Remember this BBC story? Turns out it is another one for the Climate FAIL file.
All sorts of wailing came from that by climate alarmists. The New Scientist claimed there were megatonnes of methane bubbling out at that time. It was even billed under “Arctic Climate Emergency” All of this came from a single paper published in the AGU Geophysical Research Letters. In January 2012, perhaps sensing that it really was hyped up, an essay at RealClimate “Much ado about methane” said:
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, but it also has an awesome power to really get people worked up, compared to other equally frightening pieces of the climate story.
Yep. I can recall lots of terrified comments here at WUWT about this, plus some emails along the lines of “if you don’t pay attention to this you’re going to denialist hell”.
Well, a new more comprehensive on-site study has been done, and it has just been announced by the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel:
Gas Outlets off Spitsbergen Are No New Phenomenon
Expedition to the Greenland Sea with Surprising Results
Marine scientists from Kiel, together with colleagues from Bremen, Great Britain, Switzerland and Norway, spent four and a half weeks examining methane emanation from the sea bed off the coast of Spitsbergen with the German research vessel MARIA S. MERIAN. There they gained a very differentiated picture: Several of the gas outlets have been active for hundreds of years.
Frequent storms and sub-zero temperatures – nature drove the marine researchers that were assessing gas outlets on the sea bed off the coast of Spitsbergen for four and a half weeks to their limits. Nevertheless the participants were very pleased when they returned: “We were able to gather many samples and data in the affected area. With the submersible JAGO we even managed to form an impression of the sea bed and the gas vents” summarised the chief scientist Professor Dr. Christian Berndt from GEOMAR | Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel.
The reason for the expedition was the supposition that ice-like methane hydrates stored in the sea bed were dissolving due to rising water temperatures. “Methane hydrate is only stable at very low temperatures and under very high pressure. The gas outlets off Spitsbergen lie approximately at a depth which marks the border between stability and dissolution. Therefore we presumed that a measurable rise in water temperature in the Arctic could dissolve the hydrates from the top downwards” explained Professor Berndt. Methane could then be released into the water or even into the atmosphere, where it would act as a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.
In fact, what the researchers found in the area offers a much more differentiated picture. Above all the fear that the gas emanation is a consequence of the current rising sea temperature does not seem to apply. At least some of the gas outlets have been active for longer. Carbonate deposits, which form when microorganisms convert the escaping methane, were found on the vents. “At numerous emergences we found deposits that might already be hundreds of years old. This estimation is indeed only based on the size of the samples and empirical values as to how fast such deposits grow. On any account, the methane sources must be older” says Professor Berndt. The exact age of the carbonates will be determined from samples in GEOMAR’s laboratories.
“Details will only be known in a few months when the data has been analysed; however the observed gas emanations are probably not caused by human influence” says Berndt. There are two other possible explanations instead: Either they are symptoms of a long term temperature rise or they show a seasonal process where gas hydrates continuously melt and reform.
Another interesting observation made on the expedition, was that a very active microbial community that consumes the methane has established itself on the sea bed. “We were able to detect high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide, which is an indication of methane consuming microbes in the sea bed, and, with the help of JAGO, discovered typical biocoenoses that we recognised from other, older methane outlets” explained microbiologist Professor Dr. Tina Treude from GEOMAR, who also took part in the expedition. “Methane consuming microbes grow only slowly in the sea bed, thus their high activity indicates that the methane has not just recently begun effervescing.”
Colleagues from Bremen, Switzerland, Great Britain and Norway worked alongside marine scientists from GEOMAR and from the Cluster of Excellence “The Future Ocean”. “The study of the gas outlets in the Norwegian Sea is a good example for combined European research” stressed Professor Berndt. Hence German scientists recovered an ocean floor observatory, installed by the British research vessel James Clark Ross a year ago during a joint expedition of the National Oceanography Centre Southampton and the Institut français de recherche pour l’exploitation de la mer (Ifremer). “Understanding the ocean as a system is a challenge that only works in international co-operations” emphasized Berndt. The analysis of the gathered data will also be carried out internationally.
The expedition at a glance:
FS MARIA S. MERIAN journey: MSM21/4
Head of Expedition: Prof. Dr. Christian Berndt (GEOMAR)
Length of Expedition: 13th Aug. 2012-11th Sept. 2012
Place of Departure: Reykjavik
Research Area: West of Spitsbergen
Place of Arrival: Emden
Further Information on the GEOMAR expedition page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oooops I just added hydrogen, carbon dioxide, methane combined with hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, to the atmosphere. Sorry!
“There ought to be a new rule that anyone can repeat any silly Warmageddon propaganda, but when doing so, you have to wear a clown suit, complete with makeup.”
The public is weary of “Warmageddonisms” continuous volumes of crying wolf.
The real threat is the “dissolution of principles and manners” that result in the surrendering of liberties (Samuel Adams letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779) that steadily expand the mindset of civil society. Climate politics are just one obvious example of a total disregard to such despicable morals.
More junk science from the MSM and their science of convenience. If it doesn’t fit the meme, spin it until it does. Give me a science blog any day where corrections to ignorance are immediately available. Unless it is a “Cooked” blog.
Methane has been a factor there for a very long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide
And that area has a very dynamic and not so ancient past:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea
Presumably the fact that much of Spitsbergen and the surrounding ocean floor is underlain by coal seams has nothing to do with this methane gas/ sarc
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=spitsbergen+coal+deposits&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CEgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svalex.net%2Ffiles%2FGeology%2520of%2520Svalbard.pps&ei=bt5hUPKnA82vygHPjIDgCg&usg=AFQjCNGsZbZLRqyE04mbY6pCOCl4U-AJ2w
@cementafriend
I didn’t say it was oxydized directly by atmospheric O2. Methane reacting with tropospheric OH radicals instead of O2 is still an oxydation process that turns methane into CO2 and water vapor, is it not? And it is supposed to be the main sink of methane in the atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
Also, the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is supposed to be about 10 years according to most estimates I’ve seen, and the oxydation rate increases with temperature, acting as a negative feedback on its accumulation, so its lifetime in the atmosphere has supposedly decreased over the 20th century, at least according to some studies I’ve seen.
It seems to me that naturally occuring methane seepage from underground channels into the atmosphere may be its most underestimated source in the methane cycle models, some of which don’t even consider it, and it may in fact be have been a major contributor to atmospheric CO2 renewal through geological time.
It also seems to me that, of all hydrocarbons, the formation of methane from purely geological (abiotic) processes deep underground is by far the simplest and best understood, and it happens in many bodies in the solar system in great quantities. Why it is assumed that it cannot be a significant ongoing process on Earth is beyond my understanding.
So the ocean bottom has warmed by how much, in the last 150 years ?? That ocean bottom heating is a really powerful climate driver; even rising to the level of an observable positive feedback loop.
Lemme sea now, that ocean bottom warming, means how much ocean surface warming, which will put how much extra sun blocking H2O and CO2 into the atmosphere ??
So why don’t they simply drop a funnel over those CH4 plumes and gather the stuff up; we can use all the natural gas we can find.
Now we actually have our own local Methane belching river and lake (Nacimiento) right here in California. It’s a favorite fishing hole, and everytime we run up that river, the fish finder draws those exact same pictures of rising methane plumes.
{Another interesting observation made on the expedition, was that a very active microbial community that consumes the methane has established itself on the sea bed. “We were able to detect high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide, which is an indication of methane consuming microbes in the sea bed,…”}
Interesting, indeed. Where does the sulphur come from that becomes H2S? Could it be emanating from those undersea vents? Isn’t there lots of sulphur contained in the magma and stuff that often escapes from undersea vents and sometimes mini volcanic seabed eruptions? Could this magma also be resopnsible for what appears to be a cyclyc warming of the North-Polar oceans?
Methane belching river? My GAWD! Does Moonbeam know about this?
Sorry– I should have included this reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcano
Lots of natural seepage everywhere:
A GLOBAL DATASET OF ONSHORE GAS AND OIL SEEPS
Giuseppe Etiope
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma
http://www.ogbus.ru/eng/authors/Etiope/Etiope_1.pdf
Methane is leaking because it is being pushed up under pressure, and there is a huge amount of methane deep down. Drilling and producing lower level gas might reduce the pressure and the resulting leaks, but there is no guarantee. There is just a huge amount of methane under ground and it has to ultimately go somewhere. This stuff leaks out naturally all over the world, so stop wringing your hands about something you cannot stop. We might as well produce it and use it – it’s a great fuel and feed-stock for the chemical industry.
It always amazes me that so many people think that even though the earth is 4 billion years old whatever “problem” they’re looking to find just happened to start being a problem in the last 20 years. Just because you’ve noticed something that you’ve never looked for before and have no knowledge of, doesn’t mean it’s brand new when you find it. But that’s the anthropocentrism that seems to fill too many people up to their eyebrows.
Pyeatte said “We might as well produce it and use it – it’s a great fuel and feed-stock for the chemical industry.”
Exactly. Sell it all off so that my Norwegian grandchildren will continue to live in a rich country. 🙂
“Several of the gas outlets have been active for hundreds of years”
Sarc://
So in that case we can then assume the Arctic is in a self-inflicted death spiral of DOOM. OH the irony.. 😉
Besides. I thought Gas is a “Green” energy according the the EU.
Gaia’s breath—global methane exhalations
Keith A. Kvenvolden, Bruce W. Rogers
Marine and Petroleum Geology 22 (2005) 579–590
US Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, MS 999, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/reports/reprints/Kvenvolden_MPG22.pdf
[…]
4.1. Natural macro-seeps
Natural seepages of petroleum (crude oil and natural gas) are globally widespread (Fig. 2) in both terrestrial and marine environments (Wilson et al., 1973, 1974). Their occurrences have been documented since the beginning of recorded history. For example, there are biblical references to very heavy crude oil (asphalt) seeps around the Dead Sea, and burning gas (methane) seeps in the Baku region of Azerbaijan were sites of fire-worship by early Zoroastrian religious groups (Levorsen, 1956).
Oil seeps commonly entrain gas, and gas seepages are often accompanied by some crude oil. Because of the close association between oil and gas seeps, it is possible to estimate the amount of gas escaping from the surface of the Earth based on estimates of the global seepage of crude oil and a global gas/oil ratio.
A study from the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2003) concludes that, as a best estimate, ~6×10^5 ton (1 ton = 10^6 g)/yr of crude oil seep into the marine environment. Details leading to this estimated global crude oil seepage rate are given in Kvenvolden and Cooper (2003). A summary of gas/oil ratios (GOR) for 141 petroleum systems of the world shows that 126 of these systems have both oil and gas, assumed to be mainly CH4, whereas 12 of them produce only gas, and three produce only crude oil (Peters et al., 2005, p. 756). The average GOR of the 126 petroleum systems is 2.3×10^5. Assuming that the 6×10^5 ton of crude oil seeping into the marine environment each year has this average GOR, then the amount of CH4 seepage into the oceans is ~20 Tg/yr. This estimate is conservative in that no contribution from the 12 gas-only petroleum systems is considered here, and no loss factor in the water column is included. Assuming further that submarine gas seeps are restricted to continental margins and that terrestrial gas seeps found in areas of comparable extent, gas seeps on land may emit directly to the atmosphere an equivalent amount of CH4, or 20 Tg. Thus, the total global flux from natural seeps is estimated to be ~40 Tg CH4/yr.
Of interest is a comparison of this estimate of 40 Tg CH4/yr with previously published estimates by various authors. For example, Ehhalt and Schmidt (1978) calculated the global oceanic flux of CH4 to the atmosphere based on the rate of molecular diffusion of CH4 through the air–sea boundary. Trotsyuk and Avilov (1988) measured the disseminated flux of CH4 in the Black Sea and extrapolated these results worldwide to obtain a global estimate of seafloor CH4 emissions. Hovland et al. (1993) used published estimates of seafloor flux and seepage distributions to determine a global seafloor flux for CH4. Cranston (1994) considered CH4 release from coastal and marine sediments to estimate the amount of CH4 entering the atmosphere from these sources. Observations of the ‘world’s most spectacular marine hydrocarbon seeps’ offshore from Coal Oil Point, California, by Hornafius et al. (1999) were extrapolated to obtain a CH4 flux to the atmosphere. These and other estimations have been compiled by Judd (2000) and Judd et al. (2002). Table 1 summarizes the estimates of CH4 emissions from natural seeps in the oceans. As might be expected, these estimates vary, but the results suggest that w50 Tg CH4/yr seeps naturally from the seafloor, based mainly on the estimates of Hovland et al. (1993). About 30 Tg CH4/yr reaches the atmosphere, and 20 Tg CH4/yr is dissolved or converted to CO2 by oxidation in the water column […]
The total reservoir of CH4 was estimated to be between 10^4 and 10^8 Tg and the half-life of this reservoir was set at 10^8 yr. If the length of time for reservoir depletion is assumed to be 10^8–10^12 yr—a range broad enough to include all eventualities—then the flux of CH4 is estimated to be ~30 Tg CH4/yr from the seafloor and ~10 Tg CH4/yr into the atmosphere. Therefore, estimates of the global CH4 flux, based on gas/oil ratios, literature surveys, and theoretical considerations, average ~25 Tg CH4/yr to the atmosphere and ~35 Tg CH4/yr to the seafloor.
[…]
Exactly. Sell it all off so that my Norwegian grandchildren will continue to live in a rich country. 🙂
Don’t think of it as drilling. Think of it as tidying up the Arctic.
Exceedingly Lazy Teenager:
Amazing but true. Apparently it’s an effect due to a little known property of water vapour; it condenses at low temperatures. Apparently it’s also little known that the atmosphere gets colder at height.
But pressure also decreases with altitude – which means it condenses at… drumroll please… even lower temperatures.
Try again.
I’ve never heard anybody reputable say that the ratio of water vapor was signifcantly lower higher up in the atmosphere than say Methane or CO2. We’re talking on the order of 15,000 times more water vapor than CO2.
Is this the best you can do?
I have been unable to find measurements of the 14C age of the methane.
Does anyone know if this has been estimated?
Fragile Earth is an oxymoron.
@ur momisugly Cementafriend
You shouldn’t handwave so much – you could hurt yourself.
DocMartyn says:
September 25, 2012 at 4:44 pm
> I have been unable to find measurements of the 14C age of the methane.
> Does anyone know if this has been estimated?
The half life of 14 C is only 5,730 years and hence carbon dating only works back some 60,000 years, a blink of the eye in geologic time.
60,000 years is about 10.5 half lives which would be a residual of about 0.07% of the original. amount. I don’t know what the detection limits of mass spec analysis is, but I believe you can count individual atoms routinely. 60k is certainly a believable range. I know I have some wooden objects, that are made from a tree that was reliably carbon dated to 45,000 years old, and I have seen examples of the same wood that is 55,000 years old. (New Zealand “Swamp” Kauri)
Ferdberple, excellent points! I actually don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone raise a concern about that dangerous plant waste product pollution before! LOL! Dangerous stuff that oxygen! Just think of all the people who die in fires every year!
SOMEthing MUST be DONE!
:>
MJM
Interestingly, the entire website http://www.geomar.de (the host of the referenced paper) is currently unavailable, unfindable.
From an astrophysical POV, detecting methane traces in an atmosphere is an indicator of ongoing life processes, as it breaks down in a few years, so must be continuously refreshed.