Hi Andrew,
It depends what kind of proof you want. I myself am convinced of things if
there is a logical argument based on established facts.
I am convinced by anthropogenic global warming because if you put an extra 100
ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, you EXPECT to have greenhouse warming. I don't need
"proof" to be convinced. To be persuaded otherwise, I would need a convincing
explanation of why the CO2 wasn't causing global warming, or how this was
somehow neutralised. I would need to be PROVED WRONG.
Similarly with methane runaway feedback. There's a vast amount of methane
trapped in frozen structures. Nobody disputes this fact. If you put enough of
this methane in the atmosphere, you expect global warming. You then expect
positive feedback as a result of this, as the frozen structures unfreeze to
release more methane until it's all gone. Unless there is an argument against
this logic, I will remain convinced by it.
Similarly with the Arctic sea ice and domino effects. The "forcing" from the
sea ice albedo effect is of the order of 30 Watts per square metre, so you
expect this to drive regional warming. Nobody is suggesting how this warming
would reverse naturally. So, as the region continues to warm, you expect the
domino effects of methane release and Greenland ice sheet accelerated discharge.
This is all highly uncomfortable to contemplate, and I'd like to be proved
wrong. However we do have a possible way out of this situation with
geoengineering. So all is not lost.
Please can we now persuade politicians and potential funding bodies of the
inescapable logic of this situation, so that they fund the necessary
geoengineering developments? Or prove me wrong.
Cheers,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Lockley
To: John Nissen
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] runaway arguments ripped to bits
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I haven't been able to PROVE
you're right.
A
2009/2/5 John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>
Dear Andrew,
That is very unfair - a stab in the back.
1. I have given you several references to methane in the past, e.g. from
David Lawrence. And there are plenty of references already in wikipedia, e.g.
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release
(I am sorry I can't help on the shoreline slumping.)
2. I am trying to answer your basic question: Is there REALLY a big and
immediate risk from the clathrate gun/permafrost? You seemed to be arguing
only about the methane, without taking into account the Arctic sea ice albedo
effect.
3. The argument that the Arctic sea ice albedo effect is causing regional
runaway feedback is new to this list. The argument that we should reverse the
Arctic sea ice retreat is also new - previously I had argued we simply had to
halt the retreat.
4. These are common sense arguments. If anybody can find some evidence to
dispute them, may they come forth.
5. I have given my own conclusion repeatedly, because it bares repeating:
If we do not act quickly with our SRM geoengineering, then thermal runaway
from methane (and also disasterous sea level rise) could become inevitable.
6. Your criticism is a stab in the back, because you seemed to be one of
the few people who accepted this conclusion, because of all the evidence I gave
you.
Et tu, Brute.
John.
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Lockley
To: John Nissen
Cc: Geoengineering FIPC ; Prof John Shepherd ; John Gorman
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] runaway arguments ripped to bits
John,
You've repeated these arguments on this list on numerous occasions.
However, you've failed to back them up with peer-reviewed science.
I've already emailed the list asking for scientific support for these
very ideas in the last 24hrs. Specifically we need help with the alterations
to methane GWP, the decay rate of clathrates due to shoreline slumping in the
Arctic and calculations of the overall warming load arising from a methane
pulse.
I hope you can assist with the search for solid backing for your case and
not re-iterate oft-rehearsed arguments.
The relevant wiki is actually at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change#Current_risk
A
2009/2/5 John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>
The term "runaway" has an accepted meaning in the context of "thermal
runaway", and is characterised by positive feedback and resulting acceleration
in temperature change. So the temperature rises more than linearly, and may
even rise exponentially or "explosively":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_runaway
Eventually the feedback peters out, and the temperature change becomes
linear again.
This process is happening with the Arctic sea ice. At present the
albedo feedback effect is causing an acceleration in temperature change in the
polar region - but this positive feedback will eventually peter out, when all
the ice and snow in the region has melted, including the Greenland ice sheet!
So we are facing thermal runaway on a regional scale, affecting local climate
and ecosystem. This will have a domino effect on methane release.
As the Arctic region warms, methane will invitably be released in
larger and larger quantities. The speed of methane release depends critically
on the temperature above the frozen structure holding the methane. For
permafrost on land, if the average surface temperature is maintained above
freezing, the permafrost will inevitably melt. This is what is happening over
vast areas of Canada and Siberia, as the isotherms (lines of equal temperature
on a map) move northwards.
The methane itself provides feedback equally to both regional and
global warming, through its greenhouse effect. The regional warming will
increase the rate of methane release. Thus there could be thermal runaway on a
global scale and "we are toast", as Hansen puts it.
We have to find a way to quickly halt the Arctic regional warming. I
maintain that the key to this is to halt and partially reverse the retreat of
the Arctic sea ice, by cooling the region. And I maintain that the key to
cooling is use of solar radiation management (SRM) techniques - a combination
of stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud brightening.
If we do not act quickly with our SRM geoengineering, then thermal
runaway from methane (and also disasterous sea level rise) could become
inevitable.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
P.S. Note that geoengineering to reduce atmospheric CO2.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
To: "Geoengineering FIPC" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:28 AM
Subject: [geo] runaway arguments ripped to bits
>
> After getting thoroughly shouted at, I realised I needed to improve my
> 'runaway' arguments.
>
> My current skeleton is below. However, it's currently missing a few
> crucial bones which now need replacing. I need citations for the
> following:
>
> 1) A clathrate gun effect that shows rapid release? Buffett and
> Archer, and Archer alone, show a slow release, although from a large
> reservoir.
> 2) A calculation of the eventual warming that may result from methane
> release from permafrost/clathrates.
> 3) A study showing the impacts of such a level of warming on human
> civilisation/survival.
> 4) What happens to methane sinks under conditions of bulk outgassing?
> Do they fail and massively increase the global warming potential of
> methane?
>
> We've discussed all these issues before, but I think it's now time to
> get any available research on the issue into the open. Is there
> REALLY a big and immediate risk from the clathrate gun/permafrost?
>
> A
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Abrupt_climate_change
>
> The scientific consensus in the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report]] is
> that "Anthropogenic warming could lead to some effects that are abrupt
> or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate
> change."
>
> The phenomenon of [[Arctic shrinkage]] is leading some scientists to
> fear that a runaway climate change event may be
>
imminent<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/oct/18/bookextracts.books</ref>,
> and may even have
> started<ref>http://www.terranature.org/environmentalCrisis.htm</ref>.
> There is an [[albedo]] effect, as white ice is replaced by dark ocean.
> Rapid [[Arctic shrinkage]] is occurring, with 2007 being the lowest
> ever recorded area and 2008 being possibly the lowest ever recorded
>
volume.<ref>http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html</ref>
> This will induce or accelerate other [[positive feedback]] mechanisms,
> such as [[Arctic methane release]] from melting [[permafrost]] and
> [[clathrates]]. Lawrence et al(2008) suggests that a rapid melting of
> the sea ice may up a feedback loop that rapidly melts arctic
>
permafrost.<ref>http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/permafrost.jsp</ref><ref>{{Citation
> | year=2008 | title=Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost
> degradation during rapid sea ice loss | first=David M. | last=Lawrence
> | first2=Andrew G. | last2=Slater | first3=Robert A. | last3=Tomas |
> first4=Marika M. | last4=Holland | first5=Clara | last5=Deser |
> journal=[[Geophysical Research Letters]] | volume=35 | issue=11 |
> doi=10.1029/2008GL033985 |
>
url=http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/dlawren/publications/lawrence.grl.submit.2008.pdf}}</ref>
>
> Estimates of the size of the total carbon reservoir in Arctic
> [[permafrost]] and [[clathrates]] vary widely. It is suggested that
> at least 900 gigatonnes of carbon in permafrost exists
>
worldwide.<ref>http://www.terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm</ref>{{fact}}.
> Further, there are believed to be around and another 400 gigatonnes
> of carbon in methane clathrates in permafrost regions
>
alone.<ref>http://www.springerlink.com/content/r4w867922g607w2j/</ref>.
> Should this estimate of volume be correct or at least too low, and if
> clathrates are omitted from the analysis completely, then 900
> gigatonnes of carbon may potentially be released as methane as a
> result of human activity. [[Methane]] is a potent [[greenhouse gas]]
> with a higher [[global warming potential]] than [[CO2]]. A release on
> this scale will create [[catastrophic climate change]].
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
