Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNASA: Alaska Shows No Signs of Rising Arctic Methane
(Please note, NASA publication. Copyright concerns are nil.)
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4376
[font size=5]NASA: Alaska Shows No Signs of Rising Arctic Methane[/font]
[font size=3]Despite large temperature increases in Alaska in recent decades, a new analysis of NASA airborne data finds that methane is not being released from Alaskan soils into the atmosphere at unusually high rates, as recent modeling and experimental studies have suggested. The new result shows that the changes in this part of the Arctic have not yet had enough impact to affect the global methane budget.
This is important because methane is the third most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, after water vapor and carbon dioxide. Although there is much less of it in the air, it is 33 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere and adding to greenhouse warming.
High concentrations of atmospheric methane have been measured at individual Arctic sites, especially in Siberia. This adds to the concern that massive methane releases are already occurring in the far North. NASA's multiyear Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE) is the first experiment to establish emission rates for a large region of the Arctic.
In the new study, researchers analyzed methane measurements made over Alaska from May through September 2012 during the first season of CARVE. They estimated emission rates for the winter months, during most of which no methane was released because the soil was frozen.
Alaska composes about one percent of Earth's total land area, and its estimated annual emissions in 2012 equaled about one percent of total global methane emissions. That means the Alaskan rate was very close to the global average rate.
"That's good news, because it means there isn't a large amount of methane coming out of the ground yet," said lead author Rachel Chang, formerly at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and now an assistant professor and Canada Research Chair in Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Charles Miller of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, the principal investigator for CARVE, noted that results from a single year cannot show how emissions might be changing from year to year. "The 2012 data don't preclude accelerated change in the future," he said.
[/font][/font]
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It seems reasonable to expect this to change.
ffr
(22,665 posts)And everybody around me can too.
I don't see this data lasting. We've had something like four days of below normal temperature this year. I'm talking about morning low temps compared to historic averages. This week being one that has one day a few degrees below normal for the morning low. All the others this year have been 7 - 15 degrees above historic averages, with some 25+ degrees above normal.
The heat just isn't getting out of the atmosphere at night like it once could. While my observations are only local in origin, from what I have gathered, the phenomenon does seem to run the tables for higher elevation cities.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)But it does mean that things might not be quite so dire as we fear.
ffr
(22,665 posts)Methane releases: 6X is underway and accelerating. Its causes are on a macro level. One green house gas does not make the total. The others are still increasing in PPM.
Dire predictions will begin to carry less weight once the following is shown:
1) unrestricted human breading decreases or the overall human population totals fall below 2 billion.
2) Ocean acidification reverses
3) species rebound in their numbers to pre-industrialized numbers
4) PPM carbon/methane/greenhouse gases in the atmosphere fall to their pre-industrialized numbers and fluctuate due to natural causes
5a) fresh underground water tables go up instead of precipitously & predictably down and
5b) fresh water is no longer being contaminated by human sourced activities (fracking, for instance)
To name a few.
Not dogging you, just not seeing this as more than a pause in what is sure to be more bad news at some, not to distant date.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)Some people have thrown up their hands in despair. The situation is hopeless. Perhaps it is not. Perhaps it is only very serious.
ffr
(22,665 posts)on a mass scale to reverse these trends of putting more carbon into the atmosphere? I can see how people would just thrown their hands up and take a hopeless position. Actions have been to reduce, but not reverse and reverse is the only direction that will have any meaning.
The item listed as #1 in my previous post is the source of all things negative. Just answer any question about reversing carbon emissions while at the same time realizing the number of humans is increasing at a rate of 140,000,000 per year. That's a lot of new mouths to feed, a lot of land to sow, a lot of consumers that will drive and a lot of product going to market: all transported by fossil fuel based vehicles.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)CO2 is a global problem. Directing people's attention to America's national performance is misdirection at its most egregiously devious. You might as well be telling people, "Hey, our end of the ship isn't sinking! Don't worry, be happy!"
Now I wonder what your intentions are in publishing such pap.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)The truth of the matter is, meaningful actions are being taken on a mass scale, just not on a global scale
yet.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112777921
I know that doesnt fit in with your worldview, where humans are no more able to change their ways than are gibbons. So be it.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)One thing human beings are very good at is playing with words.
When the question is parsed out in terms of "meaningful actions being taken to reduce the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere" rather than "promises being made to reduce the rate of increase of emissions some time in the future", the correct answer is "None".
The only things that have been demonstrated to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions are economic recession or social collapse. That effect can be seen across the ex-Soviet bloc countries after the USSR collapsed, or the world-wide recession in 2008-2009. Nothing else has been shown to work. That's because CO2 emissions are inherently tied to economic activity. But triggering an economic collapse isn't exactly an action anyone would undertake to reduce emissions, is it?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That's the only thing that saved their bacon where Kyoto was concerned.
On edit: Here's the data for the same period from the World Bank.
It looks like economics to me.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)However, there is clear intention on the part of several EU countries.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_from_renewable_sources
[font size=5]Electricity generation capacity, EU-28, 1990-2012[/font]
Source: Eurostat
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Europe's total primary energy consumption in 2011 was about 2.2 TW (1620 MTOE at 12 million MWh per MTOE, divided by 8760 for converting TWh to TW).
Electrical generation provided ~350 GW (3,000,000 GWh / 8760). According to their numbers, renewable energy, including wood which represents half of that energy, supplied 85 GW (750,000 GWh, / 8760).
350 GW of electricity represents 16% of Europe's primary energy consumption, and the renewable portion represents 4% of primary energy. Boosting the proportion of electricity from renewables by 5% would give it an additional 0.8% share of the primary energy total. That's not enough of a change to have contributed much to the 8% drop in CO2 emissions since 2005.
Since Europe's constant-dollar GDP has been static since 2006, the majority of the drop appears to have come from a shift in the GDP makeup. Europe's Gross Fixed Capital Formation has fallen by 11% since then, mirroring the decline in the CO2 intensity of their GDP. This means that more of their GDP is coming from services like finance...
All GDP-related data was sourced from the World Bank.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)i.e. Share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy (not electrical generation.)
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I ran my own numbers using three data sources: their data, World Bank data and BP data. I'm satisfied that my numbers are correct. If you can find out why there's such a massive discrepancy between their numbers and mine, I'd be very happy to know.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Thanks for pointing it out though. Without that incentive, I wouldn't have researched their claims and discovered the smoke and mirrors.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)A bureaucrat has never met a target he couldn't meet, one way or another.
I see how EU apparatchiks got their reputation.