David's point is very valid. Also, it is important to point out that the Russian coast melts now every year. The methane is on the coastal shallows, not in the high Arctic Basin which melts away now. Therefore, it is only misleading to say that loss of ice on the North Pole itself means anything as far as methane is concerned. The danger is already: coasts are the region impacted by the possible large scale methane escapes, plus the terrestrial sites.
It is unwise to read Harmageddon into loss of ice on the North Pole, but be aware of the risks that the warming climage generally does, not on the high Arctic Basin but on periphery of the Arctic Ocean. I think this emphasis on the loss of ice on the North Pole is similar mis-conception to the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro, which is often referred as the sign of warming high altitude climate (as it has lost 90% of its snow). However, as conincidentally being the Patron of University of Arusha (campus laid on the slopes of these mountains), our engineering people looked at production of 40 Megawatts of geothermal electricity from hot gases that leak out of Mount Kilimanjaro and pumping water into mountain to create steam. Obviously, there are heat flucutations therein to produce this energy and so the melting of snows of Kilimanjaro can easily be caused by fluctuations in the heat output of the mountain. If the mountain were to erupt, surely, all the snow would melt away and all environmentalists referring to this melting event would get only embarrased and ridiculed. Melting North Pole is not Harmageddon, but it is the warming of the soils and the sea in the longer run, not instantaneously but in time. If too much emphasis is put on immediate catastrophy, "end of the world and geoengineering" by methane blasts, similar disappointment and ridicule will only follow, so detrimental to our all common causes. Let's still keep things in perspective just like David suggest. I will not support people who will make mockery after the Arctic Ocean is ice-free as I am 100% convinced nothing will happen immediately. But without ice the warming of the sea escalates and winter seasons shorten and in a few years' time natural GHG emissions could become a big problem that would have to be accommodated into international emissions regime by more severe cuts. Kind regards, Albert Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:17:57 -0400 Subject: [geo] Re: Arctic ice free in 10yrs? From: dwschn...@gmail.com To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com The Catlin "survey" is a farce. Take a look at Anthony Watt's blog to understand why. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/top-ten-reasons-why-i-think-catlin-arctic-ice-survey-data-cant-be-trusted/ Bottomline, if you want to make a cogent statement about Arctic ice thickness, use the data from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research towed radar array survey. It is far more comprehensive, more accurate and is the data serious scientists are using. Competent arctic scientists have refused to use the Catlin data due to the multiple failures in their experimental methods and the self-admitted and dreadful lack of representative samples. Will the Arctic be ice free in 2010 (or 2016)? Actually no one knows. The past predictions have failed miserably. Might be, might not. Because of the "might be", I continue to support full scale testing of geoengineering techniques, especially in the northern latitudes. dschnare On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: I'm still very keen to see calculations which clarify whether such a changes can be reversed (as opposed to prevented) by aerosol geoengineering. My fear is that even geoengineering cannot save us when the ice is lost, and we will simply have to wait until the methane pulse kills us all. (or at least leaves the survivors scrabbling around in a 'Mad-Max style post-apocalyptic wasteland). A http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8307272.stm The Arctic Ocean could be largely ice-free and open to shipping during the summer in as little as ten years' time, a top polar specialist has said. "It's like man is taking the lid off the northern part of the planet," said Professor Peter Wadhams, from the University of Cambridge. Professor Wadhams has been studying the Arctic ice since the 1960s. He was speaking in central London at the launch of the findings of the Catlin Arctic Survey. The expedition trekked across 435km of ice earlier this year. Led by explorer Pen Hadow, the team's measurements found that the ice-floes were on average 1.8m thick - typical of so-called "first year" ice formed during the past winter and most vulnerable to melting. You'll be able to treat the Arctic as if it were essentially an open sea in the summer Peter Wadhams, University of Cambridge The survey route - to the north of Canada - had been expected to cross areas of older "multi-year" ice which is thicker and more resilient. When the ridges of ice between floes are included, the expedition found an average thickness of 4.8m. Professor Wadhams said: "The Catlin Arctic Survey data supports the new consensus view - based on seasonal variation of ice extent and thickness, changes in temperatures, winds and especially ice composition - that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within about 20 years, and that much of the decrease will be happening within 10 years. "That means you'll be able to treat the Arctic as if it were essentially an open sea in the summer and have transport across the Arctic Ocean." According to Professor Wadhams, faster shipping and easier access to oil and gas reserves were among short-term benefits of the melting. But in the longer-term, losing a permanent feature of the planet risked accelerated warming, changing patterns of circulation in the oceans and atmosphere, and having unknown effects on ecosystems through the acidification of waters. Pen Hadow and his companions Ann Daniels and Martin Hartley endured ferocious weather - including a wind chill of minus 70 - delayed resupply flights and starvation rations during the expedition from 1 March to 7 May. When I met them on the ice, as part of a BBC team that joined the pick-up flight, all three had lost weight and were evidently tired from the ordeal. The expedition had been blighted by equipment failures. A pioneering radar system, designed to measure the ice while being dragged over the ice, broke down within days. Another device to measure the water beneath the ice never functioned at all. Incremental step The technical breakdowns forced the team to rely on hand-drilling through the ice which slowed progress and meant the team's planned destination of the North Pole had to be abandoned. Pen Hadow admitted that the expedition had not led to "a giant leap forward in understanding" but had been useful as an incremental step in the science of answering the key questions about the Arctic. Dogs can swim but they can't tow a sled through water which is what's needed now Pen Hadow His view was backed by Professor Wadhams who said the expedition had provided information about the ice that was not available from satellites and that no submarines had been available to science at that time either. Pen Hadow said he was shocked by the image of how "in my lifetime we're looking at changing how the planet looks from space." He also described how polar explorers were having to change their methods from the days when sledges could be pulled by dogs over the ice. "Dogs can swim but they can't tow a sledge through water which is what's needed now." "Now we have to wear immersion suits and swim and we need sledges that can float. I can foresee needing sledges that are more like canoes that you also pull over the ice." -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship _________________________________________________________________ Download Messenger onto your mobile for free http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/174426567/direct/01/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
