Op-Ed Column, New York Times Editorial Page
Published: April 18, 2006
The Big Burp Theory of the Apocalypse
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
(Nicholas Kristof won the 2006 Pulitzer Prize Award for Commentary.)
It's a dark and stormy night, and deep within the ocean the muddy bottom begins to stir.
Giant squids flee in horror as reservoirs of methane frozen at the bottom of the ocean begin to thaw, releasing bubbles that rise to the surface. Soon the ocean surface is churning and burping gas like a billion overfed infants, transforming the composition of our atmosphere.
That's a scene from a new horror movie I'm envisioning, called "Killer Ocean." I'm hoping it might play in the White House and Congress, because it depicts one of the more bizarre and frightening ways in which global warming could devastate our planet what scientists have dubbed the "methane burp."
Since President Bush is complacent about conventional risks from climate change, such as the prospect that those of us in Manhattan will end up knee-deep in the Atlantic, let's try fear-mongering.
Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. And thousands of gigatons of methane, equivalent to the total amount of coal in the world, lie deep within the oceans in the form of ice-like solids called methane hydrates.
The big question is whether global warming temperatures have risen about one degree Fahrenheit over the last 30 years will thaw some of these methane hydrates. If so, the methane might be released as a gargantuan oceanic burp. Once in the atmosphere, that methane would accelerate the greenhouse effect and warm the earth and raise sea levels even more.
"The juiciest disaster-movie scenario would be a release of enough methane to significantly change the atmospheric concentration," suggests the excellent discussion of methane hydrates by scholars at www.realclimate.org.
One reason for concern about a methane hydrate apocalypse is that something like it may have happened several times in the past. For example, 251 million years ago, there was a catastrophe known as the Permian extinction that came close to wiping out life on earth.
Nobody is sure what caused the Permian extinction, but one theory is that it was methane burps.
And as long as I'm fear-mongering, there was also a better understood warming 55 million years ago, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. That was a period when temperatures shot up by 10 degrees Fahrenheit in the tropics and by about 15 degrees in polar areas, and many scientists think it was caused by the melting of methane hydrates.
"The PETM event 55 million years ago is probably the most likely example of their impact, though there are smaller events dotted through the record," says Gavin Schmidt, a NASA expert on climate change. He emphasizes the uncertainties, but adds that since we are likely to enter a climate that hasn't been seen for a few million years, it's reasonable to worry about methane hydrates.
To be sure, some experts are skeptical. Daniel Schrag, a geochemist at Harvard, doubts that methane hydrates were the culprit 55 million years ago. For starters, he says, the theory doesn't offer a good explanation of the initial change that melted the methane hydrates.
For all the uncertainty, there is an important point here: The history of climate shows that it does not evolve slowly and gracefully, it lurches. There are tipping points, and if we trigger certain chain reactions, then our leaders cannot claim a mulligan. They could set back our planet for, say, 10 million years.
The White House has used scientific uncertainty as an excuse for its paralysis. But our leaders are supposed to devise policies to protect us even from threats that are difficult to assess precisely and climate change should be considered even more menacing than a nuclear-armed Iran.
Moreover, uncertainty cuts both ways. The best guess of climate experts is that the seas will rise by two feet by 2100, but if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt, then that alone would raise the seas by 20 feet.
Frankly, it's the well-known risks of rising temperatures and sea levels more than worry about a cataclysmic methane burp that should drive us to curb carbon emissions.
But our political system doesn't seem able to grapple with scientific issues like climate. Our only hope for firm action would be a major U.S.-led global initiative to curb carbon, and the Bush administration has already dropped the ball on that.
The best reason for action on global warming remains the basic imperative to safeguard our planet in the face of uncertainty, and our leaders are failing wretchedly in that responsibility. If we need an apocalypse to concentrate our minds, then just imagine our descendants sitting on the top of Mount Ararat beside their ark, cursing us for triggering a methane burp.
|
||||||||
|
Create a free Reader Account
to post comments. Login
Get free daily SCIY Notable SCIY Topics
Search
Category Folders (below) Click folder names for contained articles, Click 'Main Page' to return. Recommended Links
|
The Big Burp Theory of the Apocalypse
by
ronjon
on Sat 22 Apr 2006 01:36 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Keywords:
Climate,
GlobalWarmin
Comments
Re: The Big Burp Theory of the Apocalypse
by
Rich
on Sun 23 Apr 2006 12:38 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Ron
So if there is more methane in the atmosphere which contribute to further warming, I wonder what the impact will be on oxygen levels in the atmosphere of just under 21%. According to some atmospheric theories of oxygen regulation (most famous perhaps being Lovelock) the production or release of methane in the atmosphere acts as an oxidant and is one of serveral factors which helps keep oxygen at just the right balance for life. Much less oxygen in the atmosphere and we start to have difficulty breathing, much more (because the atmosphere becomes so combustible) and the world become poised for annhilation by fire, as even simple fires started by lightening strikes will begin to burn wildly out of control rc Re: Re: The Big Burp Theory of the Apocalypse
by
ronjon
on Mon 24 Apr 2006 01:37 AM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Hi Rich,
I don't know what the impact of increased methane would do to the critical 21% O2 level, but here's some more info re the potential for the thawing of gigatons of deep ocean frozen methane hydrates. It's from the realclimate.org site referenced in Kristof's article where climate issues like this are being actively discussed by climate experts. The Future. David Archer Dept. of the Geophysical Sciences University of Chicago The juiciest disaster-movie scenario would be a release of enough methane to significantly change the atmospheric concentration, on a time scale that is fast compared with the lifetime of methane. This would generate a spike in methane concentration. For a scale of how much would be a large methane release, the amount of methane that would be required to equal the radiative forcing of doubled CO2 would be about ten times the present methane concentration. That would be disaster movie. Or, the difference between the worst case IPCC scenario and the best conceivable 'alternative scenario' by 2050 is only about 1 W/m2 mean radiative energy imbalance. A radiative forcing on that order from methane would probably make it impossible to remain below a 'dangerous' level of 2 deg above pre-industrial. I calculate here that it would take about 6 ppm of methane to get 1 W/m2 over present-day. A methane concentration of 6 ppm would be a disaster in the real world. The atmosphere currently contains about 3.5 Gton C as methane. An instantaneous release of 10 Gton C would kick us up past 6 ppm. This is probably an order of magnitude larger than any of the catastrophes that anyone has proposed. Landslides release maybe a gigaton and pockmark explosions considerably less. Permafrost hydrates are melting, but no one thinks they are going to explode all at once. ... The other possibility for our future is an increase in the year-in, year-out chronic rate of methane emission to the atmosphere. The ongoing release of methane is what supplies, and determines the concentration of, the ongoing concentration of methane in the atmosphere. Double the source, and you'd double the concentration, more or less. (A little more, actually, because the methane lifetime increases.) The methane is oxidized to CO2, another greenhouse gas that accumulates for hundreds of thousands of years, same as fossil fuel CO2 does. Models of chronic methane release often show that the accumulating CO2 contributes as much to warming as does the transient methane concentration. Anthropogenic methane sources, such as rice paddies, the fossil fuel industry, and livestock, have already more than doubled the methane concentration in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels. Currently methane levels appear stable, but the reasons for this relatively recent phenomena are not yet clear. The amount of permafrost hydrate methane is not known very well, but it would not take too much methane, say 60 Gton C released over 100 years, to double atmospheric methane yet again. Peat deposits may be a comparable methane source to melting permafrost hydrate. When peat that has been frozen for thousands of years thaws, it still contains viable populations of methanotrophic bacteria [Rivkina et al., 2004] that begin to convert the peat into CO2 and CH4. It's not too difficult to imagine 60 Gton C over 100 years from peat, either. Changes in methane production in existing wetlands and swamps due to changes in rainfall and temperature could also be important. Ocean hydrates have also been forecast to melt, but only slowly [Harvey and Huang, 1995]. Places to watch would seem to be the Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico. So, in the end, not an obvious disaster-movie plot, but a potential positive feedback that could turn out to be the difference between success and failure in avoiding 'dangerous' anthropogenic climate change. That's scary enough I have submitted a more detailed review of hydrates and climate change for peer review and publication, which can be accessed here." |
SCIY Index & Page Views
Recent Articles
Jihad vs. McWorld by Benjamin R. Barber
Debashish
Heaven's Smiley
koantum
Eric Dolphy - God Bless the Child
Debashish
Recent Comments
Full text of Comments
|
||||||
|
||||||||