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
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...
The report you linked doesn't sound much less alarming:
"To spot methane levels breaking the 2000ppb mark so sharply in this fragile region is unprecedented, as the chart below illustrates."
Is it possible that a 5-10% change is actually "massive"?
> 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.
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.
Personally, I think the situation is likely much worse than reported in the mainstream media. There's a fear of scaring people too much, or making them give up in despair, so we keep hearing about how we "could" meet these increasingly farcical reduction targets, even as we're blowing past them.