Methane Is Discovered Seeping from Seafloor Off East Coast, Scientists Say | Hacker News Reader

Methane Is Discovered Seeping from Seafloor Off East Coast, Scientists Say

nytimes.com

74 pointsdnetesn25 comments

While this appears to be an alarming "discovery," I'm not sure what the news is considering Skarke and Ruppel were both included on a paper submitted in 2012 (and available in Spring of 2013) titled: "Evidence for extensive methane venting on the southeastern U.S. Atlantic margin[1]." Perhaps it's simply that the depth and length of time has now been revealed? I couldn't find the paper that the articles are mentioning.

In any case, there's another paper (available for free currently) that goes into more detail on what sort of implications the methane can have on different sorts of oceanic conditions: "Seafloor oxygen consumption fuelled by methane from cold seeps[2]."

[1] - http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/41/7/807

[2] - http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n9/full/ngeo1926.html

It's not all that alarming in any case. The article did say that the amounts released are small compared to other sources of methane.

We've known for decades that there are enormous quantities of methane clathrates at the bottom of the northern oceans. That some of it vents should not surprise anyone.

Do we know that this isn't a recent phenomenon? I suspect that it might be new, along with methane potholes showing up in Siberia.

I think we know that there have been bouts of global warming that was preceded by release of methane into the atmosphere, followed by 6 to 9 degrees of warming over a long period of time. It fucked with the ecosystem but mammals managed to survive at least two of them.

This appears to be a man-made beginning to one of these warming periods, though it's happening at a much faster rate than ever by orders of magnitude.

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp

So, I think what's scary is that this looks like a massive global extinction event that hasn't happened in 25 ~ 50 million years, and it's starting now, and it's happening faster than it ever has. I dunno, doesn't that scare you a little?

It looks like if we're not unlucky we'll manage to survive (mammals have done it before). Probably scariest is the political turmoil that will result. That's the part that will affect us in our lifetime.

well the article indicates that many of the observed locations date to over a thousand years old. The take away questions for me, since I am not buying the paper are.

What are the changes in sea temperature in the shallow areas the seeps were found? Do we have good measurements across a great many years? How much of a temperature increase is needed to start seepage and how much is needed to stop it once started?

It is likely we simply stumbled on something that has been but simply not observed. Not all of the surface is under constant observation and obviously far less of the ocean is

BBC version of the story: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28898223

Does the actual paper exist yet? Both the NYT and BBC reference an article posted online on Sunday (i.e. today) by Nature Geoscience. That would presumably show up here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/research/. But at the moment nothing there is newer than last Sunday. And the BBC's DOI link is a 404. Are they forward-referencing an article that hasn't been posted yet, but which they got advance access to?

When the same starts happening in the Arctic, then we have a really bad spiralling problem on our hands.

Bye bye ice. Hello higher sea levels.

While it definitely will have bad consequenses, the melting of the arctic ice will not directly lead to rising sea levels (since it is floating).

It could raise levels slightly. By Archimedes principle the floating sea ice displaces an equivalent mass of ocean water, so there's no net mass change. But due to differing densities of fresh and salt water, it displaces slightly less volume of salt water than it will contribute in melted freshwater (by about 2.6%, according to [1]). But this may also be complicated by temperature changes [2].

[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007....

[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030784/full

No, this is incorrect. Most of arctic ice is landlocked: it is currently not in ocean waters. This is why its melting directly contributes to sea level rise.

Imagine filling half of a salad bowl with water, then resting a strainer full of ice on top of the bowl. As the ice melts, the water will drip into the bowl and raise the water level. That's basically what is happening with the arctic ice.

There is enough landlocked ice to raise sea level by 80 meters or so.

Here's a projection that claims it'll rise 2.5 meters by 2040.

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/07/more-than-25m-sea-le...

You would have been closer to correct if you said sea ice.

Yes, I've been following Arctic Sea Ice News[1] for so long I atomatically read "arctic" as "artic sea". (And many people seem to think that the arctic sea ice melting will contribute as much as the landbased ice to the sea level problem.)

When the landbased ice in the arctic region starts melting in earnest we will have a rather large problem..

[1] http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Methane vents occur in other parts of the world as well. For instance, Yanartaş in Turkey is a methane vent that is associated with a mythology in a couple of respects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanarta%C5%9F

```The methane is emanating from at least 570 locations, called seeps, from near Cape Hatteras, N.C., to the Georges Bank southeast of Nantucket, Mass. While the seepage is widespread, the researchers estimated that the amount of gas was tiny compared with the amount released from all sources each year. ```

Somewhat sensationalist given the source. I really hope articles like these do not distract from the larger climate change problem.

Well it adds another piece to the puzzle, a puzzle we are far from solving nor do we know all the pieces. I am not sure which models information like this can plug into but I expect it to lead a few to more accurate forecasts.

They could try blocking the leak somehow although it might be pretty difficult. But I think this could lead to earthquakes if they figure out a way to cap it.

sigh paywall again

Install Quick JavaScript Switcher browser extension and turn off JS for nytime.

Or, you could pay for a service that you obviously find useful and interesting.

Do I?

I share the grandparent's frustration. I'm not opposed to the NYT having a paywall, but submitting paywall-protected content to a news aggregator is a bad idea, especially when free alternatives exist. The point of a news aggregator is to share content with the rest of the community, and paywalls are designed to restrict that access.

Open link in an incognito window.

Or reset internet connection if you don't have a fixed IP.

Please stop putting nytimes.com news as in Frence it is not free at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com