|
Post by Barry Brook on Mar 4, 2013 16:24:31 GMT 9.5
A new post has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/ecological-tipping-pointsIn a paper published last week in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, I (Barry Brook) and my colleagues argue against the idea of an ecological global-scale “tipping point”. In this BNC post, I outline the paper’s core argument, while Professor Corey Bradshaw (not an author on the study) explains what it means for conservation practice. This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Mar 5, 2013 16:43:52 GMT 9.5
What about climate tipping points and ocean acidification?
A methane clathrate destabilization could occur suddenly for example. The event would be regional, but the impact global.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Mar 6, 2013 14:24:56 GMT 9.5
We were addressing ecological tipping points in the terrestrial realm. We suggested that marine systems are more connected and ocean acidification was a plausible global TP. There are a number of tipping elements for the climate system that are geophysical in origin that are also plausible. Not for biomes, however.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Mar 8, 2013 14:15:23 GMT 9.5
Methane-oxidizing bacteria may well protect us from a methane breakout in the Arctic, by converting it to CO2. That's while oxygen or sulphate can infuse the soil above the clathrate (methane+ice) faster than the methane evaporates from it. That is, of course, until some idiot starts dredging the stuff. Once the methane effervesces, the bugs can't get at it. Even then, it would be a collapse in spite of the bioshere rather than because of it. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Mar 8, 2013 19:42:13 GMT 9.5
Discussions and research on collecting CO2 from atmosphere for production of synthetic fuel are already on. Methane is so different in its qualities from other gases from atmosphere that it should be possible to remove it from air and Hey! Presto! you have a fuel. Main responsibility and opportunity lies with natural gas producing agencies who may accidentally let the gas escape.
|
|
|
Post by David Walters on Mar 9, 2013 1:08:14 GMT 9.5
Hmm...I tend to be in the "we're screwed" category. However...the problem is this. My view of "tipping point" is that the climate is heading in one direction and regardless of what we do as species, it's still heading in that direction.
While pessimistic, for sure, I believe we can do some mitigation though I doubt we can reverse. It's all so depressing.
|
|
|
Post by stevek9 on Mar 11, 2013 8:18:50 GMT 9.5
Interesting. I'm not a climate scientist and don't have time to become one, but I thought there were various possibilities for positive feedback toward a warmer climate ... decrease in albedo from melting ice, etc., which could lead to a change much more rapid than the usual geologic time scales. I've believed that the consequence most serious for humans would be a relatively rapid rise in sea levels. Given the number people that live in coastal cities, that would be a very expensive problem. This may not mean that mice become extinct in N. America, but it is the sort of result that concerns me.
|
|
|
Post by BNC Moderator on Mar 12, 2013 15:06:20 GMT 9.5
Comments are veering off-topic. If you want to discuss engineering against sea level rise etc please use the new thread: Engineering adaptation to sea level rise.Your comments have been moved to this thread. Thankyou.
|
|
|
Post by jjhopp on Oct 16, 2013 9:04:50 GMT 9.5
It appears we have not learnt anything from the Venus disaster. There are real points of no return. If the permafrost begins to melt there are 50 gigatonnes of peat. The methane released will accelerate atmospheric warming. If the concentration reaches LEL(lower explosive limit) a match will cause "atmospheric deflagration". So, its curtains. This may also explain the lack of oxygen on Venus - all the methane exploded.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Oct 16, 2013 21:02:49 GMT 9.5
It could never reach the Lower Explosive Limit unless all the peat magically decides to decay all at once.
Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is too short, and if it was building up like that we could just set the remaining peat beds on fire before they can release methane.
|
|
|
Post by jjhopp on Oct 17, 2013 12:32:32 GMT 9.5
My advice is never say never. The head of IBM thought that there was no need for more than 4/5 computers in the world. Kelvin said that anything heavier than air cannot fly, a bomb expert said that it (atom bomb) would never go off. If you think that setting gigatonnes of peat on fire will stop methane release then you are delusional or an arsonist. I think you are on the wrong website.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Oct 18, 2013 12:38:57 GMT 9.5
Peat that is on fire does not tend to produce methane. It will produce carbon dioxide with a far lower short and indeed long term global warming potential.
And if you want to know how you coudl set such large peat fields on fire rapidly enough for not much money? ....
The 'flyaway' cost of a 300kT range thermonuclear device is only ~$1.3-2m.
|
|