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.
“Myrrh says:
December 29, 2011 at 4:26 am
does the water in the atmosphere have any bearing on it? I ask because the lightening is cloud to cloud.”
Yes, water molecules are highly polar although not ionic. And the angle between H and O is 104.5 degrees so the molecule is not symmetrical. The oxygen end has a partial negative charge and the two hydrogens have a partial positive charge. That is why salt ions can easily dissolve in water.
That supports the statement further up:
“The lightning always dies down during the dry months of January and February, he said.”
Below is more information from the source (Semiletov, the lead scientist). Their paper is not published yet, but they released the basic information because they thought the urgency of the situation warranted it. I read the scientists were so shaken that they requested the world’s governments to put together a massive geoengineering project and implement it no later than spring of 2013. And the quote below sounds like they do think the increase is caused by higher temperatures.
“For sure there was a sense of urgency in our preparation. It was caused by the new data, which had been gathered during the past two years and not published yet. This data presents plenty of reason to have concern.
In our article for Science magazine in 2010,we estimated the scale of methane emission from this region to be 8 million tons …… But the more recent data shows that the emissions from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) are much bigger.
There are actually huge plumes of bubbles emitting from the sea bottom. Using the equipment available on this voyage – four geophysical methods,seismic profiling on different frequencies, hydro-acoustics on three frequencies, we measured these fountains of bubbles and the methane concentration in the air ….That was highly precise measuring.
We conducted 115 stationary checkpoints and discovered fields of fantastic scale – I think of a scale not seen before in the ocean. Some fountains of methane were a kilometre and more in diameter. Emissions into the atmosphere were also 100 times higher than normal – what would be considered sustainable – levels. Such emissions would unavoidably cause impacts on climate change – the only question concerns the scale, kinetics, and speed of the emissions.
The international climate community is now beginning to seriously examine this mechanism of rapid methane emissions as a possible cause of fast climate changes on the Earth. I agree with the opinion of most climate experts working in the Arctic.
We see reduction of ice cover. It is obvious not only from satellites, but we also can see it directly while we are working there… In 2007,we were on a fairly small ship Victor Buinitzki and reached 82 degrees latitude ,and the surface temperature was plus 3°C (3°C above freezing).
This is unprecedented warming, and it is a fact.
Such warming will have an unavoidable impact on hydrates, and we know how. When ice has gone, there are stronger winds and waves and a deeper mixing of water which causes the comparatively warm upper layer to mix with water at deeper levels.
There are already studies which confirm that in some areas, bottom temperature in summer is 2 to 3 degrees above zero Celsius (freezing).
This means that when we determine average temperature of the year, it is already somewhere close to zero degrees celsius (the freezing / thaw point). And in some regions – for instance near the mouth of the great Siberian rivers like Lena, that warming can play a very serious role.
As this warming spreads to a larger area, the more that shelf-based permafrost will thaw. The impact from global warming on hydrates will cause more winds and warming of surface waters. This will also interact with deeper waters and lead to the increasing of summer temperature to positive (above freezing).”
“”””” Tshane3000 says:
December 29, 2011 at 12:21 pm
@Bill Illis:
Clearly you’re cherry-picking here. “”””
Well Tshane3000, I won’t bother excerpting from your blather post on real scientists, and ersatz scientists; it stands by itself.
But tell me Tshane3000; what in the hell possessed your parents to saddle you with a name like that.
I once knew an electronics technician and his wife, who named their unfortunate son “Wire”; but that pales to insignificance compared to Tshane3000.
By the way, I didn’t catch the post where you recorded YOUR academic credentials, and their relevence to Climate Science; could you repeat them for us please; and my deepest sympathies for the name your parents saddled you with.
Remember that old family store admonition; “We have no quarrel with those who offer their wares for less; they of all people should know what it is worth !”
Same goes for anonymous posts on blogs; when even the author won’t admit to ownership of hiser words; why would anybody else pay heed to them.
Werner Brozek says:
December 29, 2011 at 8:33 pm
“Myrrh says:
December 29, 2011 at 4:26 am
does the water in the atmosphere have any bearing on it? I ask because the lightening is cloud to cloud.”
Yes, water molecules are highly polar although not ionic. And the angle between H and O is 104.5 degrees so the molecule is not symmetrical. The oxygen end has a partial negative charge and the two hydrogens have a partial positive charge. That is why salt ions can easily dissolve in water.
That supports the statement further up:
“The lightning always dies down during the dry months of January and February, he said.”
I meant in relation to “Muñoz believes methane may increase the conductivity of the air over Catatumbo” – though thanks, I began puzzling why it didn’t appear in those two months.. 🙂
It seems that methane and water make hydrogen, and, lightning comes from a breakdown of gases, though I don’t know which pages I got that from, had rather a lot open.
Here it says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_polarity
” For example, a molecule of water is polar because of the unequal sharing of its electrons between oxygen and hydrogen in which the former has larger electronegativity than the latter, resulting in a “bent” structure, whereas methane is considered nonpolar because the carbon shares the electrons with the hydrogen atoms almost uniformly.”
But, if methane breaks down in water to form hydrogen it could be adding to the conductivity as Munoz says, right?