For my 2,000th post I would like to thank Neven for creating and supporting this Forum for discussing critical topics regarding climate change. With a handle like AbruptSLR/ASLR (Abrupt Sea Level Rise) it is obvious that I am alarmed about climate change; but hopefully I am not alarmist, to the extent that alarmism can interfere with discussion, learning and action about climate change. I have learned as much as I have shared in this Forum, and the most important lesson that I have learned is that while most people believe that climate change is real, even more people believe that it will not have a significant impact on themselves, individually, as indicated by the attached image/graph from the June issue of Scientific America. This black & white version of the graph (the original is in color) not only shows that a large majority of the US public support legislation on climate change (that politicians have yet to pass) but more importantly this graph indicates that only about 10% (+/- 5%) believe that anthropogenic global warming is "extremely important" to them, personally.
While this is a complex topic, the following are a few examples of the nature of this problem:
(1) First, Professor Robert Stavins, of Harvard, was one of the authors of a section of the IPCC WG3 report, on the impacts of international climate negotiations, and he recently revealed that nearly 75% of the original draft was deleted in a meeting in Berlin in April 2014 at the insistence of government officials.
(2) Second, the following linked reference indicates how both northern wetlands continued thawing, and tropical wetlands, are resulting in larger methane emissions than scientist previously raised:
Merritt R. Turetsky, Agnieszka Kotowska, Jill Bubier, Nancy B. Dise, Patrick Crill, Ed R. C. Hornibrook, Kari Minkkinen, Tim R. Moore, Isla H. Myers-Smith, Hannu Nykänen, David Olefeldt, Janne Rinne, Sanna Saarnio, Narasinha Shurpali, Eeva-Stiina Tuittila, J. Michael Waddington, Jeffrey R. White, Kimberly P. Wickland, Martin Wilmking, (2014), "A synthesis of methane emissions from 71 northern, temperate, and subtropical wetlands", Global Change Biology; DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12580
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12580/abstract;jsessionid=A40F171C06B171BF21CA5D4B19FEDEDC.f04t02Abstract: "Wetlands are the largest natural source of atmospheric methane. Here, we assess controls on methane flux using a database of approximately 19 000 instantaneous measurements from 71 wetland sites located across subtropical, temperate, and northern high latitude regions. Our analyses confirm general controls on wetland methane emissions from soil temperature, water table, and vegetation, but also show that these relationships are modified depending on wetland type (bog, fen, or swamp), region (subarctic to temperate), and disturbance. Fen methane flux was more sensitive to vegetation and less sensitive to temperature than bog or swamp fluxes. The optimal water table for methane flux was consistently below the peat surface in bogs, close to the peat surface in poor fens, and above the peat surface in rich fens. However, the largest flux in bogs occurred when dry 30-day averaged antecedent conditions were followed by wet conditions, while in fens and swamps, the largest flux occurred when both 30-day averaged antecedent and current conditions were wet. Drained wetlands exhibited distinct characteristics, e.g. the absence of large flux following wet and warm conditions, suggesting that the same functional relationships between methane flux and environmental conditions cannot be used across pristine and disturbed wetlands. Together, our results suggest that water table and temperature are dominant controls on methane flux in pristine bogs and swamps, while other processes, such as vascular transport in pristine fens, have the potential to partially override the effect of these controls in other wetland types. Because wetland types vary in methane emissions and have distinct controls, these ecosystems need to be considered separately to yield reliable estimates of global wetland methane release."
(3) Finally, the following linked reference indicates that methane emissions from shale gas developments exceed official EPA estimates:
Dana R. Caulton, Paul B. Shepson, Renee L. Santoro, Jed P. Sparks, Robert W. Howarth, Anthony R. Ingraffea, Maria O. L. Cambaliza, Colm Sweeney, Anna Karion, Kenneth J. Davis, Brian H. Stirm, Stephen A. Montzka, and Ben R. Miller, (2014), "Toward a better understanding and quantification of methane emissions from shale gas development", Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1316546111.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/10/1316546111.abstract.html?etocAbstract: "The identification and quantification of methane emissions from natural gas production has become increasingly important owing to the increase in the natural gas component of the energy sector. An instrumented aircraft platform was used to identify large sources of methane and quantify emission rates in southwestern PA in June 2012. A large regional flux, 2.0–14 g CH4 s−1 km−2, was quantified for a ∼2,800-km2 area, which did not differ statistically from a bottom-up inventory, 2.3–4.6 g CH4 s−1 km−2. Large emissions averaging 34 g CH4/s per well were observed from seven well pads determined to be in the drilling phase, 2 to 3 orders of magnitude greater than US Environmental Protection Agency estimates for this operational phase. The emissions from these well pads, representing ∼1% of the total number of wells, account for 4–30% of the observed regional flux. More work is needed to determine all of the sources of methane emissions from natural gas production, to ascertain why these emissions occur and to evaluate their climate and atmospheric chemistry impacts."
Obviously, I feel that such climate change considerations paint an increasingly clear image that serious the consequences may be in society's future, including possibly abrupt sea level rise associated with the inherent instability of the WAIS.
