Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic

siberiantimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 384 posts

Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic

#51

Post by kaybe »

mikestew wrote: post #39
wiz21c wrote: post #31

I don't like what I'm reading here. Is there any expert here that could at least bring in non-panic arguments ?

That's why I keep hitting "refresh" on this page of comments, in the hope that someone with more expertise than I have comes along and tells me it's not nearly as bad as I take this to be (i. e., "we're fucked"). Still waiting, BTW.

Sorry, nope. The climate community pretty much agrees on this. How we will deal with the changing circumstances is wide open though, so there is some hope there. Given our history though..

edit: Here's a comment I made for released carbon due to permafrost melting (with literature):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769896

Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic

#52

Post by marcosdumay »

mirimir wrote: post #21
rodgerd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It always amazes me how much people and governments focus on prevention when it comes to climate change If the US government was actually focused on prevention, that would be a huge step up from "denying there's a problem."

I suspect that the interests driving denial are planning to ride the crash. There are probably developments in favorable locations. Land. Security. Infrastructure. Resources.

Does somebody have climatology models reliable enough to determine a favorable location?

AFAIK, anything can go wrong anywhere.

Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic

#53

Post by shostack »

bithive123 wrote: post #49

Here is a good video about the arctic methane emergency: 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 current…

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?"

Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic

#55

Post by alistproducer2 »

shostack wrote: post #53
bithive123 wrote: post #49

Here is a good video about the arctic methane emergency: 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 current…

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?"

I'm wondering the same thing. Should I start blowing through my 401k money now or what?

Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic

#56

Post by rubber_duck »

fjabre wrote: post #7
LyndsySimon wrote: post #3

Well... I guess let's hope the "Clathrate gun hypothesis" is incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

If we can't figure out an engineering solution to this problem then it's game over. It always amazes me how much people and governments focus on prevention when it comes to climate change, knowing full well it's far too late to change anything by reducing carbon emissions. If we can't sequester these 'surplus' gases from the atmosphere then I guess you could say we don't have a chance in hell, pun intended, of surviv…

Why focus on "fixing" climate ?

Why not just assume it's going to become unstable in close future and start building with that assumption ? Large scale isolated citiy domes. Nutrient synthesis that doesn't rely on climate/agriculture. Environment independent energy generation like micro nuclear reactors. Large scale air filtration and temperature control.

As the world becomes more interconnected and developed catastrophic outcomes like super virus/bacteria, large scale nuclear event, etc. become bigger threats to entire world. Why not start building self sufficient and well isolated megacities that can function irregardless of climate change ? It's perfectly possible on 50 year timescale if we don't waste time on shoving our heads in to the ground and hoping everything will stay great if we stop burning stuff.

Re: Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic

#59

Post by philfrasty »

_m8fo wrote: post #41

So, assuming we're screwed, where's the best place to move preemptively? I know Boston isn't that place. - I assume the coasts are a nonstarter. - Moving inland could be nice, but the ground would need to be pretty arable to restart civilization there. I'm guessing somewhere in Africa is a safe bet, given the lack of resource exploitation there, but then again, there's not much infrastructure at the moment.

First-mover advantage.
Post reply on HN