I don't know anything about methanotrophs. I'll post this link here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmmbr.asm.org%2Fcgi%2Freprint%2F60%2F2%2F439.pdf&ei=YrKLSdCPDcH7tgfl882nBw&usg=AFQjCNGGbGLR6Fkk-fVrQSFAL19J44vYvw&sig2=fP6aqTs9vBrRuTi1KxcIAA partly to remind myself to look at it again later. Mass culture of facultative methanotrophs sounds promising at first glance.
On Feb 5, 9:30 am, "John Nissen" <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Andrew, > > That is very unfair - a stab in the back. > > 1. I have given you several references to methane in the past, e.g. from > David Lawrence. And there are plenty of references already in wikipedia, > e.g. here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release > (I am sorry I can't help on the shoreline slumping.) > > 2. I am trying to answer your basic question: Is there REALLY a big and > immediate risk from the clathrate gun/permafrost? You seemed to be arguing > only about the methane, without taking into account the Arctic sea ice albedo > effect. > > 3. The argument that the Arctic sea ice albedo effect is causing regional > runaway feedback is new to this list. The argument that we should reverse > the Arctic sea ice retreat is also new - previously I had argued we simply > had to halt the retreat. > > 4. These are common sense arguments. If anybody can find some evidence to > dispute them, may they come forth. > > 5. I have given my own conclusion repeatedly, because it bares repeating: > > If we do not act quickly with our SRM geoengineering, then thermal runaway > from methane (and also disasterous sea level rise) could become inevitable. > > 6. Your criticism is a stab in the back, because you seemed to be one of the > few people who accepted this conclusion, because of all the evidence I gave > you. > > Et tu, Brute. > > John. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Andrew Lockley > To: John Nissen > > Cc: Geoengineering FIPC ; Prof John Shepherd ; John Gorman > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 1:12 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] runaway arguments ripped to bits > > John, > You've repeated these arguments on this list on numerous occasions. > However, you've failed to back them up with peer-reviewed science. > > I've already emailed the list asking for scientific support for these very > ideas in the last 24hrs. Specifically we need help with the alterations to > methane GWP, the decay rate of clathrates due to shoreline slumping in the > Arctic and calculations of the overall warming load arising from a methane > pulse. > > I hope you can assist with the search for solid backing for your case and > not re-iterate oft-rehearsed arguments. > > The relevant wiki is actually > athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change#Current_risk > > A > > 2009/2/5 John Nissen <[email protected]> > > The term "runaway" has an accepted meaning in the context of "thermal > runaway", and is characterised by positive feedback and resulting > acceleration in temperature change. So the temperature rises more than > linearly, and may even rise exponentially or "explosively": > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_runaway > Eventually the feedback peters out, and the temperature change becomes > linear again. > > This process is happening with the Arctic sea ice. At present the albedo > feedback effect is causing an acceleration in temperature change in the polar > region - but this positive feedback will eventually peter out, when all the > ice and snow in the region has melted, including the Greenland ice sheet! So > we are facing thermal runaway on a regional scale, affecting local climate > and ecosystem. This will have a domino effect on methane release. > > As the Arctic region warms, methane will invitably be released in larger > and larger quantities. The speed of methane release depends critically on > the temperature above the frozen structure holding the methane. For > permafrost on land, if the average surface temperature is maintained above > freezing, the permafrost will inevitably melt. This is what is happening > over vast areas of Canada and Siberia, as the isotherms (lines of equal > temperature on a map) move northwards. > > The methane itself provides feedback equally to both regional and global > warming, through its greenhouse effect. The regional warming will increase > the rate of methane release. Thus there could be thermal runaway on a global > scale and "we are toast", as Hansen puts it. > > We have to find a way to quickly halt the Arctic regional warming. I > maintain that the key to this is to halt and partially reverse the retreat of > the Arctic sea ice, by cooling the region. And I maintain that the key to > cooling is use of solar radiation management (SRM) techniques - a combination > of stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud brightening. > > If we do not act quickly with our SRM geoengineering, then thermal > runaway from methane (and also disasterous sea level rise) could become > inevitable. > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > John > > P.S. Note that geoengineering to reduce atmospheric CO2. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> > To: "Geoengineering FIPC" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:28 AM > Subject: [geo] runaway arguments ripped to bits > > > After getting thoroughly shouted at, I realised I needed to improve my > > 'runaway' arguments. > > > My current skeleton is below. However, it's currently missing a few > > crucial bones which now need replacing. I need citations for the > > following: > > > 1) A clathrate gun effect that shows rapid release? Buffett and > > Archer, and Archer alone, show a slow release, although from a large > > reservoir. > > 2) A calculation of the eventual warming that may result from methane > > release from permafrost/clathrates. > > 3) A study showing the impacts of such a level of warming on human > > civilisation/survival. > > 4) What happens to methane sinks under conditions of bulk outgassing? > > Do they fail and massively increase the global warming potential of > > methane? > > > We've discussed all these issues before, but I think it's now time to > > get any available research on the issue into the open. Is there > > REALLY a big and immediate risk from the clathrate gun/permafrost? > > > A > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Abrupt_climate... > > > The scientific consensus in the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report]] is > > that "Anthropogenic warming could lead to some effects that are abrupt > > or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate > > change." > > > The phenomenon of [[Arctic shrinkage]] is leading some scientists to > > fear that a runaway climate change event may be > > > imminent<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/oct/18/bookextracts.books</ref>, > > and may even have > > started<ref>http://www.terranature.org/environmentalCrisis.htm</ref>. > > There is an [[albedo]] effect, as white ice is replaced by dark ocean. > > Rapid [[Arctic shrinkage]] is occurring, with 2007 being the lowest > > ever recorded area and 2008 being possibly the lowest ever recorded > > > volume.<ref>http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html</ref> > > This will induce or accelerate other [[positive feedback]] mechanisms, > > such as [[Arctic methane release]] from melting [[permafrost]] and > > [[clathrates]]. Lawrence et al(2008) suggests that a rapid melting of > > the sea ice may up a feedback loop that rapidly melts arctic > > > permafrost.<ref>http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/permafrost.jsp</ref><ref>{{Citation > > | year=2008 | title=Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost > > degradation during rapid sea ice loss | first=David M. | last=Lawrence > > | first2=Andrew G. | last2=Slater | first3=Robert A. | last3=Tomas | > > first4=Marika M. | last4=Holland | first5=Clara | last5=Deser | > > journal=[[Geophysical Research Letters]] | volume=35 | issue=11 | > > doi=10.1029/2008GL033985 | > > > url=http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/dlawren/publications/lawrence.grl.submit....}}</ref> > > > Estimates of the size of the total carbon reservoir in Arctic > > [[permafrost]] and [[clathrates]] vary widely. It is suggested that > > at least 900 gigatonnes of carbon in permafrost exists > > > worldwide.<ref>http://www.terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm</ref>{{fact}}. > > Further, there are believed to be around and another 400 gigatonnes > > of carbon in methane clathrates in permafrost regions > > alone.<ref>http://www.springerlink.com/content/r4w867922g607w2j/</ref>. > > Should this estimate of volume be correct or at least too low, and if > > clathrates are omitted from the analysis completely, then 900 > > gigatonnes of carbon may potentially be released as methane as a > > result of human activity. [[Methane]] is a potent [[greenhouse gas]] > > with a higher [[global warming potential]] than [[CO2]]. A release on > > this scale will create [[catastrophic climate change]]. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
