Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OKIsItJustMe

(19,937 posts)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:47 PM Nov 2014

NASA: 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 face=Serif]November 12, 2014
[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]
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NASA: Alaska Shows No Signs of Rising Arctic Methane (Original Post) OKIsItJustMe Nov 2014 OP
I guess it's early yet. NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #1
Oh goodie. That means I can continue my carless fossil fuel based lifestyle ffr Nov 2014 #2
No, it doesn’t OKIsItJustMe Nov 2014 #3
One facet wouldn't convince me ffr Nov 2014 #4
This finding may mean the difference between “hopeless” and “serious” OKIsItJustMe Nov 2014 #5
I'd love to believe that, but what meaningful action is being taken ffr Nov 2014 #6
How about on a national scale? OKIsItJustMe Nov 2014 #7
Is that because CO2 is so scrupulous at respecting national borders? GliderGuider Nov 2014 #8
The question “what meaningful action is being taken on a mass scale” was asked. OKIsItJustMe Nov 2014 #9
And you point to G20 promises? GliderGuider Nov 2014 #10
Go back and look at the graphs. OKIsItJustMe Nov 2014 #11
It looks to me like the European graph mostly shows them running into economic trouble. GliderGuider Nov 2014 #12
No doubt economics played a role OKIsItJustMe Nov 2014 #13
No doubt wind and solar are making some inroads in Europe. GliderGuider Nov 2014 #14
Perhaps you missed the title of the first graph OKIsItJustMe Nov 2014 #15
No, I didn't miss it. GliderGuider Nov 2014 #16
After a little more digging, I'm convinced that graph is pure bullshit. GliderGuider Nov 2014 #17
This may be helpful to you OKIsItJustMe Nov 2014 #18
So they just lopped off over 1/3 of all primary energy use with the stroke of a pen. GliderGuider Nov 2014 #19

ffr

(22,665 posts)
2. Oh goodie. That means I can continue my carless fossil fuel based lifestyle
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:55 PM
Nov 2014

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.

ffr

(22,665 posts)
4. One facet wouldn't convince me
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:16 PM
Nov 2014

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)
5. This finding may mean the difference between “hopeless” and “serious”
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:23 PM
Nov 2014

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)
6. I'd love to believe that, but what meaningful action is being taken
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:35 PM
Nov 2014

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)
8. Is that because CO2 is so scrupulous at respecting national borders?
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 08:44 AM
Nov 2014


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)
9. The question “what meaningful action is being taken on a mass scale” was asked.
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 02:45 PM
Nov 2014

The truth of the matter is, meaningful actions are being taken on a mass scale, just not on a global scaleyet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112777921

I know that doesn’t 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)
10. And you point to G20 promises?
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 04:59 PM
Nov 2014

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?

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
12. It looks to me like the European graph mostly shows them running into economic trouble.
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 07:33 PM
Nov 2014

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)
13. No doubt economics played a role
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 07:57 PM
Nov 2014

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]Share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy, EU-28, 2004-2012[/font]




[font size=5]Electricity generation capacity, EU-28, 1990-2012[/font]
Source: Eurostat
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
14. No doubt wind and solar are making some inroads in Europe.
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 10:57 PM
Nov 2014

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...

Gross fixed capital formation includes land improvements; plant, machinery, and equipment purchases; and the construction of roads, railways, and the like, including schools, offices, hospitals, private residential dwellings, and commercial and industrial buildings.

All GDP-related data was sourced from the World Bank.

OKIsItJustMe

(19,937 posts)
15. Perhaps you missed the title of the first graph
Wed Nov 19, 2014, 08:38 AM
Nov 2014

i.e. “Share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy” (not electrical generation.)

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
16. No, I didn't miss it.
Wed Nov 19, 2014, 10:15 AM
Nov 2014

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)
17. After a little more digging, I'm convinced that graph is pure bullshit.
Wed Nov 19, 2014, 05:08 PM
Nov 2014

Thanks for pointing it out though. Without that incentive, I wouldn't have researched their claims and discovered the smoke and mirrors.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
19. So they just lopped off over 1/3 of all primary energy use with the stroke of a pen.
Wed Nov 19, 2014, 07:00 PM
Nov 2014

A bureaucrat has never met a target he couldn't meet, one way or another.

I see how EU apparatchiks got their reputation.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»NASA: Alaska Shows No Sig...