APOD: Methane Bubbles Frozen in Lake Baikal (2024 Dec 29)

[APOD Robot]

Methane Bubbles Frozen in Lake Baikal

Explanation: What are these bubbles frozen into Lake Baikal? Methane. Lake Baikal, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Russia, is the world's largest (by volume), oldest, and deepest lake, containing over 20% of the world's fresh water. The lake is also a vast storehouse of methane, a greenhouse gas that, if released, could potentially increase the amount of infrared light absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, and so increase the average temperature of the entire planet. Fortunately, the amount of methane currently bubbling out is not climatologically important. It is not clear what would happen, though, were temperatures to significantly increase in the region, or if the water level in Lake Baikal were to drop. Pictured, bubbles of rising methane froze during winter into the exceptionally clear ice covering the lake.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[RocketRon]

Fascinating arty image !

That looks like a whole lotta methane.
Hopefully the whole lake is not like that.

[johnnydeep]

Note that these are methane hydrate bubbles, not just simple bubbles of pure methane. They look like beads on vertical strings. How in the world do they form like that? I'd love to see the process over time. Is it an entire string all at once, or do successive bubbles on a string form from the top down or the bottom up?

Also, the amount of methane trapped in hydrates in this lake is roughly 100 times times the amount of methane in the atmosphere. I shudder to think of the catastrophy that climate change could bring if even a small fraction of that amount is released.

[Christian G.]

Titan comes to mind...

[Markus Schwarz]

[Methane] could potentially increase the amount infrared light absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, ...

(emphasise mine)
I am confused by the word "potentially". I thought that it is a fact that methane absorbs infrared light. So, why the "potentially"?

[johnnydeep]

[Methane] could potentially increase the amount infrared light absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, ...

(emphasise mine)
I am confused by the word "potentially". I thought that it is a fact that methane absorbs infrared light. So, why the "potentially"?

Yes, I would agree, but perhaps there are "anti greenhouse" effects what could counteract an increase in atmospheric methane?

[CuriousChimp]

[Methane] could potentially increase the amount infrared light absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, ...

(emphasise mine)
I am confused by the word "potentially". I thought that it is a fact that methane absorbs infrared light. So, why the "potentially"?

Well, releasing methane in vast chunks may not affect the atmosphere at all should some sneaky, little vandalistic person wander over the lake with a flame-thrower, some lichen seed spores and the odd barrel of hygroscopic kitty litter. The burmer to kill the methane, the lichen to soak up the carbon dioxide and the litter to drink up the water that forms from the hydrogen in the former methane. Though as the source is a lake, the water might just be left to natural processes.

As a plan, it's idiotic but it might just work. Attaching little methane burners to cows' bums could also become a world-saving notion someday. Maybe. If humans ever go truly weird.

[CuriousChimp]

[Methane] could potentially increase the amount infrared light absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, ...

(emphasise mine)
I am confused by the word "potentially". I thought that it is a fact that methane absorbs infrared light. So, why the "potentially"?

Yes, I would agree, but perhaps there are "anti greenhouse" effects what could counteract an increase in atmospheric methane?

Yerp, humans. Humans can be "anti-greenhouse effects". If they decide to be. Mostly, at present, they ain't.

[johnnydeep]

[Methane] could potentially increase the amount infrared light absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, ...

(emphasise mine)
I am confused by the word "potentially". I thought that it is a fact that methane absorbs infrared light. So, why the "potentially"?

Well, releasing methane in vast chunks may not affect the atmosphere at all should some sneaky, little vandalistic person wander over the lake with a flame-thrower, some lichen seed spores and the odd barrel of hygroscopic kitty litter. The burmer to kill the methane, the lichen to soak up the carbon dioxide and the litter to drink up the water that forms from the hydrogen in the former methane. Though as the source is a lake, the water might just be left to natural processes.

As a plan, it's idiotic but it might just work. Attaching little methane burners to cows' bums could also become a world-saving notion someday. Maybe. If humans ever go truly weird.

Those methane burners would have to be put on cows' faces since almost all the methane they emit comes from belches not farts!

[Chris Peterson]

(emphasise mine)
I am confused by the word "potentially". I thought that it is a fact that methane absorbs infrared light. So, why the "potentially"?

Well, releasing methane in vast chunks may not affect the atmosphere at all should some sneaky, little vandalistic person wander over the lake with a flame-thrower, some lichen seed spores and the odd barrel of hygroscopic kitty litter. The burmer to kill the methane, the lichen to soak up the carbon dioxide and the litter to drink up the water that forms from the hydrogen in the former methane. Though as the source is a lake, the water might just be left to natural processes.

As a plan, it's idiotic but it might just work. Attaching little methane burners to cows' bums could also become a world-saving notion someday. Maybe. If humans ever go truly weird.

Those methane burners would have to be put on cows' faces since almost all the methane they emit comes from belches not farts!

Fire breathing cows. Sounds like there might be a lot of unanticipated consequences.

[johnnydeep]

Well, releasing methane in vast chunks may not affect the atmosphere at all should some sneaky, little vandalistic person wander over the lake with a flame-thrower, some lichen seed spores and the odd barrel of hygroscopic kitty litter. The burmer to kill the methane, the lichen to soak up the carbon dioxide and the litter to drink up the water that forms from the hydrogen in the former methane. Though as the source is a lake, the water might just be left to natural processes.

As a plan, it's idiotic but it might just work. Attaching little methane burners to cows' bums could also become a world-saving notion someday. Maybe. If humans ever go truly weird.

Those methane burners would have to be put on cows' faces since almost all the methane they emit comes from belches not farts!

Fire breathing cows. Sounds like there might be a lot of unanticipated consequences.

There's a good Gary Larson cartoon in there somewhere!

[Steve Case]

We are told:

"...methane, a greenhouse gas that, if released, could potentially
increase the amount of infrared light absorbed by Earth's atmosphere,
and so increase the average temperature of the entire planet."

The usual metric is to say how much warming there will be by 2100.
But for methane, We are NEVER told is how much that increase might be.

If anyone thinks that by 2100 methane is on course to increase Earth's
temperature by more than a tenth of a degree Celsius, they should pipe up
and show their work and source.

[Markus Schwarz]

If anyone thinks that by 2100 methane is on course to increase Earth's
temperature by more than a tenth of a degree Celsius, they should pipe up
and show their work and source.

A good place to start reading is the Wikipedia article on methane, which has a section on atmospheric methane and climate change and includes plenty of references.

[Chris Peterson]

We are told:

"...methane, a greenhouse gas that, if released, could potentially
increase the amount of infrared light absorbed by Earth's atmosphere,
and so increase the average temperature of the entire planet."

The usual metric is to say how much warming there will be by 2100.
But for methane, We are NEVER told is how much that increase might be.

If anyone thinks that by 2100 methane is on course to increase Earth's
temperature by more than a tenth of a degree Celsius, they should pipe up
and show their work and source.

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The difference is that it has a much shorter lifetime in the atmosphere... but still on the order of a century. Methane has the potential of being the thing that tips our climate over into a completely new (and certainly bad for us) state, given the possibility of large amounts being released over a very short time period. It is relatively straightforward to predict the impact of CO2 given various likely scenarios, but predictions involving methane are nearly impossible, since methane release is secondary to global warming in a way that we only poorly understand.

[Steve Case]

If anyone thinks that by 2100 methane is on course to increase Earth's
temperature by more than a tenth of a degree Celsius, they should pipe up
and show their work and source.

A good place to start reading is the Wikipedia article on methane, which has a section on and includes plenty of references.

Thanks for your reply. Scanning through the Wikipedia article didn't find anything
that said how much warming methane is projected to cause in the future. Specifically
any reference to methane caused temperature rise by some specified date.
A statement that says in so many words:

The annual increase in methane is projected
to increase world temperature by (X°± 0.x°)
by the end of the century would be helpful.

The Wikipedia article does say:

"Methane is an important greenhouse gas, responsible for around 30%
of the rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution."

Interesting but falls short of an actual projection for a certain temperature
increase by a specified time.

Government bodies want to regulate cattle ranches, dairy farms and rice paddies
in order to control methane. Those government policy makers need to know the
effect those regulations will have on global temperature and the global economy.
Knowing that methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat does
not tell them what the projected temperature from methane is likely to be.

I'm of the opinion that by 2100 it's less than a tenth of a degree.

From data available from NOAA's Methane Page
      https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/
Methane is increasing about ~7 ppb annually with an acceleration of 0.06 ppb/year²

[Guest]

We are told:

"...methane, a greenhouse gas that, if released, could potentially
increase the amount of infrared light absorbed by Earth's atmosphere,
and so increase the average temperature of the entire planet."

The usual metric is to say how much warming there will be by 2100.
But for methane, We are NEVER told is how much that increase might be.

If anyone thinks that by 2100 methane is on course to increase Earth's
temperature by more than a tenth of a degree Celsius, they should pipe up
and show their work and source.

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The difference is that it has a much shorter lifetime in the atmosphere... but still on the order of a century. Methane has the potential of being the thing that tips our climate over into a completely new (and certainly bad for us) state, given the possibility of large amounts being released over a very short time period. It is relatively straightforward to predict the impact of CO2 given various likely scenarios, but predictions involving methane are nearly impossible, since methane release is secondary to global warming in a way that we only poorly understand.

Thanks for the reply. So how much global warming do you think methane will cause by 2100?

[Chris Peterson]

If anyone thinks that by 2100 methane is on course to increase Earth's
temperature by more than a tenth of a degree Celsius, they should pipe up
and show their work and source.

A good place to start reading is the Wikipedia article on methane, which has a section on and includes plenty of references.

Thanks for your reply. Scanning through the Wikipedia article didn't find anything
that said how much warming methane is projected to cause in the future. Specifically
any reference to methane caused temperature rise by some specified date.
A statement that says in so many words:

The annual increase in methane is projected
to increase world temperature by (X°± 0.x°)
by the end of the century would be helpful.

The Wikipedia article does say:

"Methane is an important greenhouse gas, responsible for around 30%
of the rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution."

Interesting but falls short of an actual projection for a certain temperature
increase by a specified time.

Government bodies want to regulate cattle ranches, dairy farms and rice paddies
in order to control methane. Those government policy makers need to know the
effect those regulations will have on global temperature and the global economy.
Knowing that methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat does
not tell them what the projected temperature from methane is likely to be.

I'm of the opinion that by 2100 it's less than a tenth of a degree.

From data available from NOAA's Methane Page
      https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/
Methane is increasing about ~7 ppb annually with an acceleration of 0.06 ppb/year²

As noted, the huge concern with methane is with the massive amounts trapped in the Earth which could be released over a very short time.

The models for global warming consider both CO2 and methane for predictions. Isolating them to say how much each contributes to overall temperature is difficult... and maybe doesn't even make sense.

[Guest]

A good place to start reading is the Wikipedia article on methane, which has a section on and includes plenty of references.

Thanks for your reply. Scanning through the Wikipedia article didn't find anything
that said how much warming methane is projected to cause in the future. Specifically
any reference to methane caused temperature rise by some specified date.
A statement that says in so many words:

The annual increase in methane is projected
to increase world temperature by (X°± 0.x°)
by the end of the century would be helpful.

The Wikipedia article does say:

"Methane is an important greenhouse gas, responsible for around 30%
of the rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution."

Interesting but falls short of an actual projection for a certain temperature
increase by a specified time.

Government bodies want to regulate cattle ranches, dairy farms and rice paddies
in order to control methane. Those government policy makers need to know the
effect those regulations will have on global temperature and the global economy.
Knowing that methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat does
not tell them what the projected temperature from methane is likely to be.

I'm of the opinion that by 2100 it's less than a tenth of a degree.

From data available from NOAA's Methane Page
      https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/
Methane is increasing about ~7 ppb annually with an acceleration of 0.06 ppb/year²

As noted, the huge concern with methane is with the massive amounts trapped in the Earth which could be released over a very short time.

The models for global warming consider both CO2 and methane for predictions. Isolating them to say how much each contributes to overall temperature is difficult... and maybe doesn't even make sense.

As noted, the huge concern with methane is with the massive amounts trapped in the Earth which could be (and maybe not) released over a very short time.

The models for global warming consider both CO2 and methane for predictions. Isolating them to say how much each contributes to overall temperature is difficult (Translation: you don't want to say)... and maybe doesn't even make sense.

What doesn't make sense is asking me and the other 8 billion people in
the world to believe that a warmer world constitutes a "Climate Crisis"

[Chris Peterson]

Thanks for your reply. Scanning through the Wikipedia article didn't find anything
that said how much warming methane is projected to cause in the future. Specifically
any reference to methane caused temperature rise by some specified date.
A statement that says in so many words:

The annual increase in methane is projected
to increase world temperature by (X°± 0.x°)
by the end of the century would be helpful.

The Wikipedia article does say:

"Methane is an important greenhouse gas, responsible for around 30%
of the rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution."

Interesting but falls short of an actual projection for a certain temperature
increase by a specified time.

Government bodies want to regulate cattle ranches, dairy farms and rice paddies
in order to control methane. Those government policy makers need to know the
effect those regulations will have on global temperature and the global economy.
Knowing that methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat does
not tell them what the projected temperature from methane is likely to be.

I'm of the opinion that by 2100 it's less than a tenth of a degree.

From data available from NOAA's Methane Page
      https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/
Methane is increasing about ~7 ppb annually with an acceleration of 0.06 ppb/year²

As noted, the huge concern with methane is with the massive amounts trapped in the Earth which could be released over a very short time.

The models for global warming consider both CO2 and methane for predictions. Isolating them to say how much each contributes to overall temperature is difficult... and maybe doesn't even make sense.

As noted, the huge concern with methane is with the massive amounts trapped in the Earth which could be (and maybe not) released over a very short time.

The models for global warming consider both CO2 and methane for predictions. Isolating them to say how much each contributes to overall temperature is difficult (Translation: you don't want to say)... and maybe doesn't even make sense.

What doesn't make sense is asking me and the other 8 billion people in
the world to believe that a warmer world constitutes a "Climate Crisis"

Then don't believe it. I think it rises to the level of "fact". We already see massive death and destruction, and nothing suggests it's going to get any better as we continue to heat up and destabilize the climate.

[Guest]

As noted, the huge concern with methane is with the massive amounts trapped in the Earth which could be released over a very short time.

The models for global warming consider both CO2 and methane for predictions. Isolating them to say how much each contributes to overall temperature is difficult... and maybe doesn't even make sense.

As noted, the huge concern with methane is with the massive amounts trapped in the Earth which could be (and maybe not) released over a very short time.

The models for global warming consider both CO2 and methane for predictions. Isolating them to say how much each contributes to overall temperature is difficult (Translation: you don't want to say)... and maybe doesn't even make sense.

What doesn't make sense is asking me and the other 8 billion people in
the world to believe that a warmer world constitutes a "Climate Crisis"

Then don't believe it. I think it rises to the level of "fact". We already see massive death and destruction, and nothing suggests it's going to get any better as we continue to heat up and destabilize the climate.

"We already see massive death and destruction," Like what? The dust bowl?

The polar bears are still here.
Tropical cyclones and tornados are about the same.
Precipitation in the USA-48 is up.

Here's my short list:

1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn't any Climate Crisis.

I'm now an official octogenarian and with Trump's November 5th decisive win,
I once again have hopes that the

     "Global cooling, Global warming,
     Climate Change, Climate Crisis"

juggernaut will fall apart before I croak.

[Guest]

As noted, the huge concern with methane is with the massive amounts trapped in the Earth which could be released over a very short time.

The models for global warming consider both CO2 and methane for predictions. Isolating them to say how much each contributes to overall temperature is difficult... and maybe doesn't even make sense.

As noted, the huge concern with methane is with the massive amounts trapped in the Earth which could be (and maybe not) released over a very short time.

The models for global warming consider both CO2 and methane for predictions. Isolating them to say how much each contributes to overall temperature is difficult (Translation: you don't want to say)... and maybe doesn't even make sense.

What doesn't make sense is asking me and the other 8 billion people in
the world to believe that a warmer world constitutes a "Climate Crisis"

Then don't believe it. I think it rises to the level of "fact". We already see massive death and destruction, and nothing suggests it's going to get any better as we continue to heat up and destabilize the climate.

"We already see massive death and destruction," Like what? The dust bowl?

The polar bears are still here.
Tropical cyclones and tornados are about the same.
Precipitation in the USA-48 is up.

Here's my short list:

1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn't any Climate Crisis.

I'm now an official octogenarian and with Trump's November 5th decisive win,
I once again have hopes that the

     "Global cooling, Acid rain
     Ozone hole, Global warming,
     Climate Change, Climate Crisis"

juggernaut will fall apart before I croak.

[Chris Peterson]

As noted, the huge concern with methane is with the massive amounts trapped in the Earth which could be (and maybe not) released over a very short time.

The models for global warming consider both CO2 and methane for predictions. Isolating them to say how much each contributes to overall temperature is difficult (Translation: you don't want to say)... and maybe doesn't even make sense.

What doesn't make sense is asking me and the other 8 billion people in
the world to believe that a warmer world constitutes a "Climate Crisis"

Then don't believe it. I think it rises to the level of "fact". We already see massive death and destruction, and nothing suggests it's going to get any better as we continue to heat up and destabilize the climate.

"We already see massive death and destruction," Like what? The dust bowl?

The polar bears are still here.
Tropical cyclones and tornados are about the same.
Precipitation in the USA-48 is up.

Here's my short list:

1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn't any Climate Crisis.

I'm now an official octogenarian and with Trump's November 5th decisive win,
I once again have hopes that the

     "Global cooling, Global warming,
     Climate Change, Climate Crisis"

juggernaut will fall apart before I croak.

The polar bears are dying. Tropical cyclones are increasing in intensity. Precipitation is up in some places and down in others, heading towards extremes. Massive floods are not annual events. Thousands are now dying every year of heat. Wars are fought all over the world because of resource limits. We're undergoing a massive extinction event. Coastal areas are becoming unlivable. The sea ecosystem is collapsing due to acidification. Crop growing regions are shrinking, and the climate is stressing our most important staple crops.

If you want to believe the Earth is flat, that's your business. Science disagrees. And science is right.

[Guest]

Then don't believe it. I think it rises to the level of "fact". We already see massive death and destruction, and nothing suggests it's going to get any better as we continue to heat up and destabilize the climate.

"We already see massive death and destruction," Like what? The dust bowl?

The polar bears are still here.
Tropical cyclones and tornados are about the same.
Precipitation in the USA-48 is up.

Here's my short list:

1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn't any Climate Crisis.

I'm now an official octogenarian and with Trump's November 5th decisive win,
I once again have hopes that the

     "Global cooling, Global warming,
     Climate Change, Climate Crisis"

juggernaut will fall apart before I croak.

The polar bears are dying. Tropical cyclones are increasing in intensity. Precipitation is up in some places and down in others, heading towards extremes. Massive floods are not annual events. Thousands are now dying every year of heat. Wars are fought all over the world because of resource limits. We're undergoing a massive extinction event. Coastal areas are becoming unlivable. The sea ecosystem is collapsing due to acidification. Crop growing regions are shrinking, and the climate is stressing our most important staple crops.

If you want to believe the Earth is flat, that's your business. Science disagrees. And science is right.

That's quite the Gish Gallup I'll pick one:
"Stressing important staple crops"
Google "Global Food Production" Then click on images and watch all the graphs that come up.

[Markus Schwarz]

Tropical cyclones and tornados are about the same.
Precipitation in the USA-48 is up.

Here's my short list:

1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.

And you base your assessments on what data or studies?

[Chris Peterson]

"We already see massive death and destruction," Like what? The dust bowl?

The polar bears are still here.
Tropical cyclones and tornados are about the same.
Precipitation in the USA-48 is up.

Here's my short list:

1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn't any Climate Crisis.

I'm now an official octogenarian and with Trump's November 5th decisive win,
I once again have hopes that the

     "Global cooling, Global warming,
     Climate Change, Climate Crisis"

juggernaut will fall apart before I croak.

The polar bears are dying. Tropical cyclones are increasing in intensity. Precipitation is up in some places and down in others, heading towards extremes. Massive floods are not annual events. Thousands are now dying every year of heat. Wars are fought all over the world because of resource limits. We're undergoing a massive extinction event. Coastal areas are becoming unlivable. The sea ecosystem is collapsing due to acidification. Crop growing regions are shrinking, and the climate is stressing our most important staple crops.

If you want to believe the Earth is flat, that's your business. Science disagrees. And science is right.

That's quite the Gish Gallup I'll pick one:
"Stressing important staple crops"
Google "Global Food Production" Then click on images and watch all the graphs that come up.

Read some actual papers that look at different crops, in particular the response of leaf crops to seed crops.

In any case, a few percent difference in crop production in either direction isn't really the issue. It's the collapse of ocean ecosystems, the shift in location of agricultural zones, the rise of sea level, the huge increase in extreme weather events, the loss of species diversity, and many other things that are defining this as a crisis. Hundreds of millions will die, billions will have their lives disrupted, our global economy will collapse and that will almost certainly continue us on our path away from democracy (already beginning, obviously). It's not going to be pretty for the next generations.