DON'T PANIC about methane

CNN

Can someone please tell CNN Europe? They were on about it all morning today - was almost a relief to turn it off and come to work (on a foreign business trip, so about the only English language TV is CNN and hotel wifi is too crap for streaming either TV or radio).

Yes......but.

It's already been known for some time that Methane Hydrate deposits occur over long periods of time. For a start the usual quoted source is runoff of from rivers rich in methane from decaying plant matter and such (there's a massive deposit still accumulating off the mouth of the Amazon for example). Thus you have to suspect that the polar deposits have been there for some time, as warm rivers rich in runoff from forests or jungles aren't exactly typical of the area these days.

Now, it's also well know that these do emit fairly significant quantities of methane naturally. What's not known is how much effect oceanic warming would have on that, although it is reasonable to suspect that once the water around the deposits warms to the extent that Methane Hydrate is no longer stable.........(!)

I don't see anything here that contradicts that, only confirmation that these deposits do emit methane naturally. This we already new.

An obvious solution presents itself

So in the worst case there would be a lot of methane , which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, being released into the atmosphere. As someone who generally holds with the scientific method, this sounds like bad news.

I don't see why the only way to mitigate this is to stop creating CO2 altogether and move entirely to other forms of energy, though.

Perhaps, an alternative would be to capture the methane, burn it for energy ( still releasing CO2 but that is only 5% as bad as the methane ) and have lots of energy while also saving the world! Also could reduce need for coal somewhat, potentially saving more carbon than it releases. A plan with no drawbacks. Or at least, only 5% drawbacks.

First, "Because of the lengthy scientific publishing cycle there aren't yet any published papers, but the results were so clear - and so important - that the scientists aboard the ship were happy to reveal them publicly."

No peer review, no full review of the data collected, but already a conclusion that is so happily embraced by El Reg. Well, we can guess who is contributing to the income of said publication.

Issues with the study:

"The gas outlets off Spitsbergen lie approximately at a depth which marks the border between stability and

dissolution."

Problematic already on two points:

1: They're measuring at an equilibrium point that can vary seasonally or even with changes in current, not slightly below the equilibrium point for methane hydrate, something that has been rather well studied and the properties well enough understood.

2: Small sample size, only one region was studied, more study over varying areas needs to be conducted to gain a more complete picture. That is especially true considering the fault above.

El Reg's conclusion is also faulty, as for the above reasons and the well established reason that methane hydrate is already well known to dissolve and disperse seasonally throughout the world, it's the amount and timing that is critical. Add in the known issue of arctic accumulation of methane that is a normal factor in the region due to the action of weather, again, more study is necessary.

Even then, El Reg further compounds their error by assuming that any action performed now is useless, for bad is bad equally. So, by El Reg's reasoning, if I have a pot on the stove catch fire, I should do nothing, as there is already a fire. Simple common sense tells one, as has fire science has proved, putting out that small fire prevents it from becoming worse. Such as when one's house then catches fire and burns to the ground.

In short, preventing bad from becoming worse. Something El Reg's contributors do not wish to mention, as such may interfere with their short term profit.

And I say El Reg for a reason, the author of the story had to have the story reviewed and approved for publication. Repeated stories that contradict dozens to hundreds of other research papers being so heavily trumpeted here display a general trend that can only be ascribed to being the benefactor of certain deep pocketed special interests.