Saturday, February 25, 2012
Arctic radiation animation
Below a part-image from www.seaice.dk and originating from the NOAA Polar Orbiter satellite's measurements of radiated heat, which provides pictures of the sea ice, as well as water vapor.
 |
| December 1, 2011, part-image from www.seaice.dk and originating from NOAA Polar Orbiter |
Large red areas show up end 2011 (particularly from November 25 till December 6) off the coast of Siberia, matching up with the dates mentioned in the earlier post Abrupt release of methane in the Arctic in late 2011.
Since methane has a very high immediate greenhouse effect, the heat detected on the images could well originate from methane releases. Furthermore, one of the indirect effects of methane releases is production of water vapor, which also has a strong greenhouse effect. Therefore, the red areas could well be seen as indications of methane releases.
Matching images like this minute by minute with AIRS images of methane could give a valuable insight in the contribution of methane to warming in the Arctic.
Below is the animation. Click on Read more if you don't see it. Note that this is a 17.7 MB file. It may take some time for the animation to fully load.
Note that this is a 17.7 MB file. It may take some time for the animation to fully load.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Temperature anomalies continue in the Arctic
Much of the Arctic is showing huge temperature anomalies at the moment. The image below shows the anomalies for February 24, 2012.
Locations in the Arctic have been showing temperature anomalies of over 20 degrees Celsius since late 2011.
As the above image illustrates, the anomalies are centered around the 60 degrees East longitude, and they are most prominent between latitudes 75 North and 80 North, i.e. the area between Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land, as shown on the map below.
Not surprisingly, there's little sea ice in the area. The image below shows the sea ice as at January 15, 2012.
The animated image below, from U.S. Naval Research Lab showing the sea ice's thickness in February 2012, illustrates the retreat of the sea ice between Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land in February 2012.
The animation also illustrates that much of the sea ice is moving along with the sea current, flowing out of the Arctic Ocean along the edges of Greenland into the Atlantic Ocean. Click on Read more if you don't see the animation. The animation is a 800 kb file that may take some time to fully load.
Click on image or go to U.S. Naval Research Lab for updated animationRelated posts:
Methane venting in the Arctic
Temperature anomalies over 20 degrees
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Protecting the Arctic
 |
| U.K. Environmental Audit Committee, hearing February 21, 2012 |
 |
| Peter Wadhams (left) and John Nissen (right) |
The video below starts with a presentation by Professor Tim Lenton, University of Exeter, who is not a member of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group. The video further features Professor Peter Wadhams, University of Cambridge, and John Nissen, Chair, Arctic Methane Emergency Group.
Click on Read More if you don't see the video (it may take some time for the video to start), the transcript and written submission below.
AMEG Submission to U.K. Environment Audit Committee, for hearing on 21st February 2012
Oral presentation to 'Protecting the Arctic'
By John Nissen, AMEG Chair
1. Introduction
“Thank you, Chair, for extending this opportunity to present evidence on behalf of the Arctic Methane Emergency Working Group - a collaboration of scientists, engineers and communicators.
As you have just heard from my colleague Professor Wadhams – and is stated in our written submission – the imminent collapse of Arctic sea ice poses a new emergency situation, which threatens an irreversible transition towards abrupt and catastrophic climate change – a point of no return which must be avoided at all costs. We consider this a planetary emergency – a matter of national and international security of the highest order.
Professor Wadhams has clearly indicated the devastating consequences that will follow a collapse of sea ice, in terms of ocean circulation, weather patterns, flood and food supply. I am here to address the issue of methane, as this will escalate events if not addressed by similar means: cooling the Arctic.
2. Some facts about methane
Methane is the main constituent of natural gas. As a GHG, methane is 72 times more potent than C02 over the first 20 years, weight for weight.
The Arctic has the potential to release a staggering amount of methane – triple the weight of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. Because of its potency as a greenhouse gas, a release of just 1% of this methane – 35 billion tons - would triple the current rate of global warming.
3. What is happening?
The scenario we describe in our written submission and brochure is one of simple common sense: this vast quantity of methane is contained in and by the ice, as the ice thaws the methane is released.
About half of the Arctic methane is held in or by ice below the seabed. This methane appears to be in a critical condition. As the sea ice disappears, the whole Arctic Ocean is heating more rapidly, leading to release of methane in ever larger quantities. Because of its greenhouse effect, this methane can then cause global warming to escalate out of control. Then it's difficult to imagine how civilisation could survive beyond a few decades.
The plausibility of such devastating methane release has long been recognised, although the sheer speed of events now evident has taken everybody by surprise and disbelief.
The emerging evidence indicates the conditions are developing to bring this nightmare scenario into reality. As a result of the sea ice retreating, the Arctic is now warming at least 4 times faster than other parts of the world, and with seabed temperatures rising as much as 3C, methane is being released in increasingly large quantities.
4. ESAS methane instability
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is the largest continental shelf area on the planet and contains most of the Arctic Ocean’s methane.
Ongoing expeditions have reported increasing instability in this shallow area of the Arctic, with plumes of methane a kilometre wide erupting from the ocean floor and reaching the surface. The instability of methane over the whole region is such that a sudden release of 50 billion tons is possible at any time. That would cause global warming to speed up by four or five times, overwhelming current international efforts to keep global warming within the so-called “safe” limit of 2 degrees.
The prospect of drilling being allowed here is terrifying. Note that unstable sub-sea methane was the cause of the Deepwater disaster.
We must heed these clear signals that vast undersea methane stores are becoming unstable in the Arctic.
5. Emergency action to avoid passing point of no return
We are close to a point of no return – no going back – a point where we have escalating temperatures in the Arctic and escalating release of methane, with global warming spiralling upward, out of control, while the prospects of our own survival spiral downwards.
What can be done? We have the expertise, we have technological know-how, and we have the inherent capability to confront a threat of this magnitude. All we need is the political leadership – the kind of leadership that Churchill showed in WW2. Instead of a human enemy we face ever increasing forces of nature turned against us.
We have have to take immediate and drastic action - as Professor Wadhams says: next September could see the Arctic virtually sea ice free - at which point the consequences will start to move out of our control.
Our window of opportunity has to be measured in months rather than years.
If we want to protect the Arctic we need to cool it – and quickly.
This matter must be raised immediately at the highest level in government.
Written submission AMEG
Note that this written submission will be presented orally by two people: Professor Peter Wadhams focusing on sea ice retreat and John Nissen dealing with methane and required actions.
'Protecting the Arctic'
This is a submission on behalf of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) [1], which includes among its founding members Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, Cambridge; Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design, Edinburgh; and Brian Orr, PhD, former Principal Science Officer at the UK DoE (as was).
Most geoscientists like to separate policy from science - so they will state what is happening to the Earth System but not suggest the kind of interventions that could prevent the situation from gradually deteriorating. Especially the subject of the deliberate intervention known as geoengineering has been taboo until very recently, and it is still treated with great suspicion. However this perception of gradual deterioration, where the timescale is over decades or longer, has totally changed with the discovery of both the extraordinarily rapid decline of sea ice and the possibility of sudden discharge of gigatons of the potent greenhouse gas, methane, from sediments at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. (Methane is the main constituent of natural gas.)
AMEG was formed from a group of scientists, engineers and communicators, to alert the world to the dangers that have to be faced, and the need for immediate and drastic action to reduce the risk of passing a point of no return with the sea ice – a point after which the Arctic Ocean would become free of sea ice for much or all of the year without any possibility of restorative intervention. Following such a decline of sea ice, the Arctic would continue warming but at a much greater rate than hitherto, causing an escalation of methane emissions from both marine and terrestrial sources and risking runaway (abrupt) global warming.
Passing such a point of no return would be catastrophic for the whole of humanity, as, inexorably, global temperatures would spiral upwards and food production downwards.
Therefore we consider our present situation is extremely dangerous and warrants the designation of "planetary emergency".
We see only one way to avoid passing this point of no return, which is to intervene by cooling the Arctic, principally by using geoengineering techniques starting immediately.
We now consider the imminence of sea ice collapse and the consequences in more detail.
Sea Ice Retreat
No doubt the Committee would support the precautionary principle that, if there is a reasonable likelihood of a catastrophic event occurring, governments should try to take what precautions they can in order to anticipate or mitigate it. There were very complacent consensus statements about the Arctic sea ice from the IPCC in the AR4 report of April 2007, saying the sea ice was very likely to last beyond the end of the century. Furthermore the policy of emissions reduction, to keep within a target global warming of 2 degrees C, has been based on there not being a tipping point of the Arctic sea ice and there not being a significant rise in methane level such as to rival CO2’s climate forcing.
Since the IPCC reported it has become widely accepted that Arctic amplification of global warming is largely due to the albedo “positive feedback” effect of sea ice retreat: the melting of sea ice exposes the water to warming in the sunshine, which leads to further melting in a vicious cycle (no doubt mentioned in Tim Lenton’s submission). Quantification of this affect has only very recently been attempted, in a paper to the 2011 AGU by Hudson [2]. The startling conclusion is that the rate of warming of the Arctic could double or even triple, once the Arctic Ocean is ice-free in September. And it could double again, once the ocean is ice-free for half the year. But the timescale makes this all the more worrying.
The annual average extent of the Arctic sea ice cover has been diminishing since the 1950s. At first this was at a slow rate, some 3% per decade, but since the early 2000s has accelerated at 10% per decade. The retreat is especially rapid during the summer months. It is accompanied by a thinning, which has been shown by measurements from submarines to be a very rapid one, with a reduction of 43% in mean ice thickness between the 1970s and early 2000s. So far the record year for summer ice retreat is 2007, although it was almost matched by 2011. But the inexorable thinning that accompanies the retreat has caused the summer volume of the ice cover to the lowest ever last year, less than 30% of its value 20 years ago [3a]. The trend in volume is such that if one extrapolates the observed rate forward in time, by following an exponential trend line, one obtains a September near-disappearance of the ice by 2015. However, following an equally valid logarithmic trend, one finds that summer 2012 and 2013 are the most likely years for such a collapse [3b]. Thus one has to conclude that, on current best evidence, there is a distinct possibility of a collapse in extent leaving relatively little ice this summer, and a collapse is likely by 2015.
Subsequently the ice-free period begins to stretch over a greater number of months, with 5 months ice-free within about three years according to the extrapolation of trends for different months [3c]. Already the summer retreat is allowing the temperature of the ocean to rise significantly in summer all over the shelf seas, up to 4-5C, and this is liable to continue at an increased rate. The warming is already causing undersea permafrost to thaw and release trapped methane in large plumes, increasing the atmospheric methane load and threatening to accelerate global warming [4]. All these changes are based on observations, not models, so one is forced to consider urgently what response is appropriate. This new emergency situation, which threatens abrupt and catastrophic climate change, cannot be ignored.
Saving the sea ice
The discovery of rapid decline of sea ice and its apparent effect to escalate emissions of methane from ESAS has taken the scientific community completely by surprise. Hitherto attention has been focussed on sea ice extent, but recent evidence shows a collapse in extent could occur this year or in the next few years. Following a collapse in extent, the climate forcing from the “albedo effect” could more than double. And if the Arctic Ocean were to become ice free for six months or more, the climate forcing could double again. And when there is no more ice to melt, the heat flux all goes into heating the water. The possibility of sea ice collapse this summer is why we urge the government to consider what can be done immediately and consider the planning, development and deployment of geoengineering techniques [5] for deployment as soon as possible.
Note that the loss of sea ice would destroy an entire ecosystem and habitat, with severe implications on biodiversity, while also destroying the way of life for indigenous peoples. Thus geoengineering can be seen to have remarkable benefits when used in this context.
Also note that as the Arctic heats, there is increasing instability of jet stream and weather systems, leading to extremes of weather, already being observed.
Successful geoengineering to cool the Arctic should help to stabilise the Greenland ice sheet, slow the glaciers and reduce the risk of metre or more sea level rise, of particular concern to countries with low-lying populated regions.
Methane feedback
While the sea ice has been retreating, there have been growing signs of critical instability of undersea methane in the Arctic Ocean, especially in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) area where vast plumes of methane have been seen bubbling to the surface [4]. Research in this area has been limited, but it appears that emissions have risen dramatically over the past few years, and it is thought that this could be as a result of the water above the seabed reaching a temperature threshold. The exact mechanism for this accelerated methane release is not understood (and there is some controversy over appropriate modelling), however governments must act according to best evidence in a precautionary manner, and take a continued escalation of methane emissions under sea ice retreat as a matter for extreme concern.
Shakhova and Semiletov estimate that 50 gigatonnes of methane are available for immediate release from ESAS [5], and, if this amount were released into the atmosphere, the methane level would rise by eleven or twelve times, causing global warming to rapidly escalate, in turn causing more methane emissions in a feedback loop.
Such an escalation of methane emissions would cause abrupt and catastrophic climate change within a few decades. Even much slower emissions (e.g. 1% of potential methane over 20 years) could put the climate system out of any control for climate change mitigation with catastrophic consequences sooner or later.
We bring your attention to the facts that there is no likelihood of even a reduction in global emissions of CO2 in the foreseeable future; both emissions and concentration of CO2 are increasing at record rates; and the atmospheric methane level has been rising since 2007 after a decade of little change [7]. The most recent evidence suggests that this latest rise could be at least partially due to methane emissions from shallow seas in the Arctic, see below.
Other evidence
In just the past few years the loss of Arctic snow and ice and the associated albedo effect has nearly doubled; Arctic subsea methane hydrate is venting to the atmosphere [8]; permafrost carbon has been found to be double what was previously thought [9]; and large amounts of nitrous oxide are being released from thawing permafrost [10].
The catastrophic risk of global warming leading to very large emissions of methane from large Arctic carbon pools, especially from subsea methane hydrate, is documented in the 2007 IPCC assessment [11].
This situation is documented by the US Investigation of the Magnitudes and Probabilities of Abrupt Climate Transitions (IMPACTS) project [12]. Since this overview was published in 2008 the Arctic situation has deteriorated to the point that we need no more research to confirm the planetary emergency. In particular it had been assumed that Arctic methane hydrate was stable this century and that when hydrate did destabilize by ocean warming it would not vent to the atmosphere. Recent observed findings that methane is venting to the atmosphere disprove these assumptions. On land the Arctic permafrost carbon pool has been found to be double the estimates.
The Arctic is undergoing very rapid and accelerating changes. In combination, these changes imply a strong positive feedback to increased climate warming through increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, decreased albedo, and hydrology and ocean circulation changes (Chapin et al., 2005 [13]; Lawrence and Slater, 2005 [14]).
These positive physical and biogeochemical feedbacks can, with high probability, cause a change in state over a period of less than a decade or two in terrestrial ecosystems climate forcing that is several times greater than is the change in radiative forcing from fossil fuel burning. There is then the likelihood of methane feedback, whereby the radiative forcing leads to an increase in methane emissions, in a positive feedback loop – leading to abrupt and catastrophic climate change (Chu [15]).
The associated changes in terrestrial ecosystems composition, spatial distribution, and GHG dynamics are irreversible over millennia, comparable to the temporal scale of glacial-interglacial cycles. A degree of boreal/arctic feedback to warming has already been documented, (see Chapin et al., 2005 [13]).
The greatest single threat of the worst abrupt warming is from Arctic methane hydrate. In combination with all the other Arctic positive feedback emissions that are operant this is a planetary emergency. The current abundance of carbon stored in hydrates is generally believed to be greater than the recoverable stocks of all the other fossil fuels combined (Buffet and Archer, 2004 [16]; Gornitz & Fung, 1994 [17]), and methane is 72 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide over 20-year time horizons (IPCC, 2007a [18]). There is evidence that methane hydrate releases have caused abrupt climate changes in the past, such as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago when the planet abruptly warmed 5-8K (Dickens, 2003 [19]). There is also disputed evidence that hydrate dissociation greatly amplified and accelerated global warming episodes in the late Quaternary period (Kennett et al., 2000) [20]. The stability of the contemporary hydrate inventory to the unprecedented temperature rise from anthropogenic emissions is unknown. The Arctic contains hundreds of gigatons of methane hydrate with a time scale for release of decades, and the release is predicted to be abrupt at each location because the hydrates lie close to the edge of the gas hydrate stability zone defined by temperature and pressure. Plausible scenarios could lead to methane becoming more important than CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a time-scale of decades, with the associated warming leading to further hydrate dissociation, as well as terrestrial permafrost melting, which will release additional methane and be self-sustaining.
How to cool the Arctic quickly
The most cost-effective techniques involve reducing the sunlight falling on the Arctic, either by producing a fine haze of aerosol or fine-grain particles or by brightening clouds. As far as we know, neither technique has been tried on a large scale; but both techniques has natural analogues which suggest that they should be safe and effective, if their effects are modelled carefully so that their deployment avoid unwanted side-effects.
However, neither technique is sufficiently developed for immediate deployment. Thus we have to consider increasing existing cooling effects from aerosols and decreasing any factors that could have a significant short-term warming effect in the Arctic. Of particular interest is to curb inadvertent methane emissions and black carbon (commonly known as soot), especially at high latitudes [21]. Drilling for natural gas in the Arctic can produce a lot of methane leakage to the atmosphere and is not advisable until we have technology in place to cool the Arctic [22].
High risk developments in the Arctic
Although this is not a remit of AMEG, we would like to mention a hazard arising from drilling in the Arctic where there is methane hydrate, especially on the continental shelf edge. We have a concern that much of this hydrate has become unstable, as its stability zone has moved as a result of warming of the seabed [23]. Drilling can easily cause this hydrate to disassociate into methane gas and water explosively, which can be disastrous for any ship above, because it will sink in the reduced density of water filled with methane bubbles. But our main concern is that such a destabilisation of the hydrate can cause a slump with a tsunami-inducing force which could cause a chain reaction of destabilisation across the whole Arctic Ocean shelf margin. This margin contains many megatonnes of methane as hydrate, enough to start a methane feedback if a significant proportion were released in one go. Thus we urge that there is a halt on all drilling for methane hydrate in the Arctic until precautions have been developed and a proper risk assessment made.
Conclusions
We believe that the large positive feedback from loss of Arctic summer sea ice and snow albedo with Arctic subsea methane already venting is enough to advance the possibility of methane feedback taking hold from decades to years. The mandatory requirement to avoid a possible sea ice collapse this year, and point of no return, leads to an unprecedented engineering challenge.
The findings of our group were presented at AGU 2011, San Francisco, and we have discussed the latest evidence with leading experts in relevant fields. This evidence points ever more strongly to there being a planetary emergency, so we are striving to get this recognised and acted upon at the highest level in governments, and would welcome your support.
When there is so much at stake, it is the duty and moral obligation of governments to act on the precautionary principle to protect their own citizens [24]. By collaborating with others to protect the Arctic, a climate of cooperation can be engendered to protect the whole planet for the benefit of ourselves and future generations.
John Nissen, Chair of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group
Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge
References
[1] AMEG
http://arctic-methane-emergency-group.org
[2] Hudson (2011) - Albedo effect and Arctic warming
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD015804.shtml
http://www.npolar.no/npcms/export/sites/np/en/people/stephen.hudson/Hudson11_AlbedoFeedback.pdf
[3a] PIOMAS, September, exponential trend for sea ice volume
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi
[3b] PIOMAS, September, trend lines compared
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas
[3c] PIOMAS, all months
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920dd89a970b-pi
[4] Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic Ocean - The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-seaice-retreats-6276278.html
[5] SRM geoengineering to cool Arctic
How to cool the Arctic - John Nissen, December 2011
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/how-to-cool-arctic.html
[6] 50 Mt of methane from ESAS available for release at any time
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/01526/EGU2008-A-01526.pdf
[7] Methane level over past century
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/iadv/graph/mlo/mlo_ch4_ts_obs_03437.png
[8] Sam Carana, Methane venting in the Arctic
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/methane-venting-in-arctic.html
[9] Sam Carana, Potential for methane releases
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/potential-for-methane-release.html
[10] Elberling et al, 2010
High nitrous oxide production from thawing permafrost
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n5/abs/ngeo803.html
[11] Risk of Catastrophic or Abrupt Change - IPCC AR4 WG 3 2.2.4
http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html
[12] IMPACTS project
http://esd.lbl.gov/research/projects/abrupt_climate_change/impacts/tasks.html
[13] Chapin et al., 2005
Role of Land-Surface Changes in Arctic Summer Warming
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5748/657.abstract
[14] Lawrence and Slater, 2005
A projection of severe near-surface permafrost degradation during the 21st century
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL025080.shtml
[15] Stephen Chu
Video on methane feedback
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHqKxWvcBdg
[16] Buffet and Archer, 2004
Global inventory of methane clathrate: sensitivity to changes in the deep ocean
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/buffett.2004.clathrates.pdf
[17] Gornitz & Fung, 1994
Potential distribution of methane hydrates in the world's oceans
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1994/94GB00766.shtml
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/go00200p.html
[18] IPCC - Global Warming Potential
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html#table-2-14
[19] Dickens on PETM, 2003
Excess barite accumulation during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal Maximum: Massive input of dissolved barium from seafloor gas hydrate reservoirs
http://specialpapers.gsapubs.org/content/369/11
[20] Kennett et al. on methane excursions, 2000
Carbon Isotopic Evidence for Methane Hydrate Instability During Quaternary Interstadials
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/288/5463/128.abstract
[21] An analysis of short term measures to slow global warming
http://www.nature.com/news/pollutants-key-to-climate-fix-1.9816
[22] High emissions from gas field
http://www.nature.com/news/air-sampling-reveals-high-emissions-from-gas-field-1.9982
[23] U.S. Department of Energy - Drilling Safety and Seafloor Stability
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/FutureSupply/MethaneHydrates/about-hydrates/safety-stability.htm
[24] UNFCCC Convention 1992, Article 3, point 3
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1355.php
Environmental Audit Committee
http://www.parliament.uk/eacom
The Environmental Audit Committee considers the extent to which the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development, and it audits their performance against any sustainable development and environmental protection targets. Unlike most select committees, the Committee’s remit cuts across government rather than focuses on the work of a particular department.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Abrupt release of methane in the Arctic in late 2011?
Was over 2 Megaton of methane released abruptly from hydrates in the Arctic in late 2011? Satellite images show high levels of methane at various locations in the Arctic over a period of 13 days (November 26, 2011, to December 8, 2011).
Methane was observed at various locations in the Arctic at levels of about 2000 parts per billion. Global levels are about 1820 parts per billion.
What could have caused these high levels in the Arctic?
There are no natural gas pipes at the North Pole that could be leaking, there are no drilling activities taking place, and there are no cows or termites. Since it was winter at the time, there were no algae blooms.
The best way to explain these high levels of methane at the North Pole is that was venting from hydrates at the North Pole and carried by the wind into North America.
 |
| Global wind circulation patterns - NSIDC image |
In which direction would methane flow?
Polar easterlies are the prevailing wind patterns in the Arctic. When methane emerges at surface levels in the Arctic, these winds will drive it down to 60 degrees North latitude, where it will be further dispersed by the Polar Jet Stream (or Polar front).
How fast can methane be carried by the wind?
In the Arctic, winds have average speeds of 600 to 1032 kilometers per day on the Atlantic side in winter, while maximum wind speeds in the Atlantic region can approach 4320 kilometers per day in winter (Rajmund Przybylak, 2003: The Climate of the Arctic).
By comparison, the distance between Murmansk and Svalbard is about 1000 km (621 miles), as illustrated on the above map.
The animation below shows daily satellite pictures of methane descending down the Arctic, from the North Pole into North America over a period of 13 days (November 26, 2011, to December 8, 2011). Distances traveled daily appear to match average wind speeds for the respective area at this time of the year.
In conclusion, the animation suggests that methane is venting from hydrates in the Arctic at levels up to 2000 parts per billion. These high levels can cover areas as large as Greenland. Total surface of Earth is 510,072,000 square kilometers, and Greenland has a surface of 2,166,086 square kilometers, one 235th that of Earth.
The total methane burden on Earth is about 5 Gt, corresponding with a level of 1820 parts per billion. Thus the burden over an area the size of Greenland would be one 235th of 5 Gigaton, or 21 Megaton. A level of 2000 parts per billion is about ten percent higher than the world's average level of 1820 parts per billion. Thus, the methane that shows up in the animation could result from abrupt release of some 2.1 Megaton of methane from hydrates in the Arctic.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Sri Lanka Air Force MIG-27 crashes - Pilot unhurt
Feb 13, Colombo: A MIG-27 fighter jet of Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) has crashed today while on a training mission, the SLAF reported.
The fighter jet belonging to the Sri Lanka Air Force No. 12 Jet Squadron at Katunayake crashed in an area called Dummalasooriya, 17 nautical miles away from Katunayake.The pilot Flight Lieutenant Tharidu Herath has executed a controlled ejection to safety. There was no life or property damage has been reported on the ground, the Air Force said.
The Air Force Commander Air Marshal Harsha Abeywickrama has appointed a board to investigate the incident further.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Arctic methane threat at Radio Ecoshock
The Arctic methane threat is featured at Radio Ecoshock.
Click on the player below to hear the audio:
Or, go to ARCTIC EMERGENCY Global Threat, and hear the audio while viewing more background.
Click on the player below to hear the audio:
Or, go to ARCTIC EMERGENCY Global Threat, and hear the audio while viewing more background.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Video: East Siberian Arctic Shelf Expedition 2011
East Siberian Arctic Shelf Expedition 2011.
In an interview published February 9, 2012, expedition leader Dr. Igor Semiletov said: "the methane release that we have identified in the Arctic is both unprecedented in terms of its volume and has the potential to increase greatly if warming trends continue."
Video uploaded by the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) at Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b73wLHoiQyI
Also view map of the study area explored during the expedition.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Methane venting in the Arctic
Above chart, based on historic NASA land-surface air temperature anomaly data (see interactive map at the bottom of this page), shows that the average temperature anomaly rise in the Arctic (latitude 64 and higher) looks set to reach 10°C within decades.
These anomalies are based on annual averages that are also averaged over a huge area. The NASA image on the left shows temperature anomalies of over 10°C for the month December 2011.
More detailed analysis shows that, over December 2011, the highest average temperature anomaly (12.8933°C) was recorded in the Kara Sea (latitudes 79 - 81 and longitudes 73 - 89).
NOAA daily data show even more prominent anomalies, especially for the area from the Kara Sea over Franz Josef Land to Svalbard (see Wikipedia image left). NOAA temperature anomalies for January 31, 2012, seem typical for the over 20°C anomalies that this area has experienced over the period December 7, 2011, to February 11, 2012.
An animated image with the full data over the period December 7, 2011, to February 11, 2012, is displayed in an earlier post at this blog, temperature anomalies over 20 degrees Celsius. (Note: this is a 4.7MB file that may take some time to fully load.)
How is it possible for this specific area to show such huge temperature anomalies?
1. Rivers?
Could it be that warm water from rivers flows into the Kara Sea and is transferred to the atmosphere in this area? This seems unlikely, given that it is winter, while the mainland does not appear to be suffering similar temperature anomalies. The NOAA map below with anomalies for water temperatures (at surface level) also shows no particular anomalies for the Kara Sea.
2. Warm water from the Atlantic Ocean?
Above image shows that the water surface temperature anomalies are most prominent just north of Scandinavia. The reason for this is that thermohaline circulation is pushing warm water from the Atlantic Ocean into the Arctic Ocean, as evident when looking at actual water temperatures (image below).
As above image shows, warm water from the Atlantic Ocean hasn't (yet) penetrated the Kara Sea, which makes sense in winter. Therefore, this also seems an unlikely candidate to explain the over 20°C air surface temperature anomalies in the area stretching from the Kara Sea over Franz Josef Land to Svalbard.
3. Methane?
A third possibility is that methane is venting from hydrates in the Arctic and is spread by the wind around the Arctic. This would explain the record methane level of 1870+ reached in the Arctic for January 2012, as shown on the image below.
See animation of methane levels July 2011 - January 2012
Temperature anomalies over 20 degrees Celsius
The area of the Kara Sea, Franz Josef Land and Svalbard shows temperature anomalies of over 20 degrees Celsius. How can such anomalies be explained?
Continue reading at: Methane venting in the Arctic
Friday, February 10, 2012
India Tests Advanced Interceptor Missile
Interceptor missile
Aggressor missile
Detailed video of previous test
India today conducted a successful test launch of its endo-atmospheric interceptor missile., part of the country's ballistic missile defence (BMD) programme DRDO’s Air Defence Missile AAD-05 (Photo 1) successfully hit a modified Prithvi ballistic missile (Photo 2) and destroyed it at a height of 15 kms off the coast of Orissa near Wheeler Island. Radars located at different locations tracked the incoming ballistic missile. With the target trajectory continuously updated by the radar, the onboard guidance computer guided the AAD-05 towards the target missile. The onboard radio frequency seeker identified the target missile, guided the AAD-05 to hit the target missile directly and destroyed it. Radar and Electro Optic Tracking Systems (EOTS) tracked the missile and also recorded the fragments of the target missile falling into the Bay of Bengal. The interceptor hit the incoming ballistic missile directly and destroyed it at an altitude of 15-km.
January 2012 shows record levels of methane in the Arctic
In January 2012, methane levels in the Arctic reached levels of 1870 ppb.
Particularly worrying is that, in the past, methane concentrations have fluctuated up and down in line with the seasons. Over the past seven months, however, methane has shown steady growth in the Arctic. Such a long continuous period of growth is unprecedented, the more so as it takes place in winter, when vegetation growth and algae bloom is minimal. The most obvious conclusion is that the methane is venting from hydrates.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
After success of 3,200- 3,700 km range Agni IV , India to test 5000 km range Agni V shortly
This can reach all targets in China
USS Independence (Littoral Combat Ship)
Ordered: 14 October 2005
Builder: Austal USA, Mobile, Alabama
Laid down: 19 January 2006
Launched: 29 April 2008
Christened: 4 October 2008
Homeport: Naval Base San Diego (planned)
Status: Under construction
Class and type: Independence-class littoral combat ship
Displacement: 2,176 tons light, 2,784 tons full, 608 tons deadweight
Length: 127.4 m (418 ft)
Beam: 31.6 m (104 ft)
Draft: 14 ft (4.27 m)
Propulsion: 2× gas turbines, 2× diesel, 4× waterjets, retractable Azimuth thruster, 4× diesel generators
Speed: 40+ knots, 47 knots (54 mph; 87 km/h) sprint
Range: 4,300 nm at 20+ knots[1]
Capacity: 210 tonnes
Complement: 40 core crew (8 officers, 32 enlisted) plus up to 35 mission crew
Sensors and
processing systems:
* Sea Giraffe 3D Surface/Air RADAR
* Bridgemaster-E Navigational RADAR
* AN/KAX-2 EO/IR sensor for GFC
Electronic warfare
and decoys:
* EDO ES-3601 ESM
* 4× SRBOC rapid bloom chaff launchers
Armament:
* BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm gun[2]
* 4× .50-cal guns (2 aft, 2 forward)
* Evolved SeaRAM 11 cell missile launcher
* 32 missile Vertical Launch System
* 8 Harpoon missiles
* 2 Close-in Weapons Systems
* 6 ASW Torpedoes
* Mission modules
Aircraft carried:
* 2× MH-60R/S Seahawks
* MQ-8 Fire Scout
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Interesting Story: Greg Brooks of Sub Sea Research found shipwreck with £2 billion of platinum bars - British merchant ship SS Port Nicholson sunk during World War II
The platinum was a payment from the Soviet Union to the U.S. for war supplies in 1942
PORTLAND, Maine: A treasure hunter said on Wednesday he has located the wreck of a British merchant ship that was torpedoed by a German U-boat off Cape Cod during World War II while carrying what he claims was a load of platinum bars now worth more than $3 billion. If the claim proves true, it could be one of the richest sunken treasures ever discovered. But an attorney for the British government expressed doubt the vessel was carrying platinum. And if it was, in fact, laden with precious metals, who owns the hoard could become a matter of international dispute.
Treasure hunter Greg Brooks of Sub Sea Research in Gorham, Maine, announced that a wreck found sitting in 700 feet (213 meters) of water 50 miles (80 kilometers) offshore is that of the S.S. Port Nicholson, sunk in 1942. He said he and his crew identified it via the hull number using an underwater camera, and he hopes to begin raising the treasure later this month or in early March with the help of a remotely operated underwater vessel. "I'm going to get it, one way or another, even if I have to lift the ship out of the water," Brooks said.
The claim should be viewed with skepticism, said Robert F. Marx, an underwater archaeologist, maritime historian and owner of Seven Seas Search and Salvage LLC in Florida. Both an American company and an English company previously went after the contents of the ship years ago and surely retrieved at least a portion, Marx said. The question is how much, if any, platinum is left, he said. "Every wreck that is lost is the richest wreck lost. Every wreck ever found is the biggest ever found. Every recovery is the biggest ever recovery," Marx said. Brooks said the Port Nicholson was headed for New York with 71 tons of platinum valued at the time at about $53 million when it was sunk in an attack that left six people dead.
The platinum was a payment from the Soviet Union to the U.S. for war supplies, Brooks said. The vessel was also carrying gold bullion and diamonds, he said.
Brooks said he located the wreck in 2008 using shipboard sonar but held off announcing the find while he and his business partners obtained salvage rights from a federal judge. Salvage rights are not the same as ownership rights, which are still unsettled. Britain will wait until salvage operations begin before deciding whether to file a claim on the cargo, said Anthony Shusta, an attorney in Tampa, Florida, who represents the British government. He said it is unclear if the ship was even carrying any platinum. "We're still researching what was on the vessel," he said. "Our initial research indicated it was mostly machinery and military stores." The U.S. government has not weighed in on the court case yet, and Brooks said he doubts that will happen, since the Soviets eventually reimbursed Washington for the lost payment.
A U.S. Treasury Department ledger shows that the platinum bars were on board, Brooks said, and his underwater video footage shows a platinum bar surrounded by 30 boxes that he believes hold four to five platinum ingots each. But he has yet to bring up any platinum, saying his underwater vessel needs to retrofitted to attach lines to the boxes, which would then be hoisted to the surface by winch. "Of course there are skeptics," he said. "There's skeptics on everything you do." Maritime law is complicated, and there could be multiple claims on the ship's contents. After the sinking of the HMS Edinburgh, an English warship carrying Soviet gold bullion as a payment to the allies during World War II, England, the U.S. and Russia made claims on the sunken treasure, Marx said. The salvage company was given 10 percent of the prize, while the three countries split the rest, he said. In other big finds, treasure hunter Mel Fisher made international headlines in 1985 when he discovered a $450 million mother lode of precious metals and gemstones from a Spanish galleon that went down off Florida in 1622. In another case, a Tampa exploration company has been ordered by the courts to return $500 million worth of treasure from a Spanish warship to Spain. The ship was sunk by the British navy during a battle off Portugal in 1804.
Treasure hunter Greg Brooks of Sub Sea Research in Gorham, Maine, announced that a wreck found sitting in 700 feet (213 meters) of water 50 miles (80 kilometers) offshore is that of the S.S. Port Nicholson, sunk in 1942. He said he and his crew identified it via the hull number using an underwater camera, and he hopes to begin raising the treasure later this month or in early March with the help of a remotely operated underwater vessel. "I'm going to get it, one way or another, even if I have to lift the ship out of the water," Brooks said.
The claim should be viewed with skepticism, said Robert F. Marx, an underwater archaeologist, maritime historian and owner of Seven Seas Search and Salvage LLC in Florida. Both an American company and an English company previously went after the contents of the ship years ago and surely retrieved at least a portion, Marx said. The question is how much, if any, platinum is left, he said. "Every wreck that is lost is the richest wreck lost. Every wreck ever found is the biggest ever found. Every recovery is the biggest ever recovery," Marx said. Brooks said the Port Nicholson was headed for New York with 71 tons of platinum valued at the time at about $53 million when it was sunk in an attack that left six people dead.
The platinum was a payment from the Soviet Union to the U.S. for war supplies, Brooks said. The vessel was also carrying gold bullion and diamonds, he said.
Brooks said he located the wreck in 2008 using shipboard sonar but held off announcing the find while he and his business partners obtained salvage rights from a federal judge. Salvage rights are not the same as ownership rights, which are still unsettled. Britain will wait until salvage operations begin before deciding whether to file a claim on the cargo, said Anthony Shusta, an attorney in Tampa, Florida, who represents the British government. He said it is unclear if the ship was even carrying any platinum. "We're still researching what was on the vessel," he said. "Our initial research indicated it was mostly machinery and military stores." The U.S. government has not weighed in on the court case yet, and Brooks said he doubts that will happen, since the Soviets eventually reimbursed Washington for the lost payment.
A U.S. Treasury Department ledger shows that the platinum bars were on board, Brooks said, and his underwater video footage shows a platinum bar surrounded by 30 boxes that he believes hold four to five platinum ingots each. But he has yet to bring up any platinum, saying his underwater vessel needs to retrofitted to attach lines to the boxes, which would then be hoisted to the surface by winch. "Of course there are skeptics," he said. "There's skeptics on everything you do." Maritime law is complicated, and there could be multiple claims on the ship's contents. After the sinking of the HMS Edinburgh, an English warship carrying Soviet gold bullion as a payment to the allies during World War II, England, the U.S. and Russia made claims on the sunken treasure, Marx said. The salvage company was given 10 percent of the prize, while the three countries split the rest, he said. In other big finds, treasure hunter Mel Fisher made international headlines in 1985 when he discovered a $450 million mother lode of precious metals and gemstones from a Spanish galleon that went down off Florida in 1622. In another case, a Tampa exploration company has been ordered by the courts to return $500 million worth of treasure from a Spanish warship to Spain. The ship was sunk by the British navy during a battle off Portugal in 1804.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Rebuttal: David Archer wrong to dismiss concern about potential methane runaway in Arctic
REBUTTAL:
DAVID ARCHER WRONG TO DISMISS CONCERN
ABOUT POTENTIAL METHANE RUNAWAY IN ARCTIC:
Why This Threat Is Real and the Imperative to Exercise
the Precautionary Principle When the Stakes Are This High
"We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered
methane fields of a fantastic scale - I think on a scale not seen before......
This is the first time we've found continuous, powerful and impressive
seeping structures more than 1,000 meters in diameter. It's amazing."
- Dr Igor Semiletov (crew leader of Sept.-Oct. 2011 U.S.-Russian
methane expedition in interview with the UK Independent) (1)
In the first sentence of his Jan. 4 entry on the "Real Climate" blog (2) , David Archer links to a rebuttal I wrote to oppose Andrew Revkin's "Dot Earth" dismissal of an article in the UKIndependent about dramatic new observations of methane emissions in the Arctic (3), Archer portrayed this rebuttal as an example of someone getting people un-necessarily "worked up" about the issue. As the co-producer of a documentary which has interviewed several leading edge scientists on this topic I have asked for space to respond. With all due respect to Archer, the result of these interactions has been a strong sense of urgency that stands in stark contrast to his dismissive stance.
Growing Concern About Rising Arctic Temperatures and Impact on Methane -
It is acknowledged that the Arctic is the most rapidly warming region on earth. As indicators point toward a near term loss of ice cover in the Arctic (with some studies pointing toward a late summer ice-free condition as soon as 2015 (4), there is a growing concern about how amplification of Arctic temperatures will affect the massive deposits of frozen methane in the shallow seabeds of the continental shelf areas. Researchers on the "front line" in the Arctic gathering empirical evidence - such as Igor Semiletov and Natalia Shakhova - are now reporting methane plume activity on a scale not witnessed before now.
These observations were reported in the UK Independent and since that time have stirred up controversy as to whether humanity may be receiving a first glimpse of a situation that could escalate into one of the scenarios most feared by climate scientists - an unstoppable positive feedback known as a methane "runaway" event. This controversy has been reflected in the above-described exchange on "Dot Earth" and is now expanding to "Real Climate" and even more recently to Joe Romm's "Climate Progress". On Jan.11, Romm wrote about how the methane situation is combining with other factors to create an urgent danger in the Arctic (5). The twin issues of contention in this controversy have been whether the methane threat is real and whether it is imminent, therefore deserving the urgent attention of the world.
The Big Picture Context of the Methane Controversy -
Before launching into a discussion of those two points, it would seem useful to explore the larger context. A key question deserving exploration would be "what is at stake?" What are the potential consequences if humanity fails to pick up on warning signs and a methane runaway event becomes unleashed?
The topic at hand is what most climate scientists would likely see as the worst case "nightmare" scenario which could lead to a total global catastrophe. We are talking about a greenhouse gas that has a full 72 times more powerful warming impact than CO2 within the first 20 years (6). We are talking about a global stockpile that contains as much carbon as all the world's known reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas combined. If there is even a chance that significant amounts might be released into the atmosphere by an unstoppable methane "runaway", a profound moral responsibility exists to approach the topic with utmost care and caution.
What is a Methane "Runaway" Event? -
The term is defined by Ira Leifer (methane researcher at the Marine Science Institute at Univ. of Calif - Santa Barbara) :
"A runaway feedback effect would be where methane comes out of the ocean
into the atmosphere leading to warming, leading to warmer oceans and more
methane coming out, causing an accelerated rate of warming in what one could
describe as a runaway train." (7)
Due to the enormous size of the methane deposits, this process would "feed" on itself in a way that humanity would most likely be helpless to stop.
Possible Key Role of Methane in Two Mass Extinctions, Including Worst in Earth's History -
In order to ascertain what kind of potential threat methane may be in the present context, it is important to look at earlier periods on earth when methane may well have played a key role in the most devastating mass extinction events in the geological record. Although not a "lock" in terms of absolute "proof", very strong circumstantial evidence points toward a major role of methane in two of these events. One is the "End-Permian" in which severe global warming led to such extreme heat and depletion of oxygen that over 90% of life forms were wiped out. (8) One attempt to take this association out of the abstract and make it more tangible can be seen in a nine minute segment (highly recommended) from the acclaimed documentary series "Miracle Planet" (9)
James Hansen relates methane to another extinction event (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - PETM):
"There have been times in the earth's history when methane hydrates on the
continental shelves melted and went into the atmosphere and caused global
warming of six to nine degrees Celsius, which is 10 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit." (10)
"It is difficult to imagine how the methane clathrates could survive, once the ocean
has had time to warm. In that event a PETM-like warming could be added on top
of the fossil fuel warming." (11)
We are clearly dealing with a destructive force of almost unimaginable power, which underlines my earlier warning that it be approached with utmost caution.
Are the Factors Present Which Could Lead to a Runaway?
In exercising such appropriate caution in dealing with a force of this magnitude, a logical question would be to ask whether the factors are now existent (or may soon be in the very near future) which could potentially unleash such a runaway. Here are several factors which are already present:
A) The incredible warming power of methane as a greenhouse gas (already quantified); B) The phenomenally huge volume of methane present in the continental shelf areas of the Arctic; C) The quite shallow depth of these seabeds, which allows direct venting to the surface and atmosphere (methane otherwise safely oxidizes in deep water); D) Their location in the most rapidly warming region on earth, where such is accelerating due to the "albedo flip" (open water now absorbing solar heat rather than having it reflected away by ice cover) and warmer water infiltrating at the river mouths; E) Direct observations confirming that large scale methane plumes are venting to the surface and into the atmosphere; and F) Direct observations confirming that seabed bottom temperatures are hovering at the thaw point (12).
20 Degree (Fahrenheit) Rise in Arctic Temperature by 2095 -
A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) projects how much temperature rise could be expected in the Arctic by the year 2095 if world governments continue on a business as usual path. Its projection is an astounding 20 degrees (F) (13). Even more astonishing, this projection does not even consider how feedbacks could amplify this warming even further. According to study co-author Ronald Prinn:
"And the odds indicated by this modeling may actually understate the problem,
because the model does not fully incorporate other positive feedbacks that can
occur, for example, if increased temperatures caused a large-scale melting of
permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of
methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. Including that feedback “is just going
to make it worse.” (14)
While it is not possible to pinpoint any particular time when a release of methane might hit "critical mass" and initiate the runaway, it certainly appears the necessary ingredients are present and a collision course has been set up. The question is no longer "if" but "when". With the Arctic warming so much faster than the rest of the world and arriving at such incredible temperatures within this century, it is clear that the "writing is on the wall" in terms of the future of methane in the shallow Arctic seabeds. Unless there is a major shift away from the "business as usual" scenario, it is inevitable that they will thaw and vent into the atmosphere.
How Soon Could Late Summer Ice-Free Conditions Accelerate the Warm-up? -
Most climate observers agree that the steady temperature climb in the Arctic will only accelerate once late summer ice-free conditions set in. Even with such astounding projections as that by M.I.T., the situation is actually more frightening and urgent. Almost every prediction of how rapidly climate impacts will occur has been out-paced by developments in the real world. If this consistent pattern repeats in regard to loss of Arctic sea ice (as it most likely will), the threat to hydrate stability will accelerate even more quickly. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been projecting a late summer ice-free Arctic by summer 2030. But experts who say that loss of ice thickness should be factored in as well as loss of surface ice are pointing toward an ice-free condition as early as 2015 (15)
One of the top experts on Arctic ice - Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge in the UK - supports the PIOMAS sea ice volume model (16).
Wadhams is concerned that the collapse could prove to be a point of no return for the ice:
"It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us
to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious prediction and I think I am pretty
much persuaded that's when it will happen." (17)
-----------------------------
Archer Acknowledges Power of Methane and Vulnerability (especially in Arctic) -
In a piece Archer co-authored in 2009 (18), he acknowledged both the destructive power of methane and the fragile and "intrinsically vulnerable" nature of hydrates:
"There are concerns that climate change could trigger significant
methane releases from hydrates and thus could lead to strong positive
carbon–climate feedbacks. .... Methane hydrate seems intrinsically
vulnerable on Earth; nowhere at the Earth's surface is it stable to
melting and release of the methane."
In this same piece, Archer affirms another key factor regarding this vulnerability:
"Rapid warming well above the global average makes the Arctic hydrates
particularly vulnerable to climate change."
In his current post, he alludes to the immense scale of these methane stockpiles and continues to outline the parameters of what is at least an extremely significant potential threat:
"The total amount of methane as ocean hydrates is poorly constrained but
could rival the rest of the fossil fuels combined."
It is significant that Archer acknowledges that the potential exists for a large scale positive methane feedback to occur. Where we disagree is in our assessment of how serious and how urgent this threat is.
THE CASE FOR URGENCY REGARDING THE METHANE THREAT:
Six Direct Challenges to David Archer
1) Human Warming *ON TOP OF* Natural Warming -
Having acknowledged several key reasons why methane poses at least a very large potential threat to humanity, it is difficult to comprehend why Archer would set himself up as a naysayer and discredit those who see indications that this potential might soon become a reality. One of the ways he tries to do this is to point toward the possibility of natural geothermal warming coming up from below and ask the question: how do we know the plumes are coming from new, human-created warming? But this question severely misses the point and throws the conversation off track. If indeed there is pre-existing warming coming from below, then this is only going to combine with human-made warming from above to create an even more volatile and dangerous situation.
If the permafrost cap is becoming perforated (as suggested by Shakhova), then the hydrates may become subject to de-stabilization from both directions.
2) Arctic Warming Already Approaching Methane Thaw Point in Shallow Seabeds -
Archer does not address the reports of scientists in the field who are describing how close the water temperature in the shallow seabeds is hovering near the thaw point. Igor SemiIetov - the crew leader of the recent U.S.- Russian methane expedition supported by the National Science Foundation - has been tracking the Arctic methane issue for over 15 years. In an interview for our documentary, he shared these remarkable comments on thaw points and warmer water at the surface being driven to deeper depths by increased levels of wind and wave action as the ice cover retreats:
"When ice has gone, there are stronger winds and waves and a deeper mixing of
water which causes the comparatively warm upper layer to mix with water at
deeper levels. There are already studies which confirm that in some areas,
bottom temperature in summer is 2 to 3 degrees above zero celsius (freezing).
This means that when we determine average temperature of the year, it is
already somewhere close to zero degrees celsius (the freezing / thaw point)......
As this warming spreads to a larger area, the more that shelf-based permafrost
will thaw." (19)
3) With Methane On Verge of Thawing Within Decades, How Does Archer Defend Complacency? -
With methane-laden areas already so close to a thaw point, it becomes a critical question to determine how rapidly the temperatures in the Arctic will increase. Once the ice cover undergoes collapse, there is nothing to prevent an escalation of Arctic warming. Under the business as usual scenario, we are seeing stunning projections of how warm the Arctic could become within this century - such as the M.I.T. study. These projections create a collision course whereby currently frozen methane will inevitably thaw. Now a strong case emerges that ice loss could happen even more rapidly than originally speculated, expanding the same open water that Semiletov says is driving warm temperatures downward to the seabed. With such a prospect of a warming Arctic releasing the colossal methane deposits, how does Archer defend the case for complacency?
I would ask him to respond to two science articles - illustrated with graphics - by Sam Carana, a member of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) which presented a poster, distributed a brochure, and gave a presentation at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco. Carana explores the connection between ice loss, warming temperatures in the Arctic, and the release of methane. (20) and (21)
4) Grasping Irreversibility, Dropping Insistence on Absolute Evidence That May Come Too Late -
Archer portrays the "alarmist" crowd as predicting a runaway within the next few years. This is not true. What they are saying is that a process may be initiated which could lead to a runaway. Sam Carana speaks to this point:
"The danger is that if relatively large amounts of methane are released abruptly into
the atmosphere in the Arctic, they will persist for decades, triggering yet further
temperature rises and methane releases, in a vicious cycle leading to runaway
global warming, even if the world did manage to take the necessary steps to
dramatically reduce emissions." (22)
As it is the definition of "runaway" that such a feedback will be all but impossible to stop once it starts, the only option for humanity is to act preventatively. When Archer continues the quest for some kind of absolute "smoking gun" evidence that the methane emissions now occuring are being caused by human-made warming, it seems he is having difficulty - as many of us are, including myself - in grasping the full meaning of the concept of IRREVERSIBILITY. This quest is wrong not only for the reason shared earlier but because at the point this causal connection may well become unequivocally "proven", it is highly possible that the runaway will have already been triggered and therefore too late to stop.
There will be no chance for a do-over here. For those who advocated complacency and were wrong, there will not be an opportunity to reverse course. With all respect, I must ask why make a gamble that could lead to such unspeakably tragic consequences? The incomparably more relevant question to ask is whether the factors may be lining up that could bring on a runaway, and what our societal response should be if they are.
5) Amplification and Other Consequences of Complacency -
We are obviously in a situation where time is of the essence. There are also two other factors that come into play. Huge amounts of fossil fuel industry money are backing orchestrated efforts to discredit climate science in general and most certainly any sense of urgency. In addition, many people are struggling with a very natural form of psychological denial that blocks us from seeing how close humanity may be to oblivion.
I have no reason at all to doubt the sincerity of Archer and believe his stance to be genuine. But when a scientist on a blog as respected as Real Climate downplays urgency, it can inadvertently be used as fodder to support both of these factors. Such a stance can be amplified by the blog universe (such as Scientific American as well as many denialist sites) to give an impression of a "consensus" in the scientific community when this is emphatically not the case. Archer is delivering a message of complacency (what Joe Romm refers to as "pushing the snooze button" (23) ) at precisely the moment when humanity must be heightening its vigilance to avoid passing a point of no return.
6) The Case for Invoking the Precautionary Principle and Assigning All Resources Necessary to Confirm Whether A Runaway Situation Is Being Approached -
A methane runaway would qualify as a planetary emergency. It is the view of a growing network of concern that several factors are combining which point toward the near term potential for such to develop in the Arctic. Rather than discredit such concern, humanity would be much better served by a rigorous scientific inquiry that could confirm whether there is merit to it. Igor Semiletov, involved in cutting edge field research on methane emissions, has informed this writer that much more could be accomplished with expanded funding support.
I call upon Archer and all Real Climate contributors to vocally support an immediate and high level escalation of research aimed toward "getting at the facts" on potential runaway - no matter where they lead. As the stakes could not be higher, it would be unspeakably tragic if world governments failed to provide such and the situation evolved to a point where a catastrophe spun out of control.
Preparation of Safe Geo-Engineering Options Should Humanity Need to Use Them - The concept of geo-engineering has attracted a spectrum of opinions ranging from support to opposition and many shades in between. However, there is a fundamental reality staring in our face. If humanity waits until the point of no return is crossed and a runaway is unleashed, it will be too late to develop any such options. In the opinion of this writer, the prudent position is to work now on developing safe geo-engineering options so that there might at least be a chance to implement them should the world become convinced that a runaway is imminent. Perceiving a threat that Arctic ice could conceivably collapse as soon as 2013, John Nissen - chairperson of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (24) - offers a statement in support of urgent development of safe modes of geo-engineering : "The Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) has been set up for the express purpose of drawing the world’s attention to the danger arising from astonishingly rapid retreat of sea ice, accelerated warming of the Arctic and escalating methane emissions from the seabed, especially in the area off the Siberian coast. It is the methane that can produce abrupt climate change, but it is the retreat of sea ice that has triggered this crisis...... We are approaching a likely point of no return, and therefore it is essential that emergency measures are taken to avoid passing this point. This involves intervention on a large scale to cool the Arctic, either directly or indirectly by cooling currents and rivers flowing into the Arctic. By definition such intervention constitutes what is called 'geoengineering', but, whereas geoengineering has generally been considered on a global scale to counter global warming rising over decades, we need geoengineering geared to cool the Arctic with a timescale of just months, to prevent a possible collapse in sea ice extent in September 2013." Critical Need for the Scientific Community to Speak Out More Forcefully - In the case of methane, we are not dealing with a dramatic image of an atomic fireball and its capacity to render immediate destruction. But extended over a longer range of time, the global devastation it would inflict would be no less sweeping. The spectre of a methane runaway is real and it is an existential threat to humanity. In our society, the scientific community holds a position of great respect. In order to protect scientific "objectivity", our tradition has been to separate the institution of science from the realm of public policy. I do not call upon Real Climate to violate its internal agreement and issue specific policy directives. However, I do call upon it to release a generic warning to policy makers that humanity must break out of its state of denial, recognize that the laws of physics do not operate on a political calendar, realize we are dealing with a powerful force that can spin out of control, and therefore quickly educate ourselves as to the severity of the threat. It is my hope that Real Climate - as well as the larger community of climate scientists - will rise to the occasion and show the way. Gary Houser Co-producer and writer "Sleeping Giant of the Arctic: Could Thawing Methane Trigger Runaway Global Warming?"
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)