Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Cid_Yama wrote:You got it, Plant.

Carolyn Ruppel is petroleum geologist who heads up the USGS gas hydrate project, promoting methane hydrate as an energy source in conjunction with the Oil and Gas industry.

Ruppel has been at the forefront of the methane hydrate disinformation campaign, attacking any papers suggesting methane hydrates are unsafe to extract, or may pose a danger to the environment.

She also recently wrote a paper trying to claim algae consume any methane that reaches the surface.

Actually, she was describing half of a production-consumption cycle, and was ridiculed for her disembling. The research to rebut her claims was already out there.

Methane cycling in Arctic shelf water and its relationship with phytoplankton biomass and DMSP

Methane in situ production occurs frequently in the oxygenated upper ocean. A principal pathway by which methane can be formed is methylotrophic methanogenesis, while an important methylated substrate is DMSP (dimethylsulfoniopropionate) produced by marine phytoplankton. Here we report on an in situ methane production/consumption cycle during a summer phytoplankton bloom and a potential link to DMSP concentration in Storfjorden (Svalbard Archipelago) – a polar shelf region.
We propose that methane in situ production occurs during the summer phytoplankton bloom. The concentration of methane increases up to a certain threshold value, above which methane consumption begins. A methane production-removal cycle is established, which is reflected in the varying methane concentrations and δ13CCH4 values. DMSP and methane are inversely correlated suggesting that DMSP could be a potential substrate for the methylotrophic methanogenesis.

link


Since surface waters release methane to the atmosphere, consumption can only take place on what's left in the water column.

Therefore, Algal blooms are not a sink, but rather a source.

It does not support any of the points he was trying to make, and pretty much says that ocean basin deformation elsewhere in the Arctic, should be taken into account as well as glacial melting when modeling coastline evolution since the LGM.

No doubt posted as an obfuscation of the fact that he did not know that northeastern Eurasia was not glaciated during the LGM as reflected in his snarky comment.

In this study, we discussed the influence of GIA on the transgressional evolution of the Laptev and the East Siberian seas. Former reconstructions of the transgressional evolution of the these seas were based on the eustatic sea-level change to reconstruct the evolution of the relative sea-level history, whereas it was assumed that this region is located far enough from Scandinavia and North America to be influenced by the ice loading processes of the respective glacial ice sheets. Solving for geodynamically consistent GIA with a spherical symmetric earth structure, where the sea-level redistribution due to mass conservation and change of the geoid is considered, we tested this assumption and reconstructed the sea-level evolution and transgressional history of the East Siberian Shelf region. To allow for uncertainties in the earth structure, we considered a range of earth models by systematically changing the lithosphere thickness as the upper and lower mantle viscosities.

The results suggest to use GIA models to analyse the evolution of submarine permafrost, which depends on local variations of sea level and shoreline migrations, in continental shelf seas like the Laptev and East Siberian seas. This dependency is especially of importance when extending the study to the early phases of the Weichselian glaciation, where the Kara Sea ice sheet was much larger [21], and so deviations from eustatic sea level in the Laptev Sea were substantial, and in former glaciation periods when an East Siberian ice sheet is proposed

Plant, that is the Ruppel paper that has been debunked, that I referred to in the above post. They only mentioned half of the cycle. An intentional deception that was quickly ridiculed.

Solving for geodynamically consistent GIA with a spherical symmetric earth structure, where the sea-level redistribution due to mass conservation and change of the geoid is considered (as in deformation of the ocean basin), ...

...we tested this assumption and reconstructed the sea-level evolution and transgressional history of the East Siberian Shelf region.

The results suggest to use GIA models to analyse the evolution of submarine permafrost, which depends on local variations of sea level and shoreline migrations,...

This dependency is especially of importance when extending the study to the early phases of the Weichselian glaciation (as in prior to the LGM) ...

and so deviations from [just taking into account] eustatic sea level in the Laptev Sea were substantial, and in former glaciation periods (as in prior to the Weichselian glaciation, which is the most recent one) when an East Siberian ice sheet is proposed

eustacy
noun | eu·sta·cy | \ ˈyüstəsē \
: worldwide change of sea level as contrasted with local diastrophic uplift or subsidence of the land

Reading comprehension problem?

The results suggest to use GIA models to analyse the evolution of submarine permafrost, which depends on local variations of sea level and shoreline migrations, in continental shelf seas like the Laptev and East Siberian seas. This dependency is especially of importance when extending the study to the early phases of the Weichselian glaciation, where the Kara Sea ice sheet was much larger [21], and so deviations from eustatic sea level in the Laptev Sea were substantial, and in former glaciation periods when an East Siberian ice sheet is proposed

Deformations due to the eustatic sea-level rise appear as hydro-isostasy around the continental margins [10, 20, 31]. The mechanism of hydro-isostasy can be described as the flexure of the lithosphere in response to the changing water load: The global sea-level drop of 120 m during the last glacial maximum (LGM) [10] had unloaded the ocean bottom which resulted in an isostatic uplift of the ocean basins by 40 m when measured against the continents which do not suffer from such a load change (we assumed here the density ratio between water and mantle material to be one-third). During the termination of the glacial ice sheets, the sea level rose again, resulting in a loading of the ocean basins. At the continental margin, the elastic flexure of the lithosphere controls the bending of the lithosphere due to this loading contrast. This flexure is, similar to post- glacial rebound, an ongoing process due to the retarded response of the viscoelastic mantle material with subsi- dence offshore and uplift onshore.

Tanada wrote:Personally if I am looking at a temperature map I find the absolute values much more useful than the anomaly values. If the temperature is typically -70 C and it has warmed to -40 C that is interesting and all, but just a fact. If on the other hand the temperature has gone from -20 C to +10 C that is a critical change.

dohboi wrote:http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/crater-formed-by-exploding-pingo-in-arctic-erupts-a-second-time-from-methane-emissions/

Apparently, somehow those craters from exploding pingos can erupt again!

dohboi wrote:I guess that word could give people that wrong impression, but note that the actual definition of 'explosion' includes many other sources than combustion:

"burst or shatter violently and noisily as a result of rapid combustion, decomposition, excessive internal pressure, or other process, typically scattering fragments widely."

I'm not sure what mechanism would concentrate that much pressurized nitrogen to build up in that area, so methane certainly seems like the most likely culprit.

On Wednesday I was asked to look into the possibility that there had been an eruption on the West Coast of Sweden. It was one of those phone calls that are really confusing and making you wonder if it is you, or the rest of the Universe, that has gone utterly bonkers.

Since it was an official request I had to go and take a look at things. But, let us begin from the beginning.

The goop

On Monday 16/4 2018 a lot of coastal residents in the islands around Gothenburg started to call the Swedish Coast Guard about a suspected oil spill. A distance of 150 kilometres was inundated by grey globs and water with light grey suspended goop.

The Coast Guard quickly came to the conclusion that it was not an oil spill, and sent samples for laboratory testing since they suspected that it was some sort of algae bloom of unknown origin. Simple microscope studies gave at hand that there was no algae to be found in the samples. In fact, there was no organic structures at all in it.

And this is consistent with deeper sediment layers. Yes, they started out as organic sediments (mostly), but over time all organic structures will be removed and only the organic base products will remain.

It was about that moment I was called in to take a look at it, and I must admit that I was rather amused as I went. The idea of a volcanic eruption in the waters outside of the Swedish West Coast is pretty hilarious, if you know your geology.

As I came to the coast and started to look at the goopy lumps and the greyish water I had a feeling that I had seen this before in other parts of the world. The lumps were like modelling clay, and the suspended grey material had a distinctly muddy look to it. The surprising part was that the lumps floated in water.

In the call they had said that it was like ash covered in fat. But, as I looked closer it was just very finely ground clay, and that can feel quite fatty as you handle it. And as I stood there I understood what it probably is, and that I had indeed seen it around the world.

Even though the hyperbolic press found it all to be unknown, unheard of, and a new thing, it turned out that this has happened before along the same stretch of the coast. Last time it happened was on the 27th of November 2017, but earlier finds are also known.

This also strengthened my belief that we are dealing with a mudcano out in the waters. There are also known deposits of hydrocarbons out there, but they have been deemed to be commercially unviable.

Any methane deposit would reside at a fairly shallow depth with a maximum of 4 kilometres. And the magma under Norway is residing at a depth of more than 44 kilometres. It is though possible, even if it is farfetched, that there has been a dyke formation quite some time ago, and that this has warmed the deposit of methane.