Slashdot Mirror
Strong Methane Emissions On the Siberian Shelf
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."
Could this be used to drive electric plants? Is it recoverable? Anyone have a match? A really fucking big match?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
On the bright side, we might get to test this theory. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2088
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.
Actually humanity dies from lighting the fart. Consider what Professor Gregory Ryskin wrote:
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
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. See Panchuk et al., Geology 36, 315 (2008).