There’s been a lot of worry-buzz in the usual circles over methane plumes bubbling up in the Arctic related to this NSF press release:
Press Release 10-036
Methane Releases From Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
Thawing by climate change of subsea layer of permafrost may release stores of underlying, seabed methane
The permafrost of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (an area of about 2 million kilometers squared) is more porous than previously thought. The ocean on top of it and the heat from the mantle below it warm it and make it perforated like Swiss cheese. This allows methane gas stored under it under pressure to burst into the atmosphere. The amount leaking from this locale is comparable to all the methane from the rest of the world’s oceans put together. Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Credit: Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation
To his credit, Andrew Revkin of the New York Times inquired with the field researchers on the methane bubbles. He writes:
Shakhova and Semiletov, whose earlier analysis of methane in the region was published in Science last year, had been unavailable for comment when I was preparing my piece, as they had gone on vacation shortly after their presentation. When they were back on the grid they got my e-mail inquiries and saw the post. Their response clarifies their differences with other research groups and emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating scientific findings before rushing to conclusions, either alarming or reassuring. One clear message, which I endorse, is the need to sustain the kind of fieldwork they’re doing.
The reply from Semiletov and Shakhova is enlightening and is the QOTW:
We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change.
In fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years ago.
We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone. And like most scientists in our field, we have to deal with slowly improving understanding of ongoing processes that often incorporates different points of views expressed by different groups of researchers.
Do you think Joltin Joe Romm, who agreed with the story by Gillis (but panned Revkin’s story then) before the clarification…
Carbon Time Bomb in the Arctic: New York Times Print Edition Gets the Story Right
Writing:
The NYT would seem to be schizophrenic on this crucial topic, but Gillis clearly has the story right and it isn’t reassuring at all.
…will carry now this clarification? It seems schizophrenic interpretations my not be NYT’s fault at all, especially since the field researchers have clarified on record that they don’t see “climate change” to be involved at all.
Don’t hold your breath.
Kudos to Andrew Revkin for doing actual journalism and going straight to the source.
Of course the bigger problem than Joltin Joe Romm are the non thinking serial media and blog regurgitators. Perhaps WUWT readers can advise them of the correction.
‘Fountains’ of methane 1000m across erupt from Arctic ice – a greenhouse gas …
Rapid rise in Arctic methane shocks scientists
Scientists Discover Giant Methane Plume in Arctic Ocean
Scientists worry about giant plumes of methane in Arctic Ocean
Giant plumes of methane bubbling to surface of Arctic Ocean
Chilling discovery: Arctic ice releases deadly greenhouse gas
Where am I? > Home > Climate > Vast Stores of Methane Are Rel…
Methane in the Arctic: The end of the world, or what?
Unprecedented Methane Plumes Bubbling in The Arctic
===============================================================
Update: In case you are wondering what CH4 concentration in the atmosphere looks like, here’s the latest data from NOAA:
The Y axis is Parts Per Billion (PPB) Plot visualizer here. Data here. I noted back in 2006 that CH4 had stabilized, now it is slightly rising again.
Bill Illis in comments adds the Barrow, AK monitoring site in the “permafrost zone … and it is right next to the frozen permafrost/frozen methane beds of the high Arctic.” and notes it is “pretty well flat right now”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Al ‘D’ Gore.
*yawn*
It’s *yawn* worse than we thought *yawn*
*yawn* it’s clearly time to *yawn* panic
Please wake me up when we’re all dead.
Can we capture the methane?
Joltin Joe Romm…I thought he was Joe EnRomm…I get so confused sometimes…
When I google “Joe Romm” I see him referred to by both names…so I guess as Bill Murray said in Meatballs…”It just doesn’t matter!”
Sorry to disappoint you, but certainly the Daily Mail is not interested in accuracy, only in playing to a public which thrives on bad news. Pointing out the clarification would be a waste of time. I suspect the same applies to most of the others listed, and as for the Guardian (The Moonbat column) or the BBC, well, forget it.
The Romman Scientific Method: Only agree with scientists or writers who say what you want them to say, and ignore, dismiss, and/or smear all others.
These scientists obviously work for Big Oil or perhaps Big Cow.
Revkin says: “One clear message, which I endorse, is the need to sustain the kind of fieldwork they’re doing.”
Revkin says send more money.
mkelly
I’ll happily see my taxes spent on something that looks like genuine research giving us a clear picture of what can actually be attributed to global warming and what can’t.
Revkin is right and as Anthony says, kudos to him for going to the source and getting the right story rather than the headline-grabbing one.
IOW it’s the usual idiots
They are capturing natural methane seeps (and oil seeps, too) off the coast of California (Coal Oil Point, near Santa Barbara). It is some sort of contraption that looks something like an inverted funnel that is placed over the seep. Many seeps that are not economically viable are simply left alone. The irony is that if we allowed renewed drilling in that area, it would reduce the amount of oil and gas seeping into the environment.
Since CH4 is a stronger GHG than CO2, perhaps they should consider a method to Trap the CH4 and then Burn it like they do with Natural Gas to produce Electricity. This would provide electricity, remove the CH4 from the environment and produce CO2 for plants (and Carbonated Sodas)
I’ll bet the family farm that if you suggested that drilling Rigs be sent there immediately to harvest the methane there would be howls of aguished protest!
If the ‘bubbling methane’ is 30 times more potent than CO2 then think of how great it would be to capture the methane and burn it to reduce the greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere by a factor of 30. That would be a factor of 3000% and while burning it maybe we could generate some electricity. But by all means it must be burned to save the world!
Could giant cucumbers be erupting causing this?
Also this story was carefully placed in Warmist publications like the UK Guardian, just after the ignominious failure of Durban – presumably to reassure the Faithful that despite everyone’s nonchalence about Global Warming we are in fact, DOOMED!
“We’re doomed i tell ya, doomed Captain Mainwaring!”
crosspatch says:
I have heard some of those clever Nipponese have been seeing some success with recovering Methane from Clathrates too.
DaveE.
mkelly,
There is nothing wrong with funding research, including research that looks into human impacts to climate. The problem comes in when determination of who and what gets funded gets overly politicized.
Al Gored says:
December 27, 2011 at 12:06 pm “The Romman [sic]Scientific Method:”
AG, the correct spelling is “Rommann”
I didn’t realize we had a “potentcy” rating for greenhouse gases – I’m guessing it must be related to specific heat. – so at 300k methane has a specific heat which is ~ 20% more than water vapour.
The kicker these alarmists never mention is that, no matter what, the effect greenhouse gases “impose” on climate must be proportional to their concentration.
Water vapour varies up to ~ 2% – 20,000 ppm volume
CO2 is approximately 0.04 % – less than 400 ppm
Methane is approximately 0.00018 % – 1870 ppb or 1.870 ppm.
The effect these things have is nothing more than trace. The IR from any of them couldn’t be measured compared to the IR coming from the rest of the atmosphere which IS emitting IR because it is heated and all heated things emit radiation characterized by the temperature.
So beware these “20 times more potent” little thingies.
Naturally venting methane could be a big new energy source !!!
Might be less environmentally disruptive than fracking ( which itself doesn’t seem to be disruptive)
and very environmentally beneficial compared to allowing the methane to enter the atmosphere (if one accepts the AGW theory in the first place).
In fact, wouldn’t the harvesting and burning of naturally venting methane offset the imagined effects of human CO2 emissions ?
I am getting the hang of this. It is only worse when they say so. Otherwise it “could” be worse in the future…way in the future…under scenario d or maybe e..
eyesonu says:
December 27, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Could giant cucumbers be erupting causing this?
_____________________________
Giant sea cucumbers… after having been featured on “The Food Channel”.
“The permafrost of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (an area of about 2 million kilometers squared) is more porous than previously thought.”
Is this in a NEWSpaper? It was all worse than we thought as far back as 2007, ffs!
Phil Jones and his CRU syndrome-agents diligently preaching their religious chicken little horror stories.
Methane in the ground?
Put a tap on it and burn it for fuel. Problem solved.
Methane levels are not increasing. CO2 is going up, but Methane is not.
This is just the latest for the pro-AGW set to get all emotional about – the apocalypse is coming after all.
I can say that because not one of the two dozen stories about this in the past few weeks has made note of the current flat trends in Methane concentrations.