This is beyond alarming. Methane vents appearing in the Arctic water near Siberia.

If I'm not mistaken, reactions like this, or similar to this, were predicted by climate scientists and are part of the escalating (exponential) feedback-processes (if that is a fitting expression) which are going to take place more and more as things get worse.

Is there a "Safest place to live" in case of a major climate change or are we all pretty much hosed?

There are lots of possible threats from climate change. The ironic thing is, the leading industrial countries (G7) will be affected mildly because they're located mostly in the moderate climate zones.

Tech26 said:

Is there a "Safest place to live" in case of a major climate change or are we all pretty much hosed?

Click to expand...

Low-lying urban areas (like Kirkland) would clearly be among the worst places to live with major climate change; low-lying, densely populated, highly dependent on trade. If you're worried, consider getting a place in eastern Washington, which is well above sea-level, lightly populated, and reasonably self-sustaining agriculturally.

The problem is few "first worlders" have the skills to cope with a major breakdown in the economy. Fortunately, I think such is unlikely to occur, but raising the world's sea-level by 2m would destroy a lot of infrastructure and lead to widespread economic and population dislocations. Bad things.

AnOutsider said:

...hey, at least we'll get to drive our Model S' for a bit.

Click to expand...

"New Model S Delivery Schedule: before the end of the world (for Signatures and P<2000)."

zack said:

Methane vents appearing in the Arctic...

Click to expand...

Is that like the earth 'farting' in our general direction?

VolkerP said:

There are lots of possible threats from climate change. The ironic thing is, the leading industrial countries (G7) will be affected mildly because they're located mostly in the moderate climate zones.

Click to expand...

The biggest problems will be around rain pattern changes. This would be a big problem for south west US.

For the developing world this would be tragic. Prolonged failure of Monsoon can kill nearly a Billion people in south asia, for eg.

EVNow said:

The biggest problems will be around rain pattern changes. This would be a big problem for south west US.

Click to expand...

It won't end at that point. Lots of things will keep changing and we won't have time to adjust. It took us a long time to establish the (infra-)structures we have.

One can be of different opinion about that, however my impression is that there isn't time for baby steps, we need more substantial solutions.

EVNow said:

The biggest problems will be around rain pattern changes. This would be a big problem for south west US.
For the developing world this would be tragic. Prolonged failure of Monsoon can nearly a Billion people in south asia, for eg.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, many critics of such theories (facts really) are unwilling to implement changes to offset these events, which should have been done 20 years ago. If south Asia were impacted, the same critics might think differently when their low-wage labor begins to face the stark realities of our neglect.

Iz said:

Unfortunately, many critics of such theories (facts really) are unwilling to implement changes to offset these events, which should have been done 20 years ago. If south Asia were impacted, the same critics might think differently when their low-wage labor begins to face the stark realities of our neglect.

Click to expand...

Homo Sapiens have not evolved to take important but long term risks seriously. Just like bacteria, we have evolved to consume all possible resources before the population starts decreasing.

BTW, methane release from the oceans was likely the cause of the greatest extinction event. Here is a good read on this - Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future by Peter D. Ward.

BTW, none of the attendees of AGU are reporting anything about this "news". We will have to wait to see what others say.

You can see some discussion around this methane news in the comments.

RealClimate: AGU 2011: Day 5 and wrap-up

EVNow said:

Homo Sapiens have not evolved to take important but long term risks seriously. Just like bacteria, we have evolved to consume all possible resources before the population starts decreasing.

Click to expand...

Bluntly, bacteria have a better handle on these problems; by mutating very quickly and reproducing very quickly, even if billions of them die, some descendants are likely to be adapted to the changed environment. And there are many of them and they live in very small places; the ones adapted to "pre-photosynthesis earth" are pretty much still around, hiding near vents in the bottom of the ocean. As a group, bacteria will be fine. Actually, I suspect most single-celled photosynthetic organisms will be fine.... which doesn't help humans much.

If we can halt CO2 releases so as to stop ocean acidification, we may be able to adapt before human extinction. If we pass the point where ocean acidification breaks the ocean food chain, I seriously doubt humanity will survive; the collapse of the ocean food chain will be pretty much impossible to survive, given that our land-based food chain will be severely compromised by global warming at the same time.

Zack: target practice is OK, but best to hook up with local farmers and provide what they need so they feed you first when there's a crunch. I admit to not practicing this.

Now comes the New York Times (a normally liberal paper) in its even-more-normally-liberal dot.earth blogs, asserting that the Independent's article overblows the situation:
Methane Time Bomb in Arctic Seas – Apocalypse Not

Robert.Boston said:

Now comes the New York Times (a normally liberal paper) in its even-more-normally-liberal dot.earth blogs, asserting that the Independent's article overblows the situation:
Methane Time Bomb in Arctic Seas – Apocalypse Not

Click to expand...

It seems to counter "oveerblow" with "underblow". The article presents selected information which is more general and doesn't actually reflect on the recent findings.

For example it more or less concludes:

But scientists who track methane in the atmosphere in the Arctic and elsewhere around the planet see no big surge that can be pinned on such releases.

Click to expand...

What does the qualification "that can be pinned on such releases" mean?

It creates a bit the impression that methane in the atmosphere is not increasing at all, in a noteworthy way. However, consider this statistical analysis by Tamino from May 2011 (half a year ago):

Methane Update | Open Mind

It shows that since 2007, methane is rising (again) at a rate of 5.9 +/- 1.6 ppb/yr. (ppb = parts per billion, ppm = parts per million). According to these graphs, since 1985, CH4 has increased from about 1720 ppb to about 1880 ppb, which is about 9% in 25 years, if I am reading that correctly. 25 years may perhaps seem a long time, but compare it to the age of the planet or humankind. The rate until May 2011, since 2007, would be about 8% in 25 years.