Slashdot Log In
Strong Methane Emissions On the Siberian Shelf
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:05 PM
from the carbon-dioxide-times-twenty dept.
from the carbon-dioxide-times-twenty dept.
rrohbeck writes "The Independent reports brand-new results of high concentrations of methane — 100x normal — above the sea surface over the Siberian continental shelf. A large number of methane plumes have been discovered bubbling up from the sea floor. This is probably due to methane clathrate, buried under the sea floor before the last ice age, breaking up as higher water temperatures melt the permafrost that had contained it."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hollow Men (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hollow Men (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Hollow Men (Score:5, Informative)
> On the bright side, we might get to test this theory.
Wait. We might have the world's biggest fart on our hands, and your "bright side" is that we get to "test" (smell?) it? 0_o
Methane is odorless. Farts only contain up to about 10% methane. And before you ask: the methane produced by ruminant livestock usually is exhaled or "burped", not farted. Any more Urban Warming Myths?
Parent
Re:Hollow Men (Score:4, Funny)
This dinosaur's last gas(p).
Parent
Mass extinction at end of Permian (Score:5, Informative)
The mass extinction at the end of the Permian has been attributed to numerous causes. One of the prime theories also has to do with rapid release of methyl hydrates from ocean-floor clathrates.
The theory goes along the lines that oceanic overturning (exchange of bottom waters with surface waters) was limited in the Permian (even after the end of the Permo-Carboniferous glacial period), allowing accumulation of clathrates in oceanic sediments. However, overturning increased in the late Permian due to changes in oceanic circulation. This is conjectured to have caused massive releases of methane from methyl hydrates, with consequent large rapid swings in climate on land and in sea.
The evidence is not conclusive, but is strong. Most of it is derived from studies of marine fossils and isotope ratios. Discussion of the evidence and assessment of this and other theories for the extinction may be found, for example, in:
D.H. Erwin, The Great Paleozoic Crisis: Life and Death in the Permian, Columbia University Press, New York NY, 1993. ISBN:0715301306.
Of course, oceanic overturning is much stronger in the modern world, with deepwater formation especially strong in the North Atlantic and at the margins of Antarctica. This suggests the potential for clathrate release is probably rather less than it was in the late Permian, but not necessarily negligible. Another conjectured effect of global warming is slowing of oceanic overturning
The degree to which evidence supports these conjectures regarding ancient disruptions to climate is open to interpretation.
Parent
Re:Mass extinction at end of Permian (Score:4, Interesting)
There is recent evidence that methane clathrate destabilization alone couldn't have caused the PETM, because that scenario doesn't agree with paleo-reconstructions of the ocean lysocline [wikipedia.org]. See Panchuk et al., Geology 36, 315 (2008) [geoscienceworld.org].
Parent
Re:Hollow Men (Score:5, Interesting)
Eh. While it isn't good, remember this is one of the cooler portions of Earth's history, and we are technically still in an iceage. So it can get quite a bit hotter and life will still be sound.
Sure our civilization might not like it but life will go on.
We've got a long way to go before the run-away venusian greenhouse effects are seen. Still that doesn't mean we should do nothing.
Parent
Re:Hollow Men (Score:4, Interesting)
So it can get quite a bit hotter and life will still be sound.
An important aspect of the problem is the speed at which warming is occurring, not just the overall temperature change. The faster the increase, the more difficult it is for life to adapt. And the rate at which change is happening is unprecedented.
Parent
Unprecedented? (Score:5, Interesting)
And the rate at which change is happening is unprecedented.
I'm not really arguing with you, but 'unprecedented' is relative what slice of time you look at and who's graph you pay attention to.
If you look at temperature records provided by proxy sources (ice cores, tree rings etc...) over hundreds of thousands of years - on many of the graphs you'll find - it's pretty clear that the last millennium has been nothing unusual.
If you look short term though, (past few hundred years) it looks pretty damning.
Parent
Re:Hollow Men (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, we are in an "ice age", technically speaking. That's geologically defined to be when there are still large continental ice sheets in both hemispheres, such as Greenland and Antarctica. What we are in right now is an "interglacial" part of an ice age, a period when the ice sheets are not as large as they are in a full glacial period. See Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Parent
Re:Hollow Men (Score:4, Insightful)
So it can get quite a bit hotter and life will still be sound.
Sure our civilization might not like it but life will go on.
Sure, I don't see many people denying it. But what will it do to our economy?
Never mind the economy, what will it do for the survival prospects of 6.7 billion people?
As a species, we are appropriating the majority of earth's productive capacity for our own survival. There are already numerous regions that are ecologically stressed (i.e. they have been pushed basically to the limit of their ecological carrying capacity). A reduction in global carrying capacity, even of just 10 or 20%, is not good news for our species. Look at the lives of people living in ecologically marginal lands - they are not worried about the economy, they are worried about the fact they have to walk 5km one way to get drinking water. They are worried about the fact that food insecurity is driving a societal breakdown. That's the future that's in store for billions more if (when) a climate change crisis really starts to kick in.
To respond to the GP - Earth will do just fine if humanity disappears. Life will indeed go on.
Parent
Re:Hollow Men (Score:5, Funny)
"Pull My Finger!"
--Earth
Parent
Re:Hollow Men (Score:5, Funny)
One could, i suppose, call it silent but deadly.
Parent
Don't worry about global warming (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually humanity dies from lighting the fart. Consider what Professor Gregory Ryskin wrote [stanford.edu]:
"The consequences of a methane-driven oceanic eruption for marine and terrestrial life are likely to be catastrophic. Figuratively speaking, the erupting region "boils over," ejecting a large amount of methane and other gases (e.g., CO2, H2S) into the atmosphere, and flooding large areas of land. Whereas pure methane is lighter than air, methane loaded with water droplets is much heavier, and thus spreads over the land, mixing with air in the process (and losing water as rain). The air-methane mixture is explosive at methane concentrations between 5% and 15%; as such mixtures form in different locations near the ground and are ignited by lightning, explosions and conflagrations destroy most of the terrestrial life, and also produce great amounts of smoke and of carbon dioxide. Firestorms carry smoke and dust into the upper atmosphere, where they may remain for several years; the resulting darkness and global cooling may provide an additional kill mechanism. Conversely, carbon dioxide and the remaining methane create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming. The outcome of the competition between the cooling and the warming tendencies is difficult to predict."
You can see there's no real need to worry about global warming. If the "explosions and conflagrations" don't get you, the smoke and dust might cause global cooling. Or global warming, it could go either way. But the methane explosions are predicted to be the biggest killer.
Parent
Re:Don't worry about global warming (Score:5, Funny)
I feel so much better about my 401K.
Parent
Re:Don't worry about global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Don't worry about global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right in principle. However, the financial system is make-believe because it ignores the real cost of items. The cost of a tree is not just the cost of harvesting the tree, it is also the cost of not having the tree anymore--increased CO_2 in the air ((a) not sequestered by the tree and (b) produced by fossil-fuel--burning logging equipment), loss of topsoil due to erosion, loss of intangibles that are hard to put financial value on, like beauty... Gasoline ought to cost the full clean-up cost of the air that is destroyed (not just the oxygen consumed, but the cost of getting all the toxins, carcinogens, and whatnot out of the ground and air), etc. So yes, capitalism would be great--IF it accurately accounted for the real costs of things.
But these costs have only become apparent recently. When capitalism was invented a few thousand years ago, the cost of not having a tree anymore was irrelevant because there were so many trees (well, sort of--even back then they ran into numerous problems, but the problems were quite local). Now that there are 7e9 people in the world, everything is done on such a massive scale that even small per-capita incremental costs add up to, frankly, global ecological disaster. And our financial systems haven't caught up. Whether we can make them do so in time is up in the air. Pun intended.
So yes, capitalism is wonderful in theory, but as implemented, is make-believe.
Parent
Re:Don't worry about global warming (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Don't worry about global warming (Score:4, Interesting)
How much methane would need to be released to create mixtures of between 5 and 15%? That's a hell of a lot of methane. Would the air even still be easily breathable at those concentrations?
Parent
Re:Don't worry about global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
Ryskin is talking about methane being loaded with water droplets, since it came from the ocean. He says that the water makes humid methane heavier than air. That makes the methane pool up on the surface of the land. Since it's pools of humid methane, it could easily get into the range 5-15% if there is enough methane coming out of the ocean.
You would be able to breathe that air pretty easily. Methane doesn't smell, and is non-toxic. You would probably be able to smell other gases coming out of the ocean, like hydrogen sulphide. It would only kill you by suffocation in an area where the methane displaced most of the oxygen, so there wasn't enough oxygen to breathe. And if there's enough oxygen for you to breathe, there's enough to explode with the methane, if there's a spark or fire.
So, how much methane is in the ocean?
Parent
Smoking (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Is it recoverable? (Score:4, Interesting)
Could this be used to drive electric plants? Is it recoverable? Anyone have a match? A really fucking big match?
Re:Is it recoverable? (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt it. I saw a special on the discovery channel about this stuff once, and they basically said it is so diffuse and spread out on the ocean floor that there is no economic way to recover it. And I doubt it is concentrated enough to achieve ignition in open air.
Parent
Well (Score:5, Funny)
We're advising all our customers to put everything they have into canned foods and shotguns.
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
My PC doesn't fit in canned food. It doesn't run as well, either.
Parent
Ob. Monty Python (Score:5, Funny)
"I fart in your general direction!"
Love,
Siberian Shelf
Plumes of methane (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, the Russian Navy announced a successful test of a submarine powered by a brand new propulsion system. The exact details are still classified, but sources claim there is a mysterious link between it and a new food and beverage contract awarded by the Navy to Taco Bell
People have been expecting these Methane clouds (Score:5, Informative)
People have been expecting these Methane clouds:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j3U0vEk53bVXHIcGUqqO64rvDAUg [google.com]
"Melting of methane ice unleashed runaway global warming some 635 million years ago, according to a study released Wednesday that has implications for today's climate-change crisis.
Release of the potent greenhouse-gas, at first in small amounts and then in massive volumes, brought a sudden end to the planet's longest Ice Age, its authors believe.
During the "Snowball Earth" era, Earth froze over completely, with glaciers that crept down into the tropics and possibly even reached the equator."
The Hives: Hate to Say I told You So:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsm2hSKkH7E [youtube.com]
Re:People have been expecting these Methane clouds (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, by "sudden" they mean "a mere million years".
Parent
Ob. Russia (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia... the outdoors farts on you.
Methane prime suspect for greatest mass extinction (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2088 [newscientist.com]
"The release of massive clouds of methane from icy hydrates buried under shallow ocean floors is the leading suspect for the most devastating extinction in the fossil record, according to a new analysis.
Methane best matches the unusual carbon-isotope fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, says Robert Berner of Yale University in Connecticut, US, though it cannot explain atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the time.
Berner says: "It's possible that you could have a combination" of effects causing the mass extinction that ended the Permian period, 250 million years ago. The event wiped out the vast majority of marine species and left Europe a near-desert."
Oh shi...
What a surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Methane currently makes up 0.00017% of the atmosphere. That means these very localised 100x concentrations have 0.017% methane. This would mean if this concentration was worldwide, it would be approx 10x worse than the CO2 in the atmosphere. EVERYBODY PANIC.
However these are concentrations close to the surface over a very localised area. Permafrost makes up 25% of the earths surface, so that means on average this methane will now be of concentration to be 2.5x worse than the CO2. Still pretty bad.
However there are other factors, not mentioned. It's safe to assume 100x was the worst they found, not the typical (afterall makes for the best headlines), what was the average reading? How far above the surface was the reading taken? How does the concentration diffuse as you take readings higher up?
The article also neglects to mention that Methane breaks down after about 12 years (compared to 50-100 for Co2) and there's plenty of bacteria that break it down. Whilst this may cause levels to spike, once the vents in the exposed area are spent, it won't take long for levels to stabalise again.
Methane is worse than Co2 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
yes and no (Score:4, Interesting)
Methane has an atmospheric half-life of about 7 years (turning into CO2 and water), fairly independent of any biosphere.
CO2 has an atmospheric half-life of somewhere between 50-100 years, with some nasty feedback (more CO2 = higher temperatures = longer half life).
So, per-volume, methane is worse, but what's gonna get us is the CO2 because that hangs around much longer and has the positive feedback.
Parent
Re:yes and no (Score:5, Informative)
Normally the relative greenhouse strength is corrected for a 100-year period (ie the shorter half life is already accounted for in the 27x number; I haven't checked the number, though).
It sounds like methane does have a feedback loop -- methane causes warming releases more methane. Sure, there's a limited amount down there, but it's a rather large amount. We'd really rather it stay put.
Not saying the CO2 isn't bad... but there's no shortage of other effects to go with it.
Parent
Re:yes and no (Score:5, Informative)
Where do you people come up with this sort of nonsense?
Here's the projected relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature increase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IPCC_AR4_WGIII_GHG_concentration_stabilization_levels.png [wikipedia.org]
Notice how it keeps going up?
That's assuming we don't hit some kind of positive feedback loop.
Parent
Re:yes and no (Score:4, Funny)
You're referring, of course, to that noted climatologist, Rush Limbaugh?
-Mike
Parent
Re:Speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Um.. what? You do know that the depths of the ocean tend to be very cold, right? Or are you suggesting that somehow the crust is thinning beneath the methane deposits and warming them, but at the same time there are no seismic events tied to this phenomenon, even though it is happening across a very large geographic region? Or are you just talking out your ass?
Parent
Re:Speculation (Score:5, Funny)
Pun certainly not intended, I'm sure.
Parent
Re:Get it while it's hot! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Siberia: crazy liberal myth or FACT? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Siberia: crazy liberal myth or FACT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Siberia: crazy liberal myth or FACT? (Score:4, Insightful)
The current Rehabilitating Mr Wiggles [mrwiggleslovesyou.com] answers this question: because it's kind of a dick thing to do.
Seriously though, if everyone went around killing each other whenever it suited them, you'd always be in danger of being killed yourself. There's very compelling reasons for a society to collectively agree that killing each other is a bad thing and that it won't be tolerated. No need for a fear of divine retribution.
Parent
why is it "wrong" to kill someone (Score:4, Insightful)
It does touch on a point I've wondered about: religion seems to be the foundation of much of our societal moral code. Without the framework of religion, why is it "wrong" to kill someone?
Reminds me of thing Nietzsche wrote about the madman in the market place, "now that we've killed God, which way is up or down?" This is known as the question of 'grounding' and is the subject of much debate in the study of ethics.
Religion does provide one ground. It is perhaps most effective because it relies on blind obedience and discourages thinking. "What is wrong with murder ... easy ... God says don't do it." But other grounds, more suitable to thinking creatures do exist. Kant's categorical imperative, for example, "Want to live in a world where every person tries kill every other? No? Then don't kill."
Putting aside the question of grounding, it is my contention that a Christian cannot appreciate the true gravity of murder in the way an atheist can. Christians have convinced themselves in the existence of an afterlife. For them killing a human is merely removing them from this world (the less important world). An atheist on the other hand realises that killing a human being is the snuffing out of an individual and unique consciousness for all time. A consciousness which longs for existence, just as much as our own does. It is this moral consideration which stops the atheist killing. Theists instead act only in obedience to their God motivated by ultimate personal reward. You might go even further and state that whereas atheists can truly be moral creatures, theists can't.
Parent
Re:Siberia: crazy liberal myth or FACT? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the difference in interpretation of exactly what "murder" is that determines the destructive societies from the constructive ones.
Funny thing is that Islam has an even stronger moral code against killing innocents than Christianity, yet they are the ones which have the least problem with targeting purely civilian populations.
Perhaps this goes to show that it's not necessarily what your holy book says literally, it depends on who your contemporary religious leaders are.
Parent
Re:Could this explode? (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, there are very few lightning events over the ocean compared to over terra firma, but they do occur, especially when you are trying to save important objects.
Parent
Re:Own up (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:not the warmest temps (Score:5, Informative)
It's called thermal inertia, however your question is still interesting.
I have followed the IPCC for many years and one of their biggest failures in accuracy has been what is sometimes called the "missing methane" problem. The 1997 IPPC report (and those that followed) predicted methane would keep rising but the follow up observations have (until now) shown the trend to be flat for the last 10yrs or so.
In otherwords the question is not why has it started rising again but rather why did it take an unexpected break for a decade?
BTW: I find it odd that the psuedo-skeptics have not lept on the missing methane issue as a way to discredit the IPCC, surely that would be more plausable than denying the North Pole is disintergrating, but that's politics for ya!
Parent
Re:not the warmest temps (Score:5, Informative)
>>BTW: I find it odd that the psuedo-skeptics have not lept on the missing methane issue as a way to discredit the IPCC
I think the IPCC has done a good enough job discrediting themselves, with their predictions historically overstating global warming:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001317verification_of_1990.html [colorado.edu]
Parent
Re:not the warmest temps (Score:5, Interesting)
"It's called thermal inertia"
No, it's really not, at least in this case.
From the article:
"It is likely that methane emissions off Svalbard have been continuous for about 15,000 years - since the last ice age - but as yet no one knows whether recent climactic shifts in the Arctic have begun to accelerate them to a point where they could in themselves exacerbate climate change, he said."
In other words, no, anthropogenic climate change doesn't seem to have a real link to this.
The "missing methane" problem is still there. Despite this (and other) clathrate/methane releases, actual MEASURED methane in the atmosphere isn't anywhere near high enough to make up the difference in the IPCC's predictions.
Clathrates at this sort of depth are more pressure-sensitive than temperature-sensitive, and according to the IPCC and others, the oceans are supposed to get deeper as the ice caps melt. So they have to choose one or the other scenario - they can't have both.
Parent