"Together, these estimates suggest that CH4 in the forms of hydrates, dissolved, and free gas may be less sensitive to climate change than OM stored in the continental shelves. Experts suggested this could be due to the depth of some hydrate deposits and the combined effects of water pressure, temperature, and hydrate composition, which together determine the zone of hydrate stability (Frederick and Buffett 2014, Ruppel and Kessler 2017). "
So the study is DEFINITELY favoring the USGS denialism. Shakhova is NOT a co-author of this "review" report. In fact THORTON is one of the main authors. Oops. He is on the LOW end of estimates as I mentioned. biased indeed.
"but due to lack of research and uncertainties in this area, determining causes and rates of the release will remain unknown until better empirical and modeling estimates are available."
https://share-ng.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/permafrost-study/ So they say hundreds of years and then say they're not sure.
Thorton BF methane fluxes 2016 is the study thanks
there is a NEW study released claiming that the ESAS methane "bomb" is NOT a bomb at all but will only occur over hundreds of years as a slow release. They seem to dismiss Shakhova and instead rely on this study: I find this study dubious. He says he makes no claims about the CAuse or Source of the methane?! Yet now this is officially accepted as FACT.
yes only this new study is lumping together her research with the denialist research of Thorton BF methane fluxes 2016. If you read his work - just look it up - and read through sci-hub - then you discover that he denies the CAUSE of the methane bomb.
Yes Natalia said the methane bomb is a possibility but she also said such possibility will increase due to global warming. She explains the type of methane and why the rate is being increased. This is all glossed over with this "new" study claiming the rate will remain a slow trickle over hundreds of years. It smacks of a complete denial of her research.
Meanwhile the empirical rate HAS increased just recently as arctic news has documented. We know that the USGS has been denying the ESAS methane bomb and so it makes sense they would escalate that denial. And we know the US tends to dominant science which is why for example it took decades for the US to accept the UK's claim of plate tectonics.
"Sandia National Laboratories geosciences engineer Jennifer Frederick, one of the authors on the study published in IOP Publishing journal Environmental Research Letters. While researchers predict that submarine permafrost is not a ticking time bomb and could take hundreds of years to emit its greenhouse gases, Frederick said submarine permafrost carbon stock represents a potential giant ecosystem feedback to climate change not yet included in climate projections and agreements."
I was reminded of Dr. Shakhova stating that "EACH year matters" - in terms of the "bomb" - that doesn't sound like over hundreds of years to me. Here is from the Nick Breeze interview:
Dr. Shakhova: As we showed in our articles, in the ESAS, in some places, subsea permafrost is reaching the thaw point. In other areas it could have reached this point already. And what can happen then? The most important consequence could be in terms of growing methane emissions… a linear trend becomes exponential. This edge between it being linear and becoming exponential is very fine and lays between frozen and thawed states of subsea permafrost. This is what we call the turning point. To me, I cannot take the responsibility in saying there is a right point between the linear and exponential yet, but following the logic of our investigation and all the evidence that we accumulated so far, it makes me think that we are very near this point. And in this particular point, each year matters."
So can you just clarify for me how "each year matters" equals "over hundreds of years."?
No comments:
Post a Comment