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.
https://www.real.video/5839811448001
https://www.real.video/5839824814001
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.
OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! Oh wait, we are going to...eventually....
and that is why the UN laughed so hard AT him.
He reads the teleprompter like a robot.
Way to kill yourselves off by ruining your only planet, pitiful rat-brain hoo-mans!
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.
See this: https://www.real.video/5837704566001
https://www.real.video/5837704566001
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.
Carbon dioxide is what our plants need to respire (else they'd die and we'd starve). I also grew-up surrounded by farms. The methane from the cows & the manure never caused me any harm.
- Here are the pollutants that Actually damage human lungs and deserve the label "dangerous": Nitric oxides (breaks-down to ground-level ozone), Carbon monoxide, Particulate matter (soot), and unburnt hydrocarbons (gasoline).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
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! --
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?
And what exactly is your solution genius? Would you like to pay companies to release co2 and methane?
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.
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"?
OMG. AGAIN. ENCORE.. NUKE THE LAKES. WOW. Since the beginning of time this has been happening to. Dam humans MUST be behind this horrible attack on my mother, Mother Earth. How can I kiss the dirt on my toes and feel worthy any longer?
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.
Blame Micheal Moore and Jean claude Junkers.
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"?
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
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.
I call bullshit.
Ice is up, not down at both poles, while the Arctic goes up and down a but the Antarctic only increases much to the amazement of the the alarmists. Total sea ice has never gone down and is increasing presently to the point the seas are falling while the media claims or sometimes hints they're rising. Sea level was actually never rising abnormally, it's been 33,3cm/century for about 15,000 years. The gasses are methane and food for the microflora of the new tundra. We are coming out of an ice age and of course you can find thawing bits, it's just that there's more freezing bits than thawing bits by a large margin.
Sea ice.
Screenshot of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center graph of aggregate sea ice.
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
South Sea Ice.
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
So, the claims the "ice could be gone as early as 2015" (Gore 2009) are utterly specious; this really devalues the Nobel prize in my mind or his half of it anyway which is when he said this.
Anyway, the ice melt doesn't show up any graph. So let's look at the sat imagery NASA has at the pole.
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Ok so it doesn't show up in NASA sat imagery either. What about maps?
Isn't it cool how you can get the story from a piece of the url? "arctic-sea-ice-gains-can-be-seen-on-new-government-map-of-canada"
Anyway, Canada added ice to the marine navigation maps. The US doesn't have much arctic, Greenland has more I suspect, the rest Canada and Russia have. The Russians added ice to their maps too.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...
So I dunno about this "melt" it doesn't show up maps, test instruments or sat imagery.
As I said, the sea levels are falling not rising if you believe NASA.
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Looks like sea level was pretty constant for th last 8000 years. Now seas have been falling for about 6 years. If they were supposed to rise abnormally I can't see where.
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Here's the article in Nature from a few years ago. They figured if all this methane was coming up there would be an increase in carbon in the soil but there wasn't and they wrote up why they found out why: it's food for the emergent fora and fungi. Which makes sense, the plans and carbon all frozen together, why WOULD you have one wuthoutthe other. You freaky, nature.
"Fungi pull carbon into northern forest soils Organisms living on tree roots do lion’s share of sequestering carbon
"But scientists have not understood where exactly trees put their carbon. The issue becomes important when researchers build computer simulations that track carbon cycling."
https://www.sciencenews.org/ar...
"Small 'hot spot' responsible for producing the largest concentration of the greenhouse gas methane seen over the United States"
"Nasa set to investigate unexplained hotspot over the 'four corners' intersection in Southwest
Small 'hot spot' responsible for producing the largest concentration of the greenhouse gas methane seen over the United States
Area near the Four Corners intersection of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah covers 2,500 square miles
Hotspot predates widespread fracking in the area "
Need Mercedes parts ?
and it will be gone. no more global warming narative to keep up . fucking bullshiters.
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!
...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.
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.