Across The Arctic, Lakes Are Leaking Dangerous Greenhouse Gases (ndtv.com) 127
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.
Maybe they could harvest this natural gas (Score:5, Informative)
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... [britannica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We could build a giant dome around the entire planet! Let's make it out of ozone because that's inexpensive. Then add an escape hole so that too much methane doesn't build up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can use the password on my luggage if you want.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no hole in the ozone. "The ozone hole is not technically a hole where no ozone is present, but is actually a region of exceptionally depleted ozone in the stratosphere." - https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.g... [nasa.gov]
Similarly there's no Great Garbage Patch in the Pacific Ocean: "Dr Angelicque White, Associate Professor at Oregon State University, who has studied the âgarbage patchâ(TM) in depth, said: âoeThe use of the phrase âgarbage patchâ(TM) is misleading . I'd go as far as to sa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you are a disingenuous ass.
Re:Maybe they could harvest this natural gas (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure broke people everywhere will be delighted to learn that their wallets are merely exceptionally depleted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's "they"? Building a gigantic dome to capture methane from a lake isn't a practical idea, nor is it ecologically sound.
When I lived in the Phoenix urban area, we had a wash at the edge of our development, on the other side of which was a municipal golf course. The golf course had once been a landfill.
My nightly running course included the streets bordering the golf course, on the outside edge of which was a tank and pump that steadily accumulated the methane outgassed by the buried trash. Every few weeks, I would be going by when this apparatus detected enough pressure to flare off the accumulated gas with a long blue flame
Re: (Score:2)
Um you know about the eternal flame [yelp.com] over at the Salt River landfill?
Yeah, it's there. Cute.
Re:Maybe they could harvest this natural gas (Score:5, Informative)
While it's true that it's way better to burn methane than emit it, exactly how do you propose to do this with millions of acres of permafrost every year?
Re: (Score:2)
While it's true that it's way better to burn methane than emit it, exactly how do you propose to do this with millions of acres of permafrost every year?
Give kids lighters and matches and set them loose up there? Most kids love playing with fire until they get burned. :)
Another idea, for the Air Force, use those places to do practice bombing runs with something like the MOAB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] bomb.
Introduce a gene into the quadrillions of mosquitoes up there that make them explode instead of impregnating the females of the species. Takes care of two problems at once. :)
Crash an icy comet into the ocean to lower the temps so you don't even ha
No surprise (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Explode (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Tell me about it. We have two daughters, both scientists. The first one was made in a bed and it was a great experiment that brought us a lot of joy. The second one was made inside a test tube, it was a boring experiment that made us go "meh".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Explode (Score:4, Informative)
She lit it when the lake was frozen, probably just a small hole where the methane was venting and that's what she lit.
Now in the summer, there's no ice and methane is escaping all over the lake, much more explosive given a spark.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
By "explode" she meant a mass blowoff of methane. In this context, exploding it in the combustion sense would be a GOOD thing.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Learn to read for comprehension before bashing scientists. Two different lakes, years between.
CH4 is 30 x more potent than CO2 (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]
Re:Top Gas-water vapor (Score:1)
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.
Re:Top Gas-water vapor (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MIT says [mit.edu] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Top Gas (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The error bars on carbon are wide, because it's a lot more dynamic. Nitrous oxide is destroyed slowly by solar energy, but CO2 is absorbed through several mechanisms that aren't quite in equilibrium. If you take the most optimistic possible assumptions CO2 is shorter lived than N20; if you take the most pessimistic it's longer lived.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. [theguardian.com]
CO2: 65-80% dissolves into the ocean in 20-200 years, with the balance removed in processes taking >200 years. Net half life is thousands of years (hint: what goes into the ocean also comes back out if/when CO2 drops)
NO2: Destroyed in stratosphere in ~100 years.
CO2 is removed by multiple parallel mechanisms, so that you cannot simply pick the few fastest.
We are so hosed. (Score:3)
See you on the next planet. Oh wait...
Feedback Loop (Score:5, Informative)
This is why we have to stop using fossil fuels (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, renewables are much much much cheaper. People prefer more expensive than cheaper. I hate to break it to you, but the "West Coast" is one of the largest users of fossil fuels on the entire planet. You are just another snotty West Coast person who thinks driving around in a Tesla makes you "green".
I don't have a car, grandpa. Also, that watch fob you wear makes you look old.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's 2018 not 1968.
Re: (Score:2)
And #1 in having #2 littering the streets? :D
Re:This is why we have to stop using fossil fuels (Score:5, Informative)
Per capita, it's the third-lowest [wikipedia.org] state - the average Texan causes three times the emissions, to say nothing of Wyoming. If CA were a country they'd rank about on par with Germany - far below the US national average, far below Canada or Russia or Australia or Japan or S.Korea. So yeah, they're a lot greener than most of their peers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't doubt the methodology could be refined further. I'm assuming your assertions are based on more comprehensive studies, rather than just personal assumptions - care to cite one?
As an example, it's true that some states produce emissions from power generation, exporting energy to states which consume it, and shifting the CO2 load. But California has the fourth-lowest [eia.gov] energy consumption per capita, so they're efficient with their consumption. Yet they rank among the highest GDP per capita [wikipedia.org], so their pro
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if you have one or not, but the fact you think that the "West Coast" is green makes you ignorant and obnoxious. California is the #2 state in Co2 emissions.
I agree, addressing global warming is hard. Let's just ignore it and throw insults at people instead! That doesn't require any effort at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if you have one or not, but the fact you think that the "West Coast" is green makes you ignorant and obnoxious. California is the #2 state in Co2 emissions.
And per capita it's third to last.
Re:This is why we have to stop using fossil fuels (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the problem with a killer demo. People focus on the wrong thing.
The problem isn't lakes burping methane, it's methane escaping from thawing permafrost. The process is visible in Arctic lakes, but that doesn't mean the problem is Arctic lakes. They just trap the methane temporarily until they, as you say, overturn.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, fossil fuel companies fail to realize that pivoting to renewables is the best way to grow their companies. And politicians are afraid to end corporate welfare.
This big reason for sats. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Along with Europe?
The Finns are already accustomed to burrowing through snow. Britain will just have to learn. (And import a lot of food.)
The summary is misleading (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Then we'd better get hot (Score:2)
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.
No Link to Video? Better do it myself.... (Score:2)
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?... [youtube.com]
You're welcome!
if only that methane had a use... (Score:2)
...they could bottle it up and use it to power the world!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
that's what i was thinking - why aren't we looking at this as an energy source?
To accomplish that, you'd need:
Putting a dome over the lake is not financially feasible. And the problem with remote Arctic lakes is that ... they're remote. Meaning it would cost a chunk of change to get it to a populated area.
By the time you do all that, fracked Natural Gas is cheaper. And people will always pursue the cheaper thing, eve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Einstein, they didn't mean "dangerous to humans greenhouse gases".
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
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 fahrenhe
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
What crisis? Atmospheric water levels aren't changing.
Re: (Score:3)
There isn't enough evidence [insideclimatenews.org] 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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
How in God's name did you get modded 'insightful'? 'Pathetic' is more like it.
Re: (Score:1)
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. Th
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. You certainly did.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
And having a triple cheeseburger shoved down your throat can choke you and kill you dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Take in CO2, not energy, and create energy.
Are you saying that photosynthesis works without light?
Re: (Score:2)
So, tell us: On your image of the page freely available to all at [nasa.gov]https://climate.nasa.gov/vital... [nasa.gov] , 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 grow
Re: (Score:2)
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_... [nsidc.org] - the data is still following the downward trend, even including your cherry picked one year outlier.