CH4 (methane) rise in the atmosphere

celtic_oz

Scary tipping points being reached ?




A group of 80 scientists traveled to Sibiera to investigate the effects of the Eastern Arctic permafrost thawing when they made a surprising discovery: The sea appeared to be boiling.

The startling sight was caused by bubbles of methane rising from the seafloor.

The researchers said the concentration of methane in the East Siberian Sea was between six and seven times higher than the global average.

Link


https://videosift.com/video/Siberian-Methane-Bubbles-Increasing-as-Permafrost-melts

ohographite

celtic_oz wrote: »

Scary tipping points being reached ?




A group of 80 scientists traveled to Sibiera to investigate the effects of the Eastern Arctic permafrost thawing when they made a surprising discovery: The sea appeared to be boiling.

The startling sight was caused by bubbles of methane rising from the seafloor.

The researchers said the concentration of methane in the East Siberian Sea was between six and seven times higher than the global average.

Link


https://videosift.com/video/Siberian-Methane-Bubbles-Increasing-as-Permafrost-melts

The way I understand it(I might be wrong) is that the tipping points are very close, and that is what last year's IPCC report was talking about when it said we had 12 years left(now it's only 11) to avoid the worst of the climate's worsening. I think they mean that in 11 years we will reach the tipping points unless we make a very big change before then.

There are several environmental tipping points, including the point where methane escapes the permafrost and then melts the permafrost to release more methane which worsens the climate.
Is that the tipping point you were talking about?

Midster

ohographite wrote: »

I think they mean that in 11 years

The permafrost is being slowly thawed right this second.

My opinion, a fleet of no less than a thousand aircraft should fly over it and mapalm the whole area, burn off the methane before it even reaches the atmosphere.

#getyours’moresready

Capt'n Midnight

Midster wrote: »

The permafrost is being slowly thawed right this second.

My opinion, a fleet of no less than a thousand aircraft should fly over it and mapalm the whole area, burn off the methane before it even reaches the atmosphere.

#getyours’moresready

Or have a fleet of 1000 aircraft disperse sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to cool the planet.

also it's hard to set fire to wet boglands, and setting fire to dry ones is terrible , lots of fires in Siberia this year.

gozunda

ohographite wrote: »

The way I understand it(I might be wrong) is that the tipping points are very close, and that is what last year's IPCC report was talking about when it said we had 12 years left(now it's only 11) to avoid the worst of the climate's worsening. I think they mean that in 11 years we will reach the tipping points unless we make a very big change before then.

There are several environmental tipping points, including the point where methane escapes the permafrost and then melts the permafrost to release more methane which worsens the climate.
Is that the tipping point you were talking about?

There is no mention of only 12 years left in the IPCC report.

That seems comes from greta thunbergs unique take on climate change and the end of civilisation apparently ...

This from greta:

Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

This is what one of the scientists responsible for the IPCC report said.

Please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.

The IPCC report details the issues as follows (p. 14)

Emission Pathways and System Transitions Consistent with 1.5°C
Global Warming

In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range).

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15_SPM_version_stand_alone_LR.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj5wuCh77XlAhWpRBUIHUapAWwQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0YNxIgAbqt50AEASwzJJnC


That is a goal of Net Zero emissions 15 to 25 years year AFTER 2030 ie not in 12 years from now.

The IPCC claims that if we cut global emissions to net-zero, we can still keep warming below 1.5 degrees. If we end up with net-zero by 2070, we can still hope for no more than 2 degrees.

The IPCC do not use 'tipping points' in their modeling of climate change afaik.

celtic_oz

The IPCC do not use 'tipping points' in their modeling of climate change afaik.

Do you think they should with regards to

snow coverage
methane release
amazon decline

gozunda

celtic_oz wrote: »

Do you think they should with regards to

snow coverage
methane release
amazon decline

The various IPCC reports deal with likely changes to global climate. And as regards climate much remains uncertain but they believe relative risk rises with increasing temperature. This taken from the IPCC.

The IPCC has defined a tipping point "as an irreversible change in the climate system" It also states that the precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger a tipping point remain uncertain, but that the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points increases with rising temperature *

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf

To answer your question - it looks like being able to define absolute tipping points for such things as 'amazon decline' remain outside their current modeling methods

*The above is taken from the 2014 Summary for Policymakers. There is no mention of tipping points in the latest (2018) Summary for Policymakers document.

Bdjsjsjs

Worth stressing the difference between the claims of the likes of AOC or Thurnbeg types versus IPCC the actual science based organisations and others. Thur berg for example have no scientic backing.

celtic_oz

Bdjsjsjs wrote: »

Worth stressing the difference between the claims of the likes of AOC or Thurnbeg types versus IPCC the actual science based organisations and others. Thur berg for example have no scientic backing.

glad you agree with their findings

• Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes.
• The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities.
• The next few years are probably the most important in our history

Bdjsjsjs

celtic_oz wrote: »

glad you agree with their findings

• Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes.
• The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities.
• The next few years are probably the most important in our history

Sure but there is no increased risk of human extinction or hundreds of millions of human deaths. Every action has a cost and mitigation costs money that would otherwise result in higher growth and more poverty reduction. It's a case of balancing risk of lower economic growth and climate risks. Both of which are absurdly hard to measure.

celtic_oz

Bdjsjsjs wrote: »

Sure but there is no increased risk of human extinction or hundreds of millions of human deaths.

the risk has to be increasing, it seems maybe you think the risk rise is negligible while others think different.


Interestingly the world seems to be able afford to spend on other things ( also deemed more important than lifting people out of poverty etc) , the military for example

1 United States United States of America $649 billion annually
2 China People's Republic of China $250.0 billion annually
3 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia $67.6 billion annually
4 India India $66.5 billion annually
5 France France $63.8 billion annually
6 Russia Russia $61.4 billion annually
7 United Kingdom United Kingdom $50.0 billion annually
8 Germany Germany $49.5 billion annually

So before we play the poor mouth maybe priorities need to be shifted .. at least for a few years.

Bdjsjsjs

celtic_oz wrote: »

the risk has to be increasing, it seems maybe you think the risk rise is negligible while others think different.


Interestingly the world seems to be able afford to spend on other things ( also deemed more important than lifting people out of poverty etc) , the military for example

1 United States United States of America $649 billion annually
2 China People's Republic of China $250.0 billion annually
3 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia $67.6 billion annually
4 India India $66.5 billion annually
5 France France $63.8 billion annually
6 Russia Russia $61.4 billion annually
7 United Kingdom United Kingdom $50.0 billion annually
8 Germany Germany $49.5 billion annually

So before we play the poor mouth maybe priorities need to be shifted .. at least for a few years.

Please share any academic research that proposes significant risk of human extinction?

celtic_oz

Bdjsjsjs wrote: »

Please share any academic research that proposes significant risk of human extinction?

Why ? do your own research

The risk is non-zero, increasing warming wont make this better only worse, therefore the risk is increasing.

I'll repeat myself ..it seems maybe you think the risk rise is negligible while others think different.

Bdjsjsjs

celtic_oz wrote: »

Why ? do your own research

The risk is non-zero, increasing warming wont make this better only worse, therefore the risk is increasing.

I'll repeat myself ..it seems maybe you think the risk rise is negligible while others think different.

If you a claim one would expect a source or an argument.
The risk of Human extinction in my opinion is not zero but it's very close to zero and the only risk i can detect is some kind of astrological collusion in which case reducing emissions won't save us. The only solution would be space colonies so yeah I wouldn't share your views.

celtic_oz

Bdjsjsjs wrote: »

If you a claim one would expect a source or an argument.

What claim did I make ..

Bdjsjsjs wrote: »

The risk of Human extinction in my opinion is not zero

that you yourself did not hold to be self evident ?

Bdjsjsjs

celtic_oz wrote: »

What claim did I make ..



that you yourself did not hold to be self evident ?

You claimed some would think that extinction is possible. It is true that some do but they are as trustworthy as the local wino.

celtic_oz

Bdjsjsjs wrote: »

You claimed some would think that extinction is possible. It is true that some do but they are as trustworthy as the local wino .

Bdjsjsjs wrote: »

The risk of Human extinction in my opinion is not zero.

have you been drinking ?

Bdjsjsjs

celtic_oz wrote: »

have you been drinking ?

It is possible but so small it is not worrying about. I stand over my original claim that this risk is not increasingly.

ohographite

Bdjsjsjs wrote: »

It is possible but so small it is not worrying about. I stand over my original claim that this risk is not increasingly.

The more greenhouse gases released, the more likely it becomes that we will be extinct due to the extreme weather events caused by them.
Ebola virus outbreaks have also been linked to the climate crisis,* since droughts cause people to leave their homes in west Africa and relocate in more lush jungles where animals carrying the virus live.
If this virus spreads too much, it could easily kill massive numbers of people.
This can be avoided however by halting the burning of fossil fuels as soon as possible, as well as protecting, restoring and funding important wildlife habitats like bogs and rainforests.


*The article saying Ebola is related to the climate crisis:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/15/health/climate-crisis-ebola-risks/index.html