Methane estimates from the Arctic double, but there's no cause for alarm

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.”

Methane bubbles collect under the ice.

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):

Methane_sources

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:

IPCC_AR5_draft_fig1-7_methane

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

79 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 26, 2013 9:44 am

Does the methane venting into the Arctic polar sea near eastern Siberia result in underwater warming that reduces the thickness of the ice in the region trending [east] of Novaya Zemiya Island? Can methane combine with sea-water dissolved oxygen in a slow oxidation process that creates a little heating without any underwater combustion?
Maybe you can see this effect from the fascinating animated time-lapse Arctic ice-thickness map by NRL. Here’s the link:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticict_nowcast_anim365d.gif
Any comments, or is this just a nutty idea?

November 26, 2013 10:26 am

Sorry — here’s an errata for my comment above. I should have written “…trending east of Novaya Island..” NOT “WEST” (I forgot that I was looking at the map of Siberia upside down. Ugh!!)

Gary Hladik
November 26, 2013 10:46 am

Oldseadog says (November 26, 2013 at 9:07 am): “I still don’t understand how the sea bed can be frozen (sub-sea permafrost).”
http://web.archive.org/web/20120614141539/http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/what.html
“Gas hydrates are stable at the temperatures and pressures that occur in ocean-floor sediments at water depths greater than about 500 meters, and at these pressures they are stable at temperatures above those for ice stability.”

November 26, 2013 10:51 am

We’ve crossed well into the “Boy that cried wolf” realm.
There is absolute certainty of one side being blatantly dishonest and biased about CO2. We need only look at the known law of photosynthesis and the fraudulent entities completely avoiding that beneficial story as they tell lie after lie to convict CO2 as a pollutant vs telling us the truth about it being atmospheric fertilizer and recent increases causing a huge upwards explosion in world food production.
Methane/CH4 on the other hand does not have the clear benefits to our world that CO2 has but I would like to study it more before busting the likely myths that the same biased side has been shown to propagandize for years based on junk science.

Steve Keohane
November 26, 2013 10:58 am

Methane is 30X stronger than CO2, I assume they mean molecule for molecule. So for the roughly 120ppm of CO2 increase (400-280ppm) we see an alleged .7°C temperature rise. That is .0058°C per ppm if it was all caused by CO2. Therefore methane causes .175°C per ppb. Since methane has gone up 50ppb in the past century it has caused 8.75°C of temperature rise. Call Trenberth, we’ve found his missing heat!! If CO2 caused half the alleged temperature rise we have seen, then methane has caused only over 4°C. It looks like CO2 has to have an effect way below 1°C to have any cohesion to this GHG hypothesis.

mbur
November 26, 2013 11:04 am

Hladik
“Gas hydrates are stable at the temperatures and pressures that occur in ocean-floor sediments at water depths greater than about 500 meters, and at these pressures they are stable at temperatures above those for ice stability.”
Yeah, i’ve always wondered how the ‘heat rises effect’ works in water at great depths .Water is most dense at a temp. higher than 0°C. Ice floats, but,maybe sub-sea permafrost doesn’t?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phase_diagram_of_water.svg

Dave_G
November 26, 2013 11:08 am

The predeliction for using units of measurement that ‘exaggerate’ the problem seems endemic. ‘Terragrammes’ now? References should be stated as percentages of the ‘norm’. The ‘gigatonnes’ of scarey man-made CO2 and the ‘terragrammes’ of methane are soon discredited when they become fractional parts of 1 percent of the ‘norm’.

November 26, 2013 11:50 am

Crosspatch has some great points. Me, I only come up with these mundane bits:
1) But for how long have these methane releases been occurring?
2) Is it something that has changed significantly in the past 30-100 years?
3) Have they been this large in the past, say in the 1930’s?

November 26, 2013 11:51 am

#1 should also ask “at the newly estimated rates”

anengineer
November 26, 2013 12:28 pm

Since the overall amount of atmospheric CO2 is unchanged this must mean that either some other source is overestimated or an unidentified sink exists.
Determining which is the case and the nature of the error would be useful to science, but not to pundits.

November 26, 2013 1:02 pm

The planet is infested from pole to pole with gas-guzzling microbes – click on my name for oceans of live evidence.
Earth has been belching out life-enriching methane since its inception.
In fact, life probably started out guzzling gas:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/20120258.abstract
Eugene asked:
1) But for how long have these methane releases been occurring?
Eons.

Jimbo
November 26, 2013 1:32 pm

I gather Shakhova wrote about methane in the same area in 2010 and 2005. Is it possible that the bubbles had been doing their thing for decades now? 50 years? 100 years? A bit like the people who say that the Ozone hole over the Arctic has always been there. Just askin.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2007.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.abstract
2012 – Real Climate is not too worried about the methane timebomb so why should we?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/

aaron
November 26, 2013 1:32 pm

This means that CH4s atmospheric life is much shorter than previously believed.

Jimbo
November 26, 2013 1:40 pm

Eugene says:
November 26, 2013 at 11:50 am
Crosspatch has some great points. Me, I only come up with these mundane bits:
1) But for how long have these methane releases been occurring?

I don’t know but for at least as long as there have been methane eating microbes.

‘Inconceivable’ Bugs Eat Methane on the Ocean Floor
Carl Zimmer is the author of Parasite Rex and At the Water’s Edge.
Most of the methane that rises toward the surface of the ocean floor vanishes before it even reaches the water. On page 484 of this issue, a team of researchers provides the clinching evidence for where all that methane goes: It is devoured by vast hordes of mud-dwelling microbes that belong to a previously unknown species of archaea. These methane-eating microbes–once thought to be impossible–now look to be profoundly important to the planet’s carbon cycle.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5529/418.short

Apparently methane eating microbes also [munched] heavily on the BP oil spill in the Gulf.

Guardian
Methane from BP oil spill eaten by microbes
Underwater bacteria had devoured nearly all the methane gas from BP’s blown-out well by August, says a study in Science
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/06/methane-bp-oil-spill-microbes

Jimbo
November 26, 2013 1:41 pm

Sorry for blockquote cock-up. 🙁
[No, the correct blockquote sets are not clear. Where should they be? Mod]

Jimbo
November 26, 2013 1:50 pm

Here is a comment that Andrew Revkin got back from the author back in December 2011 regarding an earlier paper. Igor Dmitrenko, whose paper was cited by the intrepid researchers disputed their findings at Revkins. Make of it what you will but it looks like a storm in a teacup.

Dec. 29, 9:28 a.m. | Updated below |
I’ve been in touch with Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov, the intrepid Russian researchers, based at the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska, who for more than a decade have been leading an important international project analyzing methane plumes rising from the seabed in the shallow Arctic waters spreading north from eastern Siberian shores…..
Here is the contribution from Semiletov and Shakhova:

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.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methane-project-clarify-climate-concerns/?_r=0

RoHa
November 26, 2013 4:26 pm

Hooray! More bad news. Doomed by methane!

RoHa
November 26, 2013 4:30 pm

And I commend the other commenters on keeping the number of fart jokes to a minimum. (Must have a few for this topic.)

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  RoHa
November 26, 2013 11:34 pm

What happened to the Bison and Buffalo farts from the past then?
You know how desperate these clowns are getting when they come up with poo like this. What’s next, the increasing number of mosquitos caused by climate change are beating their wings thus causing more and stronger winds?
Give me strength!

Ian L. McQueen
November 26, 2013 5:52 pm

Note to mbur
Pure water is least dense at 4 degrees C. But add salt to the water, as in sea water, and the water then follows the same trajectory as any other liquid and continues to become more dense as the temperature goes down.
Does this answer your question / conjecture?
IanM
[Rather, “most dense” at 4 deg C? Mod]

mbur
November 26, 2013 6:39 pm

L. McQueen ,Thanks for the reply to my comment.Your reply does get to the point i was tring to make that at great depths in the ocean it is warmer(?) than at less depth, cooler water(salt and other mixed minerals and compounds biologic and other wise) is over warmer water is it not?Maybe heat of pressure of water?That’s why i say i don’t understand the ‘heat rises effect’ in ocean water columns, because cool water enough and salt comes out and ice forms and it rises .So ,is there pure salt on the bottom of the ocean ? and does sub-sea permafrost form?

mbur
November 26, 2013 7:10 pm

ice rises ?or just stays on top ?if only pure water freezes than you have water at 0°c over salt water that is warmer ?is sub-sea permafrost not water-based frost?

AndyG55
November 26, 2013 10:18 pm

Once this methane converts to CO2, how does this compare with man’s contribution of CO2 ?

AndyG55
November 26, 2013 10:21 pm

Doh, I had only read the first paragraph.. Now I find the table of value…
DOH !!!

James Bull
November 26, 2013 11:36 pm

So this is where the missing heat has got too warming the East Siberian Arctic Shelf below the ice causing it to vent maybe more methane?
This sounds like another one of those games where you are meant to look at this thing I’m showing you and not notice while I remove your money from your wallet!
James Bull