes in solar forcing
| as an explanation for _recent_ warming (as opposed to
| Milankovitch cycles) - and it has been rejected, although 15
| years ago it was still treated seriously. Also, the CO2 rise is
| very real, and the link of CO2 to warming is clear.
|
| It's easy to watch/read "point explanations" for climate
| phenomena, and get confused. ("I read this paper from 2015 in
| _Nature_ and ... ".) One reason is that laypeople, even those
| with physics backgrounds, just don't have enough background
| information to put claims in context. Earth science is hard -
| so many interacting systems.
|
| A better source for motivated laypeople is the NCA - the
| National Climate Assessment - see
| https://nca2018.globalchange.gov . It's done every 5 years, and
| the next one is due in 2023.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| this has the outward appearance of an aging attention-seeker
| with excellent credentials from forty years ago?
| hannob wrote:
| If you don't know what to think when some person on youtube
| says one thing and a large collaboration of scientists who are
| the world's experts of a field (the IPCC) says the opposite in
| detailled reviews of the current science then you should
| probably start by learning a few basic things about the
| scientific process.
| defrost wrote:
| This is one of the cascade effects predicted some time ago
|
| > We found that most wetland areas of the world were exposed to
| warmer and wetter conditions in 2020 than normal years ...
|
| ... leading to greater methane growth.
|
| A central reason for concern by geoscientists about human C02 and
| the boiling frog scenario is that slow rises in C02 eventually
| lead to warmer wetter conditions and then a subsequent positive
| feedback increase in water vapor and methene .. which are even
| better heat blankets than C02.
| ecommerceguy wrote:
| Time to sell my beach front property.
| vkou wrote:
| The problem with climate change isn't sea level rise, or the
| occasional heat wave that kills a few hundred or thousand
| people in your area, the problem is food security and
| political instability and creating refugees.
| autoexec wrote:
| Sea level rise is already a problem and it's costing a lot
| of money to continuously repair flooding damage and to keep
| things from getting worse. There's also the problems of
| increasingly severe storm damage along the coasts. People
| will absolutely be driven inland by climate change. and if
| we were smart we'd start pulling back now, and avoid
| throwing away huge amounts of money year after year after
| year just so people can pretend it's not happening.
| danuker wrote:
| You could buy cheap property in currently cold regions. But
| only expect the ROI to occur after enough warming (decades).
| landemva wrote:
| This describes the cycles which have taken place in the past.
| There apparently was enormous amounts of foliage (CO2
| consumers) during time of dinosaurs. I expect these planet-
| scale cycles to continue.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| If you're talking about the Carboniferous period, my
| understanding is that was a one time thing. There were no
| organisms to break down wood and other plant matter during
| that time period. Huge amounts of lignin in the trees meant
| that it just got buried as sequestered carbon. That won't
| happen a second time since nowadays it is possible for all
| modern trees to be decomposed by a subset of living
| organisms.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| > "In addition, the year 2020 was exceptionally hot from early
| spring to late summer over northern Eurasia, a sensitive region
| for CH4 emissions from biogenic sources such as wetlands,
| permafrost slumps and arctic lakes, which are expected to emit
| more CH4 as the temperature increases."
|
| I wish people would be realistic and just admit that the tipping
| point for climate is in the past - because even if there was
| complete elimination of fossil fuel use in the next decade
| (highly unlikely), polar warming has resulted in permafrost melt,
| so that's going to keep dumping carbon to the atmosphere at a
| slow steady rate. At best, elimination of fossil fuels over the
| next 3-5 decades will only result in slower warming over the last
| few decades of the 21st century. We also haven't even come close
| to realizing warming from the past 5 decades, as the time-to-
| equilibrium for current forcing is ~100 years. This means a
| return to climate conditions last seen 3-5 million years ago,
| during the Pliocene.
|
| Practically, this means as much will have to be spent on
| adaptation to new conditions as will have to be spent on
| transition to a non-fossil energy system.
| [deleted]
| mistrial9 wrote:
| each of the IPCC, World Meteorological Association, US Global
| Change Study and the California Climate Reports, contain
| specifics on this .. a list most recent publications with
| citations next up?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| ... about halfway through searching a pile of reports.. so
| far all of these mention a permafrost/wetlands amplification
| cycle
|
| Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American
| Meteorological Society Vol. 100, No. 9, September 2019 (see
| also 2015)
|
| Blunden, J. and D. S. Arndt, Eds., 2019: State of the Climate
| in 2018. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 100 (9), Si-S305,
| doi:10.1175/2019BAMSStateoftheClimate.1
|
| Chapter 19 Climate Change -- Evidence & Causes An overview
| from the Royal Society & the US National Academy of Sciences,
| 2014 (paid for partly with Sackler Money !! cannot make this
| up)
|
| THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF EXISTENTIAL CLIMATE RISK BY DAVID
| SPRATT & IAN DUNLOP 2017. Revised and updated August 2018.
|
| D E P A R T M E N T O F D E F E N S E C L I M AT E C H A N G
| E ADAPTATION ROADMAP 2014
|
| Climate Change and the Electricity Sector: Guide for Climate
| Change Resilience Planning September 2016 U.S. Department of
| Energy Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis
|
| --
| culi wrote:
| Not sure what your point is.
|
| The very first IPCC report (1.5degC) completely ignored
| permafrost.[^0] They basically admitted they didn't have data
| on it so they will just ignore the effect altogether. The
| IPCC reports that followed have all been increasingly grim.
| In large part, imo, because they stopped ignoring permafrost
|
| [^0]: IPCC chapter 2:
|
| > The reduced complexity climate models employed in this
| assessment do not take into account permafrost or non-CO2
| Earth system feedbacks, although the MAGICC model has a
| permafrost module that can be enabled. Taking the current
| climate and Earth system feedbacks understanding together,
| there is a possibility that these models would underestimate
| the longer-term future temperature response to stringent
| emission pathways (Section 2.2.2).
| scythe wrote:
| Well, there's still iron-salt aerosol geoengineering for
| atmospheric methane removal. Big bet, though.
| winReInstall wrote:
| Rather prefer space based foil-solar sail ice cap shielding
| and artifically growing glaciers near south and northpole..
| hedora wrote:
| Or, direct air carbon capture. Getting to net zero would
| cost ~ $1 / gallon of gasoline (and equivalent for other
| things that emit.) I think we should be paying ~ twice
| that, minimum.
|
| It's far less risky than trying to block out the sun.
| tony_cannistra wrote:
| I'm not aware of any evidence of this, actually. Can you point
| to some?
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Search Google Scholar for "committed warming" for a quick
| intro. For example:
|
| > "We have asked the illustrative but specific question of
| should atmospheric greenhouse gases suddenly stop increasing,
| what additional global warming will occur based on current
| understanding? Such a constant composition commitment is less
| ambitious than the recent aspiration of many to achieve "net-
| zero" global emissions of GHGs. Net-zero has been generally
| defined as not including natural sinks and is only achieved
| when anthropogenic CO2 emissions are balanced globally by
| anthropogenic removals. "
|
| (2020) "CMIP6 climate models imply high committed warming"
|
| Read the paper at sci-hub, check the references for more.
|
| https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/s10584-020-02849-5
|
| As this paper notes,
|
| > "...there is often a misunderstanding in society,
| corresponding to a belief that achieving constant atmospheric
| GHG composition implies that global mean temperatures will
| not change from that point forward."
|
| Note also that these models are generally not including the
| non-anthropogenic feedback process, such as permafrost melt
| and carbon release, and the relatively uncertain but
| potentially very large effects of methane release from
| shallow marine sediments due to warming polar oceans.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-15 23:02 UTC)