A new study has determined that melting permafrost in Siberia is releasing huge amounts of methane, creating what scientists are calling the Methane Time Bomb. Methane is a much more powerful greehouse gas  compared to carbon dioxide and there are huge amounts of methane trapped beneath the oceans and in the thousands of years of decaying plant matter preserved in permafrost. Now we’re warming to the point where that frost is melting and 40,000 years of accumulated methane may be released in a very short period, hence the Methane Bomb analogy.

One of the big problems with tracking global warming is the unknown multiplier effects. This is a prime example. Things get warmer, that causes huges amounts of a powerful greenhouse gas to be released, which accelerates warming at a pace not previously calculated. That rapid warming melts ice caps in Greenland, pouring huge amounts of fresh water into the North Atlantic. This, in turn, stops the flow of the Gulf Stream’s warm current which for thousands of years has kept Europe mild. Without the Gulf Stream, Europe could experience a very long and devastating winter.

This is not a far-fetched scenario. In fact it is one that virtually every climate scientist has in their list of potential outcomes of global climate change (and it is one of the reasons why ‘global warming’ is a deceiving phrase- a lot of people are going to be a lot colder if this plays out).

The really scary thing about the methane bomb is that there is nothing we can do to stop it once the melting takes place. And that’s what’s going on right now.

It was announced today that ice core samples of air encased in bubbles give us our oldest data points for measuring increases in carbon dioxide. These samples are 800,000 years old and show a range of 180-300 parts per million by volume for the entire period until you reach a point 200 years ago when they start rising to today’s concentration of 380 ppmv.

The importance of this finding is political: those who claim we’re not responsible for these changes always use the ‘we don’t have a long enough period of data to eliminate natural causes’ argument. 800,000 years is statistically long enough especially when you see that the spike is entirely measurable in recent time. If you look back 200 years you’re seeing almost the exact point where we start our reliance on fossil fuels in the form of coal for heat and train transport.

This rather incredible article about a study commissioned by the travel industry details exactly what our travel plans might look like in 2030 and it’s a huge change. A few key points:
- 1mm of sea level rise translates to 1.5 meters (about 5′) of shoreline lost
- they project a 72mm rise by 2030, translating to 360′ of shoreline loss. This pretty much eliminates Florida as a destination (or anything other than a malarial swamp)
- Virtually every beach or island destination is affected
Given that this is an industry study done to help them plan for changes it can be considered apolitical, and therefore more credible.
Better visit the Med while you still can.
Update: As I noted in this post, we’re currently gaining 1.6 mm of rise annually which means we’re losing, on average, 8 feet of shoreline each year!

As you may have noted (if anyone actually reads this thing) I’m not a big fan of our foreign policy. The war in Iraq is not about terrorism or Saddam, it’s about oil. This administration, even though their official policy is to cast doubt about global warming, knows we have a major energy problem. They went after Iraq because it has one of the largest oil capacities in the world and we needed to get our hands on it to avert a major economic catastrophe here in the US.

Proof? We are building the largest US Embassy in the world in Baghdad: 100 acres, capable of housing 3000 people at a cost of $600 million. It’s larger than Vatican City. We would not be building this compound if we were really planning on getting out of Iraq in the near future. While we invest nothing in alternative energy projects here in the US, we are ‘investing’ $1.5 billion (yes, billion) a week in the Iraq war. Do we really think this is anti-terrorism money? We haven’t spent anywhere near that amount on domestic security.

We’re investing dollars and lives to acquire an oil field.