There was much media attention a couple of weeks ago when this year's sea ice extent minimum broke all records: it was down almost 50 percent from the 1979-2000 average. Little attention, though, accompanied a possibly even more significant figure, released a few days ago: those who run the PIOMAS sea ice volume model at the Polar Research Center showed the 2012 sea ice volume minimum was down almost 50 percent not from decades ago -- but from 2007! That's right: the volume of arctic sea ice this September minimum was probably about half of what it was, just back in 2007. This figure should deeply trouble any reasonable human being, as it strongly suggests reaching an ice-free arctic sea ice minimum within half a decade, and, since there is little dispute that some summer sea ice will persist to the north and west of Greenland for much longer, the first "near-ice-free" point will likely arrive in just the next few years, as sea ice expert Peter Wadhams has pointed out, and the London-based policy group and think tank Ameg has maintained.
How should we respond? Greenpeace recently started a "Save the Arctic" campaign. That's great -- but you can only save the arctic by saving its ice. And, unfortunately, it is now clear that this can no longer be achieved through emissions reductions alone. It's too late for that. Greenpeace held a meeting on the polar emergency in New York City, by chance on the same day the record extent minimum was called, and while on the surface it seemed pretty ordinary, it was at heart very odd. Nobody suggested any change of approach, any specific re-strategizing, to respond to the accelerating situation. The word emergency was a common currency passing all lips, but in fact it was unclear whether people were really speaking the same language, especially as concerns that most precious thing in emergencies -- time. And there seemed to be no translator in the room, saying "this is the timescale of this, that's the timescale of that."
The meeting's two scientists, Wieslaw Maslowski (on ice) and James Hansen (general climate), themselves focusing on somewhat different time scales, were followed by the 'social/political' panel discussing what we should do: the panel discussed green energy, solar power, how we shouldn't move towards nuclear, that kind of stuff. But Jim Hansen had said in answer to a question (mine), "We are going to lose that sea ice," and also said that to save it, "You could do some quick things." As I'll discuss in my next post, Hansen meant geoengineering. Greenpeace Director Kumi Naidoo later couldn't even remember the word -- geoengineering. But if he's going to save the arctic, I'm afraid he's going to need to know it.
A big issue in whether to consider something an important 'threshold' is its reversibility, and we will discuss the reversibility of this one further in the next episode. At the meeting, since Maslowski focused on sea ice modeling failures, and Hansen on the whole climate picture, many of the potential immediate physical impacts of allowing this coming ice loss remained poorly or not at all elaborated -- although they are important for Greenpeace, and everyone else, to understand, I feel. Hansen showed a slide of three major tipping points which he said place us in a climate 'emergency,' because one can lose control around tipping points. One was methane hydrate, for example. But what Hansen didn't show were what I might dub the 'minor tipping points,' far more immediate changes stemming from this coming loss, which could make it hard to turn around, and could lead us straight to those more major ones Hansen fears, in a slippery slope.
Keep in mind that what we're talking about here is losing almost as much summer ice cover in just the next few years as we have over the last few decades, and that these are all circularly interrelated reinforcing mechanisms. Sorry, if it seems a bit mind-numbing for some readers, but here's my list:
1. Greatly increased arctic water vapor, increasing arctic warming (water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas) but also fundamentally altering arctic hydrology and hence weather patterns.
2. Immediately and fundamentally altered arctic atmospheric chemistry, causing increased arctic methane lifetime, among other basic changes.
3. Certain increase in acceleration of arctic warming, from increased solar energy entering the arctic ocean (this engenders 1.) and the release of latent heat into the atmosphere during autumn's rapid re-freezing.
4. Consequent increased potential for large arctic storms like the Great Arctic Cyclone this summer.
5. Consequent increased deep convection events (mixing to bottom) of arctic ocean, particularly important over the shallow water of the shelves, where lower layers can now often be methane-saturated.
6. Consequently an increase of seabed methane emissions -- including from seabed permafrost, shallow methane hydrate, and from thawing of either or both of these and increased gas migration pathways allowing free gas from underneath the hydrates to outgas.
(For full PowerPoint PDF, scroll down to Topic/Title Methane Release from Eastern Siberian Shelf.)
7. This increase in seabed permafrost thawing leads to a subsequent increased risk that a random seismic event could suddenly release large amounts of methane from the above combination of thawing sources, or from other thawed arctic carbon stores (see PowerPoint above).
8. Increased risk of general degradation of shallow methane hydrates leading to slope failure and consequent methane release.
9. Certain increase in chronic emissions of methane (and CO2) from thawing land permafrost, peat, etc. with the general added warming mentioned above.
10. The increased arctic methane lifetime (2.) is indistinguishable from an increase in its arctic abundance.
11. Increasing continued rate of ice (and snow) loss as the ice-free-period subsequently lengthens, from all the above, particularly significant as the insolation increases earlier in the season to around the solstice in June (discussion here, scroll down to An Ice-free Solstice).
And here are some immediate potential global impacts to chew on:
12. Recent research suggests that ice (and snow cover) loss is at least one causative factor in recent extreme weather -- drought, flood, fires, etc. -- and if so this could quickly be amplified.
13. Consequently, recent global impacts on food security could increase proportionally.
14. Economic losses from each of those (12., 13) would probably increase proportionally, and potentially could amplify into global economic recession or even depression.
15. If there's large-scale (multi gigaton-scale) methane release soon, this would of course fundamentally alter the whole path of global warming (see my Twilight posts #1,#2), with vast consequences.
16. If the ice-free period expands significantly, altered arctic tropospheric oxidation could rapidly start to impact high latitude urban areas, making cities with large populations rapidly become more difficult to live in (good discussion here at GISS, where Hansen is himself director).
No one said a word at the Greenpeace meeting, seemingly dismissing it as a major threshold at all. No one ever said, "Let's fight this." But I am suggesting that you should see skull and crossbones hanging above this threshold crossing. Like playing around high voltage wires or train tracks, allowing this threshold to be crossed will add considerable risk. And I'm suggesting that it will be crossed in just the next few years, unless we do something about it.
As I'll discuss next time, it might prove much harder to reverse than many assume within the climate world. Therefore, as Energy Secretary Steven Chu said about allowing an eventual runaway arctic permafrost carbon feedback, we must all say loudly now about this initial step onto that vast and treacherous slippery slope: "We cannot go there!" And if we don't want to go there, there's now no longer any question -- geoengineering will have to be part of the remedy.
Bill Chameides: Climate Science and Science Literacy: The Strange Divergence
Framework adjustment is necessary to jump ahead of perfect storm upon us in earnest but still obliviousness prevails. Elections influenced by big media and the chaos of lies and natural variation of thoughts about things of importance of the 7b people in world need to be directed into one Real visualization.
That of an Earth that is ongoing and able to provide -held in stasis by the life on which she harbors; the life giving moderation of temperature and of pH /chem composition of Sea which by the the way -is like identical to that of the human body.. Also temp sensitive for its life.. So the race is on, mineral or life.. Thermodynamics or grit of the will to live.. In Showdown..
It is a race against time and a test of human ingenuity and metal or really the test of what is of value..
Money needs linking to value of Earth alive- because this is place for the pry bar.
Though sadly most people rather chose to ignore the emerging clathrate gun. How can civilization survive when pronounced methane excursion kick in?
"...but too much safety in the long run often spells danger..." In our efforts to make our existence safe, we have destroyed much of the Earth.
Others have portrayed the choice as between catastrophe and geoengineering. The truth is that the choice is between possible catastrophe and probably catastrophic geoengineering.
The probable result of geoengineering is not the survival of 9000 million people in a sunlit, happy world, it is a dark, dank world of dwindling hope and incipient disaster where our children pay the price for our cowardice.
You say that you have read the comments "with a great deal of interest", but you have not responded either to my comments on your comments, or, in fact, to my initial article at all. As I have stated - this is NOT going to be about global geoengineering, which I profoundly hope will never need to be used (indeed, in a sense, this is all about how to escape the need for global geoengineering!). Maybe you are just someone with an agenda about "geoengineering", and therefore go around putting up comments to express a blanket anti-geoengineering policy position. As far as that goes, you should define what you mean by geoengeering precisely, or the conversation makes little sense: is biochar part of it? Is CCS? etc, etc. If CCS is "geoengineering", then how could scrubbing of SO2 not be as well, which has already been going on for more than three decades and has saved millions of lives?
My article, you'll note, was not, on the other hand, dealing with that discussion - it was about saving the arctic ice. What could and could not work at this point. I would like to read your recommendations for saving the ice. Please use peer-reviewed citations for all claims. And time scales are vitally important. Also, please include the fundamental forcing figures you are basing your plans on as well.
We both know what sort of geoengineering I am talking about. Sam Carana at his blog http://geo-engineering.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/runaway-global-warming.html considers geoengineering in depth and provides references to the sort of geoengineering that might meet the arctic "emergency" that you discuss in your article above. This is what he proposes:
"Geoengineering methods could reflect some of the sunlight in the Arctic back into space, such as by distributing sulfur dioxide into the stratoshphere by jets, cannons or hoses, or by enhancing cloud albedo..".
This agrees with what many others are proposing (see links in Carana's article). Carana states that "Even halving the amount of sunlight may not be enough to reduce rapid warming in the region". So to deal with the "emergency" those who propose geoengineering really will be creatures of darkness.
My particular objection is to geoengineering that involves irradiance reduction. If this were seen to be a cheap solution to global warming it would become widespread and I believe it is a potentially disastrous approach.
You seem to be obfuscating when you introduce SO2 scrubbing or CCS as "geoengineering", it is removing the causes of the problem at source and preventing unintentional geoengineering.
"A volume about the size of a #2 pencil eraser of water provides as much energy as two 48-gallon drums of gasoline. That is 355,000 times the amount of energy per volume – five orders of magnitude." ( http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-LENR-Machine-is-the-Best-Yet.html ).
This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
"Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical..." --Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center
"Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry." --Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA
By the way, here is a survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html
For those who still aren't convinced, here is a paper I wrote that contains some pretty convincing evidence: http://coldfusionnow.org/the-evidence-for-lenr/
Read more about the Swedish Strategy for the Arctic Region. - http://www.kajembren.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/9168f21a.pdf
It doesn't really matter about the models, you can see the open water with your own lying eyes.
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/working_groups/Polar/presentations/2012/stroeve.pdf
One peer reviewed paper published in Journal Science in 2009 by the scientists of the International Siberian Shelf Study (ISSS), is credible and that too was ignored or argued against by all of the climate scientists.
It's really a tragic shame when one consideres the consequences and they should all be ashamed and admit their error and correct it now before it is too late... It may already be too late however? //// We'll see.
Quantum Loop Gravity theorists tried it to find a link between the positron and electron functions of the atom- and gravity, but prematurely gave up when they encountered the Bullular Upgrade´s inherent quantum e/-e EPR effect.
However, I "saved" the Bullular Upgrade simply by assigning cryogenic properties to the EPR effect co-product Beta particles. That accounts for homeostasis within the model framework, saving it. The problematic EPR effect in that model then becomes the "quantum mechanism" constantly transforming the nucleon spin generated positrons and electrons into functions of gravity . ie. reverse coupling sequence g-photons- i.e. "w" particles effecting the electron hatch, and Beta particles affecting the inner positron hatch. Quantum gravity, the relationship between matter and gravity is thus cracked by the Bullular Upgrade save (C) 2001,. KOD Munich Germany) We empirically prove the hypothesis- by the Beta laser device which establishes Beta particles are cryogenic, and other GFR spin offs. Thus, cracking quantum gravity was easy- simply by assigning cryogenic properties to Beta particles within the Bullular Upgrade framework. We´ll present that tech at the Paris Air Show after the Le Mans race where we´ll present "Aqueous fuels technologies" in a race car."
Physicist reading this post might wonder-about the theory behind this Gravity Field Retransformatin technology. I´ll shortly explain it in the following post.
and the hot combusting gasses in the flame literally coldly implode to the products and the flame goes out. This revolutionizes fire fighting and goes a long way in combatting global warming.There is one more climate engineering application of GFR- I mention in the last post.
green these areas to reforest them, and grow food to feed the world´s burgeoning populations in addition to fast growth algae bio-fuels to complement aqueous fuel systems.
And there is still another useful application to combatting global warming - fire fighting- which I shall cover in my next post.
Now, if ONLY half of what is mentioned in this piece is true....forget about it, it's too late to stop the warming. Capital budgeting has a factor of lead time in critical path method....not enough time to change course. I remember reading in the 1990's Clinton telling China not to "develop" as we did because there wasn't enough to go around. What he should have also mentioned, not enough atmosphere to spew Greenhouse gas into without charge.
not useful. It is almost 100% certain that we are not yet at some threshold where our behavior has no impact on the final stabilization point (i.e., as in the Chu video at the end of my piece - what he terms "runaway" warming, although not the same as for others, for whom that term runaway implies what has been dubbed, after Hansen and Sagan, the "Venus syndrome," in which warming continues until the planet is lifelessly hot). Rather, if we did things right, we could still come out relatively unscathed at this point, although the point of the article was really to underscore that it has now become clear that at least some localized geoengineering would have to be part of the mix given the rate of ice losses now to achieve that.
It's a political agenda supporting big government control of all aspects of our life and has nothing to do with imaginary man made global warming.
That from a guy that just spent an hour in his attic caulking air leaks to make the house tighter and more fuel efficient. Which pays back! found some larger holes up there as well, need to get some foam in a can and spray some of that around as well.
Why doesn't this board talk about that sort of thing? Because it's dedicated to pushing the "progressive" agenda which has nothing to do with really saving energy.
am very curious to see where hemp could fit into this equation, of course, if the US would allow us to grow it for these and other renewable purposes.
should have a problem believing in warming as well, since it is simply the fact of the matter. You have been profoundly hoodwinked. Evidence of the true state of things is simply all around you at this point.
I think you and others objecting to geoengineering are missing the point of the article. The point was that we do not have a few decades. We have run out of time to study the problem. We have run out of time to reduce emissions. The tipping point has arrived early. We have a choice: take action now, even at the risk of making a mistake or wait and study the problem and keep beating our heads against human nature trying to get people to change faster than they can. However if we wait and the ice melts in the next few years, then the fleeting chance to reverse the ice loss is gone. Too late because once the ice is gone the natural feedbacks rapidly accelerate to a scale beyond human capacity to reverse. Much as I would prefer to be pure and green I think it is no longer an option because events have overtaken us. We must try geoengineering to save the Arctic ice because it is the only hope of preventing global catastrophe.