Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Saturday March 25, @02:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the ignore-at-your-own-peril dept.

Siberian Times states that thousands of bulging methane gas bubbles have been located in Siberia. These are thought to explode to form the giant craters found in the area. Scientist say it's thawing permafrost releasing methane caused by elevated temperatures. Article contains amazing pictures.

Similar observations have been made around the Arctic regions. This is a cause for concern as methane is a potent greenhouse gas creating a positive feedback loop; there is potential for a chain reaction.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by hendrikboom on Saturday March 25, @03:16PM (3 children)

    by hendrikboom (1125) on Saturday March 25, @03:16PM (#484115) Homepage

    Set fire to them! Then we'll have the much less dangerous carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday March 25, @06:19PM (2 children)

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Saturday March 25, @06:19PM (#484149)

      Methane has a shorter atmospheric lifetime.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @07:41PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @07:41PM (#484173)

        Methane has a shorter atmospheric lifetime.

        Yeah, and what do you think it turns into?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26, @10:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26, @10:37AM (#484320)

          Jaaaabs fer the Merkins.

  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday March 25, @03:20PM (1 child)

    by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 25, @03:20PM (#484117) Homepage Journal

    First pic looks like a sandworm trying to break through!

    --
    --- [redacted] due to [redacted] by Agent [redacted]. Dated [redacted] ---
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26, @03:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26, @03:23PM (#484370)

      I find this appropriate as (parts of) the Earth will soon resemble Dune.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @03:50PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @03:50PM (#484120)

    To go around and open them up to let the gas out, just to watch the world burn and to see the reaction of those who deny our impact on the planet's atmosphere.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @04:09PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @04:09PM (#484121)

      Why not open them up with a small drilling rig...combined with a small liquefaction plant so the methane can be used productively.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @06:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @06:22PM (#484150)

        I believe this is one place where the free market in theory differs from the free market in practice.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday March 25, @07:25PM (6 children)

      by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 25, @07:25PM (#484170)

      I think we should do better than that: we should get a few million climate deniers to sign statements that they don't believe humans can change the climate, and that if they're wrong we get to torture them and all their descendants to death slowly on public TV, then we should set up a program to build lots of nuclear plants powering systems to produce as much methane as possible, and pump it into the atmosphere. Then let's see what these assholes have to say after a decade or two.

      Obviously we're not going to stop the inevitable, so we might as well go out with a bang, and also punish some of those responsible.

      • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday March 26, @07:51AM (2 children)

        by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Sunday March 26, @07:51AM (#484300)

        uhm, if you are using nuclear reactors to but as much methane as possible in the atmosphere, why not just use it to scrub CO2 instead?

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 27, @03:36AM (1 child)

          by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 27, @03:36AM (#484513)

          Because the climate deniers don't believe that's necessary.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27, @06:45PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 27, @06:45PM (#484771) Journal

            Because the climate deniers don't believe that's necessary.

            Would you happen to be one of these alleged "climate deniers"? Because you don't seem to be taking this seriously.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 26, @11:39AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 26, @11:39AM (#484334) Journal

        I think we should do better than that: we should get a few million climate deniers to sign statements that they don't believe humans can change the climate, and that if they're wrong we get to torture them and all their descendants to death slowly on public TV, then we should set up a program to build lots of nuclear plants powering systems to produce as much methane as possible, and pump it into the atmosphere. Then let's see what these assholes have to say after a decade or two.

        Couldn't you try rational argument and evidence? Funny who engages in these murder fantasies when they face disagreement. If the rate of production of these methane bubbles is unusually high and unusually threatening to our climate, you should eventually be able to come up with evidence to back that assertion.

        • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday March 27, @03:52AM (1 child)

          by darkfeline (1030) on Monday March 27, @03:52AM (#484515) Homepage

          >Couldn't you try rational argument and evidence?

          Have you met a climate denier before?

          --
          Friends let friends enable ECMAscript to hide personal quirks, like using code tags everywhere. https://git.io/vX9DP
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27, @09:43AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 27, @09:43AM (#484562) Journal
            I have and your implied argument is ridiculous. First, the label "climate denier" is used promiscuously to libel anyone skeptical of any part of the climate change narrative. Second, it is folly as a result to insinuate as you do that "climate deniers" are irrational and hence, can't be reached by rational argument.

            Sure, the catastrophic climate change people could be right. But I wouldn't bet money on anyone who can't string together a rational argument and then blames their failure to communicate on imaginary intellectual flaws of people who would go along with an argument that isn't pure shit!
  • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Saturday March 25, @04:52PM (2 children)

    by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 25, @04:52PM (#484125)

    Build a nuclear plant with the sole purpose of making OH and C radicals to pump into bubbles to break down the methane, or feed methane destroying micro-orgs into them to make lesser greenhouse gasses. Burning them would also work to decrease the immediate effect of methane release into the atmosphere.

    I recently looked up atmospheric methane on wiki and they have a fun chart showing ice age happenings alongside atmospheric CO2 and Methane concentrations. If the pattern repeats for I think the fifth time, we are right at the edge of a glaciation event.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday March 25, @06:31PM (1 child)

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Saturday March 25, @06:31PM (#484154)

      I dug up that chart [wikipedia.org].

      Your conclusion of an impending glaciation are unsupported. The horizontal red line is "current" (for when the chart was made) temperatures. Present CO2 and Methane concentrations are unprecedented. That fact is easy to miss since it happened in such a short period on the geological time scale.

  • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Saturday March 25, @05:35PM

    by patella.whack (3848) on Saturday March 25, @05:35PM (#484136)

    The most recent VICE NEWS episode had some cool footage of people poking holes in the ice while torching the escaping gas.

    Takes me back to when I was ten--- aerosol hairspray cans and a lighter. Fun stuff!

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by fishybell on Saturday March 25, @05:57PM

    by fishybell (3156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 25, @05:57PM (#484143)

    The real story of global warming isn't how screwed we are, or how much blame we have shoulder, or how much our grandchildren will curse us.

    The real story is that global warming has made Siberia very interesting for once.

  • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday March 25, @06:50PM (1 child)

    by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Saturday March 25, @06:50PM (#484159)

    Why is atmospheric methane surging? (Hint: It's not fracking) [sciencemag.org]
    By Paul Voosen Dec. 21, 2016 , 9:00 AM

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @08:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @08:54PM (#484183)

      Another possibility is that permafrost thaw is greatly underappreciated.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @08:34PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @08:34PM (#484181)

    Look at long-term climate history here [wikipedia.org] and here [wikimedia.org].

      As someone who has tuned up many feedback loops, I would argue that if the system were prone to heating from positive feedback at this temperature, past maxima would have been higher. In fact, current temperature is near a peak of oscillation, and there is real risk of strong cooling over the next 10,000 years. It's not like climate "science" can explain these temperature cycles.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26, @11:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26, @11:05AM (#484325)

      You do realize those history charts are also produced by climate science? Science isn't perfect but it's the only thing we have.

    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday March 29, @08:40AM

      by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday March 29, @08:40AM (#485774) Journal

      It looks like it's been a bit more than 100,000 years since similar or higher temperatures occurred. If methane has been accumulating for much of that time, it could be a goodly amount that's about to be released.

(1)