Strong Methane Emissions On the Siberian Shelf 582
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."
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:Hollow Men (Score:5, Interesting)
Could this explode? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hollow Men (Score:2, Interesting)
humanity dies from a giant fart. I seriously didn't see it coming.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:yes and no (Score:3, Interesting)
CO2 also is already providing the maximum greenhouse effect it can. It reflects/absorbs only a pair of infrared wavelengths and the current density of CO2 in the atmosphere is already catching pretty much all of the solar energy radiated through these bands. Sorry I don't have a link handy.
Possible Explanation for 1908 Tunguska Blast (Score:2, Interesting)
The event still remains an unsolved mystery, despite many theories put forward to explain it.
One of the possible explanations is that it was caused by high concentrations of methane accumulated from the crust, followed by explosive combustion.
Re:Well (Score:3, Interesting)
The peg was removed back in 2005. I wouldn't put my own savings into the RMB/Yuan anyway, because the Chinese have invested massively in the very same failing securities that are bankrupting everyone left and right. They hold, for example, over 300 billions $ worth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and I suspect this is the prime reason for their bailouts: the Feds don't want China to register heavy losses so they don't liquidate their $ assets.
Somehow this is a bit comparable to how the Fed kept inflating during 1925-1928 to keep the Sterling Pound afloat... which brought us the 1929 recession and stock krach.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Re:not the warmest temps (Score:3, Interesting)
the warming trend peaked in the 1930's
Your link fails to make clear that the records it mentions are for the USA only, the global peak for that data set remained 1998.
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].
Re:not the warmest temps (Score:1, Interesting)
Permafrost on the Sea Floor? (Score:2, Interesting)
"...buried under the sea floor before the last ice age, breaking up as higher water temperatures melt the permafrost that had contained it..."
What am I missing?
Re:Hollow Men (Score:3, Interesting)
You are correct, there is no edge or limit. However there it seems pretty likely we will see a negative correlation of quality of life with population - if we aren't already seeing it now.
What good is a population of 20 billion on the planet if everyone is packed into endless cities? If you value open spaces, good food, clean air, nice beaches, hiking trails not packed wall-to-wall with people, wild areas with an actual range of wild animals and so forth then you probably would like to see some limits to grow of human population.
Carrying capacity and technological advances are irrelevant.
My vision of the world as inherited by my kids and their kids is not a Coruscant city planet. In my opinion 6.5 billion may already be too much. Is it technically feasible to get all 6.5 billion of us up to a quality of life matching the US middle class (which is arguably not asking much)?
Re:Hollow Men (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm, is your post genuine or troll? Anyhow, maybe there is a good way around that difference in opinion. Since a simulated reality is all you want it seems that you would be quite happy with the Matrix like warehouse of bodies plugged into the simulator.
So, those of us who value reality can have the surface of the planet and for those happy with simulated reality there will be mile after mile of underground warehouses for you to live your simulated lives.
Since your taste and smell inputs are simulated we can probably extract enough nutrients from our sewage to keep the lot of you alive and happy. I'd say we have a win-win.