• 4 minutes England Running Out of Water?
  • 7 minutes Trump to Make Allies Pay More to Host US Bases
  • 10 minutes U.S. Shale Output may Start Dropping Next Year
  • 14 minutes Washington Eyes Crackdown On OPEC
  • 2 hours One Last Warning For The U.S. Shale Patch
  • 6 hours Russian Effect: U.S. May Soon Pause Preparations For Delivering F-35s To Turkey
  • 2 hours Chile Tests Floating Solar Farm
  • 13 hours China's Expansion: Italy Leads Europe Into China’s Embrace
  • 13 hours Poll: Will Renewables Save the World?
  • 13 hours New Rebate For EVs in Canada
  • 4 hours Trump Tariffs On China Working
  • 16 hours The Political Debacle: Brexit delayed
  • 7 hours Trump sells out his base to please Wallstreet and Oil industry
  • 4 hours Biomass, Ethanol No Longer Green
  • 1 day Oil-sands recovery by solvents has started on a trial basis; first loads now shipped.
  • 7 hours Read: OPEC THREATENED TO KILL US SHALE
  • 11 hours 3 Pipes: EPIC 900K, CACTUS II 670K, GREY OAKS 800K
Oilfield Services Might Not Fully Recover Till 2025

Oilfield Services Might Not Fully Recover Till 2025

The global oilfield service sector’s…

Asian LNG Prices Hit Three-Year Lows

Asian LNG Prices Hit Three-Year Lows

Spot prices for LNG in…

Would an Arctic Methane Release Spell the End of Human Life on Earth?

Let’s suppose that the Arctic started to degas methane 100 times faster than it is today. I just made that number up trying to come up with a blow-the-doors-off surprise, something like the ozone hole. We ran the numbers to get an idea of how the climate impact of an Arctic Methane Nasty Surprise would stack up to that from Business-as-Usual rising CO2.

Walter et al (2007) says that Arctic lakes are 10% of natural global emissions, or about 5% of total emissions. I believe that was considered to be remarkably high at the time but let’s take it as a given, and representing the Arctic as a whole. If the number of lakes or their bubbling intensity suddenly increased by a factor of 100, and it persisted this way for 100 years, it would come to about 200 Gton of carbon emission, which is on the same scale as our entire fossil fuel emission so far (300 Gton C), or roughly the amount of traditional reserves of natural gas (although I’m not sure where estimates are since fracking) or petroleum. It would be a whopper of a surprise.

Scaling Walter’s Arctic lake emission rates up by a factor of 100 would increase the overall emission rate, natural and anthropogenic, by about a factor of 5 from where it is today. The weak leverage is because the high latitudes are a small source today relative to tropical wetlands and anthropogenic sources, so they have to grow a lot before they make much difference to the sum of all sources.

To view the full article please click here.



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • LindaAmick on July 27 2012 said:
    If the human race brings about its own demise mother nature and earth will go on as if nothing happened.

    Man is the center of nothing. He does not matter in the scheme of the universe.

    I am sad to be a member of a species which contains members who do not view themselves a part of a larger whole. A system where every living thing should be nurtured and cared for.
  • Wayne on March 11 2012 said:
    I'm depressed about how difficult it is to get people to start acting on this serious climate change issues. We are so short sighted and our society seems to be driven by the carbon industries.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News