Earth's Methane gas hydrates will barely be affected [released into the atmosphere] by warming over even the next 1,000 years. Even when CH4 is liberated from gas hydrates, oxidative and physical processes may greatly reduce the amount that reaches the atmosphere as CH4.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge...
What it's basically saying is that we are not going to see a 'tipping point' from Methane gas hydrates in the foreseeable future.
-----------------------
Well, the language is a little tricky but fairly clear. "Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2oC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years."
It isn't clear what 'a few hundred years' means; is this several hundred, more than five hundred...obviously, though, less than a thousand. So if the warming continues at the rate it is now, we have a little under a thousand years according to this statement...prediction...whatever it is. The question is whether we today have an obligation to people 1,000 years in the future if we have the knowledge and means to avoid a catastrophic climate event later by our actions now. Some would argue that is a moral question and I would say they would be fairly successful at making that point, although not today while we are focused on arguing science primarily based on political ideology. One would think that the political parties trying to claim the moral high ground would argue the most fervently that we DO have a moral obligation to the future, but this is not the case, and one can only speculate that the reason for this is the power of those parties has its foundation in the economic success of the energy status quo rather than emerging technologies. That would be a pretty good speculation without even falling back on conspiracy theories, but probably not a convincing one to people who have problems with basic science because it is a more complex analysis than boiling water.
Another consideration in regards to the statement is that this comment relies on stable rates of warming. If that increases rather than decreases, the time frame stated in the article might accelerate too, although the hedge remains 'a few hundred years.'
I have a bit of a problem with the nebulous 'tipping point' concept and it appears a lot of people do in various ways. My problem with it is that we don't have the needed information to say when that 'tipping point' may or may not be...or was. And second, it is not measurable-let's say that we know the continued release of CO2 at a rate of 'X' will lead to an average increase of .3 degrees per decade; will this trigger 'catastrophic, widespread dissociation...' in, say, less than 500 years? We don't know. Other people seem to have a problem grasping what 'tipping point' even means to begin with...it doesn't mean that, if a prediction was made that the tipping point was in 2009 that it was a failed prediction because we're still here, it refers to the momentum of climate change and our ability to blunt that momentum with our present knowledge and technical ability. Regardless, the term 'tipping point' is a relatively useless one other than spreading alarm with the intent of spurring society to action. That doesn't necessarily have to be a nefarious geopolitical or economic distribution goal, but there are those who would use it that way.
EDIT: You wrote: "JC the article says at predicted warming of 0.2C we are not warming at that rate, and in a few hundred years we will have used up fossil fuels anyway."
-I'd be interested in seeing the whole article if you happen to have a link to it. The point that I was trying to make is that I don't see the article laying to rest fears about a 'tipping point,' but I don't really like the idea of people and organizations trying to name a tipping point date to begin with because this is one of the most speculative types of "predictions" that have been made. We just don't know-and when an article refers to 'catastrophic' outcomes occurring-or NOT occurring-in 'a few hundred years' I'm not very satisfied with that, either. I am satisfied enough with the scientific theory but want more precision in terms of outcome and impact than climate science is able to provide at this juncture.
Another thing that I found very interesting in the portion of the article you quoted is this line: "The CO2 produced by oxidation of CH4 released from dissociating gas hydrates will likely have a greater impact on the Earth system (e.g., on ocean chemistry and atmospheric CO2 concentrations; Archer et al. 2009) than will the CH4 that remains after passing through various sinks." I would like to learn a little more about the chemical process that is involved in the oxidation, timing and so on-just for my own edification, not because I think it may be influential in a discussion about climate change.
And finally-just to get your opinion, I don't know where you stand on it: if we are going to use up fossil fuels in a few hundred years, doesn't that imply we should be actively researching and developing alternatives now?
i went to: www.bergmun,org/za/media/biodiverity/Arc... (written in 2005, 2006 AND 2007)and read the article from which you "quoted". keywords: Climate Change; Commercial Agribusiness; Ground water; San veld. study shows how DOWNGRADED climate change Projections may be used to Characterize Climate Change Impact in an area that is both Valuable from a Conservation point of view, yet at the same time serves as _host_ to input Intensive Commercial Agribusiness in the form of potatoes & rooibos(?) tea Production. introduction (1st paragraph): Downscaled Scenario's make use of Downscaled Climate Change. graph's show (back then) that water tables were DOWN from 1910 thru 199? and temperature was UP from 1910 thru 199?! KANO... then why don't you give web address so i can read the 2012 artical?
If you believe that, you trust computer models more than I do.
Computers or not, all they have is theoretical calculations. they will not have any actual real world data until
fears of a tipping point. to quote
Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2oC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth's gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 103 yr. Even when CH4 is liberated from gas hydrates, oxidative and physical processes may greatly reduce the amount that reaches the atmosphere as CH4. The CO2 produced by oxidation of CH4 released from dissociating gas hydrates will likely have a greater impact on the Earth system (e.g., on ocean chemistry and atmospheric CO2 concentrations; Archer et al. 2009) than will the CH4 that remains after passing through various sinks.
