Forumers:
At some risk of reviving old and unproductive debates, here below FYI is
some coverage of the Arctic Methane TimeBomb story;:
The source:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf
The sounds of what-some-call "alarmism" spreads across the
mainstream...:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2377547/The-great-Arctic-economic-time-bomb-Experts-claim-methane-gases-set-cause-flooding-droughts-cost-trillions-dollars-damage.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/24/arctic-thawing-permafrost-climate-change
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/methane-meltdown-the-arctic-timebomb-that-could-cost-us-60trn-8730408.html
Is this "Extreme Alarmism"? ....
http://www.apollo-gaia.org/ArcticDynamics.html .....what do you
think?
Skeptical views:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/25/arctic-time-bomb
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/07/24/arctic-methane-time-bomb-could-have-huge-economic-costs
A balanced view?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/07/how-likely-is-a-massive-arctic-methane-pulse-we-find-disagreement-amongst-scientists
Regards, Mark
Cost of Arctic Methane Release Could Be 'Size of
Global Economy', Experts Warn
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724134256.htm
July 24, 2013 Researchers have warned of an "economic
time-bomb" in the Arctic, following a ground-breaking analysis of
the likely cost of methane emissions in the region.
Economic modelling shows that the methane emissions caused by shrinking
sea ice from just one area of the Arctic could come with a global price
tag of 60 trillion dollars -- the size of the world economy in
2012.
Writing in a Comment piece in the journal, Nature, academics argue
that a significant release of methane from thawing permafrost in the
Arctic could have dire implications for the world's economy. The
researchers, from Cambridge and Rotterdam, have for the first time
calculated the potential economic impact of a scenario some scientists
consider increasingly likely -- that methane from the East Siberian Sea
will be emitted as a result of the thaw.
This constitutes just a fraction of the vast reservoirs of methane in the
Arctic, but scientists believe that the release of even a small
proportion of these reserves could trigger possibly catastrophic climate
change. According to the new assessment, the emission of methane below
the East Siberian Sea alone would also have a mean global impact of 60
trillion dollars.
The ground-breaking Comment piece was co-authored by Gail Whiteman, from
Erasmus University; Chris Hope, Reader in Policy Modelling at Cambridge
Judge Business School, University of Cambridge; and Peter Wadhams,
Professor of Ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.
"The global impact of a warming Arctic is an economic
time-bomb," Whiteman, who is Professor of sustainability, management
and climate change at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University
(RSM), said.
Wadhams added: "The imminent disappearance of the summer sea ice in
the Arctic will have enormous implications for both the acceleration of
climate change, and the release of methane from off-shore waters which
are now able to warm up in the summer. This massive methane boost will
have major implications for global economies and
societies."
Most discussion about the economic implications of a warming Arctic
focuses on benefits to the region, with increased oil-and-gas drilling
and the opening up of new shipping routes that could attract investments
of hundreds of billions of dollars. However, the effects of melting
permafrost on the climate and oceans will be felt globally, the authors
argue.
Applying an updated version of the modelling method used in the UK
government's 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, and
currently used by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the authors
calculate the global consequences of the release of 50 gigatonnes of
methane over a decade from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian
Sea.
"The methane release would bring forward the date at which the
global mean temperature rise exceeds 2 degrees C by between 15 and 35
years," said Chris Hope. "In the absence of climate-change
mitigation measures, the PAGE09 model calculates that it would increase
mean global climate impacts by $60 trillion."
If other impacts such as ocean acidification are factored in, the cost
would be much higher. Some 80% of these costs will be borne by developing
countries, as they experience more extreme weather, flooding, droughts
and poorer health, as Arctic warming affects climate.
The research also explored the impact of a number of later,
longer-lasting or smaller pulses of methane, and the authors write that,
in all these cases, the economic cost for physical changes to the Arctic
is "steep."
The authors write that global economic institutions and world leaders
should "kick-start investment in rigorous economic modelling"
and consider the impacts of a changing Arctic landscape as far
outweighing any "short-term gains from shipping and
extraction."
They argue that economic discussions today are missing the big picture on
Arctic change. "Arctic science is a strategic asset for human
economies because the region drives critical effects in our biophysical,
political and economic systems," write the academics. Neither the
World Economic Forum nor the International Monetary Fund currently
recognise the economic danger of Arctic change.
According to Whiteman, "Global leaders and the WEF and IMF need to
pay much more attention to this invisible time-bomb. The mean impacts of
just this one effect -- $60 trillion -- approaches the $70-trillion value
of the world economy in 2012."