Hi all,
Dr Mandy Joye declined an invitation to the workshop. See below.
Any other suggestions for somebody with similar expertise -
preferably not in deepwater!? Seriously though, it would be useful
to have an expert on microbial methane consumption, since enhancing
such consumption help in tackling the methane problem, e.g. in ESAS
(East Siberian Arctic Shelf).
Cheers,
John
[quote]
John:
Mandy has not been able to respond to your email as she has been
meeting numerous deadlines and preparing to leave the country for a
month-long trip. She wants to express her gratitude for your
invitation but must decline. Her teaching schedule and speaking
commitments already on her calendar prevent her from adding a trip to
your workshop.
She thanks you for your understanding.
-Pat Dunleavy
assistant to Dr. Joye
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:38 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear Mandy,
I was most interested to read, in a press release [1], your warning
about methane in the Arctic:
"/A range of data exists that shows a significant release of methane
seeping out at the seafloor to the atmosphere, indicating that the
microbial biofilter is not as effective," Joye said. "Importantly for
the future of the planet, there is even less evidence for a strong
biofilter of methane hydrate destabilized in the shallow Arctic
settings/."
A number of scientists are deeply concerned about this Arctic
methane, since there seem to be vast quantities of carbon held in
permafrost and/or as hydrates [2], sufficient to cause runaway global
warming if released as methane gas into the atmosphere over the next
few decades. The concern is enhanced by Shakhova's estimate of an
annual 3.5 Gt (Pg) of methane being released from the East Siberian
Arctic Shelf [3]. Perhaps even more frightening is the sudden
release of 50 Gt of methane [4]:
/Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Mt
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatonne> per year.^[12]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release#cite_note-11>
Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 Gt
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigatonne> of Carbon is presently
locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine
permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open
taliks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talik>. They conclude that
"release of up to 50 Gt <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigatonne> of
predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt
release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the
planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve.^[13]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release#cite_note-12>
/
Because of methane's global warming potential, we are concerned that
a release of 3.5 Gt methane annually would multiply climate forcing
by many times, inevitably leading to catastrophic climate change over
the next few decades. Release of 50 Gt could trigger catastrophe
much sooner.
Therefore we are urgently seeking ways to prevent the methane
entering the atmosphere, and would welcome your ideas on any kind of
biological approach.
We will be having a workshop on the weekend September 3-4 in London
to evaluate all possible methods of stopping the methane. Would you
be interested in attending?
Kind regards,
John Nissen
[1] http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/110526_paper.shtml
<http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/110526_paper.shtml>
[2]
http://www.nioz.nl/public/symposia_workshops/arctic/17_semiletov.pdf
<http://www.nioz.nl/public/symposia_workshops/arctic/17_semiletov.pdf>
[3]
http://symposium.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/8914/107496/version/1/file/1A_Shakhova_Final.pdf
<http://symposium.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/8914/107496/version/1/file/1A_Shakhova_Final.pdf>
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release>
---
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Sam Carana <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I add below the news release by the University of Georgia
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Science paper argues against conclusion that bacteria consumed
Deepwater Horizon methane
http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/110526_paper.shtml
<http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/110526_paper.shtml>
Athens, Ga. -- A technical comment published in the current (May 27)
edition of the journal Science casts doubt on a widely publicized
study that concluded that a bacterial bloom in the Gulf of Mexico
consumed the methane discharged from the Deepwater Horizon well.
The debate has implications for the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem as well
as for predictions of the effect of global warming, said marine
scientist and lead author Samantha Joye, University of Georgia
Athletic Association Professor in Arts and Sciences.
Based on methane and oxygen distributions measured at 207 stations in
the Gulf of Mexico, a study published in the January 21, 2011 edition
of Science concluded that "nearly all" of the methane released from
the well was consumed in the water column within approximately 120
days of the release. In the current paper in Science, Joye and
co-authors from 12 other institutions make the case that uncertainties
in the hydrocarbon discharge from the blowout, oxygen depletion fueled
by processes other than methane consumption, a problematic
interpretation of genetic data and shortcomings of the model used by
the authors of the January study challenge the attribution of low
oxygen zones to the oxidation of methane gas.
"Our goal is to understand what happened to the methane released from
the Macondo discharge and, in the larger framework, to better
understand the factors that regulate microbial methane consumption
following large-scale gas releases," said Joye, a professor in the UGA
Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. "I believe there is still a lot
to learn about the environmental factors that regulate methane
consumption in the Gulf's waters and elsewhere."
Joye and her co-authors note that low levels of oxygen are known to
occur in the Gulf of Mexico because of bacterial consumption of carbon
inputs from the Mississippi River as well as the bacterial consumption
of hydrocarbons that naturally seep from the seafloor. The researchers
point out that given the uncertainty in oxygen and methane budgets,
strong supporting evidence is required to attribute oxygen depletion
to methane removal; however, a study published in the October 8, 2010
edition of Science showed low measured rates of methane consumption by
bacteria. Joye and her co-authors note that samples from the control
stations and the low-oxygen stations that were analyzed for unique
genetic markers in the January 2011 study showed no significant
difference in the abundance of methane consuming bacteria. Joye and
her colleagues also argue that the model the study used neglected
important factors that affect the transport and biodegradation of
methane, and that it only provided a tentative match of the
observational data.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and understanding the fate of the
methane released from the Deepwater Horizon well has implications for
the entire planet, since global warming is likely to accelerate the
release of methane that is currently trapped in hydrates on the
seafloor. Based on the conclusion that bacteria had rapidly consumed
the methane released from the Deepwater Horizon well, the January 2011
Science paper suggested that methane released from the oceans may not
be likely to amplify an already warming climate.
Joye and her colleagues note that several other studies have found
that considerable amounts of methane released from natural deep-sea
vents are not consumed by microbes. The most vulnerable store of
methane hydrates is not in the Gulf of Mexico, they also point out,
but in the deposits that underlie the shallow waters of the Arctic.
"A range of data exists that shows a significant release of methane
seeping out at the seafloor to the atmosphere, indicating that the
microbial biofilter is not as effective," Joye said. "Importantly for
the future of the planet, there is even less evidence for a strong
biofilter of methane hydrate destabilized in the shallow Arctic
settings."
==============
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:10 AM, M V Bhaskar
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=119529&WT.mc_id=USNSF_1
<http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=119529&WT.mc_id=USNSF_1>
> How Tiny Microbes Took a Big Bite out of the Deepwater Horizon Oil
> Spill
>
> A very interesting account of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill last
> year and the methane from the spill.
>
> "Methane-eating microbes remove oxygen from the water as they breathe.
> Therefore, if microbes were consuming methane in the plumes, we would
> expect the plumes' methane and oxygen levels to drop--phenomena that
> were indeed reflected in the data collected from the plumes in the
> fall."
>
> Diatoms can provide the oxygen required by the methane-eating microbes
> so that the microbes bloom faster and consume more methane.
>
> The point is that the methane-eating bacteria did their job without
> any induced oxygen increase.
> But then the Deepwater Horizon was a 'small' problem.
>
> What if the next such problem is bigger?
>
> Fukushima Nuclear power plant was designed for a 6 meter tsunami, a 10
> meter tsunami hit and now all 6 reactors are shut down.
>
> regards
>
> Bhaskar
> [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.
