Re: Arctic methane
John Nissen
Apparently this concern about the "methane time bomb" goes back a few years [1]. But Similetov is defeatist:
Similetov added:
We are aware that our results showing that the permafrost is no longer an
impermeable barrier to methane release have not been duplicated by
other researchers at this time. But it is high time to warn people.
He stopped for an instant and smiled, before adding, “We can do nothing about it, of course.”
However one of the comments does mention geoengineering:
Soon CH4 emissions will overwhelm any cuts
Frankly, I wonder how long it will take for people to understand that soon methane (CH4) emissions from melting permafrost (both under the sea and on land) will overwhelm any greenhouse gas emission cuts mankind makes.
Instead, the Greens are chasing their tails demanding politically unrealistic gigantic emission cuts. Not only would those emissions cuts, if implimented, waste resources better spent on a feasible solution, but the Greens are wasting whatever political capital they have on a lost cause.
Don't you understand that the permafrost will already emit gigantic amounts of CH4 regardless, because of the thermal inertia of the climate system, because of the emissions from machines already built and agriculture, and because of feedback loops like natural methane emissions and albedo flips?
Obviously, it is a simple choice between a massive cull of mankind and implimentation of a geoengineering scheme (I suggest using an engineered aerosol to dim the sun a little). Really, the only question is will we impliment a sun dimming scheme before or after the ecosystems rapidly collapse from record heatwaves. www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod [2]
It turns out that the commentator is Brad Arnold [3], and I am trying to contact him.
I have also written to Jim Hansen, mentioned in the same EGU report [1]. More recent research seems to confirm Similetov's fears about the instability of the permafrost layer holding back the methane.
It seems that everybody in the scientific establishment has downplayed the methane problem (with very few exceptions, including Peter Wadhams). But that is also true for the retreat of the Arctic sea ice, where the frightening volume trend (with trend line curving towards zero ice end summer 2015 or 2016 [4]) is ignored. The scientists who advise governments give the impression that CO2 emissions cuts can alone solve the global warming problem. This is patently not the case.
We can do something about the methane. We HAVE to do something about the methane! And quickly!!
Cheers,
John
[1] http://www.grist.org/article/Methane-time-bomb-ticking-louder
[2] Unfortunately this page no longer exists.
[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/user/dobermanmacleod
[4] http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
---
???
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Arctic methane Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:54:32 -0700 From: David Appell <david....@gmail.com> Reply-To: david....@gmail.com To: johnnis...@gmail.com
John,
Hi. On the Google geoengineering group you wrote (Apr 28):
> "Significant quantities of methane are already appearing in the Arctic atmosphere."
I was wondering what scientific data you were basing this statement on.
Thanks,
David
-- David Appell, independent science journalist e: david....@gmail.com w: http://www.davidappell.com b: http://davidappell.blogspot.com p: (001) 503-975-5614 m: St. Helens, OR USA
vogle...@gmail.com
>
> david....@gmail.com
>
>
> To:
> johnnis...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> Hi. On the Google geoengineering group you wrote (Apr 28):
>
>
>
> > "Significant quantities of methane are already appearing in the
> Arctic atmosphere."
>
>
>
> I was wondering what scientific data you were basing this statement
> on.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> --
> David Appell, independent science journalist
> e: david....@gmail.com
> w: http://www.davidappell.com
> b: http://davidappell.blogspot.com
> p: (001) 503-975-5614
> m: St. Helens, OR USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
>
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
>
>
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
vogle...@gmail.com
John Nissen
Dear Peter,
I agree entirely with your analysis of how we have got into this
critical situation with the methane. And I agree that the challenge of
stopping the methane and halting the sea ice retreat is daunting. But
this challenge does not even seem to be recognised by the scientific
establishment! If the challenge were recognised for what it is, then
surely all governments would demand scientists and engineers came up
with a plan of action to meet the challenge, and they'd treat this as an
all-out war effort, as if our lives and the lives of future generations
depend on it - which they do!
I am not so pessimistic about finding a solution, because many good
ideas are coming forward. Anyhow I cannot face the prospect of failure,
because it would be so horrendous to witness the start of an unstoppable
process - the abrupt climate change - the "quantum jump that is about to
happen", as you put it. I cannot bear to think of my children suffering
the consequences - being caught up in the "climate-driven collapse of
our entire global civilisation" as you put it. Failure is not an option!
Of course, it would have been much easier if we'd started with our
geoengineering years ago, and prevented the sea ice retreat, permafrost
melt and resulting methane problem. Better still to have curbed CO2
emissions decades ago, and eliminated the cause of these problems and
more. But history shows us that civilised societies tend to postpone
action as long as possible - waiting for a catastrophic event to spur
action. Unfortunately, by the time there is such an event, it will be
too late. We have to act within months, not years, to give ourselves a
reasonable chance of success. Please contribute to the brainstorming,
and help in producing a plan of action.
Best wishes,
John
---
On 08/05/2011 13:46, P. Wadhams wrote:
> Dear John, I agree with your diagnosis of the serious role that
> methane is going to play in the next phase of global warming, but fear
> that Semiletov is right in his statement that we can do nothing (so
> long as stupidity and greed prevail in the world of course, but
> unfortunately that seems to be a given). The unfortunate fact is that
> two big factors are driving Arctic methane release: (1) The general
> increase in global temperatures (enhanced by a factor of 2-3 in the
> Arctic) as a product of our CO2 emissions, which is causing permafrost
> to melt on land, (2) the summer retreat of sea ice from continental
> shelves, which allows the shallow shelf seas to warm by up to 5C right
> down to the seabed in summer, causing offshore permafrost to melt and
> release trapped methane. The sea ice retreat is itself a result of
> global warming via mechanisms involving both air temperature and ocean
> heat transport. Therefore what is causing methane emission, both on
> land and at sea, is our heating of the atmosphere due to CO2
> emissions. The dangerous difference about today is that the heating
> has just become enough to trigger massive releases (eg the seabed
> warming) while in the past it was not. A quantum jump is about to happen.
> There seems to be no prospect of reducing our CO2 emissions, or
> even of reducing the rate of rise in our CO2 emissions. The greens may
> think they have won some battles in building wind farms and making us
> sort our rubbish, but this is pitiful deckchair-rearrangement compared
> with the fact that China is building four coal-fired power stations
> per week and is set to continue to do this ad infinitum since they
> have plenty of coal and have taken over the world's manufacturing
> industry. Greed and blindness continue to govern our stewardship of
> the planet, and I fear there is no solution except the climate-driven
> collapse of our entire global civilisation.
> If geoengineering can do something to slow this, then great. My own
> fears for any technique involve (a) unknown side effects, (b) the fact
> that it is like putting a sticking plaster on a gigantic wound, in
> that it is slowing the temperature rise while doing nothing about the
> driving force, the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Processes that
> depend only on CO2 rather than temperature will continue apace, e.g.
> acidification of the ocean, leading to loss of the marine ecosystem.
> CO2 sequestration would seem to be the only geoengineering that would
> be really safe and productive in the long term. However the energy
> required to get rid of CO2 itself has to be generated, and this has to
> be by non-emissive methods like nuclear or renewable. But if you are
> going to do this you have solved the problem anyway since you are no
> longer emitting the CO2 that is causing the problem!
> Sorry to seem pessimistic but I do fear the worst. I suspect that
> in 20 years time we will be seeing a range of serious impacts making
> the world a quite different (and nastier) place than it is now. One of
> them will be the loss of summer sea ice (I think this will happen in
> less than 10 years). At my age I will, sadly, be seeing just the
> beginning of the collapse of our planetary civilisation, but I fear
> that our grandchildren will live (or not love) through the whole
> thing, Best wishes Peter Wadhams
>
>
>
> . On May 8 2011, John Nissen wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Apparently this concern about the "methane time bomb" goes back a few
>> years
>> [1]. But Similetov is defeatist:
>>
>> *Similetov added:*
>>
>> *We are aware that our results showing that the permafrost is no
>> longer an
>> impermeable barrier to methane release have not been duplicated by
>> other researchers at this time. But it is high time to warn people.*
>>
>> *He stopped for an instant and smiled, before adding, "We can do nothing
>> about it, of course."*
>>
>> However one of the comments does mention geoengineering:
>>
>> *Soon CH4 emissions will overwhelm any cuts
>>
>> Frankly, I wonder how long it will take for people to understand that
>> soon
>> methane (CH4) emissions from melting permafrost (both under the sea
>> and on
>> land) will overwhelm any greenhouse gas emission cuts mankind makes.
>>
>> Instead, the Greens are chasing their tails demanding politically
>> unrealistic gigantic emission cuts. Not only would those emissions
>> cuts, if implimented, waste resources better spent on a feasible
>> solution, but the Greens are wasting whatever political capital they
>> have on a lost cause.
>>
>> Don't you understand that the permafrost will already emit gigantic
>> amounts
>> of CH4 regardless, because of the thermal inertia of the climate system,
>> because of the emissions from machines already built and agriculture,
>> and
>> because of feedback loops like natural methane emissions and albedo
>> flips?
>>
>> Obviously, it is a simple choice between a massive cull of mankind and
>> implimentation of a geoengineering scheme (I suggest using an engineered
>> aerosol to dim the sun a little). Really, the only question is will we
>> impliment a sun dimming scheme before or after the ecosystems rapidly
>> collapse from record heatwaves. www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod *[2]*
>> *
>>> <david....@gmail.com><david....@gmail.com> Reply-To:
Emily
the email exchange seems to me to have significantly stepped up a gear.
John, you're doing a great job gathering momentum.
I like the 'ice-makers' phrase especially too. And Prof Wadhams, thank
you so much for your years of dedicated research which have brougth the
Arctic sea ice to our attention. And also for your willingness to speak
out openly about your concerns. This is rare and vital.
Perhaps it'd be useful to set up a document for a brain storm, then we
could rate and rank the key and possible options for approaching the
methane and arctic problems, which need to / copuld be deployed along
side the normal mitigation approach of cutting ghg emissions etc.
then we could cost out feasibility studies, look at legislation etc. We
can also run our ideas through the various geo-eng groups for comments
later in the stage. It'd be good to pull it together as a report and
send a summary to several key players. Would you each like to be
involved as co-authors?
here is the opening chapter heading with a few of the ideas I mentioned
a previously - please add in your thoughts for options of technologies
which may help stop methane from leaking out of the Arctic.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dN4OXpp0rYVrj0Xifu88RGXXoLvA4xHLuniTSv440q0/edit?hl=en&authkey=CN3tyqoE
I also attach a schematic diagram, which I will put onto google docs for
comments, which outlines a few of the feedback mechanisms in the Arctic
which have come to my attention. I did this to communicate the domino
effect to colleagues when I was at wwf and also to seek points of
intervention to prevent the dominoes falling.
thoughts welcome,
thanks,
Emily.
www.lewis-brown.net
John Nissen
Dear all,
As I understand it, carbon in the Arctic is stored in a number of different forms:
1. Plants and plant material in tundra above permafrost
2. Plant material trapped in permafrost below tundra
3. Plant material and methane hydrate trapped in permafrost below shallow sea
4. Biomass trapped in sea ice
5. Biomass trapped in Greenland ice sheet/dome
Although the biomass of 4 and 5 is in surprisingly large quantity, and reduces ice albedo (greying the ice), it does not contribute to methane (as far as I know), and so will not be further considered.
1. There is a problem of tundra when dry that it is liable to burn. Global warming can increase frequency of long dry periods. There were major fires of Russian tundra in 2010, releasing much CO2, black carbon and heat. These all contribute to Arctic warming and melting of snow - decreasing its albedo. They also increase the melting of permafrost below, see 2.
2. There is a massive quantity of plant material trapped in permafrost below the tundra. As the permafrost melts, and depth of unfrozen ground increases, the plant material decomposes releasing CO2 and methane. Some methane is converted into CO2 by bacteria, releasing heat and increasing permafrost melt in the ground and increasing Arctic atmospheric temperature. The methane is a potent greenhouse gas, but this source of methane has yet to have a significant effect on the Arctic atmospheric temperature.
3. A massive quantity of methane hydrate has been discovered trapped in permafrost under the seabed of the shallow sea - known as the East Siberial Arctic Shelf (ESAS). As the sea ice retreats in spring and summer, the water warms, and then winds cause mixing. Warm water is reaching patches of the sea bed and melting the permafrost, causing release (or venting) of methane in "hotspots", scattered across the ESAS. This atmospheric methane in the Arctic has grown over the past few years to a level well above the global average level, and much higher again over hotspots, where it now may be sufficient to start causing some local greenhouse warming in a positive feedback loop.
We cannot expect a silver bullet for stopping the methane, but rather a combination of methods:
a) general cooling of the Arctic, e.g. by SRM with stratospheric aerosols;
b) reducing heat flow into the Arctic, e.g. by cloud brightening over the Gulf Stream (becoming the North Atlantic Drift);
c) local cooling of the surface, e.g. by increasing albedo;
d) reducing heat flow locally, e.g., for ESAS, by diverting rivers which currently flow in from the south;
e) removing the trapped carbon, e.g. by mining the methane hydrate (if that were possible);
e) converting methane to CO2 before it spreads in the atmosphere, e.g. by biological means or by burning;
f) capturing the methane from the atmosphere.
There may be others.
An interesting proposal has been put forward by Mark Massmann for (a), which entails releasing liquid air (Lair) or liquid nitrogen (LN2) from an aircraft, as follows:
It might also be possible dump the Lair or LN2 directly onto a land surface to cause a frost covering and increase albedo locally, i.e. for local cooling (c). If it were dumped onto a water surface - lake or sea - it might form a reflective fog layer, which would also increase albedo. Apparently, as the liquid is dumped, it spreads out very rapidly and evenly over the surface.
Note that Mark considers this a stop-gap measure until more general Arctic cooling is obtained. He further writes:
All of these approaches could be tested very easily and quickly,
either in a lab setting or preferably where the permafrost is
melting. The fact that Lair is perfectly safe from an environmental
standpoint (i.e. byproduct is perfectly clean air) should help
tremendously in gaining approval for research and development.
Because Lair is so cold (-320 deg F/-195 deg C) and expands 900 times
into air at sea level, each 100-ton payload should cool a very large
area on the ground.
Some responses to the idea of using Lair have included “It requires
too much energy to produce”, or “It would be prohibitively
expensive”. However, Lair is actually produced very efficiently, so
that a modern liquefaction plant can create 1,000 tons per day at an
energy cost of 12 cents per gallon. The Lair from just 2 liquefaction
plants might be all that is needed to significantly limit the release
of methane. This would equal 2,000 tons of Lair per day, with 10
aircraft flying 2 missions per day. Therefore each 100-ton mission =
200,000 lbs, times (6.7 lbs per gallon) = 30,000 gallons, times 20
missions = 600,000 gallons (2.2 million liters) per day.
I look forward to discussion of this proposal, and to further ideas and suggestions.
Best wishes,
John
--
On 08/05/2011 17:32, P. Wadhams wrote:
Dear John, I'm very ready to contribute to the brainstorming if I can. I guess the thrust of my last message - which was not intended to be completely despairing, though that's how it turned out - was that Arctic methane emission cannot be viewed in isolation. It's a product of Arctic heating. Permafrost melt on land can only be stopped if Arctic air temperatures stop rising. The best way to do that is to cut back on CO2 emissions, but I fear that the human race is not mature enough to do that. That does leave some kind of Arctic aerosol deployment, i.e. geoengineering, as a way of stopping or slowing the warming. Permafrost melt under the sea is largely due to the open water which now exists over shelf areas in summer, allowing the shallow waters to warm. So it is a consequence of sea ice retreat. Direct interventions to preserve sea ice, as various people have proposed, may be an answer, but I have grave doubts as to whether any of the methods would be effective, given (a) the scale of the problem, (b) the fact that the sea ice is responding to a complex of factors, including increased heat transport from changed ocean currents, so there may not be a simple fix. The idea of spreading liquid air, for instance, just will not work. You only have to look at the magnitude of the latent heat that has to be extracted. Given that methane has a climatic impact for 7 years after emission, while for CO2 it is 100, perhaps we should be looking at methane sequestration techniques (if there are any) to cope with the huge blip of methane input that will happen when all the seabed permafrost and a lot of the terrestrial permafrost melts within a comparatively few years. There may be some chemistry here that makes it easier than CO2 sequestration, Best wishes Peter
Andrew Lockley
I've studied methane geoengineering extensively, so here's my tuppence
If you're going to use liquid air, just pump it into the sea bed where there are leaks in the permafrost clathrate cap.
Draining bogs will help. Dry material doesn't emit methane
Shelling methane vents with incendiary shells will limit major releases.
On a more personal note, I think it worth a mention that I am waking up after methane nightmares at present. Am I alone in this? I feel like Sarah Connor from the terminator films
A
> either in a lab setting or preferably where the permafrost is
> melting. The fact that Lair is perfectly safe from an environmental
> standpoint (i.e. byproduct is perfectly clean air) should help
> tremendously in gaining approval for research and development.
> Because Lair is so cold (-320 deg F/-195 deg C) and expands 900 times
> into air at sea level, each 100-ton payload should cool a very large
> area on the ground.
>
> Some responses to the idea of using Lair have included "It requires
> too much energy to produce", or "It would be prohibitively
> expensive". However, Lair is actually produced very efficiently, so
> that a modern liquefaction plant can create 1,000 tons per day at an
> energy cost of 12 cents per gallon. The Lair from just 2 liquefaction
> plants might be all that is needed to significantly limit the release
> of methane. This would equal 2,000 tons of Lair per day, with 10
> aircraft flying 2 missions per day. Therefore each 100-ton mission =
> 200,000 lbs, times (6.7 lbs per gallon) = 30,000 gallons, times 20
> missions = 600,000 gallons (2.2 million liters) per day.
Sam Carana
For years, I have been trying to get more people to brainstorm on ways
to deal with Arctic methane.
Last month, I added a post on this, discussing ways to ignite methane
or produce hydroxyl, at:
http://geoengineering.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979240772
where I received some interesting comments.
Air capture of methane is another method that deserves more attention.
All such methods could benefit from further research and testing,
which should be high on the agenda of any scientist working in this
area.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Veli Albert Kallio
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is another Greenhouse gas melting permafrost releases besides methane and carbon dioxide which is often forgotten and there are substantial amounts of that as well. So, it should appear as a point 6. although it is not carbon, but its still biomass related.
Kind regards,
Albert
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 23:26:08 +0100
From: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
To: pw...@cam.ac.uk
CC: johnnis...@gmail.com; david....@gmail.com; geoengi...@googlegroups.com; em...@lewis-brown.net; orrb...@tiscali.co.uk; stefan.r...@pik-potsdam.de; albert...@hotmail.com; du...@icwc-aral.uz
Subject: Re: Arctic methane
Michael Hayes
b) reducing heat flow into the Arctic, e.g. by cloud brightening over the Gulf Stream (becoming the North Atlantic Drift); The Gulf Stream is not the main input, Look here http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/article/2008/12-08-2008-eng.htm
c) local cooling of the surface, e.g. by increasing albedo; The ESAS is over 800,000 sq km. A large fleet of Salter ships equiped with Bright Water injection would be nice to have. Money and permition seem to be an issue.
d) reducing heat flow locally, e.g., for ESAS, by diverting rivers which currently flow in from the south; That is not technically realistic and, even if it was, that would significantly effect the Arctic Ocean salinity levels and produce a greater heat sink and general marine biological problems.
e) removing the trapped carbon, e.g. by mining the methane hydrate (if that were possible); Un-likely as drilling for frozen methane (hydrate) is difficult at best under idea conditions. ESAS is the worst possible environment for that type of drilling. 10,000 wells would not make a dent. Hydrate deposits are in more of a layer than deep pockets. Permafrost locked methane is ubiquitous to permafrost.
e) converting methane to CO2 before it spreads in the atmosphere, e.g. by biological means or by burning; Atmospheric methane has an average 8.4 year life span. CO2 has a significantly longer life. Burning methane just to burn it is simply extending the over all GW effect.
f) capturing the methane from the atmosphere. This technology is still only in early development stages with very little funding.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
Andrew Lockley
Using liquid air to seal methane vents may well work. Using it for general cooling of the sea or land surface will not.
Oxides of nitrogen are critical in the formation of hydroxyl radicals. They therefore play a key role in the breakdown of methane. Although greenhouse gases in their own right, it's vital to accurately judge the effect of manipulations. An increase may paradoxically treat warming very effectively.
There's no credible technology of which I'm aware which could capture methane from air
A
> Hi All,
>
> Here are a few recent images of the Arctic area showing significant
> anomalies.
>
> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ April temp anomaly
>
> http://www.theozonehole.com/arctic2001loss.htm Current Actic Ozone
> condition. Record Loss
>
> A few thoughts on John's list:
>
> a) general cooling of the Arctic, e.g. by SRM with stratospheric
> to get past governance and policy issues, in particular the **UNEP/CBD/COP*
>
> b) reducing heat flow into the Arctic, e.g. by cloud brightening over the
> main input, Look here **
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/article/2008/12-08-2008-eng.htm
> *<http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/article/2008/12-08-2008-eng.htm>
>
> c) local cooling of the surface, e.g. by increasing albedo; *The ESAS is
> over 800,000 sq km. A large fleet of Salter ships equiped with Bright Water
>
> d) reducing heat flow locally, e.g., for ESAS, by diverting rivers which
> even if it was, that would significantly effect the Arctic Ocean salinity
> levels and produce a greater heat sink and general marine biological
>
> e) removing the trapped carbon, e.g. by mining the methane hydrate (if that
> difficult at best under idea conditions. ESAS is the worst possible
> environment for that type of drilling. 10,000 wells would not make a dent.
> Hydrate deposits are in more of a layer than deep pockets. Permafrost locked
>
> e) converting methane to CO2 before it spreads in the atmosphere, e.g. by
> life span. CO2 has a significantly longer life. Burning methane just to burn
>
> f) capturing the methane from the atmosphere. *This technology is still only
> in early development stages with very little funding.*
>> either in a lab setting or preferably where the permafrost is
>> melting. The fact that Lair is perfectly safe from an environmental
>> standpoint (i.e. byproduct is perfectly clean air) should help
>> tremendously in gaining approval for research and development.
>> Because Lair is so cold (-320 deg F/-195 deg C) and expands 900 times
>> into air at sea level, each 100-ton payload should cool a very large
>> area on the ground.
>>
>> Some responses to the idea of using Lair have included “It requires
>> too much energy to produce”, or “It would be prohibitively
>> expensive”. However, Lair is actually produced very efficiently, so
>> that a modern liquefaction plant can create 1,000 tons per day at an
>> energy cost of 12 cents per gallon. The Lair from just 2 liquefaction
>> plants might be all that is needed to significantly limit the release
>> of methane. This would equal 2,000 tons of Lair per day, with 10
>> aircraft flying 2 missions per day. Therefore each 100-ton mission =
>> 200,000 lbs, times (6.7 lbs per gallon) = 30,000 gallons, times 20
>> missions = 600,000 gallons (2.2 million liters) per day.
Michael Hayes
"Health effects"
"NOx reacts with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form nitric acid vapor and related particles. Small particles can penetrate deeply into sensitive lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases. Inhalation of such particles may cause or worsen respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis it may also aggravate existing heart disease.[7]
NOx reacts with volatile organic compounds in the presence sunlight to form Ozone. Ozone can cause adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function mostly in susceptible populations (children, elderly, asthmatics). Ozone can be transported by wind currents and cause health impacts far from the original sources. The American Lung Association estimates that nearly 50 percent of United States inhabitants live in counties that are not in ozone compliance.[8]
NOx destroys ozone in the stratosphere.[9] Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet light, which is potentially damaging to life on earth.[10] NOx from combustion sources does not reach the stratosphere; instead, NOx is formed in the stratosphere from photolysis of nitrous oxide.[9]
NOx also readily reacts with common organic chemicals, and even ozone, to form a wide variety of toxic products: nitroarenes, nitrosamines and also the nitrate radical some of which may cause biologicalmutations. Recently another pathway, via NOx, to ozone has been found that predominantly occurs in coastal areas via formation of nitryl chloride when NOx comes into contact with salt mist." [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx
Production of NOx does require high temperatures or strong UV exposure. Open air release of LN2 would not entail heat, but, the Arctic Ozone Hole does migrate over the ESAS and thus, the volume of released LN2 would potentially be exposed to a strong enough UV energy to produce significant amounts of NOx. I could be wrong on this.
Finding a way to use NOx to neutralize GHGs without open air release would seem optimal.
Efficient high volume air movement through the system would be a key factor (as it is in all air capture concepts). High volume air contact systems stationed in remote areas is even more challenging.
I have a few thoughts on how to approach the technical side of the issue which are not far removed from what I have already brought to this forum in past posts. A much larger version of this tethered system could provide a base structure for a GHG "Scrubber". http://www.flickr.com/photos/14529376@N00/2730542642/ A Salter Tether Ship wold be a good base for this approach.
Hearing concepts on remote area high volume air contact means/methods from others would be helpful.
Albert, I found this article on N2O which was a real eye opener for me. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090827_ozone.html
Andrew Lockley
You should be able to detect methane release using gas samplers on buoys or the sea bed. Hydrophones may also detect bubbles. Autonomous ships could also be used, or data could be collected from any existing marine traffic. Aerial imaging could detect larger releases.
Putting liquid air into the sea is a non starter. Injecting it into the sea bed might help, but it would be energy intensive. Venting would be a problem, so a closed system using cooling pipes may work better. It's only going to be practical with a small leak in a large reservoir.
In my personal opinion, this issue is make or break for our society.
A
> On the issue of using Lair as a vent sealant, I may be wrong, but, I do
> believe the ice formed would most likely float away. And, a vent would be
> most likely more of a diffused field of bubble streams as opposed to a
> central "vent". Also, capping such a vent with even cement will be
> eventually compromised by the build up of pressure. Finding even a small
> fraction of the expected release areas would be difficult. Overhead imaging
> may help in that chore, yet, I personally do not know how a methane release
> point can be remotely detected.
>
> As far as Oxides of nitrogen/hydroxyl radicals. Yes, NOX is reactive with
> many GHG. It is also known to produce significant health risks at long
> distances and acid rain. Here is a short health effects list from Wiki;
>
> "Health effects"
>
> and other compounds to form nitric acid<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitric_acid> vapor
> lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases.
> Inhalation of such particles may cause or worsen respiratory diseases such
> may also aggravate existing heart disease.[7]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-6>
>
> NO*x* reacts with volatile organic compounds<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compounds> in
> the presence sunlight to form Ozone <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone>.
> in lung function mostly in susceptible populations (children, elderly,
> asthmatics). Ozone can be transported by wind currents and cause health
> impacts far from the original sources. The American Lung Association
> estimates that nearly 50 percent of United States inhabitants live in
>
> NO*x* destroys ozone in the stratosphere<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer>
> .[9] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-NOAA_N2O-8> Ozone in the
> stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet light<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_light>,
> which is potentially damaging to life on earth.[10]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-NASA-9>
> NO*x* from combustion sources does not reach the stratosphere; instead, NO*
> x* is formed in the stratosphere from photolysis<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolysis>
> of nitrous oxide <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide>.[9]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-NOAA_N2O-8>
>
> NO*x* also readily reacts with common organic chemicals, and even ozone, to
> form a wide variety of toxic products: nitroarenes<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nitroarenes&action=edit&redlink=1>
> , nitrosamines <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrosamines> and also the nitrate
> radical<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nitrate_radical&action=edit&redlink=1> some
> of which may cause biologicalmutations<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations>.
> predominantly occurs in coastal areas via formation of nitryl chloride when
Michael Hayes
Mark Massmann
Andrew makes a great point. If methane release tends to be limited to
vents or so-called "hotspots", and the number of vents is a reasonable
amount, the use of Lair or LN2 to freeze and seal these vents becomes
MUCH more feasible than trying to cool/refreeze large permafrost
regions.
Are we able to determine the number of these vents using satellites,
aircraft etc? If so is this information currently available? This
would be the primary consideration for feasibility- if it's something
like 10,000 or more vents, at some number it just becomes
unreasonable. However, on the order of 1,000-3,000 vents would seem
feasible and on the order of hundreds would seem very feasible.
Another consideration would be liquefaction capacity- whether existing
liquefaction plants are close enough to support this activity, or if
it would make more sense to build new plants (maybe 2-4) near existing
high-latitude airports (these plants are quick/easy to build).
Ideally it would be great to power them using captured methane (!) or
by harnessing the strong/steady winds of the tundra.
Secondly, as warming and drying continues in permafrost regions, this
will create imminent danger of tundra wildfires, which can cause
enormous CO2 and methane release. Already in July 2009 intense fires
burned large permafrost regions in Russia, Canada and Alaska (see
http://climatechangehealth.com/arctic/smoke-from-tundra-fires-in-russia-and-alaska
).
However, I believe future wildfires could be more-effectively
controlled using liquid nitrogen (LN2), by releasing a wide stream of
LN2 on or just upwind of the fire lines via aircraft. The LN2 would
then expand over 800 times into a cold/heavy gaseous nitrogen, and be
pushed by the wind to form a "GN2 blanket" covering long portions of
the fire line. By diluting oxygen levels from 21% to below 15%,
combustion should be eliminated and the cooling provided would help
prevent re-ignition.
This method could provide greatly-improved capability for
extinguishing large wildfires compared to current firefighting methods
using water and/or fire retardants. If this method was shown to work
in the tundra, it could create confidence for using it at lower
latitudes, where wildfires are already becoming more intense from
severe droughts and record high temperatures.
Thirdly, the liquefaction process for creating Lair or LN2 might also
capture a significant amount of methane in the process. Since liquid
methane boils at a warmer temperature than Lair or LN2, cooling
methane-rich air would form liquid methane first, allowing it to be
distilled from the cold air and stored in highly-insulated dewars.
Note: methane boils at -161 °C (-258 °F), while air and LN2 boil at
-196 °C (-320 °F).
To summarize, by creating the capability for delivering Lair/LN2 at
high latitudes, this might provide a three-fold benefit of mitigating
methane release, controlling large wildfires, and distilling liquid
methane out of ambient air.
John please help with the number of methane vents.
I would appreciate any and all comments!!
Thank you-
Mark
On May 9, 12:37 am, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Using liquid air to seal methane vents may well work. Using it for general
> cooling of the sea or land surface will not.
>
> Oxides of nitrogen are critical in the formation of hydroxyl radicals. They
> therefore play a key role in the breakdown of methane. Although greenhouse
> gases in their own right, it's vital to accurately judge the effect of
> manipulations. An increase may paradoxically treat warming very
> effectively.
>
> There's no credible technology of which I'm aware which could capture
> methane from air
>
> A
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > Here are a few recent images of the Arctic area showing significant
> > anomalies.
>
> >http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/April temp anomaly
>
>
> > A few thoughts on John's list:
>
> > a) general cooling of the Arctic, e.g. by SRM with stratospheric
> > aerosols; *Need
> > to get past governance and policy issues, in particular the
> **UNEP/CBD/COP*
>
> > b) reducing heat flow into the Arctic, e.g. by cloud brightening over the
> > Gulf Stream (becoming the North Atlantic Drift); *The Gulf Stream is not
> the
> > main input, Look here **
>
>
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/article/2008/12-08-2008...