Gas Hydrates and Global Warming
Is it NOT the fact that the Methane Hydrates
still hold a HUGE quantum of CARBON
whose release would be IRREVERSIBLE,
albeit
the positive forecast by the models
that there would NOT be any significant effect – even by 2100 – resulting from the presence of Methane Hydrates in the OCEAN?
Dear Prof. Kenneth,
I agree with your point as at the moment I have no clue on the role or the consequences of the released carbon from methane hydrates and its environmental impact on the earth's surface in the long run.
Dear Suresh
It is a fact that if methane hydrates are combusted they will contribute to carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.
The GWP or global warming potential of carbon dioxide is quite significantly less than methane itself.
The global warming potential of coal is about twice that of burning methane. So if the burning of natural gas could substitute for coal there would be a better case energy proposition than burning coal.
In the response for Ken he is replying in sarcasm he does not have belief in much of anything related to global warming or climate change.
There are issues in being able to harvest and burn methane hydrates but there are some patents and ideas which suggest it might be feasible at some point.
Yes you are right that these resources are huge in quantity and could influence the carbon cycle significantly.
If the methane hydrate could be mined efficiently and sequestration techniques used for carbon dioxide the climate warming influence could be largely mitigated. Lime scrubbers can generate limestone which could be beneficially used for reversing soil acidification or helping addressing ocean acidification which as been increasing related to greenhouse gas enrichment of the environment.
My opinion is that the potential for efficient development and utilization can be achieved and the climate change potential could be addressed but development and demonstration would need some sizable investments.
Hope you have success in your interests and pursuits.
To date, there is no observable evidence that the climate has any sensitivity to CO2. More CO2 would only contribute to increased plant growth, more food, less demand on water. According to ice cores, increasing CO2 FOLLOWS warming, sometimes by hundreds of years. Look to the Sun for a driving force in climate, not so-called GHGs. The Earth's atmosphere in no way acts like a greenhouse.
Dear Dr Pamela
You are partially right in the sense that more CO2 would contribute to an increased plant growth and more food - in general.
GOOD NEWS
While a great deal of media and public attention has focused on the effects that such higher concentrations of CO2 are likely to have on global climate, rising CO2 concentrations are also likely to have profound direct effects on the growth, physiology, and chemistry of plants, independent of any effects on climate (Ziska 2008).
With a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40% (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007).
As CO2 concentrations increase, plants can maintain high photosynthetic rates with relatively low stomatal conductance.
FACE experiments show decreases in whole plant water use of 5–20% under elevated CO2.
Can have consequences for the hydrological cycle of entire ecosystems, with soil moisture levels and runoff both increasing under elevated CO2 (Leakey et al. 2009).
Elevated CO2 substantially decreases the negative effects of high ozone on photosynthesis, growth, and seed yield in both soybeans and rice (Feng et al. 2008; Morgan et al. 2003).
NOT SO GOOD NEWS
In FACE experiments, protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers, are decreased by 5–14% under elevated CO2 (Taub et al. 2008).
Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under elevated CO2 (Loladze 2002; Taub & Wang 2008).
Essence
In essence, rising CO2 is going to have a complex effect on plant communities and in turn on food demand.
I do not agree that increasing levels of CO2 present any cause for concern.
Dear Dr Pamela
" CO2 remains in the atmosphere longer than the other major heat-trapping gases emitted as a result of human activities. It takes about a decade for methane (CH4) emissions to leave the atmosphere (it converts into CO2) and about a century for nitrous oxide (N2O).
After a pulse of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere, 40% will remain in the atmosphere for 100 years and 20% will reside for 1000 years, while the final 10% will take 10,000 years to turn over. This literally means that the heat-trapping emissions we release today from our cars and power plants are setting the climate our children and grandchildren will inherit. "
Is it NOT a concern for us?
In addition,
more CO2 leads to more water-vapor (another GHG) holding capacity in the atmosphere
"a vicious cycle exists with water vapor, in which as more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere and the Earth’s temperature rises, more water evaporates into the Earth’s atmosphere, which increases the temperature of the planet. The higher temperature atmosphere can then hold more water vapor than before"......