Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Shock as Retreat of Arctic Sea Ice Releases Deadly Greenhouse Gas
Russian research team astonished after finding 'fountains' of methane bubbling to surface
Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide – have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.
The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.
"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."
Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change.
Dr Semiletov's team published a study in 2010 estimating that the methane emissions from this region were about eight million tonnes a year, but the latest expedition suggests this is a significant underestimate of the phenomenon.
In late summer, the Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted an extensive survey of about 10,000 square miles of sea off the East Siberian coast. Scientists deployed four highly sensitive instruments, both seismic and acoustic, to monitor the "fountains" or plumes of methane bubbles rising to the sea surface from beneath the seabed.
"In a very small area, less than 10,000 square miles, we have counted more than 100 fountains, or torch-like structures, bubbling through the water column and injected directly into the atmosphere from the seabed," Dr Semiletov said. "We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale – I think on a scale not seen before. Some plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal."
Dr Semiletov released his findings for the first time last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
537 Comments so far
Show AllJust call in Halliburton and other Corporate gods. They'll figure out how to make the gas release into billions of dollars of profit.
The Earth will look like Mars in no time.
It is hard to imagine a worse bit of news for humanity.
And for all creatures who breathe. Trees can be used to mitigate CO2 somewhat. But as far as I know, nothing can mitigate the effects of methane. When it breaks down it combines with oxygen in the air, reducing the supply. In the presence of heat or UV rays, it can also react with halogens, producing halogenated hydrocarbons, which are among the most dangerous carcinogens and teratogens (causing cancer and birth defects). And I do not know if the concentrations in the north will be sufficient to ignite if struck by lightning.
Of all the depressing climate news, this is the worst so far. The only solution is to go with clean energy sources and change our profligate use of resources. Hope it is not too late. I despair for future generations, and not very far down the road at all.
"And I do not know if the concentrations in the north will be sufficient to ignite if struck by lightning." The highest levels detected were a few parts per million. The lower combustion limit for methane is 5% or 50,000 parts per million. We have a big problem here, but the air exploding is not one.
Thanks for the spot of good news, I guess.
Yes ~PJ~ the (*current *) readings... However; if massive amounts of methane burst out,, as some highly qualified scientists and geologists have warmed can occur, that will be a totally different story. .. In any event we are pretty well screwed now as it is.
World leaders did not listen to the right scientists,, they ignore the ISSS team's 400 scientists and Dr. John Atcheson's 2004 warnings of the Arctic's "Ticking Time Bomb",, which apparently is no longer "ticking",, It has gone off... The worst to come will very likely be by next summer. And most here ignored Kem Patrick..
Definitely. Old Kem made some damn good posts on this topic, and it seems he has turned out to be right. I wonder what he is doing right now?
Yes! Thank you for mentioning Kem Patrick! He was dedicated to this issue, and made sure that everyone also understood the fate of Iraq relative to Depleted Uranium. On another thread, KIVALS, who I deeply respect, suggested the wonders of science and its technological advances. Sorry, kid, but the net effect of all the scientific hubris, specifically in relation to all the short-sighted hubris, may well mean death to humanity. Some, the forum's key cynics, may take that as a good thing; but humanists do not. Even in the face of these viable warnings of extinction, still the U.S. blocks treaties based on curbing emissions, and still the "think tanks" pay PR felons to lie to the public about the nature of these more than threatening developments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- One can only imagine what all these burning methane fumes look like! Earth Mother has had it with human beings in their indifference to all the casual destruction of so many species, so now she's REALLY letting off steam!
Joe,
Every new understanding concerning climate disruption is a new low.
The methane release was known to be coming. This is just the first sighting of massive release. Feedback loops create a snowballing effect, the change grows worse by the minute and grows exponentially as other feedback feeds the snowball. It appears that the snowball rolling down the mountain can not be stopped, until it reaches the bottom. Even if all fossil fuel use was halted, all of it like throwing a magic switch, the climate will continue to become less stable.
There is no technological solution, as there is no such thing as clean technological energy.
It is impossible to tell the future, but it looks beyond bad into the category of catastrophic. I wish it wasn't so, but that's just the way it is.
I just took the time to watch this: It's fascinating and ends with solutions. May be too late but solutions are welcome at a time like this. I hope everyone reading this takes the time to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=uNCrcTy0NFQ
sorry it's on 2 lines....
if you truly despair for future generations, then don't have future generations. Stop having children, use a condom, get it fixed.
You apparently do not get just how deadly serious this actually and truly is ~~queerplanet~~.
There aren't going to be any more future generations.. So don't bother buying French tickler Trojans,, enjoy youself naturally before the last person on Earth turns out the lights... That's how it is... The gun went off and the game is over, we lost. And I don't like losing the game either.
I concur. As recently as 2 years ago the numbers were already desperate. In his book Heat, George Monbiot's book estimated a need to reduce greenhouse gasses by 90%-- minimum-- before 2015. The human race simply lacks the will to address it. So, yes, it's game over.
However, I'm not sure that we face extinction. Furthermore, the deniers, both their irrationality and their institutional structures, will probably maintain their arguments until the world loses around 2 billion people. It may take that much death for them to hide themselves from the many self-appointed hangmen. While they have their theory about the "little ice age", I suspect the more recently published scenario has nearly as much merit-- that the "little ice age" was brought on be the depopulation stemming from the Black Death.
Still, once our species goes into decline, so will much of its accomplishments, cultures, and institutions. Certainly a mad time for the survivors. I wonder what cults will survive us.
Sadly I have to agree. The methane plumes will only become worse. Game over. Maybe, just maybe, we could have stopped this had we gotten serious about it 20 years ago. Now? We're done. We were clever. We were not intelligent.
How do you see life in the future? Or does your world view begin and end with YOU? Keep in mind that there will be no more queer people either. Nor any young people to take care of the old, to grow food, to deliver food. So what's your point? Is it to pre-empt human extinction by not having children? Well that's one approach.
In the time it took to read this, 10 more additional kids have been born on the planet.
So, stop doing that.
Too late, that train left the station decades ago.
If we follow the solution proposed by queerplanet all socially conscious people will go the way of the Shakers. The world will still be left with BP and XL polluting, and folks like the octomom. It is not either or. Of course we should promote and fund voluntary family size control. Any other kind, such as mandatory sterilization, is fascistic and likely to be visited on the poor of the world, who use far fewer resources than the wealthy.
But we must also look to other solutions like clean energy, public transportation, vegetarianism, conservation etc. Those who look only to sterilization or childlessness as solutions are cutting off their ability to convince others, as children (or at least one child) are what is most precious to most people. Would we end human life in order to prevent the end of human life? Makes no sense.
Any other kind, such as mandatory sterilization, is fascistic
You can't really believe that, Joe. That's your upbringing talking, not your brain. Are traffic laws fascistic? Tax laws? Sanitary laws? If they're not, then what's the difference?
Reproduction is the very essence of a primitive biological activity, on the same order as eating, drinking, and eliminating waste. When times are hard, all cultures ration food and water so that all may share and all may live. Why should the reproductive function deserve special, mystified consideration?
All cultures, without exception, need a way to absolutely limit reproduction. Those human cultures lacking both the ability to do it medically and the imagination to do it creatively end up killing their unwanted neonates instead, often passively by ritualised neglect: slowly and cruelly.
Post-partum sterilisation is orders of magnitude kinder, and, if appropriately fig-leafed to appease the men, would be embraced by the majority of women in the world. Women, especially poor ones, have no reason to see pregnancy and childbirth as anything but the mundane, dangerous functions that they really are.
Don't listen to your upbringing, Joe. Your brain has a much better grasp of reality. And is more humane, too.
Did you not read the post you were answering? Do you really not get it that any such solutions will be overwhelmingly applied to scapegoated groups and not to the privileged? The PIPPs, the Population-is-the-Problem People, keep posting this nonsense and keep not having any answer to the numbers I present.
You could eliminate the poorest 85% of the world's population, (who are the ones any population solution would eliminate) and you would only take out those who do NOT have all of the following: a bed, a roof, clothes in a closet and food in a refrigerator. These people have very little effect on global warming. If you could "get rid" of them you would still have nearly 80% of the problem left to solve. And tell me how you're going to do that exactly--how are you going to get rid of 4 or 5 billion people in 20 years? Because that is the MOST time we have to solve this problem and drastically reduce greenhouse gases.
Give me numbers and methods and tell me how it would work without causing war, which is the most carbon-intensive thing humans do, and would doom us to extinction.
Population is not the problem and not the solution and knowingly or un-, when you spread the nonsense that it is you assist the lunatic right wing, Koch and Exxon and the US Chamber of Commerce in their attempts to delay action on the real solutions to our crisis.
Democracy, efficiency, solar, wind, reforestation, local organic permaculture, rail, sail, mail and scale.... those are the things we need to concentrate on.
I really can't respond to you, J4, because our phenomenological worlds appear to be totally different.
Yours apparently is one in which the laws of nature that apply to every other species don't apply to us because all we need to do is ship resources around until everything is fairly distributed.
My world is one in which we're not going to be able to do that. We might be able to ship food - if we can grow enough of it and we can find some way, without using prohibited types of fuel, of getting it to its destination before it grows manky. But we're not going to be able to ship a new Yangtze River or Ganges. Water is where it is. We cannot grow new rivers or lakes, though we've proven conclusively that with enough humans working on the problem we can destroy them.
So believe what you will, but don't try to talk to me about it. I don't live on your planet.
Mairead wants me not to talk to her, so I’ll talk about her to the rest of you and see if that suits her better. Maybe she’ll have something to add at some point.
I don't know what she’s talking about with this different worlds thing. Of course the rules of physics, ecology, psychology, etc apply to us. Also the rules of mathematics. That’s why I’m curious about her and others’ lack of response to my many postings containing what I think are clear, indisputable proofs that population, while a potential problem in the future, is neither the problem nor the solution to our current eco-social-political-psychological-philosophical crisis. Apparently they think the numbers are indisputable as well, because in more than a dozen such discussions (I’d guess) no one has shown the numbers to be wrong. Generally when their attempts to distract or change the subject fail, they engage in ad hominem attacks; when those don’t work they disappear, sometimes to resurface under another article, as queerplanet has once again.
“ship resources around…fairly distributed”? I don’t get it. She sounds like she thinks I think it will be easy to solve this. I don’t know where she got that idea, if that’s the idea she has. Far from it. I think our chances are better than even of destroying civilization and becoming extinct, and pretty fair of killing Gaia in the process.
But if we decide we have no chance at all, then we have (almost) no chance at all. But maybe there are a few things Mairead seem unaware of that would make it possible.
“My world is one in which we're not going to be able to do that.” I hope Mairead will try to understand that none of us knows the future, and that therefore we know that statements like that are statements of profound PERSONAL despair that have little to do with our actual collective chances. I don’t know what makes her say that or feel that way, but it’s not any special knowledge of the future she has, only the story she’s told herself about her own past (which is to say, I have no reason to doubt that it’s true about her past. Only that we don’t know whether it’s true about our future.)
The Occupy movement may or may not be our last chance to change things—make those changes that will allow us to build enough wind generators, solar panels, trains and bicycles and efficient cars, redesign farms by permaculture principles, plant enough trees… and keep the rich and corporations from destroying civilization.
I get the idea Mairead thinks water and food are scarce because there are too many people. But that’s not true. The vast majority of people in the world use very little of those and cause no scarcity, only suffer because their local resources have been stolen, destroyed or contaminated by the rich (Sub-Saharan African drought is caused not by subsistence farmers and herders but by a shift in the monsoon, caused by global climate change caused mostly by the greenhouse gases emitted by the rich. For example.) In fact, every country in the world produces enough food to feed all its people; even during famines local elites have plenty and usually food exports continue, mostly to go to the rich and their livestock in other countries. Where there are water shortages it’s because it’s used disproportionately for wasteful practices (lawns and golf courses, flush toilets, and so on), industrial uses (for the consumer and military products for the rich) and agriculture (mostly of meat and luxury crops for the rich). Where there is still plenty of water but it’s too poisoned to be of use by any beings, it’s because those same processes have poisoned it providing those bads and disservices for the rich. he rich steal a disproportionate share of Earth’s water, like everything else.
Mairead would help us a lot by not spreading despair and confusion among the people who have it in their power to do something about our problems.
That’s why I’m curious about her and others’ lack of response to my many postings containing what I think are clear, indisputable proofs
People do respond to you. I've responded to you. But we only do it once or twice because you don't listen, you just repeat the same unsupported assertions (not "proofs") again. It's as though we're trying to have a conversation with a tape recorder. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not willing to waste my time doing that.
I keep repeating the same things because the people posting who believe Population Is The Problem keep posting THEIR unfounded assertions and ignoring the numbers. Then they argue tangential points and make personal attacks. Prove the numbers wrong and I will listen just fine. I have said to such people many many times now to show us a population solution that works and NO ONE has done so--or even tried as far as I can remember. So do it. Show us with specific programs and numbers how a population solution can avoid global climate catastrophe.
Okay, fool that I am I'll try once more. But I don't expect you to pay any more attention this time than last.
Part 1: Identifying the real underlying problem. We can confirm that the real, basic problem is human overpopulation quite simply:
Imagine Earth with 100T humans. Can you imagine any possible way Earth could, even at a minimal level, supply the needs or sink the wastes of such a population? I'm going to continue to suppose you're not demented - please correct me if I'm wrong - and presume your answer is "no, there is no way".
Imagine Earth with 100K humans. Can you imagine any possible way Earth could fail to supply the needs or sink the wastes of such a population if it behaved with even average rationality? I hope I can presume a "no" here, too, since in fact Earth did both supply the needs and sink the wastes of many more humans for tens of thousands of years: the best guess is that Earth supported 5M people 8K years ago.
So from that little thought experiment it should be obvious that the size of our human population, not anything else, is the key driver of our troubles. Solve population, solve everything else. Do anything else, and we simply defer the problem until it's worse and harder or impossible to solve. Borlaug's agri revolution provided such a deferral. People who claim that population isn't the problem are really saying that they won't consider population a problem until it can no longer be deferred. That's not a sensible attitude, to put it as mildly as possible.
Part 2: how do we reduce the population in time to save ourselves, without killing anyone. Remember that we're talking about this world, not some abstract world with a better grade of human, and that the problem is population, not anything else. Everything else is garnish.
Biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb in 1968. Had we listened, we would only have had to solve for 3.7G humans. But we didn't, and so now we have to solve for 7G plus 40+ years of knock-on effects.
Now our only real hope (maybe it was our only hope then, too) is to use mandatory post-partum sterilisation and keep our fingers crossed that we can achieve a sufficient reduction in time to avert catastrophe: runaway climate change and the worldwide famines, plagues, and wars that would accompany it. We're already seeing the precursors of those effects.
To increase our chances that post-partum sterilisation will work in time, we must also use modern tools to re-create ancient social forms -- the forms that existed throughout most of prehistory and still exist today in "primitive" cultures. Those social forms rewarded open-handed cooperation and sharing, and penalized --by means ranging from social disapproval through killing-- exploitative behaviors.
What does that mean in practice? We have to get rid of Capitalism, sequester and treat the takers (the greedy, the psychopaths, the narcissists, the inveterate criminals, etc), reduce our energy draw by a factor of Lots, and openhandedly share the wealth among everyone on Earth. We must create a different, lower-cost, but at least equally attractive, way of life for everyone everywhere. And do it SOON.
Remember: getting rid of Capitalism etc isn't the solution, it's a "force multiplier", but that's all. The solution is the population reduction, as illuminated by the thought experiment.
Will that be sufficient to do the job in time? I have no idea, but I do know absolutely that every other method has a bigger cost attached to it, and no greater chance of success (maybe atom-bombing everyone else or something equally disgusting might work, for some demented value of "work", but the ones who'd make that their first choice--and they do exist--are among those who need to be in a locked ward).
see you at the end
Please, Please take the time to watch this! Zeitgist 2011
I think it may be our best hope: new models are sometimes born out of desperation. This is extremely well done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=uNCrcTy0NFQ
Many Blessings.
It speaks to all the issues posted here. Please take the time! It is well worth it!!
~Denruter~ ,,, Have you ever asked your parents why they didn't have you aborted? Has anyone here aver asked that of their parents?
Indeed by the way we have operated, we have a serious over population problem.
The truth is, had we managed our types of energy with truly clean energy, solar, tidal, geothermal and managed the planet's bread's basket areas properly, this planet, a water world, humans named Earth, could support 20 billion people. But we didn't do that.
"If sunbeams were weapons of war , we would have had solar energy centuries ago." ~~Sir George Porter ~~.... Nobel Laurete in Chenstry.
Like jclientelle I fear that sterilization would quickly become a tool of the rich as a means to control labour pools and transience. Much like they currently control the economies of cites and nations now through stock markets they could control populations. By giving and taking money they are controlling, or disordering, entire societies as we type. Handing over control of such a vital function would only add to this control. I also think of eugenics, mandatory sterilization of aboriginal and disabled, and those scenarios.
I certainly agree that we need less people, and reality TV that glorifies 19 children has to go. But education, contraception, and improved living standards is the way to do it. Reproduction is not a right that I am comfortable with regulating right now. I used to work a with a cynical guy who always, after dealing with a difficult customer, would state, "I wish I could give out oxygen permits. No permit, you can't breathe. I wouldn't kill anyone, they just wouldn't be allowed to breathe." Regulation of certain functions is a dangerous game that is ultimately lost by the poor and marginalized. The regulation of slave procreation was often practiced, I believe.
Less impactful ways of living, like vegetarianism and decreased consumption are a more reasonable way to lighten the load of humanity until a more tasteful solution occurs.
How about instead of steralization, we have every male have a sex change operation?
That would work and here in America we would finally have a female president.
Wait,,, never mind.... No one would be able to parrallel park a car.
Do you really think you're being clever, Kem?
Clever? Nah, just after reading your's and your side-kick Aleph Null's comments posted here, thought a spot of humor would be appropriate.
Btw, Kem's right here next to me, but he doesn't post comments anymore... He gave it up, no one paid any attention to him.
Like jclientelle I fear that sterilization would quickly become a tool of the rich as a means to control labour pools and transience. Much like they currently control the economies of cites and nations now through stock markets they could control populations.
Do you realise what your baseline assumption is here? You're accepting the permanent continuation of their hegemony.
That seems pretty crazy to me. What could we possibly gain from letting them stay in control??? Are we really so deeply in denial that we refuse to understand what's happening even when we talk about it???
Hey, I don't like it anymore than anyone else on CD, but facts are facts. The people are not in control and I don't see that changing anytime soon. OWS and all that is great, and generating important discussion and possibly a catalyst for change, but for the time being economies and thus nations are "under their thumb" so to speak. Until I see poeple en masse dropping out of consumer driven lifestyles, building communities and focusing on things other than iphones, SUVs and McMansions I think we are stuck with the hegemony. Obviously I don't think we gain anything by letting "them" stay in power, except a never ending dryslide to serfdom. Again, I don't like it, but I am realistic about it. I just saw Romney on the cover of Time magazine, Harper just got a f%#&in majority here in Canada and Russia joined the WTO. It's gonna be a long time before we start living in a just, equitable society. Just saying...
You seem to have quite a passive, detached view of social causality. You apparently believe that the wealthy and their fellow-travelers will continue to be our hegemons merely because they tell you in a variety of ways that a majority of people accept their hegemony. But why do you think you can uncritically rely on what they tell you about their popularity and legitimacy?
Denuter,
How many hamburgers do starving people in the Sahel eat per week, do ya think? How many flushes? Control the human population and ignore the consumption of the richest 6% or so and you have doomed us to extinction.
queerplanet,
You have been corrected repeatedly for this lie. Why do you persist in trying to spread nonsense, confusion and disinformation?
And they're still talking about the Keystone Pipeline! When will our leaders figure out that we must stop using any type of fossil fuel for our energy?
Sometime after they stop being perceived as leaders.
Another one of those "out of sight, out of mind" issues.
Exactly..the science behind global warming or climate change is rarely discussed in the media. I've never heard a reference to Methane other than online.
Sarah Palin can see this from her front porch! Don't hear a peep from her about it, though...
The tipping point canary-in-the-coal-mine just exploded into a cloud of feathers..
Well said. This isn't just another bit of terrible news.
Exactly. Enjoy these moments , while our home is still relatively intact. I hate to say it , but things should start ( continue ) accelerating toward more and more rapid change. I dont even want to bring this up to friends and family , who already think of me as a chicken little, cassandra, sour grapes, negative, obamma dissing, commie whiner. And , really, why wake them from the sweet delusional slumber. We should all be looking around at the wonder of this wildly beautiful place we live, and hope it has one more hidden feedback loop somewhere that we havent accounted for that might allow the system to regain balance ( if so, it most likely will be a very rocky ride that wont accomodate our survival needs ). So im gonna enjoy this beautiful warm December day here in NC and admire the spring flowers blooming in my yard.
"We should all be looking around at the wonder of this wildly beautiful place we live, and hope it has one more hidden feedback loop somewhere that we havent accounted for..."
Thanks for that tiny bit of hope. Really.
beautifully said.
We should all be looking around at the wonder of this wildly beautiful place we live, and hope it has one more hidden feedback loop somewhere that we havent accounted for that might allow the system to regain balance ( if so, it most likely will be a very rocky ride that wont accommodate our survival needs ).
There is such a loop, and we're it. And I believe that our chances are just as you describe them: "might allow" and "will be a very rocky ride".
If we truly take the whole thing as seriously as it deserves ---something we haven't really begun to do yet, any of us--- and vow to do all in our power to rebalance the system, come what may and regardless of what we must do to the psychopaths, the demented, and the arm-grabbers, I do genuinely believe we're in with a chance.
But it will mean giving up our everyday lives at least for years and possibly until we fall dead on a street corner, and I'm not sure how many of us will really make that commitment. It might be that there won't be enough of us, that we're just too used to fake drama on tv to truly grasp, in time, that there're no scriptwriters except us.
Many French chose not to join their Resistance; others even collaborated. We'll be faced with a ration of shirkers and villains too. I don't normally quote Heinlein since I abominated his politics apart from his appreciation of cats, but he was almost right about the world being divided into makers, takers, and fakers. I wish I knew what our percentages will be.
I would like to think that humans could be that feedback , that we could muster the cooperation and understanding to generate some kind of an effective response. But i don't think we can. Even if we could generate the response, it seems the cat is out of the bag.
What i can only hope for is something like the gulf stream shutting down, making equatorial regions warmer but throwing the poles back into a glacial regeneration stage.
Or maybe the explosion of a supervolcano that will put forth enough particulates to block out most of our sunlight for a decade or two, or five. one can hope. A "rocky ride" for sure, but at least earth would come out with an atmosphere similar to one we have now, rather than a mercury or venus scenario that we could well be headed towards, more quickly than we thought. I was hoping i wouldn't read an article like this for about 20 years.....or never. But there it is.