tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post1170878437100900056..comments2023-12-01T16:56:04.415+11:00Comments on Peak Energy: The Methane Trigger For GeoengineeringBig Gavhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post-82426064360542695202008-09-04T01:17:00.000+10:002008-09-04T01:17:00.000+10:00Jamais makes an assumption that it is the cold tha...Jamais makes an assumption that it is the cold that is preventing the oxidation of the leaking Siberian methane.<BR/><BR/>Where's the proof?<BR/><BR/>There is a maxim in microbiological ecology (still being tested) that bacteria are "everywhere" the environment selects for dominance.<BR/><BR/>It could be mineralogical effects, it could be the "absence" of necessary species (forming a symbiotic metabolic pathway). It could be that this pathway is not that energetic? It could be the absence of electron donors like O2 or NO3 (likely in a carbon rich anoxic peat).<BR/><BR/>In the micro environments of the Siberian soil will exist species of bacteria capable of exploiting CH4 if it is energetically feasible. And if the cold is a limitation, well that will soon be lifted.<BR/><BR/>This talk of genetically engineering bacteria to "save" us is just so much march gas by people who should know better.<BR/><BR/>I read the papers I use in my posts... and just becuase an academic states the safeguards and conditions should we attempt e.g. to inject sulphates into the atmosphere, doesn't mean that this message will carry thru to the populace or their representatives.<BR/><BR/>My concern is that these distractions have the same effect as the obfuscations of the tobacco lobby.<BR/><BR/>People like to hear "optimistic" messages and solutions... so much so that it might be one of the reasons we appear to be stuck in this interminable period of procrastination. Either our faith in our own geoengineeering (or other technological) abilities, or the delays caused by our consideration of them... delaying the changes we know we could make now that would make a difference.... but don't.<BR/><BR/>But after a time we can suddenly make decisive decisions when we are faced with "no choice".<BR/><BR/>The "beauty" of this is that we can then console ourselves with the rhetoric that we had to make these hard decisions as responsible citizens or leaders: after all, we had no choice.<BR/><BR/>A/ In the end, I had no choice, I had to have the heart lung transfer.<BR/><BR/>B/ Why didn't you stop smoking?<BR/><BR/>Is it because we think we have more choices than we do, that we delay making the choices that we must make?SPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467929366702367892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post-66351468152363362312008-09-03T23:33:00.000+10:002008-09-03T23:33:00.000+10:00Thanks Jamais.I think its worth continually repeat...Thanks Jamais.<BR/><BR/>I think its worth continually repeating that there is no point trying emergency geoengineering if we keep our Business As Usual carbon emissions profile (barring a fossil fuel peak that occurs far earlier than I foresee).<BR/><BR/>My main worry is people will come up with one or more practicable geoengineering schemes and then just keep burning coal for all they are worth, having convinced themselves the problem is "solved".<BR/><BR/>But as you say - you've always argued against this.Big Gavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post-86617691937748133832008-09-03T02:19:00.000+10:002008-09-03T02:19:00.000+10:00Actually, I was referring to modifying the already...Actually, I was referring to modifying the already-methane-eating bacteria to give them better ability to survive in Siberian conditions. As it happens, we wouldn't necessarily even need to do that -- the Swedish research points to methane releases from the Siberian ocean underneath permafrost, and methanotrophic bacteria able to thrive in cold oceans already exist (just not there).<BR/><BR/>The larger point, though -- as Gav well knows -- is that I'm *not* arguing that geoengineering is the best approach, or wise, or even desirable. As I've posted repeatedly on OtF, we know what we need to do to head off catastrophic global warming, and we should do it.<BR/><BR/>But we aren't. Even the places in the world that signed Kyoto aren't working hard or fast enough. And even in the best plausible scenario, the US will have to play catch-up just to get to the point of not working quite hard enough.<BR/><BR/>And, as I noted in the linked post, if the trapped methane is released, even a super-post-Kyoto cut off all extra anthropogenic carbon move wouldn't be enough -- there's decades worth of global carbon output locked into that methane.<BR/><BR/>But even if we are forced to choose between near-extinction and geoengineering (in which case the choice is obvious for most of us), it's not meant as a solution. Ocean acidification still progresses, other negative results from carbon build-up still happens, etc. Geo <B>has</B> to be accompanied by serious carbon-reduction efforts.<BR/><BR/>BTW, the Alan Robock article about the hydrological cycle and atmospheric sulfur geoengineering argues persuasively that abruptly stopping geo after it's been working awhile could actually make things worse. But as Robock notes, that's under conditions in which there have been no efforts to otherwise reduce carbon emissions.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00976159633970180474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post-71153079616403952302008-09-03T00:31:00.000+10:002008-09-03T00:31:00.000+10:00Well - I won't comment on the likelihood of this s...Well - I won't comment on the likelihood of this scheme actually working, but it is less frightening than dumping sulphur in the upper atmosphere or seeding the oceans with iron or whatever.<BR/><BR/>By and large pyrolysis seems the option most deserving of large scale efforts at this point in time.Big Gavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post-5088406344320370982008-09-03T00:25:00.000+10:002008-09-03T00:25:00.000+10:00Oh, so now we are going to genetically modify bact...Oh, so now we are going to genetically modify bacteria by horizontally transferring the genetic material coding for methane oxidation?<BR/><BR/>We are currently losing the battle with pathogenic bacteria in the antibiotics arms race. They evolve faster than we can invent. If the energy gradient and resource availability (ie the methane) is there, "bacteria" will do it. Simple. So what makes these geniuses think that doing this is going to help?<BR/><BR/>As science has developed and become more specialised many fields have become dominated by technicians more than "true" scientists.<BR/><BR/>My experience of PhD life is there is very little Philosophy required. The emphasis is on papers published and technical achievement. Many don't ask why beyond jumping through these hoops.<BR/><BR/>On geoengineering and the introduction of the word 'triage' into the conversation.<BR/><BR/>http://playdos-cave.blogspot.com/2008/06/geoengineering-great-idea-pity-about.html<BR/><BR/>http://playdos-cave.blogspot.com/2008/09/triage-at-two-spaces.htmlSPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467929366702367892noreply@blogger.com