As a resource - partly for myself, because I like to see things in one place - I have put together two items often cited by Guy McPherson in his talks as well as some of th graphs made by Sam Carana illustrating the increase in world methane emissions.
Global
Extinction within one Human Lifetime as a Result of a Spreading
Atmospheric Arctic Methane Heat wave and Surface Firestorm
Malcolm
Light
9 February, 2012,
Abstract
Although
the sudden high rate Arctic methane increase at Svalbard in late 2010
data set applies to only a short time interval, similar sudden
methane concentration peaks also occur at Barrow point and the
effects of a major methane build-up has been observed using all the
major scientific observation systems. Giant fountains/torches/plumes
of methane entering the atmosphere up to 1 km across have been seen
on the East Siberian Shelf. This methane eruption data is so
consistent and aerially extensive that when combined with methane gas
warming potentials, Permian extinction event temperatures and methane
lifetime data it paints a frightening picture of the beginning of the
now uncontrollable global warming induced destabilization of the
subsea Arctic methane hydrates on the shelf and slope which started
in late 2010. This process of methane release will accelerate
exponentially, release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere
and lead to the demise of all life on earth before the middle of this
century.
Introduction
The
1990 global atmospheric mean temperature is assumed to be
14.49 oC
(Shakil, 2005; NASA, 2002; DATAWeb, 2012) which sets the 2 oC
anomaly above which humanity will lose control of her ability to
limit the effects of global warming on major climatic and
environmental systems at 16.49 oC
(IPCC, 2007). The major Permian extinction event temperature is 80 oF
(26.66 oC)
which is a temperature anomaly of 12.1766 oC
above the 1990 global mean temperature of 14.49 oC
(Wignall, 2009; Shakil, 2005).
Results
of Investigation
Figure
1 shows a huge sudden atmospheric spike like increase in the
concentration of atmospheric methane at Svalbard north of Norway in
the Arctic reaching 2040 ppb (2.04 ppm)(ESRL/GMO, 2010 - Arctic -
Methane - Emergency - Group.org). The cause of this sudden anomalous
increase in the concentration of atmospheric methane at Svalbard has
been seen on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf where a recent Russian
- U.S. expedition has found widespread, continuous powerful methane
seepages into the atmosphere from the subsea methane hydrates with
the methane plumes (fountains or torches) up to 1 km across producing
an atmospheric methane concentration 100 times higher than normal
(Connor, 2011). Such high methane concentrations could produce local
temperature anomalies of more than 50 oC
at a conservative methane warming potential of 25.
Figure
2 is derived from the Svalbard data in Figure 1 and the methane
concentration data has been used to generate a Svalbard atmospheric
temperature anomaly trend using a methane warming potential of 43.5
as an example. The huge sudden anomalous spike in atmospheric
methane concentration in mid August, 2010 at Svalbard is clearly
evident and the methane concentrations within this spike have been
used to construct a series of radiating methane global warming
temperature trends for the entire range of methane global warming
potentials in Figure 3 from an assumed mean start temperature of
-3.575 degrees Centigrade for Svalbard (see Figure 2) (Norwegian
Polar Institute; 2011).
Figure
3 shows a set of radiating Arctic atmospheric methane global warming
temperature trends calculated from the steep methane atmospheric
concentration gradient at Svalbard in 2010 (ESRL/GMO, 2010 -
Arctic-Methane-Emergency-Group.org). The range of extinction
temperature anomalies above the assumed 1990 mean atmospheric
temperature of 14.49 oC (Shakil, 2005) are also shown on this diagram
as well as the 80 oF (26.66 oC) major Permian extinction event
temperature (Wignall, 2009).
Sam
Carana (pers. com. 7 Jan, 2012) has described large December 2011
(ESRL-NOAA data) warming anomalies which exceed 10 to 20 degrees
centigrade and cover vast areas of the Arctic at times. In the
centres of these regions, which appear to overlap the Gakkel Ridge
and its bounding basins, the temperature anomalies may exceed 20
degrees centigrade. The temperature anomalies in this region of the
Arctic for the period from September 8 2011 to October 7, 2011 were
only about 4 degrees Centigrade above normal (Carana, pers. com.
2012). This data set can be seen on this site:-
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/arctic-temperatures.html
Because
the Svalbard methane concentration data suggests that the major spike
in methane emissions began in late 2010 it has been assumed for
calculation purposes that the 2010 temperature anomalies peaked at 4
degrees Centigrade and the 2011 anomalies at 20 degrees Centigrade in
the Gakkel Ridge region. The assumed 20 degree Centigrade temperature
anomaly trend from 2010 to 2011 in the Gakkel Ridge region requires
a methane gas warming potential of about 1000 to generate it from the
Svalbard methane atmospheric concentration spike data in 2010. Such
high methane warming potentials could only be active over a very
short time interval (less than 5.7 months) as shown when the long
methane global warming potential lifetimes data from the IPCC (2007;
1992) and Dessus, Laponte and Treut (2008 ) are used to generate a
global warming potential growth curve with a methane global warming
potential of 100 with a lifespan of 5 years.
Because
of the high methane global warming potential (1000) of the 2011, 20
oC temperature anomalies in the Gakkel Ridge region, the entire
methane global warming potential range from 5 to 1000 has been used
to construct the radiating set of temperature trends shown in Figure
3. The 50, 100, 500 and 1000 methane global warming potential (GWP)
trends are red and in bold. The choice of a high temperature methane
peak with a global warming potential near 1000 is in fact very
conservative because the 16 oC increase is assumed to occur over a
year. The observed ESRL-NOAA Arctic temperature anomalies varied from
4 to 20 degrees over less than a month in 2011 (Sam Carana, pers.
comm. 2012).
Figure
4 shows the estimated lifetime of a globally spreading Arctic methane
atmospheric veil for different methane global warming potentials with
the minimum, mean and maximum lifetimes fixed with data from Dessus,
Laponche and Treut (2008) and IPCC (2007, 1992). On this diagram it
is evident that the maximum methane global warming potential
temperature trend of 50 intersects the 2 degree centigrade
temperature anomaly line in mid 2027 at which time humanity will
completely lose our ability to combat the earth atmospheric
temperature rise. This diagram also indicates that methane will be an
extremely active global warming agent for the first 15 years during
the early stages of the extinction process. At the 80 o F (26.66 oC)
Permian extinction event temperature line (Wignall, 2009), which has
a 12.177 oC temperature anomaly above the 1980 mean of 14.49 oC, the
lifetime of the minimum methane global warming potential veil is now
some 75 years long and the temperature so high that total extinction
of all life on earth will have occured by this time.
The
life time from the almost instantaneous injection of methane into the
atmosphere in 2010 is also shown as the two vertical violet lines
(12 +- 3) years and this has been extended by 6 percent to 15.9
years to take account of increased methane concentrations in the
future (IPCC, 1992b). This data set can be used to set up the likely
start position for the extinction event from the large methane
emissions in 2010.
Figure
5 shows the estimated Arctic Gakkel Ridge earthquake frequency
temperature increase curve (Light, 2011), the Giss Arctic mean
November surface temperature increase curve (data from Carana, 2011)
and the mean global temperature increase curve from IPCC (2007) long
term gradient data. The corrected Arctic atmospheric temperature
curve for the ice cap melt back in 2015 was derived from the mean
time difference between the IPCC model ice cap and observed Arctic
Ice cap rate of volume decrease (Masters, 2009). The ice cap
temperature increase curve lags behind the Arctic atmosphere
temperature curve because of the extra energy required for the
latent heat of melting of the permafrost and Greenland ice caps (Lide
and Frederickse, 1995).
Figure
6 shows 5 mathematically and visually determined best estimates of
the possible global atmospheric extinction gradients for the minimum
(a), mean (b) and maximum (e) methane global warming potential
lifetime trends. The mean (c) methane global warming potential
lifetime trend has almost the identical gradient to the best
mathematical fit over the temperature extinction interval (2 oC to
12.2 oC temperature anomaly zone) as the Arctic Gakkel Ridge
frequency data (b) and the Giss Arctic mean November surface
temperature data (d). This suggests that the Giss Arctic mean
November surface temperature curve and the Arctic Gakkel Ridge
frequency temperature curves are good estimates of the global
extinction temperature gradient.
Figure
7 diagramatically shows the funnel shaped region in purple, yellow
and brown of atmospheric stability of methane derived from Arctic
subsea methane eruption fountains/torches formed above destabilized
shelf and slope methane hydrates (Connor, 2011). The width of this
zone expands exponentially from 2010 with increasing temperature to
reach a lifetime of more than 75 years at 80 o F (26.66 oC) which is
the estimated mean atmospheric temperature of the major Permian
extinction event (Wignall 2009). The previous most catastrophic mass
extinction event occured in the Permian when atmospheric methane
released from methane hydrates was the primary driver of the massive
mean atmospheric temperature increase to 80 oF (26.66 oC) at a time
when the atmospheric carbon dioxide was less than at present
(Wignall, 2009).
Method
of Analysis
By
combining fractional amounts of an assumed standard Arctic methane
fountain/torch/plume with a global warming potential of 1000 (which
equals a 16 oC temperature rise (4 - 20 oC) over one year - 2010 -
2011) with the mean global temperature curve (from IPCC 2007 -
gradient data) it was possible to closely match the 5 visually and
mathematically determined best estimates of the global extinction
gradients shown in Figure 6 (a to e). Because the thermal radiant
flux from the earth into space is a function of its area (Lide and
Fredrickse, 1995) we can roughly determine how many years it will
take for the methane to spread globally by getting the ratio of the
determined fraction of the mean global temperature curve to the
fraction of the Arctic methane fountain/torch/plume curve, as the
latter is assumed to represent only one year of methane emissions. In
addition as the earth's surface area is some 5.1*10^8 square
kilometres (Lide and Fredrickse, 1995) a rough estimate of the
average area of the region over which the methane emissions occur
within the Arctic can also be determined by multiplying the Arctic
methane/torch/plume fraction by the surface area of the earth. The
Arctic fountain/torch areas are expressed as the diameter of circular
region of methane emissions or the two axes A and B of an ellipse
shaped area of methane emissions (where B = 4A) (Table 1)
Twenty
estimates have been made of the times of the various extinction
events in the northern and southern hemispheres and these are shown
on Table 1 and summarised on Figure 7 with their ranges. The absolute
mean extinction time for the northern hemisphere is 2031.8 and for
the southern hemisphere 2047.6 with a final mean extinction time for
3/4 of the earth's surface of 2039.6 which is similar to the
extinction time suggested previously from correlations between
planetary orbital mechanics and the frequency increase of Great and
Normal earthquake activity on Earth (Light, 2011). Extinction in the
southern hemisphere lags the northern hemisphere by 9 to 29 years.
Figure
8 shows a different method of interpreting the extinction fields
defined by the (12 +-3) + 6% year long lifetime of methane (IPCC,
1992) assumed to have been instantaneously injected into the Arctic
atmosphere in 2010 and the lifetime of the globally spreading methane
atmospheric veil at different methane global warming potentials. The
start of extinction begins between 2020 and 2026.9 and extinction
will be complete in the northern hemisphere by 2057. Extinction will
begin around 2024 in the southern hemisphere and will be completed by
2087. Extinction in the southern hemisphere, in particular in
Antarctica will be delayed by some 30 years. This makes property on
the Transantarctic mountains of premium value for those people wish
to survive the coming methane firestorm for a few decades longer..
Figure
9. is a further refinement of the extinction fields shown in Figure
8. by defining a new latent heat of ice melting curve at different
ambient temperatures which has been calculated from the corrected
Arctic atmospheric temperature trend for the ice cap melt back
defined by the difference between the Piomass observed melt back time
and the IPCC modelled melt back time which predicts the melt back
incorrectly some 50 years into the future (Masters, 2009). This work
shows that the IPCC climate models are probably more than 100 years
out in their prediction of the complete melting of the Greenland and
Antarctic ice caps.
Method
of Analysis
To
melt 1 kg of ice you require 334 kilo Joules of energy (the latent
heat of melting of ice) to transform the solid into the liquid at 0
oC (Wikipedia, 2012 ).
Subsequently for each one oC temperature
rise, the water requires and additional 4.18 kilo Joules to heat it
up to the ambient temperature (Wikipedia, 2012). An 80 oC temperature
rise of a 1 kg mass of water requires almost exactly the same amount
of energy input (334.4 kJ) as the amount of energy required by the
latent heat of melting of ice (334 kJ) to covert one kg of ice into
water at 0 oC. Because one Joule is the energy equivalent of the
power of one watt sustained for one second there is also a time
element in the melting of the ice and the heating up of the water,
i.e. it is the function of temperature increase and the time similar
to the way oil is generated in sediments (Lopatin, 1971; Allen and
Allen, 1990).
If
we consider the time necessary to melt one kg of ice and then raise
its temperature to 80 oC, both of the above processes require the
same amount of energy so we can consider that the first half of the
time will simply involve conversion the solid ice into a liquid state
at 0 oC and the second half of the time in heating the resulting ice
water from 0 to 80 oC. This means that the ice melt curve at 80 oC
will lag the atmospheric temperature line by half the time at 80 oC.
For
temperatures less than 80 oC, the energy necessary to raise the water
formed from the melted ice to the ambient temperature is less than
that required for the latent melting of the ice (required to move it
from a solid to a liquid state) and progressively more relative
energy is needed at low temperatures to melt the ice.
The
following formulation has been used to calculate the ratio of the
time necessary for the melting of 1 kg of ice to water a 0 oC to the
time necessary for the heating up of the 1 kg of water produced from
the melted ice to the specified ambient temperature.
For
any power n, let 2^n represent the ambient temperature of 1 kg of
water which was derived from the melting of 1 kg of ice.
The
energy required for the original melting of the 1 kg ice to water at
0 oC (latent heat of melting of ice) = 2^(n-3)/10 = 2^n/(2^3*10) =
2^n/80 = ambient temperature/80
Examples;
Let
n=1; therefore temperature = 2^1 = 2 oC
Latent
heat of melting = 2^(n-3)/10 = 2^-2/10 = 1/10*1/(2^2) =1/10*1/4 =
1/40
Let
n=5; therefore temperature = 2^5 = 32 oC
Latent
heat of melting = 2^(n-3)/10 = 2^2/10 = 4/10
The
ratio of the time required for the latent heat of melting at any
temperature is the reciprocal of the above = 10/(2^n-3)
The
total time is therefore
a.)
The time necessary for the latent heat of melting to covert 1 kg of
ice into water
at
0 oC = 10/(2^n-3)
and:-
b.)
The time required to heat up the 1 kg of water up to a temperature of
2^n = 1.
The
total time = (10/(2^n-3)+1)
Therefore
the fraction of time needed to simply melt the ice to 0 oC before it
is raised to the ambient temperature 2^n =
10/(2^n-3)/((10/(2^n-3))+1)
Now:
((10/(2^n-3)) +1) = (10+ (2^n-3))/(2^(n-3))
The
total time is therefore = 10/(10+(2^n-3))
Examples
showing the calculation of the time ratio of the energy of latent
heat of melting of ice to form water at 0 oC to the energy necessary
to raise the water to the ambient temperature are shown below:-
N
2^n oC Fraction Formula Fraction
0
1 10/(10+1/8)
0.9877
1
2 10/(10+1/4)
0.9756
2
4 10/(10+1/2)
0.9526
3
8 10/(10+1)
0.9091
4
16 10/(10+2)
0.8333
5
32 10/(10+4)
0.7143
6
64 10/(10+8)
0.5555
6.32193
80 10/(10+10) 0.5000
The
time value at each temperature of the corrected Arctic atmospheric
temperature trend from the observed ice cap melt back (Masters, 2009)
has been multiplied by the above fraction for each ambient
temperature to determine a new "latent heat of ice melting
curve" which represents the temperature - time energy necessary
for the complete melting of the ice to water at 0 oC without the
additional energy needed to raise the water to the ambient
temperature of the atmosphere. This latent heat of ice melting curve
is shown as the dark blue line on Figure 9.
The
maximum mean global atmospheric temperature above which all the
world's icecaps will have completely melted away is estimated to lie
between 7 oC and 8 oC above the mean global temperature which here is
taken as 14.49 oC in 1990 (IPCC, 2007). The critical temperatures
above which the Earth will entirely lose its ice caps are between
21.49 oC and 22.49 oC. It has been found however that the latent heat
of ice melting curve first intersects the maximum lifetime stability
line for atmospheric methane calculated from the methane global
warming potentials (see. Figure 3) at the 20.964 oC extinction line
(6.474 degrees centigrade above the atmospheric mean temperature of
14.49 oC in 1980) at 2050.1 and the 22.49 oCextinction line (8 oC
above the atmospheric mean temperature of 14.49 oC in 1980) at
2051.3. Therefore the limits of the final melting and loss of all ice
on Earth have been fixed between the 6.474 oC and 8 oC anomalies
above the 1990 mean atmospheric temperature of 14.49 oC. This very
narrow temperature range includes all the mathematically and visually
determined extinction times and their means for the northern and
southern hemispheres which were calculated quite separately (Figure
7; Table 1).
Once
the world's ice caps have completely melted away at temperatures
above 22.49 oC and times later than 2051.3, the Earth's atmosphere
will heat up at an extremely fast rate to reach the Permian
extinction event temperature of 80oF (26.66 oC)(Wignall, 2009) by
which time all life on Earth will have been completely extinguished.
The
position where the latent heat of ice melting curve intersects the 8
oC extinction line (22.49 oC) at 2051.3 represents the time when 100
percent of all the ice on the surface of the Earth will have melted.
If we make this point on the latent heat of ice melting curve equal
to 1 we can determine the time of melting of any fraction of the
Earth's icecaps by using the time*temperature function at each time
from 2051.3 back to 2015, the time the average Arctic atmospheric
temperature curve is predicted to exceed 0 oC. The process of melting
1 kg of ice and heating the produced water up to a certain
temperature is a function of the sum of the latent heat of melting
of ice is 334 kilo Joules/kg and the final water temperature times
the 4.18 kilo Joules/Kg.K (Wikipedia, 2012). This however represents
the energy required over a period of one second to melt 1 kg of ice
to water and raise it to the ambient temperature. Therefore the total
energy per mass of ice over a certain time period is equal to (334
+(4.18*Ambient Temperature)*time in seconds that the melted water
took to reach the ambient temperature. From the fractional
time*temperature values at each ambient temperature the fractional
amounts of melting of the total global icecaps have been calculated
and are shown on Figure 9.
The
earliest calculated fractional volume of melting of the global ice
caps in 2016 is 1.85*10^-3 of the total volume of global ice with an
average yearly rate of ice melting of 2.557*10^-3 of the total volume
of global ice. This value is remarkably similar to, but slightly less
than the average rate of melting of the Arctic sea ice measured over
an 18 year period of 2.7*10^-3 (1978 to 1995; 2.7% per decade - IPCC
2007).This close correlation between observed rates of Arctic ice cap
and predicted rates of global ice cap melting indicates that average
rates of Arctic ice cap melting between 1979 and 2015 (which
represents the projected time the Arctic will lose its ice cover -
Masters, 2009) will be continued during the first few years of
melting of the global ice caps after the Arctic ice cover has gone in
2015 as the mean Arctic atmospheric temperature starts to climb above
0 oC. However from 2017 the rate of melting of the global ice will
start to accelerate as will the atmospheric temperature until by 2049
it will be more than 9 times as fast as it was around 2015 (Table 2).
The
mean rate of melting of the global icecap between 2017 and 2049 is
some 2*10^-2, some 7.4 times the mean rate of melting of the Arctic
ice cap (Table 2). In concert with the increase in rate of global ice
cap melting between 2017 and 2049, the acceleration in the rate of
melting also increases from 7*10^-4 to 9.9*10^-4 with a mean value
close to 8.6*10^-4 (Table 2). The ratio of the acceleration in the
rate of global ice cap melting to the Arctic ice cap melting
increases from 3.4 in 2017 to 4.8 by 2049 with a mean near 4.2. This
fast acceleration in the rate of global ice cap melting after 2015
compared to the Arctic sea ice cap melting before 2015 is because the
mean Arctic atmospheric temperature after 2017 is spiraling upward in
temperature above 0 oC adding
large amounts of additional energy to the ice and causing it to melt
back more quickly.
The
melt back of the Arctic ice cap is a symptom of the Earth's disease
but not its cause and it is the cause that has to be dealt with if we
hope to bring about a cure. Therefore a massive cut back in carbon
dioxide emissions should be mandatory for all developed nations (and
some developing nations as well). Total destruction of the methane in
the Arctic atmosphere is also mandatory if we are to survive the
effects of its now catastrophic rate of build up in the atmospheric
methane concentration However cooling of the Arctic using
geoengineering methods is also vitally important to reduce the
effects of the ice cap melting further enhancing the already out of
control destabilization of the methane hydrates on the Arctic shelf
and slope.
· Developed
(and some developing) countries must cut back their carbon dioxide
emissions by a very large percentage (50% to 90%) by 2020 to
immediately precipitate a cooling of the Earth and its crust. If this
is not done the earthquake frequency and methane emissions in the
Arctic will continue to grow exponentially leading to our
inexorable demise between 2031 to 2051.
· Geoenginering
must be used immediately as a cooling method in the Arctic to
counteract the effects of the methane buildup in the short term.
However these methods will lead to further pollution of the
atmosphere in the long term and will not solve the earthquake
induced Arctic methane buildup which is going to lead to our
annihilation.
· The
United States and Russia must immediately develop a net of powerful
radio beat frequency transmission stations around the Arctic using
the critical 13.56 MHZ beat frequency to break down the methane
in the stratosphere and troposphere to nanodiamonds and hydrogen
(Light 2011a) . Besides the elimination of the high global warming
potential methane, the nanodiamonds may form seeds for light
reflecting noctilucent clouds in the stratosphere and a light
coloured energy reflecting layer when brought down to the Earth by
snow and rain (Light 2011a). HAARP transmission systems are able to
electronically vibrate the strong ionospheric electric current that
feeds down into the polar areas and are thus the least evasive method
of directly eliminating the buildup of methane in those
critical regions (Light 2011a).
The
warning about extinction is stark. It is remarkable that global
scientists had not anticipated a giant buildup of methane in
the atmosphere when it had been so clearly predicted 10 to 20 years
ago and has been shown to be critically linked to extinction events
in the geological record (Kennett et al. 2003). Furthermore all the
experiments should have already been done to determine which
geoengineering methods were the most effective in
oxidising/destroying the methane in the atmosphere in case it should
ever build up to a concentration where it posed a threat to humanity.
Those methods need to be applied immediately if there is any faint
hope of reducing the catastrophic heating effects of the fast
building atmospheric methane concentration.
Malcolm
Light 9th February, 2012
References
Arctic
Methane Emergency Group
Allen,
P.A., and Allen, J.R. Basin Analysis, Principles and Applications.
Blackwell, Oxford, 451 pp.
Carana,
S. 2011b. Light, M.P.R. and Carana, S. 2011c. - Methane linked to
seismic activity in the Arctic.
Carana,
S. 2011g. Runaway Global Warming.
Connor,
S. 2011. Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly
greenhouse gas. Russian research team astonished after finding
fountains of methane bubbling to surface. The Independent.
DATAWeb,
2011. Combined Data Earth Policy Institute.
Dessus,
B., and Laponche B., Herve le Treut, 2008. Global Warming: The
Significance of Methane bd-bl-hlt January 2008.
Hansen,
J. E. 2011. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. NASA. Goddard
Institute for Space
Physics. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgibin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2011&month_last=08&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=02&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=pol
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1992a. Climate Change. The IPCC
Scientific Assessment (Edited by J. J. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins and J.
J. Ephraums). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. U.K.
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1992b. Climate Change in 1992. The
Supplementary report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment (Edited by J.
J. Houghton, B. A. Callander and S. K. Varney). Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. U.K.
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007a. Fourth Assessment Report on
Climate Change 2007. FAO 3.1, Figure 1, WG1, Chapter 3, p. 253.
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007b. Synthesis Report
Kennet,
J.P., Cannariato, K.G., Hendy, I.L., Behl, R.J., 2003. Methane
Hydrates in Quaternary Climate Change. The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis,
Washington D.C., American Geophysical Union. ISBN 0875902960
Lide.
D.R. and Frederikse H.P.R., 1995. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics. 75th Edition, CRC Press, London. pp. 1-1 - 1-33.
Light
M.P.R. 2011a. Use of beamed interfering radio frequency transmissions
to decompose Arctic atmospheric methane clouds. Edited by Sam Carana.
Lopatin,
N.V. 1971. Temperature and geologic time as factors in coalification
(in Russian). Akad. Nauk SSSR. Izvestiya. Seriya Geologicheskaya, 3,
pp.95 - 106.
Masters.
J. 2009. Top Climate Story of 2008. Arctic Sea Ice Loss. Dr Jeff
Masters Wunderblog.
NASA,
2002. Global Temperature Anomalies in 0.1C. Goddard Institute for
Space Studies., NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Earth Sciences
Directorate.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data,
updated December 2002.
Norwegian
Polar Institute, 2001. Svalbard, Climate:
NOAA
2011a. Huge sudden atmospheric methane spike Arctic Svalbard (north
of - Norway)
NOAA
2011b. Huge sudden methane spike recorded at Barrow (BRW), Alaska,
United States. Generated ESRL/GMO – 2011. December 14-17-21 pm
Rianovosti,
2011. Russian, US scientists set to study methane release in Arctic.
ScienceRSS
Semiletov,
I. 2011. Quoted from Itar-Tass. Heavy methane emissions found in the
Arctic Eastern Sector. Itar-Tass. September 26, 2011.
Shakel
M., 2005. Sustainability: Our Environment.
Shakova
N., Semiletov, I., Salyuk, A., and Kosmach, D., 2008. Anomalies of
methane in the atmosphere over the East Siberian Shelf. Is there any
sign of methane leakage from shallow shelf hydrates? EGU General
Assembly 2008. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 10, EGU2008-A-01526
Shakova,
N. and Semiletov, I., 2010a. Methane release from the East Siberian
Shelf and the potential for abrupt climate change. Presentation in
November 30, 2010.
Shakova
N., Semiletov, I., Leifer, I., Salyuk, A., Rekant, P., and Kosmach,
D. 2010b. Geochemical and geophysical evidence of methane release
over the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Journal Geophys. Research 115,
C08007
Shakova,
N., Semiletov, I., Salyuk, A., Yusupov, V., Kosmach, D., and
Gustafsson, O., 2010c. Extensive methane venting to the atmosphere
from sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Science.
Wignall,
P. 2009. Miracle Planet; Episode 4, Part 2. Coproduced by NHK (Japan)
and the National Film Board of Canada (NFB).
Wikipedia.,
2012. Enthalpy of Fusion.
progress
On
a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction
There's
no 'adaptation' to such steep warming. We must stop pandering to
special interests, and try a new, post-Kyoto strategy
Oliver
Tickell
11
August, 2008, 2014
We
need to get prepared for four
degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last
week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate
science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C
rise is absurd and dangerous. Global
warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in
the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the
end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or
perhaps the beginning
of our extinction.
The
collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing
long-term sea
level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would
be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial
infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The
world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of
the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create
the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather
would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe
droughts, floods
and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely
reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.
Watson's
call was supported by the government's former chief scientific
adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a
four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a
runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The
climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably
the summer melting
of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine
is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the
Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a
greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years –
captured under melting permafrost is already under way.
To
see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the
Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase
of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon
into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed
sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea
levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial
warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn
that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the
warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar
hothouse Earth.
But
what are we to do? All our policies to date to tackle global warming
have been miserable failures. The Kyoto protocol has created a vast
carbon market but done little to reduce emissions. The main effect of
the EU's emissions trading scheme has been to transfer about €30bn
or more from consumers to Europe's biggest polluters, the power
companies. The EU and US foray into biofuels
has, at huge cost, increased greenhouse gas emissions
and created a world food
crisis, causing starvation in many poor countries.
So
are all our efforts doomed to failure? Yes, so long as our
governments remain craven to special interests, whether carbon
traders or fossil fuel companies. The carbon market is a valuable
tool, but must be subordinate to climatic imperatives. The truth is
that to prevent runaway greenhouse warming, we will have to leave
most of the world's fossil fuels in the ground, especially
carbon-heavy coal, oil shales and tar sands. The fossil fuel and
power companies must be faced down.
Global
problems need global solutions, and we also need an effective
replacement for the failed Kyoto protocol. The entire Kyoto system of
national allocations is obsolete because of the huge volumes of
energy
embodied in products traded across national boundaries. It also
presents a major obstacle to any new agreement – as demonstrated by
the 2008 G8
meeting in Japan that degenerated into a squabble over national
emission rights.
The
answer? Scrap national allocations and place a single global cap on
greenhouse gas emissions, applied "upstream" – for
instance, at the oil refinery, coal-washing station and cement
factory. Sell permits up to that cap in a global auction, and use the
proceeds to finance solutions to climate change – accelerating the
use of renewable
energy, raising energy efficiency, protecting forests, promoting
climate-friendly farming, and researching geoengineering
technologies. And commit hundreds of billions of dollars per year to
finance adaptation to climate change, especially in poor countries.
Such
a package of measures would allow us to achieve zero net greenhouse
gas emissions by 2050, and long-term stabilisation at 350 parts per
million of CO2 equivalent. This avoids the economic pain that a
cap-and-trade system alone would cause, and targets assistance at the
poor, who are least to blame and most need help. The permit auction
would raise about $1 trillion per year, enough to finance a spread of
solutions. At a quarter of the world's annual oil spending, it is a
price well worth paying.
·
Oliver Tickell's book Kyoto2 has just been published kyoto2.org
The following are measured levels of methane emissions with a projection through to 2021
The following are measured levels of methane emissions with a projection through to 2021
Importantly,
methane levels have risen even more strongly than carbon dioxide
levels. As the image at the top of this post shows, the current
methane level is 250% its pre-industrial peak level, i.e. 1100 ppb
above the pre-industrial peak level of 700 ppb. Historically, methane
has only moved by some 300 ppb between a glacial and interglacial
phase of the ice ages. IPCC/NOAA figures suggest that global mean
methane levels have been rising by 5 or 6 ppb annually over recent
years and there are some worrying indications that the rise of
methane levels might accelerate even further.
To
obtain mean methane abundance, measurements are typically taken at an
altitude of 586 mb, as methane typically shows up most prominently at
this altitude. Indeed, mean methane levels were highest at this
altitude in April 2013, at just under 1800 ppb. Looking at mean
global methane levels in April 2014 at this altitude, one could at
first glance conclude that the situation had not changed much, and
that 2014 methane levels had merely risen by a few ppb, in line with
IPCC data. So, at first glance one might conclude that there may
appear to be only a minimal rise (if any at all) in global mean
methane levels when taking measurements at lower altitudes.
The
image below illustrates this. What should be added is that the
analysis used only selected altitudes and only used part of all data.
So, further analysis may be necessary to verify these findings.
Importantly,
closer examination of above graph shows that the situation is
dramatically different when looking at the rise in methane levels at
higher altitudes. A huge rise in mean methane levels appears to have
taken place, to the extent that the highest mean level is now reached
at 469 mb. Overall, the average rise in methane across the altitudes
that are highlighted in the image is no less than 16 ppb.
The
table below shows the altitude equivalents in mb (millibar)
and feet.
| 56925 feet | 44689 feet | 36850 feet | 30569 feet | 25543 feet | 19819 feet | 14383 feet | 8367 feet | 1916 feet |
| 74 mb | 147 mb | 218 mb | 293 mb | 367 mb | 469 mb | 586 mb | 742 mb | 945 mb |
As
the image below illustrates, this rise appears to go hand in hand
with much higher peak readings, especially at higher altitudes. It
appears that the additional methane originates from the higher
latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and has over the past few months
moved closer to the equator, which is what typically occurs as
methane rises in altitude.
Peak
readings in above image are averages over April. On specific days,
peak readings could be much higher, e.g. on April 28, 2014, methane
levels were recorded as high as 2551 ppb at 469 mb.
As
said, there appears to be a 16 ppb rise when comparing global mean
methane levels between April 2013 and April 2014. Indeed, the
culprit appears to be the rapid rise of methane emissions from
hydrates that has been documented by this blog and that I estimated
to amount to 99 Tg annually, as illustrated by the image below, from
an earlier
post.
So,
it appears that the rise of methane in the atmosphere is
accelerating. What can we expect? As temperatures can be expected to
continue to rise and as feedbacks start to kick in, this may well
constitute a non-linear trend. The image below shows a polynomial
trend that is contained in IPCC AR5 data from 1955 to 2011, so they
didn't include this recent steep rise. Nonetheless, the polynomial
trendline points at methane reaching mean global levels higher than
3000 ppb by the year 2030. If methane starts to erupt in large
quantities from clathrates underneath the seafloor of the Arctic
Ocean, this may well be where we are heading.
This, and much more at Arctic News
This, and much more at Arctic News
These items are often criticised for not betng "peer-reviewed". A valid criticism. The review won't be by peers: it will be by the natural systems themselves. If tnese items pass that review, the peers be damned - and will be damned.
ReplyDelete