The methane time bomb should be quantifiable as follows: When there were large scale destabilisation of depressurised and then sunlight and heat-exposed sea beds most of the 22,000 methane clathrate craters were formed onto the Russian coastal seas as methane ice took the impact from sun and heat. The permafrost melted and after the ice sheet had gone they became reburied and re-stabilised. The effect of sea bed methane and carbon dioxide seepage was diminishing. There are several examples of large anomalies in biomaterials where thousands of years extra carbon-14 age is found in north China. I suggest that the melting permafrost and unstable carbon sources contributed to this radiocarbon dilution effect. Some Chinese texts are known from period 2700BC and yet their carbon-14 readings add another 5,000 years. This has led me to suggest that we should re-assess the east Siberian tree rings to look if there is any signs from melting permafrost or sea bed releasing locally large amounts of millions of years old methane and carbon dioxide back into air. I think this to be the case and if so, the annual tree rings would reveal large scale variations towards to end of each growth season when the melting permafrost accumulated ancient carbon from the ground to air which the plants then happily reabsorbed. Instead of stable carbon-14 decay, the end of each growth season (late summer) will show up jumps up and down from the mean radiocarbon decay rate. Because of the prevailing winds the north east Asia is best placed to see this effect of non-differentiated carbon intake by the plants at the growth seasons. If the size of the positive carbon-12 and carbon-13 feedback from the melting permafrost can be observed, then we can check it against the Chinese radiocarbon anomalies and these are known exactly, we would be able to calculate the exact proportion of carbon that had risen from the melted permafrost and was circulating in biosphere at that particular known point of time. This would then help us to establish and quantify the potential amount of carbon releases into atmosphere at present and future time. As such it would be helpful for us to quantify the required geoengineering offset to the carbon feedbacks. At the moment, the dendrological records blend tens of years tree rings together, and obliterate the annual variability effect from leaks, but being in nearby and in right wind conditions, this would indicate precisely the amounts of soil derived emissions as in seasonal variation the carbon-14 amount differential is just 1/5770 of the half life. 500-year-old trees can have 10% of c-14 half-life to compare deviations from the expected radiocarbon decay value. If the Chinese anomalies are all derived this way, then the carbon leakage from the groud would have been very significant and in that case I feel it could be globally observed from the Pleistocene era tree-rings. If you have good dendrological samples (as early as possibly era), I would like to carry out the carbon-14 mass spectrometer runs from annual growth rings taken each year from the beginning and the end of each growth season to try to see how much methane and carbon dioxide came of the ground during that summer and whether the Royal Society's paper of methane-driven melt back of ice sheets could be proven this way. Then, the calibration of carbon-14, especially in China would all go into question if the anomalies result from people writing on contemporary biomaterials rather them finding 5000 year old biomaterials to write their ancient texts on as currently assumed. Please have feedback on the above thoughts. Kind regards,
Albert Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:21:26 +0100 Subject: Re: [geo] Fw: Scientists should communicate: the methane time bomb From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] A very informative comparison, thanks. The two main issues with bright water are the strong localized impacts on marine micro environment / food chain and also the simple problem that it may just not work! Assessing the former cannot be properly achieved until the latter is established, as the dwell time of bubbles has a critical effect on local optical density A On 14 Apr 2011 02:52, <[email protected]> wrote: > > List (w ccs) > > Dr. Seitz (not a member of the Geoenineering list) has sent me the following > (my added numbering should be #'sB 9-B11), with the category 1c incremented > by 3 - so as to be from C12 through C 16. > > > 9. "No direct effect on ozone layer" > > > 10. "Local water cooling ( e.g. over reefs experiencing coral bleaching) > could reduce ecological stress from climatic warming" > > 11. "Possibility of using white wakes to offset radiative forcing from CO2 > emissions in marine transportation". > > He also sent this " Local arctic albedo boosting could arrest ice loss > feedback" , which I feel was duplicative of Dr. Ronock's (and my) #2. Maybe I > misunderstand. > > Thus the possible small table would become (until further modified): > > > > Summary (Revision 1) > > > For Stratospheric: Benefits - 8; Risks - 20 > > For “Bright Water” Benefits -16; Risks - 9 > > Thanks - to Russell. Other comments? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > To: "andrew lockley" <[email protected]> > Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>, [email protected], > "Russell Seitz" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 6:44:48 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Fw: Scientists should communicate: the methane time bomb > > > > > > > Dr. Lockley and ccs > > I generally agree with your comments and offer the following as something > directly related to arctic/antarctic/methane/time bomb issues - the topic of > this thread.. > > The following is only a personal follow-up to conversations on this list > about a week ago re Dr. Seitz's "Bright Water" article.. This exercise was > performed (solely by myself) so our discussion on doing something about > arctic methane release doesn't end prematurely. ..I have had no conversations > re this Table with Dr. Seitz (who is cc'd). > > The following is my tentative "Bright Water" version of the Table given by > Dr. Robock earlier (citation given and reproduced in full a week ago). My > explanatory comments are(hopefully all) in bold in square brackets, shown as > deletions, or in separate identified subsections. . Numbering has been added > to aid in further dialog and for easier attribution in the final summary > comparison..But mostly this follows Dr. Robock's original. All - please > consider this a rushed, first draft. > > > > Table 1 Benefits and risks of stratospheric "B right water" geoengineering > > > > > Benefits > > a. From Dr. Robock's list > > 1. Cool planet [ limited, at least at first, to targeted polar regions] > > 2. Reduce or reverse sea ice melting [Primary motivation] > > 3. Reduce or reverse land ice sheet melting Likely marginal benefit, but > maintains symmetry. > > 4. Unexpected benefits [Maintains symmetry] > > > > > b. Adding items that might be listed by proponents > > 5. Can advance technology for reducing evaporative water loss from reservoirs > and aquaducts > > 6. Risks are highly localized and likely measurable > > 7. Can implement rapidly, so might give time to avoid tipping point due to > methane release > > 8. Low cost. > > > > > c. Reversing some listed by Dr. Robock as risks for the stratospheric > approach) > > 9. Can stop effects quickly > > 10. Known hand on the thermostat > > 11. Does not degrade terrestrial optical astronomy > > 12. Does not affect stargazing > > 13. Does not affect satellite remote sensing > > > > > d. The following are non-benefits or marginal benefits for "Bright Water", > but not necessarily large scale or probable, as originally listed by Dr. > Robock. > > > Reduce or reverse sea level rise > > Increase plant productivity > > Increase terrestrial CO 2 sink > > Beautiful red and yellow sunsets > > > > > Risks (Retaining order from Dr. Robock) > > > > > a. Original list (some seem duplicative) > > Drought in Africa and Asia > > 1. Perturb ecology with more diffuse radiation > > Ozone depletion > > Whiter skies > > Less solar energy generation > > Degrade passive solar heating of buildings > > 2.Environmental impact of implementation > > Rapid warming if stopped > > Cannot stop effects quickly > > 3 .Human error > > 4. Unexpected consequences > > Whose hand on the thermostat? > > Degrade terrestrial optical astronomy > > Affect stargazing > > Affect satellite remote sensing > > > > > The following seem to be less certain as risks, retained for symmetry > > 5. Commercial control > > 6. Military use of technology > > 7. Conflicts with current treaties > > 8. Moral hazard—the prospect of it working would reduce drive for mitigation > > 9. Moral authority—do we have the right to do this? > > > > > > > > Summary > > For Stratospheric: Benefits - 8; Risks - 20 > > For “Bright Water” Benefits -13; Risks - 9 > > > > > Tentative Conclusion by RWL – “Bright Water” is worth exploring further for > both polar regions. > > > <snip> > -- 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.
