Talk:Arctic methane release

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 
WikiProject Arctic (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Use of subpar references and undue weight[edit]

I've slashed rather a lot of text, which was dependent on references from the Independent, which is not an acceptable scientific reference. Further the text was referencing scientific papers, which had a citation count less than 10, which must be considered undue weight.

Another section was cut, because the text did not follow the reference, and specify the conditions for a large release of marine clathrates. The emphasis seems to have been on the alarming nature instead of the probability or conditions for such a release. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not improve the references instead of taking a 'slash and burn' approach to the article. Revert coming, I think.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced and cleaned up the deleted material. I've removed unpublished research, secondary sources, arguably unscientific terms, repetition and other generally weak bits. This could have been done first time round, rather than the destruction that was actually inflicted. Please use a scalpel, not an axe. Please DO NOT REVERT my work without discussion. It took me about 4 hours.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Evap[edit]

Re [1]. It isn't exactly wrong, but it is misleading (the only substantial effect on evap is through the sfc t difference). But more to the point, why exactly do we care about evap in a methane release article? This is not the arctic climate article William M. Connolley (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis[edit]

Here is the reason i give in the Synthesis tag:

Whole section makes an argument that none of the references support or even hint at. It takes methane figures, and boldly tosses them around, without any consideration as to what is likely or even possible to be released. At the same time, it takes regional and local facts and extrapolates them to global. And finally it is all under a headline of "Risk of abrubt climate change" something that the references absolutely *do not* support. (with the possible exception of one abstract in GRA, which hasn't been cited once (according to google scholar, ie. undue weight)).

Whats rather sad, is that i believe this has been raised before... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've retitled it, but as usual I don't quite understand exactly what you believe to be the further problems that need correcting. Where's the syn? What's the source(s) that have been misrepresented? Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks fine to me - I'll de-tag if you don't respond. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, i have no doubt it looks fine to you. But how come you haven't mentioned B&A as well as the CCSP conclusions? That methane release won't be abrupt, and that the release will take from 1-100,000 years. Why are you concentrating on the Shakhova papers ... which (as i've told you before) haven't got many citations? What does the IPCC say? (hint: same as B&A as well as the CCSP)
My conclusion here is that you are focusing on catastrophy, and choosing the papers accordingly, while at the same time either ignoring or misrepresenting(B&A) the literature that contradicts it. How come? Its a large soup of WP:UNDUE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
B&A is about ocean floor clathrates, not land based organic matter which is subject to decomposition anaerobically as temps rise Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Image spat[edit]

Thanks WMC [PA removed]. However, isn't it pretty obvious that a large river transporting fresh water to a frozen sea is dumping heat energy into that sea, sufficient to raise temperatures? In fact, it's inconceivable that anything else can be happening. I've searched the literature but it appears that no-one's thought this question worthy of research. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Depth is the key. Thermocline is the other. And finally there is the small matter of just how much energy is transported vs. volume to warm vs. escape to surroundings. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Note Methane concentration image is from 2005, now 10 years old. A new one is available here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.fig2.png. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.220.124 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Stale URL[edit]

I tried to find reference "Permafrost Threatened by Rapid Retreat of Arctic Sea Ice, NCAR Study Finds" but got a page not found. --Netsettler (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Fixed Kurtkimber (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Shakhova et al. (2008)[edit]

We have:

Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 Gt of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve.[13]

That seems rather excitable to me. And [13] is to an EGU abstract - not a peer-reviewed paper. If it hasn't made it into a paper, since 2008, it should probably be removed William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been reviewed extensively by specialists in the arctic such as the arctic methane group as research continued between 2008 and 2011. These would include some of the most prestigious scientists in the IPCC. Many of them find discussion of 1400 Gtc of Methane clathrates already emiting from as much as 150 km diameter pool in the ESAS of which 50 Gtc could be released by warming arctic ocean temperatures 1 degree, losing sea ice so the storms cause it to move churning up the shallow clathrates (which are mostly fossil permafrost from the end of the last glacation covered by rising sea levels then) or by drilling as authorized under the Methane Hydrates Act of 2000 in the US alarming rather than exciting. The damage caused by release of 50 Gtc would be an instantaneous rise in average global temperature of 1.8 degree and $ hundreds of trillions of damage to coastal cities from sea level rise, flooding, storm surges.
It's one reason Obama says he's going to the arctic this week. 142.0.102.83 (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are all the updates[edit]

In 2011, Russian scientists discovered large methane plumes in the East Siberian Arctic Ocean measuring hundreds of metres across. Most of the articles available thus far for potential citations are news links although journal articles may soon be published: [2] [3] [4]. ~AH1 (discuss!) 17:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the chart of CH4 measurements is really old as well, I believe there has been significant rise since 2005 and very high spikes of methane reported on several sites summer 2012. Reading over this whole article, it almost seems "edited to the bone" to make the situation look better than it really is. We need more data here for people to make good public judgement about the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcldude (talkcontribs) 14:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Strongly agree. The editing of anything to do with climate change, global warming, sea level rise, IPCC reports have been designed to damp down actual findings to the extremely conservative consensus necessary to get IPCC agreement by all the worlds scientists that climate change is anthropogenic. For this reason the research of Russian scientists on 1400 Gtc of Methane off the EASA of which 50 Gtc could be released at any time was not included in the 2014 report V and is not included here. If ordinary people were to discover that this is due to fossil fuel energy companies trying to get the last penny of profit from the arctic regardless of the damage, even with that being on the order of a sixth global extinction event, they might prefer to be given the unedited version of all the facts to decide for themselves whether its of concern or not.142.0.102.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

20 year study shows little methane release in warming[edit]

From Nature Magazine. Long-term warming restructures Arctic tundra without changing net soil carbon storage

Seeta A. Sistla, John C. Moore, Rodney T. Simpson, Laura Gough, Gaius R. Shaver & Joshua P. Schimel AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author Nature (2013) doi:10.1038/nature12129 Received 27 November 2012 Accepted 28 March 2013 Published online 15 May 2013 Article tools Citation Reprints Rights & permissions Metrics High latitudes contain nearly half of global soil carbon, prompting interest in understanding how the Arctic terrestrial carbon balance will respond to rising temperatures1, 2. Low temperatures suppress the activity of soil biota, retarding decomposition and nitrogen release, which limits plant and microbial growth3. Warming initially accelerates decomposition4, 5, 6, increasing nitrogen availability, productivity and woody-plant dominance3, 7. However, these responses may be transitory, because coupled abiotic–biotic feedback loops that alter soil-temperature dynamics and change the structure and activity of soil communities, can develop8, 9. Here we report the results of a two-decade summer warming experiment in an Alaskan tundra ecosystem. Warming increased plant biomass and woody dominance, indirectly increased winter soil temperature, homogenized the soil trophic structure across horizons and suppressed surface-soil-decomposer activity, but did not change total soil carbon or nitrogen stocks, thereby increasing net ecosystem carbon storage. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)