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.
ok here are some questions from a non-scientist. When I hear the words “methane gas” I would automatically think of bovines and their gas emissions :). However, at the same time I would think of natural gas.
Let me see if I can get any of this straight because it seems to me that “the consensus science” is only guessing about what they allege to be dangerous. I seem to be getting a picture that perhaps if we do not harness things like methane as natural gas then yes we could cause future problems.
First of all, methane gas is present in many coal mines. Its presence is extremely dangerous in an underground coal mine. The disaster in New Zealand last year is directly attributable to methane gas and coal dust mixing together.
Second, methane gas is known to be present where there are oil wells at sea. In fact in Victoria Australia, there are wells off Westernport Bay where Natural Gas is extracted. Now this leads to the oil well explosion last year in the Gulf of Mexico. The methane gas had a role in that explosion, correct?
Third, methane gas is also present when a volcano erupts. Correct?
Fourth, methane gas is also present at places such as Rotorura where there are natural hot springs (they are stinky springs and reek of sulphur).
Considering the sources of methane gas available, why are we not harnessing this gas to ensure a cheap energy source?
Now when it comes to coal, it seems that I remember from my school days that the source for coal is in fact trees that lived millions of years ago. This is also the source for diamonds and the source for oil. in other words those dead trees eventually become coal, oil and diamonds but it takes millions of years to change. There is a cycle going on but do we really understand that cycle? Do the “climate scientists” actually understand the cycle? Why do they keep claiming that something that is such a minute part of the atmosphere to be dangerous?
How can we say with any certainty that the air we breathe out is affecting our climate when there are so many other factors that have a role to play?
crosspatch says:
December 27, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Andrew says:
December 27, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Can we capture the methane?
They are capturing natural methane seeps (and oil seeps, too) off the coast of California (Coal Oil Point, near Santa Barbara).
========
Well, yes. The concern is that Methyl Clathrates are not especially stable solids that decompose into water and methane. We don’t know exactly how much of the stuff there is in the cold oceans. We think that there is less than we thought were present when we first discovered the stuff a few decades ago. But there still could be vast amounts. Maybe to to ten times the conventional natural gas reserves of the planet. From the point of view of meeting future energy demands, they are a plus. Unfortunately methane is a very effective greenhouse gas and even if one thinks that the danger of CO2 is overstated, it’s still possible to be genuinely concerned about the GHG effects of methane from clathrates. We’d really like the stuff to stay solid until we need the gas. And most of it probably will.
This really isn’t routine alarmist science fantasy. There genuinely could be a problem. Could be a problem, not IS a problem. We’re probably a long way from “the clathrates are decomposing and we’re all gonna die” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
I somehow misread crosspatch’s post. He was asking if we can capture the escaping methane. Probably. Much of it anyway. Problem is that the places where it is escaping are a long way from customers. Likely, we’d end up with a lot of expensive natural gas in regions where there is currently no way to get the stuff to market. Let’s hope that the volume of gas escaping is small enough to ignore it for a few decades until economics make capture and shipping to civilization attractive. (The Russians currently flare off a fair amount of gas from Arctic oil wells because it is not cost effective to bring it to market. I believe that the US currently pumps natural gas from oil wells on the North Slope back into the wells for the same reason).
The problem with attempting to recover methane hydrates is that they tend to be very unstable and can suddenly “flash” to gas causing a huge sudden increase in volume that can be hard to contain. In fact, these methane hydrates are what likely caused the Deepwater Horizon blowout and made it difficult to contain the well after blowout. The structures placed over the wellhead to capture the methane filled with methane hydrate slush which clogged it. The sudden vaporization of hydrates is thought to have caused the massive surge of gas that caused the problem in the first place.
This stuff is right on the edge of its existence in many locations. Warm it a little or jostle it, and it suddenly flashes to gas. The change in volume is enormous and would be like trying to contain an explosion (literally, they do literally vaporize explosively, just without combustion, it is a phase change from solid to gas that does it).
Mining that stuff in solid form is a delicate operation and it must be carefully controlled in both temperature and pressure. It is also thought that the release of this sort of methane could be one cause of why we come out of ice ages so quickly. If you drop the sea level some 400 feet, it might make some deposits that are currently stable very unstable. I little jostle by an earthquake and boom, you get a large, explosive release of methane.
One of the silliest exaggerations I have ever seen and a classic example of why the MSM cannot be trusted to tell the truth or even know fact from fiction. Everyone of these stories conflated a natural gas field with tundra carbon storage. Because people would celebrate the discovery of an easily recoverable field.
“Likely, we’d end up with a lot of expensive natural gas in regions where there is currently no way to get the stuff to market.”
If methane is 30x the GHE of CO2 then they could just capture and flare it in situ for a 30x reduction in GHE as someone else mentioned above. That, of course, supposes that GHE is really a problem. Methane in the atmosphere will eventually react anyway.
“The reply from Semiletov and Shakhova is enlightening and is the QOTW:
…
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.”
As well it should be. Semiletov and Shakhova express themselves in language worthy of scientists. Consider the following:
“we explained in detail the mechanism”
You will never hear or see such words from Warmists because they know of no Mechanisms and consequently have nothing to Explain. Oh, by the way, Explain is what scientists do.
“We understand its complexity”
Our physical hypotheses embody its complexity and by reference to those hypotheses we can explain the compexity.
“slowly improving understanding of ongoing processes”
We are putting together physical hypotheses that explain and describe the natural Processes that we are studying. Incredible, they refer to natural processes. You will never find a Warmist doing that. Warmists believe only in data points combined with novel statistics or they believe in simulations.
We are working on a scientific that “incorporates different points of views expressed by different groups of researchers.”
Once again, no Warmist has ever met a different point of view that he would acknowledge.
I nominate this “Quote of the Week” as best ever “Quote of the Week.”
Not a scientists so I have a great deal of difficulty sometimes in getting this old wombats head around some of the things being discussed but I do conduct limited research into those things I find I need to via Google.
What none of these warmista news stories ever tell you is that methane breaks down over a period of years, variably 8 to 12 years depending on whatever sources I can find with Google. So it is a nartural cycle. What is released to today is breaking down in 8 years (minimum?). So is it the net effect what they are babbling about? More being released than is breaking down naturally?
Also has anyone done any research on the amount of methane consumed by lighting?
View from the Solent says: December 27, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Luther Wu says: December 27, 2011 at 1:21 pm
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”.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Would that be these cucumbers?
http://urila.tripod.com/Gulliver.htm
—————————————————————-
It’s Worse Than We Thought™! Now it’s Sea Cucumber farts?!? I thought we were all supposed to die from bovine flatulence?
Press Release 10-036
Methane Releases From Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
Copied from the original post:
“Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide.”
=========================
It doesn’t say anything about being burned. I don’t know where the ’20 times’ factor comes from that is mentioned here.
With regards to my post above regarding the press release by the National Science Foundation, I followed the WUWT title link which directed me to the NSF. It clearly states “30 times more potent than carbon dioxide”.
Let’s not try to rewrite history while it’s still active. The press release absolutely does not make any reference relating to methane being burned to achieve this ratio. Get real while you are in public.
I read an article sometime over the past couple of weeks referring to leaking / escaping methane into the atmosphere from piping and drilling operations as needing to be addressed. How will this press release reflect on that? Another of the ‘gang green arms’ having gangrene?
eyesonu: I think you missed the point. The point is that if methane is 30 times worse than CO2, burning the methane, by definition, would result in a 30x reduction in the greenhouse effect from methane.
re Mooloo at 3:57 pm:
Here’s what happens (quite quickly) to the Methane:
CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O
/dr.bill
Bill Illis says:
December 27, 2011 at 1:59 pm
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.
————-
Sure Bill.
Anthony presents two graphs. My lying eyes say its been increasing since 1985, plateaued for 5 years, and is now trending up again for the last 5 years. It’s gone up overall by 10% since 85.
So Bill, what kind of hippy juice are you on? And if it keeps on trending up when are you going to start waffling and hand waving about natural cycles to hide your errors.
So we go from CO2, to acidic oceans, to methane, etc. … At what point does the populace become jaded by the “cry wolf” syndrome. Has anyone done a study to determine the length of time for the average joe to catch on to false alarms versus the nature (length/duraction) of the message in the false alarm? It might give us an approximation for how much longer we have to endure all this nonsense. And then there is the potential backlash should a real natural problem develop and the populace fails to take heed.
Roy Jones says:
December 27, 2011 at 2:30 pm
If all this Methane is now driving Global Warming, is there any temperature rise left over to be caused by Carbon Dioxide???
—————–
No one is claiming that.
Somewhere there is a breakdown of the contribution each greenhouse gas. If memory serves the “other” gases, which includes methane, contributes about 10%.
But that is now. The worry is the future, potential amounts of methane that is tied up in permafrost and shallow seas around the warming arctic.
If you want to pull some fantasy out of the air that you know for sure that this methane can’t possibly be a problem, feel free to dream away.
The only positive things about this is that it is a good potential fuel. And methane does not last very long in the atmosphere since it is oxidized to CO2.
And we don’t know for sure if thevrecently observed Methane ocean plumes are new or old and long term.
@ur momisugly crosspatch says:
December 27, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Actually I made the point in my first comment. I was referring to Brian H but failed to provide link / acknowledgement to his post. My lazy. I think we are all on the same page here. 🙂
Below is post I was replying to and I may have misinterpeted that to some degree:
Brian H says:
December 27, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Bryan A says:
December 27, 2011 at 12:33 pm
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)
and eyesonu and bkindsmith;
The absorption spectrum of methane is actually very small. The ’20X’ figure is a fudge arrived at by extrapolating what the impact of the resultant 1xCO2 and 2xH2O molecules would be if the CH4 were burned. Which is not what happens to it chemically in the atmosphere.
Bekindseth says
At 380 parts per million, CO2 absorbs most of the radiation in its frequency range, there is very little radiation for additonal CO2 to absorb.
————-
That’s basically true but it ignores 2 important facts.
1. The CO2 absorption band is not rectangular. My eyeball says about a third of the absorption band is NOT saturated.
2. The atmosphere is NOT uniform in density with height. So the CO2 absorption band is less saturated at high altitudes. At high altitudes the outgoing energy transfer becomes dominated by radiation, so the CO2 absorption bands become more important.
Wrong again, Lazy.
Aussie says
Considering the sources of methane gas available, why are we not harnessing this gas to ensure a cheap energy source?
————-
We are, where it’s is economic to do so.
As for diamonds, no they are not part of the process that produces coal. Diamonds come from the carbon dissolved in deep crustal rocks. Typically a volcanic eruption brings them to the surface.
LazyTeenager says:
December 27, 2011 at 6:29 pm
“If you want to pull some fantasy out of the air that you know for sure that this methane can’t possibly be a problem, feel free to dream away. ”
Ow. Mister Expert System Analyst is here again.
Methane is simply a non-issue.
Perhaps the volume of the gas is changing, forcing it out of the sea bed.
So, is this a:
OMG ! ! ! My left eye just tried to commit suicide by jumping, but could not commit due to the right eye already have jumped, and it was just horror to witness for a poor left behind eye!
Or:
I, mother earth, have been oozing methane farts in all your bases for four bloody billion years, but this time around you’re all doomed for sure… Ha HA cHough, OMG, what’s that smell?