Sentences with phrase «about methane hydrates»

[Response: My post was about methane hydrates.

But having made my point, I probably shouldn't hijack this interesting post about methane hydrates any further — I guess we should try to work out how to extract and burn them to avert the peak oil crisis risk of release: --RRB-

Not exact matches

«If we have basic knowledge about the mechanical properties of methane hydrates, we can use this information so that we manage them properly,» Zhang said.

Over the years, as researchers have returned to the place they named Hydrate Ridge, they have learned a lot about how methane hydrate is createdHydrate Ridge, they have learned a lot about how methane hydrate is createdhydrate is created there.

Scientists excavating the ocean floor have found huge chunks of frozen methane along Hydrate Ridge, about 60 miles off the coast of Oregon.

The methane hydrates with the highest climate susceptibility are in upper continental margin slopes, like those that ring the Arctic Ocean, representing about 3.5 percent of the global methane hydrate inventory, says Carolyn Ruppel, a scientist who leads the Gas Hydrates Project at thydrates with the highest climate susceptibility are in upper continental margin slopes, like those that ring the Arctic Ocean, representing about 3.5 percent of the global methane hydrate inventory, says Carolyn Ruppel, a scientist who leads the Gas Hydrates Project at tHydrates Project at the USGS.

Research in 2008 led by oceanographer Natalia Shakhova, now at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, estimated the thawing shelf could release a 50 - gigaton pulse of methane from hydrates over 10 years — about 8 percent of the methane stored in the shelf's sediments.

I'd love to know what they did take into account in attempting to model that period — must include astronomical location, sun's behavior, best estimates about a lot of different conditions — where the continents were, what the ocean circulation was doing, whether there had been a recent geological period that laid down a lot of methane hydrates available to be tipped by Pliocene warming into bubbling out rapidly.

My research indicates that the Siberian peat moss, Arctic tundra, and methal hydrates (frozen methane at the bottom of the ocean) all have an excellent chance of melting and releasing their stored co2.Recent methane concentration figures also hit the news last week, and methane has increased after a long time being steady.The forests of north america are drying out and are very susceptible to massive insect infestations and wildfires, and the massive die offs - 25 % of total forests, have begun.And, the most recent stories on the Amazon forecast that with the change in rainfall patterns one third of the Amazon will dry and turn to grassland, thereby creating a domino cascade effect for the rest of the Amazon.With co2 levels risng faster now that the oceans have reached carrying capacity, the oceans having become also more acidic, and the looming threat of a North Atlanic current shutdown (note the recent terrible news on salinity upwelling levels off Greenland,) and the change in cold water upwellings, leading to far less biomass for the fish to feed upon, all lead to the conclusion we may not have to worry about NASA completing its inventory of near earth objects greater than 140 meters across by 2026 (Recent Benjamin Dean astronomy lecture here in San Francisco).

And finally, what about Mark's questions (# 3) and other factors not discussed here — do all these effects re Arctic ice lead scientists to believe there is a greater and / or earlier chance (assuming we continue increasing our GHG emissions — business as usual) of melting hydrates and permafrost releasing vast stores of methane into the atmosphere than scientists believed before the study, or is the assessment of this about the same, or scientists are not sure if this study indicates a greater / lesser / same chance of this?

I have posted on RealClimate about 4 times in the past 5 years regarding the potential thaw of the methal hydrate deposits at the bottom of the oceans.I stated in my posts on your website that I believe firmly that those deposits are in quite a good bit of danger of melting from climate change feedback mechanisms.On Nov 8th, ScienceDaily posted a huge new study on the PETM boundary 55 million years ago, and some key data on how the methane at that point may very well have melted and contributed to the massive climate shift.I am an amateur who reads in the new a lot about climate change.I'd now like to say «I told you so!!!»

Has anyone commented that the past claims of «shallow hydrates» would imply the presence about 50x as much methane in the shallow sediments — compared to methane in water or air or sediment not in clathrate form?

This is off topic, but I was wondering about the Alaska earthquake this morning and its impact on the methane hydrates along the continental shelf.

Even if most of this will probably not escape in any eventuality, I think it's very important to determine as soon as possible whether we're talking about one well with a bad cement job, one well with methane hydrate melting around it, failure of containment of most wells in Bovanenkovo (which after all will all have much the same conditions at the top of the reservoir), or failure of containment of most wells in the Yamal Project.

Plumes of rising methane bubbles have been mapped off the coast of Svalbard to where the water is about 400 meters deep — the edge of the stability zone for hydrates.

And finally, what about Mark's questions (# 3) and other factors not discussed here — do all these effects re Arctic ice lead scientists to believe there is a greater and / or earlier chance (assuming we continue increasing our GHG emissions — business as usual) of melting hydrates and permafrost releasing vast stores of methane into the atmosphere than scientists believed before the study, or is the assessment of this about the same, or scientists are not sure if this study indicates a greater / lesser / same chance of this?

There has been quite a bit of worry about what happens when the methane hydrates on the Arctic shelf go blooie, but a factor not thought of by many is that since these hydrates are underwater, a fair amount of the methane will never reach the surface, but will first go into solution in the sea water, and later be oxidized to CO2, hydrogen carbonate and carbonate ions.

Chris Nelder had an article in The Atlantic a few months ago saying that Japan (and everyone else) should forget about developing unconventional fossil energy like methane hydrates, and should focus on renewables instead.

At present, co-author and oceanography associate professor Evan Solomon is analyzing the chemical composition of bubble plume samples emitted at about 500 meters deep off the Washington coast, seeing whether the gas comes from methane hydrates instead of other sources.

So we divide 54 feet by 168 and we get a packed layer of about 4 inches thick of solid methane hydrate buried in the permafrost.

So the methane emergency statements continue; they seem to have quit using the word «hydrate» now and yet the same quantity of methane is being talked about — although that doesn't add up.

The Minerals Management Service estimates that the Gulf may hold 6,700 tcf of methane hydrate in sand — enough to satisfy U.S. natural gas demand for about 290 years, if all of it could be removed economically.

What about sea - floor methane hydrate?

«Estimates suggest that there is about the same amount of carbon in methane hydrates as there is in every other organic carbon store on the planet,» says Chris Rochelle of the British Geological Survey.

There is some more information about permafrost and gas hydrates as a source of methane here and here: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MethaneMatters/#page5 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MethaneMatters/#page6

In the Arctic, due to colder - than - average water temperatures, only about 200 m of water depth is required, which increases the vulnerability of those methane hydrates to a warming Arctic Ocean.

However, even in the cold Arctic Ocean, methane hydrate is only stable below about 200 m water depth, making for an inefficient pathway to the atmosphere at best.

One possible explanation; Berndt thinks that two things may be going on at once: a slow leak of methane that's been going on for hundreds of years, and also the beginning of the hydrate breakup that scientists have been worried about.

Berndt thinks that two things may be going on at once: a slow leak of methane that's been going on for hundreds of years, and also the beginning of the hydrate breakup that scientists have been worried about...»

Also, there seems to be a regional layer of methane hydrate, encountered when drilling at multiple gas fields, at about 100 meters in depth.

If there is a regional layer of Siberian methane hydrate at about 100 meters, total methane content of that layer could be on the order of a gigaton or two of methane, as a worst case, I think.

RE methane hydrates, here's a NYT article that claims we don't have to worry about the deeper ones for 1000s of years because the ocean is slow in warming, esp down at the bottom where the hydrates are (tho some scientist aren't sure about that): http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/arctic-methane-is-catastrophe-imminent/?partner=rss&emc=rss

C (or methane hydrates / clathrates, in case that isn't considered geologic)-RRB-, Halting all marine photosynthesis and letting respiration / decay continue at the same rate (it would actually decay over time as less organic C would be available) would result in an O2 decrease at a rate of about 0.011 % per year, but it could only fall at that rate for about 3 weeks, with a total O2 decrease of about 0.000675 % (relative to total O2, and not counting organic C burial, which wouldn't make a big difference); Halting all land photosynthesis and letting respirationd / decay proceed at the same rate would cause O2 to fall about 0.027 % per year for about 19 years, with a total drop of about 0.52 %.

The first place I recall reading about the breakdown of methane in water was from: Revelle, Roger (1983), «Methane hydrates in continental slope sediments and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide,» Changing Climates, Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, pp. 252 — 261, National Academy Press, Washingtonmethane in water was from: Revelle, Roger (1983), «Methane hydrates in continental slope sediments and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide,» Changing Climates, Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, pp. 252 — 261, National Academy Press, WashingtonMethane hydrates in continental slope sediments and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide,» Changing Climates, Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, pp. 252 — 261, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?

Today there are about 10 trillion tonnes of carbon stored in methane hydrates.

Assuming 1 % hydrate by pore water volume were released on average from the slide volume, you get a methane release of about 0.8 Gton of C. Even if all of the hydrate made it to the atmosphere, it would have had a smaller climate impact than a volcanic eruption (I calculated the methane impact on the radiative budget here).