Aside from the shock value of this, this underlines that there are feedback systems that we have kicked in. I think the science is not clear, we are still learning about the effects. Climate sceptics are right in a perverse way, we have no idea really what we have done.
It's a shame that the whole matter of global warming has been politicized and muddied so much by special interests that average person simply doesn't care anymore. That's why it's especially weird to see something like this published in Daily Mail. The positive feedback loop is definitely happening though, but the magnitude and extents of it could still vary.<p>To be honest, I don't believe we can stop this, not with the current population size and the current economic model.
Its seriously bad, and we still argue about electric cars and profitability of solar power:
Methane is powerful enough to create rapid warming feedback loop that cannot be stopped by current means(unless the world economies are changed overnight), there is a model that shows +6C warming effects if methane reaches 1000ppm(2000 Gt release):
<a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00533.1" rel="nofollow">http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00533....</a>
Notice the predictions of methane release from 2013 are on track:
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/05/7-facts-need-to-know-arctic-methane-time-bomb" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/a...</a>
Serious question: Is there any research in how far will nature be able to adapt? For example, if the permafrost melts, wouldn't that enable growth of CO2 absorbing plants in those areas?<p>I found this article that says the predicted CO2 levels will increase plant growth: <a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-...</a>
Yale Climate Connections on the melting permafrost in 2013: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLCgybStZ4g" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLCgybStZ4g</a> - sad to see we have been moving so slowly in the three years since I watched it.
I didn't read the article closely enough, but I'd be interested to see if this methane is released from a stored source or if it is from rotting vegetation.<p>Much of the permafrost area is a frozen swamp; when it thaws, the swamp plants rot.<p>In other words, this may be a one-time outgassing of a limited amount of vegetable material, at least in this case. We still have the clathrate gun to worry about.
Elsewhere in the arctic: Geophysical Letters 22 JUN 2016: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069292/pdf reports "No significant increase in long-term CH4 emissions on North Slope of Alaska despite significant increase in air temperature"
Related interview with Natalia Shakhova from the International Arctic Research Center: <a href="https://youtu.be/kx1Jxk6kjbQ?t=9" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/kx1Jxk6kjbQ?t=9</a><p>Very ominous.
I have wondered if we couldn't engineer solutions to capture the methane. Locating the leaks should be straightforward with spectral satellite imaging
The headline is incredibly misleading and looks like a misinterpretation by the Daily Mail (not known for their quality journalism in the first place).<p>The "200" figure refers to the concentration of methane in the released gas compared to the atmosphere, not the total amount released in the Arctic compared to usual.<p>Poor article.<p>EDIT: This HN post originally linked to a Daily Mail article with a bad headline. The Siberian Times headline is still misleading but not quite so egregiously wrong.
Original story is from the Siberian Times: <a href="http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/n0681-now-the-proof-permafrost-bubbles-are-leaking-methane-200-times-above-the-norm/" rel="nofollow">http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/n0681-now-th...</a><p>(the Daily Mail? Seriously?)