Nice to know our home planet is all fired up.
1
I'm confused. How does the required hydrogen actually appear? It's chemically bound with oxygen in water; it's not free hydrogen.
So is the writer saying water is chemically broken down to its constituent elements through serpentization? (Never heard of the term before...) Or is there free hydrogen dissolved in water? Or is there another source of hydrogen?
Can anyone clear this up? Truly curious.
6
Of all the phenomemons requiring millenniums, pluralizations are not among your well-turned phrases.
14
There are no "unsusual types" of methane. There are not even "different types" of methane. All methane is exactly the same, no matter how it is produced - by living organisms, their decay or chemical reactions between inorganic reactants. And all that methane has exactly the same effect on climate – it is almost 30 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. And its concentration nearly tripled since pre-industrial time.
10
Isotopes are different.
3
Yes, just like there are isotopically different forms of water, there are isotopically different forma of methane. The C13/C12 ratios of the carbon in these gases can be precisely measured and there are fairly well know reference values which indicate which process generated the methane. Biogenic methane is broadly that methane generated in biologic matter decay and has a very typical isotopic signature that is different from a methane that is generated in hot rocks by cracking of oil or by thermogenesis of coal. Abiotic methane has a very unique isotope signature which clearly sets it apart from other forms of methane. Google it and don’t comment on things you may not have a clear understanding of.
5
If limestone is involved in the generation of this methane, then it wouldn’t be truly abiotic. Limestone consists of the calcium carbonate shells and skeletons of microscopic sea life and corals deposited on ancient ocean floors. So, this source of inorganic carbon, wouldn’t exist without living organisms.
14
Abiotic in the sense used in this article means generated by a non biologic process. Most methane on earth is generated during decay of organic matter (called biogenic) - the methane produced in landfills or by thermogenic - conversion of some form of organic rich matter to methane and other HC gases. Abiotic simply means generated by a non biologic process as explained in the article.
2
"Inorganic" carbon is an oxymoron. Carbon is by chemical definition an organic element (in fact, THE organic element). It cannot be inorganic.
14
You’d better sharpen your test tube. Carbonate chemistry is not part of organic chemistry. The sense of the word inorganic here is meant to imply that the carbon is not directly from organic matter, as is the case in all other methane production on earth. In fact for a while, it was assumed that all methane is from biologic or “organic” matter and methane on Mars was seen as proof of the existence of life there (or in its past). Etiope’s and others work is groundbreaking in showing that there are non-biologic processes that can generate methane and to that end, the word inorganic for carbon is acceptable.
5
It isn’t a type of Methane. That’s absurd.
It is abiotic, so it is methane from an unexpected source, methane that has signature impurities that identify the source as abiotic.
This seemingly simple thought is important. Because it makes your headline unscientific. For a science article in the NYT that is unfortunate.
22
@Jim Carroll, I think your argument is mostly semantic. Why can't abiotic methane and methane derived directly from biological processes be considered different "types"?Methane from different sources usually does have distinctive chemical "signatures". These differences are not due to impurities. The differences result from differing ratios of different "types" (isotopes) of carbon, common Carbon-12 and less-common Carbon-13. Biological reactions and chemical reactions often lead to different Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 ratios. Are these different "types" of reactions? I am not qualified to discuss the meaning of life. For that you may want to consult Monty Python.
5
@Jim Carroll, I think your argument is mostly semantic. Why can't abiotic methane and methane derived directly from biological processes be considered different "types"?Methane from different sources usually does have distinctive chemical "signatures". These differences are not due to impurities. The differences result from differing ratios of different "types" (isotopes) of carbon, common Carbon-12 and less-common Carbon-13. Biological reactions and chemical reactions often lead to different Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 ratios. Are these different "types" of reactions? I am not qualified to discuss the meaning of life. For that you may want to consult Monty Python.
@EasternElitist
No need to repeat yourself.
3
If I were a prehistoric human this would be wonderful magic!
12
@Sutter. Magic. Sorcery. Witchcraft. Etc. Take your pick. Historically humans have been highly superstitious and fearful of many natural phenomena (still are)
3
Could this explain Moses' sighting of a "burning bush" at the summit of Mt. Sinai? Maybe one of these flames seen through foreground vegetation, or coming up underneath it, making it appear that the plant was burning but, because it was the gas that actually was on fire, the bush was not consumed by the flame?
That's my scientifically-based Midrash for today.
Shalom y'all.
20
@JA -- I'm no bible scholar (or any other kind) but could it have been a burning bush?
5
@Stevenz
I think the point is that the Bush was burning but not consumed by the fire. JA suggests that it might have been a sort of optical illusion whereby it looked like it was the vegetation that was on fire, when really it was the methane.
5
Fascinating. Chemosynthesis of methane does instill even more hope for life across the galaxies.
7
"In the future, the researchers hope to learn how much of this methane is out there and where is it being stored."
The real threat to our atmosphere is from the VAST quantities of methane stored in, and NOW being released from, the permafrost deposits near the Arctic, especially Greenland and russia. One significant property of methane is its heat retention, after being exposed to sunlight. THIS is the source of global warming we don't hear enough about, most likely because methane is also being released in large quantities from fracking.
9
@William Smith fortunately, unlike CO2, methane recycles out of the atmosphere much quicker. I believe that methane lives for less than a decade in the atmosphere whereas, CO2 can take upwards of two to three centuries to recycle out of the atmosphere... This is why CO2 is the most dangerous of the greenhouse gases...
4
@Rob Great then, the methane will all be gone from the atmosphere a few years after all the methane currently stored in the permafrost is released. I wonder if that might be in a few hundred (plus 3-4) or a few thousand (plus 3-4) years.
For years, some of the large offshore gas and gas-oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico were found to be exceeding previous estimated recoverable reserves. Production was not drawing down the estimates as expected, and it was not simply a case of sandbagging the estimates so that depreciation and depletion (non-cash allocated expenses presented in financial income statements but not included in operating income calculations) would be higher, thus minimizing calculated taxes.
Years ago, this was hypothesized to be "abiogenic" gas and taken seriously by many, but scoffed at by more. The concept is not new, but the science is. Good.
10
What does this mean for planetary science? I had thought that the presence of methane is one of the key things that we look for on Mars (and exoplanets) as a sign of possible life. If abiotic methane exists then the presence of methane could be irrelevant.
18
@David Anderman abiotic methane has long been known to exist. Titan has been known to have lakes of methane. However, biological fractionation of isotopes allows scientists to distinguish abiotic from biotic genesis. It is these subtle differences that planetary scientists look for when studying methane on other worlds.
10
"In the future, the researchers hope to learn how much of this methane is out there and where is it being stored."
The real threat to our atmosphere is from the VAST quantities of methane stored in, and NOW being released from, the permafrost deposits near the Arctic, especially Greenland and russia. One significant property of methane is its heat retention, after being exposed to sunlight. THIS is the source of global warming we don't hear enough about, most likely because methane is also being released in large quantities from fracking.
2
"In the future, the researchers hope to learn how much of this methane is out there and where is it being stored."
The real threat to our atmosphere is from the VAST quantities of methane stored in, and NOW being released from, the permafrost deposits near the Arctic, especially Greenland and russia. One significant property of methane is its heat retention, after being exposed to sunlight. THIS is the source of global warming we don't hear enough about, most likely because methane is also being released in large quantities from fracking.