Satellite observations put stratospheric methane loss higher than models predicted

[John Nissen]

HI everyone,

This [1] could be an important finding. Albert has told me that levels of methane in the stratosphere have grown enormously. I think much of the methane from Arctic sources could be rising into the stratosphere thus not contributing to tropospheric level measurement. Arctic methane emissions could have been accelerating without our noticing. If so, a tipping process is becoming extremely dangerous. Efforts to remove methane from the troposphere (as discussed in yesterday's NOAC meeting) cannot slow such an acceleration. The Arctic methane has to be suppressed at source. Refreezing the Arctic has just become more urgent than ever!

Cheers, John 

[1] Satellite observations put stratospheric methane loss higher than models predicted https://share.google/XX1dVqDnCYJtpkbB8 

[Nick Breeze]

(with size adjusted file).

Hi John,

This attached article was in the FT yesterday. I've saved as pdf (excuse large blank pages where interactive bits were) as paywalled but interesting:

The Arctic Institute, a non-profit organisation based in Washington, estimates the world’s reserves

of permafrost contain up to 1.7tn tonnes of carbon, or about 45 times the emissions from all

countries in 2024.

By 2100, near-surface permafrost, or the upper 3 to 4 metres of frozen ground, will be nearly gone,

scientists estimate. The release of carbon from permafrost is expected to worsen global warming —

and with it, wildfires, flooding and land collapse in polar regions — which in turn will cause more

of the frozen earth to thaw.

“It’s not dwarfing our human emissions,” Schaedel emphasises. But it is a process that will

continue even if warming slows: “We’re committing future generations to additional carbon loss

from permafrost.”

Nick

EU: +34 604912267

UK: +44 (0)7944 573 248

Bluesky: @nickbreeze.genn.cc

‘Into The Heat’ – Investigating Alentejo in Southern Portugal – Free Ebook and Podcast Series

COPOUT: How governments have failed the people on climate By Nick Breeze

Published by Ad Lib. Order Worldwide from any book store in paperback and audio.

‘Wry and passionate first-hand observations from the global climate negotiations – essential for capturing the spirit of this endlessly frustrating struggle.’

Bill McKibben, author The End of Nature
‘A must-read for all of us who care about and work for a manageable future for humanity and the ecosystems that we depend on’

Sir David King - Former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government.
‘Required reading for anyone relying on global action by governments to solve the planet’s climate crisis.'

Dr Alice Hill, former special assistant to President Barack Obama and senior director for resilience policy at the National Security Council

ClimateGenn Podcast | Secret Sommelier

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AMEG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to arcticmethan...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/arcticmethane/CACS_FxpG8QmodqO%2BWZvpWrsVXKOQLq2YZ_Yn009y09RGT%3DPMXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[robert...@gmail.com]

Hi Nick & John

This is the same article for which I circulated a link earlier this week.  it certainly tells an alarming story.

However, I am a little concerned about its reliability.  I was interested in the detail about 1.7tnT of carbon being 45 times 2024 emissions.  Dividing 1.7tn by 45 you get ~38bn.  That's reasonably close to the amount of CO2 emitted, not the amount of carbon.  That's a common error.  The paper from which this seems to have come is by Schuur et al (here).  They talk about '1,460–1,600 PgC'.  That corresponds to 5,300 - 5,900GtCO2 which is more like 150 times current emissions.  In addition, comparing the flow of emissions to the stock of permafrost C seems like a rather odd thing to do.

That said, the observational evidence of Arctic degradation speaks for itself.  Whether they've got their numbers right or not is a detail.  It would obviously be better if they did.

Regards

Robert

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CABPdkGd6j20S0BrVjYEsWDnT%3DrxTs5q2H9MW%3D_nSmnvtS4Cz5Q%40mail.gmail.com.