
A positive feedback is define as “processes that amplify climate change”, such as reduced absorption of CO2 by the oceans and the ice-albedo effect. As time goes on, scientists are finding more and more of these positive feedback mechanisms, further increasing the warming effect. One of the long predicted positive feedback mechanisms is the release of methane in the Arctic by permafrozen seas and soils – a natural process exacerbated by global warming. Recent research from Spitsbergen (an area off the Arctic where climate change is occurring at unprecedented rates) suggests that this methane escape is a growing cause for concern:
Scientists say they have evidence that the powerful greenhouse gas methane is escaping from the Arctic sea-bed. Researchers say this could be evidence of a predicted positive feedback effect of climate change. As temperatures rise, the sea-bed grows warmer and frozen water crystals in the sediment break down, allowing methane trapped inside them to escape.
The research team found that more than 250 plumes of methane bubbles are rising from the sea-bed off Norway. The joint British and German research team detected the bubbles using a type of sonar normally used to search for shoals of fish. Once detected, the bubbles were sampled and tested for methane at a range of depths.
Writing in Geophysical Research Letters, the team says the methane was rising from an area of sea-bed off West Spitsbergen, from depths between 150m and 400m.The gas is normally trapped as “methane hydrate” in sediment under the ocean floor. “Methane hydrate” is an ice-like substance composed of water and methane which is stable under conditions of high pressure and low temperature.
As temperatures rise, the hydrate breaks down. So this new evidence shows that methane is stable at water depths greater than 400m off Spitsbergen. However, data collected over 30 years shows it was then stable at water depths as shallow as 360m. (Read More at BBC News)
One Response to Positive feedback effects of climate change become increasingly apparent
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Archives
- January 2013 (10)
- December 2012 (2)
- November 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (4)
- July 2012 (4)
- June 2012 (3)
- May 2012 (2)
- April 2012 (4)
- March 2012 (5)
- February 2012 (6)
- January 2012 (3)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (2)
- August 2011 (11)
- July 2011 (11)
- June 2011 (5)
- May 2011 (17)
- April 2011 (6)
- March 2011 (5)
- February 2011 (8)
- January 2011 (9)
- December 2010 (8)
- November 2010 (15)
- October 2010 (16)
- September 2010 (6)
- August 2010 (13)
- July 2010 (8)
- June 2010 (26)
- May 2010 (18)
- April 2010 (26)
- March 2010 (42)
- February 2010 (61)
- January 2010 (24)
- December 2009 (43)
- November 2009 (30)
- October 2009 (29)
- September 2009 (36)
- August 2009 (31)
- July 2009 (33)
- June 2009 (23)
- May 2009 (19)
- April 2009 (21)
- March 2009 (19)
- February 2009 (7)
- January 2009 (19)
- December 2008 (20)
- November 2008 (15)
- October 2008 (8)
- September 2008 (13)
- August 2008 (8)
- July 2008 (12)
- June 2008 (14)
- May 2008 (17)
- April 2008 (11)
- March 2008 (11)
- February 2008 (16)
- January 2008 (11)
- December 2007 (7)
- November 2007 (18)
- October 2007 (10)
- September 2007 (18)
- August 2007 (25)
- July 2007 (18)
- June 2007 (4)







And what say you dear sir of Spencer and Braswell’s latest paper in press in the Journal of Geophysical Research?
Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedback in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2009JD013371, in press.[PDF] (accepted 12 April 2010)
If he is correct it appears that in regard to temperature at least, it’s hard to justify the alarm.