Comments on: I scare myself

By: HarryTheHat

HarryTheHat — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:33:11 +0000

I have looked at the recording station data for areas in Siberia close to the Arctic – and there is NO warming. This is rather typical http://www.john-daly.com/stations/dikson.gif Do you all believe in Arctic air-warming without actually checking? I really don’t know how to put this any other way, it appears quite clear that the Arctic is getting warmer Atlantic waters that is causing melt (as has happened many times before) and there is clearly something going on with weather patterns – as the UK has received another rotten summer, just like last year (actually no summer). Is it coincidence that two years of Arctic ice melt happens at the same time as no UK summer?

So, warmer waters, and no recording stations showing warming that would cause anything near permafrost melting. Do you people simply worry about anything and everything?

By: Sonny

Sonny — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:30:28 +0000

Seems the Canadians also are jumping on the methane clathrates energy bandwagon with the latest paper from the American Chemical Society, ‘Gas hydrates on the front burner: Flammable ice could create a bridge to a sustainable energy future’.
[ASAP Environ. Sci. Technol., ASAP Article, 10.1021/es802250e]

There’s a direct (no firewall) web link, here:
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/asap/html/es802250e.html

By: Gareth

Gareth — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:08:24 +0000

Cindy's referring to the NSIDC's sea ice news latest update. Also worth looking at the IJIS chart, and a chart mash-up by Barry Brooks here. Prof Brooks' blog is well worth a regular visit.

By: cindy

cindy — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:58:23 +0000

NSIDC have updated site again in the last 24 hours: it’s now the second lowest melt on record. Erk.

By: Sonny Whitelaw

Sonny Whitelaw — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:22:49 +0000

Cobblyworlds, I totally agree with you over the theory that no one should mistake a large blast as a pre-emptive nuke. It’s the size of the blast that has been compared to a nuke, not the nature of the explosion. The papers I cited make excellent reading on the subject.

Steve, I really, really wish you were right in your statement: “but fortunately the methane explosions wouldnâ€™t be happening in an area that would make sense to anyone as the opening shot in an attack.”
With several governments flexing their muscles over who gets what slice of the Arctic pie, a large explosion, not necessarily a nuke sized event, while everyone’s jostling for who gets to drill where, wouldn’t help.

Harry, I totally agree with you. I absolutely need to listen to my 12 year old son when he tells me what he’s learned at school that day. It’s not relevant that I have a degree in geography and understand what he’s telling me; it’s relevant that I listen to his fascination of the world and enjoy his desire to share that with me.

Gareth, I’ve seen (relatively small) methane explosions at the leading edge of lava flows. The vulcanologist with me at the time explained that lightning stikes (induced by eruptions) also readily explode methane pockets. My old geomorphology professor used to talk about submarine explosions and ‘burning’ ocean, when pockets of methane were released during drilling. The Japanese are considering drilling for methane as an energy source (http://www.jdc.co.jp/methanehydrates.html). Shawn Linmark (University of Rhode Island) presents an excellent overview of the risks, with some background on the Storegga slide and 5 gigatonne methane ‘burp’ in a IMb Powerpoint Presentation that can be downloaded from http://www.oce.uri.edu/oce582/presentations/Shawn%20Lindmark-Storegga%20Slide%20Stability%20and%20Methane%20Hydrates.ppt.

By: Tushara

Tushara — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:22:12 +0000

I obtained the info from an International Chemical Safety Card. I think you have to remember that before methane becomes mixed into air, and therefore being a small component of air, a bubble of gas may form a large component and become flammable.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:16:25 +0000

Yes, Steve, I had to check the date after reading it – but it’s a sobering report.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:07:55 +0000

Ah, it turns out that the second article is over a year old (and refers to summer 2006). It’s still worth a read, though. Probably I should look to see what the quoted scientists have published since then.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:25:44 +0000

Worse and worse: Fresh findings that the Arctic land permafrost carbon reservoir is likely about double previous estimates. This article is of great interest. I wonder how many more scientists would speak in these terms if they were asked?

By: Gareth

Gareth — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:52:18 +0000

The point that I was hinting at was that if we are confronted with large releases of methane from the sea floor, it might be better to “flare” the gas (as in the picture at the top of the post) to prevent some of the warming it would cause. But based on Tush’s figures, there would have to be a lot of gas in the air. From memory, the Shakova paper refers to 8ppm being measured – which is way above “normal”, but nowhere near 5 percent.

Still, it might bring tourism opportunities, and a new meaning to “northern lights”…