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

111–120 of 384 posts

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

#111

Post by hbk1966 »

_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.

I'm guessing somewhere like Colorado would be nice. They'll probably just end up with a longer growing season.

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

#112

Post by makmanalp »

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…

I wonder how many of these bubbles are harvestable into useful fuel? Prevent a crisis and stockpile fuel at the same time? Obviously it's nicer if we could get everyone to sign the Kyoto treaty but ...

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

#114

Post by gech »

flavor8 wrote: post #101
Raphmedia wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Save it for your ticket to mars.

Better save it for anti aging supplements first. Easier to build climate resistant infrastructure here than on Mars.

But as a member of the .01% I'd rather only build new infrastructure where I can guarantee only myself and select others will be able to utilize it. I wouldn't want to waste my money on something that might be ended up being used by the public.

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

#115

Post by philipkglass »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #106
philipkglass wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, I don't believe that human extinction is in the cards from unchecked GW. Though it could well still be the greatest and most prolonged disaster in recorded history. There is an enormous gulf between minimum thresholds for, respectively: - "Not a big deal" - A catastrophe, comparable to World War II - The greatest catastrophe in recorded history - The extinction of industrialized civilization - The extinction…

> It can be tricky to push back against hyperbole comparing AGW to some of those later-stage events without being mistaken for someone who doesn't care about AGW at all. Yeah, the thing is, that your list roughly translates to: - Not a big deal - Many of us are dead - Most of us are dead - Almost of us are dead and everything is fucked - Remaining list items aren't even worth considering Hyperbole is never good, but…

Hyperbole is never good, but it's important to realize that anything above "Not a big deal" means at least a serious degradation of life quality for everyone on the planet.

Agreed! I believe that AGW could prove as disastrous for humanity as a large scale nuclear war. Its effects might even lay the ground for a nuclear war. It is not something to take lightly. Yet I can't resist an eyeball-roll toward comments like "human extinction on earth by 2030."

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

#116

Post by mirimir »

idanoeman wrote: post #85
cafebabbe wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "solution" fucking sucks. We kinda rely on the sun to grow plants and power life, you know?

Not in the deserts or the oceans, we don't.

We need light on the oceans for phytoplankton that release oxygen.

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

#117

Post by Two9A »

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…

For what it's worth, your "longer video" is just two copies of the shorter video spliced together. Did you mean to provide another link there?

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

#118

Post by dwaltrip »

british_india wrote: post #24

This is precisely why Dr. Guy McPherson has predicted human extinction on earth by 2030. Methane clathrates coming from the Arctic sea floor and from Canadian and Siberian permafrost. This is the most serious threat we face now.

Even if we get a 5° - 10° Celsius increase, wouldn't there be plenty of opportunity for millions of humans to survive closer to the poles?

Not that it would be easy or desirable. Some of the worst scenarios might result in 99% (or higher) of humans dying - obviously an unspeakably immense tragedy. Yet that would still leave tens of millions of people to carry on.

It seems to me that it would be extremely difficult to extinguish human life entirely, given our cleverness, adaptability, and very strong survival drive.

I haven't seen much talk about projections that would make the entire planet completely uninhabitable for humans. That would require an increase significantly higher than 10° Celsius, I'm guessing?

Of course, this would likely delay our transformation into a space-faring civilization by a few thousand years, as well as significantly damage social progress.

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

#119

Post by dreamcompiler »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #97
cafebabbe wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "solution" fucking sucks. We kinda rely on the sun to grow plants and power life, you know?

Erm, it's not like anyone is suggesting "block all sunlight". We're talking about blocking at most a few percent. On this topic, I've always wondered if you could make such a solar shade that hovers just on the far side of the Lagrange point between sun and earth, balancing radiation pressure and gravity. Does anyone know if that would be passively stable?

Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10209794

Edit to answer your question: No, it wouldn't be passively stable. But it could be actively stable with solar-powered motors to move mirrors, so it wouldn't need fuel.

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

#120

Post by gnaritas »

Razengan wrote: post #96
gnaritas wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't mobilize man to fight climate change, you aren't going to mobilize him to prepare for it either. People are in deep denial about the problem.

Preserving human knowledge and art [0] won't require mobilizing all of mankind; it could be done by a few individuals and it's kinda already being done by Wikipedia, Wikia, "pirates" etc. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13944410

True, however, the problem is preserving humans from near extinction, not preserving our knowledge and culture for the few who might survive if we ignore the problem.
Post reply on HN