Oil and NASA's mission statement change

PN, I don't see the problem in the same light as you do. Its not very hard to fix this imbalance the main problem is understanding the problem in the first place. Plants have been displaced by humans for centuries and so now there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere. This has a little to do with using fossel fuel but mostly the plants that have been exterminated are the problem. By growing more biomass in the ocean the balance can be set to any target without causing more harm than good. None of the other ideas such as limits or caps or trading exemptions from controls like these make the problem any less a problem and mostly make things worse in the long run.

Hi everyone, it's been a while since I last posted here, but the warming aspect of this thread caught my attention. A while back I wrote why I believe the warming issue at hand is very real and very serious...interesting food for thought if you want to check it out at
uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board...psed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

As I mentioned in my post, the methane clathrates are the real concern as evinced by the discovery of <i>dansgaard oeschger</i> excursions. Since I wrote up the aforementioned post, recent discoveries indicate that the amount of methane locked in northern permafrost is 5 times higher than the previously estimated amount (modern estimates of CH4 clathrates in continental sediments is ~ 500- 2500 gigatonnes (Gtc), with an additional ~ 400 GtC in the arctic permafrost.) The data shows that it is a historical fact that large scale rapid climate fluctuations have occurred and clearly show that if the gradual warming that is occurring (whatever the source) continues, we will experience er, quite a change as the methane clathrates locked in arctic permafrost are released. Methane is about 22.5 times more efficient a greenhouse gas as CO2.... this would accelerate warming, melting of permafrost, and enhancing the warming effect in a nasty feedback loop. The net effect is the gradual CO2 and other sources of warming such as our local variable slowly bring up the temps. until we get a massive methane release resulting in extremely rapid temperature increase. A good previous example is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)..... which you can read about at [url] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum [/url]. Until (and if) human societies adapted to such rapid large scale changes, many millions of people would suffer the consequences - primarily starvation through at least temporary disruption of crop production/ distribution. We live in a remarkably fragile modern world, any serious disruption with the world population as is would be a death sentence for many..........

Rob, Any ideas about where the trapped methane came from? I know most people claim it came from living flora and fauna but since this methane is trapped under ice sheets can you say how it got there to begin with?

The methane is not trapped under the ice, it is trapped in the ice. The large methane content causes this ice to remain stable at temperatures as high as 15 to 20 degrees celcius (near room temperature).

As to where it came from - pick an expert and there you go. IOW, no one knows for sure. My money is on "all of the above". Or at least more than one source. But I don't <u>know</u> either.

LB

Hi Jim - regarding the methane (CH4), as Larry pointed out there is a lot of disagreement over the source; I too think there are variations along 2 themes - both abiotic/ biotic.

A few potential sources of abiotic would be the original planetary inventory of CH4, ongoing methane synthesis through various chemical reactions (occurring deep in the Earth involving intense heat and pressure) resulting in CH4 as a by product, as well as outgassing of CH4 from sediments during the subduction process.

A few biotic sources are the decomposition of buried organic materials, and especially waste products of methanogen organisms. Methanogens flourish in anaerobic environs wherever there is a source of hydrogen (usually locked in another source compound)..... at temperatures (that we know of) up to 107c. It's interesting that there is a large (and quite likely extremely large) biomass worldwide of anaerobic methanogens/ methanotrophs in a symbiotic relationship; the 1st group produces CH4, the second consumes it!

Since the methane is generated in anoxic environments, it is usually "buried". If this happens to be in colder areas like arctic tundra/ peat - or continental shelf sediments, the CH4 bonds with H2O ice in a "cage" caled methane clathrate that is very stable, until you cross a certain phase point (pressure and temperature) for this compound, whereupon the methane sublimates directly to gas.

As I mentioned, there appears to be a lot of methane particularly in areas most vulnerable to warming. As we know from the discovery of Daansgard - Oescher (D-O) events, the onset of at least hemispherical abrupt weather changes has occurred before. The jury is still out, but much of the evidence indicates a massive methane release was the culprit for the PETM I linked to in my previous post. This process is called the Clathrate gun hypothesis. The CH4 is @ 22.5 more effective greenhouse gas as CO2... and lingers in the atmosphere for about 9.5 years until it photodissociates into water.... and more CO2.

If the Earth continues to warm, particularly in the high latitudes where models have long predicted (and where we can least afford it!), the greatest near surface reserves of methane clathrates (in the vast arctic tundras and permafrost regions) will melt, liberating simply enormous volumes (apparently several thousand gigatons)of gas. Add to this fact that as the northern perennial ice recedes year to year, the now dark ground which once reflected 95% of the insolation will now absorb @ 90% of same, with similar results for newly exposed open sea as opposed to previous ice cover! Needless to say a "positive" feedback loop, that at some point will accelerate markedly..... bad for human societies in the short term, and possibly very bad in the long term. The solid empirical proof for D-O and other similar events remove (in my mind) any doubt over potential for rapidity in changes of planetary homeostasis. Therefore, I would not be suprised if we all see a steep acceleration in the warming with quite large scale changes in the worlds climate patterns, ocean levels, etc - within possibly 50 years. I've never been an environmentalist type, but the situation at hand is amazing - and absolutely fascinating!

I've been following the whole issue for 20+ years and had tentatively reached similar conclusions early on.... its amazing seeing the swing in scientific opinion esp. in the last 5-7 years. The real questions to nail down - How fast? How severe? are where ther debate has shifted, as opposed to dismissing evidence that has been available for years demonstrating the potential for rapid change.... and that currently, <i>something new to us</i> is happening. Sorry for the long ramble, hope I've answered your question and pointed out some info. you can analyze for yourself if it so interests you []

Having worked alongside system engineers, shared a sailing boat with three of them and so on, I can say that system engineers are going to become increasingly unhappy with what we¡¯re finding out about how fragile, vulnerable the Earth system¡¯s positive and negative feedback loops are.

Engineering is well represented in governmental administrations in many countries throughout the world, talk to highest level leaders and so on. So I¡¯d say we¡¯re in for a big paradigm shift towards environmental engineering on a really big scale, very much bigger than anything so far attempted.

Such environmental engineering would be aimed at fixing the Earth system so that with planned upgrades installed, we can stop worrying about the Earth system. Upgrades would include such things as improved, genetically engineered Di-Methyl Sulphide (DMS)-producing ocean species and so on.

What we would have to do is <font color="yellow">find the subsystems of the Earth system that lend themselves to improvements producing ¡°biggest bang per buck¡± negative feedbacks. </font id="yellow">My bet is that we¡¯re most likely to find these in the DMS cloud-producing system. I¡¯ve long believed in its engineering potential. Concentrate on this subsystem and get it fixed and forget other, less fruitful subsystem problems.

What¡¯s been getting to me lately, especially since Rob¡¯s post (Thanks Rob!) is how very short of time we are. Lovelock is right. He said it¡¯s like we¡¯re in a war. We¡¯ve got to start addressing this Earth system problem as the whole Earth¡¯s Number One problem in every way, totalistically.

We¡¯ve got to see ourselves at War with that aweful prospect of near-future thermal runaway. Only by doing this will have a chance to ¡°nip it in the bud¡± before it does too much damage. If we don¡¯t do this there¡¯s a real chance of an end to Civilisation.