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...
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
See you on the next planet. Oh wait...
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.
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! --
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.
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"?
CO2 is not the top planet-warming greenhouse gas, sweety, neither in abundance nor potency.
But it's a champ when it comes to *longevity*, sugar pie.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What crisis? Atmospheric water levels aren't changing.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
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.
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