What methane tells us about ourselves

The ongoing discussion about the recent Science paper by Shakhova, et al. on methane emissions from the East Siberia Arctic Shelf reveals at least as much about us and how we deal with such news as it tells us about the world.

Dismissing for the present, blissful moment the extremists from both ends of the spectrum, there are two noticeable groups, the Pure Scientists and the Pragmatists.

The Pure Scientists are looking mostly at the present and the past, and saying, “Look, we don’t even know yet how long these emissions from the ESAS have been going on, and there’s no evidence that they’ll escalate to dangerous levels. Currently, those emission are tiny compared to those from swamps, agriculture, farm animals, and the use of fossil fuels. Stop panicking! But since this is news (whether or not it’s a new phenomenon) we should take appropriate measures to find out as soon as possible how long this has been going on and whether there’s any chance of it adding significantly to our total, worldwide methane emissions.”

In fact, Shakhova et al. end their paper by saying:

To discern whether this extensive CH4 venting over the ESAS is a steadily ongoing phenomenon or signals the start of a more massive CH4 release period, there is an urgent need for expanded multifaceted investigations into these inaccessible but climate-sensitive shelf seas north of Siberia.

I find it very hard to understand how anyone could argue with that viewpoint. It’s a prudent application of the scientific process, and, dare I say it, the only rational one, in response to a major, unsettling discovery.

The Pragmatists, by contrast, are looking almost entirely at the future and thinking in terms of risk analysis, even if not quite that formally or by name–what happens if the immense store of methane up north starts to cut loose? Could we be seeing the beginning of the dominoes falling: We emit CO2 which causes some warming, and that starts to release methane hydrates and carbon in the permafrost (the latter in the form of CO2 and methane), which kicks off the mother of all feedbacks? Could this escalate into an unstoppable warming trend that would make the endlessly discussed 2C increase in global temperatures look like utopia?

I find it equally hard to dismiss this second viewpoint, simply because we know all that methane and carbon is up there and we know that some amount of warming will set it loose. We don’t know what that specific level of warming is, or if those releases will happen quickly enough to matter. CO2 has a virtually infinite lifespan, at least in terms of human planning horizons, while methane has a lifespan of under a decade. Any CO2 release is very bad because it simply accumulates (minus that portion absorbed by the oceans and plants, obviously), but a slow enough release of methane could effectively add almost nothing to the atmospheric level of that particular gas because it won’t hang around long enough to build up continuously.

We need to recognize that scientists, in being extremely conservative, are doing exactly what we need and want them to do. They’re not jumping on the doomer bandwagon, and they’re calling for more work to give us a better view of what’s going on up there. But scientists don’t wave a magic wand and make funding appear on demand. They need grants from governments and private organizations, and those funds are much more likely to appear if we non-scientists take a step back from the narrow view of the Pure Scientists, do a sober risk analysis of the situation, and conclude (correctly, in my opinion) that this situation has the potential to be a very big problem, and we should therefore learn as much about it as we can, as soon as possible. (This effort should also be extended to the land-resident, permafrost-based carbon, of course.) The critical detail is that we non-scientists have to do our part in pushing those entities that provide funding to make sure the needed science is done. We should not simply sit back and assume the money will appear right away, especially at a time of massive budget deficits in some countries, like the US.

In particular, it would be a very serious mistake to fall into the trap of looking for a false dichotomy and insisting one side is “right” about how to view this discovery and the other is “wrong”. That kind of knee-jerk reaction, fueled by righteous indignation on one side and an overly active sense of propriety on the other, only leads to further polarization in a very serious discussion. Different people have different roles to play, and those roles can dovetail, with the resulting synergy leading us to accurate and optimally useful-to-humanity conclusions–what’s going on in the Arctic and what, if anything, we can and should do about it–if we’re smart enough to seize that opportunity.

Or we can turn this into yet another pointless fight, this one between those of us on the same “side” of the ridiculous “debate” with the climate change deniers, and toss over the deck rail yet another chance to benefit from enlightened self-interest, even as they continue to steer us toward the nearest iceberg.

Some related links of interest:

New observations find underwater Arctic Shelf is perforated and venting methane

Arctic Methane on the Move?

The ‘Real’ Take on Methane and Warming – Dot Earth Blog – NYTimes.com