> From:
[log in to unmask]> To:
[log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]> CC:
[log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Major methane release is almost
inevitable - New Scientist
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:35:05 -0800
>
> The bacteria release CO2 methane and N2O from thawing
permafrost.
> By the way N20 is now rising much faster than the others and
research
> indicates very large emission from thawing permafrost.
.
> Peter C
>
> Microbes in thawing permafrost - Climate
Change Science Institute ...
>
climatechangescience.ornl.gov/system/files/graham_et_al__2011.pdf
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: P. Wadhams
> Sent:
Sunday, February 24, 2013 4:11 AM
> To: Independent Scientist
> Cc:
John Nissen ; Nigel Wylde ; john ecologist ;
[log in to unmask] ;
>
[log in to unmask] ; Brian Orr ;
[log in to unmask] ;
>
[log in to unmask]> Subject: RE: Major methane release is almost
inevitable - New Scientist
>
> Dear Graham, re. Plague. This is
either a complete non-starter or something
> incredibly important. I
havent heard of anybody considering this before.
> But the possibility
could easily be tested - melt some typical permafrost
> samples in a
secure biochemical facility (ie a spooky place like Porton
> Down or Fort
Dettrick), and see if any viable bacteria, viruses or nasties
> of any
kind are being given off. According to this recent stalagmite study,
> the
last time that permafrost melted in large quantities was during the
> last
interglacial, about 100,000 years ago. Something resembling Man was
>
around at that time, but does not appear to have been wiped out,
otherwise
> we wouldn't be here, Best wishes Peter
>
>
> On Feb 24 2013, Independent Scientist wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Hullo All,The situation re
permafrost is actually worse than realised. I
> > had a long
conversation with a bio-scientist friend yesterday, who had
> > been
brooding on the subject. The permafrost is in some areas about 4km
> >
deep. It is very old. It contains deep frozen bio-wastes, such as rotted
> > trees, bushes, animal remains, etc, all of which have saturation
levels of
> > frozen bacteria and virus's. The methane venting is
going to release into
> > the atmosphere ancient virus and bacterial
agents that have not been
> > "loose" for up to 500,000 years. Both
human and animals will have no
> > immune response to these agents. I
will spell it out simply: PLAGUE.
> > RegardsGraham Ennis
>
>
> >
> >Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:27:14 +0000
>
>From:
[log in to unmask]> >To: "petercarter46"@shaw.ca
>
>CC:
[log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Major methane release is almost inevitable - New
Scientist
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
>
>
> >
> > They have found from stalagmite that the
permafrost has only melted
> > once in the last 500,000 years, when the
temperature was only 1.5
> > degrees higher than today. This is
stunning news, because we have
> > already passed that
threshold.
> >
> >
> > As we would expect, Tim Lenton
has downplayed the danger [1], as he
> > did in giving evidence to the
Environment Audit Committee last
> > year. He says the greatest danger
is for the buildings built on
> > permafrost. My foot! What about those
emissions of methane into
> > the atmosphere? He dismisses the danger
without any good argument
> > to do so. He knows the quantity of
organic material, and that most
> > of it will emitted as methane when
the permafrost thaws, because the
> > conditions are essentially
anaerobic. He also knows that the
> > permafrost will thaw quite
quickly, because the Arctic is warming at
> > about a degree a decade -
far faster than global warming. Thus the
> > 1.5 degrees is already
exceeded, as regards the local temperature.
> >
> >
>
> I don't think he is lying. Rather he is under the delusion that the
>
> sea ice will last for decades, and everything will happen slowly. He
> > won't admit it, but he is terrified by the sea ice volume
trend
> > (with September 2015 virtually sea ice free), and this has
led to
> > subconscious suppression of the "bad news" about the
permafrost,
> > methane, etc.
> >
> >
> >
But it's not just Tim Lenton in denial. Among many scientists who
> >
study the Arctic, one sees this suppression of the reality of the
> >
vicious cycle of warming and melting in the Arctic because it is
> >
just so frightening. And if this problem continues to be ignored,
> >
we will all suffer the consequences of inaction - the most immediate
>
> being a worsening disruption of the jet stream, with the escalation
>
> in climate extremes precipitating a monumental food crisis.
>
>
> >
> > The good news is that we are not too late to cool
the Arctic, if
> > only we were prepared to consider emergency
geoengineering this
> > summer. We need some scientists who are brave
enough to confront
> > the reality of the situation, cut through the
crap from the danger
> > deniers, and demand international action at
top priority.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
>
>
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
[1]
> >
> >
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23205-major-methane-release-is-almost-inevitable.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|environment
>
>
> >
> > [Quote]
> >
> >
> >
What are the consequences? The greatest concern, says Tim
> > Lenton of
the University of Exeter in the UK, is the regional
> > landscape.
Buildings and infrastructure are often built on hard
> > permafrost,
and will start subsiding. "Ice roads won't exist any
> > more."
>
>
> >
> > The increasingly soggy permafrost will also
threaten the pipelines
> > that transport Russian gas to Europe. "The
maintenance and upkeep of
> > that infrastructure is going to cost a
lot more," says Schuur.
> >
> > As for the methane that could
be released into the atmosphere,
> > Schuur estimates
> > that
emissions will be equivalent to between 160 and 290 billion
> > tonnes
of carbon dioxide.
> >
> > That sounds like a lot, but is
little compared to the vast amount
> > humans are likely to emit, says
Lenton. "The signal's going to be
> > swamped by fossil fuel
[emissions]."
> >
> > He says the dangers of the permafrost
greenhouse gases have been
> > overhyped, particularly as much of the
methane will be converted
> > to carbon dioxide by microbes in the
soil, leading to a slower
> > warming effect.
> >
> >
Schuur agrees with Lenton that the methane emissions are "not a
> >
runaway effect but an additional source that is not accounted in
> >
current climate models".
> >
> >
> > [End
quote]
> >
> >
> > --
> >
>
>
> > On 23/02/2013 07:08, Peter Carter wrote:
> > The fuse
to the Arctic methane time bomb has been
> > burning a long time, and
without drastic emergency intervention
> > the future is committed to
planetary catastrophe. This latest
> > research proves are right out of
time.
> >
> >
> > The Arctic methane time bomb is
warming peatlands, thawing
> > permafrost and melting sea floor frozen
solid methane hydrate.
> >
> > Thawing permafrost generates
its own heat so reaches a stage where
> > the thawing is self
increasing irreversible.
> >
> >
> > This Arctic
methane is at least three times all atmospheric
> > carbon.
>
>
> >
> > There is a way out, but we have to act now or
there won't be- for
> > today's young generation.
> >
>
>
> > Our commitment is way over 1.5C.
> >
> >
1.5C is also the end of the coral reefs.
> >
> >
> >
The ocean heat lag alone commits us to 1.4C by 2100.
> >
>
>
> > Our unavoidable commitment to more warming is at least 2.4C
> > (published).
> >
> > (Ramanathan Feng 2008 PNAS
On Avoiding Dangerous Anthropogenic
> > Interference with the Climate
System) ... even the most
> > aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as
envisioned now can only limit
> > further additions to the committed
warming, but not reduce the
> > already committed GHGs warming of
2.4°C.
> >
> >
> > The Ramanathan commitment is from
the ocean heat lag (more than
> > doubles todays warming) and unmasking
of air pollution aerosol
> > cooling.
> >
> >
>
> The warming incurred by the time it will take to stabilize
> >
atmospheric GHGs and the added warming from terrestrial carbon
> >
(excludes Arctic carbon) feedback warming has to be added to that
> >
to get the total committed warming, which is at least 3C.
> >
>
>
> > Robert Watson has stated we are committed to 3C may be up to
5C.
> >
> > The World Back says we are rapidly committing
ourselves to 4C.
> >
> >
> > Today's combined
national UN filed emissions reduction pledges
> > commit us the 4.4C by
2100, and nations have not acted on these
> > pledges (Climate
Interactive)
> >
> >
> > An emergency response now
can get us below 1.5C
> >
> >
> > 1) rapidly
stabilize Arctic albedo snow and ice cooling and
> > thereby Arctic
methane by regional Arctic cooling
> >
> > This also prevents
American food producing regions being ruined by
> > drought.
>
>
> >
> > 2) zero carbon emissions mitigation on a rapid
emergency basis.
> > That is total conversion off all fossil fuels to
100% clean
> > energy.
> >
> >
> > Zero
carbon takes care of most black carbon but there is further
> > black
carbon mitigation from other sources of soot like biomass
> > burning
and open cook stoves. As black carbon is second only to
> > soot in
global warming this can drop the warming 0.5C.
> >
> > Zero
carbon also takes care of most ground level ozone- another
> > much
smaller added drop of warming.
> >
> >
> > Zero
carbon decarbonization could be done within 20 years by a
> > total
conversion off all fossil fuel energy and a halt to
> >
deforestation.
> >
> >
> > Once virtual zero carbon
is reached (we cannot achieve actual
> > zero) atmospheric CO2
concentration is stabilized.
> >
> >
> > 3) World
afforestation would remove and store some carbon out of
> > the
atmosphere so achieving zero carbon - for many decades at
> >
least
> >
> > 4) Biochar would sink carbon for a couple of
centuries.
> >
> > 5) Remove CO2 directly from the air (doable
in theory) would
> > maintain negative carbon in order to drop
atmospheric CO2 below
> > 350 ppm.
> >
> >
>
> It will take a hundred years for atmospheric CO2 to get below 350,
>
> but if we act now we may leave a legacy of a sustainable future.
>
>
> > If we fail to act now our legacy is a short dark age and
no
> > future.
> >
> >
> > The only hope is
to convince people of the planetary Arctic
> > warming emergency- we
have to acknowledge how bad this is and then
> > act for our
survival.
> >
> >
> > Peter C
> >
>
>
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: Oliver
Tickell
> >
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:56
AM
> >
> > To:
[log in to unmask]>
>
> > Subject: Major methane release is almost inevitable -
New
> > Scientist
> >
> >
> > Abstract
link
> >
> >
> >
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/02/20/science.1228729.abstract?sid=d26b1542-62e0-4aa0-9239-a82abda2d1ad
>
>
> >
> > Major methane release is almost
inevitable
> >
> >
> > 19:00 21 February 2013 by
Michael Marshall
> >
> >
> > We are on the cusp of a
tipping point in the climate. If the
> > global
> >
>
> climate warms another few tenths of a degree, a large expanse of
>
> the
> >
> > Siberian permafrost will start to melt
uncontrollably. The result:
> > a
> >
> > significant
amount of extra greenhouse gases released into the
> >
> >
atmosphere, and a threat - ironically - to the infrastructure that
>
>
> > carries natural gas from Russia to Europe.The Arctic is
warming
> > faster
> >
> > than the rest of the
planet, and climatologists have long warned
> > that
>
>
> > this will cause positive feedbacks that will speed up
climate
> > change
> >
> > further. The region is
home to enormous stores of organic carbon,
> > mostly
>
>
> > in the form of permafrost soils and icy clathrates that
trap
> > methane - a
> >
> > powerful greenhouse gas
that could escape into the atmosphere.The
> >
> > Siberian
permafrost is a particular danger. A large region called
> >
the
> >
> > Yedoma could undergo runaway decomposition once it
starts to melt,
> >
> > because microbes in the soil would eat
the carbon and produce
> > heat,
> >
> > melting more
soil and releasing ever more greenhouse gases. In
> > short,
>
>
> > the melting of Yedoma is a tipping point: once it starts,
there
> > may be
> >
> > no stopping it.For the first
time, we have an indication of when
> > this
> >
> >
could start happening. Anton Vaks of the University of Oxford in
> >
the UK
> >
> > and colleagues have reconstructed the history
of the Siberian
> > permafrost
> >
> > going back
500,000 years. We already know how global temperatures
> > have
>
>
> > risen and fallen as ice sheets have advanced and retreated,
so
> > Vaks's
> >
> > team's record of changing
permafrost gives an indication of how
> >
> > sensitive it is
to changing temperatures.
> >
> >
> > Stalagmite
record
> >
> >
> > But there is no direct record of
how the permafrost has changed,
> > so Vaks
> >
> >
had to find an indirect method. His team visited six caves that
> >
run
> >
> > along a south-north line, with the two
southernmost ones being
> > under the
> >
> > Gobi
desert. Further north, three caves sit beneath a landscape of
>
>
> > sporadic patches of permafrost, and the northernmost cave is
right
> > at
> >
> > the edge of Siberia's continuous
permafrost zone.The team focused
> > on the
> >
> >
500,000-year history of stalagmites and similar rock formations in
> >
the
> >
> > caves. "Stalagmites only grow when water flows
into caves," Vaks
> > says.
> >
> > "It cannot happen
when the soil is frozen." The team used
> > radiometric
>
>
> > dating to determine how old the stalagmites were. By building
up a
> >
> > record of when they grew, Vaks could figure out
when the ground
> > above
> >
> > the caves was
frozen and when it wasn't.As expected, in most of
> > the
>
>
> > caves, stalagmites formed during every warm interglacial
period as
> > the
> >
> > patchy permafrost melted
overhead.But it took a particularly warm
> >
> > interglacial,
from 424,000 and 374,000 years ago, for the
> > stalagmites in
>
>
> > the northernmost cave to grow - suggesting the
continuous
> > permafrost
> >
> > overhead melted
just once in the last 500,000 years.At the time,
> > global
>
>
> > temperatures were 1.5 °C warmer than they have been in the
last
> > 10,000
> >
> > years. In other words,
today's permafrost is likely to become
> > vulnerable
>
>
> > when we hit 1.5 °C of global warming, says Vaks."Up until
this
> > point, we
> >
> > didn't have direct
evidence of how this happened in past warming
> >
> >
periods," says Ted Schuur of the University of Florida in
> >
Gainesville.It
> >
> > will be very hard to stop the
permafrost degrading as a warming of
> >
> > 1.5 °C is not far
off. Between 1850 and 2005, global temperatures
> > rose
>
>
> > 0.8 °C, according to the 2007 report of the
Intergovernmental
> > Panel on
> >
> > Climate
Change. Even if humanity stopped emitting greenhouse gases
> >
>
> tomorrow, temperatures would rise another 0.2 °C over the next 20
>
> years.
> >
> > That would leave a window of 0.5 °C - but
in fact our emissions
> > are
> >
> > increasing.
What's more, new fossil fuel power stations commit us
> > to
>
>
> > several decades of emissions.
> >
>
>
> > Soggy permafrost
> >
> >
> > What
are the consequences? The greatest concern, says Tim Lenton
> > of
the
> >
> > University of Exeter in the UK, is the regional
landscape.
> > Buildings and
> >
> > infrastructure
are often built on hard permafrost, and will start
> >
> >
subsiding. "Ice roads won't exist any more."The increasingly soggy
>
>
> > permafrost will also threaten the pipelines that transport
Russian
> > gas
> >
> > to Europe. "The maintenance
and upkeep of that infrastructure is
> > going
> >
>
> to cost a lot more," says Schuur.As for the methane that could be
>
>
> > released into the atmosphere, Schuur estimates that emissions
will
> > be
> >
> > equivalent to between 160 and 290
billion tonnes of carbon
> > dioxide.That
> >
> >
sounds like a lot, but is little compared to the vast amount
> > humans
are
> >
> > likely to emit, says Lenton. "The signal's going
to be swamped by
> > fossil
> >
> > fuel
[emissions]."He says the dangers of the permafrost greenhouse
> >
gases
> >
> > have been overhyped, particularly as much of the
methane will
> >
> > be converted to carbon dioxide by
microbes in the soil, leading to
> > a
> >
> > slower
warming effect.Schurr agrees with Lenton that the methane
> >
>
> emissions are "not a runaway effect but an additional source that
>
> is not
> >
> > accounted in current climate
models".Journal reference: Science,
> > DOI:
> >
> >
10.1126/science.1228729
>
>
