Hi, Josh – I think one is seeing what you’d expect to be able to see: rather large perturbations from background levels right around large plumes, by as much as ~100ppb, I believe, and then progressively smaller deviations from background when considering larger regions, with the whole arctic sea quite dependably read by NCAR’s HIPPO as now having a (small) unexpected elevation from annually averaged background level (already a couple of years old now, I believe). Although it's a well- mixed & "LL" GHG, it's never going to be a simple story getting good readings of levels everywhere, and getting changed readings from identical locations as you suggest, while of interest, wouldn't necessarily tell you what you want, either, since different taliks could be emitting at different rates sporadically, I believe, meaning the point emergences of densest emissions could be a shifting target.
In general, I think that depending too much upon top-down views of this situation could, potentially, lead to dangerously false conclusions, and that feeling complacency because of the smallness of the deviation over larger areas is possibly unwise. Let me jump to something seemingly unrelated to try to demonstrate what I have in mind: you know Lovelock’s metaphor of the earth being something like a camel (i.e., seeing the pleistocene swings as 'bi-modality'), or his simple model in which sensitivity can act 'more like a variable than a constant'? Imagine for a moment that methane acts as the primary near- term gear-shifter of climate at multiple scales/levels, not just as a follower of CO2, nor as the occasional “gun” that randomly goes off and blasts away the current climate system. So, as the 'gear-shifter', at certain thresholds of heating, wetlands start drying at certain latitudes, with the drying outpacing increased rainfall elsewhere, thus lowering emissions on balance, while at the same time submarine hydrates would begin to destabilize, and some permafrost and thermokarst emissions would start to pick up, etc. Together these changes of opposite sign, balancing themselves out, would create a false temporary stasis, although an important shifting of regime is going on. It’s fine to say that most emissions are still coming now from the subtropics (i.e., Nisbet's quote), but might there be an invisible shifting of different methane emission sources WITHIN the arctic system going on that we haven’t pieced out, making something look like stasis or a lull, or finally now just a minor perturbation upwards, that is actually the system’s quiet preparation for a giant shift? Think of all the mystery about methane emissions in the 1990s going ‘flat’: probably wetlands go down, generally, but are gradually replaced by other methane emissions from much larger stores. This kind of thing would make total system behavior look something like what Lovelock is talking about. Perhaps none of that is actually what’s going on, but it gives a scenario, anyhow, in which a top-down view of the total global methane budget, or even of the total arctic methane budget, wouldn’t alone necessarily be a useful indicator at all of the seriousness of what is going on. It certainly is indisputable that hydrate release could become devastating, and the leading experts keep finding larger and larger plumes as they keep looking - simply put, if those are caused by the contemporary local conditions, then that's a feedback loop, and then their increase constitutes grounds for considering it the beginnings of a potential runaway situation. The kind of thing I was proposing could hardly create some "frankenclimate," and is no different than what is allowed to go on all over the planet all the time. Since it is relatively harmless, and the fear is of something catastrophic, it seems like an obvious sense of prudence to act - and sooner rather than later. Nathan On Dec 18, 6:30 pm, Josh Horton <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nathan, John, et al., > > One aspect of the methane issue bothers me in particular: is there > evidence indicating a significant increase in the rate of methane > release in the ESAS over the past decade? Anecdotal evidence from the > most recent Russian expedition suggests an increased rate of release, > but hard data will not be available until next spring. Such data may > have been included in the recent Shakhova et al. AGU poster, but so > far I have been unable to obtain it. > > Were comparable measurements taken at identical locations in 2003-2008 > (basis for the initial findings) and in 2011 (basis for recent > Semiletov comments)? Was there a significant increase in the volume > of methane released at these locations over these periods? If so, is > such an increase inconsistent with the Dmitrenko thaw hypothesis > (noted by Andy Revkin)? Until we have answers to these questions, I > hesitate to jump to any conclusions. Maybe you have information I > have overlooked? > > Josh Horton > joshuahorton...@gmail.comhttp://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ > > On Dec 18, 4:06 pm, Nathan Currier <natcurr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, John & list – > > > Until now, my view has generally been that we should try like crazy to > > get > > some rapid SLCF declines, by promoting a separate near-term-focused > > emissions strategy, > > in an attempt to blunt accelerating arctic methane emissions, while at > > the same time > > researching geoengineering techniques, which would probably still be > > needed at some point later > > down the road. The hope was that the need could be pushed a few > > decades off, if a strong > > CH4/BC program – something considerably stronger than the GMF or the > > GMI – > > were started up soon enough. > > > But I am now coming more and more to your position, John – I now think > > that a local-scale > > intervention should probably be pursued as quickly as possible. I > > still believe that everyone > > interested in the goals of this list should also be thinking about how > > SLCF reduction can > > somehow be expedited, since it is ultimately the cheapest, safest -RF > > there is, in that every > > dollar spent on it goes at the same time both to solving our long-term > > climate problem > > (and is thus in any case essential), and also mitigates the immediate > > “feedback crisis” > > we are increasingly in, to use Wasdell’s apt term. > > > But I would have to agree that it is now becoming more and more > > rational to want to > > act right away, albeit on a local scale. Moreover, those promoting the > > views of > > ‘nay-sayer’ scientists on ESAS dangers, like Andy Revkin at the NYT, > > are starting > > to look less and less rational, almost desperate, and reading his post > > of a few days ago, > > linked below, in fact only convinced me that his attitude is really no > > longer tenable. > > >http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arc... > > > A year and a half earlier, Revkin had a post of much the same gist: > > >http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/the-heat-over-bubbling-a... > > > I’m not sure how Ed Dlugokensky and Euan Nisbet really feel about > > being used to promote complacency > > about this now, as Euan Nisbet has long been concerned about it > > (although very wary of any geoengineering), > > and I gather from powerpoints of Dlugokensky I have seen that he > > really is, too. > > > To summarize, the key justifications for this “don’t worry about it” > > attitude on ESAS methane emissions have > > been and still are: > > > 1. the methane plumes might not be new, merely newly observed. > > > 2. these emissions still count for but a small fraction of the global > > methane budget. > > > 3. the driver of these emissions is actually not contemporary warming, > > but adjustment of the underlying > > hydrate stability zone to the re-submergence of the shelf ~8,000/ya. > > > First, 2. brings pretty cold comfort, like telling someone that a > > tumor growing in them is still > > but a tiny fraction of their body weight. It’s almost irrelevant. If > > they intend to 'wait and see' until arctic methane > > emissions perhaps ARE a substantial fraction of all global natural > > emissions, they would clearly be waiting too long. > > The relevant questions are whether the tumor is growing, how fast it > > is growing, and what is driving the growth. > > > Let’s say highly organized observations are only a half-decade old in > > the area. Initially, we were in a black hole > > of ignorance, so we say it was then 50/50 whether the tumor was > > cancerous. But the more we keep finding > > larger plumes, the less likely it becomes that a sequential growth of > > what we are finding is mere > > chance, based on randomly finding things, and the more likely it > > becomes that this sequential growth > > reflects current changes based on current conditions. Leading on-the- > > ground researchers seem to keep > > finding larger plumes. It's no longer 50/50. > > > Moreover, and most significantly, the reassuring mechanism proposed to > > explain such emissions doesn’t > > really seem to fit well with what we see, because if there is an > > emerging pattern of finding the biggest hotspots > > around river mouths, that certainly seems to point to a response to > > contemporary conditions and seems > > utterly unrelated to the end of ice age drivers proposed, isn't that > > correct? Have Dlogokensky, Nisbet or others addressed > > why these major plumes seem to be placed mostly where current > > conditions are changing most rapidly? > > > Thus, I think that John is right. Immediate action is now becoming > > more and more in order. However, I would > > add this caveat: my guess is that the whole direction of SRM as > > normally conceived – stratospheric sulfur > > injections, that is – is quite a non-starter, if you really want > > immediate action. Rather, I think that you should > > pay great attention to what Mike MacCracken has occasionally mentioned > > recently, re the possible > > use of tropospheric aerosols instead. Start from what would is doable > > and practical in our > > socio-political-economic reality – then let’s see how much climate > > protection we can get from that. > > > It is quite acceptable to emit SO2 in our world – we still emit ~8Tg/ > > yr in the US, and globally > > some 60Tg/yr, I believe. No one can possibly scream that it will > > create a “Franken-climate” to add, > > let’s say, ~5% to current global emissions, and indeed projected > > declines could offset any planned > > additions, so it really resolves down to a familiar local pollution > > issue. Thus, emitting ~3Tg/yr SO2 > > shouldn’t get “Franken-climate” types too excited. It might not be the > > most efficient way to create a –RF, > > but efficiency should not be primary. Then, let’s take the air quality > > around coal plants in the worst > > parts of China, and say that we’ll set our local loading limit > > somewhat lower than that. Then, the > > questions are, if you had some ships going around emitting SO2 in the > > region of the mouth of > > the Lena and other known hotspots for some months of each year, at > > what rate would it need to > > be released, over exactly how long a period, keeping local > > concentrations within this limit, and > > what –RF would that provide to the said region? Then, how many ships > > would this demand, at > > what total cost? > > > The Russians don’t have so much “democracy” to make doing things > > impossible like here, > > but Wiki leaks has shown that they really do have the interests of > > those who want to see the area melt > > away for their future gains. But last year the Russians also lost a > > huge amount from their fires, their > > CO poisoning deaths, loss of grain, etc, Medvedev made some very > > strong comments about warming, and > > now with the protests, the political framework there might be shifting > > enough to get something through? > > Perhaps a letter could be put to Semilitov, Shakhova, etc, to be given > > to the Russian Academy of Sciences, > > requesting the Russian government start an experimental program? Maybe > > Bill Gates and others outside > > Russia could even help fund it if needed? > > > Btw, another thing about using tropospheric injection. There might be > > a side-benefit I haven't seen discussed here > > before: in the work of Eileen Matthews at NASA, it was observed that > > acid rain strongly suppresses methanogenesis. > > Thus, a co-benefit to the sulfur pollution might be a decreasing of > > thermokarst lake emissions in the immediately surrounding areas. > > > cheers, Nathan > > > On Dec 17, 5:09 pm, John Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > I am chair of the recently formed Arctic Methane Emergency Group and we > > > launched our report in the form of a brochure at the AGU last week [1], as > > > reported in the Independent [2] and New Scientist [3]. The Russians > > > researching the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) are well aware of the > > > river warming effect, particularly around the River Lena area. We have > > > considered various possibilities for reducing the warming effect of the > > > rivers, including river diversion to reduce the flow and ice thickening to > > > reduce the summer warming. But it seems that SRM geoengineering is the > > > most promising for rapid implementation and to cover the whole river > > > catchment area during spring and summer. Cloud removal (to increase > > > outgoing thermal radiation into space) could be used in autumn and winter, > > > if the technology is developed quickly. David Mitchell is looking into > > > this. > > > > If you have any other ideas, let me know! There are signs of increasing > > > marine methane emissions appearing in the atmospheric record at the Barrow > > > and Svalbard monitoring stations. If the Arctic is not cooled quickly, > > > the > > > sea ice will disappear and methane emissions escalate. > > > > Cheers, > > > > John > > > > P.S. On the last page of the brochure, see flip book in [1], you can see > > > sea surface temperature superimposed on geomorphology - and indeed some of > > > the highest temperatures are where rivers flow into the > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
