
The Arctic may have crossed key threshold in a long-dreaded climate feedback - ForHackernews
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2019/12/10/the-arctic-may-have-crossed-key-threshold-in-a-long-dreaded-climate-feedback/
======
makerofspoons
Please note that IPCC projections do not include carbon from permafrost in
their projections: [https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/02/the-
permafros...](https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/02/the-permafrost-
bomb-is-ticking/)

As a result, the carbon budget for keeping warming under two degrees over
postindustrial (widely thought to be catastrophic but survivable) has shrunk.
Dr. Peter Carter, one of the IPCC's reviewers, explains how we are likely to
miss 1.5 and 2 degree targets:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa13KrOvE2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa13KrOvE2s)

~~~
jlmorton
I watched the entire interview with Dr. Peter Carter. At about 19:50 in the
interview, he talks about a "Massive! Massive increase in methane." He talks
about an incredible eruption of methane, almost in apocalyptic terms, he says
he knows of no other source it could be other than methane hydrates, and he is
shocked that it hasn't received more media attention.

He then kind of vacillates a bit when asked to quantify it. He talks about
historic methane concentrations from ice core samples and then compares that
to current methane concentrations in Barrow, AK, the site of the methane
eruption.

This was intriguing to me, so I tried to find the original report he's talking
about. What it shows is absolutely nothing like he represents. Indeed, there
has been large and rapid increase in methane concentrations in Barrow, Alaska
over the past few years. But it's a change of about 5-10% [1]. And there were
similar-scale eruptions in years past, such as in 2003.

The change is certainly more rapid than the trend. It's probably noteworthy.
Clearly something is happening in that area. But this sort of silly
exaggeration is one of the reasons why so many dismiss climate science.

If you want people to believe you, don't exaggerate the science.

[1] [https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/09/arctic-
met...](https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/09/arctic-methane-
levels-reach-new-heights-data-shows/)

~~~
matmatmatmat
Are you qualified to evaluated what makes a change large or small?

Is it possible that a 5-10% change is actually "massive"?

~~~
jlmorton
Perhaps not, I am not a climate scientist. I guess that precludes me from
looking at a dataset and forming an independent conclusion. But since I'm not
qualified to comment on the data, is Michael Mann qualified enough?

[https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1172947818069352451](https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1172947818069352451)

~~~
ascii_only
He doesn't argue with increase and only argues what is source of this spike.

~~~
jlmorton
Not true. He says:

> The 2019 measurements are consistent with the trend over the past decade.
> Outliers (i.e. isolated data points that lie well above the average) are
> seen throughout the record. Do not over-interpret them.

He goes on to say there's no evidence this is from methane hydrates, or
permafrost:

> That is not to say that we shouldn't worry about the potential for increased
> methane release from melting permafrost. But there is no evidence to support
> breathless claims that we have e.g. crossed some "tipping point" with regard
> to such processes.

~~~
ascii_only
>The increased trend over the past decade is also part of a larger trend.

~~~
jlmorton
Right, I don't disagree with the plain fact that methane concentrations are
increasing, both globally, and apparently in Barrow. There is a decades-long
trend of increased methane concentrations.

The question is whether there has been a massive eruption of methane that is
unprecedented, and could only come from methane hydrates.

Michael Mann says the "eruption" is consistent with past outliers and we
shouldn't over-interpret the data. He says there is no evidence the increase
is from permafrost, and that it appears likely to be from anthropogenic (i.e.,
non-tipping point) sources.

I'm not making an argument against climate change science. I'm making an
argument against Dr. Peter Carter exaggerating climate science.

~~~
matmatmatmat
That sounds reasonable. Thanks for the sourcing!

------
agumonkey
Climate changes news are chokeful of "may" but one thing is for sure is the
lack of actual human response to fix anything.

~~~
core-questions
What am I supposed to go and do? Re-freeze Siberia?

~~~
agumonkey
if you have money and time:

\- reinsulate your house

\- if you live in a sunny place, build/buy a solar heated water tank

\- plant trees

\- try zero waste lifestyle

\- fund lithium recycling plants

\- buy electric companies stock

\- fund a local veggies club

\- fund a repair / recycling shop

\- harass your family and neighbors to use the two above

\- walk any distance below 5 miles that doesn't require heavy loads (or rain)

\- stop buying

\- go to an AWS datacenter and cut some wires at random

If you don't have money nor time:

\- paste this comment to people you don't know on the internet

~~~
perfunctory
> walk any distance below 5 miles that doesn't require heavy loads (or rain)

what's wrong with the rain?

~~~
agumonkey
I was just being understanding, I don't mind walking in a bit of rain but 5
miles under water can often be a problem (catching a cold, soaked clothes
etc).

------
cardamomo
Original source: [https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-
Card-2019](https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019)

------
bamboozled
Wil anything be done about it? Does any “world leaders” really care ?

We have all the technology available to solve this issue, will we be given the
political support and permissions to use it ?

~~~
john_moscow
It is being gradually addressed. Battery technology, biofuels, renewables,
electric vehicles, etc. have greatly advanced over the past decade and are
continuing to improve. Also when the climate effects become more observable by
an average person, the public interest in those areas will rise and we will
likely see faster progress.

~~~
ascii_only
100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. Projects that you have
listed are important but more likely only help individuals to feel that
something is being fixed instead of any real impact.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
"100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions" is referring to the
fossil fuel energy companies. They're responsible for it in the sense that
they pulled the carbon out of the ground.

That doesn't mean that if you buy an electric car or replace your oil furnace
with electric heat pumps there is no difference being made. They sold it but
somebody bought it.

~~~
ascii_only
Lets do the math. We will assume that 100% individuals switched to electric
cars and heat.

Commercial and Residential Sector Emissions for US - 12% All Transportation
for US - 29% (It includes rail and aircraft. Only 60% of it is light duty
vehicle and I couldnt find what percentage of it is commercial transport)

So we have 12%+ 29% _0,6 = 32%. It is big number but now we have to produce
same amount of energy in electricity. 79% of all electricity generation was
fossil fuels.

32% _ (0.21) = 7%

So even if all individuals will stop using fossil fuels for heat and will use
electric cars for transportation. We will have less than 10% of reduction.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> It is big number but now we have to produce same amount of energy in
> electricity. 79% of all electricity generation was fossil fuels.

Where are you getting that number? It's 63.6% in the US:

[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3)

Moreover, most of the fossil fuel generation is natural gas, which emits less
carbon per unit energy than gasoline _and_ large scale generation is
significantly more thermodynamically efficient than small gasoline engines.
And heat pumps are significantly more thermodynamically efficient than oil
furnaces.

Meanwhile power generation from non-carbon sources is growing at a fast pace
while coal is dying out, so that number will only improve over the lifetime of
the vehicle/heat pumps, and if you want to get ahead of the curve you can
install some solar panels on your roof.

------
cryptonector
Spoiler: it's not about polar bears. Their numbers are through the roof.

~~~
pacerwpg
Yes, thanks to conservation efforts.

------
aazaa
Bogus Norton security alert. I'm outta there.

~~~
ForHackernews
Also on WaPo, but paywalled
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/12/10/arctic-
may...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/12/10/arctic-may-have-
crossed-key-threshold-emitting-billions-tons-carbon-into-air-long-dreaded-
climate-feedback/)

------
thebokehwokeh2
Assuming now that we are past the point of no return and the world has gone
mad voting in people who will do the opposite of what is necessary, what is
left to do?

Do we all simply wait for the inevitable like frogs in a slowly boiling pot? I
guess I could practice survival skills but I'd rather die than live in what I
expect will be absolute hell come 20 - 30 years.

~~~
perfunctory
> what is left to do?

what people always do when they are dissatisfied with the government. organise
with like minded people and rebel.

~~~
Udik
Rebel against the majority? Because the government doesn't act because the
majority doesn't want it to, despite vague propositions. Want to tax your own
fuel and heating? Want to stop flying? Want to put millions out of business in
your country because the cost of energy and materials went through the roof?
This is what we're talking about. Of course it's very satisfying to not want
these things and spend the time blaming politicians for their inaction.

~~~
perfunctory
It may not seem like it, but poll after poll shows that the majority is
concerned about climate change and supports government actions to tackle it.
Worldwide. Just a few examples [0][1].

Also, you don't need to wait for the majority to rebel [2]

[0]
[https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/support_en](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/support_en)
[1] [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-
at-h...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-
people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/) [2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w)

~~~
Udik
As I said, the majority "is concerned", but at the same time doesn't really
want to take actions. Because being concerned is free, taking initiatives can
be very, very expensive.

Just look at what happened in France when the government decided to increase
taxes on fuels.

