Can We Mitigate a Methane Burst?

[@kimwelch4652]

From the comments, it sounds like people are catching on to the fact that technological solutions have side effects which are often worse than the problem just in a different way. That being said, you are acting as if this is a solution for some distant future when a big methane bubble pops. The problem is that the methane is already bubbling and we need solutions now not later. When the entire world shutdown during the pandemic, the methane concentrations continued to go up--why--because the permafrost is already leaking. The problem is advancing faster than anyone seems to be organizing. You are running out of time much faster than you think. If you can't deploy at scale in *less* than ten ( maybe five) years, you've probably already missed your window.

[@elephantintheroom5678]

That's right.

[@FacingFuture]

We recognize that the time is brutally short in which to act. If climate scientists had their way, resources would flow immediately to projects like the ones Peter is proposing. And of course, the methane is already leaking. Hard to prevent it in the Arctic, warming 4 x faster than the rest of the world. Note - 1.5 billion cows emit the lions share of methane. We could stop that much more easily.

[@kimwelch4652]

@@FacingFuture Having the technology to do something and having the social capacity to do something are completely different things. Yeah, we have the technology to do a lot of things. We have no social capacity. We have no Jungian or Freudian Libido to act.

[@elephantintheroom5678]

@@FacingFuture So far.

[@jimtaggert42]

@@FacingFuture maybe that's why the panel was laughing so much? smh

[@kitersrefuge7353]

Why was Natalia Shakhova not invited? East Siberian Arcitc Shelf (ESAS) has 1400 to 2000 gigatons of CH4 under enormous pressure trapped by a thin underwater permafrost (70m deep). Her husband has advocated that a 50 gigaton "burp" there is more than possible at "any time". So, the answer is: NO way. As a species we are buggered. Only way to solution this, is to cool the arctic from orbit, with a shield, trasported there using the Starship of Elon when it becomes operational. That "should" buy us some more time, to be able to get AI to answer the question: "How can CO2 and CH4 be sequestrated at gigaton levels, within a very short time frame?"

[@nicholasb8799]

Exactly, we heard about this 10 years ago or so, and she was very serious and very concerned!! Thanks for posting that.

[@dianewallace6064]

My guess is that Dr. Shakhova has had to recuse herself. At least that is what I have heard through the grapevine but again, I am just guessing.

[@NightRunner417]

Are you literally saying that we need to rely on the assistance of an AI that doesn't yet exist? This isn't inspiring hope, lol.

[@lukegardner6917]

Elon is more interested in blowing smoke up his own arse than saving the planet. Dude could have saved millions from starvation but instead opted to purchase his favorite trolling platform

[@kitersrefuge7353]

@@lukegardner6917 Elon Musks interests lie in the survivability of the species...believe it or not. I've heard rumours that the Billionaire classes know we are existentially on a knife-edge, without a plan to save the entirety of the species. They therefore are aligning themeselves with a plan B when Climate Collapse ends up with tens or hundreds of millions of people on the move or existentially threatened. I am no conspiracy theorist btw. What i _do_ know about Elon is that his vision of governance on Mars, would be a distributed one, that would leverage a Twitter like platform. However, as with everything human, Elon or just us mere mortals, so to speak, no one is even close to perfect and fallible.

[@EeDuncStar]

WHAT are the side effects?

[@acquisitium]

could i suggest to also make a video with the same message but then more in layman terms so these ideas can be wider spread?

[@michaelward878]

Yeah you're f*****

[@MrSimonw58]

Nothing compared to my wife's methane burst

[@DrSmooth2000]

Improve her diet. Some luck with seaweed in the dairy industry. Do it for all of us

[@philipmorkel8384]

Peter Fiekowsky, though not too clear on the practical details of the solution, wants to release FeCl3 dust presumably into the atmosphere above where a methane outburst would occur. By his admission, it works slowly in his dry, still office by reducing methane concentration by up to 10 % per hour when the sun is shining. Breaking that down, what does a full solution look like? Could this mean that a fleet of large crop-dusting planes must be flying around the vast Arctic littoral space, each with tons of red dust on board, waiting for this outburst to occur? These would need to link up with fleets of GHGSat and similar methane-detector satellites, ready to fly into the detected methane outburst location and discharge their tons of dust slowly over say 6-10 hours into the rising but invisible methane cloud. But this only works if it's in sunlight, with low humidity and little wind. Granted the sea is cooler during winter and less likely to enable an outburst, so write that off for 3-4 months. So, it works best when the Arctic littoral is experiencing long, hot, dry, less windy summer days. So, for 3-4 months of the year, perhaps all those Tu 95 or Tu 162 bombers in the Ru Aerospace Force can be converted into the duty of saving the planet with 20 tons of red dust on board, flying in figure-8 patterns around the Laptev Sea? In order to respond quickly, that may take over 100 planes on patrol at all times. Hopefully, nothing bad happens in Spring or Autumn either. What about a Plan B? Would Kim Jong Un or the Russian czar take the nuclear warheads out of their ICBMs and load them up with the red dust for a high-altitude airburst instead? That may be a quick enough vehicle to get there on time. So how could these solutions be negotiated? Is it a war reparation plan after the special military operation comes to a conclusion? Now for Peter Wadhams's idea of fracking the Arctic littoral, or let's say the more risky part, in the Laptev Sea. Is this a job for the retreaded Ru navy?

[@ruthmoram3861]

Thanks. It's not going to happen, is it?

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@ruthmoram3861I've just started video but I've been a proponent of Alliance w Russia since Sept 11 2001 so don't blame me not scientific overlap. They rescued a science vessel of ours 10 years ago. We don't have proper Ice breaker. We do have NORAD designed for rapid air engagement over the Arctic. Parts may be dusty since Soviet Arctic invasion receded but enough there to dump dust.

[@philtaylor8863]

What’s the long term affect of iron chloride in the environment.

[@GoBlesstheSky]

So many questions left unaddressed.. How is this FeCl3 manufactured? How much is needed? How and where is it to be released?

[@kimweaver1252]

React iron with hydrochloric acid. HCl can be made by electrolyzing sea water or by reacting salt water spray with steam using a catalyst.

[@martiansoon9092]

Fracking leaks from unwanted areas nearby fracking wells. This leads to huge emissions already. Doing fracking in arctic leads to even higher methane emissions, specially in a narrow timescale.

[@ollie2052000]

We ain’t getting out of this one alive.

[@stevechk]

Agree...... we, and millions of other species may not be here in a few years from now. Some are saying 3 or 4 years.

[@Fishcakebuttie]

What’s the effect on the environment and wildlife ecosystems and how much fossil fuel will it take to produce all this iron solution?

[@tomt55]

How can Dr. Fiekowsky claim to be an environmentalist and a capitalist at the same time, when these two things are completely incompatible? You cannot meaningfully discuss serious mitigation strategies within a for profit system, as they are incongruent with one another.

[@maretranquillity]

I don't know the chemistry involved in this iron trichloride + methane reaction, but if the methane is oxidized will that not release CO2 in place of the methane? This would be an improvement I realize because CO2 is less heat retaining than methane but it would still be a lot of CO2, wouldn't it? Overnight I did a bit of research and the oxidation process detailed in this video produces water and CO2, both of which are greenhouse gasses. I'm guessing that this idea won't work, partly because of the water and CO2 it releases but more because we have no way to stop the continuing release of methane from the permafrost and the ocean bottom. People don't realize how vast the reservoir of stored methane is and I suspect that in the end it will overwhelm any attempt by us to control it.

[@lawsonspedding6136]

Plants, forests, trees, crops thrive on C02, and create the 02 that animals and we humans need to survive ! There are many more scientists around that contend that C02 and human activity is not adversely affecting climate ! The doubling of C02 would benefit life on earth ! Fact !

[@maretranquillity]

@@lawsonspedding6136 If you could give a source for your "Fact!" statement I would appreciate it. Yes, plants take in CO2 and release O2 but animals and plants have evolved to utilize the quantities that we had before humans began increasing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. While it is true that plants and animals are flexible enough to continue living with the higher levels of CO2 it is also true that plants especially react to heightened percentages of CO2. Research in greenhouses where higher CO2 levels have been maintained has shown that while plants may grow faster and bushier some of them also have changes in their health and reproductive systems. Grains for instance produce seeds that have lower quantities of protein. But aside from the discussion of plants and animals and their reactions to enhanced CO2 there is the issue of the heat being trapped by the excess CO2 which is raising the global average temperature. Attendant to this rise in temperature is that the climate is changing as well. An example of this is the large number of droughts and floods. For every 1 degree C of atmospheric temperature rise the air can hold 7% more water vapor which we see falling as rain bombs and huge flood events. A perfect example of this kind of weather whiplash is California which has been in the worst drought in more than 1000 years and now is being washed away by flooding and vast snow fall in the mountains. Meteorologists don't think the drought in California is over, they think that it will continue as soon as the rainy season ends. You need to understand that 90% of the excess heat being trapped by the CO2 is being sequestered in the oceans and 2022 set a new world record for overall ocean temperature. These hot ocean temperatures are what is driving the more powerful storms and adding to the air-carried moisture in the atmospheric rivers. Those high temps are also causing greater stratification in the oceans which reduces mixing between the ocean levels and causes the transport of oxygen to the deeper layers while also restricting the up-welling of the cold nutrient laden deep water rising to the surface to nourish the plankton that make up the bottom of the ocean food chain. Ultimately I think seeding the atmosphere to break down methane will not be very useful because it will have to be done by airplanes which are expensive and pollute with burned hydrocarbons (CO2 and particulates) add heat to the atmosphere and will need to fly over a vast expanse of the planet, a large portion of which is owned by Russians who don't want to stop climate change. All the permafrost is melting and expelling methane and CO2, most of the arctic sea floor is covered with enormous amounts of methane cathrates, the area that would have to be covered with the proposed ferric chloride is pantagruelian. The number of planes and crews, the fuel, the amount of ferric chloride salts, the logistics of getting nearly a quarter of the Earth's surface covered on an on-going basis for decades, and ALL of this to change one greenhouse gas into two more greenhouse gasses that are slightly less effective at trapping heat but that last much longer in the atmosphere. This looks like a fool's errand to me.

[@lawsonspedding6136]

@@maretranquillity You’ve drunk the Al Gore cool aid and are drunk on it ! Fact - when the temp goes up the oceans give off C02, after the heat comes C02 ! Funny, when you are suggesting 0.04% of our atmosphere, C02 creates the heat, funny that. When the oceans cool they absorb C02. You should listen to real scientists not Al “rain bomb, boiling oceans” Gore 🤣🤣🤣.

[@tidtidy4159]

@@maretranquillity there's marine cloud brightening, have a look at that.

[@maretranquillity]

@@lawsonspedding6136 You need to do more study on the physics of climate change. CO2 doesn't create heat, it traps heat by being transparent to short wave light which allows sunlight to pass through the atmosphere and heat the earth, but it is not transparent to long wave infra-red radiation (heat) re-radiating from the earth and thus it acts like a blanket on the planet. Methane and Nitrous Oxide both duplicate the action of CO2 in the atmosphere but are better at it and thus more dangerous. Again, your idea of CO2 absorption by the ocean is too simplistic. Temperature can have an effect on the amount of CO2 being absorbed but most of the world's ocean water is still cool enough to absorb a lot more CO2 which is why ocean acidification is such an important issue. As the ocean takes in CO2 it becomes more acidic and this tends to dissolve the shells of the tiny critters that make up the base of the ocean food chain. If the ocean becomes to acidic it will kill the krill and plankton that most of the other denizens of the ocean depend on for food. You might remember that I mentioned the warming ocean tends to be more stratified and thus blocks much of the cold nutrient-rich water that helps feed the plankton which form the base of the ocean food chain. You need to understand that temperature, acidity, and salinity are extremely important to the continued existence of the ecosystem of the ocean and if the oceans die we will too. Another point to bear in mind is that the melting glaciers, polar ice caps, and the ice in Greenland are dumping large quantities of fresh cold water into the ocean which is changing temperature and salinity in many places. If your only education about climate change comes from people debunking Al Gore then you are decades out of date. If you'd like some slightly more current information drawn from peer review scientific journals I would suggest that you go to guymcpherson.com/ and read his Climate Change Summary. While the Summary is not completely up to date it is decades ahead of any of the information you have posted.

[@grahambibby1895]

Too late for that. If we reduced to 4 billion and had a 1 million ton carbon per person per year . Than we could have 1.5. But with just the emissions from usa china and India alone , you have runaway.

[@sjeffi]

You are forgetting the feedback loops and the time span of 10 years between emission and effect.

[@grahambibby1895]

@@sjeffi it is the inflamed effect but cloud seeding and sulfur dioxide and sea water ships can help deal with that

[@nobody687]

Dude. The ocean has already past its tipping point back in 96. A El Nino will start this summer. If a blue ocean event happens during the El Nino, it will have the effect of releasing 1 trillion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, that's 28 years worth of emissions. It's a rap. We will be lucky to see 5 more years

[@CHIEF_420]

@@nobody687 🐵

[@unksoldr]

When the methane deposits in the world's continental shelves release due to higher water temps, the fun will really begin.

[@TheDoomWizard]

I mean basically, no?

[@Nine-Signs]

Does the American capitalist scientist advocate for ending capitalism and replacing it with a steady state democratised localised economic system or does he just advocate for solutions to fix the problems capitalism creates while ignoring the collapse of the ecology due to massive overconsumption of raw resources incentivised to perpetually increase by capitalism, that wont be resolved no matter what you do regarding climate change and indeed will only markedly worsen that ecological collapse if you try to use technology to allow perpetual growth capitalism to outrun the immutable physics that govern a finite world.

[@anthonymorris5084]

Capitalism isn't the problem, it's the solution. Consumption is the problem. It doesn't matter what economic system you embrace, demand and consumption doesn't suddenly vanish. What's your solution to consumption? Rationing? Depravation? Legislating consumption? No thanks. A profit can only be realized by providing humanity with what it wants, needs and demands. Failure to achieve this and the (useless) product dies as it should. Profit is the incentive and the reward for risk taking. Risk taking leads to the incalculable innovations that humanity has experienced. How do you think solar panels were created? Why do people insist on regurgitating known failed economic systems to solve humanity's problems?

[@Nine-Signs]

​@@anthonymorris5084 There are myriad steady state localised resource based economic systems capable of providing the basic requirements of a dignified life for all, none of them are compatible with humans having as much as they presently do in ever increasing variety of products as that is not compatible with what physics demands of humanity for having a future. Those systems also do not come with incentives to perpetual growth nor the 15,000 planes presently in the air nor global shipping, which is why capitalism IS the problem. Capitalism demands a long term global avg growth rate of 3% GDP growth per year, too long under that and return on investment is missed, market sentiment changes, and recessions or worse do come, capitalism MUST grow and incentivises that perpetual growth to realise profits, otherwise it collapses. And 3% growth rate has = a DOUBLING in consumptions of energy and materials over each circa 33yr period post the beginnings of this system in circa 1650 to today. Capitalism in service to its perpetual growth had us blow past safe ecological limits by 1990, and safe climatological limits by 1998. It is the primary reason why between 1750 and 1980 we unnaturally dug up and added 750 billion tons of carbon to the climate, and then doubled that to 1.5 trillion tons between just 1980 and 2020, and are on course to double it to 3 trillion tons by 2050, to service capitalisms demand for perpetual growth so as to realise the profits tomorrow from investments today. As for "profit is the reward for taking risk" that is patently bullshit given the bulk of profit realised goes out the door to a handful at the top for no work via the unearned income sources of dividends and rents that extract the majority of the wealth the workers created per hour, workers that take far greater risks than wealthy capitalists. Schools, homes, family planning, all dependant and chosen based on the job of the parents, and all dependant on it to a far greater extent than the minority of capitalists who mostly start companies with other peoples money, have plenty int he bank, and when they fail big tend to demand masses of other peoples money to bail out capitalisms rampant ever increasing failures unto ever growing numbers. So you see, it is very much capitalism that is the problem, its rewards, and its incentives, and no amount of trying to defend the indefensible will alter that reality. No amount of solar panels, wind turbines, green growth new deals, no new taxes nor new regulations, and no technology today nor coming down the road, will ever be able to make consumption driven perpetual growth capitalism compatible with the immutable physics of a finite world. Attempting to use technology to do so is akin to putting on your best running shoes to go run up an ever increasing landslide, sure the techno-shoes help you get further up than your would have but make no mistake, nature via physics in motions will bury you eventually.

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@Nine-Signs Was it really necessary to respond with this lengthy diatribe? "Resource based economy" I've heard this cited repeatedly except that nobody is able to explain it. Give it a shot, enlighten me. So your first paragraph clearly selected depravation as the solution to consumption. No thanks. Myopic. Second paragraph. Demanding the end of growth is a curse you place on future generations. If people like you demanded the end of growth in 1850, your life would be deadly. par 4) So you want us to go back to living in a mud hut. That's your entire premise. Par 5) is pure cut and pasted Left wing dogma. What risks do employees take? Do they come up with the business idea? Do they bring it to fruition? Do they create the business plan? Do they meet with lawyers, bankers and realters? Do they secure the financing? Do they risk their own money? Are they on the hook for the debts or liabilities or failure? Are they responsible for the entire business? Nope. Nice try. Filling out an application and being interviewed does not entitle you to the profits. Most importantly - *Why would anybody start a business if they had to give away all the profits?* Risk is real and it's something that all socialists try to invalidate because they've never taken an investment risk in their lives. 6) *"capitalists who mostly start companies with other peoples money,"* Here's the evidence that socialists have no understanding of capitalism. "Other people's money" comes from capitalist investors! It doesn't fall from the sky and land in the pockets of the rich. These investors *expect a return.* It's not charity, its debt which employees don't have to pay back. 8) As long as you can put a shovel in the ground and make stuff, growth is infinite. It's a much larger planet than you think, and mud huts are your answer to this problem that you cite. Your last paragraph is an absurd analogy.

[@SouthCom1917]

@@anthonymorris5084 Profit doesn't appear magically when you provide what people need, that's a naive propagandized understanding of the world. Profit is extracted from labor and nature, the former through surplus value extraction and the latter through resource exploitation. Surely you can understand how an economic system based on infinite growth within the confines of a planetary system with limited resources is a contradiction, right? Capitalism is a suicide cult. The reason nothing has been done on climate change or environmental degradation? Massive amounts of capital (and thus power) in the hands of the fossil fuel and agricultural industries, particularly the former. The fossil fuel companies knew about the problem for decades and hid it, specifically because revealing the threat of climate change would have also threatened their short-term profits. Capitalism is the cause of the rot you see around the world, from a collapsing environment to a horrifically exploited third world working class to the deaths of people who can't afford their medicine or a place to live because they're priced out of the markets.

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@SouthCom1917 *"Profit doesn't appear magically when you provide what people need"* It absolutely does my friend. A profit can only be realized by successfully achieving this. The profit comes from the sale of the product. If the product fails, no profit is realized. The amount of profit is in fact directly corelated to the success of the product. The success of the product is measured by the demand for the product. *"Profit is extracted from labor and nature, the former through surplus value extraction"* My friend you either have to build your own house, make your own clothes and grow your own food, or you can get somebody else to do this for you. If you choose the latter, there are 3 options: 1) Put a gun to their head. Not recommended. 2) Use coercion and fraud. Not recommended. 3) Create an incentive and come to a mutual agreement that trades labor for compensation. Anybody can choose to take risks, invest and start a business, or they can choose to exchange their labor for a guaranteed paycheque at a guaranteed time. But at some point, the house has to be built, the clothes have to be made and the food has to be grown. *"and the latter through resource exploitation."* Yup. What's your point? Humans extract resources from the Earth and create things with these resources. There ain't no "replicator" on starship Earth. I'm quite aware that toasters don't just fall from the sky. Are you? *"Surely you can understand how an economic system based on infinite growth within the confines of a planetary system with limited resources is a contradiction, right?"* This is myopic. As long as you can put a shovel in the ground to make stuff growth is infinite. It's a very large planet. I imagine that one day everything will be recycled, and we will soon be an interplanetary species. *"Capitalism is a suicide cult."* More accurately "consumption" is a suicide cult although by your definition. It makes no difference what economic system you select, the issue is consumption not capitalism. The economic system facilitates consumption. Your entire second paragraph is a tirade of conspiracy theories and abject falsehoods. Warming has proven to be mostly benign, easily managed and a net positive for humanity. Fossil fuels created the modern world. It's the modern world that keeps you safe. The modern world mitigates and neutralizes threats from warming. Poverty is far more deadly and climate policies are inducing further poverty. Fossil fuels and capitalism are the proven solutions to climate change.

[@henrihunter8030]

Why dont lightening strikes burnup methane in athmisphere?

[@henrihunter8030]

Ajyone??

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@juskahusk2247what could ignite it there?

[@juskahusk2247]

@@DrSmooth2000 it's not in dense enough concentrations because it mixes with the air and quickly becomes too diffuse to be flammable.

[@DrSmooth2000]

@@juskahusk2247 good to know. Saw it on a lecture slide about the '6 degrees' book... Hiroshima Nagasaki explosions charring our exposed bones to pure black where left on the surface (dry bombs in sense of no radiation but the tnt equivalent) Doomers invent reason after reason. Other issues to despair about in my book. 🍻

[@juskahusk2247]

@@DrSmooth2000 Yes, that could happen but it will take time to build up such high volumes and we will probably all have died of war, starvation, cannibalism, dehydration or extreme heat by then.

[@russtaylor2122]

Hasn't the IPCC termed our current predicament 'Abrupt' and 'Irreversible'? The ironically named 'Positive feedback loops' are running away. This is fiddling with something in the hope of correcting one small symptom of modern industrial civilisation. Just stop oil? Stop making steel? No more concrete? Optimism is not a valid response here, sorry.

[@anthonymorris5084]

And yet data proves that humanity has never been safer, healthier or more prosperous than at any time in history.

[@russtaylor2122]

@@anthonymorris5084 You mean you? Data. Come on man. Oh forget it. My head hurts from banging it against the wall. If you can't see through the bullshit 'data' to the reality outside your bubble...

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@russtaylor2122 More evidence that climate zealots hate and ignore any science that they don't like. "But, but muh science, muh science" they endlessly shriek. This data is easily verified and sourced from authoritative sites. Unfortunately, in order to seek it out, a person is required to embrace critical thought and objectivity which is so obviously devoid among activists. The data is real my friend and it is indisputable, global and overwhelmingly positive. From longevity, to access to health care, clean water, clean air, electricity. To education including higher education, literacy levels, GDP growth, poverty eradication, nutrition, mobility, leisure time, treatable diseases and disease eradication, transportation networks, hospitals per capita, telecommunication networks, emergency services, death tolls from all natural disasters, the ability of first responders, life saving techniques and technological innovation, standards of living and on and on and on and on all improving. This all occurred during 200 years of fossil fuel use, 200 years of warming, and 43 years of climate hysteria. How do you reconcile this? Outside of my bubble? Pot calling kettle black. An accusation stemming from the climate movement that allows no dissent. Abject hypocrisy. You live in one of the most glaring echo chambers in existence.

[@russtaylor2122]

@@anthonymorris5084 This is a very inadequate forum for conversation. I don't understand how you aren't more critical. Is it because the date you love validates your much hoped for opinion? All the 'improvements' that you cite are in the first world, the fortunate, privileged fossil fuel consuming world! Your stated modernisation and technical advancement has all used millions of tons of fossil fuel and will not survive without it. Keep on burning it like we do and we are just making the situation worse. Just because we have had good times doesn't mean they will carry on indefinitely! It's a bell-curve and we are over the peak WORLDWIDE. You gotta see the bigger picture.

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@russtaylor2122 *"Is it because the date you love validates your much hoped for opinion?"* What date am I supposed to love? I presume you meant "data"? The data *led* me to my opinion. The data formulated my opinion. Isn't that what data is supposed to do? You choose to *hang on* to your opinions and not allow data to influence your predisposition. Isn't that worse? The improvements I cite are across the globe. But you (I'm guessing unwittingly) agreed to just how important and influential fossil fuels are to these improvements. You clearly just demonstrated that the world, especially the developing world, needs more fossil fuels not less. Through market economics and the innovation it provides, fossil fuels allow us to work toward generating new, superior, reliable, efficient and inexpensive energy sources. There is no reason whatsoever to stop using them. It's actually impossible anyway. You would induce mass starvation and economic deprivation. You really want to see a Mad Max world? Demand the end of fossil fuels.

[@centuriesofblood]

Burst or no burst, methane is now at 1920 ppb in the atmosphere. Multiply by 85 since methane has the warming effect of 85 x CO2 over a 10 year period = roughly 160,000 ppb CO2 equivalent. Divide by 1000 to convert to ppm and you have 160ppm CO2 equivalent. Add 160 to the current 425 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and you have a total CO2 equivalent of 585ppm CO2, soon to reach 600 ppm.

[@grindupBaker]

Your feeble attempt at understanding radiative physics is UTTER DRIVEL. A 9 year old British Primary School child could do a better job.

[@DrSmooth2000]

That would put us... late Miocene pre Pliocene off top of my head? We were +4 to 8 then so at rate we accrue heat at that level of co2 equivalent then centuries of cushion

[@hanskleinjan]

84 times is new for me after 20 years reading…

[@ahtitolvanen3762]

Will this solution be possible even if we are not able to access Northern Siberia where the serious methane releases are happening?

[@michaelhayes7469]

The tropopause hydroxyl cycle cracks many GHGs. Mimicking that photochemistry at tropopause altitudes has the cobenefit of cooling the air that is run through the system by 15°C to 25°C. Captured CH4 can be fed into such a system as the photochemistry seems to be especially effective at cracking CH4. This localized cooling can be useful in areas like coastal glaciated areas, the N running Atlantic current that is warming the Arctic ocean, over cities that are in a heat island effect. During daylight times, the cooling effect would not be noticeable at the surface due to the fact that the local tropopause is already cooling the ambient air, yet if this method is used at night, the thermal difference between the ambient air and the processed air would be significant, and thus the produced cold air will fall towards the surface.

[@DrSmooth2000]

What is this sorcery

[@paulzozula1318]

That the fact that even in the summer the sun angle is fairly low over the Arctic Ocean is never included in this type of discussion. As such, it is never shining from overhead as in lower latitudes. I suppose that this somewhat mitigates the rate that the Arctic Ocean open water warms. Even so, according to what Peter Wadhams reports, significant warming is already occurring perhaps in large part from heat delivered by Arctic river systems. Also, I would assume that, as this water enters over shallow shelves, it is carving into the submarine permafrost making it more likely that methane hydrates could be destabilized. A few years ago there was a study done in the McKenzie River inland channel that identified major fluxes of methane entering the atmosphere. Natalie Shakhova talks about taliks which are flaws in the submarine permafrost that are currently providing passage for it. Considering the volume of methane in Arctic Shelves hydrates and the fact that in the Paleo record there have been significant signals of abrupt methane releases from subsea hydrates, the above is concerning. In order for some form of SRM to work it would have to be a ring positioned over lower latitudes. There is one proposal to inject reflective aerosols into the stratosphere at latitude 60 degrees in both hemispheres in order to benefit the polar cryospheres. At other times Peter Wadhams has advocated for marine cloud brightening over the Arctic Ocean. Iron salt aerosols as described seem very good. I like that when they eventually rain out onto the ocean surface the iron will foster phytoplankton blooms and thereby help draw down CO2.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Iron, unlike SRM, is not biocidal

[@donready119]

The organic matter in Siberia was created by plant life that thrived there before the climate changed and it froze. Now it is warming up again. If life survived before, it will survive again. The computer models are about as accurate as Mr. Wadham's ice predictions. Using iron 3 chloride is a bad idea. It is a category 2 for aquatic toxicity.

[@hanskleinjan]

Not relevant in our timeframe..

[@dreadhead170]

There are solutions, but nobody is going to pay for it. Reality is, we are doomed.

[@FacingFuture]

We get your point. We do not work for a pittance. We are paid zero BECAUSE STUARTS LEGACY IS US AND ALL LIFIE ON BLUE MARBLE> WANNA BET. MOST CREATIVE ANSWER WILL BE USED TO HELP A GOOD CAUSE AND I AM GRATEFUL FOR ALL YOUR HELP MARGARET FOR FACING FUTURE

[@norastewart999]

Interesting solutions to taking methane out of the atmosphere, another thing to help save the world, money needs to be funded and it needs to be done.

[@willaimanderson8244]

The short answer is,, No you can't. Look at photos of the large domes being pushed up in the arctic from methane below. You must realize that the issue isn't from heat in the atmosphere above, but rather the heat is coming up from way below, and releasing the methane. When you see methane bubbles surfacing in water like in a lake, that's a surface effect which is caused by the heat in the body of water. Most permafrost that I have experience with resembles a gritty fudgesicle. When it thaws, just like a fudgesicle, it loses strength and turns into a gloppy mess. In the small lakes, up come the bubbles since the goopy muck has no ability to contain the methane. So then that methane has no ability to raise domes. Atop the permafrost is an active layer some inches thick to some feet thick. It is mostly thawed but the precise numbers come and go with the air temperature. Either way, that surface active layer acts as a very effective insulating layer between the atmosphere above and the permafrost below. The permafrost is a fossil remnant of the last ice age, made up of windblown silt, and contains ice formations, peat, and coarser particles above sand size. To have much effect below the active layer, the air above would have to be seething, and that hasn't happened. On to the domes. Google search 7000 methane bubbles in the arctic and have a look at all the photos. The domes you will see tell you that the heat source is from below.When the methane is released at depth it has a chance to pool up and create the kind of pressure needed to raise a dome, instead of bubbling out as in the case of the surface pond. Furthermore it is pushing up against some shallower frost on top which has the strength to somewhat resist the push. Had the heat been up in the atmosphere, there is no mechanism to bypass some shallower frost, then thaw frost at depth. The afflicted area is crazy large,, Most of Alaska, the Yukon of Canada, Siberia, and points north. Gore said in Inconvenient Truth, the arctic heated first and most. No argument there, people can observe and measure that. But why didn't the equator heat first and most? That's where the most intense solar energy strikes the earth. No one observed that. The problem with tolerating heat coming up from underneath in the arctic, (even as you can see that it is), is all of the climate models are predicated on having only one heat source. You can't quantify the effect that a specific increase in ppm of greenhouse gas has on specific heating amount. To do that experiment, you'd have to encapsulate a mass of atmosphere, do gas assays, inject C02, and take temp readings The act of encapsulation would be a greenhouse barrier. So they assume only one heat source and assign that to C02

[@scottekoontz]

I found zero papers that claim the heat is from below, not that they don't exist but what are you reading that makes you so sure the super majority of scientists are wrong? We all know the mechanisms that explain how a rapidly warming Arctic (and Antarctic) can cause these bubbles, but do you have any references to papers that show that it could be from below? No scientists ever assumed one forcing (that's just silly) but the primary forcing for warming is of course the addition of CO2.

[@scottekoontz]

Googled what you suggested, first paper found: 7,000 underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic By The Siberian Times reporter20 March 2017 Bulging bumps in the Yamal and Gydan peninsulas believed to be caused by thawing permafrost releasing methane. Second and third hits (not from same source) also explain this is happening from AGW.

[@willaimanderson8244]

@@scottekoontz Thanks for your reply. What I didn't get into is from my personal experience and what I discovered. I have almost 50 years digging all sorts of excavations in permafrost. Some shallow, some deep,, In 1995 I excavated a vertical shaft 124 feet deep in permafrost to bedrock. Then opened a room down there, 6 feet high, 45 feet wide, and 65 feet across. No timbering, alluvium overhead, but it was frozen. Had to do this in the dead of winter to be able to ventilate with air below freezing. The room wouldn't cave in, but does squeeze shut given some months. I learned all sorts of stuff in the process,, random things. The temp of the frost near bedrock was plus 27F. Wood 6 feet off bedrock was age dated 35,000 years old. The thermal inertia of the permafrost is absolutely stunning. When I started the shaft, 8 feet deep is all, water was trickling in from the surface active layer. Even ice water has enough heat in it to thaw pfrost. So I needed to stop that. After a week of wasting time with no success I went to the city and brought back 3 tanks of liquid nitrogen thinking to flash freeze the pit walls, then blast cold air onto the walls.the Nitrogen was more than 300 degrees below zero F. -330 I think it was. Didn't work, wasted a thousand dollars. The killer was the insulating power of of the windblown silt. Finally started over again to a different spot with a better thinner active layer. I've found that people who write papers on such things mostly don't have the right hands on experience to truly understand the situation properly. I totally disagree with the premise that warm climate change air is responsible for the methane domes. That violates basic mechanisms. And thanks though for your reply. I appreciated you taking your time.

[@scottekoontz]

@@willaimanderson8244 "I totally disagree with the premise that warm climate change air is responsible for the methane domes." OK, so you disagree with the super majority of peer reviewed papers. Interesting stuff, but it would still be interesting to read a paper that explains that at least some of the permafrost thaw and methane issue is from warming below.

[@willaimanderson8244]

@@scottekoontz Ok, start here. Read the work done in Hawaii on the lava there. Magnetic polar wandering indicated by studies of natural remnant magnetism in the lava The work has been going on for years and years. The upshot was, eventually long suspected polar reversal was confirmed.That in turn stimulated much investigation in the reversals. More testing in similar aged materials from other places. What was seen is the earth's magnetic field gets weak and erratic before such a polarity reversal. A net search will show that indeed the earth's magnetic field is becoming weak and erratic independent of the lava work. Put that all on the shelf, then research how a planetary magnetic is created. Basically a planet has to rotate at the same time as the liquid metal core convects. This is just the standard dynamo same as how an hydroelectric generator works, or run the other way, an electric motor works. So how do you weaken the field? Either slow the rotation( didn't happen, still 24 hours in a day). Or you have to slow the core convection. How? By removing heat. Where would that manifest? Higher or lower latitudes. The equator is a bit too thick in the mantle due to spin shaping.

[@xyzct]

We're in the Holocene, the 32nd slightly warmer interglacial period of the Quaternary Ice Age. (You do know we're in an ice age, right?) Anyway, during all the other warmer interglacial periods of our current ice age -- some of which were considerably warmer than now -- methane was not a problem. So why would it be now? Maybe it's all of your hyperventilating while tilting at windmills that's causing CO2 to rise.

[@lancechapman3070]

Scale. Hopeium?

[@EnvironmentalCoffeehouse]

Wow, you guys certainly are attracting the trolls of the universe on this comment thread. I think it’s quite sad and telling.

[@robertheston1339]

Paste this into Google: The Methane is Rising and Humanity’s Time on Earth is Growing Much Shorter | Robert Heston

[@jeanjacquesdessalines1425]

Non !

[@djovitadiyami6085]

With all gases in the atmosphere, what are chances of chemical reactions forming harmful stuff harming life on earth like acid rains etc.

[@grindupBaker]

Zero

[@donniemoder1466]

Are you kidding me on these "solutions"?

[@tidtidy4159]

We left it too late, we now have no choice. If we lose the arctic ice, we're toast.

[@nicholasb8799]

They are already doing it, all out. They are using artificial chemical nucleation which has the condensation nuclei endothermically reacting which freezes everything around it until the reaction stops. It is happening now, it explains the so called "ice boulders" floating on top of the Great Lakes when the water temp is above freezing...which is impossible unless the reaction is happening.

[@TheDoomWizard]

@@tidtidy4159 it will be insufferable by 2030.

[@NightRunner417]

@@tidtidy4159 I feel like we're toast, like it or not. These solutions are just duct tape to hold the whole mess together in the desperate hope that better duct tape will be invented before our ability to produce and improve said duct tape collapses. It's all desperation moves or wussy half measures at this point, and that's the scariest thing of all - we're way out of control of this situation.

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@tidtidy4159 Exactly how are we "toast". The climate movement's incessant use of hyperbole.

[@kennickel878]

Mitigating a methane burst is essential. What I'm wondering is: can we mitigate current increases with vertical axis wind turbines mounted in solar updraft towers that have a catalytic coating along the interior? I see no reason the foundation can't be floating pylons. The entire structure can be fairly flexible, frankly. These structures would mitigate costs by producing clean power, potable water...

[@kennickel878]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqWsg5RmrpJ5b6s

[@kennickel878]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4Kuh5qnfKprkMk

[@solarwind907]

Vertical axis wind turbines don’t produce very much power. They need A LOT of wind to produce ANY. You could offset a lot of fossil fuel usage with horizontal axis wind turbines.

[@kennickel878]

@@solarwind907 you're familiar with solar updraft towers? Large greenhouse heats the air that's funneled up an enormous chimney at high velovlcity? The VAWTs in the chimney are HAWTs rotated 90* Try taking a look at the concept.

[@snowjoe43]

No one will commit to any sort of real $ to be spent until hundreds of thousands of people are dead or dying. As you know, then its TOO LATE !

[@thetombaxter]

Oxidizing CH4 to CO2 just slows down and extends the length of effect. Don't see any great gain for the environment.

[@danawoods5367]

I think the question in the context of this video and topic would be if it could keep the Methane from being released...I assume these two physicists think it could

[@DrSmooth2000]

Co2 not flammable or irritating to membranes

[@MagnumInnominandum]

Nope

[@EvolutionWendy]

Monstrous to hear these seemingly sane physicists chortle about all the money 💲💲💲 FeF3 is toxic.

[@FacingFuture]

More monstrous that these physicists have to struggle to get money to do critical work to save the planet.

[@EvolutionWendy]

@@FacingFuture Perhaps I misunderstood the chemical involved was FeF3 a toxin. Perhaps I misunderstand that fracking the ocean floor involves injecting massive amounts of toxic chemicals according to the movie "Gasland". What they're talking about sounds horribly toxic to all ocean life, plus then humanity will presumably burn the methane and turn it into carbon dioxide. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. As a scientist what I heard these two men say sounded extremely dangerous.

[@danawoods5367]

@@FacingFuture I don't know the other Peter well (not yet) but know that Pete Wadham's isn't a fool so I am guessing there are answers to all of the above (albeit exhausting and perhaps worrisome) questions and concerns. I'm most concerned/interested in how the chemicals to oxidize the Methane would be disbursed/deployed , in detail , and if there would need to be sensors , the same type of questions Philip Merkel asks above , basically, and also "what about all that CO2"? Perhaps you could do a follow-up interview addressing those topics (?) In any case thank you sincerely for all that you do, Dr Wadhams is a great man and scientist and I very much appreciate you interviewing him

[@steve37341]

Having options available and at least minimally tested is good. If the iron chloride works, even in small quantities, it should be researched further. Wondering how fast they think that a methane burst will occur? Will there be some warning signs (beyond smaller ones currently) that are progressively worse? Or will it be some catastrophe akin to the speed and danger of an asteroid impact with no time to act? If the former, directing research requests with the Western countries' Defense departments should be attempted. If they think the iron chloride is plausible, they will find the money for more testing and will divert the money necessary to ameliorate a massive methane burst. But if they don't know about your research results, there will be no benefit. Make no mistake, the Defense departments and agencies of the world will fund stopping such a catastrophe as a massive methane burst. Even if the iron chloride has to be dispersed via intercontinental ballistic missles into Russian airspace or territory over the Arctic. The U.S. Pentagon probably already views a massive methane burst as possible and also possibly as at least a partial extinction level event in the Northern Hemisphere with Europe being close to ground zero.

[@OldScientist]

CH4 is only 0.00019% (1.9 parts per million) of the atmosphere. Both of its narrow absorption bands occur at wavelengths where H2O is already absorbing substantially. Hence, any radiation that CH4 might absorb has already been absorbed by H2O. With the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere being between 1,000 and 20,000 times greater than CH4, the effects of CH4 are completely masked by H2O.

[@mamajojoful]

The forces of nature are too powerful for even arrogant humans and their AI to do anything about it. Bend not break: adapt or die!

[@ia8018]

Nature will humble a lot of people in the coming years and decades, they thought they control Nature, but no one can or will control her.

[@parrsnipps4495]

'Maybe' human consciousness will increase after collapse from climate change, with those surviving the bottle neck teaching future generations the lesson learned, i.e. to live in balance with nature, like people did before the fossil fuel age.

[@CHIEF_420]

💡

[@singingway]

Unfortunately homo sapiens can't live in balance with a planet no longer suitable for human life

[@amauricosta7728]

Senhora@@singingway, É verdade ! Jesus está voltando.

[@gregdrake5415]

We didn't in the Roman warm period, so suck it up, humans survived.

[@paulchace2391]

Correct, we have a disaster on our hands

[@paulchace2391]

@@FacingFuture I sure would like to listen to Natalia shakova and Igor similitov with some very recent observations

[@solarwind907]

I greatly appreciate these informative videos. I have installed small wind and solar systems for over 20 years. I am wondering what you people think of installing say a few terawatts of wind along the coasts where there is a great wind resource and not a lot of turbulence? It would seem that we would be able to reduce fossil fuel usage significantly. Maybe by 50% or more in a period of 5 to 10 years? This massive jobs program would boost the economy significantly as well. Humans have been building electrical generators, manufacturing high-voltage wiring, burying powerlines, installing drill rigs offshore (same as needed for wind turbine tower installations) designing and building airfoils, etc. for many decades. It seems that we know how to install win turbines offshore, we have the equipment. I would think the unions would appreciate the work. But I am not a scientist. What do you scientists think of my idea? I just can’t understand why we’re not covering every box store and parking lot with solar panels where the weather is mostly sunny, and populating every offshore area blessed with a good wind regime with 5 MW turbines asap! Thanks again for all you do!

[@reforest4fertility]

How about this: if oil is heavier than methane, if methane aggregates to be lighter than water, then pour all the extant petroleum down into it to send it back where it just may belong, as the fuel for Earth's core. So keep growing trees & keep the relative big ones growing for posterity. Didn't we hear back when we were kids that they still thought we'd have better lives THAN their previous generations.

[@anthonymorris5084]

There is no valid argument that the warming of the Arctic represents some kind of apocalypse as glacier melt and warming have taken place continuously throughout the last 10,000 years. One can only make an argument that rapid change is somehow a problem. This has not been demonstrated. It also (willfully) ignores the incalculable benefits of warming and humanity's extraordinary ability to adapt and innovate.

[@alexandrawhitelock6195]

Absolutely YES 👍 global changes happen and humans become hysterical believing THEY caused it and THEY can fix this…🤷‍♀️

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@alexandrawhitelock6195 Humans are alarmists. I've been listening to myopic doomsday cults my entire life. Cheers.

[@alexandrawhitelock6195]

@@anthonymorris5084 seems so…I seek to follow reasonable people in this area…but they are being drowned out…thank you…

[@paulwooton4390]

Curious silence on (most likey) Biden's Nordstream attack that released some 300,000 tons of methane. It's not huge, but it's not nothing either.

[@74HOLLE]

Dr. Malcolm Light Lucy-Alamo Projects: Hydroxyl Generation and Atmospheric Methane Destruction

[@timbookedtwo2375]

"Can we stop it?" No.

[@martinflores479]

Over a dozen positive feedback loops have been passed. the only thing that can be done is buy time, and that is the tragic truth.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Buy time means what

[@garychynne1377]

we talk of so many ways to solve the problem except our population explosion. isn't the consumer population the main cause of pollution. shouldn't the high population be part of the solution. no one can say this without being attacked. we are just observers watching the end unfold. we aren't able to come to a solution on our own so the answer will be war, pestulence, plague, famine, genocide. that sounds horrible i know but that is what history shows. sorry. all the best.

[@nicholasb8799]

Will iron not acidify the oceans and kill plankton??

[@FacingFuture]

No. Iron significantly increases the plankton, as well as ocean fauna that feed on plankton.

[@em945]

@@FacingFuture the oceanographer Jim Massa did a talk on his channel discussing this option and showed it had only short term illusory benefits. His channel,is called 'science talk with Jim Massa' Although one extra element can set off the chain of events, it is limited by the other elements available (nitrogen etc) in the water. It strips other vital elements and stops. This the same on land with the soil cycle when superphosphates and nitrogens are added. The soil then becomes imbalanced and dies. It also happens with humans eg that will take testosterone to create the illusion of being stronger of more virile. The rest of the system is not able to support the addition and breaks down. All short term. Nature works with much more complexity.

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@em945fertilizers work in moderation. Regenerative farming is current concept. In theory could terraform a suboptimal ecosystem of any scale but ocean definitely outside my Ken

[@stevewiles7132]

Build a power plant over them quickly

[@hanskleinjan]

The geological area is many thousands of square kilometers..

[@alienoverlordsnow1786]

No. And we have to admit that any solution to the climate emergency cannot require global cooperation, and it cannot ask that people make major changes in their lifestyle. Humans are an uncooperative, uncontrolable species, and therefore you have to solve this problem without any help from the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians or the Africans. Republicans in the USA have already stymied climate negotiations here. The only solution that I can think of, is inventing a super AI, that creates an invulnerable super AI army, that takes over the world and imposes a new social order that establishes global cooperation by forcibly dictating the logical way forward.

[@EnvironmentalCoffeehouse]

So artificial intelligence Eco fascism then?

[@ia8018]

"Humans are an uncooperative species" Humans lived on Earth for 99% of their history in deeply cooperative and ecologically balanced societies, so you basically saying that the 1% of human history, in which we've started civilization, is the basis to judge the entire species. Even today there are many human societies which rejected civilization and live in cooperation and sustainability. It's the same with those who say "humans are inherently greeed" in total ignorance about what humans really are as species.

[@OneWhoWalksAlone]

🍿

[@johnjohnson2137]

The answer is NO

[@RinkyRoo2021]

They always act like its we as a collective ,I had nothing to do with the insane economics or non stop consumption.

[@paulchace2391]

Short answer.......No Wasting time talking bout it

[@MyKharli]

So no then .

[@galoalbertosantanaruiz5737]

WE CAN NOT DO ANYTHING ! THINK OF THE 5 THOUSAND KM OF SIBIRIAN PERMAFROST AREA !! TOO MUCH METAN & CO2 !

[@hehaefele]

Stop smiling and laughing!! GRIM UP, LADY!!!!

[@philtaylor8863]

That

[@jondoe8o]

And what is the methane oxidised into? Yeah. Thanks for nothing

[@finishedarticle7953]

Shush .... 🤐

[@ikm64]

...well it was good while it lasted.

[@juskahusk2247]

No it wasn't, it was 💩.

[@philtaylor8863]

The Russians for the sake of the climate stop the war and start talks

[@DrSmooth2000]

Russians have kept office an staff ready for negotiations the whole time

[@proudchristian77]

Can u make people's walk right , nope , grow up, nope , talk sweet , nope what u think? I think nope !

[@lawsonspedding6136]

No ! Get on with your lives !

[@andrewkeohan1771]

More climate change nonsense god bless fossil fuel ⛽️

[@Jc-ms5vv]

Enjoy denial while it last

[@amauricosta7728]

Deus nos livre das consequências dos combustíveis fósseis !

[@dp-kz5cs]

There isnt a thing hueberous can do ..... i love watching you try to push that ..😂🤣🖕😂

[@tsg2009]

earth day in dallas lmfao 🤔

[@EeDuncStar]

WHAT are the side effects?

[@OneWhoWalksAlone]

🍿

[@montekitchens]

Nope