Hi Folks,
Your question "There could also be an effect of methane bubbling through
water on marine life. Anybody know?"
I don't know about health effects on marine life at an expert level,
but....probable little...if any. However, Please pay attention to
this........
http://www.afma.gov.au/resource-centre/teachers-and-students/about-fishing-methods-and-devices/trawl/demersal-trawl/
This is the type of commercial fishing gear you can expect going into new
arctic areas. The Demersal trawling gear drags along the seabed and
basically will wipe out and kill every thing in it's path. If this happens
in a hydrate field, critical damage to the methane oxidizing biotic layer
will happen. It was a trawler that found the Cascade Hydrate field. The
sea-floor biotic layer can oxidize up to 90% of the methane. I don't think
we need to loose that type of protection.
Also, this type of fishing boat wiped out the north Atlantic cod and is now
making a big dent in the north pacific stock. They work the continental
shelves. So, don't underestimate what they can do to a hydrate field. And,
expect them to cheat if they are limited to only mid water gear. It is very
easy to switch gear with few knowing about it. I have watched a number of
shady practices in that business. They need to be banned from any known or
suspected hydrate fields and probably the arctic as a whole. Fish-n-Chips
are not worth it.
Thanks
Michael
On May 12, 2011 11:30pm, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Professor Watson,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9483790.stm
How absurd. Now we have it confirmed that the Arctic Council is
there, not to pretect the Arctic, but to carve up the resources.
And now we know that the people involved ARE rubbing their hands
with glee as the sea ice retreats, seemingly oblivious of the
tremendous horrors that await them (and the rest of humanity) as
Arctic ice melts away and methane, trapped by permafrost, is
discharged in ever increasing quantities to exacerbate global
warming. There are signs that this process is already underway
[1]. As I said to BBC correspondent, Richard Black, at the EGU
conference in April, we only need 10% of potential methane to be
discharged over 20 years, and the rate of global warming would be
multiplied by about 40 times [2]. This is easily enough to cause
abrupt and catastrophic climate change [3].
Governments around the world, together with the whole environment
movement, should unite to fight this absurd situation, and back a
plan to stop the methane at all costs. This is an emergency.
Kind regards,
John
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8437703.stm
[2] Sam Carana points out that I was erring on the low side for
this figure.
[3] I am not the first to point out this danger from methane.
Research on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) has exposed the
dire situation.
If just one percent of ESAS methane escapes its crystal prison,
Semiletov suggested at a geophysical conference in 2008, it might
push
total methane to 6 parts per million. Some researchers consider
this is
a tipping point towards 'runaway climate change.' If that term
doesn't
summon up an image, you can take NASA scientist James Hansen's
suggestion of an “ice-free state” where the Greenland and
Antarctic ice
sheets melt entirely, raising global sea level by over 200 feet.
See http://tyeebridge.com/?p=608
---
On 12/05/2011 18:44, John Nissen wrote:
Hello again, Albert,
I've just picked up this news about Hillary Clinton going to the
Arctic Council meeting, thanks to the "World Environment News
Service" to which I subscribe. The URL is http://planetark.org/wen/61985
Unfortunately this email may be too late for Robert Corell, who
you mentioned in connection with the Arctic Council.
It appears that there is a complete disconnect between the danger
from the "thaw" with associated sea level rise and the exploration
and exploitation. And what about the methane? Does nobody
realise that the Arctic has to be cooled to a prevent a
climate catastrophe that could be the end of us all? It is so
obvious if you think about it - given the quantities of methane
that would be discharged if the ice cap is allowed to melt away.
BTW, I wonder whether John Holdren ever looked at that open letter
we sent him, about the methane danger [1]? It might have been
better to have gone to Clinton! Bit late now.
John
[1]
http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2010/06/sea-ice-loss-stuns-scientists.html
---
Hillary Clinton Lands In Greenland For Arctic Summit
Date: 12-May-11
Country: GREENLAND
Author: Andrew Quinn - Additional
reporting Alister Doyle in Oslo
[photo deleted]
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addresses the
Washington Conference on the Americas at the State
Department in Washington May 11, 2011.
Photo: Kevin Lamarque
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Greenland
on Wednesday for an Arctic summit to improve management
of a vast, pristine region being rapidly transformed by
climate change.
Clinton flew to Nuuk on a Air Force transport and was
greeted at the tiny capital's airport by Greenland
Premier Kuupik Kleist and dozens of cheering
Greenlanders who braved a chilly spring night still
bathed in sunlight.
Clinton and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will lead
the US team to Thursday's meeting of the Arctic
Council, which includes Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland,
Iceland, Sweden and Denmark, which handles foreign
affairs for Greenland, as well as groups representing
indigenous inhabitants of the world's most northerly
regions.
Clinton will be the first US secretary of state to
attend an Arctic Council meeting. US officials say her
trip shows the Arctic is moving up Washington's priority
list as rising temperatures create new environmental
risks and new economic opportunities in a region rich
with untapped resources.
The melt is undermining the hunting livelihoods of
indigenous peoples and threatening polar bears and other
creatures. But the changes may also make the Arctic more
accessible to shipping, mining and oil and gas
exploration.
The region is estimated to hold about a quarter of the
world's undiscovered oil and gas reserves.
The Arctic Council is an international organization
formed to promote cooperation among the nations making
up the Arctic region, which covers more than a sixth of
Earth's landmass.
The council is expected to announce its first formal
agreement -- a deal on dividing search-and-rescue
responsibility among Arctic states -- and to debate
guidelines for admitting observer delegations from
non-Arctic powers such as China.
It may also consider moves to coordinate oil and gas
development in the region, as well as establishing a
permanent council secretariat to help strengthen the
organization's governance role.
'IMPORTANT INNOVATION'
"This is an important innovation in the architecture of
regional and global cooperation," Deputy Secretary of
State James Steinberg said this week in a speech
previewing Clinton's Arctic trip.
The Arctic Council is getting more attention as a thaw
transforms the region.
Last week, a new international study projected that
world sea levels would rise by 3 to 5 feet by 2100 --
more than previously projected -- partly because of an
accelerating melt of Greenland and other Arctic ice.
That brought calls by Nordic nations for more action to
slow climate change and more focus on the Arctic in
sluggish UN negotiations on a global deal.
While the United States -- through the state of Alaska
-- is a major Arctic player, it has been hampered by the
US Senate's failure to ratify the UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea.
That agreement governs navigation rights, addresses
environmental issues and allows member nations to apply
to extract oil, gas and mineral deposits beyond a
200-mile (322- km) exclusion zone.
Political analysts say that while other countries such
as Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway have hastened to
stake claims in the region, the United States has not
been able to join in.
"We need to be at this table. We are at a military and
economic disadvantage," said Heather Conley, an Arctic
expert at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, a Washington think tank.
The Obama administration has said it will continue to
work with the Senate to get the treaty ratified. But the
window appears narrow as the United States gears up for
the 2012 election campaign, a political season that
often puts international agreements on the back burner.
(Editing by Peter Cooney)
---
On 12/05/2011 08:40, John Nissen wrote:
Hi Albert,
Although fear may be one of the primary drivers of action,
suppressed anxiety may be a cause of inaction, especially when
it reaches a point of "mortality salience".
Take the Arctic sea ice. It is part of the thermostatic control
mechanism for the planet - thus critical to preventing global
temperatures from rising above a certain limit. It is also a
critical part of the whole Arctic ecosystem. And it protects
permafrost from releasing methane and the Greenland ice sheet
from accelerated discharge with associated sea level rise. The
methane hazard is particularly dangerous to mankind. Even if
only a small proportion (under 10%) of the trapped methane were
released into the atmosphere, it would cause runaway global
warming - a life-threatening situation.
When the sea ice showed unexpected signs of rapid decline in
September 2007, you would have thought it common sense to act to
save the Arctic sea ice. But we have not. The scientific
community has ignored the problem. And they have ignored the
continued decline in sea ice volume since 2007. How can they be
so stupid? I have talked to a few top scientists, and they seem
to have a complete mental block. They suppress the reality
because it is painful. Hence they also suppress contemplation
of the action which would be required to save the sea ice -
which of necessity includes geoengineering to cool the Arctic.
The consensus is that geoengineering is more dangerous than not
geoengineering, when it is plain common sense that not
geoengineering is a threat to their own lives.
Thus there has been no effective action to save the Arctic sea
ice. So now the methane level is starting to rise
significantly, and some of us are starting a fire-fighting
exercise. But it should not have been necessary if prompt
action had cooled the Arctic and halted the decline in Arctic
sea ice
BTW, I am not suggesting that the Arctic is the only problem
area with mortality salience. The Amazon rainforest is in a
critical state, such that a few more years of drought could lead
to die-off, burn-off and complete breakdown of the existing
climate patterns in the Western Hemisphere, besides exacerbating
global warming. Yet we see no effective action to save the
rainforest which has the necessary urgency behind it.
A tragic irony about the warming Arctic is that the chiefs of
the oil and mineral companies are rubbing their hands with glee
at the prospect of an ice-free ocean, to help with their
exploration and exploitation, when they should be contemplating
their own funerals.
Cheers,
John
PS I am still hoping to get psychologists interested, hence
copying this email to John Keene.
---
On 11/05/2011 18:00, Veli Albert Kallio wrote:
It is important to take a new approach as it is entirely
clear that the route taken by IPCC since Kyoto is not
receiving any urgency. The business community is spreading
denialism as long as it can. When it no longer works, it
switches to fatalism and unpredictablity that no one can know
and therefore prepare for. There is 100% certainty of total
failure of climate change mitigation unless there is a good
deal of fear involved. Winston Churchill was so succesfull
selling bombs to the nation, just because of fear, not lack of
it.
I personally think that any person who thinks that fear is not
the primary instinct and driver of our action needs to have
his "head examined" just like President Babrak Obama told
about Osama bin Laden. We do not try to sell a tivoli for
children but sell something smelly and very unpleasant that
involves lots of cost, sacrifice (and opportunity cost) as
money to be spent elsewhere needs to go into climate action.
Less breaks to faraway lands by plane, less flying, less
driving and more queues in buses and time spent in rain on bus
stops or on bicycles, or insulating homes.
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:49:30 +0100
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Actic Council meeting on Thursday
To: [email protected]
Though the research indicates people
do not respond positively to fear messages, but instead
become fatalistic. I personally would advocate agitating
for the development of a revolutionary consciousness
which allows people to properly understand and identify
the systemic causes of our predicament, and thus regain
the nobility that is our birthright rather than cowering
in fear and letting politicians, experts and business
leaders define our collective future.
From: Discussion list for
the Crisis Forum [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Veli Albert Kallio
Sent: 11 May 2011 13:43
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Actic Council meeting on
Thursday
I think we
all would be better off if we could persuade that there
is an emergency. The businessmen say now that there is
no emergency. The next day they say there is an
emergency, nothing can and should be done, let the
nature to take its own course. It is fatalistic.
The science community has not made its case clear enough
to the general public and politicians that there is an
urgency, let alone emergency as per the risk of climate
change from anthorpogenic emissions. Instead more forest
will be felled down.
There is always an urgency of economic growth and
emergency economics to cut down public spending
including the cutbacks on renewable energy investments
such as the UK Green Bank to fund switchover to
renewable energy. Now offshore wind is deemed too
expensive and it is supposed to be switchover to nuclear
energy. Meanwhile, the Third World is told to curtail
emissions and in case of Iran to close down its nuclear
energy programme (without increasing carbon dioxide
emissions). Supposedly to complete with the West with
solar panel based electricity (they have not too good
winds there anyway comparable to the North Atlantic or
Scotland here).
Once there is a clarity what the West tells others to do
and is doing itself, then there is chances to get
something done. Words without action is just drifting
into crisis just like Winston Churchill said in 1936.
But here we are not selling bombs but wind turbines to
power us.
Geoengineering trails renewable energy and emissions
cuts. Carbon trading is seen as modern sale of sins, in
fashion of Peter's Pence, medieval penances to buy good
conscience with money - without repentance.
We need several good front riders of fear that can make
people to understand the need for climate actions.
Kind regards,
Albert
[snip]
---
On 10/05/2011 16:07, John Nissen wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thanks for pointing out my error. The reference to
article mentioning Arctic council should have been:
http://planetark.org/wen/61906
[corrected below]
Albert has just emailed to say he'll pass on my
message to the Arctic Council meeting.
The link I gave you about food was from the same
World Environment News email service that I
subscribe to (free), coming from Australia. It was
one of a number of interesting news items. The
price of food is already being affected by climate
change - according to a study reported in Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/05/04/science.1204531
As global warming accelerates, even without the
methane, it will be increasing difficult for farmers
to adjust, and prices of food are bound to
increase. This will start hitting people in the
pocket even in rich countries. And methane would
make it far worse. A potential economic impact
could make politicians sit up.
--
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.
