Guest Post by David Middleton
The Arctic methane time bomb keeps ticking… From Scientific American…
Climatewire
More Arctic Methane Bubbles into Atmosphere
A new study suggests more than twice as much of the potent greenhouse gas is bubbling out of the rapidly warming Arctic Ocean, speeding climate change
By Stephanie Paige Ogburn and ClimateWire
Arctic Ocean: A new study reports that methane releases from one part of the Arctic Ocean are more than twice what scientists previously thought.
[…]
If the Arctic Methane Time Bomb is really twice as bad as “scientists previously thought,” one of two things must be happening:
- The Arctic methane time bomb is about to go off and turn Earth into Venus.
- “Scientists” preconceptions about the climatic hazards of Arctic methane are very wrong.
Arctic methane is currently trapped in permafrost and in methane hydrate deposits. Some methane from these traps escapes to the atmosphere every year, particularly during warm summer months. However, there is absolutely no indication that this represents some sort of Arctic methane time bomb, ticking its way to some sort of carbon Apocalypse.
Permafrost
Permafrost is ground that is frozen below the active layer (~30-100 mm) for multi-year periods. Some Arctic permafrost has been frozen for at least several thousand years. The active layer may thaw seasonally; however the permafrost substrate remains frozen year-round. The frozen nature of the soil below the active layer prevents it from adequately draining. This results in a very boggy active layer with abundant decaying plant matter. As such, permafrost is generally very methane-rich.
A rapid and extensive thawing of Arctic permafrost could theoretically release a lot of methane into the atmosphere. There’s just very little reason to think that this is even a remote possibility now or in the foreseeable future.
News in Brief: Warming may not release Arctic carbon
Element could stay locked in soil, 20-year study suggests
By Erin Wayman
Web edition: May 15, 2013
Print edition: June 15, 2013; Vol.183 #12 (p. 13)
Researchers used greenhouses to artificially warm tundra (shown, in autumn) for 20 years. They found no net change in the amount of carbon stored in the soil.
Sadie Iverson
The Arctic’s stockpile of carbon may be more secure than scientists thought. In a 20-year experiment that warmed patches of chilly ground, tundra soil kept its stored carbon, researchers report.
[…]
In the Alaska experiment, they warmed the permafrost by 2°C over a 20-yr period (10 times the actual rate of warming since the 1800s) and there wasn’t the slightest hint of an accelerated methane release.
There is no evidence of widespread thawing of Arctic permafrost since Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11), approximately 450,000 years ago. None of the subsequent interglacial stages indicate widespread permafrost thawing, above 60°N, not even MIS-5 (Eemian/Sangamonian), which was about 2°C warmer than present day, possibly as much as 5°C warmer in the Arctic.
The last interglacial stage (MIS-5, Sangamonian/Eemian) was considerably warmer than the current interglacial and sea level was 3-6 meters higher than modern times. It was particularly warmer in the Arctic. Oxygen isotope ratios from the NGRIP ice core indicate that the Arctic was approximately 5°C warmer at the peak of MIS-5 (~135,000 years ago).
It also appears that it was significantly warmer in the Arctic during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (~7,000 years ago) than modern times. The Arctic was routinely ice-free during summer for most of the Holocene up until about 1,000 years ago. McKay et al., 2008 demonstrated that the modern Arctic sea ice cover is anomalously high and the Arctic summer sea surface temperature is anomalously low relative to the rest of the Holocene…
Modern sea-ice cover in the study area, expressed here as the number of months/year with >50% coverage, averages 10.6 ±1.2 months/year… Present day SST and SSS in August are 1.1 ± 2.4 8C and 28.5 ±1.3, respectively… In the Holocene record of core HLY0501-05, sea-ice cover has ranged between 5.5 and 9 months/year, summer SSS has varied between 22 and 30, and summer SST has ranged from 3 to 7.5 8C (Fig. 7).
McKay et al., 2008
Vaks et al., 2013 found no evidence of widespread permafrost thawing above 60°N since MIS-11, not even during MIS-5…
The absence of any observed speleothem growth since MIS 11 in the northerly Lenskaya Ledyanaya cave (despite dating outer edges of 7 speleothems), suggests the permanent presence of permafrost at this latitude since the end of MIS-11. Speleothem growth in this cave occurred in early MIS-11, ruling out the possibility that the unusual length of MIS-11 caused the permafrost thawing.
[…]
The degradation of permafrost at 60°N during MIS-11 allows an assessment of the warming required globally to cause such extensive change in the permafrost boundary.
[…]
There is clear evidence that the Arctic was at least 5°C warmer during MIS-11 than it is today…
Several so-called “superinterglacials” have been identified in the Quaternary sediment record from LakeEl’gygytgyn (Melles et al.,2012). Among these “superinterglacials”, marine isotope stage (MIS) 11c and 31 appear to be the most outstanding in terms of their temperature, vegetation cover, in-lake productivity, and in the case of MIS11c also duration (Melles et al.,2012). Quantitative climate reconstructions for MIS11c and 31 at Lake El’gygytgyn imply that temperatures and annual precipitation values were up to ca. 5°C and ca. 300mm higher if compared to the Holocene (Melles et al.,2012)
The best geological evidence for the Arctic methane time bomb being a dud can be found in the stratigraphy beneath Lake El’gygytgyn in northeastern Russia. The lake and its mini-basin occupy a 3.58 million year old meteor crater. Its sediments are ideally suited for a continuous high-resolution climate reconstruction from the Holocene all the way back to the mid-Pliocene. Unlike most other Arctic lakes, Lake El’gygytgyn, has never been buried by glacial stage continental ice sheets. Melles et al., 2012 utilized sediment cores from Lake El’gygytgyn to build a 2.8 million year climate reconstruction of northeastern Russia…

The data from Melles et al., 2012 are available from NOAA’s paleoclimatology library. And it is clearly obvious that Arctic summers were much warmer than either the Eemian/Sangamonian (MIS-5e) and the Holocene (MIS-1)…
MIS-11 peaked a full 5°C warmer than the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which was 1-2°C warmer than the present.
Referring back to Vaks et al., 2013, we can see that there is no evidence of widespread permafrost melting above 60°N since the beginning of MIS-11…
Since we know that the Arctic was about 5°C warmer during the Eemian/Sangamonian (MIS-5e) than it currently is and that there is no evidence of widespread permafrost melt above 60°N, it’s a pretty good bet that the MIS-11 Arctic was 6-10°C warmer than the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
The lack of evidence of permafrost melt during MIS-5 tends to indicate that MIS-11 may have been more than 5°C warmer. So, the notion that we are on the verge of a permafrost meltdown is patently absurd.
Methane Hydrate Deposits
Methane hydrates (or gas hydrate) are composed of molecules of methane encased in a lattice of ice crystals. These accumulations are fairly common in marine sediments.
Gas hydrate is an ice like substance formed when methane or some other gases combine with water at appropriate pressure and temperature conditions. Gas hydrates sequester large amounts of methane and are widespread in marine sediments and sediments of permafrost areas.
99% of methane hydrate deposits are thought to be in deepwater environments. The only way that climate change could destabilize these deposits would be through a sudden drop in sea level. The thermocline of the deepwater deposits changes very little (not at all at depth) even with 20 °C of surface warming over a 1,000-yr period.
Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change
By: Carolyn D. Ruppel (U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA) © 2011 Nature Education
Citation: Ruppel, C. D. (2011) Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):29
Methane Hydrate Primer
Methane hydrate is an ice-like substance formed when CH4 and water combine at low temperature (up to ~25ºC) and moderate pressure (greater than 3-5 MPa, which corresponds to combined water and sediment depths of 300 to 500 m). Globally, an estimated 99% of gas hydrates occurs in the sediments of marine continental margins at saturations as high as 20% to 80% in some lithologies; the remaining 1% is mostly associated with sediments in and beneath areas of high-latitude, continuous permafrost (McIver 1981, Collett et al. 2009). Nominally, methane hydrate concentrates CH4 by ~164 times on a volumetric basis compared to gas at standard pressure and temperature. Warming a small volume of gas hydrate could thus liberate large volumes of gas.
A challenge for assessing the impact of contemporary climate change on methane hydrates is continued uncertainty about the size of the global gas hydrate inventory and the portion of the inventory that is susceptible to climate warming. This paper addresses the latter issue, while the former remains under active debate.
[…]
Fate of Contemporary Methane Hydrates During Warming Climate
The susceptibility of gas hydrates to warming climate depends on the duration of the warming event, their depth beneath the seafloor or tundra surface, and the amount of warming required to heat sediments to the point of dissociating gas hydrates. A rudimentary estimate of the depth to which sediments are affected by an instantaneous, sustained temperature change DT in the overlying air or ocean waters can be made using the diffusive length scale 1 = √kt , which describes the depth (m) that 0.5 DT will propagate in elapsed time t (s). k denotes thermal diffusivity, which ranges from ~0.6 to 1×10-6 m2/s for unconsolidated sediments. Over 10, 100, and 1000 yr, the calculation yields maximum of 18 m, 56 m, and 178 m, respectively, regardless of the magnitude of DT. In real situations, DT is usually small and may have short- (e.g., seasonal) or long-term fluctuations that swamp the signal associated with climate warming trends. Even over 103 yr, only gas hydrates close to the seafloor and initially within a few degrees of the thermodynamic stability boundary might experience dissociation in response to reasonable rates of warming. As discussed below, less than 5% of the gas hydrate inventory may meet these criteria.
Even when gas hydrate dissociates, several factors mitigate the impact of the liberated CH4 on the sediment-ocean-atmosphere system. In marine sediments, the released CH4 may dissolve in local pore waters, remain trapped as gas, or rise toward the seafloor as bubbles. Up to 90% or more of the CH4 that reaches the sulfate reduction zone (SRZ) in the near-seafloor sediments may be consumed by anaerobic CH4 oxidation (Hinrichs & Boetius 2002, Treude et al. 2003, Reeburgh 2007, Knittel & Boetius 2009). At the highest flux sites (seeps), the SRZ may vanish, allowing CH4 to be injected directly into the water column or, in some cases, partially consumed by aerobic microbes (Niemann et al. 2006).
Methane emitted at the seafloor only rarely survives the trip through the water column to reach the atmosphere.
[…]
Global Warming and Gas Hydrate Type Locales
Methane hydrates occur in five geographic settings (or sectors) that must be individually evaluated to determine their susceptibility to warming climate (Figure 1). The percentages assigned to each sector below assume that 99% of global gas hydrate is within the deepwater marine realm (McIver 1981, Collett et al. 2009). Future refinements of the global ratio of marine to permafrost-associated gas hydrates will require adjustment of the assigned percentages. Owing to the orders of magnitude uncertainty in the estimated volume of CH4 trapped in global gas hydrate deposits, the percentages below have not been converted to Gt C.
[…]
Conclusions
Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth’s gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 103 yr. Even when CH4 is liberated from gas hydrates, oxidative and physical processes may greatly reduce the amount that reaches the atmosphere as CH4. The CO2 produced by oxidation of CH4 released from dissociating gas hydrates will likely have a greater impact on the Earth system (e.g., on ocean chemistry and atmospheric CO2 concentrations; Archer et al. 2009) than will the CH4 that remains after passing through various sinks.
Contemporary and future gas hydrate degradation will occur primarily on the circum-Arctic Ocean continental shelves (Sector 2; Macdonald 1990, Lachenbruch et al. 1994, Maslin 2010), where subsea permafrost thawing and methane hydrate dissociation have been triggered by warming and inundation since Late Pleistocene time, and at the feather edge of the GHSZ on upper continental slopes (Sector 3), where the zone’s full thickness can dissociate rapidly due to modest warming of intermediate waters. More CH4 may be sequestered in upper continental slope gas hydrates than in those associated with subsea permafrost; however, CH4 that reaches the seafloor from dissociating Arctic Ocean shelf gas hydrates is much more likely to enter the atmosphere rapidly and as CH4, not CO2. Proof is still lacking that gas hydrate dissociation currently contributes to seepage from upper continental slopes or to elevated seawater CH4 concentrations on circum-Arctic Ocean shelves. An even greater challenge for the future is determining the contribution of global gas hydrate dissociation to contemporary and future atmospheric CH4 concentrations.
[…]
The infamous photos, often posted by alarmists, of methane bubbling up from the Arctic sea floor and lake beds account for less than 1% of global methane hydrate deposits. These deposits are unstable in any temperature regime at depths of less than 200 m. They were already bubbling long before Al Gore invented CAGW.
Arctic Methane Time Bomb Defused
A substantial permafrost thaw above 60° N would require the Arctic to warm by more than 5°C relative to current conditions
A substantial destabilization of methane hydrate deposits is highly unlikely even with 20°C of warming relative to current conditions.
Arctic methane time bomb defused… QED.
References
McKay, J. L.; de Vernal, A.; Hillaire-Marcel, C.; Not, C.; Polyak, L.; Darby, D. (2008) Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Volume 45, Number 11, 2008 , pp. 1377-1397(21)
Miller, K.G., et al. (2005) The Phanerozoic Record of Global Sea-Level Change. Science. Vol. 310 no. 5752 pp. 1293-1298 DOI: 10.1126/science.1116412
Melles, M., J. Brigham-Grette, P.S. Minyuk, N.R. Nowaczyk, V. Wennrich (2012) 2.8 Million Years of Arctic Climate Change from Lake El’gygytgyn, NE Russia. Science. Vol. 337 no. 6092 pp. 315-320. DOI: 10.1126/science.1222135
Ruppel, C. D. (2011) Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):29
Vaks, A., et al. (2013) Speleothems Reveal 500,000-Year History of Siberian Permafrost. Science. Vol. 340 no. 6129 pp. 183-186. DOI: 10.1126/science.1228729
Vogel, H., Meyer-Jacob, C., Melles, M., Brigham-Grette, J., Andreev, A. A., Wennrich, V., Tarasov, P. E., and Rosén, P.: Detailed insight into Arctic climatic variability during MIS 11c at Lake El’gygytgyn, NE Russia, Clim. Past, 9, 1467-1479, doi:10.5194/cp-9-1467-2013, 2013.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.







David Middleton: My favorite hobby is debunking the junk science of the radical environmentalists…Particularly the junk science of anthropogenic global warming.
—————–
A noble pursuit – thank you Sir!
Giggle bells , giggle bells , giggle all the way on what fun it is to ride in a dead horse open model.
Dear Santa , for Christmas this year a like model that actual works , all the other scientists make fun of me becasue their do and mine never does . I been a good boy this year , I lied,smeared and BS with the best to support ‘the cause ‘ So could you please , please see your way to given me a ‘working climate model ‘
Yours
Sad Jonny , Climate ‘scientist’
So where is the proof that the net effect of more CH4 is warming rather than cooling?
CH4 is opaque to certain bandwidths of IR radiation.
So why haven’t we started mining these formations for the plentiful natural gas they represent?
About David Middleton
I have been a geoscientist in the evil oil and gas industry for almost 30 years. My favorite hobby is debunking the junk science of the radical environmentalists…Particularly the junk science of anthropogenic global warming.
____________________
You and others of like mind are having an effect. Just scan through the comments of any online article regarding climate or weather and see that the warmists are subjected to overwhelming ridicule. The chicken littles are having a hard time. It shouldn’t be too much longer until the politicians start to realize that the electorate has moved on.
Here’s one example: http://discussions.latimes.com/20/lanews/la-fg-wn-snow-israel-egypt-20131213/10?page=2
In other words, if IGrandson, swings around the sun and makes a mad dash to earth crashing into the planet and setting the atmosphere ablaze – we have to worry about the methane time bomb?
I think we would have bigger problems in that case.
Golly gosh, the only option to me is to mine the methane hydrate, and burn it, to reduce the harm – CO2 is a far less potent greenhouse gas than methane.
Perhaps Greenpiss should send a ship to the arctic to demand the Russians do more to exploit their methane hydrate resources.
Natural gas prices would have to rise to about $20/MCF and remain at least that high for about 50 years to make gas hydrates economic.
false dilemma
###############
If the Arctic Methane Time Bomb is really twice as bad as “scientists previously thought,” one of two things must be happening:
“The Arctic methane time bomb is about to go off and turn Earth into Venus.
“Scientists” preconceptions about the climatic hazards of Arctic methane are very wrong”
#####################
It’s called “humor.” Sarcasm is another one of my hobbies. I thought it was sufficiently obvious that I didn’t need to use /sarc.
@Steve Mosher,
It would be a false dilemma fallacy if it was a serious argument. I was clearly being facetious, prefacing the serious part of the post with some sarcastic humor. I thought the humor was so obvious that I didn’t need to use /sarc off notation.
“It also appears that it was significantly warmer in the Arctic during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (~7,000 years ago) than modern times.”
And, during the 20th century, the bulk of decline in arctic ice extent occurred near 1920 A.D., not when human CO2 emissions were quite a number of times greater later on, as illustrated in a chart and reference about 3/4ths of the way down in in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg
“99% of methane hydrate deposits are thought to be in deepwater environments.”
“The thermocline of the deepwater deposits changes very little (not at all at depth) even with 20 °C of surface warming over a 1,000-yr period.”
Yes. Part of the reason that the naive believe in CAGW methane release hype is mathematical illiteracy, having no quantitative understanding of the distinction between the time it takes to warm the depth of a puddle versus that of the oceans, not understanding how even specific heat alone (let alone all other considerations) prevents seawater hundreds to thousands of meters down from warming by multiple degrees on the timescales they envision. (The probable future this century is cooling of at least the Little Ice Age kind, not global warming anyway, but why that is so is another topic).
funny the article doesnt say anything close to what the post about it claims
“While the quantity of methane being released may sound alarming, scientists are not sure whether this methane escape is new, or whether it has been happening for a long time. Until 2003, when Shakhova’s team started studying this part of the Arctic Ocean, no one had measured how much methane was being released from it.”
The headline of the SciAm article…
@Steve Mosher,
The link in the first sentence takes you to the original Arctic Methane Time Bomb article. While the article I quoted is fairly innocuous, the headline of the SciAm article is right in line with the Arctic methane hysteria…
If the permafrost truely is melting, where did all of that methane go. It didn’t make it to the atmosphere. Methane concentrations have been pretty much constant for more than a decade.
Great article. But keep in mind that some people are not interested in facts or data that get in the way of what they want to believe.
remembering the study that showed that life forms around the sea methane vents accommodated to refix the methane released
Owen, you write “So why haven’t we started mining these formations for the plentiful natural gas they represent?’
We have, or rather the Japanese have. There is an overproduction of natural gas on the North America continent at the moment, and the technology to successfully mine the methane hydrates is only now being worked out, by the Japanese. Until shale gas starts to run out, methane hydrates are simply too expensive. I would not be surprised if the US does not do some work at Prudhoe Bay, where there are large deposits, and the infrastructure to proceed slowly and comparatively cheaply is already in place. I don’t know of any other nation that has the know how, and the deposits near at hand, that can do this sort of work successfully.
Its worse than we thought, the climate cult is still alive….
Mosher the fake scientist gives another evidence-free post.
@ur momisugly thisisnotgoodtogo says:
December 13, 2013 at 2:08 pm
I agree. Won’t miss his Climate Etc. posts……….
” Some Arctic permafrost has been frozen for at least several thousand years”
Which would mean that several thousand years ago the are was much, much, warmer and supported a thriving ecosystem.
teddi, it’s all good to advertise that you are a scientist when your definition for “scientist” is non-standard and potential customers have no idea.
One of the links is called “The $60-trillion Arctic methane time bomb”
http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/environment/the-60-trillion-arctic-methane-time-bomb-1.1553430#.UquHNLKA3aR
There are literally unlimited scenarios that a chicken little could come up with to claim the sky is falling. This is just one more of them. At some point, after moving the goal posts and changing the story time after time after time, the public will finally get disgusted and stop their believing in the lame heifer dust. I do hope that time draws nigh.
Mosher, I think this is the type of statement from the article that the post addresses, “More Arctic Methane Bubbles into Atmosphere. A new study suggests more than twice as much of the potent greenhouse gas is bubbling out of the rapidly warming Arctic Ocean, speeding climate change”
Notice the key words: Potent, Bubbling, Rapidly Warming, Speeding Climate change. Which, as noted by Mr. Middleton, are not justified.
Sadly the important subjects of ocean acidification and its effect on methane hydrate release, plus the amplification of this gas release caused by polar bears swimming nearby, is not discussed here.
Sarc off/
I had not realised the much warmer last interglacial period (the Eemian) would be able to unravel so much of today’s climate alarmism.
The new NEEM ice core from Greenland has Arctic temps in the Eemian at 125,000 years ago at +7.5C.
http://s12.postimg.org/9ctilkusd/NGRIP_NEEM_EDC_Global_135kya.png
Methane in the Antarctic ice cores only got to 700 ppb at 125,000 years ago versus today’s 1900 ppb so Methane time bomb diffused (as David said).
Oh my Lord, Van Allen belts discovered….