Hi John,
Just to be clear, I'm in favor of research, investigation, and action. But
don't think that it's sufficiently persuasive to say to policy makers "by
the time concentrations are rising rapidly, it will be too late." That
simply will not be enough to trigger the drastic immediate action
Worrisome but as with all these bubble studies the data is sparse relative
to the area covered so difficult to make any firm conclusions. A major
large area study is needed: lots of sensors or a new remote sensing
optoelectronic seismological or sonar technique exploiting bubble
phenomenology.
Eric,
I read a paper a few years back showing measurements of the the
temperature of the Norwegian current increasing 2 degrees C since the 1970s.
Oliver
On 10/15/2015 8:28 AM, Eric Durbrow wrote:
I found this recent article extremely disturbing but perhaps I am exaggerating the
impact of
I found this recent article extremely disturbing but perhaps I am exaggerating
the impact of possible deep-ocean methane release. Can someone provide a
perspective? Is this a potential "game-over?”
Eric
Abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GC005955/abstract
Press Release:
to2.org>
Date:10/15/2015 12:04 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: durb...@gmail.com, geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [geo] Evidence for deep-ocean frozen methane release VERY bad
news?
The message seems to be that most methane is oxidised to CO2 in the water.
The East Siberia Arctic Shelf methane plumes are of even greater concern, as
the ocean depth there is only tens of meters in vast areas (so much less weight
to keep the lid on, and no time to oxidize the rising methane), the methane
deposit in that area is the largest in the entire ocean, and a
The message seems to be that most methane is oxidised to CO2 in the water.
That means the main consequence may not be a warming one. Seas margin
destabilisation leading to collapse and tsunamis would not be nice. Nor
would spread of anoxia. Nor would additional ocean acidification.
Oliver.
