tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post6317788472036482711..comments2022-11-12T08:43:25.545-08:00Comments on Methane hydrates: Methane hydratesSam Caranahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12376449209858411775noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-83713472541390861552014-03-25T13:19:09.038-07:002014-03-25T13:19:09.038-07:00We are approaching the 1 year anniversary on this ...We are approaching the 1 year anniversary on this article and approximately 154 years since the first publication showing the affects of CO2 emissions and global warming. Last weeks Gallop Poll showed that 37% of Americans do not believe that mankind is responsible for climate change. Obviously our education system is lacking in it's effort to increase intelligence.<br /><br />The solutions presented in this article are insightful and potentially workable to prevent the mass extinction of most life on this planet. Unfortunately with the insatiable consumer mentality, corporate greed, political corruption and misinformation perpetuated by most news agencies, we would be hard pressed to implement these solutions by 2100.<br /><br />The impending crisis created by humans has not occurred on this planet since the end of the Permian Era 252 million years ago when 97% of ALL life on earth was destroyed, (ironically enough due to massive methane venting). The one thing that will make this extinction event even more dangerous is the ultimate abandonment and/or destruction of our Nuclear Power Plants and Weapon Systems. What will happen to the stored fuel rods when the cooling systems start shutting down? What will happen to our Nuclear and Chemical Stockpiles as their storage facilities degrade? We certainly will exceed the Permian Extinction Event and probably destroy 100% of all life on earth.<br /><br />A strange paradox that such a unique, beautiful and sacred planet could spawn a creature with so little respect for everything, such disregard for it's own existence, so arrogant in itself to bring about the total destruction of billions of years of evolution and at the dawn of it's destruction deny it's complicity.<br /><br />God have mercy on our souls and forgive FOX News, "They know not what they have done."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16369726691835210872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-51557599389791054732014-03-18T07:37:13.445-07:002014-03-18T07:37:13.445-07:00Good writing, I have a feeling the summer of 2014...Good writing, I have a feeling the summer of 2014 will be the season even Republicans accept runaway global warming. If not this summer, then for sure 2015 as we see mind-boggling heat record set across the globe. Coasting Downhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825519629363035737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-26504497395147189742013-06-12T10:17:26.492-07:002013-06-12T10:17:26.492-07:00Good points, Dale. The effect of higher CO2 levels...Good points, Dale. The effect of higher CO2 levels on ice was also discussed at the post <a href="http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/10/glaciers-cracking-in-the-presence-of-carbon-dioxide.html" rel="nofollow">Glaciers cracking in the presence of carbon dioxide</a>Sam Caranahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376449209858411775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-82976391031001709402013-06-12T10:07:24.581-07:002013-06-12T10:07:24.581-07:00An important added factor to rate of increase of m...An important added factor to rate of increase of methane to sky from decay of methane hydrate water ice crystal holding methane 170 to 1 by volume on release is the effect of raised carbon dioxide on ice strength in general.<br />http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2012/10/bad-news-chemistry-carbon-dioxide-makes-ice-weaker/ How raised carbon dioxide levels would affect bondDale Lananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05409842680440987251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-5147219945667255102013-05-17T11:35:49.622-07:002013-05-17T11:35:49.622-07:00The methane doesn't seem to be drifting from h...The methane doesn't seem to be drifting from hydrate melting off coast but rather the stuff mentioned is of Continental origin as seen in animation of methane levels per alt gain. It is now shown to have reached almost 2.25 Parts per Million after this article was published. This is a huge increase above historic world levels persistent for large part for at least the last 400,000 years. Historically methane doesn't go very much over 715 parts per billion or .75 part per mil.<br />The stuff is light and rises compared to air and the altitude measured is nearly into stratosphere, into which above 30 kilometers to about 40 it is stable. Nothing there to break it down or keep it from increasing rapidly.<br />It is spreading around Earth and casting heat down upon us big time.<br />The situation is land release of Methane breaching deep thick ice sheet on Antarctic continent making chances Earth stays habitable doubtful at near and long term particularly with our resistance to do the change that can at least bring or try to bring the full weight of human industrial capacity and enterprise, large and small to the fore to interdict and force the totality of world enterprise to take on the goal of keeping Earth. The leaders we have don't get it we need to build in margin for error.. Earth is in hope mankind will be kind enough to rally for life.Dale Lananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05409842680440987251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-5669955904945727922013-04-18T12:22:35.882-07:002013-04-18T12:22:35.882-07:00Hi Sam. I'm sure you've read this but just...Hi Sam. I'm sure you've read this but just in case I wanted to share it with you: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200602/-The-Antarctic-Half-of-the-Global-Thermohaline-Circulation-Is-Faltering<br /><br />The answer to my question seems to be that yes, the methane is coming from methane clathrates melting under sea and spreading inland.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17372903404313231061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-58312866093622375242013-04-16T21:16:46.379-07:002013-04-16T21:16:46.379-07:00Yes, Omar, it's very worrying, the more so sin...Yes, Omar, it's very worrying, the more so since methane levels are typically lower on the Southern Hemisphere than they are on the Northern Hemisphere. On most days since I added above post, peak methane levels in Antarctica have been even higher than the 2207 ppb on the post's image. I'm working on a further post on this. Sam Caranahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376449209858411775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-88459370979600878272013-04-16T13:33:00.428-07:002013-04-16T13:33:00.428-07:00Just a question. I'm not sure what this really...Just a question. I'm not sure what this really means and I have no scientific knowledge to interpret the data.<br /><br />I just checked on NOAA, and the levels of methane seem to be much higher right now than on April 1st. and they seem to be spreading over a larger area and be more concentrated (at least, the yellow is definitely more solid, less dotted):<br />April 15th: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/IASI/img/t2/D1/mr_ch4.080.gif<br />April 14th: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/IASI/img/t2/D2/mr_ch4.080.gif<br /><br />Now, the methane release seem to cover somewhere between the Dronning Maud Land to Kemp Land on the coast, and go maybe 500 to 800 kilometers inland? (I really can't tell) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Antarctica.svg<br /><br />Now, if you look at the elevation of that area here:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica_Without_Ice_Sheet.png<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AntarcticBedrock.jpg<br /><br />the area of the methane release seems to be from sea level to 1000 feet elevation:<br /><br />So my question is. What does it mean? I would have never expected such a huge methane release at such a high elevation over such a huge area. Or it means that methane is being released at sea level from huge plumes as the ice melts and then it spreads over higher elevations? I don't know, but it seems to me that if methane is being released hundreds of kilometers inland at high elevations it won't be as "seasonal" as if it was coming from deiced land in the coast...<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17372903404313231061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-90069616566064328562013-04-11T15:17:30.123-07:002013-04-11T15:17:30.123-07:00The high methane anomaly April 1st in Antarctic lo...The high methane anomaly April 1st in Antarctic looks ominous indeed. It's over region away from West Antarctic Ice Shield and means methane clathrate melt off.<br />Water has huge capacity of latent heat and clathrate ice holds vast gas volumes.<br />Even UN Secretary Ban is concerned that threat of runaway is real.. But the speed of the change happening is beyond frightening. We need to act and make all effort to try and avert what's coming. There won't be any hiding from this extinction event that's underway.<br />Could have, should have, would have won't matter. And justice won't have meaning..<br />The snap to extinction with runaway will put Earth outside habitable zone where life that likes liquid water can exist. Lag time and human frailty means strong universal implementation of plan of actions are needed immediately.Dale Lananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05409842680440987251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-17100313314669757992013-04-09T00:56:08.798-07:002013-04-09T00:56:08.798-07:00Earth is on the edge of runaway warming, so we hav...<a href="http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/04/earth-is-on-the-edge-of-runaway-warming.html" rel="nofollow">Earth is on the edge of runaway warming</a>, so we have to use the best technologies available to avoid runaway warming; as you say, warming could increase significantly, even if we tried to stop all human emissions, so let's embrace a comprehensive and <a href="http://climateplan.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">effective climate plan</a>. Sam Caranahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376449209858411775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-21447194126383567802013-04-08T00:53:51.854-07:002013-04-08T00:53:51.854-07:00It is likely some large efforts to reduce CO2/CH4 ...It is likely some large efforts to reduce CO2/CH4 concentrations will be made during next few years and decades, however it is even more likely that large further increases in CO2 concentrations and other pollutants will be made by other parties, - and i don't blame them, because many of them will have a very simple choice of either doing all the pollution, - or simply die. Not exaggeration. More than half of current Earth population depend on internal combustion engines to GROW THEIR FOOD, etc... And their kids stop crying of hunger when they eat some bread - no matter what CO2 cost of the bread is.<br /><br />Sadly, it's not just that poor will be the most affected and the first to perish - but it is also that billions of poor people are ones who will keep pulling human species towards its ixtinction. And nope, we can't blame them. They want to survive THERE and NOW, - and this is exactly the thing which in the end will doom us all, i believe. Because the asteroid thing, even nuclear winter / volcano things - those all are but buying some extra time, may be decades, may be even centuries; while rising CO2 content of the athmosphere is to stay for millenia, and the more of it is up here in the air, the deadlier inevitable run-away warming will be. In this sense, perhaps it is better to NOT delay the runaway warming; if we'd allow it to go unchecked now, without building some artificially compensating mechanisms, - then perhaps some species, including humans, would survive anthropogenic thermal maximum and will adapt to live in a changed (hotter) world; the probability of this happening is decreasing the longer we delay the inevitable (by artificial aerosols spred by jet exhaust, etc).<br /><br />One more, perhaps even stronger, argument to allow global warming to run unchecked - is the fact that it is likely that anthropogenic thermal maximum of 21st/22nd century will indeed destroy modern technological civilization. Since it is this very civilization functioning of which have now led to the extinction of (already) hundreds of thousands (if not above a million) of species, and to the threat of homo sapiens existance as well, - i fail to see how and why should we try to save it. Granted, many good things are created by it; however if it leads to human exinction, what good all those things will then be? So, gentlemen, think yourself: do we actually want to HALT global warming, or do we actually want to HELP it happen rather sooner than later?<br /><br />I hope we'll do the right thing. I hope that through unevitable die-off of majority of current human population, homo sapiens will manage to survive and learn how to live WITHOUT destroying his own life support systems (i.e. the Nature). I hope, by 2040, to see MORE than 6 degrees celcius global average warming - for as shown above, this, despite being so devastating, is the best chance we humans have to survive on this little planet.F. Tniolihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05230730448552949006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-80895965952776123812013-04-08T00:53:26.082-07:002013-04-08T00:53:26.082-07:00Great work!
One quite important thing, though, i...Great work! <br /><br />One quite important thing, though, is that as far as i know the author here underestimates the scale of so-far unrealized warming already present within Earth near-surface layer. <br /><br />As far as i know, thermal inertia of the world ocean, which is said to be ~20...35 years (sources vary) for reaching near-equilibrium wthin changed radiation forcing conditions, has more than +0.5 celcius to give; in some 30 years, it'll be about +1.2 degrees celcius out of thermal inertia alone.<br /><br />Furthermore, the author seem to underestimate the scale and importance of so-called global dimming - i.e. aerosols which reduce amount of sunlight reaching Earth surface. Most of those aerosols are man-made, and apparently, some are exactly on purpose of reducing insolation (such as alluminium oxide and some silver-based non-organic substance being intentionally sprayed at some ~11-13 kilometers layers of the athmosphere in significant amount seem to be happening on a significant scale lately). There are no precise and detailed estimates i know about, but average global seem to be some 8% or more reduction of sunlight amount annually. Assuming that sooner or later at least half of those particulates would stop to be emitted by mankind, and assuming it takes less than 5 years for more than 90% of those particulates to drop down to surface, i'd say we talk about some +2...+5 degrees celcius average global temperature increase from this, which i expect to likely happen in 2030s (considering major economic, technological, social and climate factors). <br /><br />The total of some +3...+6.5 additional warming is what i expect to happen by 2040 because of the above; even well before 2040, all the feedbacks mentioned by the author will activate and thus increase the warming to much higher values.<br /><br />Me, personally, i am very sure that the only realistic way to prevent run-away global warming (and thus to prevent the end of modern technological civilization at very least) - would be to use much more powerful and urgent actions on top of ones proposed by the author. Catching some large asteroid and making a dust belt on some high orbit around Earth is indeed one of such methods; the other would be inducing some mild nuclear winter, globally - and/or provoking volcano eruption just slightly less in magnitude than super-volcano event. And honestly, that's it; i can't think of anything else which would work in a matter of just several years (NOT decades!) to give large enough cooling effect to counter both thermal inertia and aerosols' removal from the athmopshere. However, i doubt we DO want to actually prevent the warming - read on to see why.F. Tniolihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05230730448552949006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-33875525529749713022013-04-06T09:15:34.882-07:002013-04-06T09:15:34.882-07:00Excellent article.
I like the presentation on met...Excellent article.<br /><br />I like the presentation on methane removal, however I also think there will simply be too much too fast for us to capture enough to reverse the trend.<br /><br />I think that the powers that be are going a much more large scale geo-engineering route to reduce radiative forcing. The recent spike in money and endeavour towards capturing a small asteroid for 'mining', is a technology test for the capture of a larger asteroid to be used in the creation of an orbiting dust layer.<br />Chris Masierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09459153585413226979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-23872580476092819962013-04-06T09:08:37.734-07:002013-04-06T09:08:37.734-07:00Excellent article.
I think they are going a diffe...Excellent article.<br /><br />I think they are going a different route to hinder warming in the short term.<br /><br />Noticing the recent flurry of activity to capture a small asteroid for 'mining', id say we are testing some technology for the purpose of capturing a larger asteroid to be used as a dust umbrella.Chris Masierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09459153585413226979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1641696877572843922.post-68495647568588016762013-04-06T04:29:46.730-07:002013-04-06T04:29:46.730-07:00great post
Alexei turchingreat post<br />Alexei turchinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com