From the University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Study: Arctic seafloor methane releases double previous estimates
The seafloor off the coast of Northern Siberia is releasing more than twice the amount of methane as previously estimated, according to new research results published in the Nov. 24 edition of the journal Nature Geoscience.
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is venting at least 17 teragrams of the methane into the atmosphere each year. A teragram is equal to 1 million tons.
“It is now on par with the methane being released from the arctic tundra, which is considered to be one of the major sources of methane in the Northern Hemisphere,” said Natalia Shakhova, one of the paper’s lead authors and a scientist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. “Increased methane releases in this area are a possible new climate-change-driven factor that will strengthen over time.”
Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide. On land, methane is released when previously frozen organic material decomposes. In the seabed, methane can be stored as a pre-formed gas or asmethane hydrates. As long as the subsea permafrost remains frozen, it forms a cap, effectively trapping the methane beneath. However, as the permafrost thaws, it develops holes, which allow the methane to escape. These releases can be larger and more abrupt than those that result from decomposition.
The findings are the latest in an ongoing international research project led by Shakhova and Igor Semiletov, both researchers at the UAF International Arctic Research Center. Their twice-yearly arctic expeditions have revealed that the subsea permafrost in the area has thawed much more extensively than previously thought, in part due to warming water near the bottom of the ocean. The warming has created conditions that allow the subsea methane to escape in much greater amounts than their earlier models estimated. Frequent storms in the area hasten its release into the atmosphere, much in the same way stirring a soda releases the carbonation more quickly.
“Results of this study represent a big step forward toward improving our understanding of methane emissions from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf,” said Shakhova. She noted that while the ESAS is unusual in its expansive and shallow nature, the team’s findings there speak to the need for further exploration of the subsea Arctic. “I believe that all other arctic shelf areas are significantly underestimated and should be paid very careful attention to.”
Photo courtesy of Natalia Shakhova
Methane bubbles collect under the ice.
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a methane-rich area that encompasses more than 2 million square kilometers of seafloor in the Arctic Ocean. It is more than three times as large as the nearby Siberian wetlands, which have been considered the primary Northern Hemisphere source of atmospheric methane. Previous estimates performed for the ESAS suggested that the area was releasing 8 teragrams of methane into the atmosphere yearly.
During field expeditions, the research team used a variety of techniques—including sonar and visual images of methane bubbles in the water, air and water sampling, seafloor drilling and temperature readings—to determine the conditions of the water and permafrost, as well as the amount of methane being released.
Methane is an important factor in global climate change, because it so effectively traps heat. As conditions warm, global research has indicated that more methane is released, which then stands to further warm the planet. Scientists call this phenomenon a positive feedback loop.
“We believe that the release of methane from the Arctic, and in particular this part of the Arctic, could impact the entire globe,” Shakhova said. “We are trying to understand the actual contribution of the ESAS to the global methane budget and how that will change over time.”
Shakhova and Semiletov are also affiliated with the Pacific Oceanological Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, as are research team members Anatoly Salyuk, Denis Kosmach and Denis Chernykh. Other members of the research team include Dmitry Nicolsky of the UAF Geophysical Institute; co-lead author Ira Leifer of the Marine Sciences Institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Bubbleology Research International; Valentin Sergienko of the Institute of Chemistry at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch; Chris Stubbs of the Marine Sciences Institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara; Vladimir Tumskoy of Moscow State University; and Örjan Gustafsson of the Department of Applied Environmental Science and Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University.
###
=============================================================
So the real question here – is this doubling to 17 Tg a big problem? Let’s look at the numbers they cite:
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is venting at least 17 teragrams of the methane into the atmosphere each year. A teragram is equal to 1 million tons.
Houweling et al. (1999) give the following values for methane emissions (Tg/a=teragrams per year):
Table from Wikipedia
The estimated total emissions totals 600 Tg/a, sinks total 580 Tg/a. The previous estimates of CH4 emissions are already accounted for somewhere in the table above, perhaps with oceans, then it adds 8.5 TG/a to the balance sheet.
8.5/600 is a 1.4% increase, hardly anything dramatic. It may be even be below or near the error band for these estimates.
But all that is being reported in MSM stories, like this one in Scientific American is about a doubling of methane release, and of course, that makes people worry.
At times like this, it is useful to have another look at the IPCC AR5 draft report graph on how methane in the atmosphere stacks up against model projections:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



An increase in the estimated rate of release does not mean that the actual rate of release has increased, just that their estimate has increased.
““Increased methane releases in this area are a possible new climate-change-driven factor that will strengthen over time.””
Is a misleading statement and I believe intentionally so. Because their estimate increased using more modern technology and methods does not mean that actual amount of methane increased.
Oh, and the temperature under the ocean at the shelf would not have changed even if the surface temperature has so “global warming” wouldn’t have any impact.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/16/another-known-unknown-volcanic-outgassing-of-co2/#comment-1477736
Just as true now as during the cold war? I guess once again we should sit down, put our heads between our knees, and kiss our butts good-bye. Well, we all survived the MAD, MIRV, MARV, SLBM, Nuclear Triad, Detent, and even Jimmy Carter. Somehow I’m not particularly worried about a little methane.
So when are we all supposed to die? /sarc
How can they say it is 30 times more potent than CO2, it occupy’s a smaller range on the frequency bandwith than CO2 and and quickly decays to CO2, it is only potent because unlike CO2 it is not saturated.
“The warming has created conditions that allow the subsea methane to escape in much greater amounts than their earlier models estimated.”
Models used to estimate warming (From CO2) which will cause more methane to escape more so now than previous models estimated? HA! Models trump reality again! At ~1800ppBILLION/v today I won’t worry any time soon as long as we have termites on this rock!
“The warming has created conditions that allow the subsea methane to escape in much greater amounts than their earlier models estimated.”
I challenge anyone to show me where the temperature at the bottom of the Arctic ocean has changed enough to be measurable.
Showing some ignorance here. Does Methane exhibit the logarithmic drop off in “green house” effect as C02. Just because it is 30 more potent, does it loose its effect 30 times faster? Are the dynamics different? Just curious. Also isn’t Methane measured in ppb (b as in billion)?
What crosspatch said. And since GW didn’t happen…
They don’t tell but I think they hope for a nice bit of warming up there.
Methane also has a much shorter life in the atmosphere as it is eventually oxidized. They should just put a big inverted funnel over the venting gas and catch it. They have done something similar to that off the coast of California where drilling is now allowed but there are significant seeps of methane. It is estimated that natural seeps are a significant contributor to air pollution in Southern California. Years ago Santa Barbara used to smell like kerosene and the beach was covered with oil from natural seeps before they started drilling and reduced the seepage. Coal Oil Point has that name for a reason.
I’ve seen it said that they count the oxidation products as part of the “total” (2 H20 and CO2). Nice work if you can get it.
Meant where drilling is NOT allowed
“Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide.”
Utter tripe. Methane, like H2O and CO2 is a radiative gas. It both absorbs and emits LWIR. “Greenhouse gas” is the language of liars. The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is atmospheric cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
crosspatch says:
November 26, 2013 at 12:04 am
—————————————
No big funnel needed.
1 -At the end of the arctic summer sail nuclear powered mining rigs close to the remaining ice.
2- Use dirty cordite powered rockets to deploy the aramid fibre ice reinforcement nets in a 500 m radius around the floating rig.
3 – Wait for the freeze, then use a combination of buoyancy tanks and warm water from the nuclear power plant to create a methane collecting ice dome.
4 – Siphon off thousands of tonnes of human enriching methane and liquefy it using the nuclear power plant.
5 – Send video of the operation to Greensleeze and delight as their empty skulls implode in their ethically farmed yak wool beanies 😉
“Sub-sea permafrost”??????
Thank our lucky stars this is not human induced otherwise it would have had a much, much worse affect.
Q: Why are FAR, TAR, SAR, AR4, all overestimating CH4 emissions,?
A: Because real data was unavailable – they used estimates created by Mr. Methane.
‘Methane is an important factor in global climate change, because it so effectively traps heat. As conditions warm, global research has indicated that more methane is released, which then stands to further warm the planet. Scientists call this phenomenon a positive feedback loop.’
Still no ‘smoking gun’ evidence that CO2 is a net causal factor ‘as conditions warm’. Methane, as stated, certainly is a much more potent heat trapping gas than CO2.
As with CO2, Methane is useful. As a fuel, it burns readily to form CO2 (goodness gracious!) and water. The question arises; is this source(s) of Methane harvestable as a fuel source and to render it into a very much less effective greenhouse gas?
“Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide.”
No, it isn’t.
This (hillarious, if you think about it) mantra of the warming crowd is the result of a complete misreading by the warming modelers of the physics of radiation transport. It is based on the same error that makes them overestimate the effect of CO2 by a factor of at least three and, more importantly, makes them think that the “feedback” on water vapour is such that we live on the edge of a “tipping point” when, in fact, the feedback on water vapour is close to neutral.
“Results of this study represent a big step forward toward improving our understanding of methane emissions from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf”
They know we still don’t understand methane emissions very well. What they are studying is the effect of the passage of storms as a mechanism of transporting methane, not mass balance of methane or carbon stocks.
A question I have thought many times – how can ruminants be seen as purely “anthropogenic”? I am thinking of the vast hordes of bison, and other ruminants that used to graze the extensive grasslands of the earth – before humans figured out how to first reduce their numbers and then replace them with the domestic kind!
Just asking.
“The warming has created conditions that allow the subsea methane to escape in much greater amounts than their earlier models estimated.”
Says it all really! Earlier models were wrong, who’s to say the latest aren’t either! Simulation, representation, sophistication……………………………………………..!
I keep wondering how much credence to give these soi-disant scientists. By their own admission, all previous theses proved to be wrong; “This time we know the answer and it’s worse than we thought.” It’s the same same thing they said the last time, admitting they were wrong the previous time, which …
Perhaps those 30 Greenpeace kids could do some measurements for them.
I only mention this in the total absence of any measurements being made to support this new wheeze.
crosspatch says:
November 26, 2013 at 12:05 am
Meant where drilling is NOT allowed
Yeah, I skimmed by where you said California allows offshore drilling and I was thinking
“damn, I’m going to have to correct crosspatch.” Which would be a first for me.
The dirt worshiping commies who run California won’t even let you play a game of catch on the beach, much less clean up oil seeps.
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/2012/04/beach-ban-on-football-and-frisbees/