Slashdot Mirror
Across The Arctic, Lakes Are Leaking Dangerous Greenhouse Gases (ndtv.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Set against the austere peaks of the Western Brooks Range, the lake, about 20 football fields in size, looked like it was boiling. Its waters hissed, bubbled and popped as a powerful greenhouse gas escaped from the lake bed. Some bubbles grew as big as grapefruits, visibly lifting the water's surface several inches and carrying up bits of mud from below. This was methane. As the permafrost thaws across the fast-warming Arctic, it releases carbon dioxide, the top planet-warming greenhouse gas, from the soil into the air. Sometimes, that thaw spurs the growth of lakes in the soft, sunken ground, and these deep-thawing bodies of water tend to unleash the harder-hitting methane gas. But not this much of it. This lake, which Katey Walter Anthony, an ecologist who has studied 300 lakes across the tundras of the Arctic, dubbed Esieh Lake, looked different. And the volume of gas wafting from it could deliver the climate system another blow if lakes like this turn out to be widespread.
The first time Walter Anthony saw Esieh Lake, she was afraid it might explode -- and she is no stranger to the danger, or the theatrics, of methane. In 2010, the University of Alaska at Fairbanks posted a video of the media-savvy ecologist standing on the frozen surface of an Arctic lake, then lighting a methane stream on fire to create a tower of flame as tall as she is. It got nearly half a million views on YouTube. So now, in the Arctic's August warmth, she had come back to this isolated spot with a small research team, along with her husband and two young sons, to see what secrets Esieh Lake might yield. Was it simply a bizarre anomaly? Or was it a sign that the thawing Arctic had begun to release an ancient source of methane that could worsen climate change? One thing she was sure of: If the warming Arctic releases more planet-warming methane, that could lead to... more warming. Scientists call this a feedback loop.
The first time Walter Anthony saw Esieh Lake, she was afraid it might explode -- and she is no stranger to the danger, or the theatrics, of methane. In 2010, the University of Alaska at Fairbanks posted a video of the media-savvy ecologist standing on the frozen surface of an Arctic lake, then lighting a methane stream on fire to create a tower of flame as tall as she is. It got nearly half a million views on YouTube. So now, in the Arctic's August warmth, she had come back to this isolated spot with a small research team, along with her husband and two young sons, to see what secrets Esieh Lake might yield. Was it simply a bizarre anomaly? Or was it a sign that the thawing Arctic had begun to release an ancient source of methane that could worsen climate change? One thing she was sure of: If the warming Arctic releases more planet-warming methane, that could lead to... more warming. Scientists call this a feedback loop.
The global warming properties of natural methane are much higher than the properties of carbon dioxide after it is burnt.
https://www.britannica.com/sci...
Sit back and enjoy the show, ladies. You've committed to this outcome now.
Scientists have been saying for a long time that a warming biosphere would mean increased emissions of CO2 and CH4 from (no longer) permafrost regions and (in the case of CH4) underwater clathrates. The big debate has always been just how much would be emitted -- enough to accelerate climate change by a significant amount? Looking at the amount of carbon in permafrost, the potential is there for immense releases and a big increase in warming if even a tiny portion of the gas is CH4. But it's not at all clear how quickly these deposits will be set free. Real world observations, modeling, paleo studies all play a part, but a definitive answer, even assuming a trajectory for anthro GHG emissions is very difficult.
This is a very worrisome situation simply because we don't know what it will mean in the near future. We're probably not headed for a "methane apocalypse", but it doesn't have to be cartoonishly bad to make dealing with our climate mess much harder than it already is.
She was afraid that the lake might explode, yet she went on it and lit the methane. They don't make scientists like they used to.
Check out the following article regarding the subject and the source of the methane:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
>As the permafrost thaws across the fast-warming Arctic, it releases carbon dioxide, the top planet-warming greenhouse gas, from the soil into the air. Sometimes, that thaw spurs the growth of lakes in the soft, sunken ground, and these deep-thawing bodies of water tend to unleash the harder-hitting methane gas.
CO2 is not the top planet-warming greenhouse gas, sweety, neither in abundance nor potency.
Waiting here to see how long it will take the state government of California to realize this would be a great excuse to double everyone's taxes.
And everywhere no one cares
The fire is spreading
And no one wants to speak about it
See you on the next planet. Oh wait...
We should tax these lakes until they stop.
Hey Einstein, they didn't mean "dangerous to humans greenhouse gases".
#DeleteFacebook
Wrong. Carbon Dioxide, and methane, along with DiHydrogen Monoxide are some of the most deadly substances that are commonly found in the modern biosphere. Co2 and methane are both greenhouse gases that raise the temperature of the planets surface which will make it uninhabitable, because life cannot survive when the temperature goes up 3 degrees C.
The carbon dioxide that comes out of cars that pass me by does me no harm either.
A gas does not need to be of immediate danger in low levels you encounter to be of significant danger to the planet. The problem isn't the methane around farms but the total amount of methane produced by cows and thawing permafrost. All of that methane and carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere on a global scale.
Imagine, if you will, what would happen if the farms you were around were all in a closed space and no fresh air came in. What would happen to the level of methane in that space? For how long would it be safe to stay in that space?
Check your Wikipedia, water vapor is the main greenhouse gss on the earth.
Water 36-72%
CO2 9-26%
CH4 4-9%
Note the large uncertainties.
Methane is present in the 1ppm range where as CO2 is like 450ppm. Note also the IR absorption bands of methane are overlapping largely with the water absorption.
Not to worry, the half life if methane is short in the atmosphere compared to CO2, though these are still active research areas.
What scientists (and engineers) call this is a POSITIVE feedback loop, in which an action causes a reaction which then increases the level of the original action. This sort of loop is highly unstable and can lead to extreme behavior in the system. There are also negative feedback loops, in which the reaction decreases the level of the original action. This is a stable behavior, and one that is quite often designed into all sorts of systems on purpose. If warming in the arctic ends up releasing large amounts of methane gas (something that has been postulated for a long time) that could end up making many of today's estimates of how fast the climate will change look very conservative.
Her in Arkansas ponds and lakes sometimes turn over. When they do it might be a few decades before it rights itself. Basically the gross stuff on the bottom floats, and starts releasing toxic gas, which kills all the fish. It's common enough that people that fish know atleast one pond in there lifetime that has done this.
https://keetonaquatics.com/common-causes-of-fish-kills-in-your-pond-or-lake/
It's one thing to capture emissions that are already being released, but we have to rapidly stop extracting new fossil fuel reserves while we still have time.
They're also way too expensive, usually requiring oil prices around $70 or more to economically extract, while renewables like solar and wind and energy efficiency are much much much cheaper.
End all fossil fuel tax exemptions. All tax depreciation (including vehicles and equipment that uses it as a fuel). And all tax subsidies, other than those to replace fossil fuel equipment with better cheaper alternatives that don't use that.
It's all we on the West Coast (CA/OR/WA/ID/BC) can do to become efficient, but we need to stop subsidizing you slackers in other states (although TX does have some good wind and solar power).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"Carbon dioxide is what our plants need to respire (else they'd die and we'd starve)."
Sure, and us too, just not too much of it, like we currently have.
" The methane from the cows & the manure never caused me any harm."
Apparently it did some brain damage.
Who wrote this summary? It reeks of sensationalism and ignorance.
Just picking the final sentence, for example, there are many kinds of feedback loop. The author may be referring to a positive reinforcement feedback loop (the kind that leads to the phenomenon called "feedback" in audio systems). However a negative feedback loop can be introduced to control the effect - feedback can be the solution as well as the problem.
As other people have pointed out, carbon dioxide is not the worst of the greenhouse gases.
Any chance we can arrange that this author never writes another Slashdot summary?
Yes, those pollutants are dangerous to your health, and greenhouse gases won't kill us - directly. But in the quantities we've released over decades, their impact is a lot more dramatic and widespread. Even water is dangerous if you release too much too quickly, as a sibling troll post ironically alludes.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
There isn't enough evidence to support your claim.
I see, an air pollutant is only dangerous if it causes damage targeting your lungs. If it causes you to die by means of natural disaster, it is perfectly safe.
Are you sure that methane didn't do something to you?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
And what exactly is your solution genius? Would you like to pay companies to release co2 and methane?
With water vapor being the second most prevalent greenhouse gas, what are we doing to also solve this crisis?!
Need to know all sinks and sources. And the poles are changing from sinks to sources. If lucky, N.A. conveyor along with a few others come to a halt for several years and allow the poles to refreeze.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
How in God's name did you get modded 'insightful'? 'Pathetic' is more like it.
Roughly 252 million years ago, volcanoes in northern Pangaea (present day Siberia) burned through a massive underground deposit of fossil fuels, spewing massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The large amount of nickel released by the eruptions helped an ocean-dwelling microbe called Methanosarcina thrive and produce huge quantities of methane. Carbon dioxide levels in the ocean became toxic to marine life. Temperatures soared as greenhouse gas concentrations surged in the atmosphere. The result was the Permian-Triassic mass extinction, which nearly ended life on Earth. In sufficient concentrations, carbon dioxide and methane can be incredibly dangerous.
Methane does indeed break down with UV light after a few years - into CO2. So it has long-term as well as powerful short-term effects.
Water isn't a concern as a greenhouse gas because it's already in the atmosphere, and won't build up any further - it saturates and rains out.
Unless the air gets warmer, which will allow it to hold more moisture. That would trigger another positive feedback loop. We might want to watch out for that.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
What crisis? Atmospheric water levels aren't changing.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Why do green houses pump CO2 up to 1000ppm for maximum growth? Answer: Because plants can use water more efficiently with increased CO2 concentration.
Stomata: How do they work?
Yep. You certainly did.
FTA: "When the scientists examined samples of the gases, they found the chemical signature of a "geologic" origin. In other words, the methane venting from the lake seemed to be emerging not from the direct thawing of frozen Arctic soil, or permafrost, but rather from a reservoir of far older fossil fuels." So, NOT from thawing of permafrost. The summary is misleading.
That's a good point, it's like food. Just enough food, you stay slim and trim and healthy. Too much, over a long period of time, and you become obese and unhealthy. Don't take steps to turn it around and you become ever more obese until it causes significant injury or death.
So, yeah, CO2 is a lot like food.
MIT says we'd have to add around 55 deg C, minimum, to top over that positive feedback loop. I think we're probably quite safe from becoming a Venusian planet.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I've said this since the 90s. The fight was never about preventing it. It should be about mitigating whatever future damage we can.
We're going to burn everthing we can. It's in our nature.
I agree we're pretty unlikely to hit a runaway tipping-point there - the negative feedbacks currently outweigh it. But it'll still increasingly magnify the effects of our other emissions.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Were you born with shit for brains or did you have it surgically installed?
Um ?
That was really a stretch.
Thank goodness thirty something thousand scientists signed a pertition disagreeing with greenhouse gas theory, so the average Joe is no longer fooled by alarm over naturally occurring harmless gasses. Yawn.
Actually it sounds like it is inevitable, perhaps as soon as 500,000,000 years. This is due to solar induced global warming. The Sun transmutes hydrogen into helium, helium is denser then hydrogen and causes faster fusion. At least that is what is considered settled science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The dinosaurs lived through a period of global warming (no ice on the poles). So did the proto-mammals. If they can survive, we can survive.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Sit back and enjoy the show, ladies. You've committed to this outcome now.
I've said this since the 90s. The fight was never about preventing it. It should be about mitigating whatever future damage we can.
We're going to burn everthing we can. It's in our nature.
Yes and yes.
500,000,000 years is enough time to build Earth a giant space sombrero.
Well, each dinosaur had a personal Jesus riding atop their reptilian glory, unfortunately we not have the same luxury.
By the way, you said the dinosaurs came out fine?
So, tell us: On your image of the page freely available to all at https://climate.nasa.gov/vital... , why did you choose a time span of six months to argue a time span of six years?
Oh. Plus 3.2 mm a year, huh?
Average temperature increases of 3 degrees will result in many areas becoming uninhabitable.
DiHydrogen Monoxide is very safe in reasonable quantities. Co2 and Methane are fairly safe in reasonable quantities.
Excessive consumption of Dihydrogen Monoxide will make you sick and can kill you and inhalation will kill most humans in minutes.
We are developing a similar problems with Co2 and Methane. There is too much.
Also, water and air cooled nuclear tech doesn't work well when the water is 104 degrees fahrenheit.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
And having a triple cheeseburger shoved down your throat can choke you and kill you dead.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
and it will be gone. no more global warming narative to keep up . fucking bullshiters.
It's going to rain and snow more. A lot. THAT crisis.
Then we'd better get hot (ba dum ching) with some technological solutions.
Trying to shame and badger the hoi polloi (while you jet from resort to resort to do the badgering) into going stone age is NOT ever going to work. It has shown no sign of working. There is no reason to think that it can work.
Turn that energy, money, and intelligence to figuring out technological solutions to this.
How can you refer to a video of an "ecologist standing on the frozen surface of an Arctic lake, then lighting a methane stream on fire to create a tower of flame as tall as she is" and not link to it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You're welcome!
Yes we need to regulate the most dangerous and vicious dihydrogen monoxide. It is a real killer. It needs to be eliminated from the planet asap. :)
I loved that meme that went around.
We as a species will almost certainly survive. But on the level of the individual it is going to be a tough road getting there, and the longer we drag our heels, the worse the transition will be.
And something tells me that if you knew for a fact you personally would be harmed the worst along the way, you would change your tune.
...they could bottle it up and use it to power the world!
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
The GP isn't even correct. Plants respiring produce CO2. Plants creating energy via photosynthesis takes in energy. They are two separate processes.
https://sciencing.com/definition-plant-respiration-5655078.html
Through photosynthesis, plants transform sunlight into potential energy in the form of the chemical bonds of carbohydrate molecules. However, to use that stored energy to power their essential life processes – from growth and reproduction to healing damaged structures – plants must convert it into a usable form. That conversion takes place via cellular respiration, a major biochemical pathway also found in animals and other organisms.
Take in CO2, not energy, and create energy.
Check your Wikipedia, water vapor is the main greenhouse gss on the earth./quote> Yes. But CO2 cumulates, while water vapor saturates and becomes water, so it never goes above a certain level. Hint: if you see it, it's no longer water vapor.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
MIT says we'd have to add around 55 deg C, minimum, to top over that positive feedback loop. I think we're probably quite safe from becoming a Venusian planet.
Errm, that source doesn't even mention methane, and only focuses on the role of water vapor.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Why do green houses pump CO2 up to 1000ppm for maximum growth? Answer: Because plants can use water more efficiently with increased CO2 concentration.
Stomata: How do they work?
Why have farmers outside have for ages water their plants, but never given them extra CO2? Because there's usually too little water already for the CO2 levels in the atmosphere for your thery to work.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The dinosaurs lived through a period of global warming (no ice on the poles). So did the proto-mammals. If they can survive, we can survive.
Well, thermophiles can survive in a pool of boiling hot water - why don't you jump right in?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Take in CO2, not energy, and create energy.
Are you saying that photosynthesis works without light?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
So you don't dispute sea rise has been negative for about six years?
That's a start I guess.
The rest of your argument pretty much doesn't matter after that now does it? You haven't found fault with either the data or the logic here, and merely sought clarification of one part you don't understand.
So in case you don't resistant quite what what you're looking at, here goes.
Because nominal sea was was unchanged for about 8000 years, never went up, that was an error, and six years ago flipped when ice began growing again.
Perhaps I explained that badly in my post. Please allow me to try again.
If you look at the longer term map you can see the sea rise for the past 8000 years was pretty constant. Then, six years ago it began falling. I did not try to make a graph like that with only six years but if you were t try the tool at nasa to get just the last 10 years it gives you this, at least it did with my browser, why don't you try it?
Now, there were spurious reports of "sea rise" in Miami but not, only 50 miles away, in the Florida Keys it was not rising. This was found out to be because Miami was sinking, as was Beijing, by about four inches a year because the silly fucks pumped all the groundwater out. You know how nature abhors a vacuum.
Here's the long history of sea rise:
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Look around 8000 years back. See that? That's the 33,3 century nominal sea rise.
That stopped a few years ago.
Now, if you look at the same time period in the NSIDC graph is ice, you'll see there's a corresponding uptick in sea ice:
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Ok? So uptick in ice, seas fall. Got that now?
Nore that carbon dioxide also flarlines 6 years ago.
Here's the stuff on the error in sea rise measurement in Miami:
Here's a picture of it:
http://geologylearn.blogspot.c...
Here's thr article in Nature about Florida.
http://www.nature.com/news/sou...
Here's the article about Beijing.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/73907...
Here's the Co2 flatline stuff:
2015 CO2 has flatlined.
13 March 2015 Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that global emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector stalled in 2014, marking the first time in 40 years in which there was a halt or reduction in emissions of the greenhouse gas that was not tied to an economic downturn.
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...
2016 CO2 flatlined for a second year in a row.
"The IEA reports that for the second year in a row, the world economy has grown while energy-related CO2 emissionsremained flat."
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
2017 CO2 emissions remain flat for a third year.
IEA finds CO2 emissions flat for third straight year even as global economy grew in 2016 17 March 2017.
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/n...
MIT Technology Review also reported the fact CO2 stopped rising as well.
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/n...
It doesn't matter what you "believe". The facts are, seas a falling, ice is growing and coe
Need Mercedes parts ?
So you don't dispute sea rise has been negative for about six years?
If he doesn't I will. So will the US National Snow and Ice Data Center you supposedly cite for that claim.
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_... - the data is still following the downward trend, even including your cherry picked one year outlier.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.