John,
You're right, I had not seen this agenda. Overall it conveys the sense of a
reasonable, responsible meeting. Some of the considerations, for example,
September sea ice volume trend is to zero in 2015, might give a misleading
impression of scientific consensus, however I realize a major
; bhaskarmv...@gmail.com; Geoengineering
FIPC; Matti Lappalainen; Risto Isomaki; Esko Pettay
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October -
Methane vents
Albert
I am vague about release patterns and my ideas are based in the
echo-sounder images in the Shakhova paper. If you
Dear Graham,
We have to keep clear heads. The dangers from global warming have been
consistently understated or ignored by the scientists, but, of these
dangers, the Arctic methane problem seems to have the highest risk, even
with the uncertainties, because it could take out the whole of
There was a large session on methane at the last Goldschmidt Conf this Aug.
http://www.goldschmidt2011.org/program/programView?period=17cpdf=1
numerous methane papers in other sessions can be found by searching methane
at:
http://www.goldschmidt2011.org/abstracts/abstractSearch
e.g.,
:* Re: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane
vents
** **
Stuart
This topic arose because Albert said that plastic film would produce anoxic
conditions in the sea bed. The questions is if we leave methane and oxygen
together in the ooze for a long time one or other
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane vents
Stuart
This topic arose because Albert said that plastic film would produce anoxic
conditions in the sea bed. The questions is if we leave methane and oxygen
together in the ooze for a long time one or other will get
;
euan.nis...@gmail.com; jens.grein...@nioz.nl; Peter Wadhams; Michel
Halbwachs; harleyrichar...@googlemail.com; bhaskarmv...@gmail.com;
Geoengineering FIPC; Matti Lappalainen; Risto Isomaki; Esko Pettay
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane
vents
Stuart
Albert
If there is a pipe connection to the underside of the plastic the
pressure below the film will be close to atmospheric and it will be
clamped firmly down by several bar of water pressure. I can also get
some sand over the film.
I am more concerned about anoxic conditions of
...@hotmail.com
CC: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; g.k.westbr...@bham.ac.uk; euan.nis...@gmail.com;
jens.grein...@nioz.nl; p...@cam.ac.uk; michel.halbwa...@wanadoo.fr;
harleyrichar...@googlemail.com; bhaskarmv...@gmail.com;
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October
We need to consider carefully the plastic film, this could cause anoxic
conditions under the plastic sheet.
The shallow portion of Arctic Ocean is likely to develop large storm surges and
resulting currents as ocean becomes ice free. Every storm surge on surface is
maintained by reverse flow
Sorry‹I am not enough of an expert to comment per the request, especially
given complexities of the seasonal cycle, changing inversion strengths and
extents, etc.
Mike MacCracken
On 7/28/11 9:54 PM, nathan currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, if 7% of total RF didn't sound that
Hi Andrew, Sam, Oliver -
I heartily agree, think that this is potentially one of the
sleepers of the geoengineering world -
it is also unique in that it is neither CDR nor SRM would probably
be quite safe thus easily enacted.
I would doubt that you're going after it the right way, though,
This proposed method of methane remediation is similar to the existing sink,
as although OH radical production isn't strictly catalytic, it does recycle
NOx. Whether the chemistry works or not is something I can't comment on.
However, I don't think that TiO2 is likely to be practical. Although
Hi, Andrew -
It would be great if someone like Mike MacCracken could comment on some of
the chemistry in your posting - in that it seems to me confusing, and, I
suspect, somewhat confused. Could you, Andrew, show the reactions that
you're thinking of, so I could understand better? You say that -
Oliver Tickell wrote:
Another approach would be to enhance HO hydroxyl in the atmosphere - the
main destroyer of methane. I have no idea how to set about doing this. It
could be helpful to reduce emissions that utilise existing hydroxyl, such as
miscellaneous hydrocarbons. But the chemistry is
Creating OH radical is best done by leveraging existing processes.
The radical is too short-lived to be effectively distributed when
produced industrially, and energy costs are also too high.
The NOx recycling reaction series was chosen by L Zhou et al in their
recent paper, as (in dry air) NOx
Hi John,
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is another Greenhouse gas melting permafrost releases
besides methane and carbon dioxide which is often forgotten and there are
substantial amounts of that as well. So, it should appear as a point 6.
although it is not carbon, but its still biomass related.
Using liquid air to seal methane vents may well work. Using it for general
cooling of the sea or land surface will not.
Oxides of nitrogen are critical in the formation of hydroxyl radicals. They
therefore play a key role in the breakdown of methane. Although greenhouse
gases in their own
On the issue of using Lair as a vent sealant, I may be wrong, but, I do
believe the ice formed would most likely float away. And, a vent would be
most likely more of a diffused field of bubble streams as opposed to a
central vent. Also, capping such a vent with even cement will be
eventually
You should be able to detect methane release using gas samplers on buoys or
the sea bed. Hydrophones may also detect bubbles. Autonomous ships could
also be used, or data could be collected from any existing marine traffic.
Aerial imaging could detect larger releases.
Putting liquid air into the
Unfortunately, my personal belief is that we have already failed (time wise)
and that the policy makers will not recognize the need for large scale
efforts in time to avoid the first tipping point from developing.
Look at the arctic data for April. There is an unusually high temperature
formation
John and All-
Andrew makes a great point. If methane release tends to be limited to
vents or so-called hotspots, and the number of vents is a reasonable
amount, the use of Lair or LN2 to freeze and seal these vents becomes
MUCH more feasible than trying to cool/refreeze large permafrost
regions.
John and All-
Mr. Lockley makes a great point. If methane release tends to be
limited to vents or so-called hotspots, and the number of vents is a
reasonable amount, the use of Lair or LN2 to freeze and seal these
vents becomes MUCH more feasible than trying to cool/refreeze large
permafrost
Do journalistic twists and hype make up your views? Give all of us a
detailed/technical answer..beyond the hype of your favorite talking
head...Please!
On May 8, 2011 12:22am, voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have a basic conceptual idea of a plan of action?
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
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.
I've studied methane geoengineering extensively, so here's my tuppence
If you're going to use liquid air, just pump it into the sea bed where there
are leaks in the permafrost clathrate cap.
Draining bogs will help. Dry material doesn't emit methane
Shelling methane vents with incendiary shells
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
