A Note: Global Warming Threads

[kwhilborn]

"Err on the side of caution"

That sentence takes on a lot more meaning if we are discussing the future of mankind. If there is even a small percentage of a chance that altering human behaviours can save future lives then we must act on those chances. It is only common sense.

There are ways mankind can reduce CO2 in the atmosphere whether it was put there by mankind or not.

 

[iceaura]

If you want to see a major source of natural CO2, look at this video from NASA; Fire and Smoke. It is based on 10 years of collecting fire data world wide from space.

There are many natural sources of CO2 that could be contributing to the accumulation, but wildfire is not one of them - that CO2 was removed from the air recently in the first place, as is simply being returned over a short time scale. Wildfire (human set or otherwise) is carbon neutral on a decade scale.

The smoke has an effect, but it's complicated - last I checked it was thought to be shading and cooling overall. We are fortunate in that the aerosol and particulate output of industrial civilization is shading and cooling, net - the CO2 effects have been less than they could have been, as a result, and that buys us more time to adjust.

Analysis of the isotope data from Mauna Loa and other such observatories has long established where the CO2 boost is coming from. That's not up for debate any more.

 

[river]

"Err on the side of caution"

That sentence takes on a lot more meaning if we are discussing the future of mankind. If there is even a small percentage of a chance that altering human behaviours can save future lives then we must act on those chances. It is only common sense.

There are ways mankind can reduce CO2 in the atmosphere whether it was put there by mankind or not.

The thing is though plants need CO2 to survive

So by how much do you reduce the CO2 levels by ?

 

[river]

Some glaciers are expanding heres a list

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

 

[river]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...dvancing-rather-than-melting-study-finds.html

Important read ALL the quotes from the list , from the powers that be ( by dangaspiel )

They have a ...well .. You'll get it once you read them ....

Just thought we should know

 

[river]

For those that have read the quotes of the powers that be , list , by dangaspiel

I get that population control will have to be implemented eventually ( I doubt they include themselves in this plan ) and that we pollute the world carelessly

But what disturbs me is the attitude towards the everyday people and then how they go about this ...

They want control people , plain and simple , of this planet

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

The thing is though plants need CO2 to survive

So by how much do you reduce the CO2 levels by ?

I believe the goals are more along the lines of trying to stop the increase and, if we ever manage to reduce it, to reduce only slightly, probably we wouldn't reach something like pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 in our lifetimes, and even if we did, it would not be endangering plants, or making anything harder for them, as there was more vegetation back then as well. There's surely no risk of suddenly getting into the situation that the plants are all "starved" of CO2.



...



Unrelated to the previous comment: I saw this kiddish presentation of AGW basics by Bill Nye, I was just wondering if CO2 really has a "reflective" effect at that scale, rather than something like being a better thermic "container" than air with less CO2. I think it's almost necessarily true that more CO2 at this "micro scale" allows air to "contain" more heat, as it' molecularly "denser," but perhaps there's is the effect of radioactive reflection/"greenhouse," and the heating of the gas itself is negligible. My gut feeling is the opposite, though.

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8

I'm not arguing against greenhouse "theory", I'm just skeptical that such scale/design really reproduces what really happens.

 

[billvon]

The thing is though plants need CO2 to survive. So by how much do you reduce the CO2 levels by ?

Back to historical levels would be a good plan. The world was doing pretty well before we started raising CO2 levels.

 

[Billy T]

I'm not worried much by the direct effects of more CO2 in the air. It has been much higher in the past and for several other reasons:
(1) As others have noted it facilitates plant growth rates and this has been confirmed by increasing the CO2 concentrations in green houses.
(2) Animals, humans included, can tolerate much higher levels - in fact the breath you exhale is with much higher concentration - I forget how much but seem to recall more than 10 times the current 400ppm of the air.
(3) CO2 only blocks the IR from escaping that has wave lengths in its absorption bands and because it is a linear molecule (O-C-O) these band are less effective than a 3D molecule, like CH4, which has wider, more numerous, an stronger absorption bands. Molecule-for-molecule, CH4 is more than 10 times more effective as a green house gas than CO2 in air with low concentrations of both.
(4) The current concentration of CO2 is blocking about 2/3 of all the IR it can. - It can only block 100% of the IR in its absorption bands and to do even 90% of that its concentration would need to be many times higher than the current 400 ppm.
(5) CH4 concentrations are growing - no longer have a dynamic equilibrium between release rate and destruction rate as they did for at least the last 700,000 year (See blue curve in final graph.) This increases the rate of global warming and causes an increase in the ocean evaporation rate. While much of the water vapor added to the air falls out as rain, that is causing more flooding, etc. and greater average humidity. Water vapor is a much worse Green House Gas than even CH4! (Because H2O is a permanently polarized molecule - both positive Hs on same side of the negative O, with only 105 degree angular separation.)
(6) If the wet bulb temperature should reach only 35C (95F) for a few hours, most in the effected region would die as even resting in a chair human wth 37C bodies need to dump ~100 Watts to their environment. This is mainly done by perspiration, but only 2C degrees differential from perspiration wet skin and a 35C wet bulb air is not enough to keep a person form over heating and dying.

What worries me is the unpresidented rate of CO2 concentration increase. (2ppm per year) This rapidly growing rate of CO2 releases is now releasing CH4 more rapidly than it can be destroyed. The atmospheric concentration of CH4 is going up with no end limit known as the decomposing methane hydrates in shallow waters and tundra store more carbon than has ever existed in all the coal and oil the earth once had!

This graph vs. blue line in final graph shows what worries me more than CO2:

Note the "to date" was three years ago. CH4 is bubbling up in shallow Arctic ocean now in mile diameter "clouds" too dense for sub's sonars to work. (Too much sound scattering.)
To see these CH4 bubble clouds go ~7.5 minutes into this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsPHytEnJM Keep watching to learn more how serious Arctic Ice meting is.

The most effective sink of atmospheric methane is the hydroxyl radical in the troposphere, or the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere. As methane rises into the air, it reacts with the hydroxyl radical to create water vapor and carbon dioxide. The lifespan of methane in the atmosphere was estimated at 9.6 years as of 2001; however, increasing emissions of methane over time reduce the concentration of the hydroxyl radical in the atmosphere. With less OH˚ to react with, the lifespan of methane could also increase*, resulting in greater concentrations of atmospheric methane. Even if it is not destroyed in the troposphere, methane can usually only last 12 years before it is eventually destroyed in Earth’s next atmospheric layer: the stratosphere. Destruction in the stratosphere occurs the same way that it does in the troposphere: methane is oxidized to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor.

* Estimates of the half-life of CH4, now tend to range between 10 and 12 years. (12 being from February 2013 Ref. at: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html) There also the CH4 concentration is stated to be between 1.758 to 1.874 ppm or an average of 1.816. Note the graph only goes to 1850. (Now at times the CH4 is above the chart.) 400 / 1.816 = 220 times less than the current CO2 concentration. CO2 blocking IR is now like an increase of solar flux of 1.85W/m^2 but CH4 is like 0.51 W/m^2 despite having 220 time lower concentration. Also CH4 is far from blocking all the IR it can. Still in a linear range function of concentration. If the CH4 concentration were to increase by a factor of 1.85/0.51 =3.627 or to an average concentration of 6.59 ppm then it would be as important a CO2 is now and still in the linear function range.

With global warming there is a positive feed back and an increasing source of CH4 - decomposing methane hydrates. The rate of oxidation removal of CH4 is dropping as more CH4 reduces the concentration of OH- radicals in the air. Read again the text I made bold in the quote above.

This graph, spanning the last 650,000 years shows (The essentially vertical red and blue lines at t=0) how unpresidented the CO2 & CH4 concentrations are growing in a mutual positive feed back:

This "interglacial period" is DIFFERENT- May kill all animals, including humans.

Variations of deutrium (δD) in antarctic ice, which is a proxy for local temperature, and the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) in air trapped within the ice cores and from recent atmospheric measurements. Data cover 650,000 years and the shaded bands indicate current and previous interglacial warm periods.

SUMMARY: Man need to switch away from fossil fuels ASAP. All the world's cars needing liquid fuel could run on alcohol derived from sugar cane 10 years from now. (It will take ~10 years to convert them all, but that is very cheap compared to new EVs and requires only trivial changes at car factories as alcohol fueled cars are still basically the same IC engine.) Nuclear energy, safely made as the French do with all control rooms identical, should be the base load power with solar (PV cells and wind) with super flywheel storage making the rest. Note flywheels can charge up and discharge at least 10 times faster than any battery and as running in a vacuum with magnetic bearings have essentially unlimited number of charge/discharge cycles possible. - Not only at best a few hundred cycles as most batteries do, before serious loss of capacity occurs.

PS if you doubt that it is possible for only a tiny percent (~2 or 3%) of the world's arable land to grow all the sugar cane, needed to fuel all the world's cars needing liquid fuel a decade from now then find some fault with the analysis showing that here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?133084-Apocalypse-Soon&p=3079459&viewfull=1#post3079459 (Post # 1436 of "Apocalypse Soon" thread.)
Also at least look at the graphics in post 1439. Note that the improvements possible in food and fiber production possible just by ending very inefficient "slash and burn" agricultural practices used in many parts of the world can get a sustainable yield per acre increase of at least 20%.

Note also that the "Pennsylvania Dutch" have been farming the same land for more than 150 years without the use of pesticides or artificial fertilizer and now get premium prices for their produce and have top soil a foot thick. It would be thicker, but that is as deep as their horse drawn plows can go. That "its possible" analysis assumes that cellulosic alcohol is NOT economically viable. If it is and the crushed cane is also converted into alcohol, perhaps only 1% of the earth's arable land needs to be growing cane. Crushed cane is the most economical source of cellulosic alcohol as it is already at the alcohol producing plant with no cost to collect it from the fields, like switch grass, etc. has.

In addition to link in 2nd paragraph above: Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUBZi3t4ZTo (Nine consequences to expect from ice free arctic a few years from now.)

 

[Billy T]

If my prior post (869) did not convence you that man needs to switch from fossil fuels ASAS (and pray we are not too late as positive feed backs have already taken over.) this should:

A new Nature paper [1] warned that exactly this {The Arctic methane time bomb} scenario could trigger costs {60 trillion dollars as most coastal cities flood, etc.} equivalent to the annual GDP of the global economy. … None of the scientists rejecting the plausibility of the scenario are experts in the Arctic, specifically the East Siberia Arctic Shelf (ESAS). In contrast, an emerging consensus among ESAS specialists based on continuing fieldwork is highlighting a real danger of unprecedented quantities of methane venting due to thawing permafrost.

The 50 Gt scenario used by the new Nature paper does not postulate the total release of the ESAS methane hydrate reservoir, but only a tiny fraction of it. The scale of this scenario is roughly corroborated elsewhere. A 2010 scientific analysis led by the UK's Met Office in Review of Geophysics recognized the plausibility of catastrophic carbon releases from Arctic permafrost thawing of between 50-100 Gt this century, with a 40 Gt carbon release from the Siberian Yedoma region possible over four decades. {Note a 40 Gt release is 1000 times more CH4 than currently in the air and only increasing CH4 air concentration by a factor of 4 will make CH4's contribution to global warming larger than that of CO2!}

Shakhova and her team have developed these findings from data derived from over 20 field expeditions from 1999 to 2011. In 2010, Shakhova et. al published a paper in Science [4] based on their annual research trips which highlighted that the ESAS was a key reservoir of methane "more than three times as large as the nearby Siberian wetland... considered the primary Northern Hemisphere source of atmospheric methane." … As the ESAS is shallow at only 50 meters, most of the methane being released is escaping into the atmosphere rather than being absorbed into water. {Bubbles rising in deep waters are absorbed before reaching the surface, IF they do not establish a vertical convection current due to the lower average water density. I.e. a growing "Taylor Instability."}
There has been direct observation and sampling of these hydrates by Russian geologists; this has also been confirmed by US government scientists. {E.g. CH4air concentrations, just above the water surface of 8ppm have been observed - 4.5 times higher than the average global concentration.}

The instability of Arctic methane hydrates in relation to sea ice retreat - not predicted by conventional models - has been increasingly recognized by experts. [2] Even if the methane hydrates are deep, fissures, taliks and other soft spots create heat pathways from the seabed.

In 2007, a study in Eos, Transactions [3]found that:
"Large volumes of methane in gas hydrate form can be stored within or below the subsea permafrost, and the stability of this gas hydrate zone is sustained by the existence of permafrost. Degradation of subsea permafrost and the consequent destabilization of gas hydrates could significantly if not dramatically increase the flux of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere."

In 2009, a research team of 19 scientists wrote a paper in Geophysical Research Letters documenting how the past thirty years of a warming Arctic current due to contemporary climate change was triggering unprecedented emissions of methane from gas hydrate in submarine sediments beneath the seabed in the West Spitsbergen continental margin. Prior to the new warming, these methane hydrates had been stable at water depths as shallow as 360m. Over 250 plumes of methane gas bubbles were found rising from the seabed due to the 1C temperature increase in the current:
"... causing the liberation of methane from decomposing hydrate... If this process becomes widespread along Arctic continental margins, tens of Teragrams of methane per year could be released into the ocean."

The Russian scientists investigating the ESAS also confirmed that the levels of methane release they discovered were new. As Steve Connor reported in the Independent, since 1994 Igor Semilitov:
"... has led about 10 expeditions in the Laptev Sea but during the 1990s he did not detect any elevated levels of methane. However, since 2003 he reported a rising number of methane 'hotspots', which have now been confirmed using more sensitive instruments."

In 2012, a Nature study[5] mapping over 150,000 Arctic methane seeps concluded that:
"... in a warming climate, disintegration of permafrost, glaciers and parts of the polar ice sheets could facilitate the transient expulsion of 14C-depleted methane trapped by the cryosphere cap." {Note the absence of C14, which decays, shows these vast stores of CH4 under the submerged permafrost are ancient "fossil methane" trapped during the last ice age. Unfortunately, their cryoshere caps" are now failing and releasing the methane at unpresidented rates. - Much faster than it can be destroyed. So fast that it is lowering the OH- radical concentrations needed to destroy it! I.e. CH4's atmospheric life times are increasing, as confirmed by both measurements and theory.)

Multiple scientific reviews, including one by over 20 Arctic specialists, confirm decadal catastrophic Arctic methane release is plausible.

The “No worry” POV is based on theory (methane hydrate needs >360m deep ocean to be stable – Ergo does not exist in shallow oceans) which conflicts with the repeatedly observed facts. What the “no worry theory” seem to ignore is that there is a huge store of “fossil methane,” not hydrate, (concentrations of 1.2 million times what methane saturated water can hold have been observed) trapped under now submerged permafrost on the shallow ocean floor. I. e. during the last ice age, these now shallow ocean areas were methane laden hydrates on land, which have decomposed and just recently are their “cryosphere caps” developing fractures for their escape.

[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/full/499401a.html with discussion here:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/24/arctic-thawing-permafrost-climate-change

[2] http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010EGUGA..12.1046S (This Harvard study points out many ways, normally ignored, that deep earth heat can destabilize hydrates trapped under a submerged permafrost "blanket" even though if it were in thermal contact with the ~4C water above the submerged permafrost, it would be quite stable.)

[3] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007EO130001/abstract

[4] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.abstract

[5] http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/abs/ngeo1480.html

 

[Trippy]

this should: The “No worry” POV is based on theory (methane hydrate needs >360m deep ocean to be stable – Ergo does not exist in shallow oceans) which conflicts with the repeatedly observed facts.[/b][/size] What the “no worry theory” seem to ignore is that there is a huge store of “fossil methane,” not hydrate, (concentrations of 1.2 million times what methane saturated water can hold have been observed) trapped under now submerged permafrost on the shallow ocean floor. I. e. during the last ice age, these now shallow ocean areas were methane laden hydrates on land, which have decomposed and just recently are their “cryosphere caps” developing fractures for their escape.

Have you ever bothered reading the 2007 paper I linked for you discussing this matter? Or have you simply found some excuse to dismiss it like you did Kastings paper?

 

[Billy T]

Have you ever bothered reading the 2007 paper I linked for you discussing this matter? Or have you simply found some excuse to dismiss it like you did Kastings paper?

Yes & yes. I and others more expert than me, have found fault with it and they have improved upon it. After reading some of them, I too, along with NASA's Hansen, widely recognize as one of the world's leading authorities, and some others have reversed our earlier position: That the oceans might boil. Earth is too far from the sun for that to happen, but not too far from it for much greater average temperature and humidity to occur as oceans warm and evaporate more. - The increased frequency of serious flooding with the already increased rain fall is evident and will grow worse, still.

It is not necessary for the oceans to boil to kill all warm-blooded animals that perspire to keep from overheating. Several hours of web bulb temperature of 35C will kill all humans in that area, not taking refuge in air-conditioned areas, (or prolonged cool water baths, etc.) as their 37C bodies need to dump ~100 watts to the environment, via perspiration mainly without artificial cooling means, which many would not have. The coming "heat and humidity" plague will kill more than the black plague or the "Spanish flu" ever did.

Lets leave personal considerations aside. Tell what error the world's leading arctic experts - the ones making actual observations and measurements - are making when THEY sound the alarm. I am only trying to be conservative - error on the side of caution and pointing out that man does not need to burn one barrel of oil to power his cars. This is well established both in 30 years of Brazil's powering cars with sugar cane derived alcohol and by analysis in Post # 1436 of "Apocalypse Soon" thread (and others for example showing oil is not needed for plastic either or even making diesel fuel, which is more efficient than gasoline, but of little help with the global warming problem). A direct "click on" link to my "its possible to end burning of oil" analysis is given in post 869, two posts back. Note, without any subsidy, sugar cane based alcohol is actually cheaper per mile driven than gasoline when oil is $90/ barrel or more. It is the best form of solar energy from an economic POV.

Have your watched the video telling nine feed back consequences of the current summer melt of Arctic ocean? (Click-on Link in last sentence of post 869.) Two had not occurred to me: Namely (1)That the duration of a fixed area, say A, of Arctic Ocean free of ice is increasing each year now. I.e. it is not just that the albedo of that area is ~20 times better absorber of solar heat (which I have long known) but the durations of the solar heating is longer too. AND (2) that this ever greater heat absorption is used less for melting ice (no temperature increase) but more for heating water (a temperature increase). With these strong self-accelerating positive feed backs, man's contributions to global warming are becoming relatively less important so it may already be too late to avoid a life threating thermal run away. - no one knows. Certainly not the "experts," who based on lab studies, say methane hydrates can not exist in ~4C ocean bottom water more shallow than 360 meters. That is not very persuasive to Shakhova, who has made 20+ Arctic explorations measuring it in 50m deep water. Or to any of the members of the Arctic Emergency Group, who do real world investigations. So:

Please be critical of the facts in my posts and published papers (in Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters, and the Harvard Report, etc.) by the leading Arctic experts, and stop attacks on me, my qualifications, or implied ignorance.

I am just a messenger - spreading news about what seems to be a very serious concern PLUS showing how disaster* can be avoided with very minor modifications to existing cars and in the factories making new IC engine cars.

* The very recent (25 July 2013) Nature paper (First reference given at end of post 869) predicts that 60 Trillion dollars of damage will occur due to the now rapidly melting Arctic ice - probably not in my life time as I am old, but before most reading here are dead - should be of great concern to them as they already have great growing debts they can not pay. As far as I know, NOT ONE "expert" with actual field experience, measuring the melting ice disagrees with this "60 Trillion dollar cost" prediction. - I base this on the Guardian's statement: "None of the scientists rejecting the plausibility of the {The Arctic methane time bomb} scenario are experts in the Arctic, specifically the East Siberia Arctic Shelf."

 

[wellwisher]

An interesting observation is the South pole ice is not melting, even though the North pole is melting. Say we assume this trend will continue, for whatever reason, the final result will be the largest thermal gradient on the earth will be between the equator and the South pole. What would happen is the worse weather will be south of the equator due to the higher thermal gradient.

 

[Billy T]

An interesting observation is the South pole ice is not melting, even though the North pole is melting. Say we assume this trend will continue, for whatever reason, the final result will be the largest thermal gradient on the earth will be between the equator and the South pole. What would happen is the worse weather will be south of the equator due to the higher thermal gradient.

I don't know much about why the S. Pole is so much colder, but think part of the reason may be that it is sort of a large island with an ocean current that circulates around it - not possible at the N. pole. I think this current tends to help confine the lower average solar heating to the polar region rather than promote North South heat exchange as is strong in the Northern Hemisphere. I.e. there is nothing like the gulf stream or corresponding current in the pacific to bring equatorial heat down toward the S. Pole

Because so much more of the Southern Hemisphere is ocean it is better thermally buffered than the Northern Hemisphere - I expect the Northern Hemisphere is where, as is already the case, the weather will go thru wilder extremes. The angular momentum in the "jet steam" is decreasing, for exactly the lesser thermal difference you site as Arctic warms faster than mid latitudes, so its lateral excursions are growing larger. It has even dipped down into Texas a few times recently bringing cold arctic air to where it had never snowed before. It more frequently now makes terrible storms in the mid-west with many strong tornados as cold Arctic air clashes with the warm moist Gulf air. Strange as it seems the biggest bad mid west storms are partly caused by global warming and will get worse. The crop killing drought of the mid west a couple of years ago too is in part due to the fact cold and DRY Arctic air was too often over Iowa and Kansas, etc. as the lateral oscillations of the jet stream grow larger on average.

The "interesting observation" is not so much that little warming / little change is occurring at the S. Pole but that rapid heating is occurring at the N. pole in a strong positive feed back system. So strong that many think the Arctic ocean will be ice free each summer in less than a decade. I.e. only thin ice will form each winter and melt 100% by late summer each year. Perhaps after a decade or so of prolonged summer sunlight heating the water, the Arctic Ocean may not be able to completely ice over even in winter - too much warm surface water to cool.

 

[Billy T]

Even Australian Government's climate commission is concerned (Excessive CH4 release is a global humanitarian and economic disaster). Here from their report are the highlights:

A recent analysis (Whiteman et al., 2013) has shown that the economic risks associating with the destabilization of the permafrost methane vastly outweigh the possible economic benefits of an ice-free Arctic Ocean.
•The release of the East Siberian Sea methane would lead to impacts worth about US$60 trillion (by comparison, the total value of the world’s economy in 2012 was about US$70 trillion, and the value of the Australian economy is about US$1.5 trillion).
•The total cost of climate-related changes in the Arctic would be much greater than this.
•Most (about 80%) of the impacts will occur in the poorer countries of Africa, Asia and South America through increases in extreme weather, impacts on health and lower agricultural production.
•Reducing emissions rapidly and deeply to move the world onto a low-emissions trajectory would reduce the cost of the methane pulse to about US$37 trillion.
•A pulse of methane from the East Siberian Sea would bring forward the date at which the global average temperature crosses the 2˚C limit by 15-35 years.

What does all of this mean?

A rapid loss of methane from the East Siberian Sea could trigger a ‘domino effect,’ in which other tipping elements, especially those in the northern high latitudes, could come under increasing pressure and cross their own thresholds:
•Acceleration of loss of methane and CO₂ from the adjacent tundra permafrost in northern Siberia; about 30-60 billion tonnes of carbon could be released by 2040 and 230-380 billion tonnes carbon by 2100 under a strong warming scenario. By comparison, current emissions from burning fossil fuels are about 10 billion tonnes carbon per year. Sporadic emissions are already being observed from tundra permafrost in Siberia.
•Loss of ice from the Greenland ice sheet, which contributes to global sea-level rise, could also accelerate from stronger warming. This could hasten the crossing a tipping point for this ice sheet, beyond which much of the ice sheet would be lost, although over a long time-frame of many centuries at least.
•The spike in warming from an outburst of methane from the East Siberian Sea could trigger release of methane from frozen ocean sediments located elsewhere around the world, especially in the northern high latitudes.

The additional reinforcing feedbacks from these tipping elements would accelerate the warming and lead to a significant spike in temperature over the next few decades. Similar processes are thought to have triggered a 4-5˚C spike in global temperature about 56 million years ago (the PETM: ‘Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum’), leading to widespread extinctions of biological species at the global level.

This analysis increases the urgency to reduce global emissions as rapidly and deeply as we can*, and to make sure that we respect the 2˚C limit that is an agreed policy target of most countries around the world. Rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would lower the impacts of a sudden methane outburst from the East Siberian Sea (although they would still be severe), and would make it less likely that the other tipping elements would be activated in a domino-type effect.

References:
Shakhova, N.E., Alekseev, V.A. and Semiletov, I.P. (2010). Predicted methane emission on the East Siberian Shelf. Dolkady Akademii Nauk 430: 533-536.
Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Liverman, D., Barker, T., Jotzo, F., Kammen, D., Leemans, R., Lenton, T., Munasinghe, M., Osman-Elasha, B., Schellnhuber, J., Stern, N., Vogel, C., and Waever, O. (2011). Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 502 pp.
Whiteman, G., Hope, C. and Wadhams, P. (2013). Vast costs of Arctic change. Nature 499: 401-403

* By far the fastest, simplest, way (that reduces current costs) is to switch all the world's cars to sugar cane alcohol fuel, with 30 year old Brazilian developed and proven technology.

 

[Billy T]

Help!

 

[Trippy]

Yes & yes. I and others more expert than me, have found fault with it and they have improved upon it.

Oh really? And what "faults" did you find in Archers paper?

After reading some of them, I too, along with NASA's Hansen, widely recognize as one of the world's leading authorities, and some others have reversed our earlier position: That the oceans might boil.

Are you talking about Archers paper here or Kastings? The ironic thing about this is that I gaurantee the papers that you read that led you to reverse your position cite Kasting, use Kastings methodology, which Hansen himself says is the correct methodology, and come to the same conclusion. How can you possibly justify continuing to reject Kastings paper especially when every objection you have raised about it has been your misunderstanding of the paper (as has been demonstrated repeatedly now).

Earth is too far from the sun for that to happen...

Kasting came to the same conclusion.

...but not too far from it for much greater average temperature and humidity to occur as oceans warm and evaporate more.

Also one of the conclusions Kasting came to.

Lets leave personal considerations aside. Tell what error the world's leading arctic experts - the ones making actual observations and measurements - are making when THEY sound the alarm. I am only trying to be conservative - error on the side of caution and pointing out that man does not need to burn one barrel of oil to power his cars. This is well established both in 30 years of Brazil's powering cars with sugar cane derived alcohol and by analysis in Post # 1436 of "Apocalypse Soon" thread (and others for example showing oil is not needed for plastic either or even making diesel fuel, which is more efficient than gasoline, but of little help with the global warming problem). A direct "click on" link to my "its possible to end burning of oil" analysis is given in post 869, two posts back. Note, without any subsidy, sugar cane based alcohol is actually cheaper per mile driven than gasoline when oil is $90/ barrel or more. It is the best form of solar energy from an economic POV.

Here's a better idea. Why don't you tell us why we should reject Archers paper on the matter? Explain to us how the recent field observations contradict his conclusions. Should be a cinch if you've read and understood the paper.

Have your watched the video telling nine feed back consequences of the current summer melt of Arctic ocean? (Click-on Link in last sentence of post 869.) Two had not occurred to me: Namely (1)That the duration of a fixed area, say A, of Arctic Ocean free of ice is increasing each year now. I.e. it is not just that the albedo of that area is ~20 times better absorber of solar heat (which I have long known) but the durations of the solar heating is longer too. AND (2) that this ever greater heat absorption is used less for melting ice (no temperature increase) but more for heating water (a temperature increase).

Both of these seem fairly obvious to me, actually.

With these strong self-accelerating positive feed backs, man's contributions to global warming are becoming relatively less important so it may already be too late to avoid a life threating thermal run away. - no one knows. Certainly not the "experts," who based on lab studies, say methane hydrates can not exist in ~4C ocean bottom water more shallow than 360 meters. That is not very persuasive to Shakhova, who has made 20+ Arctic explorations measuring it in 50m deep water.

That's nice. So you haven't actually read Archers paper in its entirety, have you>

Or to any of the members of the Arctic Emergency Group, who do real world investigations. So:

Please be critical of the facts in my posts and published papers (in Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters, and the Harvard Report, etc.) by the leading Arctic experts, and stop attacks on me, my qualifications, or implied ignorance.

I have yet to attack you Billy T, I have only ever questioned your presentation of the facts and your understanding of the facts. That's not a personal attack, it's addressing your argument directly.

 

[Trippy]

Even Australian Government's climate commission is concerned (Excessive CH4 release is a global humanitarian and economic disaster). Here from their report are the highlights: * By far the fastest, simplest, way (that reduces current costs) is to switch all the world's cars to sugar cane alcohol fuel, with 30 year old Brazilian developed and proven technology.

As long as it's grown ethically and sustainably, otherwise it can do more harm than good.

 

[Billy T]

As long as it's grown ethically and sustainably, otherwise it can do more harm than good.

Hard to imagine it being less sustainable than the oil it replaces - It has been grown in Brazil for more than 250 years - main reason slaves were imported.

Can you be a little more specific about your two concerns?

 

[Billy T]

... I have yet to attack you Billy T, I have only ever questioned your presentation of the facts and your understanding of the facts. That's not a personal attack, it's addressing your argument directly.

I would have no complaint if you attacked the facts I present (stolen from others) instead of "my presentation of them."

I admit to having little interest in papers more than five years old now, as many prior assumptions about methane hydrate stability are now demonstrable false. I.e. Giga tons of it are in shallow (50 meter deep) Arctic East Siberian shelf water as are silt stabilized "drowned permafrost" (or something like that) despite lab studies on pure methane showing that hydrate should not being able to exist above about 360 meter depths. I.e. during the last ice age they were not submerged. - That came as the ice melted an the oceans rose. They have a top seal, the crocap, that is now starting to fail releasing local plums of dense bubble of CH4, most of which reach the surface air instead of dissolve on the way up as deeper releases do.

(I have even posted these stability diagrams, when I did not know they were irrelevant but won't go back to find the posts.)