Yes, large amounts of methane suddenly released from hydrates or from overturning stratified lakes could be explosive if somehow mixed with the right amount of air. I was referring to the slow release of CH4 from tundra and small shallow lakes. Slow in terms of reaching the lower explosive limit, but nonetheless alarming in its potential climate effects.
Speaking of which, I would like to see the debate on this group go back to more discussion of the albedo modifying methods and other ideas for trying to stop arctic ice lost and accelerated warming. I appreciate some of the discussions that the CROPS paper has generated, but I think I will take a bit of a rest posting, at least until the next papers are published on biomass sequestration. The arctic situation is looking desperate; it should be the first priority of the geoengineering community. = Stuart = -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alvia Gaskill Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 6:17 PM To: [email protected]; geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Focus of Geo-engineering? You think drowning is a less emotional term than dumping? How about the tried and true vanilla mitigation term "carbon sequestration?" The tree disposal idea is an old one, dating back to the 80's. It may have originated with Wallace Broecker. I don't remember. Whatever you decide to call it, if it were ever to reach the stage of field trials, it would be called dumping or disposal by the media and environmental groups. Also, just like in the case of the crop residue removal, too many "crops" of trees grown on the same soil without any replacement of nutrients and the trees won't grow. There is a theory, largely dismissed by the scientific community, of firestorms in the past, caused by methane gas eruptions from sea sediments. A localized pocket of methane gas could be ignited, but in general the methane produced from submerged trees wouldn't pose any threat as very little methane would likely be produced if the trees were sunk deep enough and in cold enough water. If you want to get the public and the policymakers to pay attention, using vague complex terms to describe outcomes isn't the way to do it. I called it "catastrophic methane hydrate release," because the result would be catastrophic if large enough and longlasting enough. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Carana" <[email protected]> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 6:47 PM Subject: [geo] Focus of Geo-engineering? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
