Arctic methane emergency called off?

Here’s the issue, as described in Wikipedia:

The Arctic region is one of the many natural sources of the greenhouse gas methane. Global warming accelerates its release, due to both release of methane from existing stores, and from methanogenesis in rotting biomass. Large quantities of methane are stored in the Arctic in natural gas deposits, permafrost, and as submarine clathrates. Permafrost and clathrates degrade on warming, thus large releases of methane from these sources may arise as a result of global warming. Other sources of methane include submarine taliks, river transport, ice complex retreat, submarine permafrost and decaying gas hydrate deposits.

There’s an outfit called the Arctic Methane Emergency Group which dedicates themselves to, well, emergency alarm stuff. Things like this:

Planetary catastrophe is inevitable without geoengineering to cool the Arctic

Hold on there folks, some new research on actual Arctic soils over the last 20 years has provided some fresh insight. It seems there is no need to panic after all.

From Science News

News in Brief: Warming may not release Arctic carbon – Element could stay locked in soil, 20-year study suggests

In a 20-year experiment that warmed patches of chilly ground, tundra soil kept its stored carbon, researchers report.

In 1989, ecologists set up greenhouses on plots of tundra in northern Alaska. Air temperature inside the greenhouses was on average 2 degrees Celsius warmer than outside.

Over two decades, the team reports, mosses and lichens gave way to woody shrubs. Decomposition slowed in surface soil while it sped up deeper underground. Warmer soils may have allowed plant roots and plant litter to penetrate farther into the ground, increasing both the deep soil’s carbon stocks and its rates of decomposition, the researchers suggest. Overall, though, there was no difference in total soil carbon in the greenhouse plots compared with plots that had no greenhouses.

Oh, that’s gotta hurt. Here is the paper:

==============================================================

Long-term warming restructures Arctic tundra without changing net soil carbon storage

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12129.html

Seeta A. Sistla, John C. Moore, Rodney T. Simpson, Laura Gough, Gaius R. Shaver & Joshua P. Schimel

Abstract

High latitudes contain nearly half of global soil carbon, prompting interest in understanding how the Arctic terrestrial carbon balance will respond to rising temperatures1, 2. Low temperatures suppress the activity of soil biota, retarding decomposition and nitrogen release, which limits plant and microbial growth3. Warming initially accelerates decomposition4, 5, 6, increasing nitrogen availability, productivity and woody-plant dominance3, 7. However, these responses may be transitory, because coupled abiotic–biotic feedback loops that alter soil-temperature dynamics and change the structure and activity of soil communities, can develop8, 9. Here we report the results of a two-decade summer warming experiment in an Alaskan tundra ecosystem. Warming increased plant biomass and woody dominance, indirectly increased winter soil temperature, homogenized the soil trophic structure across horizons and suppressed surface-soil-decomposer activity, but did not change total soil carbon or nitrogen stocks, thereby increasing net ecosystem carbon storage. Notably, the strongest effects were in the mineral horizon, where warming increased decomposer activity and carbon stock: a ‘biotic awakening’ at depth.

=================================================================

What I get out of this is that plants overall did better with that extra warmth, and becuase they did better, the soil was managed better due to feedback loops. Yep, those unexpected surprises from “Nature will find a way” always get you when you least expect them.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

67 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 15, 2013 3:25 pm

and the acidification of the world’s oceans is pretty much in an advanced state, meaning….. SHTF!!! uptake ability for CO2 going down, cycle is running….. not good.

milodonharlani
May 15, 2013 3:25 pm

No actual field research or experiment needed or wanted. The models are all.

Robert of Ottawa
May 15, 2013 3:26 pm

Apocalypse now postponed.

May 15, 2013 3:33 pm

Oh there will be great wailing and much gnashing of teeth!

MattN
May 15, 2013 3:40 pm

THAT’S the way you do science ladies and gentlemen. No stupid models. No stupid computers. No stupid scientists 2000 miles away in ivory towers. Go to the source, figure out how to collect the data, draw conclusions.
Well done.

May 15, 2013 3:52 pm

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/review-paper-finds-growth-of.html
A new review paper from SPPI and CO2 Science finds the growth rate of atmospheric methane has significantly decreased over the past 30 years, the opposite of IPCC predictions. Separately, a new paper finds, “Warming may not release Arctic carbon – Element could stay locked in soil, 20-year study suggests.”
Atmospheric methane’s contribution to anthropogenic climate forcing is estimated to be about half that of CO2 when both direct and indirect components to its forcing are summed (see Figure 1, below); and nearly all models project atmospheric methane (CH4) concentrations will increase for at least the next 3 decades, with many of the scenarios assuming a much larger increase throughout the 21st century. A quick fact-check, however, reveals that observations lie far below the model projections, as shown in each of the four prior Assessment Reports of the IPCC. So what has caused the IPCC to get things so wrong?

Goldie
May 15, 2013 4:16 pm

I was surprised the other day to find that many soils in temperate areas act as methane sinks due to the presence of methanotrobes. It seems that these little beasties eat the methane quite happily. Of course that produces carbon dioxide, but as we’re always being told – methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. http://elmu.umm.ac.id/file.php/1/jurnal/O/Organic%20Geochemistry/Vol31.Issue12.Dec2000/1049.pdf

May 15, 2013 4:23 pm

“Arctic methane emergency called off”
I would be interested how you can infer this from a paper that does not mention methane once.
At most this paper could find the response of moist acidic tussock ecosystem, nothing about other terrestrial and marine sources of methane in the Arctic.
REPLY: I’m not talking about marine sources such as clathrates, I’m talking about earthen sources. Decomp = methane. They point out decomp sped up initially, then leveled off as plant systems started to manage better.
Unless of course you want to refute this headline story too: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/27/501221/arctic-methane-release-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/?mobile=nc
-Anthony

Tucker
May 15, 2013 4:25 pm

As Gilda Radnor would say … Never Mind!!

Bob
May 15, 2013 4:28 pm

Extract the worrisome methane and burn it for fuel. Methane has 21 times the greenhouse potential than methane. Problem solved and we have fuel. Or, don’t worry about apocalypse from sudden release of arctic methane.
[Rather, “potential than CO2”? Mod ]

Lord Galleywood
May 15, 2013 4:36 pm

O/t and my bad – Who the hell has buggered up twitter and farcebook at 12.30am BST – I’ll find ya.

May 15, 2013 4:40 pm

Over two decades, the team reports, mosses and lichens gave way to woody shrubs.

And the shade from those shrubs inhibits warming of the soil and release of its methane.

tokyoboy
May 15, 2013 4:43 pm

No abnormal weather.
No worry about Tuvalu & Maldives.
No methane amplification. …………. What’s next?

Jimbo
May 15, 2013 4:52 pm

richard telford says:
May 15, 2013 at 4:23 pm …………..

Methane was not a problem when the Arctic was ice free during summers of the Holocene. So no problem this century bearing in mind climate sensitivity is off somewhat according to observations.

Abstract
We therefore conclude that for a priod in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer. This may serve as an analogue to the predicted “greenhouse situation” expected to appear within our century.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
Abstract
Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185
Abstract
Calcareous nannofossils from approximately the past 7000 yr of the Holocene and from oxygen isotope stage 5 are present at 39 analyzed sites in the central Arctic Ocean. This indicates partly ice-free conditions during at least some summers. The depth of Holocene sediments in the Nansen basin is about 20 cm, or more where influenced by turbidites.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/21/3/227.abstract
Abstract
….Nevertheless, episodes of considerably reduced sea ice or even seasonally ice-free conditions occurred during warmer periods linked to orbital variations. The last low-ice event related to orbital forcing (high insolation) was in the early Holocene,…
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.02.010
Abstract
A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability—View from the Beach
We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.abstract

May 15, 2013 5:02 pm

yet again ideology-fuelled scare tactics trumped by science – isn’t it time Gore and his Groupies gave it up as a bad job and looked for honest work?

May 15, 2013 5:06 pm

This “arctic methane scare” has always seemed a bit foolish to me, considering even Wikipedia (with their debunked hockey stick) suggests it was warmer around 6000 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
They suggest arctic temperatures were a half degree warmer for how long? Oh, a mere two or three thousand years. It seems to me that would have released all the methane there was to release.
Others, (including geologists who have studied evidence that suggests the arctic ocean wasn’t frozen for substantial periods of time,) (IE: land forms made by surf and not ice; radio-carbon dated driftwood from the far side of the arctic ocean, higher sea levels, and so on,) dare to differ with Wikipedia, and suggest that temperatures 6000 years ago were as much as 2 degrees warmer than they are now.
If there was going to be some sort of methane calamity it would have already happened.
Therefore, if you really want to get people alarmed, you have show proof it has already happened. That was what wiped out the Woolly Mammoths and the Greenland Vikings! And it will happen again, if you don’t use curly light bulbs!
(Forgive me. I likely shouldn’t give Alarmists any ideas, however my heart is prone towards pity, and these days those guys are obviously in need of help.)

ShrNfr
May 15, 2013 5:07 pm

Thank God. They were just about ready to place the orders for a billion air conditioners to be stationed all around the arctic to keep the tundra cool. All powered by windmills, of course.

Jimbo
May 15, 2013 5:09 pm

During the Eemian interglacial Hippopotamus frolicked in the rivers Thames and Rhine. Some Warmists will tell you that it was about as warm as the present. The Arctic’s methane was kept under control. Relax good people, the climate (false) alarm is almost over. Did I mention the even warmer PETM? Did I mention methane eating microbes? Did I mention…………..oh, forget it.

ShrNfr
May 15, 2013 5:20 pm

, sorry I could not resist:
During the Eemian interglacial Hippopotamus frolicked rivers Thames and the Rhine.
Some Warmists will tell you that it was about as warm as the present.
Personally I am biding my time.

Bill Illis
May 15, 2013 5:21 pm

It looks like “the canary in the coal mine” Methane measurements from Barrow Alaska have ticked up again this year – a few parts per billion.
http://s22.postimg.org/det0rzc1t/ccgg_BRW_ch4_1_none_discrete_2008_2013.png
Overall, Methane levels in the atmosphere have nearly flatlined now – a little known fact it seems. 6 years ago, it looked like Methane had peaked but it seems to be increasing slightly again – probably the increased activity in the natural gas industry (natural gas being about 97% Methane – don’t blame the cows please since they have nothing to do with it).
Barrow is the leading indicator for the world and the leading indicator for Arctic methane releases I guess.
Methane does not appear to be an issue that should be worried about (unless you are a professional worrier – paid to be a worrier that is – as in doomsday prognisticator, please send money to save us from the few parts per billion trend of Methane).

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
May 15, 2013 5:23 pm

The growth of Arctic trees (which are already present in highly stunted forms) increases each time the temperature rises. Their dead remains can be seen in Labrador well north of the ‘treeline’. If the Arctic warms considerably, trees will take over, just like everywhere else further south. Freezing out plant life increases the level of CO2 in the atmosphere because one removal mechanism is shut off. Rotting of vegetation => methane => CO2 continues as the study showed.

nigelf
May 15, 2013 5:27 pm

Funny how all these skeptic points we pointed out over the years are all coming to pass.

DB
May 15, 2013 5:40 pm

This research was about the soil as a carbon sink (positive or negative) not about methane. The title is in error.

CodeTech
May 15, 2013 5:47 pm

nigelf, just a rewording:
Funny how all those warmist points that skeptics pointed out were completely wrong…
It’s almost as if warmists are completely unaware of how the planet works. There’s this little thing called “LIFE” that changes everything. To some creatures, methane is food. Increased methane means more food for the little guys, who experience a population boom. Once they’ve eaten all that is available, they starve and die, their microscopic bodies ultimately creating a thin strata layer for geologists to puzzle over in the far future.
Same goes for CO2. Increase it, and organisms and plants have a feeding / multiplying frenzy, lower the levels, and die off. Oh, and EXACTLY the same for crude oil. Surprise, surprise! Virtually every substance out there breaks down eventually and the components are food for something. Even toxic chemicals. Even… gasp… radioactivity integrates into nature!

1 2 3