Slashdot Mirror


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."

12 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. Sorry! by nullnick · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was the dog!

    1. Re:Sorry! by flyneye · · Score: 5, Funny

      In space, no one can hear you fart, but, in the arctic no one can blame it on you.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  2. Why do scientists make these statements? by Zondar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ""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.

    1. Re:Why do scientists make these statements? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Why do scientists make these statements? by zill · · Score: 5, Informative

      with our current high period being an extended one

      "Extended"? How about "off the charts"? The current ch4 concentration is 1745 ppbv, which is almost twice the peak on that chart.

      and yes their are higher peeks

      No, there hasn't been. This planet has not seen this much CO2 or methane in the past 400,000 years according to that graph.

    3. Re:Why do scientists make these statements? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cthulhu... his farts of death! They existed 400,000 years ago.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Why do scientists make these statements? by zill · · Score: 5, Informative

      That chart only covers the ice-core data, which doesn't include the past few hundred years. Google "CO2 ppmv" and "methane ppbv" and you'll see that the current levels are off the charts. I've even graphed it out for you here. Sorry about my shitty photoshop skills.

  3. when did it start? by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:when did it start? by c0lo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  4. Re:The next question by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Informative

    That link doesn't exist.

    Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years. However it is MUCH more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, so over a 20 year period a ton of methane will cause the same amount of global warming as 72 tons of carbon dioxide. Consider that a ton of methane, burned, would produce about 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide, burning it is a valid approach to mitigating the impact on our climate.

    Setting the plumes on fire is a big silly, though. We should trap the gas and use it to displace petroleum fuels.
    =Smidge=

  5. Re:The next question by Smallpond · · Score: 5, Informative

    Great plan! We have large quantities of a gas that causes global warming. So then you burn it an end up huge amounts of extra warm and a gas that causes a bit less warming.

    methane absorbs 20 times as much IR as the water and CO2 that would result from burning it, so its probably a net win to burn it.

  6. Re:Methane emissions not tied to modern warming by aurizon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Temperate methane clathrates are deeper and stabilized by pressure in warmer water. The Arctic clathrates, as mentioned in this article, exist over huge land areas and were stabilized by temperature under permafrost and there is also a lot in the shallow of the arctic, also cold stabilized. Both the water based and tundra based clathrates are being released now. This is very ominous. Nothing we can do will prevent this - not even a total cessation of coal/oil/gas combustion - and we know how likely that is!
    Part of the methane from millions of years of vegetative rotting on tundra and shallow seas was trapped in these clathrates. Large areas of tundra are also emitting methane the same way.

    dig deeper here http://tinyurl.com/d64n5zb

    Bill