The methane tends to be devoured by microbes. However, methane supply may exceed availability of other necessary nutrients such as oxygen and trace elements that living organisms require. Thus there is a saturation point where methane conversion to carbon dioxide stops, after this the methane dissolves into water as such. As a result, it is very dangerous situation if a still deep water pocket becomes heavily laden with carbon dioxide as this dissolves in huge volumes (5 times the volume of water). The water column becomes highly unstable if water overturns and the dissolved carbon dioxide and methane starts runaway nucleation as the rising bubbles pull water with them upwards. This leads to overturning of water and suffocating discharges of carbon dioxide and methane as well as risk of drowing where ocean turns into foam and becomes unsupportive to boats. Over 2,000 people died and professor Michel Halbwachs was commissioned to resolve this by a controlled venting of gases. The largest singel pan of highly dangerous carbon dioxide and methane laden water is Lake Kivu. Besides melting permafrost thawing methane clathrates, volcanoes can pump methane and carbon dioxide into water making it unstable, which has been so far with the case Professor Halbwachs team of engineers has been working to resolve to prevent further fatalities. We will see these in off-shore and on-shore water bodies that have presence of frozen methane. Microbes will eat methane away in most cases, but when supply of other nutritiens falls back methane accummulates after microbial digestion to carbon dioxide phases out. I hope this clarifies what happens to the methane and carbon dioxide as arctic reservoirs start leaking it. Yours sincerely,
Veli Albert Kallio Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:39:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [geo] Arctic Council meeting on Thursday - the truth is out From: voglerl...@gmail.com To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk CC: robert.wat...@defra.gsi.gov.uk; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; crisis-fo...@jiscmail.ac.uk; climatechangepolit...@yahoogroups.com; john.dav...@foe.co.uk; gorm...@waitrose.com; kcalde...@stanford.edu; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; richard.bla...@bbc.co.uk; sam.car...@gmail.com; g.monb...@zetnet.co.uk; markly...@zetnet.co.uk; robert.wat...@uea.ac.uk Hi Folks, Your question "There could also be an effect of methane bubbling through water on marine life. Anybody know?" I don't know about health effects on marine life at an expert level, but....probable little...if any. However, Please pay attention to this........ http://www.afma.gov.au/resource-centre/teachers-and-students/about-fishing-methods-and-devices/trawl/demersal-trawl/ This is the type of commercial fishing gear you can expect going into new arctic areas. The Demersal trawling gear drags along the seabed and basically will wipe out and kill every thing in it's path. If this happens in a hydrate field, critical damage to the methane oxidizing biotic layer will happen. It was a trawler that found the Cascade Hydrate field. The sea-floor biotic layer can oxidize up to 90% of the methane. I don't think we need to loose that type of protection. Also, this type of fishing boat wiped out the north Atlantic cod and is now making a big dent in the north pacific stock. They work the continental shelves. So, don't underestimate what they can do to a hydrate field. And, expect them to cheat if they are limited to only mid water gear. It is very easy to switch gear with few knowing about it. I have watched a number of shady practices in that business. They need to be banned from any known or suspected hydrate fields and probably the arctic as a whole. Fish-n-Chips are not worth it. Thanks Michael On May 12, 2011 11:30pm, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Professor Watson, > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9483790.stm > > > > > > > > > How absurd. Now we have it confirmed that the Arctic Council is > there, not to pretect the Arctic, but to carve up the resources. > And now we know that the people involved ARE rubbing their hands > with glee as the sea ice retreats, seemingly oblivious of the > tremendous horrors that await them (and the rest of humanity) as > Arctic ice melts away and methane, trapped by permafrost, is > discharged in ever increasing quantities to exacerbate global > warming. There are signs that this process is already underway > [1]. As I said to BBC correspondent, Richard Black, at the EGU > conference in April, we only need 10% of potential methane to be > discharged over 20 years, and the rate of global warming would be > multiplied by about 40 times [2]. This is easily enough to cause > abrupt and catastrophic climate change [3]. > > > > Governments around the world, together with the whole environment > movement, should unite to fight this absurd situation, and back a > plan to stop the methane at all costs. This is an emergency. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > John > > > > [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8437703.stm > > > > [2] Sam Carana points out that I was erring on the low side for > this figure. > > > > [3] I am not the first to point out this danger from methane. > Research on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) has exposed the > dire situation. > > > > If just one percent of ESAS methane escapes its crystal prison, > Semiletov suggested at a geophysical conference in 2008, it might > push > total methane to 6 parts per million. Some researchers consider > this is > a tipping point towards ‘runaway climate change.’ If that term > doesn’t > summon up an image, you can take NASA scientist James Hansen’s > suggestion of an “ice-free state” where the Greenland and > Antarctic ice > sheets melt entirely, raising global sea level by over 200 feet. > > > > See http://tyeebridge.com/?p=608 > > > > --- > > > > On 12/05/2011 18:44, John Nissen wrote: > > > > > Hello again, Albert, > > > > I've just picked up this news about Hillary Clinton going to the > Arctic Council meeting, thanks to the "World Environment News > Service" to which I subscribe. The URL is http://planetark.org/wen/61985 > > > > > Unfortunately this email may be too late for Robert Corell, who > you mentioned in connection with the Arctic Council. > > > > It appears that there is a complete disconnect between the danger > from the "thaw" with associated sea level rise and the exploration > and exploitation. And what about the methane? Does nobody > realise that the Arctic has to be cooled to a prevent a > climate catastrophe that could be the end of us all? It is so > obvious if you think about it - given the quantities of methane > that would be discharged if the ice cap is allowed to melt away. > > > > BTW, I wonder whether John Holdren ever looked at that open letter > we sent him, about the methane danger [1]? It might have been > better to have gone to Clinton! Bit late now. > > > > John > > > > [1] > http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2010/06/sea-ice-loss-stuns-scientists.html > > > > > --- > > > > Hillary Clinton Lands In Greenland For Arctic Summit > > > > > > > Date: 12-May-11 > > Country: GREENLAND > > Author: Andrew Quinn - Additional > reporting Alister Doyle in Oslo > > > [photo deleted] > > Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addresses the > Washington Conference on the Americas at the State > Department in Washington May 11, 2011. > > Photo: Kevin Lamarque > > Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Greenland > on Wednesday for an Arctic summit to improve management > of a vast, pristine region being rapidly transformed by > climate change. > > Clinton flew to Nuuk on a Air Force transport and was > greeted at the tiny capital's airport by Greenland > Premier Kuupik Kleist and dozens of cheering > Greenlanders who braved a chilly spring night still > bathed in sunlight. > > Clinton and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will lead > the U.S. team to Thursday's meeting of the Arctic > Council, which includes Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, > Iceland, Sweden and Denmark, which handles foreign > affairs for Greenland, as well as groups representing > indigenous inhabitants of the world's most northerly > regions. > > Clinton will be the first U.S. secretary of state to > attend an Arctic Council meeting. U.S. officials say her > trip shows the Arctic is moving up Washington's priority > list as rising temperatures create new environmental > risks and new economic opportunities in a region rich > with untapped resources. > > The melt is undermining the hunting livelihoods of > indigenous peoples and threatening polar bears and other > creatures. But the changes may also make the Arctic more > accessible to shipping, mining and oil and gas > exploration. > > The region is estimated to hold about a quarter of the > world's undiscovered oil and gas reserves. > > The Arctic Council is an international organization > formed to promote cooperation among the nations making > up the Arctic region, which covers more than a sixth of > Earth's landmass. > > The council is expected to announce its first formal > agreement -- a deal on dividing search-and-rescue > responsibility among Arctic states -- and to debate > guidelines for admitting observer delegations from > non-Arctic powers such as China. > > It may also consider moves to coordinate oil and gas > development in the region, as well as establishing a > permanent council secretariat to help strengthen the > organization's governance role. > > 'IMPORTANT INNOVATION' > > "This is an important innovation in the architecture of > regional and global cooperation," Deputy Secretary of > State James Steinberg said this week in a speech > previewing Clinton's Arctic trip. > > The Arctic Council is getting more attention as a thaw > transforms the region. > > Last week, a new international study projected that > world sea levels would rise by 3 to 5 feet by 2100 -- > more than previously projected -- partly because of an > accelerating melt of Greenland and other Arctic ice. > > That brought calls by Nordic nations for more action to > slow climate change and more focus on the Arctic in > sluggish U.N. negotiations on a global deal. > > While the United States -- through the state of Alaska > -- is a major Arctic player, it has been hampered by the > U.S. Senate's failure to ratify the U.N. Convention on > the Law of the Sea. > > That agreement governs navigation rights, addresses > environmental issues and allows member nations to apply > to extract oil, gas and mineral deposits beyond a > 200-mile (322- km) exclusion zone. > > Political analysts say that while other countries such > as Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway have hastened to > stake claims in the region, the United States has not > been able to join in. > > "We need to be at this table. We are at a military and > economic disadvantage," said Heather Conley, an Arctic > expert at the Center for Strategic and International > Studies, a Washington think tank. > > The Obama administration has said it will continue to > work with the Senate to get the treaty ratified. But the > window appears narrow as the United States gears up for > the 2012 election campaign, a political season that > often puts international agreements on the back burner. > > (Editing by Peter Cooney) > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > On 12/05/2011 08:40, John Nissen wrote: > > > > > > Hi Albert, > > > > Although fear may be one of the primary drivers of action, > suppressed anxiety may be a cause of inaction, especially when > it reaches a point of "mortality salience". > > > > Take the Arctic sea ice. It is part of the thermostatic control > mechanism for the planet - thus critical to preventing global > temperatures from rising above a certain limit. It is also a > critical part of the whole Arctic ecosystem. And it protects > permafrost from releasing methane and the Greenland ice sheet > from accelerated discharge with associated sea level rise. The > methane hazard is particularly dangerous to mankind. Even if > only a small proportion (under 10%) of the trapped methane were > released into the atmosphere, it would cause runaway global > warming - a life-threatening situation. > > > > When the sea ice showed unexpected signs of rapid decline in > September 2007, you would have thought it common sense to act to > save the Arctic sea ice. But we have not. The scientific > community has ignored the problem. And they have ignored the > continued decline in sea ice volume since 2007. How can they be > so stupid? I have talked to a few top scientists, and they seem > to have a complete mental block. They suppress the reality > because it is painful. Hence they also suppress contemplation > of the action which would be required to save the sea ice - > which of necessity includes geoengineering to cool the Arctic. > The consensus is that geoengineering is more dangerous than not > geoengineering, when it is plain common sense that not > geoengineering is a threat to their own lives. > > > > Thus there has been no effective action to save the Arctic sea > ice. So now the methane level is starting to rise > significantly, and some of us are starting a fire-fighting > exercise. But it should not have been necessary if prompt > action had cooled the Arctic and halted the decline in Arctic > sea ice > > > > BTW, I am not suggesting that the Arctic is the only problem > area with mortality salience. The Amazon rainforest is in a > critical state, such that a few more years of drought could lead > to die-off, burn-off and complete breakdown of the existing > climate patterns in the Western Hemisphere, besides exacerbating > global warming. Yet we see no effective action to save the > rainforest which has the necessary urgency behind it. > > > > A tragic irony about the warming Arctic is that the chiefs of > the oil and mineral companies are rubbing their hands with glee > at the prospect of an ice-free ocean, to help with their > exploration and exploitation, when they should be contemplating > their own funerals. > > > > Cheers, > > > > John > > > > P.S. I am still hoping to get psychologists interested, hence > copying this email to John Keene. > > > > --- > > > > On 11/05/2011 18:00, Veli Albert Kallio wrote: > > It is important to take a new approach as it is entirely > clear that the route taken by IPCC since Kyoto is not > receiving any urgency. The business community is spreading > denialism as long as it can. When it no longer works, it > switches to fatalism and unpredictablity that no one can know > and therefore prepare for. There is 100% certainty of total > failure of climate change mitigation unless there is a good > deal of fear involved. Winston Churchill was so succesfull > selling bombs to the nation, just because of fear, not lack of > it. > > > > I personally think that any person who thinks that fear is not > the primary instinct and driver of our action needs to have > his "head examined" just like President Babrak Obama told > about Osama bin Laden. We do not try to sell a tivoli for > children but sell something smelly and very unpleasant that > involves lots of cost, sacrifice (and opportunity cost) as > money to be spent elsewhere needs to go into climate action. > Less breaks to faraway lands by plane, less flying, less > driving and more queues in buses and time spent in rain on bus > stops or on bicycles, or insulating homes. > > > > Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:49:30 +0100 > > From: christopher_s...@lineone.net > > Subject: Re: Actic Council meeting on Thursday > > To: crisis-fo...@jiscmail.ac.uk > > > > > > > > > Though the research indicates people > do not respond positively to fear messages, but instead > become fatalistic. I personally would advocate agitating > for the development of a revolutionary consciousness > which allows people to properly understand and identify > the systemic causes of our predicament, and thus regain > the nobility that is our birthright rather than cowering > in fear and letting politicians, experts and business > leaders define our collective future. > > > > From: Discussion list for > the Crisis Forum [mailto:crisis-fo...@jiscmail.ac.uk] > On Behalf Of Veli Albert Kallio > > Sent: 11 May 2011 13:43 > > To: crisis-fo...@jiscmail.ac.uk > > Subject: Re: Actic Council meeting on > Thursday > > > > > > > > I think we > all would be better off if we could persuade that there > is an emergency. The businessmen say now that there is > no emergency. The next day they say there is an > emergency, nothing can and should be done, let the > nature to take its own course. It is fatalistic. > > > > The science community has not made its case clear enough > to the general public and politicians that there is an > urgency, let alone emergency as per the risk of climate > change from anthorpogenic emissions. Instead more forest > will be felled down. > > > > There is always an urgency of economic growth and > emergency economics to cut down public spending > including the cutbacks on renewable energy investments > such as the UK Green Bank to fund switchover to > renewable energy. Now offshore wind is deemed too > expensive and it is supposed to be switchover to nuclear > energy. Meanwhile, the Third World is told to curtail > emissions and in case of Iran to close down its nuclear > energy programme (without increasing carbon dioxide > emissions). Supposedly to complete with the West with > solar panel based electricity (they have not too good > winds there anyway comparable to the North Atlantic or > Scotland here). > > > > Once there is a clarity what the West tells others to do > and is doing itself, then there is chances to get > something done. Words without action is just drifting > into crisis just like Winston Churchill said in 1936. > But here we are not selling bombs but wind turbines to > power us. > > > > Geoengineering trails renewable energy and emissions > cuts. Carbon trading is seen as modern sale of sins, in > fashion of Peter's Pence, medieval penances to buy good > conscience with money - without repentance. > > > > We need several good front riders of fear that can make > people to understand the need for climate actions. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Albert > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > --- > > > > On 10/05/2011 16:07, John Nissen wrote: > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > Thanks for pointing out my error. The reference to > article mentioning Arctic council should have been: > > http://planetark.org/wen/61906 > [corrected below] > > > > Albert has just emailed to say he'll pass on my > message to the Arctic Council meeting. > > > > The link I gave you about food was from the same > World Environment News email service that I > subscribe to (free), coming from Australia. It was > one of a number of interesting news items. The > price of food is already being affected by climate > change - according to a study reported in Science: > > > > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/05/04/science.1204531 > > > > > As global warming accelerates, even without the > methane, it will be increasing difficult for farmers > to adjust, and prices of food are bound to > increase. This will start hitting people in the > pocket even in rich countries. And methane would > make it far worse. A potential economic impact > could make politicians sit up. -- 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.
