Just one small point since I have looked at Polar Amplification.
"Warming is driven by currents from the Atlantic and the albedo
effect"-second dot below
These may be extra exacerbating factors but I think the basic polar
amplification is something to do with global heat/weather flows and
applies just as much to the Antarctic -and is understood by climate
scientists and climate models. The main part of the Antarctic wont
melt because it is so high but the Antarctic peninsular is almost as
great a concern in terms of sea level as Greenland. I know I have sent
my one pager several times previously but it is well referenced so I
attach it again.
Have a good weekend
john gorman
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Joshua Horton <mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com>
*To:* John Nissen <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk>
*Cc:* PR CARTER <mailto:petercarte...@shaw.ca> ; Sam Carana
<mailto:sam.car...@gmail.com> ; Graham Innes
<mailto:i...@omega-institute.org> ; Andrew Lockley
<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com> ; Geoengineering
<mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> ; Stephen Salter
<mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk> ; Jon Egill Kristjansson
<mailto:jeg...@geo.uio.no> ; Mike MacCracken
<mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net> ; Albert Kallio
<mailto:albert_kal...@hotmail.com> ; Leonid Yurganov
<mailto:yurga...@umbc.edu>
*Sent:* Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:18 PM
*Subject:* [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: How to make most impact
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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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.
--
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.
