This same battle over what climate change will look like is tied to METHANE RELEASE----Beckwith outed some as sensationalists saying this methane release will kill all of humanity----what we don't like about a Beckwith is his ties to geo-engineering. This makes one cautious about listening to all he says as with all science we look broadly for results.
The issue of GEO-ENGINEERING is that civil engineering bogey man ----some hate it some like it----we feel strongly that the goals of neutralizing climbing heat to keep northern perma-frost in place thus limiting METHANE RELEASE is one that needs to be explored---the problem with these geo-engineering studies is this----they are ongoing as global 1% MOVE FORWARD FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE INDUSTRIALIZATION the very policy creating LEVEL 5 DEGREE CLIMATE CHANGE. We must stop MOVING FORWARD before any geo-engineering around protecting against melting perma-frost and METHANE RELEASE will be successful.
Most scientists these days willing to go public with real data are not part of corporate university structure-----the data and paleoclimate/geological history works well with all those scientists claiming 21 feet.
Sea Levels Could Rise At Least 20 Feet
Brian Kahn By Brian Kahn
Published: July 9th, 2015
Even if world manages to limit global warming to 2°C — the target number for current climate negotiations — sea levels may still rise at least 6 meters (20 feet) above their current heights, radically reshaping the world’s coastline and affecting millions in the process.
That finding comes from a new paper published on Thursday in Science that shows how high sea levels rose the last time carbon dioxide levels were this high.
CLICK ON IMAGE ABOVE FOR INTERACTIVE VERSION
Ocean Drive Miami
Now vs. 25 feet of sea level rise
Credit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central
That was about 3 million years ago, when the globe was about 3-5°F warmer on average, the Arctic 14.4°F warmer, megasharks swam the oceans, and sea levels stood at least 20 feet above their current heights.
The megasharks aren’t coming back but those sea levels could be no matter what happens in December’s climate summit in Paris.
“Even if we meet that 2°C target, in the past with those types of temperatures, we may be committing ourselves to this level of sea level rise in the long term,” Andrea Dutton, a geochemist at the University of Florida and one of the study’s co-authors, said. “The decisions we make now about where we want to be in 2100 commit us on a pathway where we can’t go back. Once these ice sheets start to melt, the changes become irreversible.”
The study examined past changes and laid out a framework for using them to refine our understanding of what the future holds for coastal communities. According to separate research by Climate Central, a 20-foot sea level rise would reshape the U.S. coast, causing Louisiana to lose its boot and transforming the Bay Area into the Bays Area by forming a second inland bay. It would also threaten the world's coastal nations and megacities.
Sea levels have already risen about 8 inches compared to pre-industrial times. That rise has helped boost the surge and flooding damage from storms like Sandy and Typhoon Haiyan, and dramatically increased the occurrence of everyday flooding during high tide in cities from Baltimore to Honolulu.
The most recent projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicate that if emissions continue on their current trend, sea levels could continue to rise another 39 inches by the end of this century.
By 2050, 26 major U.S. cities will face an “emerging flooding crisis.” Globally, storm damage could cost cities from Hong Kong to Dhaka to New York trillions annually unless adaptation measures are taken. According to Climate Central estimates, 150 million or more people are currently living on land that will either be submerged or exposed to chronic flooding by 2100.
But sea level rise isn’t going to just turn off after 2100 and according to climate scientists, current greenhouse gases are baking much more than 3 feet of sea level rise into the system. The world’s oceans, ice sheets and climate are constantly performing an intricate dance. The current rate of warming could have them dancing a different routine forcing ice sheets to accommodate by melting, and sea levels in turn to rise.
“Ice sheets as we see them today appear to be out of equilibrium with the present climate,” Dutton said.
Venice Beach Boardwalk
Now vs. 25 feet of sea level rise
Credit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central
Recent research showed the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains enough ice to lift sea levels 10-13 feet, appears to have entered collapse, mostly driven by warm water and, to a lesser degree, air melting its ice shelves from above and below. Those ice shelves essentially act as doorstops, keeping the rest of Antarctica’s massive stores of ice on land. Losing them would send ice tumbling to the sea and, after it melted, lapping up against the shorelines around the world.
Other parts of the Antarctic ice sheet are also less stable than previously believed and could further drive sea level rise from the southern hemisphere’s store of ice.
The planet’s other major cache of land ice is Greenland. Its melt and contribution to sea level rise have increased over the past decade and scientists project that it will play an increasingly larger role in raising the oceans.
In addition to looking at the deep past, Dutton’s analysis also considered the more (geologically) recent past by looking at periods around 400,000 and 125,000 years ago when global temperatures were 3.6°F and 1.8°F above pre-industrial times, respectively. Because they’re more recent, Dutton’s analysis was able to get better estimates of the upper bounds of sea level rise. And those results don’t bode well for the world’s coastlines as they showed that sea levels were up to 42 feet higher than the present.
“These numbers are consistent with our study on sea level commitment,” Anders Levermann, a sea level rise expert at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research who authored a 2013 study, said.
Levermann said the Dutton’s approach of breaking down sea level rise by the different ice sheets could help with regional sea level estimates. For example, Greenland’s melt could drive up sea levels on the Eastern Seaboard in addition to having a potential impact on ocean circulation.
“We’re going to reach temperatures we had in the past periods in the next couple decades. Understanding which are most vulnerable sectors of polar ice sheets is critical to projecting future pattern of sea level rise regionally,” Dutton said.
The big outstanding question — and the one that’s most relevant to people living along the coasts — is just how long it could take sea levels to rise to such great heights. The process isn’t linear. It’s currently accelerating and that trend is expected to continue. Dutton said her group is working on new techniques to better define the rates of rise, but other efforts have shown tipping points could cause sudden, rapid rises faster than previous estimates.
“There are some recent modeling efforts that now show you could get a section of the Antarctic ice sheet, several meters worth of sea level rise, to go in a decade. We used to think it was centuries,” she said.
'In February, another research team documented rapidly degrading permafrost across a 52,000-square-mile swath of the northwest Canadian Arctic'.
Here we see an article quoting a methane release projection from US Geological agency----that global 1% captured Federal agency----saying methane release in Canada's Northwest Territories as in Alaska will not be that bad over time. Above we see that statement made null as conditions for perma-frost is RAPIDLY DEGRADING. We discussed in detail the rape and pillaging of these areas by global mining and global energy corporations behind BOREAL FOREST BURNING ET AL. THIS is what will make rapid the degradation along with rising temperatures. This same condition exists in Siberia and Nordic nations. So, while global 1% corporate researchers release data telling WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% that methane release is not a present danger----it actually is. These global 1% are saying that because they are MOVING FORWARD IN DEVELOPMENT creating these very conditions for extreme METHANE RELEASE.
So, now we see circulating through social media and national news the comments below----they are now placing the burden of methane release on COWS ---it seems that all of science around cows and methane release are now being found in error.
THIS IS ALL FAKE SCIENCE JUST AS CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS WERE FAKE SCIENCE AND THIS PROPAGANDA IS SIMPLY BEING USED TO HIDE THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY OF MOVING FORWARD FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE DEVELOPMENT.
''Methane Emissions From Cows Worse Than Thought, + Some Solutions
September 30th, 2017 by Steve Hanley'
Here is what most scientists call a SENSATIONALIST going to the other extreme in methane release and climate change-----there is no real danger of mass extinction in near future except from MOVING FORWARD FAILED DEVELOPMENT.
'Climate change specialist predicts human extinction in 10 years
ELTON RIKIHANA SMALLMAN
Last updated 15:39, November 27 2016
Emeritus Professor Guy McPherson from the US is back to talk about abrupt temperature rises and species extinction
Emeritus Professor Guy McPherson from the US is back to talk about abrupt temperature rises and species extinction'
All of this is being done by global 1% players deliberately seeding confusion for 99% of global citizens. The US science community through modern times has always been mostly in consensus about these mega-issues. It was CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA when our science data became FAKE NEWS.
Methane Seeps Out as Arctic Permafrost Starts to Resemble Swiss Cheese
Measurements over Canada's Mackenzie River Basin suggest that thawing permafrost is starting to free greenhouse gases long trapped in oil and gas deposits.
By Bob Berwyn, InsideClimate News
Jul 19, 2017
Global warming may be unleashing new sources of heat-trapping methane from layers of oil and gas that have been buried deep beneath Arctic permafrost for millennia. As the Earth's frozen crust thaws, some of that gas appears to be finding new paths to the surface through permafrost that's starting to resemble Swiss cheese in some areas, scientists said.
In a study released today, the scientists used aerial sampling of the atmosphere to locate methane sources from permafrost along a 10,000 square-kilometer swath of the Mackenzie River Delta in northwestern Canada, an area known to have oil and gas desposits.
Deeply thawed pockets of permafrost, the research suggests, are releasing 17 percent of all the methane measured in the region, even though the emissions hotspots only make up 1 percent of the surface area, the scientists found.
In those areas, the peak concentrations of methane emissions were found to be 13 times higher than levels usually caused by bacterial decomposition—a well-known source of methane emissions from permafrost—which suggests the methane is likely also coming from geological sources, seeping up along faults and cracks in the permafrost, and from beneath lakes.
The findings suggest that global warming will "increase emissions of geologic methane that is currently still trapped under thick, continuous permafrost, as new emission pathways open due to thawing permafrost," the authors wrote in the journal Scientific Reports. Along with triggering bacterial decomposition in permafrost soils, global warming can also trigger stronger emissions of methane from fossil gas, contributing to the carbon-climate feedback loop, they concluded.
"This is another methane source that has not been included so much in the models," said the study's lead author, Katrin Kohnert, a climate scientist at the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam, Germany. "If, in other regions, the permafrost becomes discontinuous, more areas will contribute geologic methane," she said.
Similar Findings Near Permafrost Edges
The findings are based on two years of detailed aerial atmospheric sampling above the Mackenzie River Delta. It was one of the first studies to look for sources of deep methane across such a large region.
Previous site-specific studies in Alaska have looked at single sources of deep methane, including beneath lakes. A 2012 study made similar findings near the edge of permafrost areas and around melting glaciers.
Now, there is more evidence that "the loss of permafrost and glaciers opens conduits for the release of geologic methane to the atmosphere, constituting a newly identified, powerful feedback to climate warming," said the 2012 study's author, Katey Walter Anthony, a permafrost researcher at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
"Together, these studies suggest that the geologic methane sources will likely increase in the future as permafrost warms and becomes more permeable," she said.
"I think another critical thing to point out is that you do not have to completely thaw thick permafrost to increase these geologic methane emissions," she said. "It is enough to warm permafrost and accelerate its thaw. Permafrost that starts to look like Swiss cheese would be the type that could allow substantially more geologic methane to escape in the future."
Róisín Commane, a Harvard University climate researcher, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with Kohnert's work, said, "The fluxes they saw are much larger than any biogenic flux ... so I think a different source, such as a geologic source of methane, is a reasonable interpretation."
Commane said the study makes a reasonable assumption that the high emissions hotspots are from geologic sources, but that without more site-specific data, like isotope readings, it's not possible to extrapolate the findings across the Arctic, or to know for sure if the source is from subsurface oil and gas deposits.
"There doesn't seem to be any evidence of these geogenic sources at other locations in the Arctic, but it's something that should be considered in other studies," she said. There may be regions with pockets of underground oil and gas similar to the Mackenzie River Delta that haven't yet been mapped.
Speed of Methane Release Remains a Question
The Arctic is on pace to release a lot more greenhouse gases in the decades ahead. In Alaska alone, the U.S. Geological Survey recently estimated that 16-24 percent of the state's vast permafrost area would melt by 2100.
In February, another research team documented rapidly degrading permafrost across a 52,000-square-mile swath of the northwest Canadian Arctic.
What's not clear yet is whether the rapid climate warming in the Arctic will lead to a massive surge in releases of methane, a greenhouse gas that is about 28 times more powerful at trapping heat as carbon dioxide but does not persist as long in the atmosphere. Most recent studies suggest a more gradual increase in releases, but the new research adds a missing piece of the puzzle, according Ted Schuur, a permafrost researcher at Northern Arizona University.
Since the study only covered two years, it doesn't show long-term trends, but it makes a strong argument that there is significant methane escaping from trapped layers of oil and gas, Schuur said.
"As for current and future climate impact, what matters is the flux to the atmosphere and if it is changing ... if there is methane currently trapped by permafrost, we could imagine this source might increase as new conduits in permafrost appear," he said.
We have discussed these issues of Defense Department and weather weaponry tied to contrails vs chemtrails---and this HAARP facility. The problem for our US government and DOD and it's research is this-----it is tied too deeply into what is CIVIL ENGINEERING RESEARCH and military research as has been true these few decades. This is why citizens worry about goals---AS THEY SHOULD.
All of this is confidential so we don't know what DOD is actually doing at any time---but HAARP is likely tied to PLANETARY SPACE MINING COMMUNICATIONS. They are MOVING FORWARD as fast as they can in MOON MINING---MARS MINING with all kinds of SMALL SATELLITES lining our atmosphere with the need of having strong communications between EARTH and MOON---EARTH and MARS. THIS SEEMS the likely purpose of HAARP. The DOD probably stopped working on this because this project was shifted to private space industry like ELON MUSK AND SPACE-X.
Here is where the two DOD research goals create confusion and suspicion-----they are also tied to SEEDING AND WEATHER CHANGE----research also tied to somehow protecting against the loss of perma-frost in ARCTIC to slow methane release. This is the ALUMINUM/MIRRORING/CHEMTRAILS side of DOD research.
THIS IS WHY WE DO NOT HAVE THESE CIVIL ENGINEERING INSIDE A MILITARY COMPLEX. CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA HAVE MOVED TOO MUCH OF OUR SCIENCE RESEARCH TO THE MILITARY.
The HAARP Conspiracy – Facts the Government Can Not Deny
07 November 2011 16:00
If you follow along with the latest conspiracy theories, the odds are good that you’ve probably heard of the HAARP conspiracy.
HAARP is an abbreviation for “High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program”, and is essentially a program that began in 1990 with the goal of studying the fundamental physical principles that govern the area of the earth’s atmosphere known as the “ionosphere”.
In advancing the world’s knowledge of the earth’s ionosphere, there will be greater potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technologies for radio communications and surveillance purposes.
HAARP is being co-funded by the U.S. Air Force, the Navy, the University of Alaska, and the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, and is being managed at the HAARP Research Station, located near Gakona, Alaska.
A Basic Overview of the HAARP Conspiracy
HAARP has been the target of conspiracy theorists in recent years, with various people voicing concerns about the project’s commitment to hidden motives and covert capabilities.
In an article published in Skeptic Magazine in 2010, author David Naiditch described HAARP as being an attractive target for conspiracy theorists because, “its purpose seems deeply mysterious to the scientifically uninformed.” (1)
In an article published by HAARP, referencing researchers John Heckscher, Ralph Scott and Guy McConnell as primary contacts, the authors’ detail how HAARP technology could potentially be used to disable electrical power grids and disrupt communication signals.
Referencing the value of ionospheric research, an article titled “What is HAARP?”, published on the Florida International University website, stated:
“Ionospheric disturbances at high latitudes also can act to induce large currents in electric power grids: these are thought to cause power outages. Understanding of these and other phenomena is important to maintain reliable communication and power services.” (2)
Is HAARP a Weather Control Weapon?
One issue HAARP conspiracy theorists question is the possibility of HAARP using weather control as a weapon.
However, to slightly modify skeptic David Naiditch’s words, the more “scientifically informed” may argue that HAARP and its technology has little influence over the weather, and that the sun’s own electromagnetic effects on the ionosphere are far more powerful than anything HAARP can release.
On the official HAARP website, one of the most frequently asked questions is, “Is HAARP capable of affecting the weather?”
The response is always very simple, “The HAARP facility will not affect the weather.”
The writers at Haarp.alaska.edu then go on to describe how the transmitted energy in the frequency ranges used by HAARP is not absorbed by the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth’s weather.
It is the sun’s radiation, interacting with the earth’s atmosphere, that creates and continuously replenished the ionosphere.
So powerful is the radiation from the sun that if the ionospheric storms created by the sun don’t affect the weather, then, to quote the HAARP website, “there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.”
An Odd Comment by William Cohen in 1997Despite suggestions from conspiracy theorists that claim HAARP can affect the environment, those claims are not substantiated with any solid scientific evidence.
Those claims are in fact, debunked by our most powerful and inexhaustible source of energy – the one energy with enough heating and cooling effects to truly drive the Earth’s weather system – the sun.
However, the idea that communication and power systems can be impacted by high-level electromagnetic weapons, such as the technology used by HAARP, is significantly more plausible.
At a news briefing in 1997, the Secretary of Defence, William S. Cohen, made a statement to the media where he outright admitted that there are environmentally-altering technological threats in existence. (3)
Cohen’s comment at that briefing has provided fuel to the conspiracy theorists’ claims that technologies like HAARP could be manipulating the weather or exploiting communications.
William S. Cohen’s words, spoken in 1997, are published in news briefing transcripts on the U.S. Department of Defense website, and include the statement:
“Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.”
Additional Slips Revealing the Existence of Environmental Manipulation Research
Two years later, a report from the EU Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy stated:
“Despite the existing conventions, military research is going on environmental manipulation as a weapon, as demonstrated for example by the Alaska-based HAARP system.”
As you can see, the EU Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy used the Alaska-based HAARP system as an example of environmental manipulation, because there are, in fact, several other related facilities, where such weather manipulation could be conducted if it was truly under development – EISCAT in Norway, HIPAS at Fairbanks, Alaska, SIHF in Russia and AOL in Puerto Rico.
The other interesting point that can be taken from William S. Cohen’s statement in 1997, and the EU Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy’s speech, is that it is not only wacky conspiracy theorists that are questioning whether HAARP could be the cause of environmental catastrophes – such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.
However, as HAARP states, “we cannot deny that the sun’s effects on the ionosphere are much more powerful that anything man can create”.
However, HAARP does have a tendency to downplay what they do, and researchers there insist that the HAARP facility is no different than the other ionospheric heaters in operation like the one in Russia, Puerto Rico and Norway.
Mankind having the ability to manipulate the weather and cause hurricanes, volcanoes and other natural disasters may be a slightly far-fetched idea – the breeding ground for conspiracy theorists to engage their overactive imaginations.
U.S military documents clearly state that HAARP aims to learn how to “exploit the iomosphere for Department of Defense purposes.”
In addition, given the very public statement made by Cohen at the 1997 news briefing regarding the very real threat of such technologies, it is not at all surprising that people suspect there may be more to HAARP and related facilities than what the public is being told.
The article below would bore the socks of grand pop but it is the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM public policy issue that all 99% of WE THE PEOPLE should understand. Please glance through to read major issues.
The video I shared of BECKWITH as a scientist making claims different from global 1% corporate scientists have him tied to the group below-----AMEC group. This group rightly states that concerns of METHANE RELEASE are critical-----they are the drivers of GEO-ENGINEERING tied to the aluminum and chemtrail releases in atmosphere trying to create that MIRROR TO REPEL SUN'S RAYS to stop the melting of PERMA-FROST IN ARCTIC. They are trying to create a SHIELD around that top area of EARTH thinking it may keep temperatures from rising and melting perma-frost.
Now, we do not like this geo-engineering policy because number one-----GLOBAL 1% ARE EXPANDING INDUSTRIALIZATION AS FAST AS THEY CAN which will make that temperature soar to LEVEL 5 DEGREES whether that MIRROR reflects the sun's rays or not. So, Beckwith et al may be giving useful data on sea level and methane release---but their goals seem questionable. What it seems to be in the case of these geo-engineers is more of development of SUN RAY REFRACTION that will be used in PLANETARY COLONIZATION AND MINING. Those pesky planets and asteroids in asteroid belt all come with little atmosphere and too much sun rays hitting the surface. ELON MUSK'S PLANETARY MINING SCIENTISTS are those developing MIRROR TECHNOLOGIES to block the sun especially on ECO-DOMES.
47. The Arctic Methane Emergency Group called for urgent intervention by governments to avoid tipping points being reached. Given that there was "nothing in nature that can come to our help", the Group called on governments to "intervene by cooling the Arctic, principally by using geo-engineering techniques; ... [these] techniques have natural analogues which suggest that they should be safe and effective ... if their deployment [avoided] unwanted side-effects". They called for the urgent application of a combination of three geo-engineering technologies: spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight away, cloud brightening using salt-spray also to increase reflection, and cloud removal to allow heat radiation into space. They also called for the use of methane capture technologies such as 'methane mats''.
Again, all this secrecy around scientific development comes from a global 1% not wanting a 99% of US citizens black, white, and brown citizens as well as global citizens from knowing they are making CLIMATE CHANGE SOAR----JUST TO GET TO MINING PLANETS.
FAKE national news AND ALT LEFT ALT RIGHT 5% players tied to NGOs are trying hard to confuse and scare 99% of citizens over these issues. This is the difference between what we call CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1%----and sustainability for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE. Global 1% and their 2% are only building to protect themselves and leaving the worst of development in place for the near future of our children and grandchildren.
Protecting the Arctic - Environmental Audit Committee
The impact of climate change on the Arctic
6. The Arctic is a diverse region encompassing a seasonally-changing frozen ocean surrounded by continents where permafrost and tundra give way to vast expanses of boreal forest. Climatic conditions—temperature, precipitation, wind speeds and the prevalence of sea ice in coastal areas—vary at similar latitudes. For instance, average temperatures in January are -6.7°C in Tromsø, Norway but -28.1°C in Fairbanks, Alaska. "The extent of snow, ice over water, and the dynamics of glaciers and ice streams vary greatly over short timescales and from place to place", whereas "the extent of permafrost and large ice sheets vary and change over decadal timescales and large areas".
7. Distinguishing long-term impacts of climate change from natural variability requires data from many locations in the Arctic over many years and careful analysis. There is evidence, nevertheless, that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet, with average warming north of 60°N of 1-2°C since the 1960s. Evidence from lake sediments, tree-rings and ice cores suggest that temperatures in recent decades have been higher than at any time in the past 2,000 years.
8. Henry Bellingham MP, the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office Parliamentary Under Secretary and lead Minister responsible for the Arctic, told us that the Government believed that climate change "poses the biggest single threat to the Arctic environment". The effects of climate change are already being felt in the Arctic, and "are likely to continue more profoundly than perhaps anywhere else on Earth". The ice-cap retreating was not the only consequence of climate change in the Arctic. The extent and duration of snow cover has decreased, largely as a result of snow melting earlier in the spring. Precipitation has increased by 80% over the last century, with much of the increase falling as rain. Temperatures in the permafrost have risen by up to 2°C over the past three decades. Glaciers are melting. Rivers' discharge to the sea has increased, reducing the salinity and density in the North Atlantic. Ice cover on lakes and rivers is breaking up earlier than previously observed.
9. The biggest change, however, is in the size of the Arctic ice-cap. Sea-ice has been declining at least since satellite records began and is one of the most serious consequences of global warming. The rate of decline is currently about 3% per decade for the maximum winter extent (March) and about 10-12% per decade for the minimum summer extent (September). The six lowest September ice extents have occurred in the last six years, including September 2012 which was the lowest ice extent on record (Figure 1, page 10).
10. The latest biennial Arctic Report Card notes that "there are now a sufficient number of years of data to indicate a shift in the Arctic Ocean system since 2006 ... characterised by the persistent decline in the thickness and summer extent of the sea ice cover, and a warmer, fresher upper ocean". Warming in the Arctic was not just as a result of increased CO2 emissions, but also increases in other greenhouse gasses such as methane and black carbon aerosols, and a decline in cooling sulphate aerosols. While most emissions driving climate change in the Arctic do not primarily originate in the Arctic, changes there will have impacts for the global climate, giving everyone a clear stake in the Region's future.
11. Increased precipitation, shorter and warmer winters, and substantial decreases in snow and ice cover are likely to persist for centuries. Even with the most "aggressive mitigation scenarios", there would still be a significant loss of Arctic sea ice by the end of the century. Whereas increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses are "projected to contribute to additional Arctic warming of about 4-7°C over the next 100 years". Professor Tim Lenton of the University of Exeter told us that the current situation met the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's definition of "dangerous change". Professor Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge told us that all the environmental trends of air temperatures, changes in the ocean, and changes in the sea-ice were heading in the "same direction", and that "the direction is very clear: We are going to get into a ghastly situation for the planet at some point and whether it is happening next year or it is going to take a few decades is the only question". John Nissen of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group linked extreme weather patterns in recent years to a "decrease in stability as the Arctic warms relative to the rest of the planet". A reduction in emissions, however, "would allow ecosystems and human societies as a whole to adapt more readily, reducing overall impacts and costs", and is necessary to limit further global warming and avoid more severe effects in the Arctic and across the globe.
IMPACT ON UK WEATHER FROM CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE ARCTIC
12. Climatic change in the Arctic is affecting the UK's weather. Professor Wadhams told us that the open water left by the retreating ice in summers could lead to "radically changed" weather patterns around the northern hemisphere. Britain was warming more slowly when compared with the rest of continental Europe as the decrease in the thermo-haline circulation meant that less heat was being brought to Britain by the Gulf Stream. Professor Lenton told us that the loss of ice around Finland and the North of Norway in the Barents and Kara Seas in winter in particular was "correlated with so-called blocking events and the extreme cold winters in Europe". These changes we would "see on a seasonal time-scale and can have quite big impacts".
13. The Government's Climate Change Risk Assessment, published in January 2012, noted a potential benefit in terms of "shorter shipping routes and reduced transportation costs due to less Arctic ice" (paragraph 107), but did not note any specific risks to the UK over the coming years. Professor Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at the Met Office, believed that this may be because the Risk Assessment was built on models developed in the early part of this decade which did not have the "sophistication of the Arctic sea-ice modelling that we have now". Professor Slingo agreed that the depletion of ice could "plausibly impact on our winter weather, and lead to colder winters over northern Europe" but it was "only one of a number of factors, ... it is not a dominant driver of winter weather, particularly over the UK". The UK has had a number of years with low rainfall and Professor Slingo told us that she was concerned that if we continue to have a sequence of cold winters this could be "damaging, even with wet summers going alongside them" because the replenishment of aquifers generally occurs through the winter.
Effects on wildlife
14. The Arctic region is one of the last true wildernesses on Earth. The impact of humans has been limited to date and unique ecosystems have developed there with a number of endemic species such as the polar bear. Many globally significant populations of animals can be found in the Arctic, including over half of the world's shorebird species, 80% of goose populations, several million reindeer, beluga whales and narwhals. Sea-ice is an important element in the Arctic ecosystem for some species, from bacteria and unicellular algae on the underside of the ice to large mammals such as the polar bear and ringed seals.
15. Half of the marine area of the Arctic is covered by seasonal ice in winter, turning into open water in the summer. This drives large migrations, meaning that a significant proportion of Arctic biodiversity is shared with other parts of the world, especially the UK. The cold waters, high in nutrients, attract large numbers of migratory grey and humpback whales and harp and hooded seals. 15% of the world's migratory bird species spend their breeding season in the Arctic.
16. Arctic ecosystems appear to be particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, although they are still poorly understood and long-term data are sparse. For instance, of the 19 sub-populations of polar bears, there were only reliable data to assess the trend in numbers of seven. The Arctic Council's Biodiversity Assessment, due to be published in Spring 2013, aims to provide baseline data on Arctic wildlife. Nevertheless, disappearing sea ice and changing water temperatures were already "having a profound impact on many species". A recent Arctic Council assessment found that the impact of climate change on marine animals and birds was likely to be "profound". There are fewer polar bears because they are finding it more difficult to hunt for food in the south of their ranges. Walruses are also being forced to hunt in deeper water, where access to food is much more difficult. Ecosystems would be affected by permafrost degradation, with existing lakes drained but also new wetlands created. Herds of reindeer have declined by one-third since the 1990s as their access to food sources, breeding grounds, and historic migration routes have been altered. Precipitation was increasingly falling as rain during the winter, which created an ice-crust over the snow, affecting grazing animals. Increased 'greening' of the land is affecting the animals it supports. Species specifically adapted to the Arctic climate are especially at risk, including many species of moss and lichens, lemmings, voles, arctic fox and snowy owl. Increasing levels of ultraviolet radiation in the Arctic due to stratospheric ozone depletion is also a risk to wildlife. The impact of climate change on biodiversity could be magnified by other factors such as the presence of contaminants, habitat fragmentation, industrial development and unsustainable harvests.
17. Some Arctic species often have very long lifespans and slow reproduction rates, and "relatively simple ecosystem structures and short growing seasons limit the resilience of the natural environment, and make environmental recovery harder to achieve". This makes the Arctic environment "highly sensitive to damage" of a kind that would be likely to have long-term impacts. Climate change could cause a mismatch between the timing of reproduction of certain species and food availability.
18. In the longer term, the composition of Arctic ecosystems will change. There will be a northward movement of some species, including some fish. As the Arctic become ice-free in summers, new species are expected to take advantage of the high summer light levels in the upper layers of the oceans. Migrating invasive species might displace native Arctic inhabitants.
19. A reduction in sea-ice and rising sea levels could increase coastal erosion as higher waves and storm surges reach the shore. Two-thirds of the Arctic coastline is protected by ice, and melting land-fast ice could lead to rapid erosion. This will affect people as well as animals. Habitat changes, chemical pollution, overfishing, land use changes, population increases and cultural and economic changes are amplifying the impacts of climate change on the health and wellbeing of Arctic communities. Many indigenous peoples depend on hunting Arctic mammals, herding reindeer and fishing, not only for food, but as part of their cultural and social identity. Changes in species' ranges and availability present "serious challenges to human health and food security and possibly the survival of some cultures".
20. These climate change effects on the Arctic might be exacerbated and accelerated if 'tipping points' are breached—these are points at which rapid changes take place out of proportion to the amount of climate change driving them as a result of 'positive feedbacks'. They could lead to rapid or longer term changes depending on the climate system involved. Some 'tipping points' may be reversible and others may not. We explore the likelihood of such tipping points below.
THE RETREATING ARCTIC ICE-CAP
21. The Arctic Ocean ice-cap has a seasonal cycle, reaching its maximum extent in March and minimum extent in September. Since the 1950s the summer extent of ice has been retreating year on year, at a rate of 4% per decade. But since the early 2000s this rate has increased to 10-12%. The amount of "older, thicker multi-year ice continues to decrease" and "modelling indicates that the total area of ice may be more variable year to year as more areas of ice become susceptible to melting completely during the summer". Alongside rising temperatures, there are a number of other factors forcing this retreat that are still not fully understood, including climate-driven changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns and a reduction in summertime cloud levels.
22. The retreating ice-cap represents a potential tipping point because the heat of sunlight is more readily absorbed when falling on water than on ice (ice has a higher 'albedo' than water), causing further warming and further ice retreat in turn. Professor Wadhams calculated that the open water left by the retreating ice-cap warms up to 4-5°C during the summer, delaying the onset of autumn freezing and warming the seabed, helping to melt offshore permafrost. Faster wind speeds and bigger waves were also a consequence of larger stretches of open water, which break the ice up into floes and increase the melt rate. The Arctic Methane Emergency Group were concerned that "the rate of warming of the Arctic could double or even triple, once the Arctic Ocean is ice-free in September. And it could double again, once the ocean is ice-free for half the year".
23. Professor Lenton believed that there was some evidence that sea-ice retreat may have already passed a tipping point. The last six summers had the six lowest recorded ice extents, with a "step up in the amplitude of the seasonal cycle of sea-ice variability", which could "perhaps [be] seen as passing some kind of tipping point or threshold". But he recognised that there was also "plenty of argument about whether there is really a tipping point", depending on whether a loss of summer ice would prevent ice reforming in winter. Professor Wadhams told us that once the summer sea-ice disappears the oceans would warm up and their structure would change to the point where if the climate cools again it would be difficult for ice to form again. He did not think that there would be an "oscillation" back and forth; it would be a "one-way street". John Nissen of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group believed that "the imminent collapse of Arctic sea-ice poses a new emergency situation, ... it threatens an irreversible transition towards abrupt and catastrophic climate change". However, the Met Office believed that its modelling suggested that Arctic sea-ice loss would be "broadly reversible if the underlying warming were reversed".
24. In recent months, further research results on the volume (rather than extent) of the ice have added weight to the possibility of approaching ice-free Arctic summers. Although the extent of ice had been reliably measured since the 1970s, the thickness of the ice-cap was more difficult to measure because it cannot be easily observed from satellites. Measuring the thickness had been undertaken using submarines, which had showed that the ice-cap had reduced by about 45% since the 1970s. The Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modelling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS), at the University of Washington, calculated in 2011 that the volume of ice in Septembers had decreased by 75% since 1979. Professor Wadhams believed that the data was "held in high regard" by many experts in the field. He and John Nissen took issue with Professor Slingo who, giving evidence in March 2012, told us that "there is a decline in ice ... but to say we have lost 75% of the volume is inconsistent with our assessments". She was looking forward to new measurements from the CryoSat-2 satellite, which she believed would give a better sense of the thickness of the ice.
25. There were different estimates of when the Arctic would become ice-free in summer, depending on what model was employed. Professor Lenton told us in February that it was "highly unlikely" that the Arctic could be ice-free in the next few summers. His "best guess" was "sometime in the 2030s, maybe 2040s". Professor Wadhams believed that, taking account of the thinning of the ice-cap, "it is very much quicker, perhaps needing only 4 years". He believed that the rate of retreat and thinning had "greatly exceeded" the predictions of most models, except PIOMAS. The Arctic Methane Emergency Group's extrapolation of data on the volume of summer ice from the PIOMAS model, following an exponential reduction trend-line, suggested that Septembers would be ice-free from 2015.
26. On the other hand, Professor Slingo told us that a recently completed Met Office assessment (which we saw in draft in the course of our inquiry and was subsequently published in September 2012) had indicated that the earliest date at which the Arctic would be ice-free during the summer would be between 2025 and 2030, and "certainly not in the next few years...". The climate models on which these predictions are based were "capable of capturing the observed decline in ice extent", however they "do not generally show ice loss at the current rate until later in the 21st century" and "low ice events", such as observed in 2007 and 2012, were "unusual in the models, occurring only once in every 100 years". The Met Office assessment noted that others' projections of a seasonally ice-free Arctic by as early as 2013 was "based on extrapolating model output [and] have to be viewed with scepticism". It noted that there were "plausible mechanisms" for more rapid change in the Arctic than current models predict, but "further observations are required to establish if any of these mechanisms are occurring". The Met Office concluded that an ongoing assessment of the likelihood of rapid change was required, taking account of the "constantly developing evidence". Professor Slingo told us that as the Arctic warms and the sea ice becomes thinner, "you do expect the extent … will become more volatile". Understanding of "how the Arctic Ocean takes up heat, and how that then affects the sea ice behaviour" was still being developed, but she believed that the models used were "capturing the trend and the volatility quite well", although they would not capture particular events (such as El Nino) which could drive Arctic circulation changes.
27. Since our evidence sessions, some preliminary analysis of data from the CryoSat-2 satellite was broadcast in August 2012, which supported predictions that the Arctic would become ice-free during the summer sooner rather than later. The European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 satellite was launched in 2010 to monitor the changes in the thickness of the Arctic sea-ice and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. Professor Seymour Laxon of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling—leading the analysis of the Cryosat-2 data—told us that preliminary analysis of the Cryosat-2 data combined with that of NASA's ICESat satellite, showed that between 2003 and 2011 the volume of summer sea ice in October/November had reduced from ~14,000 to ~7,000 cubic kilometres (a 50% decrease). Averaged over the period, up to 900 cubic kilometres of summer sea-ice was lost a year. He told us that these data "suggest a decrease ... at least as large as that simulated by PIOMAS, and possibly higher". The Met Office believed that evidence pointed to weather patterns having influenced the rapid loss of sea ice over this summer. The changes in sea-ice volume shown in recent estimates "only extends over a few years" and was not "representative of a long term trend". Although we recognise the Met Office's and Professor Laxon's concerns about extrapolating trends in volume loss into the future, a simple calculation based on this data points to the Arctic becoming ice-free in the summer within a decade.
28. There is growing evidence that the damaging effects of climate change are being felt strongly in the Arctic. The ice-cap is retreating. In September 2012 it had reached its lowest extent since satellite records began, and new evidence shows that it is also thinning faster than previously thought. The general view that the ice-cap is not at risk of a summer collapse in the next few years may need to be revisited and revised. A collapse not only threatens the unique ecosystems there, but would have damaging ramifications for regional and global climate.
29. Permanently frozen ground, or permafrost, covers 10.5 million square kilometres of the Arctic. Thawing permafrost—on land or potentially in the shallow seas—could represent a tipping point. 'Positive feedback' would come from organic matter contained within it decomposing and generating heat and releasing methane--a greenhouse gas which would drive further permafrost thawing. Methane is a relatively short-lived greenhouse gas but has a warming effect 72 times more than CO2 over 20 years.
30. John Nissen of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group told us that "methane is a real problem and it is never really addressed". He believed that "because of its potency as a greenhouse gas, we only need release of 1% of ... the Arctic potential methane—that is about 35 billion tonnes—and that would triple the current rate of global warming". He believed that "it is difficult to see how civilisation could survive such a thing".
31. Professor Lenton told us, however, that from the Hadley Centre's model their "best estimate is we may get 0.1°C of extra warming at the end of the century from the loss of methane from the northern high latitudes". He believed that the present lack of evidence to the contrary meant that methane released from permafrost "is not on the list of tipping elements", but that different regional areas of permafrost might be at risk at different times. The Yedoma area of Siberia was a particularly "rich" store of carbon that could "undergo self-sustaining collapse, due to an internally generated source of heat released by bio-chemical decomposition of the carbon, triggering further melting in a runaway positive feedback", but 9°C of regional warming would be required to pass such a tipping point.
32. Methane released from permafrost on land requires bacterial and microbial action, and is sensitive to temperature rise. Under the sea, existing stores of methane could be abruptly released. An increase in methane had been linked to mass extinctions in the past but, Professor Lenton told us, that methane release had been over "thousands and tens of thousands of years". Professor Wadhams believed that the summer retreat of the ice from the Arctic continental shelves was allowing the surface layer of the ocean to warm up and "bringing temperatures of up to 5°C right down to the seabed". This was accelerating the melt of offshore permafrost and releasing methane trapped in methane hydrates (comprising methane water and ice). Large plumes of methane were appearing "all over the summer Arctic shelves" giving "a very big boost to global warming". John Nissen of AMEG told us that 50 gigatonnes of methane were trapped in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which if released would raise atmospheric methane levels eleven or twelve times, causing "abrupt and catastrophic climate change within a few decades".
33. Professor Slingo differentiated between the methane hydrates in the Arctic shelves and the "deep hydrates that would take millennial timescales to destabilise". She believed that based on modelling estimates "we are not looking at catastrophic releases of methane", although it was "still very early science". She thought that there was uncertainty about how far heating of the upper level of the ocean could dissipate downwards in the water column, and that "there is still a big debate as to how much the actual continental shelf itself will warm". Apart from one or two regions, observed increases in sea-floor temperatures had at the most been only about 0.1oC. She also told us that research indicated that where there was methane coming out of the continental shelf in those one or two areas, "there is a general consensus that only a small fraction of methane, when it is released through this gradual process of warming of the continental shelf, actually reaches the surface". John Nissen and Professor Wadhams disputed that view. The Arctic Methane Emergency Group were also concerned that if methane hydrate became unstable it could pose a hazard to oil drilling.
34. There is a range of views on the rate at which methane is being released in the Arctic as a result of climate warming there, and whether and how soon that might constitute a tipping point. Given its particular potency as a greenhouse gas, however, there is a potentially serious risk for global climate change from any significant methane release in the Arctic. We discuss below whether such risks warrant specific interventions (paragraphs 46-55).
THE GREENLAND ICE-SHEET
35. Most of Greenland is permanently covered in ice. Unlike with sea ice, any reduction in the Greenland Ice-sheet mass contributes directly to global sea levels. The ice sheet contains approximately 2.85 million cubic kilometres of freshwater, equivalent to 7 metres of global sea level rise. Up until the 1990s only a tiny proportion of this overall volume melted each year, and much of that was compensated for by fresh snowfall on Greenland. Recently, however, the rate of ice-sheet loss has accelerated as a direct result of the warming Arctic climate.
36. Measurements in 2009 show there have been quite large and rapid changes in surface melting and ice discharge. Measurements by NASA satellites showed that nearly 97% of the Greenland ice-sheet surface had thawed at some point during July 2012. The retreat of the summer sea ice from around Greenland warms up Greenland, and means that the Greenland ice-sheet melts more rapidly. The contribution from the Greenland ice-sheet melt now is "about as great as all the rest of the retreating glaciers in the world put together", and the current net loss represents enough water to supply more than one billion city-dwellers. Professor Wadhams believed that this will mean that "over the next century the rise in global sea levels will probably be greater than predicted by [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] ... quite a lot more than one metre instead of less than 70 centimetres".
37. Professor Lenton pointed out that predictions of what degree of future global warming would result in an irreversible retreat of the ice-sheet ranged from between 0.7°C and 6°C. There could be "multiple stable states" for the ice-sheet volume and "multiple tipping points", starting with a retreat of the ice-sheet onto the land, but there was insufficient information to prove that this process was already underway. Other research indicated that the original ice sheet volume could only be regained if the losses were no greater than 10-20%.
38. Satellite images showed an area twice the size of Manhattan had broken away from the Petermann glacier in July 2012. A recent Danish research project suggests that the ice-sheet may be melting in "spurts", making global sea rise difficult to predict. More generally, the interactions between ocean, snow, ice and the atmosphere are not fully understood, making predictions in this area difficult.
THE THERMO-HALINE CIRCULATION
39. The Atlantic thermo-haline ocean circulation acts as a conveyor belt bringing warm water to the Arctic and transporting cooler water back to the tropics. It is composed of wind-driven surface currents (in this case the Gulf Stream) and deep ocean circulations. In the Arctic, water sinks in the Greenland and Labrador Seas and then flows southwards.
40. Some evidence points to additional freshwater from ice-melt reducing the salinity of the Arctic Ocean which, coupled with temperature changes, is slowing down the circulation. The Greenland Sea sinking current had "diminished very significantly" in the last 10 years because ice-formation had stopped there (ice-formation was needed to enhance the density of the [remaining] water and help it sink). Professor Wadhams told us that previously a "see-saw" was evident, whereby if the Labrador Sea convection got weaker, the Greenland Sea convection got stronger, and vice-versa. However, he told us that there was some evidence that there was a weakening of both sinks, leading to the whole circulation weakening. A change in circulation patterns could represent a tipping point, resulting in changed regional and global climate.
41. However, any change to the circulation "was a slow process [and was] not going to change things rapidly". Professor Lenton explained that currents could shut off potentially from one year to the next, but "to truly see the consequences climatically play out, ... much longer time scales are involved, up to centuries". Professor Slingo did not think that there would be "very large changes" in the thermo-haline circulation "within the next century". Professor Lenton believed that such predictions were based on assumptions that the circulation patterns were stable, but that these might need to be revisited to reflect recent work suggesting that there may be "multiple states" for the Atlantic circulation. He believed that rather than a total collapse of the thermo-haline circulation, a relatively near-term collapse of the Labrador Sea convection could result in the overall weakening of the wider regional thermo-haline circulation.
42. John Nissen believed that a switching off the thermo-haline circulation might reduce warm waters flowing into the Arctic, but he accepted that this would be a disaster for the UK's climate. Professor Wadhams told us that this would not be sufficient on its own to "bring back the ice".
43. The lengthening of the snow-free season is encouraging shrub growth in the tundra, and also 'greening' of the boreal forest further south. Whilst a greater amount of vegetation is likely to increase carbon uptake from the atmosphere, the reduced reflectivity of the land surface (albedo) is likely to outweigh this, causing further warming. Some models project that by 2100 the tree-line will have advanced north by as much as 500 km, resulting in a loss of 51% of the tundra habitat. However, Professor Lenton did not expect this to be a tipping point.
EARLY WARNING ON TIPPING POINTS
44. Although there is some information on the likelihood of crossing some Arctic climate tipping points, "substantial uncertainty remains" and there is "still a long way to go in correctly identifying tipping points and assessing their proximity". Professor Lenton told us that it would be difficult to develop a suite of early warning signs for changes in the Arctic because there was inadequate monitoring. Professor Wadhams told us that although "there are disagreements about the speed at which changes are happening and will happen", the "direction of them I think everybody is agreed on". Similarly, Professor Lenton believed there was consensus that climate forcing is going to trigger some tipping points within the next century, and he could not rule out that some tipping points may already have been crossed.
45. In the absence of urgent action on climate change, there may be a number of tipping points in climate-driven systems in the Arctic, which threaten to rapidly escalate the danger for the whole planet. A collapse of summer sea-ice, increased methane emissions from thawing permafrost, runaway melting of the Greenland ice-sheet, and a collapse of the thermo-haline circulation, may all be approaching in the Arctic and will have disastrous consequences for global climate and sea levels. These together comprise a wake-up call to reinvigorate efforts to tackle climate change. A lack of consensus on precisely how fast any tipping points are approaching in the Arctic should not be used as an argument for inaction; rather it demonstrates the need for continued and sustained research to underpin further action. The UK makes an essential contribution to Arctic science, which we discuss in Part 4, and we look to the Government to continue supporting Arctic science as a key component of its work on climate change.
46. We examined potential interventions that might yield positive outcomes on Arctic climate change in the near term—'geo-engineering' and reducing black carbon.
47. The Arctic Methane Emergency Group called for urgent intervention by governments to avoid tipping points being reached. Given that there was "nothing in nature that can come to our help", the Group called on governments to "intervene by cooling the Arctic, principally by using geo-engineering techniques; ... [these] techniques have natural analogues which suggest that they should be safe and effective ... if their deployment [avoided] unwanted side-effects". They called for the urgent application of a combination of three geo-engineering technologies: spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight away, cloud brightening using salt-spray also to increase reflection, and cloud removal to allow heat radiation into space. They also called for the use of methane capture technologies such as 'methane mats'.
48. There was some differences of view in the evidence we received about whether geo-engineering in principle was a credible long-term solution. Professor Wadhams saw geo-engineering as a "sticking plaster" until the forcing of climate warming is tackled, and John Nissen believed that the costs would be "hundreds of millions rather than many billions per year". On the other hand, if such applications were subsequently stopped, the planet would warm up more quickly to where it would have been without geo-engineering, rather than the gradual warming otherwise expected. Professor Lenton told us that "if you go down that path, you are committing not just the next generation but tens of generations potentially to keep doing that". He believed that it was important that economic modelling of geo-engineering costs included the "possible damages or risk factors" and a "critical look at those very few existing studies as to whether they have really quantified [them]".
49. There was consensus that even if geo-engineering techniques could be used, they first required further development and were not ready for immediate deployment. Professor John Latham of University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USA and colleagues believed that as "key climate processes remain poorly understood, existing models are unable to provide a reliable means of quantifying the magnitude of changes that may occur". Professor Lenton told us that advocates of geo-engineering techniques who suggest "meddling with Arctic cloud cover", do not necessarily realise that during the dark Arctic winter clouds generally warmed rather than cooled the atmosphere. Overall, due diligence was needed to understand all the consequences of such techniques, including impacts on rainfall, weather patterns and reduced incoming sunlight. Professor Latham and colleagues believed that any geo-engineering scheme "needs to have its concepts rigorously challenged and then undergo rigorous, peer reviewed testing and scrutiny before any consideration of its use takes place".
50. Geo-engineering techniques for the Arctic at present do not offer a credible long-term solution for tackling climate change. Further research is needed to understand how such techniques work and their wider impacts on climate systems. In the meantime, therefore, we remain unconvinced that using 'technical fixes' is the right approach and efforts should not be diverted from tackling the fundamental drivers of global climate change.
51. A more realistic and lower-risk intervention would be to tackle black carbon. Black carbon is a component of soot which arises from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and organic matter. Major sources of black carbon include diesel engines, commercial and domestic burning, domestic wood and biomass burning, and land or agricultural burning. Soot from fires in boreal forest fires, which have increased in frequency, could also be a source. The depositing of these microscopic dark particles onto snow and ice reduces the albedo effect (allowing the absorption of more sunlight), which is having a greater effect in the Arctic than black particles in the atmosphere.
52. Professor Lenton told us that there was a lack of an "evidence base to tie down how strong the black carbon warming effects in the Arctic region are" but he thought that it made a "significant contribution". Professor Wadhams thought that black carbon was probably the third biggest contributor to warming in the Arctic, after CO2 and methane. It had been estimated that a steep increase in black carbon and a decline in reflective sulphates had together accounted for up to 70% of Arctic warming since 1976. Research was continuing to establish the sources of black carbon, but it was estimated that more than half the black carbon that reaches the Arctic originated in the EU. Ed Dearnley from ClientEarth told us that the greatest potential for black carbon reductions was from China, Russia and the EU.
53. In contrast to CO2 and methane, black carbon has a very short atmospheric lifespan and ClientEarth believed that reducing emissions of black carbon has the "potential to deliver rapid climate change mitigation". It believed that "reducing black carbon and other short-lived climate 'forcers' could reduce regional warming in the Arctic by approximately two-thirds over the next 30 years". Professor Lenton believed a good case for tackling black carbon could be made based on the health benefits alone, but tackling black carbon could make a "measurable difference" to the Arctic against a lack of progress on the "big CO2 problem".
54. ClientEarth suggested a number of actions that the Government should take to tackle black carbon, including strengthening of the Gothenburg Protocol. The Protocol sets national emissions ceilings for a variety of pollutants. The Protocol was revised in 2012 and for the first time introduced an emissions reduction target for fine particulate matter ('PM2.5'). The UK agreed a PM2.5 reduction target of approximately 30% by 2020 (from a 2005 baseline), which Defra believed was "substantial". Defra told us that as black carbon is a component of particulate matter, reductions in emissions of PM2.5 will also reduce black carbon. Existing targets in the UK and EU for particulate matter could also contribute themselves to reducing black carbon emissions. Alan Andrews of ClientEarth told us that "we just need to make sure [air pollution legislation] is enforced properly". We examined the Government's efforts to improve air quality in a 2011 Report, and found that the UK is still failing to meet European targets for safe air pollution limits across many parts of the country and that the step change called for has not happened. We recommended, among other things, that a Ministerial Group is set up to oversee delivery of a new cross government air quality strategy, a national framework of low emissions zones is set up, and a public awareness campaign is launched.
55. There are significant risks of increased depositing of black carbon on Arctic snow and ice as new commercial opportunities in shipping, resource extraction and other industrial activities opened up. ClientEarth believed that international shipping was a "comparatively poorly regulated sector for particulate matter emissions" and that black carbon and other emissions from shipping in the Arctic "may increase by as much as a factor of two or three by 2050 unless control measures are put in place". Alan Andrews told us that it was difficult to get agreement at the International Maritime Organization on environmental protection as it had a "huge number of competing interests" from nations with very large shipping interests. There is no international regulation of greenhouse gasses from ships and shipping is not included within the EU Emissions Trading System. In January 2012 the EU launched a consultation to gather ideas on options to reduce emissions from shipping, in line with its commitment to include emissions from shipping within the existing EU reduction commitment if international action was not agreed. The risks to ecosystems from the effects of Arctic warming and potential climate tipping points that we have discussed in this Part, together with the additional risks from energy and shipping development which we discuss in Part 3, make it imperative that any readily available opportunity to make a difference is grasped. Tackling emissions from shipping is such an opportunity, and the Government must engage positively with the EU's efforts to look at options for doing this. We examine in Part 4 the scope for the Government to influence other countries' efforts to reduce black carbon.
Scientists have known this since the 1990s-----we knew before these research stances were allowed to move forward that mirroring the sun's intensity away as a method to slow or reverse climate change would not work---what this article does not tell us is WHY ARE THEY STILL TRYING TO DEVELOP THIS? The answer again is SPACE COLONIZATION BLOCKING SUN'S RAYS from eco-domes on planets and asteroids.
The reason so many US and global citizens are shouting to STOP THIS GEO-ENGINEERING tied to CHEM TRAILS is that----the release of all those chemicals---including aluminum -----falling to EARTH and creating MORE TOXICITY in our soils. Remember, the global 1% MOVED FORWARD FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE development in Clinton-era 1990s KNOWING it would send CLIMATE CHANGE TO LEVEL 5% ---the empire-builders just had to expand US corporations overseas---that was all that was important---CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. If they had not done this---we would not be anywhere NEAR CLIMATE CHANGE DISASTER.
These global 1% could care less about environmental disaster----public health crises-----they want their PLANETARY SPACE MINING COLONIES and they want them NOW. BUSH MADE THE MOON COLONY preference---OBAMA sent the funding to MARS COLONY advancing these same goals.
THIS IS WHY THEY ARE STILL CONDUCTING GEO-ENGINEERING AROUND MIRRORING SUN'S RAYS FROM ARCTIC----
The ANSWER TO THESE PROBLEMS IS -----STOP MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES AND AFRICAN FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ----
If you are pushing SPACE X and planetary mining----you are likely behind CHEM TRAILS and these geo-engineering mirroring of sun's rays research ---meaning you are KILLING OUR EARTH'S ENVIRONMENT just to colonize for mining. While we agree with a BECKWITH on data surrounding Climate Change---sea level and methane---we DISAGREE with a Beckwith on these geo-engineering solutions.
Reducing Sunlight by Geoengineering Will Not Cool Earth
- Published: December 27th, 2013
LONDON – Two German scientists have just confirmed that you can’t balance the Earth’s rising temperatures by simply toning down the sunlight. It may do something disconcerting to the patterns of global rainfall.
Two biogeochemists found that water simply doesn’t respond to atmospheric heat and solar radiation in the same way.
Credit: Annett Junginger, EurekAlert
Earlier this year a U.S.-led group of scientists ran sophisticated climate models of a geoengineered world and proposed the same thing. Now Axel Kleidon and Maik Renner of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, have used a different theoretical approach to confirm the conclusion, and explain why it would be a bad idea.
The argument for geoengineering goes like this: the world is getting inexorably warmer; governments show no sign of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so why not control the planetary thermostat by finding a way to filter, block, absorb or reflect some of the sunlight hitting the Earth?
Such things can be done by pumping soot or aerosols into the stratosphere to dim the skies a fraction, or even floating mirrors in Earth orbit to reflect some of the sunlight back into space.
Either way, the result is the same: you have global temperature control, tuned perhaps to the average at the beginning of the last century, and you can then go on burning as much petrol or coal as you like.
But now the two biogeochemists at Jena report in the journal Earth System Dynamics that they used a simple energy balance model to show that the world doesn’t work like that. Water simply doesn’t respond to atmospheric heat and solar radiation in the same way.
No Simple FixIf you make the atmosphere warmer, but keep the sunlight the same, evaporation increases by 2 percent per degree of warming. If you keep the atmosphere the same, but increase the levels of sunlight, evaporation increases by 3 percent per degree of warming.
Kleidon uses the simple analogy of a saucepan on a kitchen stove. “The temperature in the pot is increased by putting on a lid, or by turning up the heat – but these two cases differ by how much energy flows through the pot,” he says.
A stronger greenhouse effect would act as a kind of tighter-fitting atmospheric lid. In the kitchen a lid keeps the water from escaping from the saucepan and at the same time reduces the energy cost. But planetary energetics are not really comparable to kitchen economics.
That is because evaporation itself, and the traffic of water vapor around the planet, plays a powerful role in the making of climate. To change the pattern and degree of evaporation would inevitably disturb weather systems and disrupt agriculture, with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences.
The authors say: “An immediate consequence of this notion is that climate geoengineering cannot simply be used to undo global warming.”
We have absolutely no doubt that the global 1% are up to no good with these geo-engineering technologies----and WE THE PEOPLE should be watching and shouting. What we want to do is keep the discussion in the realm of CLIMATE CHANGE, mirroring to protect perma-frost because the release of methane will be harmful and THIS ISSUE is critical.
We DO NOT think the government has time to worry about manipulating hurricanes and tornadoes------it is fighting hard to create the technology needed for SPACE PLANETARY COLONIES ---SPACE ECO-DOMES----and shielding both space ships and eco-domes from long-term exposure to sun's rays. This goal is the SUPER-DUPER POLICY for the global 1%.....they are not manipulating weather for harm ---they are manipulating weather patterns in the attempt to create these mirroring effects. The SIDE-EFFECT of planetary mining goals none of which is good for WE THE PEOPLE.
That said---we have no doubt that as these kinds of research move forward the global 1% WILL use research to create bad things like laser weaponry and weather as weapon.
Please think about the PRESSING ISSUES OF CLIMATE CHANGE temperature rise---sea level rise and our CURRENT DEVELOPMENT in US cities.
U.S. Government Using Technology to Control the Weather and for Mind Control!!
216 13 Share
Published on Aug 28, 2011
CBC Broadcast HAARP weather control: Original air date - January 16, 1996. Since this aired in 1996, many believe HAARP is responsible for hurricane Katrina and much of the climatic changes over the last few years. This isn't science fiction folks! Over the last decade with more sophisticated and highly advanced technology, the U.S. government is mastering the manipulation of the weather. The recent earthquake on the East Coast, the heat wave across the U.S.A, the flooding and crazy weather patterns can all be created using this technology. Using RF waves, the government can also affect the central nervous system and control behavior and mood. I wouldn't put it past Obama to use this technology on us. He has no respect for human life and admitted to wanting change. He is a communist and wants to nullify our Constitution. He has devalued our dollar and destroyed our economy. His best friend, the terrorist, Bill Ayers was ready to eliminate 25 million Americans in the 1960's. His wife Michelle Obama hates America. Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, the weather has been extremely bizarre. You decide.
We see that 5% to the 1% global Wall Street pol and player SHOW ME THE MONEY AND WE WON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO cashing in on more STOCK MARKET dividends placing a few dollars in their pockets while MOVING FORWARD literally kills PLANET EARTH and Tesla is that DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE technology of SMART CITIES and SPACE X meets geo-engineering MIRRORED SUN RAY reflection research.
This is why the US cannot get that 99% of WE THE PEOPLE protesting in streets over REAL ISSUES. We are too busy thinking these are jobs, jobs, jobs, they give dividends, dividends, dividends---and VOILA---no future for our children and grandchildren.
TESLA is of course tied to HAARP ----is tied to CHEM TRAILS geo-engineering---all of this is SENDING CLIMATE CHANGE TO LEVEL 5 DEGREES as industrial manufacturing soars while the global 1% call all this GREEN ---SUSTAINABILITY.
CRAZY STUFF FOLKS! WAKE UP.
APTesla, Inc. Bonds See Overwhelming Demand
- email@example.com (Daniel Sparks)
- Aug 14, 2017
Tesla continues to have no trouble raising money to help fund its capital-intensive expansion for Model 3 production ramp-up. Despite receiving a junk rating from Moody's, Tesla's (NASDAQ: TSLA) bond offering last week was oversubscribed.
Tesla announced on Friday that its proposed $1.5 billion senior note offering ended up generating $1.8 billion in aggregate principal notes, or 20% more than Tesla was initially looking for.
Tesla vehicle production. Image source: Author.
The bond market is optimistic about TeslaTesla's decision to sell 20% more notes than originally planned reflects "overwhelming demand" for the notes, according to Thomson Reuters' International Financing Review unit.
The electric-car company's ability to generate so much interest in its bond offering highlights how heavily the market is betting on Tesla's recently launched Model 3. Not only were Tesla's bonds oversubscribed, but the yield Tesla secured was a record low for junk-rated bonds. The notes Tesla agreed to sell, which are due by 2025, were secured at a yield of 5.3%. The average yield on junk-rated bonds by the end of last week was 5.72%.
Tesla's ambitious Model 3 plans
Tesla's decision to fortify its balance sheet comes shortly after the company started delivering the first Model 3 units, and just as Tesla attempts to aggressively ramp up Model 3 production.
Tesla "intends to use the net proceeds from this offering to strengthen its balance sheet during the period of rapid scaling with the launch of Model 3, and for general corporate purposes," management said in an 8-K filing on Friday. Tesla estimates it will generate $1.77 billion of net proceeds from the offering, after deducting fees and expenses.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has referred to the automaker's current phase of increasing its Model 3 production as "production hell." With the Model 3's production growth forecast to occur on an S-curve, Tesla only expects to deliver about 100 Model 3s in August and 1,500 in September. But by the end of the year, Tesla expects to achieve a weekly production rate of 5,000 units.
Model 3 production timeline. Image source: Tesla.
Next year, Tesla expects Model 3 production to expand further. At some point during the year, the electric-car maker anticipates hitting a production rate of 10,000 vehicles per week. Furthermore, Tesla expects to produce 500,000 total vehicles in 2018, up from an annualized production rate of about 100,000 vehicles today.
Any concerns the bond market may have had going into Tesla's debt offering may have been mitigated by a conference call about the offering, in which Tesla management shared some important updates on its business.
During the conference call, Tesla reportedly revealed the battery sizes of the Model 3. The entry-level 50 kilowatt-hour battery for the standard Model 3 may have been smaller than some investors were expecting, bolstering the case for Tesla's ambitious target of achieving a 25% gross profit margin for the Model 3 next year.
Furthermore, CEO Elon Musk reportedly said during the conference call that the company now anticipates Model 3 demand can eventually support annual Model 3 deliveries of 700,000 units, up from Tesla's previous projection for 500,000 units.
With $1.8 billion of new debt on its books, the stakes are high for Tesla to deliver on its promises for the Model 3.
10 stocks we like better than Tesla
When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has tripled the market.*
David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now... and Tesla wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys.
Here is TRUTH OUT-----they are that far-right wing Clinton neo-liberal outlet pretending to be POPULIST. They are promoting that GUY END DAYS APOCALYPTIC stance on methane release from perma-frost. Remember---GUY was the sensationalist that no real scientists believe or agree.
TESLA IS the face of pushing climate change to LEVEL 5 degrees---it is the face of pushing sea levels and methane release to maximum height---while attempting to build DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE and PLANETARY MINING COLONIES.
"Global warming triggered by the massive release of carbon dioxide may be catastrophic," reads the study's abstract. "But the release of methane from hydrate may be apocalyptic."
The American citizens are buying that stock for dividends----global labor union pensions are maxed in these investments all the while the goals of TESLA will kill 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
TESLA is chem trails---it is HAARP----it is climate change level 5 degrees, it is 21 feet sea level rise, it is the worst of methane release---but let's all buy STOCKS.
Release of Arctic Methane "May Be Apocalyptic," Study Warns
Thursday, March 23, 2017 By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report
On a lake, plumes of gas, most likely methane from the breakdown of carbon in sediments below the lake, keep the water from freezing in spots, outside Fairbanks, Alaska, October 21, 2011.
As the Arctic warms, the threat of abrupt methane releases is rising, too. (Photo: Josh Haner / The New York Times)
A scientific study published in the prestigious journal Palaeoworld in December issued a dire -- and possibly prophetic -- warning, though it garnered little attention in the media.
"Global warming triggered by the massive release of carbon dioxide may be catastrophic," reads the study's abstract. "But the release of methane from hydrate may be apocalyptic."
The study, titled "Methane Hydrate: Killer Cause of Earth's Greatest Mass Extinction," highlights the fact that the most significant variable in the Permian Mass Extinction event, which occurred 250 million years ago and annihilated 90 percent of all the species on the planet, was methane hydrate.
In the wake of that mass extinction event, less than 5 percent of the animal species in the seas lived, and less than one-third of the large land animal species made it. Nearly all the trees died.
Methane hydrate, according to the US Office of Fossil Energy, "is a cage-like lattice of ice inside of which are trapped molecules of methane, the chief constituent of natural gas."
While there is not a scientific consensus around the cause of the Permian Mass Extinction, it is widely believed that massive volcanism along the Siberian Traps in Russia led to tremendous amounts of CO2 being added to the atmosphere. This then created enough warming to cause the sudden release of methane from the Arctic sea floor, which kicked off a runaway greenhouse effect that led to sea-level increase, de-oxygenation, major oceanic circulation shifts and increased acidification of the oceans, as well as worldwide aridity on land.
The scenario that humans have created by way of the industrial growth society is already mimicking these eventualities, which are certain to worsen.
"The end Permian holds an important lesson for humanity regarding the issue it faces today with greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, and climate change," the abstract of the recent study concludes.
As the global CO2 concentration continues to climb each year, the threat of even more abrupt methane additions continues to escalate along with it.
The Methane Time Bomb
The methane hydrate situation has, for years now, been referred to as the Arctic Methane Time Bomb, and as been studied intensely.
A 2010 scientific analysis led by the UK's Met Office, published in the journal Review of Geophysics, states clearly that the time scale for the release of methane in the Arctic would be "much shorter for hydrates below shallow waters, such as in the Arctic Ocean," adding that "significant increases in methane emissions are likely, and catastrophic emissions cannot be ruled out.… The risk of rapid increase in [methane] emissions is real."
A 2011 study of the Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS), conducted by more than 20 Arctic experts and published in the Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Sciences, concluded that the shelf was already a powerful supplier of methane to the atmosphere. The conclusion of this study stated that the methane concentration in the atmosphere was at levels capable of causing "a considerable and even catastrophic warming on the Earth."
Scientists have been warning us for a number of years about the dire consequences of methane hydrates in the Arctic, and how the methane being released poses a potentially disastrous threat to the planet. There has even been a study showing that methane released in the Arctic could trigger "catastrophic climate change" that would cost the global economy $60 trillion.
Of course, that level of planetary heating would likely extinguish most life on the planet, so whatever the economic costs might be would be irrelevant.
"Highly Possible at Any Time"
The ESAS is the largest ice shelf in the world, encompassing more than 2 million square kilometers, or 8 percent of the world's total area of continental shelf.
In 2015, Truthout spoke with Natalia Shakhova, a research associate professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks' International Arctic Research Center, about the ESAS's methane emissions.
"These emissions are prone to be non-gradual (massive, abrupt) for a variety of reasons," she told Truthout. "The main reason is that the nature of major processes associated with methane releases from subsea permafrost is non-gradual."
Shakhova warned that a 50-gigaton -- that is, 50-billion-ton -- "burp" of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the ESAS is "highly possible at any time."
This, Shakhova said, means that methane releases from decaying frozen hydrates could result in emission rates that "could change in order of magnitude in a matter of minutes," and that there would be nothing "smooth, gradual or controlled" about it. She described it as a "kind of a release [that] is like the unsealing of an over-pressurized pipeline."
In other words, we could be looking at non-linear releases of methane in amounts that are difficult to fathom.
A study published in the prestigious journal Nature in July 2013 confirmed what Shakhova had been warning us about for years: A 50-gigaton "burp" of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the East Siberian sea is highly possible.
Such a "burp" would be the equivalent of at least 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide. (For perspective, humans have released approximately 1,475 gigatons in total carbon dioxide since the year 1850.)
The UK's Met Office considers the 50-gigaton release "plausible," and in a paper on the subject added, "That may cause ∼12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden, with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming."
The reason we like Beckwith's description over the one below is this-------Beckwith looked broadly at paleo history as regards climate and methane release and he identified both the ARCTIC and ANTARCTIC as sites for these perma-frost releases while indicating what this release of methane will do over time. Beckwith as all scientists understand the URGENCY of STOPPING MOVING FORWARD but he does not give these forecasts of human extinction as this far-right wing radical group are giving.
What is thought to happen as ARCTIC perma-frost melts and releases methane is that increase in TEMPERATURE ----this is what will lift today's CLIMATE CHANGE 1 DEGREE TO CLIMATE CHANGE 2 AND 3 DEGREE. None of this will create mass extinction of humans. If the global 1% are successful in building only for CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY FOR THE GLOBAL 1% IN MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---then yes, billions of humans will die over next century as we described in CIVIL ENGINEERING that leaves 99% of people behind. No natural resources, no infrastructure to grow food, all fresh water made toxic.
THAT IS WHAT WILL KILL LARGE POPULATIONS OF GLOBAL CITIZENS AND US CITIZENS ---NOT CLIMATE CHANGE OR METHANE RELEASE.
Friday, April 10, 2015
North Siberian Arctic Permafrost Methane Eruption Vents
Mantle Methane Leakage via Late Permian Deep Penetrating Fault and Shear Fracture Systems Rejuvenated by Carbon Dioxide and Methane Induced Global Warming
By Malcolm P.R. Light, Harold H. Hensel and Sam Carana
Our present extreme fossil fuel driven, carbon dioxide global warming is predicted to produce exactly the same mantle methane release from the permafrost methane eruption vents along the Late Permian "TaimyrVolcanic Arc", subsea Arctic methane hydrates and the Enrico Pv Anomaly "Extreme Methane Emission Zone" by the 2050's, leading to total deglaciation and the extinction of all life on Earth.
Mankind has, in his infinite stupidity, with his extreme hydrocarbon addiction and fossil fuel induced global warming, opened a giant, long standing (Permian to Recent), geopressured, mantle methane pressure-release safety valve for methane gas generated between 100 km and 300 km depth and at temperatures of above 1200°C in the asthenosphere (Figures 1 to 6). This is now a region of massive methane emissions (Carana, 2011-2015)'.
The ANTARCTIC perma-frost will also release methane and that release will bump CLIMATE CHANGE LEVEL 3 DEGREES to CLIMATE CHANGE LEVEL 5%----and this is why we have shouted for a decade OBAMA is doing nothing to stop climate change---he and Clinton neo-liberals funding of TESLA ET AL maximized this LEVEL 5 DEGREE stance. Yet, HUMANS can survive LEVEL 5 DEGREE CLIMATE CHANGE if they have a food, water, and shelter source---it is the MOVING FORWARD US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES for only those global 1% that will KILL 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE.
The release of methane from perma-frost over time will be what creates the conditions for rise in temperature----we will see storms and rainfall intensify---with that flooding we spoke of last week but it will not create mass extinction. What concerns for 99% WE THE PEOPLE with methane release is how it will effect our food and water sources. Indeed, hundreds or thousands of years from today that methane accumulation in our Earth's atmosphere WILL CAUSE EXTINCTION. It must ACCUMULATE FIRST.
can there be an arctic methane release large enough to cause an extinction level event and how long would that take?
Mmm, very interesting question.
Let's take "extinction level event" to mean a mass extinction like the big 5.
The closest analogue to this is the PETM, the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum. This was an event about 50 million years ago that had a short term increase in global temperatures of about 5 degrees C. The best evidence suggests that it was caused by a cascade of methane, leading to global warming and sea level rise that is larger than what we are looking at today.
This is the best candidate for a historic arctic methane event, and if there were others we might know. So we know that it is possible, but very rare to have this kind of event. We can't tell how long it took, but we know from beginning to end the event was under 10,000 years, but that's just because it's tough to measure short time periods in the geologic record. It could have been much shorter, especially on the release end.
The next question is -- did the PETM cause a mass extinction? The answer is that no, it did not. The Paleocene/Eocene is associated with a faunal changeover but not a mass extinction. However, this doesn't mean that there wasn't a smaller extinction associated with the PETM! Almost all transitions between geologic periods are defined by changes in fauna of moderate size, and especially in some groups we'd expect to be hit hard by a change in ocean chemistry and temperature like benthic foraminifera. However, even these "hard hit" groups didn't really show mass extinction levels of turnover. Alternative is that rates of evolution were higher for many groups, so their old forms disappear from the fossil record while their descendents simply look different -- a "pseudo-extinction". It seems very likely that the methane release was the cause of this worldwide shift in biota.
The next part of answering "can there be..." is to think about if the PETM is the worst possible event that could happen... if we could show it's likely that an event could be much worse, we might decide the answer to your question is "very likely so".
The world today is different than it was in Paleocene time. First off, we have massive continental ice shelfs-- there was no continental ice shelfs then. Sudden increase in global temperature interacting with continental ice might cause cascading events that lead to a much worse event. Next, If much larger quantities of methane were locked up in the sea floor, you could potententially have a much larger temperature excursion, including one that would cause a mass extinction. I don't think anyone really knows enough about methane to say if this is plausible or likely. So, we certainly can't exclude the possibility that an arctic methane event could cause a mass extinction. However, it also doesn't seem that likely. We are, after all, talking about a single event from 50 million years ago. The conditions for a massive release clearly aren't common.
To summarize, methane hydrate release seems to have caused a "small" extinction about 50 million years ago, in a very short period of time. While that event didn't cause a truely large extinction, there are reasons to think that event wasn't as bad it could be. We can not exclude arctic methane release as a potential cause of a major extinction, if everything lined up right... but it also doesn't seem very likely.
'Senate Republicans are expected to attempt to complete a first strike against federal methane detection and emissions rules as soon as this week'.
The right wing has these few decades driven US Foreign Economic Zone and energy expansion with REAGAN taking it global and CLINTON/OBAMA as Reagan far-right wing global 1% partnering with Bush neo-conservatives KNOWING WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE would look like DID NOT CARE.
Here we are today seeing methane monitoring being DISMANTLED at the very time methane is GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM. These folks are SOCIOPATHS.
The drive for SMART CITIES DEEP, DEEP STATE REALLY DEEP STATE stems from just these climate change LEVEL 5 DEGREE conditions will bring. These global 1% and their 2% know 99% of citizens will be made desperate and want to protect their CORPORATE SUSTAINABLE CITIES from growing civil unrest.
MEANWHILE, THE 5% TO THE 1% ARE PLAYING THOSE INSIDER TRADING STOCK OPTIONS TO PUT A FEW DOLLARS IN THEIR POCKETS---LIVING FOR TODAY.
No mention of perma-frost methane release from either CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ----they talk only about CO 2. This lack of monitoring is tied to why we do not get REAL DATA from corporate universities on this subject.
This is deliberate, willful, and with malice policy with goals of doing harm to citizens----the legal definition of criminal public and corporate malfeasance
Congress to Curtail Methane Monitoring
By Peter Fairley
Posted 13 Feb 2017 | 17:00 GMT
Photo: John Davidson Photography
Pilot testing Quanta3's continuous methane monitoring system at a Texas drill pad
Innovation in methane detection is booming amid tightened state and federal standards for oil and gas drillers and targeted research funding. Technology developers, however, may see their market diminished by a regulation-averse Republican Congress and president. Senate Republicans are expected to attempt to complete a first strike against federal methane detection and emissions rules as soon as this week.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas responsible for an estimated one-fifth to one-one quarter of the global warming caused by humans since the Industrial Revolution, and oil and gas production puts more methane in the atmosphere than any other activity in the United States. Global warming, however, is not a moving issue for Republican leaders or President Donald Trump, who reject the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
What moves them are complaints from industries that “burdensome" regulations unnecessarily hinder job growth and—in the case of methane rules—domestic oil and gas output. The House of Representatives got the methane deregulation ball rolling on 3 February, voting along party lines to quash U.S. Bureau of Land Management rules designed to prevent more than a third of methane releases from nearly 100,000 oil and gas wells and associated equipment operating on federal and tribal lands.
The House vote is one of the first applications of the hitherto obscure Congressional Review Act of 1996, which gives Congress 60 legislative days to overturn new regulations. If the Senate concurs and President Trump signs, the resulting act will scrap the bureau's ban on methane venting and flaring and its leak-monitoring requirements. It will also restrict the bureau from ever revisiting those mandates.
“If we don’t have a requirement that industry… do something to improve the way it conducts its operations, then a market will not be created to drive innovation” --Mark Boling, Southwestern EnergyNext up on the Republican agenda for methane: Environmental Protection Agency rules that govern methane venting and leak monitoring at all new oil and gas operations across the United States.
Experts say the proposed rollbacks are heavy-handed and could have longstanding effects. “A huge mistake,” is what Mark Boling calls them. Boling is executive vice president for the Houston-based natural gas producer Southwestern Energy and says he prefers stronger voluntary action by industry over regulation. But Boling says Congress is at risk of overreaching.
Boling predicts that tying regulators’ hands on methane monitoring will have “unintended consequences” for oil and gas technology. “If we don’t have a requirement that industry…do something to improve the way it conducts its operations, then a market will not be created to drive innovation,” he says.
Aileen Nowlan agrees. She manages the Methane Detectors Challenge launched by the Environmental Defense Fund, a New York City–based advocacy group. Eliminating monitoring mandates would penalize the minority of oil and gas producers that have really stepped up leak detection and repairs, says Nowlan, as well as the technology developers striving to give them better tools.
“The sign from the government that methane is less of a priority could dissuade entrepreneurs from putting their focus here,” says Nowlan. Technology development could well shift to other countries as a result, she predicts.
That would be a shame given that U.S.-based sensor developers have made strides recently, thanks to spreading mandates and the financial support from both Nowlan's challenge and the comparable MONITOR program funded by the Advanced Projects Research Agency-Energy (the U.S. Department of Energy’s tech incubator).
Consider the continuous leak detection system from Longmont, Colo.–based Quanta3, which recently entered pilot testing in January at a Texas drill pad owned by Norwegian oil and gas giant Statoil. Quanta3 uses relatively inexpensive near-infrared tunable laser diodes developed for fiber-optic telecommunications, according to company founder Dirk Richter, a laser spectroscopy expert at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Richter says methane monitoring via Quanta3’s systems will be “a couple of orders of magnitude” cheaper than via today’s commercial spectrometers, which can run US $75,000, or via handheld infrared video cameras that are labor intensive and relatively insensitive. (Under windy or cold conditions, IR cameras may detect no more than 10 percent of methane releases, according to Stanford University research.)
A few states such as Colorado and California have their own methane-emissions mandates that will continue to provide regulatory pressure, even in the event of federal rollbacks. Both Richter and Boling say they hope states improve those regulations, which generally specify regular inspection via infrared cameras, by speeding up the process for approving newer technology such as Quanta3’s.
Richter, meanwhile, says his firm is preparing to survive under deregulation. Quanta3’s impressive 20-parts-per-billion sensitivity can reveal very small leaks, catching deteriorating equipment before a larger failure that could interrupt production or squander economically significant quantities of natural gas. "We want to provide something that provides value even in the absence of regulations,” says Richter.