Well, I didn’t get into this to make friends – but one of the benefits of this work is that, over the last dozen years, I’ve come to know a number of the most well known experts in a variety of fields. They’ve been my mentors, my teachers, and in some cases, yup, my friends.
I spoke yesterday to Michael Mann of Penn State U – one of the world’s pre-eminent atmospheric experts. Our conversation was wide ranging, but I asked him about the widespread panic that exists in the internet fever swamps about an imminent arctic “methane bomb”.
In the last week since I produced a video that portrayed the best science on the issue, it’s clear that to question the “game over man” meme on methane is to kick a hornet’s nest online.
In response, I posted a number of additional vids from my interview with Dr Carolyn Ruppel, who leads the US Geological Survey team on Gas Hydrates. Also, I, and my editors at Yale Climate connections, have heard from several key scientists who are grateful that we took this on.
Mike’s words are informative and welcome.
UPDATE:
I’ve added Jim Hansen’s complete statement to me on methane here.
UPDATE:
This Facebook comment kind of confirms Mike’s take on the catastrophe cult.
—
“The problem is historic error of the Climate establishment. The direct corruption of the process by captalist science. The extent of rigging of the data choices and complete shameless denial of the correct predictions that came from the “cult.” Yes there are many more now who see what the complete failure of the acedemic establishment to do anything about this in time to save us and wonder why we should trust your insane 2100 time lines and livable business as usual 4-5 degrees over baseline bullshit. If Mr. Mann feels victorious over the ignorant masses by dismissing rapid releaes of methane as being a valid concern, I am not going to ignore the issue because everything is changing so fast….faster than expected…..uncovered unknown variables and feed backs off the cliff are just to hard to predict with the data gathering issues and miles of unknowns.”
Following on this subject I looked at how much of the susceptible carbon could accelerate if Arctic temps rise as has been documented recently. Its not a lot by percentage of the total permafrost carbon and deep gas hydrates. The issue is the near shore and onshore. It is less than 1 % but that amount susceptible is almost equivalent to one year of global carbon releases or 33 GT in one report. That is a risk. Precautionary Principle would say why go there if you have options? Options that cost less and are cost saving to your society as a whole.
That said, also note we are at a solar minimum. Here is what I would like for everyone to mull over.
We Have a Stake in the Outcome
“In an op-ed that accompanied the publication of my book “The Sun’s Heartbeat,” I wrote in 2011 that, “global temperatures are now so steadily high that even with the recent reduced rate of warming, 2010 still managed to join 1998 as one of the warmest years ever recorded.”
“If the upcoming solar max of cycle 24 is normal or robust,” I continued, “and especially if an El Nino follows it two years later (as often happens), then the middle of this decade will be the hottest period since humans arrived on Earth. However, if the upcoming maximum is wimpy, as most solar researchers expect, or if the Sun is now entering an extended period of low activity with another deep minimum to follow, that is the best thing it could possibly do for us. Such a scenario would mitigate climate change. Essentially, the Sun has been buying us time.”
My take? Its not time for complacency nor to make bad situations worse by profligate spending on increasing emissions. I believe we all have to make the changes. Its a challenge to live on spaceship earth and leaving it for a planet b is not an option.