11 ms·

Here is a good video about the arctic methane emergency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9ed5E54s4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9ed5E54s4 Some summary p

Here is a good video about the arctic methane emergency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9ed5E54s4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9ed5E54s4 Some summary points: - Total amount of methane in the current atmosphere: ~5 gigatons - Amount of carbon preserved as methane in the arctic shelf: estimated at 100s-1000s of gigatons - Only 1% release would double the atmospheric burden of methane - Not much effort is needed to destabilize this 1% - The volume currently being released is estimated at 50 gigatons (it could be far more) - 50 gigatons is 10x the methane content of the current atmosphere - We are already at 2.5x pre-industrial level, there is a methane veil spreading southward from the arctic. - Methane is 150x as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2 when it is first released. Here is a longer video for those who have the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPdc75epOEw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPdc75epOEw

shostack 10y ago
In layman's terms, how much are we screwed without hope of a solution, and what is the rough timeframe before the evening news starts looking like "The Day After Tomorrow?"
- alistproducer2 10y ago
  I'm wondering the same thing. Should I start blowing through my 401k money now or what?
  - Raphmedia 10y ago
    Save it for your ticket to mars.
    - flavor8 10y ago
      Better save it for anti aging supplements first. Easier to build climate resistant infrastructure here than on Mars.
      - gech 10y ago
        But as a member of the .01% I'd rather only build new infrastructure where I can guarantee only myself and select others will be able to utilize it. I wouldn't want to waste my money on something that might be ended up being used by the public.
        baursak 10y ago
        Can't tell if this was sarcasm or a serious statement.
        antisthenes 10y ago
        That depends on whether you have a bunker in New Zealand or not.
        knz 10y ago
        New Zealand could be in trouble if ocean acidification happens or weather patterns cause more drought (~80% hydro for energy generation and the arable land relies upon high rainfall).
        unFou 10y ago
        Can there even be non-localised drought on a small island the size of New Zealand? The only significant geographical feature in the North Island (where most people live) is 3 mountains right in the middle.
        knz 10y ago
        New Zealand is small enough that a localized drought can have significant impact. Most of the people do indeed live in the North Island but most of the power is generated in the South Island, particularly around the Mackenzie Basin/Otago area (dry highlands). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_... - sort the hydroelectric by capacity - most of the major dams are in this area.
    - rbobby 10y ago
      We added too much CO2 to atmosphere so we'll move to a planet with an atmosphere of 100% CO2... sounds like a plan! :)
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        The problem isn't CO₂. The problem is the roaming hordes of zomb^H^H^H^Hpeople displaced by rising ocean levels and subsequent collapse of civilized society. Mars doesn't have that :).
      - Raphmedia 10y ago
        If you can' beat them, join them?
  - username223 10y ago
    You'll be fine. If you care about your offspring, try not to reproduce. With the various positive feedback loops (permafrost methane, arctic albedo, antarctic ice shelves), things are going to get ugly.
  - finid 10y ago
    It doesn't make sense to blow the money by yourself. Send me some. And while you're at it, you might want to cancel any insurance that you have. Afterall, what's the point? That will make more money available to blow.
- xapata 10y ago
  Our grandchildren are in for tough times. Unless a political miracle occurs. Even then, it might be too late.
  - ythn 10y ago
    More likely our models will turn out to be slightly wrong and it won't be as apocalyptic as we thought and we'll adjust according to our observed reality.
    - pizza 10y ago
      What's the relative expected utility of assuming your best model is actually not as good as speculation?
      - taneq 10y ago
        Are we talking long term expectations or in the next quarterly budget? Because if the budget looks good I'm up for a raise.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      Every single time the models have turned out to be wrong it's always been that they've been overly optimistic. Not once has there been an "oh, it wasn't as bad as we thought" moment. It's always worse. It's going to be bad. A little panic is not a bad thing. If we panic for nothing that's better than brushing it off and having the worst possible outcome unfold because of inaction.
      - ythn 10y ago
        > It's going to be bad. A little panic is not a bad thing. It's always lose/lose for the skeptics: Scenario A: skeptics were wrong - "burn them at the stake, they screwed us all over!" Scenario B: skeptics were right - "well, they got lucky. It wasn't as apocalyptic as experts were claiming. They were still wrong to have rejected the evidence at hand and I was still right to have believed the evidence at hand"
- kaybe 10y ago
  I answered the second question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769896
tonmoy 10y ago
Would you happen to know, what percentage of temperature increase due to greenhouse effect is caused by methane right now?
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Isn't Wikipedia great? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) |Water vapor and clouds |36–72% | |Carbon dioxide | 9–26% | |Methane | 4–9% | |Ozone | 3–7% |
  - tonmoy 10y ago
    Ok, so release of 50 gigatons of CH4 means 10x increase in atmospheric CH4, then we are looking at around 50% contribution to greenhouse effect from CH4 after that I guess.
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      That's basically double of what CO2 contributes today, what will also increase the amount of water in the atmosphere. But CH4 is short lived, so the most important question is how fast it will be emitted. (And the second may be: could we make it even shorter lived?)
Retric 10y ago
Methane has a short ~5-10 year half life in the atmosphere. So, releasing 50x current methane levels over 100 years does not triple current methane levels.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Yep. Everything depends on how fast that methane will get released. It can vary from "we are completely fucked up, good bye" to "that's a rounding error, no big deal". Methane should be easier to take out of the atmosphere than CO2. Spraying something at the Stratosphere could be incredibly helpful even if the substance is short lived. (But I have no idea what to spray there, would water make any difference?)
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    When you look at the many different potential sources of, "Fucked... goodbye..." the trend is very clear. We're juggling apocalypses and just waiting to find one that will stick. Will it be ocean acidification first? Ocean levels rising? Catastrophic weather patterns? Famine? Drought? War touched off by rapid changed? Mass extinctions? They're all in play, each with the potential to end us.
    - whyenot 10y ago
      Is this why we have not yet found signs of intelligent life in the universe? Every time a civilization is advanced enough to really screw up (their) planet, inevitably, they do? Fermi Paradox redux.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        I think it's a good possible resolution, yeah, generally referred to as 'The Great Filter Hypothesis'.
        antisthenes 10y ago
        It is necessary to note, however, that the great filter does not necessarily occur when a civilization achieves some arbitrary technological level. In fact, it could be at the point of single cell --> multi-cellular organisms or at the point of sexual dimorphism or developing general intelligence and ability to use tools, etc. I guess it's also possible there are multiple Great Filters...
makmanalp 10y ago
I wonder how many of these bubbles are harvestable into useful fuel? Prevent a crisis and stockpile fuel at the same time? Obviously it's nicer if we could get everyone to sign the Kyoto treaty but ...
- Two9A 10y ago
  [Unrelated: Good to see you're still around; feel free to drop by EFnet again sometime.]
- davesque 10y ago
  I've thought about this, but I think there's a serious question as to whether humans can even muster an effort on the scale that would be required to harvest and prevent release into the atmosphere. Take ocean clathrates, for example. At a certain point, the ocean may become warm enough to destabilize them. What do we do in that case? Put up collection tents over the ocean that are millions of square kilometers large? The problem just doesn't seem tractable. But who knows? I'm certainly not the sort of engineer that is qualified to answer these questions.
- finid 10y ago
  Where're you going to store that much gas?
  - rickycook 10y ago
    mentioned in a sibling comment to yours, but maybe we can just burn it? AFAIK 1 CH4 turns into 1 CO2 when burned, and that might be better
- rickycook 10y ago
  from what i understand, just burning it would improve the situation too. bearing in mind that i don't know much about chemistry and this is entirely from google: when burned, 1 CH4 turns into 1 CO2 and 2 H2O, so you essentially trade CH4 for CO2. that ignores the whole CH4 being a short term problem thing though...
Two9A 10y ago
For what it's worth, your "longer video" is just two copies of the shorter video spliced together. Did you mean to provide another link there?
- bithive123 10y ago
  I'm sorry, that was not my intent. I was trying to find another video from the same conference but I may have to upload it myself. To make up for it, here is a link to the interesting/informative YouTube channel of Paul Beckwith, a climate scientist at the University of Ottawa: https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith/videos
metaobject 10y ago
I apologize for not watching the video, but what sort of effects will these increased levels have on humans, plants, and other life on the planet? It doesn't sound like it would be beneficial.
- taberiand 10y ago
  Extinction for the most part
kneel 10y ago
Methane release will be followed by an increase in methanotrophs and probably some weird algae blooms. Nature is fairly dynamic, especially at the prokaryotic level.
- Gravityloss 10y ago
  "the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[6][7] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[8] It is the only known mass extinction of insects.[9][10] Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on Earth took significantly longer than after any other extinction event,[6] possibly up to 10 million years" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin... Maybe it's methane, maybe not.
wilkommen 10y ago
That's totally wild. I hadn't heard about this before.

shostack 10y ago

In layman's terms, how much are we screwed without hope of a solution, and what is the rough timeframe before the evening news starts looking like "The Day After Tomorrow?"

alistproducer2 10y ago
I'm wondering the same thing. Should I start blowing through my 401k money now or what?
- Raphmedia 10y ago
  Save it for your ticket to mars.
  - flavor8 10y ago
    Better save it for anti aging supplements first. Easier to build climate resistant infrastructure here than on Mars.
    - gech 10y ago
      But as a member of the .01% I'd rather only build new infrastructure where I can guarantee only myself and select others will be able to utilize it. I wouldn't want to waste my money on something that might be ended up being used by the public.
      - baursak 10y ago
        Can't tell if this was sarcasm or a serious statement.
        antisthenes 10y ago
        That depends on whether you have a bunker in New Zealand or not.
        knz 10y ago
        New Zealand could be in trouble if ocean acidification happens or weather patterns cause more drought (~80% hydro for energy generation and the arable land relies upon high rainfall).
        unFou 10y ago
        Can there even be non-localised drought on a small island the size of New Zealand? The only significant geographical feature in the North Island (where most people live) is 3 mountains right in the middle.
        knz 10y ago
        New Zealand is small enough that a localized drought can have significant impact. Most of the people do indeed live in the North Island but most of the power is generated in the South Island, particularly around the Mackenzie Basin/Otago area (dry highlands). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_... - sort the hydroelectric by capacity - most of the major dams are in this area.
  - rbobby 10y ago
    We added too much CO2 to atmosphere so we'll move to a planet with an atmosphere of 100% CO2... sounds like a plan! :)
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      The problem isn't CO₂. The problem is the roaming hordes of zomb^H^H^H^Hpeople displaced by rising ocean levels and subsequent collapse of civilized society. Mars doesn't have that :).
    - Raphmedia 10y ago
      If you can' beat them, join them?
- username223 10y ago
  You'll be fine. If you care about your offspring, try not to reproduce. With the various positive feedback loops (permafrost methane, arctic albedo, antarctic ice shelves), things are going to get ugly.
- finid 10y ago
  It doesn't make sense to blow the money by yourself. Send me some. And while you're at it, you might want to cancel any insurance that you have. Afterall, what's the point? That will make more money available to blow.
xapata 10y ago
Our grandchildren are in for tough times. Unless a political miracle occurs. Even then, it might be too late.
- ythn 10y ago
  More likely our models will turn out to be slightly wrong and it won't be as apocalyptic as we thought and we'll adjust according to our observed reality.
  - pizza 10y ago
    What's the relative expected utility of assuming your best model is actually not as good as speculation?
    - taneq 10y ago
      Are we talking long term expectations or in the next quarterly budget? Because if the budget looks good I'm up for a raise.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Every single time the models have turned out to be wrong it's always been that they've been overly optimistic. Not once has there been an "oh, it wasn't as bad as we thought" moment. It's always worse. It's going to be bad. A little panic is not a bad thing. If we panic for nothing that's better than brushing it off and having the worst possible outcome unfold because of inaction.
    - ythn 10y ago
      > It's going to be bad. A little panic is not a bad thing. It's always lose/lose for the skeptics: Scenario A: skeptics were wrong - "burn them at the stake, they screwed us all over!" Scenario B: skeptics were right - "well, they got lucky. It wasn't as apocalyptic as experts were claiming. They were still wrong to have rejected the evidence at hand and I was still right to have believed the evidence at hand"
kaybe 10y ago
I answered the second question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769896

tonmoy 10y ago

Would you happen to know, what percentage of temperature increase due to greenhouse effect is caused by methane right now?

marcosdumay 10y ago
Isn't Wikipedia great? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) |Water vapor and clouds |36–72% | |Carbon dioxide | 9–26% | |Methane | 4–9% | |Ozone | 3–7% |
- tonmoy 10y ago
  Ok, so release of 50 gigatons of CH4 means 10x increase in atmospheric CH4, then we are looking at around 50% contribution to greenhouse effect from CH4 after that I guess.
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    That's basically double of what CO2 contributes today, what will also increase the amount of water in the atmosphere. But CH4 is short lived, so the most important question is how fast it will be emitted. (And the second may be: could we make it even shorter lived?)

Retric 10y ago

Methane has a short ~5-10 year half life in the atmosphere. So, releasing 50x current methane levels over 100 years does not triple current methane levels.

marcosdumay 10y ago
Yep. Everything depends on how fast that methane will get released. It can vary from "we are completely fucked up, good bye" to "that's a rounding error, no big deal". Methane should be easier to take out of the atmosphere than CO2. Spraying something at the Stratosphere could be incredibly helpful even if the substance is short lived. (But I have no idea what to spray there, would water make any difference?)
- M_Grey 10y ago
  When you look at the many different potential sources of, "Fucked... goodbye..." the trend is very clear. We're juggling apocalypses and just waiting to find one that will stick. Will it be ocean acidification first? Ocean levels rising? Catastrophic weather patterns? Famine? Drought? War touched off by rapid changed? Mass extinctions? They're all in play, each with the potential to end us.
  - whyenot 10y ago
    Is this why we have not yet found signs of intelligent life in the universe? Every time a civilization is advanced enough to really screw up (their) planet, inevitably, they do? Fermi Paradox redux.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      I think it's a good possible resolution, yeah, generally referred to as 'The Great Filter Hypothesis'.
      - antisthenes 10y ago
        It is necessary to note, however, that the great filter does not necessarily occur when a civilization achieves some arbitrary technological level. In fact, it could be at the point of single cell --> multi-cellular organisms or at the point of sexual dimorphism or developing general intelligence and ability to use tools, etc. I guess it's also possible there are multiple Great Filters...

makmanalp 10y ago

I wonder how many of these bubbles are harvestable into useful fuel? Prevent a crisis and stockpile fuel at the same time? Obviously it's nicer if we could get everyone to sign the Kyoto treaty but ...

Two9A 10y ago
[Unrelated: Good to see you're still around; feel free to drop by EFnet again sometime.]
davesque 10y ago
I've thought about this, but I think there's a serious question as to whether humans can even muster an effort on the scale that would be required to harvest and prevent release into the atmosphere. Take ocean clathrates, for example. At a certain point, the ocean may become warm enough to destabilize them. What do we do in that case? Put up collection tents over the ocean that are millions of square kilometers large? The problem just doesn't seem tractable. But who knows? I'm certainly not the sort of engineer that is qualified to answer these questions.
finid 10y ago
Where're you going to store that much gas?
- rickycook 10y ago
  mentioned in a sibling comment to yours, but maybe we can just burn it? AFAIK 1 CH4 turns into 1 CO2 when burned, and that might be better
rickycook 10y ago
from what i understand, just burning it would improve the situation too. bearing in mind that i don't know much about chemistry and this is entirely from google: when burned, 1 CH4 turns into 1 CO2 and 2 H2O, so you essentially trade CH4 for CO2. that ignores the whole CH4 being a short term problem thing though...

Two9A 10y ago

For what it's worth, your "longer video" is just two copies of the shorter video spliced together. Did you mean to provide another link there?

bithive123 10y ago
I'm sorry, that was not my intent. I was trying to find another video from the same conference but I may have to upload it myself. To make up for it, here is a link to the interesting/informative YouTube channel of Paul Beckwith, a climate scientist at the University of Ottawa: https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith/videos

metaobject 10y ago

I apologize for not watching the video, but what sort of effects will these increased levels have on humans, plants, and other life on the planet? It doesn't sound like it would be beneficial.

taberiand 10y ago
Extinction for the most part

kneel 10y ago

Methane release will be followed by an increase in methanotrophs and probably some weird algae blooms. Nature is fairly dynamic, especially at the prokaryotic level.

Gravityloss 10y ago
"the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[6][7] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[8] It is the only known mass extinction of insects.[9][10] Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on Earth took significantly longer than after any other extinction event,[6] possibly up to 10 million years" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin... Maybe it's methane, maybe not.

wilkommen 10y ago

That's totally wild. I hadn't heard about this before.