Hi Michael,
The reason that the methane problem has come to a head is because of
work described here [1], showing that the East Siberian sea could become
a major source of methane - enough to cause global warming to spiral out
of control - and the quantity of this methane entering the atmosphere is
starting to be significant - making the local atmospheric methane level
much higher than the Arctic average which is much higher again than the
global average. Thus the local warming effect could already be several
Watts per square metre. (Oxidation of some of the methane to CO2 will
be causing further warming, but I've not seen any figures on this.)
I haven't seen any recent results on methane measurement. It's possible
Peter Wadhams knows of some.
I am interested in the site you mentioned [2], and the discussion of
methane removal. This discussion is around methane removal as a means
of reducing its global climate forcing - currently estimated at 0.48
Watts per square metre. And it shows that, compared to CO2 removal,
methane removal is energetically more expensive because of its low
concentration and "air contacting". But I am wanting methane removal in
the Arctic, where the concentration is far higher, and could become many
times higher again with positive feedback to local warming.
Of course it's better to stop the methane getting into the atmosphere in
the first place, so we need to combine air capture with other
techniques, including SRM to cool the region. And we want to save the
Arctic sea ice if we can, because the retreat is adding significantly to
local climate forcing (perhaps over 10 Watts per square metre already)
due to the "albedo flip" effect.
As for the possibility of mining you mention [3], I am not sure that the
methane could be mined from the East Siberian sea, because of the
geological structure of where it's originating. Any mining operation
would have to be careful to avoid methane escape - but particularly to
avoid triggering major methane discharge/venting, bearing in mind that
the methane is held in highly unstable structures.
We have to work fast to stop the methane, because there are estimates
that the Arctic warming has reached 4 degrees C [4], which means polar
amplification is already a factor of five or six times with respect to
global warming. Most people are still assuming polar amplification is a
constant of about two! But the amplification factor grows due to the
local positive feedback producing an _acceleration_ in Arctic warming.
Cheers,
John
[1]
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2010/03/frozen-arctic-methane-shows-si.html
[2]
http://www.methanenet.org/blogs/ch4-removal-and-climate-change-mitigation
[3] http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/
[4] http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/
---
On 28/04/2011 12:34, [email protected] wrote:
John,
As a layperson following the forum, my personal beliefs concerning
your questions are:
1) I now believe that Bright Water can be used in a localized,
targeted and prescribed manner. This would take funding for an
accelerated and highly focused campaign in both vessel
design/construction and advanced microbubble production/surfactant
research. The latter requires many considerations and trials.
2) Known atmospheric CCS methods would be difficult to use for
methane. However, here is a link to a group you may be interested in
http://www.methanenet.org/blogs/ch4-removal-and-climate-change-mitigation
Highly educational, John!
Air capture is "spendy" and "tough". Basically. keeping it out of the
air is more cost effective than taking it out of the air. And, I am
sure you know that, John.
3) Exploration/Drilling for methane hydrates has become an active
interest to the DoE and you can get an overview of the work in that
area here. http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/
As far as mining atmospheric methane, see #2
As far as your statement that "The methane problem in the Arctic has
come to a head".... whose head are you referring to?
As far as your statement that" Significant quantities of methane are
already appearing in the Arctic atmosphere", How Would You Know?
Thanks for the challenging questions, John.
On Apr 28, 2011 3:31am, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The methane problem in the Arctic has come to a head. There is
sufficient carbon trapped in permafrost to cause a multiplication of
global warming by many times (at least 40 times according to my first
tentative calculation). It is critical how fast this positive
feedback gets going. Significant quantities of methane are already
appearing in the Arctic atmosphere.
>
>
> Albert Kallio points out the methane lingers, hence the local
greenhouse gas effect can be significant. Thus the build up of
positive feedback on Arctic warming can grow, even before the global
warming feedback gets going. If we don't solve this problem, we may
never have a chance to solve the other crises which beset us.
>
>
> I have long advocated SRM to cool the Arctic but this could be too
late to stop the methane release into the atmosphere. We are now left
with the "mission impossible" to stop the methane. We need urgent
brainstorming on this.
>
>
> For example, could the Bright Water idea be applied to the East
Siberian Sea?
>
> Could CCS ideas be applied to methane, as or after its release into
the atmosphere?
>
> Could the methane be "mined" in some way?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> John (on holiday for another week)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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.
