Resarch Pioneer:
Katey Walter captures methane rising from a thawing lake bottom in Alaska.
Image: Doug Wiseman
A young scientist with curly, reddish hair tucked beneath a knit cap stepped gingerly onto the three-day-old ice of a remote lake in northeastern Siberia. Coating the black depths like cellophane, the thin film held no promise to bear her weight, but a sudden dunk in the frigid water was a risk she had to take. Searching the lake by rickety rowboat all summer had failed, and any day winter’s first big snow would engulf the region, obscuring the lake’s surface until spring. She could not afford to wait that long.
The woman shivered in her worn, blue down jacket and glanced up at the overcast sky. After one more cautious step, she spotted her quarry: a cluster of platter-size bubbles frozen into the ice. Those pockets of gas, which had risen from thawing permafrost—formerly frozen soil—at the lake’s bottom, were the aim of her doctoral research. Long elusive, they suddenly stood out like white stars against a night sky, though less serenely. With a small pick she cracked the icy skin of one of the bubbles and remained unfazed when it hissed back like a punctured gas pipe. Leaning forward, she apprehensively struck a match just above the broken bubble and flames as high as her head burst skyward. The flammable substance was methane, a greenhouse gas that could cause more global warming than carbon dioxide (CO2).
See what we're tweeting about
24 Comments
Add CommentWhat is interesting about the increased temperatures that Alaska has experienced these past is that this shift occurred suddenly and drastically in 1976, 33 years ago when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifted. These past 33 yrs have been warmed, but basically stable. Look at the main graph at the Alaska Climate Research Center
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html
Then look at temperatures since 1976, they have been basically stable, not rising, in fact the last 3 years have trended somewhat below average.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/7708Change.html
It is very hard to correlate the increased temps in Alaska with the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 levels.
One aspect of melting which I have not seen mentioned is latent heat. For ice temperatures to rise just 1°C from below freezing to above freezing takes a great quantity of heat to be absorbed. So we should be talking int terms of heat exchange and not temperature when we refer to ice, as much thawing can occur with little temperature change. In this respect I would also like to see more written on the phenomenon of thermo-karst, as much water-flow in fractured ice can occur hidden underground, releasing methane as it advances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think there is a bit of exageration on the opening page. It's hard to conceive of how enough pressure could build up in these bubbles trapped in the ice. Presumably the temperature at the time of pricking would be about the same as the time of the bubble formation. So, there should be no build-up as a result of temperature change. The bubble would have formed under the "very thin ice" and so could have only been formed at an inch or so of water pressure. Expansion of the ice would have only marginally increased this pressure. Where would the pressure have formed to make it hiss and shoot a flame out over her head?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, but if I'm going to think about accepting the larger findings here, I need to make sure she isn't making up the small stuff.
It's very important for every person on earth to save our planet, we need to have a pure air to breath. It's all because of carbondioxide and petroluem mixtures which is used by transportation vechiles. Actually i hate petroluem and i'm really happy that it will finish up and new scintists from all over the world invented new methods to create a new natural oil for a cleaner enviroment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat words which warns us to prevent earth from the ice caps to melt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyour computer is made of petroleum
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thing to note about the methane hydrates is that disruptions in the pressure that maintains their current stable state will result in the methane being released as a gas. As the gas is released, this further changes the pressure of the surrounding ice/water, causing even more methane to be released as a gas, resulting in an escalating chain reaction. There's also the potential for methane gas to be dissolved in the surrounding water of the methane hydrates without decaying due to lack of oxidation in areas that are stagnant, causing a large build-up of methane that would have otherwise entered the atmosphere and slowly been destroyed. This easily could occur for thousands of years without losing any of the methane gas. The situation is potentially more dangerous than this article says.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore info
http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/methaneGeology.pdf
Once again an argument for a World War II like world wide massive attack on global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot happenin' because corrupt politicians love campaign donations and BigOil/Coal has lots to give out. It will take a major global warming disaster like the a significant one year loss of ice pack causing flooding in the US or Europe, a super hot summer killing lots of folks, or a reversal of the Gulf stream before our mindless corrupt politicians get off their lazy asses and start a massive construction program building thousands of mass produced nuclear reactors over the next ten years.
Anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Once again an argument for a World War II like world wide massive attack on global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot happenin' because corrupt politicians love campaign donations and BigOil/Coal has lots to give out. It will take a major global warming disaster like the a significant one year loss of ice pack causing flooding in the US or Europe, a super hot summer killing lots of folks, or a reversal of the Gulf stream before our mindless corrupt politicians get off their lazy asses and start a massive construction program building thousands of mass produced nuclear reactors over the next ten years.
Anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
It may be the global warming is because of the earth getting closer to the sun by few miles; i.e. the distance between the earth and the sun has become nearer than before, and therefore the earth has been exposed to more of the sun rays and sun heat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://universeandquran.t35.com/new_page_4.htm#The_Earth_Approaches_the_Sun_
This explains the Fermi paradox
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps this explains the Fermi paradox
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismchellmer at 02:20 PM on 06/30/09:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyour computer is made of petroleum
me:
good thing I'm not burning it.
The problem with worrying about arctic thaw contributing to global warming is that that we don't know that the thaw will continue. According to the latest data, the arctic ice pack is increasing...by roughly 9% in just one year. If that continues, we'll be back to the 1979-2007 mean within 4 or 5 years. Whether that continues remains to be seen, which can also be said of global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe warming estimated in the last century is around 1 degree C. Computer models predict dramatic warming in the next century, but observational data don't support this conclusion. The contribution to global warming by methane and CO2 is still poorly understood. CO2 is steadily increasing in the atmosphere, but the last decade has shown no increase in warming, and even a slight cooling trend. Current theories linking CO2 to warming don't explain this.
Perhaps it would be better to keep monitoring the climate for a longer period of time before we rely on theoretical causal mechanisms that are poorly understood to propose policies for remediating what may actually not be a problem.
Certainly the different views and versions on this subject from the different corners of scientific community deserve high importance for more concrete and conclusive debate in this alarming field. It is also a matter of happiness that more people are paying attention to this subject, trying to dig out the details and putting their views from different perspectives. It is high time to expediate the research in global warming and devise and adopt the measures against it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislaurenra7: The slight cooling trend over the past few years was the result of an unusually long quiescent solar period. During a quiescent period the sun puts out less energy. That period is now ending and global warming is returning to its previous radical state. We have not seen a reduction in global warming; simply a brief interlude due to solar cycles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispeople don't seem to be recycling it either....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about the methane that oil companies "burn off" from
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswells? It is not only a waste of useful fuel, but what affect
does it have on global warming?
Temperatures have not risen in 10 years while CO2 has. So what does that tell you? CO2 is not the cause of the temperature change. Show me one scientific study that MEASURES the amount of warming caused by CO2. Right, you cannot find any. See how much Arctic ice "rapidly" melts this year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the pressure is provided by the researcher's weight on the ice above the bubble. Combined with the small hole acting as a nozzle, this could easily account for the flames leaping above her head.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2Gz-h35HCE
By converting the methane to carbon dioxide, the oil companies are actually reducing the greenhouse impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMethane is much more effective at trapping heat.
Methane hydrates are an interesting subject to me because so much of this stuff resides on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. It is now understood that the Gulf of Mexico became so full of hydrocarbons (petroleum and natural gas mainly) because when a careening asteroid crashed into the Yucatan area and the Chicxulub impact crater was created, the deeper caprock rock strata of the Earth's crust in this area was shattered into fine rubble, which allowed oil and natural gas to seep upward from deeper yet in the crust.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is why, in a nutshell, Mexico and Louisiana have oil platforms offshore. It is why dangerous methane ices or clathrates on the bottom of the Gulf could cause major global warming havoc should the water ever warm appreciably due to yet another meteor strike or vulcanism.
One way to fight methane in the atmosphere is create more artificially rocky shorelines, as waves crashing into a rugged shore creates high surf spray, reported to do a fine job of scrubbing out methane.
laurenra7:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"According to the latest data, the arctic ice pack is increasing...by roughly 9% in just one year. If that continues, we'll be back to the 1979-2007 mean within 4 or 5 years. "
------------------
Parroting the same LIES from the usual propagandist sources hardly entitles you to any credibility whatsoever!
Fact is, we've seen an extreme negative phase of arctic oscillation (AO) this winter, making the Arctic warmer than average, while parts of the middle latitudes are colder than normal. The phase of the AO is described in terms of an index value. In December 2009 the AO index value was -3.41, the most negative value since at least 1950, according to data from the NOAA Climate Prediction Center.
2009 year in review
The minimum ice extent in September 2009 was greater than the past two Septembers, but again fell below the long-term average.
The annual average extent for 2009 was 11.18 million square kilometers (4.32 million square miles), 970,000 square kilometers (375,000 square miles) or 8.0% below 1979 to 2000 average and 740,000 square kilometers (286,000 square miles) or 6.2% below the 1979 to 2008 average.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
----------
So in other words for the religious DENIALISTS, having a need to post opinion and propaganda without sources, the Arctic has been extremely warm during the 2009/2010 winter due to an extreme negative AO not seen since 1950, and the 2009 annual average ice extent was 6.2% BELOW the 1979-2008 average.
December 2009 compared to past years
December 2009 had the fourth-lowest average ice extent for the month since the beginning of satellite records, falling just above the extent for 2007. The linear rate of decline for December is now 3.3% per decade.
eannassir: Please check that out further...the heat we feel in summer is from getting more direct rays which is far more important than moving a few miles closer. I can't tell you where to look, but think about the distance carefully, and the fact that there is nothing substantial diminishing the light/heat we now receive except our atmosphere. Simply put the atmosphere is where the problem(s)and changes are significant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this