Andrew,
Sense you posted the question, I have reviewed a few Paleoclimatology
studies and books and they all paint a gruesome picture of what we may be
looking at. Here are just a few that came up.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/1/87
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/14/5542.abstract I found this paper
interesting due to the discussion on methane hydrates being released. But,
O2 poor atmosphere makes this off somewhat.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFM.B41D0327S Limited connection to the
question but good background.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jd01mugCR7EC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=methane+weathering&source=bl&ots=wB5Hv-nYFw&sig=zWtpHS182Ra7cqDbRrShCVpaXvY&hl=en&ei=oEuiTbuVKOLiiAK_gvmOAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=methane%20weathering&f=false
I
have not had time to read the book but Pg 235 has an interesting
description of the effects of large methane release to the climate and
further on starts to ask the main question in this thread.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yRMgYc-8mTIC&pg=PA967&lpg=PA967&dq=methane+weathering&source=bl&ots=ODF86It7MF&sig=EuwNAHUuHZ5gvPrqdX-18o_RAXk&hl=en&ei=oEuiTbuVKOLiiAK_gvmOAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=methane%20weathering&f=false
Pg
967 has reference to the past historic out come of large methane
releases.
After reviewing this short list of documents, and as a layperson, I can see
the need for a far more aggressive preparation of SRM injection. Not
1 "fire hose in the sky" but hundreds would seem to be needed if methane
release begins in earnest. The rapid domino effect would be seemingly
impossible to stop once it started. A major global disruption lasting no
fewer than 20 yrs is what even I. as a layperson. can see coming. It would
seem better to stop the snow ball from rolling at all than stop it half way
down the hill.
Thanks for the question and education.
On Apr 10, 2011 12:09pm, "Eugene I. Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote:
Ken: It was not meant to be denigrating just meant to indicate that it is
early times. Indeed in science there is a scientific method that in
mature stages ends with a Theory. The Theory is a follow-on to a robust
hypothesis that has withstood all challenges in the sense that the
hypothesis is consistent with and explains all related observation and
the Theory allows accurate prediction. I know you know this so I am a bit
surprised at your question. Climate science in fact has a long way to go,
it is not robust and it cannot predict future change accurately. That is
not to say much good work has not been done; but much remains to be done.
Maybe immature would have been a better choice. I doubt if I would give
ground on 'immature'. It is why I keep insisting that geoengineering must
be viewed as a critical contingency and why it must be allowed to build
the pieces even if not put in place until clearly needed. -gene From:
[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 1:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Can SRM save our Bacon?
Eugene,
I think your use of the word "infantile" to refer to the state of climate
science skirts close to the ad hominem.
Would you also refer to the "infantile state of the science of
turbulence"?
Is this vocabulary being used because use think that climate science has
tremendous potential for growth and development, or is this word being
used with a denigrating tone? If you are intending the former, I suggest
you use a word like "nascent", which is less open to mis-interpretation.
If you are suggesting that climate scientists lack the maturity and
sophistication that characterize scientists working in other fields, I
think your characterization is without foundation.
I would appreciate it if you would choose your words carefully.
Best,
Ken
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 [email protected]
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Eugene I. Gordon [email protected]>
wrote:Andrew: There are many unknowns due to the infantile state of the
climate science. Whether it is 5-10 years or 25 before warming begins to
introduce additional dangers, some not yet anticipated, there is no doubt
it will. No doubt you heard of Reilly's addendum to Murphy's Law. Reilly
was a graduate student of Prof. Murphy. His robust hypothesis was that
Murphy was an optimist. I would bet on upper atmosphere SO2 additions for
cooling, since for sure it works and is relatively easy to implement, and
pray there are no unmanageable consequences. -gene From:
[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:54 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Can SRM save our Bacon?
Hi
I wonder if anyone can shed light on the potential of geoengineering in a
high GHG atmosphere ?
If we have massive methane excursions from the arctic, will we be able to
create a safe climate? The paleoclimatic record shows dramatic cooling
through volcanism, but that wasn't in a high GHG world .
If there's a whole load of methane around, there will be a massive polar
amplification. This reduces the ocean over turning circulation , and
potentially lead to an anoxic event, and possibly further methanogenesis.
I am not sure that, even with a maximal SRM effort, we can avoid the
climate transitioning into a state in which society is unsustainable due
to an anoxic event.
If this is the case, we potentially have a very brief window in which to
geoengineer, perhaps only five or ten years
I'd value comments on this.
Thanks
A--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
