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 concern of the workshop is to avoid a lowest common denominator outcome. The policy brief you mention could be very important.
Josh On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:38 AM, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote: > ** > > Hi Joshua, > > Thanks for your warning about acceptability of our workshop output. You > may not have read the opening of our agenda. There's no mention of > catastrophe or disaster, just a few telling figures and the prospect of > "runaway global warming" with "many metres of sea level rise". (BTW, I'd be > grateful if anybody can improve the figures.) > > [quote] > > Agenda for Arctic methane workshop, Chiswick, 15-16 October > > *Considerations:* > > - Arctic warming is much faster than global warming, and the warming is > accelerating > - Warming is driven by currents from the Atlantic and the albedo effect > - The extra heat flux, which is warming the Arctic with respect to its > pre-industrial temperature, is currently of the order of one petawatt > - September sea ice volume trend is to zero in 2015, by which time the > heat flux could be of the order of two petawatts, ignoring increased > methane > emissions > - Around 1600 Gt carbon is held in terrestrial permafrost > - Around 30% of this permafrost could thaw by 2050, producing mainly > methane > - Methane being a potent greenhouse gas, the corresponding global > forcing could rise to over 9 Watts/m², compared to current net forcing of > 1.6 Watts/m² > - Under shallow seas there is around 500 Gt carbon in sub-sea > permafrost, 1000 Gt methane as methane hydrate and 700 Gt methane as free > gas > - Up to 50 Gt of this methane could be released “at any time” (e.g. by > an earthquake), increasing atmospheric concentration by up to 11 times > - The global forcing from such a pulse could rise to around 9 Watts/m² > over the course of a single year and then fall only slowly > - Such forcing could send global warming over 2 degrees C in a decade > - Such forcing would also lead to further Arctic methane release in a > positive feedback loop, with the prospect of runaway global warming, > disintegration of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and many metres of sea > level rise > > > *The objectives of the workshop* are to: > > - ascertain the scale of the methane excursion threat and probability > over time; > - ascertain the scale of the local engineering and regional > (geo)engineering required to prevent a significant methane excursion; > - propose a set of techniques which could meet these requirements; > - propose techniques to capture methane in the event of an excursion; > - decide on priorities for trials and deployment of key technologies; > - agree a plan for preparations and pilot trials according to these > priorities; > - agree an outline report to AGU in December. > > > [end quote] > > The last objective may have gone, since I am not able to attend the AGU. > The other objectives constitute the production of a proposal, probably in > the form of parallel trials of different techniques, setting the scene for > full deployment, as early as conceivably possible - I'm suggesting spring > 2013. > > Under each of the considerations, one could mention the "experts" who have > underestimated the scale of problems: of Arctic warming, speed of sea ice > retreat, effect of sea ice retreat, volume of methane, effect of methane, > etc. > > I think the most startling evidence concerns: > > (1) the speed of sea ice retreat, where PIOMAS model now suggests September > ice free by 2015 and six months ice free by 2020 or 2011 [1] > > (2) the quantity of methane in critical condition in the East Siberian > Arctic Shelf area, where Shakhova et al reckon that ~50 Gt of methane could > be released "at any time" [2]. If that happened over a year, a decade, or > several decades, it would still be disasterous, because short life-time of > methane no longer applies, see Isaksen. [3]. > > The situation looks very bleak until you see what can be done about it. > But it will require a war effort to retreive the situation. That needs to > be driven home. > > Cheers, > > John > > P.S. I am also producing a "brief" for politicians about the workshop. > > [1] > http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/piomas-september-2011-volume-record-lower-still.html > > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release > > [3] > http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf > > --- > > On 13/10/2011 13:51, Joshua Horton wrote: > > I'd suggest a statement and/or press release, and I think the following > points would be important: > > - To get traction, the conference needs to be viewed as responsible, > not alarmist. Methane feedback scenarios should be presented in terms of > likelihood and probability. Proposed remediation should be framed in terms > of risk management and contingency planning. Any document should be > sparing > with words such as "disaster" and "catastrophe." > - Innoculate against claims of alarmism by referencing the repeated > pattern of establishment science underestimating speed and scale of climate > change, e.g., IPCC and sea ice. Note that the significant division within > the scientific community is about the pace of change rather than whether > change is occurring. Given the history of predictions coming up short, the > safer, more responsible position is to err on the side of caution and base > action on negative scenarios. > - Tie conference proceedings directly to evidence on the ground, such > as observations described in the Voice of Russia piece. > > I can help with a press release, but if you're planning an official > statement that should take priority and drive any PR. > > Josh > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:49 PM, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> The quotes are lots of bits of reassurance without any foundation. This >> venting of methane is very bad news. Workshop success is vital. How to >> make a political impact with the workshop output? Josh or Graham might have >> an idea. Prepare a statement to get agreed at the workshop?? >> >> Must go, as so late... >> >> John >> >> -- >> >> On 12/10/2011 19:36, PR CARTER wrote: >> >> Hi John I am not sure if you get this. >> >> I sent it out yesterday and I have a UK and a US env journalist on it. >> >> There is no coverage on it right now- only Voice of Russia >> >> http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/28/56886547.html >> >> Please comment on the quotes >> >> Sam, can you give and ?get a response(s) to this for news coverage. >> >> 1. Russia's Oil and gas industry >> >> 2. WWF >> >> Peter >> >> > -- 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.
