Arguments
Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
Posted on 6 September 2022 by greenman3610
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections
Scientists are exploring the whats and what-ifs involving natural methane releases from newly discovered unusual sink holes in remote areas of the Siberian arctic.
They’re unclear, in part, about whether the sink holes are in fact “new” or merely newly discovered. They’re trying to come to grips also with the potential range of high- and low-end impacts on global climate change given the strength of methane as a climate pollutant. And they point to remaining uncertainties about the frequency and intensity of the sinkholes going forward in a warming climate.
Independent videographer Peter Sinclair, in his current exclusive video for Yale Climate Connections, interviews several of the scientists engaged in this research to try to develop a more thorough understanding of these mysterious sinkholes.
Katey Walter Anthony, of the University of Alaska-Fairbanks (UAF), sheds light on the sinkholes, saying the long-buried methane “has found a conduit or a chimney for escape” from beneath the permafrost. Scientist Vladimir Romanovsky, also with UAF, says the permafrost long has served as something of a “lid … now not so strong as it was in the past.”
Walter Anthony says the “methane megaseeps are a wildcard,” and Scott Dallimore of the Geological Society of Canada cautions that “the pace of escape is likely to accelerate” as a result of the warming of the climate. Walter Anthony emphasizes that not all permafrost needs to melt before concerns rise, and she cautions of permafrost’s being “like Swiss cheese, with a lot of holes going through it.”
The methane explodes. What is the source of the ignition - lightning?
Dennis, did I miss something? What makes you think that the methane ignited? I understand these to be pressure-blasts.
@scaddenp
https://uaf.edu/news/nova-episode-explores-arctic-methane-explosions.php
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201130-climate-change-the-mystery-of-siberias-explosive-craters
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx5mmq/the-ground-is-literally-exploding-due-to-climate-change-in-siberia-and-its-going-to-get-worse
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/siberia-massive-craters-frozen-ground-permafrost-methane-gas-explosion-rrc/
[BL] As noted by moderator RH in comment #5, please turn your text into proper links. The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.
In addition, please note that the comments policy discourages link-only comments. Specifically:
I cant see anything in these that suggest the methane is igniting (explosion != ignition). In fact several of your sources explicitly discuss the gas blowout mechanism which I believe is what causes these. It is just build up a huge pressure from methane release until ground-strength is exceeded.
Pretty much same mechanism that causes gingerbeer or sauerkraut explosions, especially in days before plastic bottles and screw-tops.
@scaddenp
I'm asking a question. When the methane explodes, as it clearly can, what is the source of the ignition?
https://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/scientists-call-for-urgent-increase-in-monitoring-potentially-explosive-permafrost-heave-mounds/
[RH] It's appreciated when you utilize the link tool to activate your references.
Dennis... Reading the article you link to, I believe they're using the term "explosion" the same way you would say a balloon "explodes" if you blow too much air into it. There is no "source of ignition." The pressure is merely reaching a point to where the ground above the methane build up catastrophically fails to hold it in.
Note that the before and after photos shown at the end of the article don't indicate any fire or charring around the crater, suggesting there was no actual "ignition" event related to the formation of the crater.
Again, Explosion does not equal ignition. Think about what an explosion really is. Your "ignition" type is when have a rapid chemical reaction generating large local gas pressures which then expand when any containment broken. Chemical reaction (needing ignition) isnt the only way to generate large gas pressures though. This paper goes into the process much more deeply than news articles. Clearly no ignition.
Maybe "burst" is a better word for the release of pressure from the methane's underground vault?
Ah, I might add to "burst," rather than "explosion," a synonym for grazing cattle's flatulence, "bursting" gut gas.
Moderators
Sorry, please remove anything not right or the comments in their entirety. Thanks.
[BL] If we wanted to, we would have. Usually we start with nudging users to remind them of proper posting etiquette. The initial goal is to make sure that users do not wander too far off, before things reach the point where we have to start editing or deleting posts.
Dennis... Getting things wrong is part of learning. We all get things wrong from time to time. The only true error is when we fail to learn from our mistakes.
There is all those lovely videos of SpaceX experiments failing cryo tests. eg www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYeVnGL7fgw I think most people would call them explosions, despite liquid nitrogen not being ignited.
My favourite non-igniting explosion is probably the water heater that the Myth Busters blew up.
Heat and pressure, That's all it takes.
This you tube video demonstrates blowing up a soda bottle using dry ice and water. Nothing ignites. I used to telll the cop on our High School campus when I was going to do this demonstration, it sounds like a gunshot. I have blown a watermelon to smithereens by dong this explosion in a one liter bottle inside the watermelon. Definately an explosion. Note the tremperature is below zero C.
The energy for the explosion comes from the freezing water causing the dry ice to sublimate (turn into gas). The gas pressure builds until the bottle fails and explodes. Soda bottles are much louder than water bottles. (water bottles are thinner, soda bottles have to resist the pressure inside the bottles.)