At present the likely methane excursion is far from clear. Further, it is also unclear how quickly the total excursion will occur. The excursion rate is highly significant due to the short life of methane in the atmosphere. The methane ends up as CO2, in itself a major issue. However, the CO2's likely effect is nothing compared to the devastating temperature spike which may result from a sudden methane excursion.
I don't oppose John's argument, but the evidence on the severity of the problem is far from conclusive. We need much more research into: 1) The methane reservoir in clathrates and permafrost 2) The size of potential methane sources currently frozen as organic detritus 3) The likely changes to the GWP of methane in future atmospheres, as the levels of hydroxyl radicals etc. shift over time and as a direct result of methane excursion. Recent research on this asks more questions than it answers. My personal feeling is that the range of likely outcomes is from a significant amplification of AGW, right up to a 'Great Dying' sized mass-extinction event when we come within a sneeze of sterilising the entire planet. I'd be tempted to bet on the latter, but I wouldn't be around to collect the winnings, so I'll keep my wallet in my pocket. My suggestions is that geoengineers look at ways to clean up the methane from the atmosphere, and then lock down the resulting carbon. My guess is we've got about 50 years to do this, but virtually no time at all if the methane can't be dealt with once it's in the atmosphere. Therefore, I'd support John out of precautionary principle-based reasoning. A 2009/11/15 jim woolridge <[email protected]> > Nice one, John; the train of argument is clear (of limpid clarity, in > fact!) The problem is that the people and institutions addressed are > in the business of politics, the art of the possible, rather than in > the business of logical evaluation. They hear what you are saying and > must see the validity of it. But politically what is true and what is > doable do not always coincide, as we all know from as many examples as > one cares to ennumerate. > > We have to keep hammering away at the arguments, to the point at which > they are generally understood and accepted, and also keep on > politicking in the sure and certain hope that eventually the > acceptance of the arguments and the cowardice/caution/horse sense/ > opportunistic careerism of the politicos will achieve the right kind > of intersection. In the next year or so (& wouldn't it be a great > help to have the environmental NGOs on board.) > > On Nov 12, 10:51 pm, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is incredible. It is so obvious. > > > > 1. Global warming is driven largely by atmospheric CO2 according to the > > concentration above its pre-industrial level; and > > > > 2. After emissions are stopped it could take millenia for the > > concentration to fall back to that level, because the effective lifetime > > of some of that excess CO2 is many thousands of years. > > > > Therefore: > > 3. Drastic emissions reduction, even to zero overnight, cannot and will > > not stop the Arctic continuing to warm for decades. > > > > Therefore: > > 4. The Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat, accelerating the warming > > due to the albedo effect. > > > > Therefore: > > 5. The permafrost will continue to thaw releasing increasing quantities > > of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, potentially adding many degrees to > > global warming; and > > > > 6. The Greenland ice sheet will become increasingly unstable, > > potentially contributing to an eventual sea level rise of 7 metres. > > > > Therefore: > > 7. To avoid these two catastrophes, we need to cool the Arctic quickly > > enough to save the Arctic sea ice; and > > > > 8. Probably the only feasible way to do this is through solar radiation > > management (SRM) geoengineering. > > > > 9. SRM is not a last resort, it is needed now to cool the Arctic. > > > > It is incredible that people do not seem to follow this train of logic - > > it is so obvious. > > > > Yet when I challenged a panel of geoengineering experts to refute this > > argument, the response was that geoengineering (even just to cool the > > Arctic) was too dangerous - not that the argument was false! [1] > > > > So we continue to hear politicians and their advisers claiming that > > emissions reduction alone can be sufficient to keep the planet safe. [2] > > > > And we continue to hear geoengineering experts saying that > > geoengineering should only be used as a last resort. [3] > > > > How can this mindset be changed quickly, to avoid leaving geoengineering > > too late? > > > > John > > > > P.S. Apologies to those who have heard this all before and accept the > > logic as self-evident. > > > > [1] This challenge was put to the panel at the launch of the Royal > > Society geoengineering report, on September 1st, with response from the > > team leader and panel chairman, Professor John Shepherd. > > > > [2] For example at the geoengineering hearing at the House of Commons, > > November 2008. > > > > [3] For example at the congressional hearing on geoengineering, November > > 2009. > > -- > > 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]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=. > > > -- 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=.
