[Vision2020] Name Sources:Solar Climate Forcing:Methane Hydrates

[Ted Moffett]

Paul et. al.

You re-posted comments made by Craig Venter, from my post in the thread
"Synthetic Life Forms...," as though I wrote the text included below that
you re-posted.  This text was sourced from a speech given by genius
geneticist extraordinaire Craig Venter, available at the URL below.  I am
flattered.  But do not post content I did not write headed by "Ted Moffett
wrote:" while not including the true sources name, which I had carefully
included at the bottom of the excerpt from Craig Venter's speech.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/venter.dimbleby07/venter.dimbleby07_index.html

As far as solar energy forcing of recently observed global climate warming
(which is being significantly masked by "global dimming," the cooling
impacts of human sourced atmospheric aerosals), this topic has been sliced
and diced and argued and counter argued, by the best climate scientists in
the world.  You can read some of the discussions among climate scientists
regarding solar climate forcing, and other cosmic influences, at the URL
below:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-earth-connections/

After reading over these discussions, from my admittedly layman's
perspective, I conclude the evidence that there will be a long term increase
in solar energy (in the next 100 years, not in the millions of years when
the sun will expand into a red giant star and heat the Earth dramatically)
that will significantly increase Earth's temperature, to be speculative.

However, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial, to 560
ppm, or even higher, quite likely given current trends of increasing fossil
fuel use, global deforestation, cement production (we don't hear much about
this), carbon sink reversal, potential methane hydrate breakdown (releasing
methane) etc., is likely to dramatically change Earth's climate.  These
predicted atmospheric CO2 increases are not speculative, and the feedback
mechanisms they may activate are potentially severe.  I am more concerned
that anthropogenic warming may induce large scale methane releases from
methane hydrates, than I am about increases in solar radiation exacerbating
climate change:

http://www.geo.vu.nl/~renh/methane-pulse.html

>From article at URL above:

The Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum (PETM, ~55.5 Million years ago) is a
well-known example from the past of a period with drastic climate change due
to massive releases of methane from hydrates5-6. Carbon isotope measurements
in ocean cores with sediments from the PETM suggest that 1500-2000 Gt of
methane carbon was released within a few thousand years5,7-9. This massive
methane release had a profound effect on climate. Paleoceanographical
evidence from ocean cores indicates that ocean temperatures increased
abruptly by 1°C to up to 8°C, depending on the location10-11. It has also
been suggested that large temperature swings during the last glacial have
been caused by abrupt releases of methane hydrates12-13. In addition, there
is growing concern that the expected future global warming may lead to
hydrate instability and thus to an enhanced emission of methane, imposing a
strong positive feedback that amplifies anthropogenic warming. It is thus
very important to quantify the impact of such a methane hydrate scenario on
the climate system.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 3/1/08, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
> >
> > In closing:
> >
> > It is my hope that we can embrace, not fear, the necessary science to
> > help our planet.
> >
> > I feel it is imperative that we begin to find ways to adapt to climate
> > change, while at the same time working to mitigate it. Unfortunately
> > we are already on a path toward significant change, but if we apply
> > ourselves I believe we can find ways to create alternatives to burning
> > oil and coal.  We need multiple simultaneous approaches to solve this
> > problem, with the goal of net zero carbon emissions to stabilize
> > atmospheric concentrations and ensure our survival.
>
> I hate to be the voice of doom and gloom here, but it may not be that
> simple.  According to this article from Space.com
> (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html), the
> "Total Solar Irradiance" which measures the total solar energy output in
> all wavelengths has increased 0.1 percent in the last 24 years.  While
> this seems a small number, it could have caused notable climate change
> if the increase has been sustained for a century or more.  There is
> reason to believe that it has, though direct measurements by satellites
> have only been accurate enough to measure this for 24 years.
>
> Of course, pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere has only exacerbated
> the situation and reducing our carbon footprint would certainly help.
> If, in fact, the Sun's variation is one of the major factors of climate
> change as this study suggests, then this will only help to a certain
> degree.  We may be in need of some out-of-the-box thinking on this one,
> stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations may not be enough.
>
> Paul
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080302/a888982f/attachment.html