[Mb-civic] The Big Burp Theory of the Apocalypse By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

[Michael Butler]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

April 18, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Big Burp Theory of the Apocalypse
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

It's a dark and stormy night, and deep within the ocean the muddy bottom
begins to stir.

Giant squids flee in horror as reservoirs of methane frozen at the bottom of
the ocean begin to thaw, releasing bubbles that rise to the surface. Soon
the ocean surface is churning and burping gas like a billion overfed
infants, transforming the composition of our atmosphere.

That's a scene from a new horror movie I'm envisioning, called "Killer
Ocean." I'm hoping it might play in the White House and Congress, because it
depicts one of the more bizarre and frightening ways in which global warming
could devastate our planet ‹ what scientists have dubbed the "methane burp."

Since President Bush is complacent about conventional risks from climate
change, such as the prospect that those of us in Manhattan will end up
knee-deep in the Atlantic, let's try fear-mongering.

Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 20 times more powerful than carbon
dioxide. And thousands of gigatons of methane, equivalent to the total
amount of coal in the world, lie deep within the oceans in the form of
ice-like solids called methane hydrates.

The big question is whether global warming ‹ temperatures have risen about
one degree Fahrenheit over the last 30 years ‹ will thaw some of these
methane hydrates. If so, the methane might be released as a gargantuan
oceanic burp. Once in the atmosphere, that methane would accelerate the
greenhouse effect and warm the earth and raise sea levels even more.

"The juiciest disaster-movie scenario would be a release of enough methane
to significantly change the atmospheric concentration," suggests the
excellent discussion of methane hydrates by scholars at www.realclimate.org.

One reason for concern about a methane hydrate apocalypse is that something
like it may have happened several times in the past. For example, 251
million years ago, there was a catastrophe known as the Permian extinction
that came close to wiping out life on earth.

Nobody is sure what caused the Permian extinction, but one theory is that it
was methane burps.

And as long as I'm fear-mongering, there was also a better understood
warming 55 million years ago, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum,
or PETM. That was a period when temperatures shot up by 10 degrees
Fahrenheit in the tropics and by about 15 degrees in polar areas, and many
scientists think it was caused by the melting of methane hydrates.

"The PETM event 55 million years ago is probably the most likely example of
their impact, though there are smaller events dotted through the record,"
says Gavin Schmidt, a NASA expert on climate change. He emphasizes the
uncertainties, but adds that since we are likely to enter a climate that
hasn't been seen for a few million years, it's reasonable to worry about
methane hydrates.

To be sure, some experts are skeptical. Daniel Schrag, a geochemist at
Harvard, doubts that methane hydrates were the culprit 55 million years ago.
For starters, he says, the theory doesn't offer a good explanation of the
initial change that melted the methane hydrates.

For all the uncertainty, there is an important point here: The history of
climate shows that it does not evolve slowly and gracefully, it lurches.
There are tipping points, and if we trigger certain chain reactions, then
our leaders cannot claim a mulligan. They could set back our planet for,
say, 10 million years.

The White House has used scientific uncertainty as an excuse for its
paralysis. But our leaders are supposed to devise policies to protect us
even from threats that are difficult to assess precisely ‹ and climate
change should be considered even more menacing than a nuclear-armed Iran.

Moreover, uncertainty cuts both ways. The best guess of climate experts is
that the seas will rise by two feet by 2100, but if the West Antarctic Ice
Sheet were to melt, then that alone would raise the seas by 20 feet.

Frankly, it's the well-known risks of rising temperatures and sea levels ‹
more than worry about a cataclysmic methane burp ‹ that should drive us to
curb carbon emissions.

But our political system doesn't seem able to grapple with scientific issues
like climate. Our only hope for firm action would be a major U.S.-led global
initiative to curb carbon, and the Bush administration has already dropped
the ball on that.

The best reason for action on global warming remains the basic imperative to
safeguard our planet in the face of uncertainty, and our leaders are failing
wretchedly in that responsibility. If we need an apocalypse to concentrate
our minds, then just imagine our descendants sitting on the top of Mount
Ararat beside their ark, cursing us for triggering a methane burp.


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company