Dear all, For years, I have been trying to get more people to brainstorm on ways to deal with Arctic methane.
Last month, I added a post on this, discussing ways to ignite methane or produce hydroxyl, at: http://geoengineering.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979240772 where I received some interesting comments. Air capture of methane is another method that deserves more attention. All such methods could benefit from further research and testing, which should be high on the agenda of any scientist working in this area. Cheers! Sam Carana On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:26 AM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear all, > > As I understand it, carbon in the Arctic is stored in a number of different > forms: > > 1. Plants and plant material in tundra above permafrost > 2. Plant material trapped in permafrost below tundra > 3. Plant material and methane hydrate trapped in permafrost below shallow > sea > 4. Biomass trapped in sea ice > 5. Biomass trapped in Greenland ice sheet/dome > > Although the biomass of 4 and 5 is in surprisingly large quantity, and > reduces ice albedo (greying the ice), it does not contribute to methane (as > far as I know), and so will not be further considered. > > 1. There is a problem of tundra when dry that it is liable to burn. Global > warming can increase frequency of long dry periods. There were major fires > of Russian tundra in 2010, releasing much CO2, black carbon and heat. These > all contribute to Arctic warming and melting of snow - decreasing its > albedo. They also increase the melting of permafrost below, see 2. > > 2. There is a massive quantity of plant material trapped in permafrost > below the tundra. As the permafrost melts, and depth of unfrozen ground > increases, the plant material decomposes releasing CO2 and methane. Some > methane is converted into CO2 by bacteria, releasing heat and increasing > permafrost melt in the ground and increasing Arctic atmospheric > temperature. The methane is a potent greenhouse gas, but this source of > methane has yet to have a significant effect on the Arctic atmospheric > temperature. > > 3. A massive quantity of methane hydrate has been discovered trapped in > permafrost under the seabed of the shallow sea - known as the East Siberial > Arctic Shelf (ESAS). As the sea ice retreats in spring and summer, the > water warms, and then winds cause mixing. Warm water is reaching patches of > the sea bed and melting the permafrost, causing release (or venting) of > methane in "hotspots", scattered across the ESAS. This atmospheric methane > in the Arctic has grown over the past few years to a level well above the > global average level, and much higher again over hotspots, where it now may > be sufficient to start causing some local greenhouse warming in a positive > feedback loop. > > We cannot expect a silver bullet for stopping the methane, but rather a > combination of methods: > > a) general cooling of the Arctic, e.g. by SRM with stratospheric aerosols; > > b) reducing heat flow into the Arctic, e.g. by cloud brightening over the > Gulf Stream (becoming the North Atlantic Drift); > > c) local cooling of the surface, e.g. by increasing albedo; > > d) reducing heat flow locally, e.g., for ESAS, by diverting rivers which > currently flow in from the south; > > e) removing the trapped carbon, e.g. by mining the methane hydrate (if that > were possible); > > e) converting methane to CO2 before it spreads in the atmosphere, e.g. by > biological means or by burning; > > f) capturing the methane from the atmosphere. > > There may be others. > > An interesting proposal has been put forward by Mark Massmann for (a), which > entails releasing liquid air (Lair) or liquid nitrogen (LN2) from an > aircraft, as follows: > > In terms of an SRM solution that could be employed on short order, and be > readily-accepted by various governments (i.e. be non-polluting, avoid > adverse effects on weather patterns etc), I don't see any of the "existing" > concepts being able to do this. > > However, I do believe that the potential of the Lair concept could > be determined very quickly, by simply installing an existing > "ground" cryogenic storage tank in a heavy-lift aircraft and releasing it as > high as possible to see what happens (existing KC-135 refueling aircraft > could go to 50,000 ft). Even a relatively small Lair of LN2 release could > provide enough evidence to show that, if results were extrapolated to larger > releases, very large ice-clouds could result. I believe Lair will create a > chain-reaction for saturated and super-cooled water vapor to "flash" into > ice crystals (from the mechanism of deposition), similar to how contrails > which start out small continue to grow into large cirrus clouds. The Lair > clouds would however be much thicker than ordinary contrials, hopefully > ensuring that they provide a large net-cooling (science is divided on if > contrails provide cooling or warming, but they are optically very thin). > > Also, Lair could be released at lower altitudes to see if it causes > condensation of water vapor into new clouds and if it can enlarge existing > clouds. A 3rd application might be to spray Lair over marine clouds to make > them brighter by increasing their droplet density. It seems this effect > was observed in China's weather experiments, where releasing liquid nitrogen > over clouds was said to delay the onset of rain by making droplets smaller. > This approach was supposedly used to help prevent rain on the 2008 Olympics. > > It appears to me that the airborne testing of Lair may be the only way to > know what it really does anyhow. I don't think existing computer models are > anywhere close to being able to simulate Lair's effect at the level of > detail needed, and that the current understanding of cloud physics may > be too limited to make a judgment on its feasibility. If this is the case, > it makes sense to proceed with limited air trials (likely over the ocean) to > see what Lair can do. The fact we would be simply releasing clean air in > the process should alleviate concerns about pollution or adverse effects, > making it much easier to obtain whatever approval is needed. > It might also be possible dump the Lair or LN2 directly onto a land surface > to cause a frost covering and increase albedo locally, i.e. for local > cooling (c). If it were dumped onto a water surface - lake or sea - it > might form a reflective fog layer, which would also increase albedo. > Apparently, as the liquid is dumped, it spreads out very rapidly and evenly > over the surface. > > Note that Mark considers this a stop-gap measure until more general Arctic > cooling is obtained. He further writes: > > All of these approaches could be tested very easily and quickly, > either in a lab setting or preferably where the permafrost is > melting. The fact that Lair is perfectly safe from an environmental > standpoint (i.e. byproduct is perfectly clean air) should help > tremendously in gaining approval for research and development. > Because Lair is so cold (-320 deg F/-195 deg C) and expands 900 times > into air at sea level, each 100-ton payload should cool a very large > area on the ground. > > Some responses to the idea of using Lair have included “It requires > too much energy to produce”, or “It would be prohibitively > expensive”. However, Lair is actually produced very efficiently, so > that a modern liquefaction plant can create 1,000 tons per day at an > energy cost of 12 cents per gallon. The Lair from just 2 liquefaction > plants might be all that is needed to significantly limit the release > of methane. This would equal 2,000 tons of Lair per day, with 10 > aircraft flying 2 missions per day. Therefore each 100-ton mission = > 200,000 lbs, times (6.7 lbs per gallon) = 30,000 gallons, times 20 > missions = 600,000 gallons (2.2 million liters) per day. > > > I look forward to discussion of this proposal, and to further ideas and > suggestions. > > Best wishes, > > John > > -- > > On 08/05/2011 17:32, P. Wadhams wrote: > > Dear John, I'm very ready to contribute to the brainstorming if I can. I > guess the thrust of my last message - which was not intended to be > completely despairing, though that's how it turned out - was that Arctic > methane emission cannot be viewed in isolation. It's a product of Arctic > heating. Permafrost melt on land can only be stopped if Arctic air > temperatures stop rising. The best way to do that is to cut back on CO2 > emissions, but I fear that the human race is not mature enough to do that. > That does leave some kind of Arctic aerosol deployment, i.e. geoengineering, > as a way of stopping or slowing the warming. Permafrost melt under the sea > is largely due to the open water which now exists over shelf areas in > summer, allowing the shallow waters to warm. So it is a consequence of sea > ice retreat. Direct interventions to preserve sea ice, as various people > have proposed, may be an answer, but I have grave doubts as to whether any > of the methods would be effective, given (a) the scale of the problem, (b) > the fact that the sea ice is responding to a complex of factors, including > increased heat transport from changed ocean currents, so there may not be a > simple fix. The idea of spreading liquid air, for instance, just will not > work. You only have to look at the magnitude of the latent heat that has to > be extracted. Given that methane has a climatic impact for 7 years after > emission, while for CO2 it is 100, perhaps we should be looking at methane > sequestration techniques (if there are any) to cope with the huge blip of > methane input that will happen when all the seabed permafrost and a lot of > the terrestrial permafrost melts within a comparatively few years. There may > be some chemistry here that makes it easier than CO2 sequestration, Best > wishes Peter > > > On May 8 2011, John Nissen wrote: > > > Dear Peter, > > I agree entirely with your analysis of how we have got into this critical > situation with the methane. And I agree that the challenge of stopping the > methane and halting the sea ice retreat is daunting. But this challenge > does not even seem to be recognised by the scientific establishment! If the > challenge were recognised for what it is, then surely all governments would > demand scientists and engineers came up with a plan of action to meet the > challenge, and they'd treat this as an all-out war effort, as if our lives > and the lives of future generations depend on it - which they do! > > I am not so pessimistic about finding a solution, because many good ideas > are coming forward. Anyhow I cannot face the prospect of failure, because > it would be so horrendous to witness the start of an unstoppable process - > the abrupt climate change - the "quantum jump that is about to happen", as > you put it. I cannot bear to think of my children suffering the > consequences - being caught up in the "climate-driven collapse of our entire > global civilisation" as you put it. Failure is not an option! > > Of course, it would have been much easier if we'd started with our > geoengineering years ago, and prevented the sea ice retreat, permafrost melt > and resulting methane problem. Better still to have curbed CO2 emissions > decades ago, and eliminated the cause of these problems and more. But > history shows us that civilised societies tend to postpone action as long as > possible - waiting for a catastrophic event to spur action. Unfortunately, > by the time there is such an event, it will be too late. We have to act > within months, not years, to give ourselves a reasonable chance of success. > Please contribute to the brainstorming, and help in producing a plan of > action. > > Best wishes, > > John > > --- > > On 08/05/2011 13:46, P. Wadhams wrote: > > Dear John, I agree with your diagnosis of the serious role that methane is > going to play in the next phase of global warming, but fear that Semiletov > is right in his statement that we can do nothing (so long as stupidity and > greed prevail in the world of course, but unfortunately that seems to be a > given). The unfortunate fact is that two big factors are driving Arctic > methane release: (1) The general increase in global temperatures (enhanced > by a factor of 2-3 in the Arctic) as a product of our CO2 emissions, which > is causing permafrost to melt on land, (2) the summer retreat of sea ice > from continental shelves, which allows the shallow shelf seas to warm by up > to 5C right down to the seabed in summer, causing offshore permafrost to > melt and release trapped methane. The sea ice retreat is itself a result of > global warming via mechanisms involving both air temperature and ocean heat > transport. Therefore what is causing methane emission, both on land and at > sea, is our heating of the atmosphere due to CO2 emissions. The dangerous > difference about today is that the heating has just become enough to trigger > massive releases (eg the seabed warming) while in the past it was not. A > quantum jump is about to happen. > There seems to be no prospect of reducing our CO2 emissions, or even of > reducing the rate of rise in our CO2 emissions. The greens may think they > have won some battles in building wind farms and making us sort our rubbish, > but this is pitiful deckchair-rearrangement compared with the fact that > China is building four coal-fired power stations per week and is set to > continue to do this ad infinitum since they have plenty of coal and have > taken over the world's manufacturing industry. Greed and blindness continue > to govern our stewardship of the planet, and I fear there is no solution > except the climate-driven collapse of our entire global civilisation. > If geoengineering can do something to slow this, then great. My own fears > for any technique involve (a) unknown side effects, (b) the fact that it is > like putting a sticking plaster on a gigantic wound, in that it is slowing > the temperature rise while doing nothing about the driving force, the CO2 > content of the atmosphere. Processes that depend only on CO2 rather than > temperature will continue apace, e.g. acidification of the ocean, leading to > loss of the marine ecosystem. CO2 sequestration would seem to be the only > geoengineering that would be really safe and productive in the long term. > However the energy required to get rid of CO2 itself has to be generated, > and this has to be by non-emissive methods like nuclear or renewable. But if > you are going to do this you have solved the problem anyway since you are no > longer emitting the CO2 that is causing the problem! > Sorry to seem pessimistic but I do fear the worst. I suspect that in 20 > years time we will be seeing a range of serious impacts making the world a > quite different (and nastier) place than it is now. One of them will be the > loss of summer sea ice (I think this will happen in less than 10 years). At > my age I will, sadly, be seeing just the beginning of the collapse of our > planetary civilisation, but I fear that our grandchildren will live (or not > love) through the whole thing, Best wishes Peter Wadhams > > > > . On May 8 2011, John Nissen wrote: > > Hi David, > > Apparently this concern about the "methane time bomb" goes back a few years > [1]. But Similetov is defeatist: > > *Similetov added:* > > *We are aware that our results showing that the permafrost is no longer an > impermeable barrier to methane release have not been duplicated by > other researchers at this time. But it is high time to warn people.* > > *He stopped for an instant and smiled, before adding, "We can do nothing > about it, of course."* > > However one of the comments does mention geoengineering: > > *Soon CH4 emissions will overwhelm any cuts > > Frankly, I wonder how long it will take for people to understand that soon > methane (CH4) emissions from melting permafrost (both under the sea and on > land) will overwhelm any greenhouse gas emission cuts mankind makes. > > Instead, the Greens are chasing their tails demanding politically > unrealistic gigantic emission cuts. Not only would those emissions cuts, if > implimented, waste resources better spent on a feasible solution, but the > Greens are wasting whatever political capital they have on a lost cause. > > Don't you understand that the permafrost will already emit gigantic amounts > of CH4 regardless, because of the thermal inertia of the climate system, > because of the emissions from machines already built and agriculture, and > because of feedback loops like natural methane emissions and albedo flips? > > Obviously, it is a simple choice between a massive cull of mankind and > implimentation of a geoengineering scheme (I suggest using an engineered > aerosol to dim the sun a little). Really, the only question is will we > impliment a sun dimming scheme before or after the ecosystems rapidly > collapse from record heatwaves. www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod *[2]* > * > It turns out that the commentator is Brad Arnold [3], and I am trying to > contact him. > > I have also written to Jim Hansen, mentioned in the same EGU report [1]. > More recent research seems to confirm Similetov's fears about the > instability of the permafrost layer holding back the methane. > > It seems that everybody in the scientific establishment has downplayed the > methane problem (with very few exceptions, including Peter Wadhams). But > that is also true for the retreat of the Arctic sea ice, where the > frightening volume trend (with trend line curving towards zero ice end > summer 2015 or 2016 [4]) is ignored. The scientists who advise governments > give the impression that CO2 emissions cuts can alone solve the global > warming problem. This is patently not the case. > > We can do something about the methane. We HAVE to do something about the > methane! And quickly!! > > Cheers, > > John > > [1] http://www.grist.org/article/Methane-time-bomb-ticking-louder > > [2] Unfortunately this page no longer exists. > > [3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/user/dobermanmacleod > > [4] > http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ > > --- > > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:09 AM, David Appell <[email protected]>wrote: > > ??? > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Arctic methane Date: Thu, 28 Apr > 2011 19:54:32 -0700 From: David Appell > <[email protected]><[email protected]> Reply-To: > [email protected] To: [email protected] > > John, > > Hi. On the Google geoengineering group you wrote (Apr 28): > >> "Significant quantities of methane are already appearing in the Arctic > atmosphere." > > I was wondering what scientific data you were basing this statement on. > > Thanks, > David > > -- > David Appell, independent science journalist > e: [email protected] > w: http://www.davidappell.com > b: http://davidappell.blogspot.com > p: (001) 503-975-5614 > m: St. Helens, OR USA > > > > > -- > 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.
