Subsea methane release documented

[andygates]

You know that theory about how methane's trapped under permafrost and it could be a Bad Thing if it was to be released?  Well, it looks like it's happening.

Orjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University, in an Independent article:  "An extensive area of intense methane release was found [in the Laptev Sea, North of Siberia]. At earlier sites we had found elevated levels of dissolved methane. Yesterday, for the first time, we documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as methane bubbles to the sea surface. These 'methane chimneys' were documented on echo sounder and with seismic [instruments]."

"The conventional thought has been that the permafrost 'lid' on the sub-sea sediments on the Siberian shelf should cap and hold the massive reservoirs of shallow methane deposits in place. The growing evidence for release of methane in this inaccessible region may suggest that the permafrost lid is starting to get perforated and thus leak methane... The permafrost now has small holes. We have found elevated levels of methane above the water surface and even more in the water just below. It is obvious that the source is the seabed."

Oh, crap.

Comments

[andygates.livejournal.com]

Thing is, if you're in subcontinental Asia, you won't stay there to die. You'll move North. Ditto North Africa and Europe - there will be lots of bodies moving around. The social upheaval doesn't fill me with giggles; most of the temperate countries are already twitchy about immigration and we've never seen a real mass movement. If the to-be-desert folks would just shut up and die quietly in place, that would be peachy, but they're not that dumb.

[(Anonymous)]

I wonder why all those people who live in refugee camps stay there?

[andygates.livejournal.com]

Because they expect it to get better. Wars end, droughts end, floods subside. Everything people normally run away from gets better.

The timescale of changes for major climate change is long - even the most optimistic models give you many generations before big change is reversed. People can't wait that out. They will depopulate either by moving or by dying off.

[(Anonymous)]

They are there because it seemed like immanent doom where they lived so they left. Now the starving mass has nowhere to go, and no power to enforce their desire to leave.
Mass exodus sucks on foot carrying only only what can be put on yours' and your families' backs (which is often just the youngest child).

Any less than full blown en-masse refugee-ism will have to be performed under law. Which means those with Saleable Skills (tm) and Employment (read bend to The Man) or significant financial backing will be the only ones with enough resources to leave.

Those who cannot work the existing system to their betterment will be trapped in the "lower classes compartment" and have to thrive on there own and the survivors will provide a cheap labour pool because of their need.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

It sucks but it beats dyin' - they leave from home to the camp because that's where there is to go. Usually there's a grumpy army stopping them going further, say, over a border.

But say you're right. The ones who can conform to the requirements of their destination will make it, and the rest will politely die in place. The result is still a massive movement; we're just arguing about proportions.

And sign in, dammit, anonyposting is annoying! ;)

[(Anonymous)]

Apologies Andy for the anonymouse-ness but I deleted my account pending escalation warnings of a personal nature and prefer to keep it that way until the cause has been resolved in a face-to-face gnosis with the particular gent involved. And I keeps forgetting to add my tag at the end, and can't edit anomymous postings.

Sad thing about environment economics is that it adds to the price of any product or service. Any company that isn't a "price-setter" or genuine monopoly will find it difficult to pass on those costs. Giving the two fold effect: Anybody who "goes green" and can't sell it as value-add will lose to its competitors; secondly any company that can fake green in a cost effective manner will beat out their green competitors. That's why we need third parties like central/local government to level the playing field and keep competitors honest with their green claims (both my company and my opposition). Companies would love to pass the full cost of production (including environment controls) to the people causing the damage : the consumer. But any company that penalises their consumers, rather than sell them benefits will not be in business when the crunch time hits!

And history says those with resources will have best chance of food/shelter. Those who are heroes will just feed the sharks, and thats the first rule of aggressive business. As you can appreciate over-capitalisation be it too much expansion or too many environmental initatives will sink any producer. And sunk [green] producers are no use to anyone!

Regards,
Carl

[andygates.livejournal.com]

But that just means that markets cannot be used to solve the problem. There are other means. Legislation: international treaties. Social engineering: the mainstream churches are getting in on the act at last.

I don't think they'll work. I think people will be selfish shits until they drown in their own ordure, bitching about their collapsed economies and mourning the sons they sent to die in stupid, pointless resource and border wars.