Shakhova is a well-regarded scientist in this field, with a long history of publication. I've written and asked her to join this group.
I think this work should be ringing very loud alarm bells, but we must of course be mindful that it's the atmospheric concentration of methane which matters, not the excursions. This diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Methane-global-average-2006.jpg shows that atmospheric levels aren't tearing ahead, but they do remain significant in radiative forcing terms, and a clear target for mitigation. If I understand Shakhova's argument's correctly, she treats abrupt climate change and abrupt releases differently. The latter has not occurred at present, but the former may be upon us via feedbacks. This doesn't mean that geoengineering can't deal with the issue facing us at present , but in the event of a dramatic, large-scale release, we would struggle, and may need geoengineering of the methane directly, rather than relying solely on SRM to provide short-term intervention. I share your general concern, but note that at present we seem to be escaping the worst-case scenario. Nevertheless, this is no excuse for complacency, and the presentation does an excellent job of showing why we need geoengineering capability on standby right away. A PS I note your correction that the presentation was not to the DoE, as stated. PPS Pls post to 'geoengineering' in future. Thanks On 7 April 2011 21:32, scas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I was reading a presentation by Dr. Shakhova to the U.S. DOE in > December 2010 and on page 34 of her presentation is states that: > > "Bad news: directly observed fluxes exceed estimated by up 3 orders of > magnitude. > > Interpretation of acoustical data recorded with deployed multibeam > sonar allowed moderate quantification of bottom fluxes as high as 44 g/ > m2/d (Leifer et al., in preparation). Prorating these numbers to the > areas of hot spots (210×103 km2) adds 3.5Gt to annual methane release > from the ESAS. This is enough to trigger abrupt climate change > (Archer, 2005)." > > http://symposium.serdp-estcp.org/Technical-Sessions/1A > > I've read in Curt Stager's book that both he and David Archer think > sub-sea permafrost methane release is a long term (centuries) process. > However I see John Nissen and others like James Lovelock say > catastrophe is imminent. > > I've read Alvia's summary of a 4 GtC released as methane scenario, > however it doesn't elucidate time scales. > > Can anyone confirm the accuracy of the report and what will be the > result? I see James Hansen saying our pollution is already blocking 1 > or 2 watts per square meter; will SRM become necessary now? > > For reference, i'm 25, quit my job as a pilot to go to university and > join the army. I follow climate/energy/environment closely and can't > help but think our behavior is causing war and collapse. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Climate Intervention" 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/climateintervention?hl=en. > > -- 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.
