Massive methane release in the Arctic Circle

[MathiasOfAthens]

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainabilit...ng-fears#close

Vast amounts of methane are bubbling up from the East Siberian sea, raising fears of a massive hike in global warming.

Permafrost in the seabed has been previously assumed to act as an effective cap for the enormous amount of methane in the area.
But researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences, the University of Alaska and Stockholm University have found that eight million tonnes of methane are currently leaking into the atmosphere every year.

"The amount of methane currently coming out of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is comparable to the amount coming out of the entire world's oceans," said Shakhova, a researcher at UAF's International Arctic Research Center. "Subsea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap."

It's not known how long the methane release has been going on. But models suggest that if just one percent of the methane contained in the region were released, it would cause rapid warming.

Earlier periods of rapid climate change have been associated with sudden releases of methane from the seabed.

During the ISSS expedition measurements of methane were made in the seabed, at different depths in the water and in the overlying air at over one hundred locations.

Combined with measurements from previous expeditions, it was found that methane concentrations in seawater are elevated in 80 percent of sea bottom samples and in more than half of the surface water samples and air samples.

Some areas had concentrations up to 100 times above the natural background levels, and the ISSS expedition discovered methane chimneys on the ocean floor and fields of methane bubbles that rose to the surface of the sea so fast that the methane did not have time to dissolve in the seawater.

"Our concern is that the subsea permafrost has been showing signs of destabilization already," she said. "If it further destabilizes, the methane emissions may not be teragrams, it would be significantly larger."

Sounds pretty trouble some to say the least. What does this mean?

[Phier]

It's not known how long the methane release has been going on. But models suggest that if just one percent of the methane contained in the region were released, it would cause rapid warming.

It means nothing until a baseline is determined. From what I can gather it just means methane is released, without knowing if substantially more is released now than say 10-20 years ago, its rather hard to judge.

[Gordon Freynman]

......Godzilla farted?

[Kamos]

Damn it if the world ends in my lifetime I'm going to be so pissed.

[DekuTrash]

Damn it if the world ends in my lifetime I'm going to be so pissed.

Dewd that would be so awesome. Then you could say I lived to see the end of the world, a once in a life time event.

[Redem]

It means that atmospheric methane is probably increasing, and will continue to increase as feedback mechanisms kick in, compounding the problems of increased CO2 release. Aren't chaotic systems fun?

[Phier]

It means that atmospheric methane is probably increasing, and will continue to increase as feedback mechanisms kick in, compounding the problems of increased CO2 release. Aren't chaotic systems fun?

No it doesn't since they don't seem to know a historical output. They might have simply detected the natural level of methane release. A frozen version of a swamp.

[The spartan]

No it doesn't since they don't seem to know a historical output. They might have simply detected the natural level of methane release. A frozen version of a swamp.

Indeed, but it is worrisome. If it is recent, this is bad news for the atmosphere.

[Wilder]

No it doesn't since they don't seem to know a historical output.

This is what I wanted you to think about. That graph shows basically no variation, just a sharp upward trend. No increase for the medieval warm period, no decrease for the little ice age, just BOOM curve to hell. If we were to extrapolate it to 2010 it would be over the top. It makes no sense.

You're shifting your arguments there. You said they don't have a baseline, and chamaeleo showed you that is not really true. Granted though, that is not a graph I would have chosen, but all the same if you have questions the source is listed, Google is a powerful tool.

here are some better graphs (with lots of data, yay!):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

historical ice core data

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

More recent data.

both from wiki.

Laugh, cast in stone? Oh how little you know me.

Careful Phier, we just may begin to question your motivations. I remember around the "Climategate" fiasco you assuming that the decline mentioned in the letters referred to global temperature. Problem is, it doesn't and anyone who actually took the time to read the email would know that.

[chamaeleo]

They've found methane bubbling up in places where it's never been observed before. What's more, petroleum companies are seriously worried about their arctic pipelines buckling from compromised permafrost foundations. Poetic justice, that.

Atmospheric methane is definitely on the rise:


Who's to say we're the exclusive cause? Nevertheless, we are contributing to the problem, the only remaining question is to what degree?

Phier: you can play the sceptical naysayer for only so long...if this Siberian Arctic shelf release is really but a baseline rate, it might not be too long before those numbers start rising. In this event, what sorts of new excuses will you make for Humanity's myopic behavior? At what point does your head emerge from the sand...are you waiting for high tide, or what?

[Phier]

A 25 year old graph showing the upward trend starting in 1885?

How could I argue such compelling evidence to AGW?

Actually looking at it the trend started prior to 1785 but the real upward swing started 1885.

[chamaeleo]

A 25 year old graph showing the upward trend starting in 1885?

How could I argue such compelling evidence to AGW?

I dunno...try flooding TWC with a dozen or so anti-AGW threads, based upon flimsy counter arguments made by old-timer fringe scientists with firm corporate funding. This is how it works, right? Repeat something often enough, and a few folks might jump upon the bandwagon?

Actually looking at it the trend started prior to 1785 but the real upward swing started 1885.

...and, the Industrial Revolution began about when?

First: Ooh, look! A graph with a really out of place jump in it! It must be man made.

Missed it, eh?

Who's to say we're the exclusive cause? Nevertheless, we are contributing to the problem, the only remaining question is to what degree?

Not like it was embedded within an essay, or anything...

Second: This seems more of a straw man to hold up global warming without having to come out and say that they really did make it up.

How so? Who made it up...wait, wait, I'll bet it was the global conspirators! Scientists! The U.N.! The friggin' New World Order, man!!! You know, the ones making so much money whilst promoting increased energy efficiency and conservative resource consumption practices! Please, I won't even waste my time since you've already read all that you need to know to form your own, skewed opinion.

[Phier]

I dunno...try flooding TWC with a dozen or so anti-AGW threads, based upon flimsy counter arguments made by old-timer fringe scientists with firm corporate funding. This is how it works, right? Repeat something often enough, and a few folks might jump upon the bandwagon?

Blah blah blah, its not the old timer 'fringe' scientists who need to answer questions to the MP's in the UK now is it?

Its not old timer fringe scientists using activist non-peer reviewed literature in the IPCC report.

Its not old timer fringe scientists making up graphs and drawing conclusions contrary to the peer reviewed papers they were supposedly citing in the same IPCC reports.

Suck it up, I was right about the bad science from our pre-climate gate posts, and I'm right now.

BTW most of those 'fringe' guys get jack squat in funding from anyone, the corporate funding BS is laughable demonizing when 'your side' gets millions in grants.

...and, the Industrial Revolution began about when?

Dude use your damn head, whats MISSING from that graph, THINK about temperature trends, whats missing?!?

If you don't figure it out I will horribly mock you.

[♔Jean-Luc Picard♔]

First: Ooh, look! A graph with a really out of place jump in it! It must be man made.

Second: This seems more of a straw man to hold up global warming without having to come out and say that they really did make it up.

[chamaeleo]

Bro: it is what it is...a single graph, showing a single variable, covering relatively recent history. I never claimed to be posting the be-all end-all Proof of Anything! Simply a representative, replicated many times over by other researchers across a wide range of different scientific disciplines.

Nothing will ever satisfy you, that much is certain: I have yet to read from you a single acknowledgement of a sound opposing opinion, of which there have been several, and I don't expect to be the first to be so honored by your magnanimous alter-ego.

I might overlay: human population, CO2 emissions, atmospheric delta T, oceanic delta T, deforestation rates, coral reef extermination rates, mean pH of precipitation, coal consumption, Q of cattle, Q of automobiles, mean hurricane magnitudes, topsoil erosion rates, speleothem formation rates, mean groundwater level, pesticide & herbicide use, glacial melting rates, and other variables...all related to ACC, all closely mirroring the atmospheric methane concentration graph. However, why should I bother? The crimson tinting in your reading glasses has proven, time and again, to filter all references to good, climate-relevant science...leaving behind a tired scattering of politically motivated punchlines. We've already got Glen Beck. No need to be redundant.

I will be the first to admit that, regretably, the politicization of the Climate Change issue has led to plenty of abuse...that is the very nature of politics getting involved in anything, especially Science! For you to maintain a blanket accusation of personal bias against ALL researchers whose results disagree with your cast-in-stone opinion...THAT is about the biggest blindfold I've ever seen you wear. As you should already know, most researchers whose data are used to support ACC are not even climatologists. Their personal biases, if any, generally reflect their specific disciplines...not how their findings relate to the Big Picture, of which they were largely ignorant before they'd even written their grant proposals!

There's enough willful ignorance in this world...try not to contribute! Peace.

[Phier]

Bro: it is what it is...a single graph, showing a single variable, covering relatively recent history. I never claimed to be posting the be-all end-all Proof of Anything! Simply a representative, replicated many times over by other researchers across a wide range of different scientific disciplines.

Nothing will ever satisfy you, that much is certain: I have yet to read from you a single acknowledgement of a sound opposing opinion, of which there have been several, and I don't expect to be the first to be so honored by your magnanimous alter-ego.

In other words you posted a graph you don't understand because it somehow involved rising methane historically. Great and useful then.

This is what I wanted you to think about. That graph shows basically no variation, just a sharp upward trend. No increase for the medieval warm period, no decrease for the little ice age, just BOOM curve to hell. If we were to extrapolate it to 2010 it would be over the top. It makes no sense. It also lacks context I might add, where, how did they get the samples, etc, you just linked the picture, no background. Well let me tell you something about methane, it was stable for about 10 years until 2007 when it started to increase again. WHY it is increasing has several theories including global warming (oddly it was stable during the warmest period). More activity in tropical areas, more flooding etc can all increase methane release.

These are the kind of things you need to look at if you want to be taken seriously. Its not being skeptical about climate change its about being a GOOD scientist. All good scientists are skeptical about anything new. You need to examine it, you need to ask, 'what if's?', you need to say 'It could also be this'. In medicine its called a differential diagnosis. What you don't do is look at something for the first time, and assume you know the cause of it without even knowing a base line like the OP article.

I might overlay: human population, CO2 emissions, atmospheric delta T, oceanic delta T, deforestation rates, coral reef extermination rates, mean pH of precipitation, coal consumption, Q of cattle, Q of automobiles, mean hurricane magnitudes, topsoil erosion rates, speleothem formation rates, mean groundwater level, pesticide & herbicide use, glacial melting rates, and other variables...all related to ACC, all closely mirroring the atmospheric methane concentration graph. However, why should I bother? The crimson tinting in your reading glasses has proven, time and again, to filter all references to good, climate-relevant science...leaving behind a tired scattering of politically motivated punchlines. We've already got Glen Beck. No need to be redundant.

Yes chicken little, we know the sky is falling, but again its not my people having to testify to governments about their missdeads Methane may be the real issue, its not a new idea, but I'm fighting against the idiocy that is the CO2 policies which are costly and do NOTHING. You know the kind of thing your side likes, doing nothing, spending money, and feeling smug.

ill be the first to admit that, regretably, the politicization of the Climate Change issue has led to plenty of abuse...that is the very nature of politics getting involved in anything, especially Science! For you to maintain a blanket accusation of personal bias against ALL researchers whose results disagree with your cast-in-stone opinion...THAT is about the biggest blindfold I've ever seen you wear. As you should already know, most researchers whose data are used to support ACC are not even climatologists. Their personal biases, if any, generally reflect their specific disciplines...not how their findings relate to the Big Picture, of which they were largely ignorant before they'd even written their grant proposals!

Laugh, cast in stone? Oh how little you know me. I started out very much worried about global warming, I cut me scientific teeth on environmental issues long before anyone in the public thought more about it than it might be nice to have less harsh winters. Hell I still remember a news station covering it in the 80's in Chicago asking if it would be nice to have palm trees in the city.

I know how to read results, I know how to read methods, hell I was trained to pick apart papers looking for bad science in my own field. You expect me to accept 'adjusted' results where they don't have the balls to show you the data? Thats not science, its NOT how its done. Excuse me for not trusting these people but they have amply shown they are not worthy of trust.

What the science often is, is some observation and then some meaningless tie in with global warming. From the deformed frogs (parasites) to hurricanes (no statistically significant change, that was a big issue in IPCC4).

There's enough willful ignorance in this world...try not to contribute! Peace.

Have you ever wondered why the Roman or Medieval periods were warmer? Have you ever thought that perhaps, just perhaps we don't understand this planet very well, and maybe the reason the data is hard to figure out is that we are not the direct cause? That we may be warming, and there is not a damn thing we can do about it?

But lets get back to the OP. Lets talk about this number......

She estimated that annual methane emissions from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf total about seven teragrams. (A teragram is 1.1 million tons.)

Sounds big...

Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually

Oh.....

So perhaps a run away arctic methane release is not where the problem lies?

Now we may be warming, but from what I can tell we are at about the AVERAGE temperature for the last 3000 years. Its been much hotter and much cooler. Maybe, just maybe, we are just going back to one of those hotter periods?

[Angrychris]

substantial increase during the industrial revolution....

[MathiasOfAthens]

The earth is so old that when it goes through these cycles it seems like eternity for us because our lives are so short but for the planet it is only brief second (Or realistically a day) in its life.

[chamaeleo]

Phier: Why would you think that atmospheric [methane] emulates [CO2]? It's generally thought that methane spikes don't occur until shortly after mean local T reaches a threshold (~freezing pt of water). If the lid doesn't quite melt, the box remains unopened. What we see bubbling up from the Arctic is pretty massive, but methane is still but a positive feedback cycle superimposed upon a grander scheme...the ball is already rolling, methane only adds inertia.

So perhaps a run away arctic methane release is not where the problem lies?

Nope, I never stated that either. Ruminant livestock are an anthropogenic source...wait a sec, which way are you arguing?!?

7.7 M tons (Arctic methane estimate) is roughly 10% of 80 M tons (livestock estimate). Not exactly a minute contribution. Now, if the methane is just beginning to be released...increasing global mean T...melting more permafrost, releasing even more methane...THIS is why methane is considered so insidious.

What the science often is, is some observation and then some meaningless tie in with global warming. From the deformed frogs (parasites) to hurricanes (no statistically significant change, that was a big issue in IPCC4).

I agree, this pisses me off to no end...I absolutely hate that every little aberration is automatically tied to global warming by our ignorant, paranoic media. Such hasty conclusions only overshadow and undermine the directly relevant good studies.

Now we may be warming, but from what I can tell we are at about the AVERAGE temperature for the last 3000 years. Its been much hotter and much cooler. Maybe, just maybe, we are just going back to one of those hotter periods?

Maybe. I sure hope so. Rarely has so much carbon ever been released over such a short period of geologic time, so the anthropogenic hypothesis is quite strong...but despite what you might think, I'm always ready to toss out strong hypotheses. Especially, given the complexity of the system (it's the entire friggin EARTH...plus solar system, man!). My own MS thesis might never have gotten off the ground, had I not steered away from more mainstream assumptions regarding urban water quality.

All I know is that the rest of the world is gearing up in anticipation of a more sustainability-based global economy, and the longer we sit it out...the more likely we are to be buying (on credit), rather than selling. You'd rather see us playing catch-up, than be perceived as buying into silly liberal fears? Call it an economic argument, then, and remove altogether the political tags which you're so very fond of.

ACC...hype, or not, what exactly do you have against promoting policies and research which results in:

1. higher efficiency vehicles and buildings,
2. healthier air, water and food,
3. more stable sources of energy...?

How exactly, do you call yourself an environmentalist?

Frankly, I don't see your assertions of smugly liberal, chicken-little do nothings carrying any weight whatsoever. At least our heart is in the right place: "your side" would rather invade foreign countries (on pretense) to maintain the fossil fuel deadlock, than spend those trillions on "homeland-improvement"...creating the next Energy paradigm. I just wish we had less-corruptible leadership to go along with all those good intentions....ah, but that is another debate!

Maybe FIBs just aren't positioned as well geographically as I am, to see the future? NM is pretty well set to hit the ground running once solar, wind and certain biofuel technologies start receiving the attention they deserve, and with our legacy of creative construction techniques the desire to lead is already here.

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]