'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd take the problem to Oil and Gas Exploration, not Government directly.

They have neither the resources or finances for the scale the effort would have to be done on.

Everything about you is Coulda-Woulda-Shoulda. I presume Science backs up your claims? Why even bother considering the possibilities? What exactly do you see being threatened by potential? Is it that you won't be in control? Isn't there a theory that life here in the distant past took a big hit from methane concentrations?

The clathrate gun hypothesis is the popular name given to the hypothesis that rises in sea temperatures (and/or falls in sea level) can trigger the sudden release of methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in seabeds and permafrost which, because the methane itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, leads to further temperature rise and further methane clathrate destabilization – in effect initiating a runaway process as irreversible, once started, as the firing of a gun.[1]

In its original form, the hypothesis proposed that the "clathrate gun" could cause abrupt runaway warming in a timescale less than a human lifetime,[1] and might be responsible for warming events in and at the end of the last ice age.[2] This is now thought unlikely.[3][4]

However, there is stronger evidence that runaway methane clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species became extinct 251 million years ago.[5]

Clathrate gun hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Were we building SUV's 251 Million Years ago??? Were they equipped with Air Bags?

The whole "Science" is a huge stumbling block for the Warmers. They just make an observation and then find tree rings and computer models that back up their unstated theory and presto! Consensus and Settled Science!

Imagine if medical research worked like that. Scientists proposes a new drug, whips up computer models showing its 100% safe and effective and fudges any contrary data...ahh, what a world that would be!

 

[Intense]

I don't get it. I see Opportunity and challenge.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Flapyaps have plenty to say, but not a single reputable scientist to link to back what they say. Typical.

And, dingleberries, it is real scientists that are publically stating the dangers this increase in CH4 emission represents.

 

[saveliberty]

Methane should provide good cover for Old Rocks...

Pull my finger buddy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Gotta love what stupid bastards you guys are. A year ago, when the first plumes were observed, only tens of meters across, and not that many, all of you stated nothing to worry about, probably normal. Now, in only a years time, we see an outgassing that is an order of magnitude or two greater than last year. And real scientists, not internet posters, are telling us that this is a major worry.

In fact, one of the statements goes like this. "The Arctic has been said to be the canary of climate change. Well, folks, the canary just died". But, not to worry, nothing is going to be done, and we are going to be able to observe the effects of adrupt climate change. Going to be very interesting.

Here's an intersting addendum. Seems the scientists involved were a lot more honest about the causes of the plumes. Something the doomsayers forgot to mention.

"We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change.

In fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years ago.

We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone. And like most scientists in our field, we have to deal with slowly improving understanding of ongoing processes that often incorporates different points of views expressed by different groups of researchers."


Andrew Revkin actually wanted to clarify this and he reported it when others of the cult did not.

I wonder why?????

Honesty is something you are incapable of, Walleyes. The Spitzbergen plumes did not break surface and vent CH4 directly into the atmosphere as these massive plumes are doing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Methane should provide good cover for Old Rocks...

Pull my finger buddy.

Ah yes, the best and only reply you have. Indicutive of your intellect.

 

[saveliberty]

Methane should provide good cover for Old Rocks...

Pull my finger buddy.

Ah yes, the best and only reply you have. Indicutive of your intellect.

A sense of humor will be very helpful in the end times. I can make a point and be funny at the same time. When you going to start doing at least one of those things?

 

[westwall]

LOL. Flapyaps have plenty to say, but not a single reputable scientist to link to back what they say. Typical.

And, dingleberries, it is real scientists that are publically stating the dangers this increase in CH4 emission represents.

Yes this what THE ACTUAL SCIENTISTS WHO ARE DOING THE WORK IN THE FIELD HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE METHANE....



"We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change.

In fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years ago.

We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone. And like most scientists in our field, we have to deal with slowly improving understanding of ongoing processes that often incorporates different points of views expressed by different groups of researchers."


Or did you miss that part? Or are you just ignoring it because it refutes your hysteria?

 

[Old Rocks]

Real science from real scientists. Nothing that you will bother to read, Walleyes.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming
from Arctic methane emissions

Ivar S. A. Isaksen,1,2 Michael Gauss,1,3 Gunnar Myhre,1,2 Katey M. Walter Anthony,4
and Carolyn Ruppel5

Received 13 April 2010; revised 4 November 2010; accepted 4 February 2011; published 20 April 2011.

[1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are
unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with
thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane
releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with
processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state
of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4
would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the
atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional
methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions
were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect
contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be
attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of
CH4 release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and
submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric
chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime,
and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a
result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios,
our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry
that would amplify climate warming.

 

[saveliberty]

Although the high‐CH4 scenarios applied in this
study are unlikely, they demonstrate the strong CH4 feedbacks
in the climate system, with large amplification of
atmospheric composition changes and RF compared to the
direct RF of CH4 emissions.

I read a ton of uncertainties, unknowns and approximations in that. Yet we are suppose to take your word for what it all means.

 

[uscitizen]

Look out your window and note that the sky is not falling. Apply some lotion to your hands which are undoubtedly raw and chapped from the incessant hand wringing and take a few deep breaths and try to understand that you have been hoaxed.

Do you really believe that the sea bed has never burped methane before? Methane has no more capacity to warm the atmosphere than CO2.

And there is no god.

 

[Old Rocks]

Although the high‐CH4 scenarios applied in this
study are unlikely, they demonstrate the strong CH4 feedbacks
in the climate system, with large amplification of
atmospheric composition changes and RF compared to the
direct RF of CH4 emissions.

I read a ton of uncertainties, unknowns and approximations in that. Yet we are suppose to take your word for what it all means.

No, you are supposed to read what the scientists said in the light of the recently discovered massive CH4 emissions in the Arctic.

 

[bripat9643]

Nowhere does the synopsis of your article blame global warming for the dissolution of methane hydrates in the arctic.

Real science from real scientists. Nothing that you will bother to read, Walleyes.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming
from Arctic methane emissions

Ivar S. A. Isaksen,1,2 Michael Gauss,1,3 Gunnar Myhre,1,2 Katey M. Walter Anthony,4
and Carolyn Ruppel5

Received 13 April 2010; revised 4 November 2010; accepted 4 February 2011; published 20 April 2011.

[1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are
unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with
thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane
releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with
processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state
of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4
would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the
atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional
methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions
were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect
contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be
attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of
CH4 release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and
submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric
chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime,
and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a
result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios,
our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry
that would amplify climate warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb fuck.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf

2. CH4 Emissions From the Arctic Region [12] We consider two major sources of CH4 emissions from the warming Arctic: (1) Methane produced from microbial degradation of labile organic carbon that becomes bioavailable as permafrost thaws; and (2) methane released from gas hydrate deposits as they dissociate in response to climate warming. Thawing permafrost may also promote emissions from other methane sources in the Arctic, but the amount of methane that could potentially be produced by
microbial processes in thawed soils or release of methane from gas hydrates far exceeds that associated with other Arctic sources. There is evidence that continuous permafrost is actively thawing in many circum‐Arctic regions, both onshore and in the shallow offshore continental shelves
[Rachold et al., 2007].

 

[Old Rocks]

See, Walleyes, you are getting senile.

Yale Environment 360: Large Plumes of Methane Discovered Off Spitsbergen in Arctic

17 Aug 2009: Large Plumes of Methane
Discovered Off Spitsbergen in Arctic
British and German scientists have discovered 250 plumes of methane gas rising from the thawing seabed off the Spitsbergen archipelago in the Norwegian Arctic, apparently a result of the warming of the West Spitsbergen current. The researchers measured the plumes rising from the seabed at a depth of 150 to 400 meters (500 to 1,300 feet). The methane — a potent greenhouse gas — is being released by frozen methane hydrates on the sea floor, which are thawing as a result of a 1 degree C (1.8 F) warming of the West Spitsbergen current in the last 30 years, the scientists said. Most of the methane is absorbed by the ocean before it reaches the surface, but the gas increases the acidity of the ocean, which inhibits the ability of marine creatures to grow shells. Scientists fear that as the world’s oceans warm, huge amounts of methane will be released. The Spitsbergen researchers said they were surprised by the large number of methane plumes. “Our survey was designed to work out how much methane might be released by future ocean warming,” said one scientist. “We did not expect to discover such strong evidence that this process has already started.”

 

[bripat9643]

Dumb fuck.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf

Methane produced from microbial degradation of labile organic carbon that becomes bioavailable as permafrost thaws; and (2) methane released from gas hydrate deposits as they dissociate in response to climate warming.
[Rachold et al., 2007].

There's absolutely no basis for that claim. A 0.001% change in water density is not going to cause the release of anything.

 

[westwall]

Dumb fuck.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf

2. CH4 Emissions From the Arctic Region [12] We consider two major sources of CH4 emissions from the warming Arctic: (1) Methane produced from microbial degradation of labile organic carbon that becomes bioavailable as permafrost thaws; and (2) methane released from gas hydrate deposits as they dissociate in response to climate warming. Thawing permafrost may also promote emissions from other methane sources in the Arctic, but the amount of methane that could potentially be produced by
microbial processes in thawed soils or release of methane from gas hydrates far exceeds that associated with other Arctic sources. There is evidence that continuous permafrost is actively thawing in many circum‐Arctic regions, both onshore and in the shallow offshore continental shelves
[Rachold et al., 2007].

Allways with the lingo of the con man. Allways.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks doesnt believe that the reason for the methane being released could be anything but the global warming that he obssesses over. it doesnt matter that the scientists involved believe it is seawater infiltration on the time scale of thousands of years, or that the same outgassing if caused by warming would have already happened in the MWP when Greenland was warmer than today.

I am a little concerned that the scientists involved decided to 'go on vacation' and be 'unavailable for comment' when the publicity erupted over their findings. the public will only remember the incorrect headlines and probably wont even hear that global warming is not the cause for the methane release. allowing false statements about your work to go unchallenged is just as bad as doing the actual lying when you are a scientist.

 

[saveliberty]

Although the high‐CH4 scenarios applied in this
study are unlikely, they demonstrate the strong CH4 feedbacks
in the climate system, with large amplification of
atmospheric composition changes and RF compared to the
direct RF of CH4 emissions.

I read a ton of uncertainties, unknowns and approximations in that. Yet we are suppose to take your word for what it all means.

No, you are supposed to read what the scientists said in the light of the recently discovered massive CH4 emissions in the Arctic.

Read crap into the report that's not in the report. I see. That explains a lot. Care to comment on the part which says the environment will absorb all of this in 8 to 9 years?

 

[mudwhistle]

'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice
Daily mail ^ | 12.13.2011 | n/a

The Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted a survey of 10,000 square miles of sea off the coast of eastern Siberia. They made a terrifying discovery - huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed. 'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across,' said Dr Igor Semiletov, 'These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere.'


(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
'Fountains' of methane 1,000m across erupt from Arctic ice - a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide | Mail Online

Somebody light a match.