Methane

[biffvernon]

another milestone has been reached that looks even more threatening than the above one. On the morning of June 16, 2013, methane levels reached an average mean of 1800 parts per billion (ppb). This is 1100 ppb higher than pre-industrial peak levels.

http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2013/ ... 0-ppb.html

[PS_RalphW]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ate-change

Rapid thawing of the Arctic could trigger a catastrophic "economic timebomb" which would cost trillions of dollars and undermine the global financial system, say a group of economists and polar scientists.

The emphasis is on money, but '$60T damage to the global economy' can only mean population crash in our current economic system.

This is Cambridge scientists published in Nature predicting massice methane releases from melting permafrost and destabilised methane hydrates, and yet the Graudian does not even allow comments on the piece.

[RenewableCandy]

That's because it'd end up being a trollfest of eejits saying it's all bunk. Anyway, the article speaks for itself: sometimes things are better without comments.

[Billhook]

Nafeez Ahmed now has a post up of an interview with Wadhams - who is very blunt, and delightfully critical of the modellers who misled the IPCC AR4 on which Copenhagen was negotiated.

Shills are converging, but doing rather badly thus far. This one is worth the time supporting.

Regards,

Lewis

[woodburner]

This shows the source of the methane.

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2013/07/

[Billhook]

From the Guardian article by Nafeez Ahmed:
"A new paper in the journal Nature argues that the release of a 50 Gigatonne (Gt) methane pulse from thawing Arctic permafrost could destabilise the climate system and trigger costs as high as the value of the entire world's GDP. The East Siberian Arctic Shelf's (ESAS) reservoir of methane gas hydrates could be released slowly over 50 years or "catastrophically fast" in a matter of decades – if not even one decade – the researchers said."

The paper is an unusual collaboration between a polar scientist and two professors of economics. The scientist is of exceptional standing in his field, being Prof Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge University.

The goal of putting the threat in economic terms is a worthy tactic for attracting interest and political action, but I suspect that a simpler metric may be still more efficient in this regard, namely describing the projected emissions in CO2e terms (CO2 equivalent) and then translating them into multiples of some nation's annual CO2 output. The threat could then be described as, for example, "Three new China's-worth of annual CO2 output," which would impact the politics of every nation with a reduction target.

If the methane output were at the lowest end of the paper's projection at just 1.0Gt /yr, then over the crucial 20yr time horizon it would have a CO2e of 105Gts. China's current output is around 10Gts/yr, so this would be about 10.5 new China's-worth, and with US output around 5.8Gts it would be around 18 new America's-worth of annual CO2 output. Either way, it would increase global CO2e output roughly four-fold.

The really awkward parts of this report are that it explains why such sea-bed methane emissions are liable to begin before 2020 (due to Arctic sea-ice loss in summer) and that 1.0Gt /yr of methane output is at the lowest end of the projection.

With a rather radical Emissions Control treaty of getting to near-zero output by 2050, with its ending of the cooling Fossil Sulphate Parasol unveiling an extra 110% (+/-30%) of realized warming (Hansen et al), and with its ~30yr timelag to take full effect in the 2080s (due to ocean thermal inertia)
it has to be patently 'ucking obvious to any vaguely sentient person that an Emissions Control treaty is entirely necessary but grossly insufficient to resolve the predicament we face.

Not wishing to aid those who prefer to wallow in defeatism, I would add that we are perfectly capable of resolving the problem by the addition of the necessary and sufficient Albedo Restoration and Carbon Recovery protocols to the treaty. What is in question is not the technical ability but the popular will to insist that these measures are employed ASAP before the feedbacks accelerate beyond the possibility of control - and that is up to each and every individual.

Regards,

Lewis

[biffvernon]

I suspect that a simpler metric may be still more efficient in this regard, namely describing the projected emissions in CO2e terms (CO2 equivalent) and then translating them into multiples of some nation's annual CO2 output. The threat could then be described as, for example, "Three new China's-worth of annual CO2 output," which would impact the politics of every nation with a reduction target.

There's a difficulty with that approach in as much as CO2 and methane act in rather different way, methane being a more powerful greenhouse gas but less long-lived. Those who care about the next few decades would but weight on methane while those concerned more about the next few centuries care more for CO2.

[Little John]

I suspect that a simpler metric may be still more efficient in this regard, namely describing the projected emissions in CO2e terms (CO2 equivalent) and then translating them into multiples of some nation's annual CO2 output. The threat could then be described as, for example, "Three new China's-worth of annual CO2 output," which would impact the politics of every nation with a reduction target.

There's a difficulty with that approach in as much as CO2 and methane act in rather different way, methane being a more powerful greenhouse gas but less long-lived. Those who care about the next few decades would but weight on methane while those concerned more about the next few centuries care more for CO2.

Methane may have a shorter life in the atmosphere, but its greenhouse effects are so powerful that they could cause a runaway greenhouse process whereby they significantly heat up the atmosphere in a very short period of time, in turn causing the release of more methane, in turn accelerating the process of climate warming, in turn releasing more methane in an unstoppable viscous circle.

Methane clathrates release should be causing us massive concern both long and short term.

[woodburner]

Salvation!!!! No need to do anything now, we can carry on with BAU, party, fly wherever you want........

If the methane output were at the lowest end of the paper's projection at just 1.0Gt /yr, then over the crucial 20yr time horizon it would have a CO2e of 105Gts. China's current output is around 10Gts/yr, so this would be about 10.5 new China's-worth, and with US output around 5.8Gts it would be around 18 new America's-worth of annual CO2 output. Either way, it would increase global CO2e output roughly four-fold.

With that effect nothing we do in the UK will have any measurable effect, so Biff can forget his wind turbines, Ken can stop lagging, we can have steam engines back on the railways, and we can frack till we drop ('cos we will).

[biffvernon]

Every little helps.

[woodburner]

Every little helps.

The slogan of a greedy supermarket. The irony.

[Billhook]

I suspect that a simpler metric may be still more efficient in this regard, namely describing the projected emissions in CO2e terms (CO2 equivalent) and then translating them into multiples of some nation's annual CO2 output. The threat could then be described as, for example, "Three new China's-worth of annual CO2 output," which would impact the politics of every nation with a reduction target.

There's a difficulty with that approach in as much as CO2 and methane act in rather different way, methane being a more powerful greenhouse gas but less long-lived. Those who care about the next few decades would but weight on methane while those concerned more about the next few centuries care more for CO2.

If so then the latter are irrational in their analysis.

If the ESAS methane bank were to release at just 1.0Gt /yr,
giving the equivalent of a four-old rise of anthro-CO2 output,
and if for some miraculous reason that rate remained steady so that 50Gts CH4 stock was released over 50 yrs,
then the impact would rapidly be transformative of climate - ending any possibility of agriculture,
and it would also be transformative of the acceleration of the six other interactive mega-feedbacks,
several of which each have the potential to dwarf present anthro-CO2 output.

What happened in "the next few centuries" would no longer be of any concern to humans.

Regards,

Lewis

[Billhook]

Salvation!!!! No need to do anything now, we can carry on with BAU, party, fly wherever you want........

If the methane output were at the lowest end of the paper's projection at just 1.0Gt /yr, then over the crucial 20yr time horizon it would have a CO2e of 105Gts. China's current output is around 10Gts/yr, so this would be about 10.5 new China's-worth, and with US output around 5.8Gts it would be around 18 new America's-worth of annual CO2 output. Either way, it would increase global CO2e output roughly four-fold.

With that effect nothing we do in the UK will have any measurable effect, so Biff can forget his wind turbines, Ken can stop lagging, we can have steam engines back on the railways, and we can frack till we drop ('cos we will).

Your defeatism does you no credit, and does our prospects for commensurate collective action more harm than brazen denialism.

You are dead wrong in pretending that "nothing we do in the UK will have any measurable effect".

You may not have noticed that this research paper uses the economic model developed for Prof. Stern's seminal report
that has shifted Davos opinion, and World Bank, IMF, IEA, and others into immediate action
- and he is British -
and Professor Wadhams, the lead author of this report, whose work has raised global understanding of the Arctic threat over the decades
- is also British -
and the originator and lead researcher of the most promising option for the necessary Albedo Restoration to control both the warming
and the feedbacks, known as Cloud Brightening, is Professor Stephen Salter
who is also British.

I think you don't have a clue what you can do until you try.

Regards,

Lewis

[woodburner]

By that token, your posting of the information which I quoted does you no credit.

Please explain how you propose to offset the effect of such a large methane release. A release which is possibly causing a large temperture increase over the arctic.

Please also how you deal with Gideon Osbourne and his support for all things ecologically destructive. Fracking has it's planning procedures neutralised, more runways at major airports, HS2 (it is irrelevant whether this is EU driven or not G. Osbourne is British and should be working for Britain and not just it's destruction).

PS you might have noticed the smilies in my post, if not, Specsavers would be a useful point of call.

[Billhook]

Woodburner -

I've no means of telling what three 'smileys' are intended to convey.

Regarding commensurate action, a para of my post above may have escaped your attention:
"Not wishing to aid those who prefer to wallow in defeatism, I would add that we are perfectly capable of resolving the problem by the addition of the necessary and sufficient Albedo Restoration and Carbon Recovery protocols to the treaty. What is in question is not the technical ability but the popular will to insist that these measures are employed ASAP before the feedbacks accelerate beyond the possibility of control - and that is up to each and every individual. "

Regarding the runt Osborne, while I don't advocate capital punishment, if he had the fortune to be splatted by a falling tree while out slaughtering pheasants, I guess it would seem to many like a remarkable example of poetic justice. Should any patriot be fed up with waiting for such luck and decide to shoot him instead, I hope they'd have the wisdom to go for an arse shot while he is being filmed - this would make him a laughing stock and end the plausibility of his policies.

Regards,

Lewis