Hi Guys,

Normally I would say that this might be a problem. But methane has been stable for some time so this is interesting but will not effect the climate. Couple this with decreasing temperatures (predicted LOL) I doubt it will last very long.

Let's put some perspective on this. Huge amounts of methane are released 24/7 from many sources, including cows and flatulent politicians. It is the quantity that is important. Saying that we have small geysers of methane is interesting, but it is the quantity that matters.

Here is an image of burning methane being released by Siberian gas flares from oil wells, which is making soot that melts the snow protecting the permafrost.
http://www.robertamsterdam.com/flaring.gif

A new study of satellite images by the NOAA shows that in 2006 Russia surpassed Nigeria to become the world's most prolific gas flarer. "Flaring" is a process by which unusable or excess natural gas is released by a pressure valve and burned - releasing tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2007/07/russia_surpasses_nigeria_in_ga.htm

"contains billions of tons of organic matter from the Ice Age".

Why would this not have come about during the Holocene Optimum, when temps were higher than they are today by about 2-3 C?

Article doesn't say if this is a recent phenomenon or if it is something that has been happening for a long time (geologically speaking) and we just now noticed it.

Is somebody trying to find out a why to harvest this methane and use it as an energy source?

Natural gas is primarily methane. Since we can't build any more coal plants in this state, we really need that methane 'cause the wind doesn't blow every day, not even in Kansas.

Youtube has a fairly impressive clip of people setting fire to the methane, taken from Dr Iain Stewart's recent BBC series "Earth: Power of the planet."

The fact that methane gas is locked in the permafrost of Artic regions suggests that at one time these were areas of lush vegetation. The same can be said of the desert regions of the Middle East. This means that the earth's climate was very different at one time. Why is such a catastrophy if it happens again? BTW instead of spending so much time and energy on AGW why don't scientists investgate ways to harness methane gas as a possible energy source?

Hi Ian,

Here is an impressive video of gas flaring. They say that by eliminating flaring alone, the world could achieve Kyoto targets.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gas%20flaring&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS177US236&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv

Not only would it reduce CO2 and methane contributions to the atmosphere, but also soot which is melting the permafrost and aggravating the problem.

Do any of the AGW advocates out there know why Methane "is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide"?

How was this order of magnitude determined?

NBC finds melting ice at -40 degrees, and Penguins in the Arctic. Reply: NBC corrected the penguin mistake. Patrick, how do find this stuff?

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/85833.html

The wonders of modern journalism!

"...Many of his collegues in Russia are not concerned about global warming, ..."

Perhaps the collapse of soviet union taught them to be more resilient to brainwashing?

thomasfurbs?
Methane is a part of agw,and btw is right. The only real solution is to eat less meat. It is also more healthy. Kansas can find another cash crop like Gambling. That worked in Nevada. Why use more methane, and have more land abuse. doesn't anyone watch the nature channel. National Geographic is now in the business of producing wonderful, informative, objective shows on Global Warming. Like the show "if people weren't here".Wow That was exciting!
KIPP

Bottle it and use it. They believe it could accelerate global warming, if it does it does, after all this is natural and not man made, but I'm sure it all happened and got to this point because of man, reintroducing grass, herbivores over 10,000 years ago. If it warms and they were there, won't they come back and isn't this disturbing a "natural" cycle, by replanting. Kipp what time is that great show on, I hope its not the same time as the Weather Channels "It Could Happen Tomorrow' or "Climate Change" with Hi-D.

Hmm, when I see the name "Soros" on anything to do with climate I react in the same way the AGWers do to ExxonMobil. If there is a sudden flow of biased money into Siberia then poof goes the objective science. We can only hope that the Russians are harder to buy than some Western universities, but I have my doubts.

Brett,

NBC might have corrected their story, but it is surely more worrying that they made such an awful mistake in the first place.

Patrick, how do find this stuff?

Perhaps it is supplied to him.

This didn't take long.....
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506160205.aspx

I can relate to explosions of methane. It's sort of like bubbles in the bathtub.

Again my "TUNNEL" idea prevents this as they would keep the permafrost frozen. Would someone like to computer model them???

NGW Steve,

They are probably refering to "Global Warming Potential" which is a scale based on CO2 being 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

The above link provides the formula. Notice that it is not really just as simple as a formula, but it seems pretty clear that gram for gram, CH4 is a much more potent GHG than CO2. It is also much less abundant.

For anyone who is curious, the rumors of my disappearance are greatly exaggerated. My last semester of electrical engineering at North Carolina State University was insane. I should be back posting strongly, now,

Hi Brett,

If you ever want a good laugh, do a Google news search for "global warming." The amount of absurdity which comes up will keep you in stitches for hours.

Check this gem out.

Underwater volcanoes increasing global warming - catastrophe in 2012

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/7146.asp

"Objective shows on Global Warming."

Objective: Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

Yeah, "If the people weren't here" was a great show. But I don't think us not being here is a real solution to "climate chaos."

What you call a positive feed back is correct scientifically speaking but seriously misleading for the future of humanity.
The more green house gas keeps more heat, the more permafrost is melting and emitting more methane (a potent GHG).
We need urgent actions to slow our GHG emissions if we want to mitigate the serious consequences of the occuring global warming.

Methane is a part of agw,and btw is right. The only real solution is to eat less meat. It is also more healthy. Kansas can find another cash crop like Gambling. That worked in Nevada. Why use more methane, and have more land abuse. doesn't anyone watch the nature channel. National Geographic is now in the business of producing wonderful, informative, objective shows on Global Warming. Like the show "if people weren't here".Wow That was exciting!

REPLY: Serve up the Bar-B-Que Ribs, baby! AND JUST TRY AND STOP ME!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Kipp Alpert wrote:

thomasfurbs?
Methane is a part of agw,and btw is right. The only real solution is to eat less meat. It is also more healthy. Kansas can find another cash crop like Gambling. That worked in Nevada. Why use more methane, and have more land abuse. doesn't anyone watch the nature channel. National Geographic is now in the business of producing wonderful, informative, objective shows on Global Warming. Like the show "if people weren't here".Wow That was exciting!
--------------
I lived in Nevada and worked for a mega resort chain in Las Vegas. Gambling attracts a lot of tourists to Nevada and all their carbon emissions come with them. I hardly see how encouraging more emissions will help your cause.

BTW: I've noticed that CO2 is two-parts oxygen to one-part carbon. Maybe we need to stop focusing on carbon and instead limit oxygen. Methane is 4-parts oxygen to one part carbon. Limit oxygen in the atmosphere and nobody can burn carbon fuels!

Do any of the AGW advocates out there know why Methane "is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide"?

The answer is that it is not 20 times more potent than CO2. This is just more AGW BS using GWP, Global Warming Potential.

Global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of how much a given mass of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to global warming compared to an equal mass of CO2.

CH4 is 1.75 ppm where CO2 is 390 ppm. So, to have equal ppm, we will need 223 times the amount of Methane we currently have.

A mole of CH4 weighs 16 grams where CO2 weighs 44 grams. To have equal masses we will need an additional 2.75 times as much CH4, that equates to 613 times as much CH4 ppm to equal 750 billion equivalent tons of CO2.

CH4 can hold 2.6 times as much energy per unit mass as CO2 so for CH4 to contribute an equal amount to the Greenhouse Effect, disregarding absorption bands, CH4 must be at 412 ppm. 235 times it's current atmospheric concentration.

Way to go AGW Scientists, you have once again proven you have no clue what you are doing.

Where 20 times came from is a mystery other than Radiative Forcing is used in one GWP function. Radiative Forcing is GUESS and the EPA states GWP is off by as much as + or - 35% depending on the GHG being manipulated, they do not state which gases are off by what %.

Reply: Steve, you may want to look at table 2 and the multiplier. Methane is 21X more potent according to this source. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

So a guess that is off by an unknown, is additionally off by up to 35%? Sounds like AGW Science to me.

Both Einstien and God should be proud of AGW Man's latest and greatest acheivements.

This story has been around for a long time and there is no reason for alarm. But, the activists keep trotting it out every few years to promote catastrophic AGW. An article published in 2005 states:

"The Russian Academy of Sciences has found that the annual temperature of soils (with seasonal variations) has been remaining stable," reported the August 22 Russian News and Information Agency. "If anything, the depth of seasonal melting has decreased slightly."

"Unscrupulous scientists are exaggerating and peddling fears about permafrost thawing and swamp methane becoming aggressive," Professor Nikolai Alexeyevsky, doctor of geography and head of the land hydrology department at Moscow State University, told the Russian News and Information Agency.

"The alarmists' misrepresentation of the Siberian permafrost is not surprising," said Pat Michaels, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "So long as governments hand out billions of dollars each year for climate research, there is no incentive to report the truth. The only sure way to keep receiving climate research funding is to keep claiming impending climate catastrophe."

I guess a reminder popped up on someone's computer at the Chicago Tribune, "Time to scare them again with the melting permafrost story."

Here is a link to the 2005 article entitled, "Russians Debunk Permafrost Scam"
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17978

IZNUP:
Methane means warming, and that is not good news to those who are experiencing GW today. It may be small in the greenhouse effect(although more potent) but it is an indication that the arctic is meltng into the sea, and that in low lying countries people are dying, and the coral is bleaching.
KIPP

Jep,

Methane is 4-parts oxygen to one part carbon.

Actually, methane is 4-parts hydrogen to one part carbon (CH4).

Kipp,

If the truth be known, it has always been the case that