Guest essay by Don Easterbrook
A crater in northern Siberia, spotted by a passing helicopter, has received worldwide attention and continues to be a top news story. Since then, two more mysterious holes have been discovered elsewhere in the region. Now the new holes, smaller in diameter but similar in shape – are posing a fresh challenge for Russian scientists, according to the The Siberian Times. Theories range from meteorites to an explosion of methane due to global warming.
Figure 1. Yamal ‘mystery crater.’ (Siberian Times)
Anna Kurchatova of the Sub-Arctic Scientific Research Centre said the crater was formed by a mixture of water, salt, and gas igniting an underground explosion as result of global warming. Kurchatova suggests that global warming may have caused an ‘alarming’ melt in the under-soil ice and released gas, causing an effect like the popping of a champagne bottle cork. ‘The version about melting permafrost due to climate change, causing a release of methane gas, which then forces an eruption is the current favorite, though scientists are reluctant to offer a firm conclusion without more study.’
Scientists with the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of the Earth Cryosphere, which is leading the investigation, suggested that the holes formed when melting permafrost triggered an explosion of methane gas. That theory was bolstered when an icy lake was found at the bottom of the hole. Andrei Plekhanov from Scientific Research Center of the Arctic said the crater appears to be made up of 80 percent ice, which adds to the theory that it was caused by the effects of global warming.
Dr. Plekhanov said: “I’ve never seen anything like this, even though I have been to Yamal many times.”
WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?
Actually, these craters are not mysterious at all—there are hundreds of them all over the Yamal Peninsula and their origin has been well known for many years.
Figure 2. Craters of the Yamal Peninsula. The ice cores have completely melted out, leaving lakes. The surrounding ridges are still visible. (Google Earth)
As you can see from the images in Figure 2, there are hundreds of these craters, mostly not as fresh as the recent ones, but showing the same features—a depression surrounded by a ring of raised ground. These are pingos!!
Pingo is an Inuit term for an isolated, dome shaped hill, used to describe large ice-cored mounds found in the permafrost regions of Siberia and various other places in the Arctic. Pingos range in height from a few meters to more than 40 m (130 ft) and from a few meters to 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in diameter. Small pingos typically have rounded tops, but larger ones are commonly broken open at the top where melting of the ice core forms a crater resembling a volcanic cone Where they occur in stratified silt or sand, the beds commonly dip outward from the center, much like those adjacent to an intrusive body. The ice in the core of a pingo is typically massive and of segregation/injection origin. Tension fractures are common at the summit of the mound, but expansion of pingo ice is rare and short-lived. Ice up to 7 m (23 ft) thick has been found in pingos of Sweden. As the ice core melts, a small freshwater lake may occupy the summit crater that forms.
Open system pingos
Open system pingos form where groundwater under artesian pressure beneath thin permafrost forces its way upward and freezes as it approaches the surface where it forms an ice core that heaves the surface upward. Although the initial growth of these types of pingos may occur where ice lenses lie above the water table, their continued growth requires a particular combination of hydrostatic pressure and soil permeability. Thin, discontinuous permafrost and artesian water pressure play important roles in the development of open system pingos. The role of artesian pressure is not to force the overlying sediments upwards but rather to provide a slow, regular supply of groundwater to the growing ice core.
Most open-system pingos are oval or oblong in shape and typically occur as isolated mounds or in small groups developed in either soil or bedrock. Rupturing near their top is common. Concentrations of open-system pingos occur in Siberia, the northern interior of the Yukon, Alaska, Spitsbergen, and Norway.
Closed system pingos
When a lake in a permafrost environment is progressively drained and covered by encroachment of vegetation from the margins, the permafrost table progressively rises to the level of the former lake floor. The rising permafrost table expels pore water ahead of the freezing front, and when the pore water pressure exceeds the overburden strength, upward heaving of the frozen ground occurs as the ice core progressively grows. The size and shape of the resulting pingo typically reflects that of the original body of water.
Closed system pingos vary in height from a few meters to over 60 m (~200 ft) and up to 300 m (~1000 ft) in diameter, ranging from symmetrical conical domes to asymmetric and elongate hills. The top of the pingos are commonly ruptured to form small, star like craters that eventually form shallow-rimmed depressions as the ice core melts.
The mechanism of pingo formation in a closed system starts with a deep, ice-covered lake, surrounded by permafrost. The lake inhibits the development of permafrost beneath it, and the ground remains unfrozen. As the lake is slowly drains or is filled with sediment, at some point the lake ice freezes to the bottom, and the bottom sediments begin to freeze. As the layer of ice and permafrost covers former lake floor, a closed system is set up in the still-unfrozen ground beneath because the permafrost cap prevents the escape of groundwater. As permafrost continues inward growth around the unfrozen core, water pressure increases. Pore water is expelled from the unfrozen sediment by the advancing permafrost, and to relieve the pressure, the surface bulges upward. Eventually, all of the water in the enclosed system groundwater mass becomes frozen and the excess water forms a core of clear ice under the bulge.
Growth rate of pingos:
The birth and growth of a small pingo studied by Mackay (1988) is representative of more than 2,000 closed system pingos of the western Canadian Arctic and Alaska. The pingo appeared on the former floor of a lake that drained suddenly about 1900. Small frost mounds began appearing between 1920 and 1930. The pingo grew steadily until 1976, but the growth rate decreased after that. Mackay also monitored the growth of other small pingos in a lake in the Mackenzie Delta region that drained between 1935 and 1950. The pingos grew rapidly in the initial years, commonly 1.5 m/year (5 ft/yr), then decreased. Mackay suggests that about 15 new pingos per century appear in the Mackenzie Delta region, and only about 50 seem to be actively growing. Similar conclusions have been reached by Russian investigators in Siberia.
Thanks Don for reminding us that we already studied these phenomena and found perfectly reasonable explanations form them. Funny how the new age sciences need to re-invent the last 150 years of empirically derived natural science in order to explain their extraordinary theories.
I’m glad to see that Don disagrees with the Russians. Thankfully, we now have one more thing to fight over with them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5fK3TT2GAQ
But it’s the atmosphere that’s warming not the interior.
Revkin had some space to fill, and PINGO was it’s name-o
P-I-N-G-O! P-I-N-G-O! P-I-N-G-O! and PINGO was it’s name-o
Warmist Propaganda shill, and PINGO was it’s name-o
P-I-N-G-O! P-I-N-G-O! P-I-N-G-O! and PINGO was it’s name-o
Any crap will fit the bill, and PINGO was it’s name-o
P-I-N-G-O! P-I-N-G-O! P-I-N-G-O! and PINGO was it’s name-o
Reply to mpainter ==>
Jimbo gave a couple of quotes, but here are Revkins bits” “She describes how the first hole (and presumably the new one) appear to have formed as methane is released from a warming mix of ice, water and soil, building up pressure that explosively pushed out the top of the hole, heaving chunks of earth many yards in some directions. She said there were no signs of combustion, that the hole had to be at least a year old because there was fresh greenery from this summer season with no overlying layer of mud or the like.
Leibman stressed that there were no indications that such events were more than the normal process of lake formation in the area and predicted that the hole she inspected would end up being a lake in coming years.
She also stressed that she sees no signs of current or imminent warming producing a great destabilization of permafrost in the Arctic: “You can’t say in 20 years it will be 2 degrees warmer so permafrost will be thawing. It will make it 2 degrees warmer, but not thawing – at least in the far north.
“In the south, where you have only patches of permafrost, the response may be a little bit more active,” she said. “But what we see now is permafrost with minus 1 degree temperature [Celsius] now — after a climate warming of 1 and a half degrees — permafrost temperature is minus 0.1 degree, but not above zero.”
Here’s the whole 15 minute interview YouTube video:
Amongst other things, she poo-poos the entire “melting permafrost” scare.
Hi Don
Very nice piece.
Although I appreciate these are not meteorite craters they look like it, so I thought you therefore might appreciate this from a 1966 book ‘The Elements rage’ by Frank W Lane. One of those intriguing books that I look for as it comes from the period BA-Before Alarmism.
There appears to be some close analogies to those scientists who refuse to believe in observations and evidence ‘on the ground’ and has close parallels to the general subject of climate change as well as pingos and meteors. It also smacks of ‘climategate.’
This item concerns the scientific establishment refusing to believe that meteorites fell from the skies
—– —–
‘In the afternoon of Sept 13 1768 a meteorite fell at Luce in France. The French academy of science, then the foremost scientific body in the world, sent a commission which received the unanimous testimony of numerous eye witnesses and were given the ‘rock’ itself. But the commission concluded it did not fall. The statement of one of the witnesses was actually altered to make it fit the explanation that the rock was merely a terrestrial body which had been struck by lightning.
A further example of obscurantism was to come. On July 24 1790 a shower of meteorites fell in Southwest France burying themselves in the earth. Some 300 written statements by witnesses were sent to scientific bodies and journals and pieces of the stones were produced. Still official science would not reverse its ipse dixit that ‘stones do not fall from the sky.’ Charles P Olivier said;
“In the face of all this evidence we have an example of stupidity and bigotry, exhibited by the foremost body of scientists of the day -men who doubtless considered themselves, and were so considered by others, the most advanced and modern of their time, which for all ages should stand as a warning to any man who feels that he can give a final verdict upon a matter outside his immediate experience.”
They are words which any scientist would do well to ponder when confronted with evidence running counter to long cherished opinions. ‘
——- ——–
All the best
Tonyb
Could they be palsas?
The area looks like it might be a bog.
cn
I think the writer is confusing kettles and pingos. They are different processes, though both involving ice. The “craters” shown here are likely kettles, not collapsed pingos. The kettles are old, formed when the glaciers receded.
….And Pingo was its name-o.
“Ice up to 7 m (23 ft) thick has been found in pingos of Sweden.”
Actually there are no typical pingos in Sweden (not enough permafrost), these are “palsas”, a sort of mini-pingo that only evolves in peat-bogs and contain several thin ice-layers instead of one massive ice-mass.
Incidentally I agree that these craters aren’t typical collapsed pingos – they are too deep and too dry. It does seem very likely that nearby gas development and a lowered water-table is involved. Note that in a permafrost area, lowering the water-table below the permafrost will have no obvious effect at the surface, except where there is a break in the permafrost – as there will be at one point when a pingo is collapsing (as all pingos do in the end). But then the effect may well be drastic.
Has Yamal actually even warmed over the past century, in any real data, which excludes “adjusted” by CACA-colluding scientactivists?
Pingos in Alaska care of National Park Service
http://www.nps.gov/akso/pingos_video.cfm
Don’t know how reliable or adjusted these reported observations from the Norwegian Met Institute are:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGsQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmet.no%2Ffilestore%2FEalat_Yamal_climaterep_dvs-1.pdf&ei=muvbU9–GuHxiwKZrIG4BQ&usg=AFQjCNE5LPRvxeQZ0INFwquJHx3OkY6-tw&sig2=oHotd8Iy_zHhnI86iLWCdQ&bvm=bv.72197243,d.cGE
Long-term climate trends of the Yamalo-Nenets AO, Russia
In this study trends and variability of temperature, precipitation and snow at four stations of the
Yamalo-Nenets AO, Russia (Mare-Sale, Tarko-Sale, Salekhard and Nadym) were examined along a
simulated migration gradient used by nomadic reindeer herders where Mare-Sale represents pastures used in summer and the Nadym region is used during winter. Migration between summer and winter pastures can be as long as 1500 km in one direction. Several climate parameters were chosen for analysis: annual and seasonal temperature, annual and seasonal precipitation sum, maximum snow depth, snow season duration, rain-on-snow events and cold periods.
The covariance between temperature series from all four stations is high. Average seasonal temperature cycles are also similar (from about -25C in January to +15C in July), with the exception that Mare-Sale is considerably cooler than the other stations in spring and summer and slightly milder in winter. The long-term trend is investigated at Salekard. The spring temperature shows a significant positive trend of almost 0.2C per decade from 1900 to 2008. For the other seasons, the temperature shows no statistically significant long-term trends. All series show warm periods in the 1940s and 1990s, and a cold period in the 1960s. Salekard (the only station with observations at that time) was cold also around 1900. All series indicate a warming from the period 1961-1990 to 1979-2008. In Mare-Sale the warming was largest during autumn (0.9C). At the other stations, it was largest (>1C) in spring.
Kip Hansen:
Many thanks for your informative reply. Liebman makes good sense with her analysis.
There are 4000 of these in Blackburn, Lancashire……
Steinar Midtskogen says:
August 1, 2014 at 12:13 pm
IMO kettles & pingos form in similar ways. In fact, a kettle pond or lake can form within a pingo when its ice core finally melts. IMO the difference in formation between an ordinary kettle & a pingo is only the initial height of the ground above the buried ice, a pingo naturally being taller & more like a hill, while the kettle to be is lower & more of a mound or hump than a hill. That’s at least as understood in Arctic North America. Conical pingo hills persist in permafrost but there are processes that can melt their ice cores, causing collapse into a kettle pone, other than local warming or changes in the permafrost zone.
TonyK says:
August 1, 2014 at 12:49 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p007rfy6
@ur momisugly TonyK says:
But I heard those holes were rather small.
So it’s not Mothra breaking out, damn.
I rarely visit WUWT now. It used to have some interesting stuff, but this post followed by a message board which unthinkingly dismisses all manner of professional scientists without any justification is cringeworthy.
Dr. Easterbrook’s post describes Pingos as low hills that develop gradually over time and then often undergo partial collapse in the centre within which lakes can form. This is completely different from the very large holes that have been noticed within the last couple of weeks.
Yet almost all the posters here demonstrate a child-like trust that the wise Dr. Easterbrook (whose research background, judging from Google Scholar, does not cover geomorphological features such as pingos, so he would appear to be speaking as a layperson here) must be correct, and the experts in such features who are puzzled are dismissed as idiots, or, worse, peddlers of some kind of AGW religion – what evidence do any of you have for this? Putin’s govt has until very recently been pretty hostile towards AGW theory, so it would be surprising that Russian scientists would feel in any way under obligation to bend the knee before AGW.
Whatever happened to the skepticism, in the original sense of the word, that one used to find on this site?
And how there’s this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/mysterious-lake-tunisian-desert-turquoise-green-sludge
Likely more fallout from the Bush administration’s failure to sign the Kyoto treaty.
Now THIS is the pingo I like….
==============================================================
Nah. Tree rings without the trees.
Or maybe “The Missing Heat” has been in Yamal all along and got tired of hiding? Afterall, that’s where Mann found it.
(Did that sentence make sense? Well, it is Catastrophic Climate Science so I guess it doesn’t have to.)
“When you’ve seen one (ping), you’ve seen them all.”
=======================================================================
GAGW is a cause looking for an effect to promote a political cause.