Russian Scientist Discovers Giant Arctic Methane Plumes

thomst writes "Russian scientist Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks revealed in an interview with The Independent that his team discovered 'powerful and impressive seeping structures (of Methane gas) more than 1,000 metres in diameter' during their survey of the Arctic Ocean earlier this year. 'I was most impressed by the sheer scale and the high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them,' Semiletov told The Independent's Steve Connor. This finding is important because methane is estimated to be 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and it could indicate that global warming is about to accelerate dramatically."

Comments

Re:Methane emissions not tied to modern warming

[nullnick]

Thats from 6th December. Is it updated with this recent news?

Re:The next question

[Joce640k]

Can these plumes be lit? Burning it would be cool (and reduce the overall greenhouse effect)

Why do scientists make these statements?

[Zondar]

""The concentration of atmospheric methane increased unto three times in the past two centuries from 0.7 parts per million to 1.7ppm, and in the Arctic to 1.9ppm. That's a huge increase, between two and three times,"

I'm OK with her statement, until this:

"...and this has never happened in the history of the planet," she added.

So there's data for the last 4+ BILLION years with 10-50 year precision so that over a 100-200 year timespan, she can measure the slope of the line (rate in rise over the run of time) precisely enough to say that the slope of the line over the last 200 years is steeper than it has been in any other 200 year period in the last 4 billion years? Sorry, but I find that hard to believe.

Re:Why do scientists make these statements?

[sjwt]

Looks like a rather natural cycle, with about a 100k period, with our current high period being an extended one, but it goes back almost 15 thousand years, and yes their are higher peeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

Re:Why do scientists make these statements?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a scientist, I'd say don't believe anything a scientist says to a journalist. Journalists can wrap most of us round their little fingers in a phone interview.

Re:Why do scientists make these statements?

[TheRaven64]

I'd believe most of what a scientist says to a journalist. I have more of a problem believing things that a journalist hears from a scientist...

Re:Why do scientists make these statements?

[hairyfeet]

You ever see a bronto buddy? That's one big assed cow right there. you don't think having plant eaters the size of buildings didn't create some major stinkies? I bet that whole era smelt worse than the bean eating scene in Blazing Saddles!

As for TFA? Burn it, either capture and burn or just light it, since either method would be a net win on greenhouse effect and we are already developing plenty of ways to deal with carbon. you can store it, bury it, even feed it to algae and make fuel out of it, but methane is worse than carbon. The best method of course would be to burn it for electricity, if done right we could feed the carbon output to algae and then use it again to power vehicles but being in the arctic it may not be cost effective. better to get rid of it one way or another than let it go.

Re:The next question

[Joce640k]

The momentary heat would be nothing compared to having all that methane around for the next hundred years.

when did it start?

[argStyopa]

Nothing I see in that article suggests that this is a new phenomenon...aside from the hyperbolic statements of the scientists.

The author is astonishingly remiss in not asking the obvious question: did this just start? It could be that such methane plumes have existed forever, we just never detected them. This is the EIGHTH such cruise/survey. They should be able to conclusively say "we checked this area in at least one or two previous instances and such seeps weren't observed", no?

It seems logical that there must have been plumes like this for a while, to prompt (and justify) such a large-scale survey.

Yet both the scientists and article author seem to gloss over the fact that "never seen before" != "never happened before".

Re:when did it start?

[wytcld]

Plumes have been seen before. This has been reported in other articles on this. However the plumes seen before were neither so large nor grouped so closely together.

Your painting the scientists as "hyperbolic" speakers establishes, what, that you know a big word and can use it correctly in a sentence? This should cause us to see you as smarter than research scientists with advanced degrees and many years of expeditions to gather evidence? Trust me, they have a far larger vocabulary than you do. Yet you are the one speaking hyperbolically. Now, what drives you to that?

It's not as if the waters where these were found were terra incognito - or mare incognito - the arctic has been peopled for thousands of years, particularly by the Russians, which is how they came to possess not just Siberia but Alaska. So when a Russian, in particular, says the like has not been seen before, that's someone reporting from a culture which has a good historical knowledge of what's been there to be seen. Sort of like getting a report on the normalcy or not of current tornadoes from someone with deep roots in Oklahoma.

Re:when did it start?

[thomst]

Nothing I see in that article suggests that this is a new phenomenon...aside from the hyperbolic statements of the scientists.

The author is astonishingly remiss in not asking the obvious question: did this just start? It could be that such methane plumes have existed forever, we just never detected them. This is the EIGHTH such cruise/survey. They should be able to conclusively say "we checked this area in at least one or two previous instances and such seeps weren't observed", no?

It seems logical that there must have been plumes like this for a while, to prompt (and justify) such a large-scale survey.

Yet both the scientists and article author seem to gloss over the fact that "never seen before" != "never happened before".

In fact, Igor Semiletov's team has been conducting this survey annually for some time now. From the article:

The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.

And they have seen this phenomenon in prior years - just not on anything like the scale of methane release they observed this year. Again, from the article:

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said.

Don't blame the scientist. Don't blame the journalist. Blame the reader, for not reading the story.

Re:when did it start?

[c0lo]

Nothing I see in that article suggests that this is a new phenomenon...aside from the hyperbolic statements of the scientists.

Hmmmm... TFA...

The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.

In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who led the 8th joint US-Russia cruise of the East Siberian Arctic seas, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said.

So, 20 years of beating around the Arctics and seeing seepings of 10s m in diameter and, unlucky them, it is only recently that they found the larger ones... What are the chances? I mean, pretty hard luck to miss something that large and find only the smaller ones for 20 years... I wonder why the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks keeps such unlucky researchers on its payroll?

Re:Opportunities?

[ColdWetDog]

Perhaps (crazy talk around here, I know) the free market might be able to do something about this now apparently abundant resource?

Natural gas (methane and others) is currently being flared off hundreds of drilling rigs because it's not 'economical' (ie, the free market can't figure out how to do it). Now, that is in a place with drilling rigs and other infrastructure and "all" they need to do is collect the stuff, stick it in a pipe and send it to market.

At current natural gas prices, it's a no-go.

Now, lets take a diffuse, dilute methane torch, perhaps 20 meters in diameter. This particular deposit, like the others found, is in Northern Siberia, and in fact, off the coast of Northern Siberia. A place not noted for high concentrations of industrial infrastructure. So, you have to drag everything needed to collect and process the gas to the middle of nowhere. That's rather expensive.

Nope, your happy little 'free market' isn't going to solve this particular problem.