Surprise finding: Arctic Ocean methane does not reach the atmosphere

From the CAGE – CENTER FOR ARCTIC GAS HYDRATE, CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT and the cancel the “methane time bomb” department comes this surprising finding:

Ocean floor observatories, research ship and airplane were deployed to a area of 250 active methane gas flares in the Arctic Ocean. CREDIT Torger Grytå/CAGE

Ocean floor observatories, research ship and airplane were deployed to a area of 250 active methane gas flares in the Arctic Ocean. CREDIT Torger Grytå/CAGE

250 methane flares release the climate gas methane from the seabed and into the Arctic Ocean. During the summer months this leads to an increased methane concentration in the ocean. But surprisingly, very little of the climate gas rising up through the sea reaches the atmosphere.

“Our results are exciting and controversial”, says senior scientist Cathrine Lund Myhre from NILU – Norwegian Institute for Air Research, who is cooperating with CAGE through MOCA project.

The results were published in Geophysical Research Letters.

The scientist performed simultaneous measurements close to seabed, in the ocean and in the atmosphere during an extensive ship and air campaign offshore Svalbard Archipelago in summer 2014. As of today, three independent models employing the marine and atmospheric measurements show that the methane emissions from the sea bed in the area did not significantly affect the atmosphere.

“This is an important message to bring to the debate on the state of the ocean and atmospheric system in the Arctic. It is also important to emphasize that the Arctic has in recent years experienced major changes and average temperatures well above normal values. A thorough description of the present state of the Arctic environment, possible only with adequate measurements, is essential to the detection of future changes of potentially global significance.” says Lund Myhre.

Methane increase since 2006

Levels of methane in the atmosphere have risen by an average of 6 parts per billion (ppb) globally per year since 2006, and slightly more over the Arctic and Norway. Since methane is the most important greenhouse gas after CO2, it is very important to explore why.

Vast quantities of methane gas are stored under the seabed in ice-like substances called methane hydrates. One possible explanation for the increased methane concentration in the atmosphere is that these hydrates dissolve as the oceans become warmer. Methane gas leaks from the methane hydrates under the seabed, and rises through the water. The scientists want to find out if these emissions are increasing, and just how much methane is reaching the atmosphere.

“Estimates on how much methane gas is stored beneath the seabed as hydrates vary enormously. A recent calculation suggests that we are talking about 74 000 gigatonnes, and one gigatonne is a billion tonnes”, says professor Jürgen Mienert, director at CAGE.

If any of the methane stored in the Arctic hydrate reservoirs is released into the atmosphere as a result of climate change, this could have a global impact in terms of further climate warming, in addition to what human activities are already contributing.

Why is methane not released to the atmosphere?

Sea ice, the obvious obstacle to such emissions, is not found here in the summer. So what is stopping the methane? Emissions from the sea bed are after all clearly visible both on the seabed and in the water column.

“We are talking about 250 active methane seeps found at relatively shallow depths: 90 to 150 meters” says oceanographer Benedicte Ferré from CAGE.

According to her, it is the sea itself that adds obstacles to methane emissions to the atmosphere in the summer. The weather is generally calm during summer, with little wind. This leads to stratification of the water column whereby layers of different density form, much like oil over water.

This means there is no or low exchange of water masses between the surface layer and the layers below. A natural barrier occurs, acting as a ceiling, preventing the methane from reaching the surface.But this condition does not last forever: wind blowing over the ocean can mix these layers, causing this natural barrier to disappear. Thus the methane may break the surface and enter the atmosphere.

“There is still a lot we do not know about seasonal variations. The methane can also be transported by water masses, or dissolve and be eaten by bacteria in the ocean. Thus long term observations are necessary to understand the emissions throughout the year. The only way to obtain these measurements are to use observatories that remain on the seabed for a long time”, says Benedicte Ferré.

CAGE set out two such observatories last year, which have been retrieved in May with data waiting to be analysed.

Unique research collaboration

To determine if methane from these subsea sources actually reach the atmosphere, a unique Norwegian cooperation was established in 2013. Scientists from NILU, CAGE and CICERO made extensive studies of gas emissions from the seabed west of Svalbard in the period June to August 2014, and modelling the fluxes.

– To investigate the methane emissions and their fate, we performed observations on the seabed, in the water column, on the ocean surface, and in the atmosphere from ships, aircraft and land-based stations, says Cathrine Lund Myhre.

Through cooperation with partners from the universities of Cambridge and Manchester, the scientists got access to one of the world’s best-equipped research aircrafts. The scientists then used different models to calculate the highest possible methane emissions from the area, and estimate the maximum possible methane release consistent with observations.

###

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Oh my! Another climate disaster scenario disproven. The greens will be so dissappointed. 🙂

george e. smith

You mean some sea creatures are stealing our natural gas supplies ??
We gotta put a stop to that; we need it in the atmosphere to keep the Arctic warm.
g

ferdberple

potentially the nail in the coffin of AGW hysteria over fossil fuels. microbes converting CO2 from rocks into methane. huge implications for origin of “fossil fuels”. potentially natural gas is not the product of rotting dinosaurs. rather, it is produced by bacterial action on CO2 rich rocks that accumulate naturally in the oceans.
https://news.agu.org/press-release/scientists-discover-methane-producing-microbes-in-california-rocks/

When there are no nutrients in arctic soil scoured by glaciers, there is a micro-critter that feeds off methane. It puts carbon into the soil and makes the soil more fertile. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were all sorts of micro-critters in the Arctic Sea that gobble up methane as well. Micro-critters Rule!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/micro-critters-rule/

jarthuroriginal

You mean “wee beasties” as the Scots would say.

Ken

“There is still a lot we do not know about seasonal variations.”
That goes without saying. Also there is a lot we don’t know about coral bleaching, glacier melting, Greenland ice behavior, Arctic ice extent, sea level rising, why the pause happened, etc.
Doesn’t sound very much like the science is settled.

Mark - Helsinki

But we do know a lot about coral bleaching in the reefer world, academics dont know much about it though.
Those of us who have lived with corals every day for a decade or two working with them daily know a lot.
It’s real world practical experience, throw in chemistry knowledge and trial and error (experiment) and yes we have extensive knowledge.
I am currently writing a paper on OA, I am not an academic and so it is taking me a bit of time to research academic literature and ensure every i is dotted and every t is crossed.
I have no qualifications relating to the subject, IT being my area of expertise, but I hope to get this finished soon because it will debunk OA via CO2 permanently, show the real causes of regional H+ concentrations and detail how it all apples to aquatic life like corals and fish populations and ecosystems.
My lack of academic training and family life is slowing me down somewhat :p

Mark - Helsinki

Having it accepted, is going to be areal challenge I suspect

Mark - Helsinki

Most of all, scientifically explaining why other papers are wrong is a lot of work for me, I have no students to slave for me 😀

A. Ames

Mark: Please consider finding a better known ally and jointly authoring. Being the lead author out of two or three authors of a published paper is preferred to being the sole author of a paper that can’t get accepted. And aside from the politics the better known authors often have a lot to add and can make it better paper.

BACullen

OA? Not in glossary.

Monna Manhas

Ocean acidification

Mark - Helsinki

“A. Ames
May 28, 2016 at 5:55 am
Mark: Please consider finding a better known ally and jointly authoring. Being the lead author out of two or three authors of a published paper is preferred to being the sole author of a paper that can’t get accepted. And aside from the politics the better known authors often have a lot to add and can make it better paper.”
_______________________________________________________
Cheers, I have already put out feelers for a sponsor\reviewer, I have almost completed the first stage of the work, I’ve broken the task up as a managed project with a review by an expert(s) for each stage to make sure I dont wander far off course between stages.
One reply I got from a sponsor request told me that “I was bonkers if “I” thought I knew more than NOAA”!

Mark - Helsinki

BACullen
May 28, 2016 at 6:47 am
OA? Not in glossary.
______________________
OA is the generic common name, the words in that order will appear once in the paper, in the Abstract but nowhere in the main body because it is a meaningless term.

Steve Borodin

You are certaqinly bonkers if you know less than the NOAA.
By the way “Since methane is the most important greenhouse gas after CO2” – factually correct but misleading? H2O?

CRS, DrPH

There is still a lot we do not know about seasonal variations. The methane can also be transported by water masses, or dissolve and be eaten by bacteria in the ocean.

Bacteria. This is common knowledge to any undergraduate environmental microbiology student.
Happy Memorial Day, everyone! And best wishes to Anthony!

Bingo! Hydrocarbons from gas and oil are food to all sorts of bacteria and more. And they wonder where the food goes from their relatively warmer summer water column… Someone needs to spend a summer on a farm turning compost…

Yup. Ma Nature paired methenogens with methanotrophs. Same thing happened at Macundo blowout, only warmwr waters.

Sasha

‘The ‘Arctic Methane Emergency’ appears canceled due to methane eating bacteria’
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/19/the-arctic-methane-emergency-appears-canceled-due-to-methane-eating-bacteria/
Methane: The Irrelevant Greenhouse Gas
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant-greenhouse-gas/

Wouldn’t methane be the third most important greenhouse gas??? behind CO2 #2 and water vapor #1???

that struck me as odd, also, Dave

commieBob

Text: Maja Sojtaric (CAGE) and Christine F. Solbakken (NILU) link

Sojtaric or Solbakken needs to be talked to. I would assume they are PR flacks and not scientists.

Paul

Correct, but that’s not what they claimed.
Read their quote again; “Since methane is the most important greenhouse gas after CO2…”.

Yes, their claim reads as technically correct, but most readers that have been indoctrinated into the CAGW belief system will fail to grasp the unstated part which could read, “…and both CO2 and methane pale in comparison to H2O vapor which is by far the most important greenhouse gas”.

urederra

Any gas molecule with more than 2 atoms can absorb IR radiation. In order for a molecule to be IR active, there must be a change in its dipole moment. Molecules with a permanent dipole moment, (water, ozone, ammonia) can absorb IR radiation more easily than apolar molecules (CO2, methane). The latter molecules can only absorb IR radiation if they have an induced dipole moment. This momentary dipole moment can be created on apolar molecules when there is a collision or interaction with another molecule. But apolar molecules do not absorb IR radiation on ground state.
Oh, and diatomic molecules like carbon monoxide or nitric oxide (NO) which have permanent dipole moments are also IR active.
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Physical_Chemistry/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Infrared_Spectroscopy/Infrared%3A_Theory#Theory_of_IR

dennisambler

They can’t handle water vapour, so they ignore it.

Mark - Helsinki

Methane is measured in parts per billion, the others parts per million

David Chappell

And to put the 6ppb increase each year into context, it is the equivalent of a world population increase of 42 people. Or the same as adding a city the size of Salem MA per millennium.

whiten

David Chappell
May 28, 2016 at 7:58 am
And to put the 6ppb increase each year into context, it is the equivalent of a world population increase of 42 people. Or the same as adding a city the size of Salem MA per millennium.
————————————–
According to Wikipedia:
“Global methane levels, had risen to 1800 parts per billion (ppb) by 2011, an increase by a factor of 2.5 since pre-industrial times, from 722 ppb, the highest value in at least 800,000 years.”
How will numbers work to show the impact as per reference of a city size?
Further more from Wiki:
“According to NOAA the atmospheric methane concentration was measured at 1890 ppb in Ireland (Northern Hempishere) and 1760 ppb (Tasmania, Southern Hemisphere) in 2013 – arctic methane release from melting methane clathrates has played a role, but other recent emissions include peat fires in Southeast Asia. In all of the 420,000 year time-period before the industrial era, the atmospheric methane concentration has been less than half the current level (see graphs, which also show historical correlated trends amongst CH4 concentrations, CO2 concentrations, and Earth’s temperature).”
The very lat part:
” (see graphs, which also show historical correlated trends amongst CH4 concentrations, CO2 concentrations, and Earth’s temperature).”
is very interesting indeed…. the trend correlation of methane with that of temperatures must be maintained….otherwise we kiss-bye bye AGW…….NO INCREASE IN TEMPS NO INCREASE IN CH4 CONCENTRATIONS…….otherwise ????????………..the solution…..lets kill methane scare before to late and keep the both trends still in correlation…..
cheers

TA

Dave Andrews wrote: “Wouldn’t methane be the third most important greenhouse gas??? behind CO2 #2 and water vapor #1???”
What was meant was that CO2 and methane are the two most important greenhouse gases *to the Alarmists*. The Alarmists can’t make any money or gain any power off of water vapor scaremongering, so it is not very important to them.

Robert of Ottawa

Yes, I suspect a deliberate confusion of the adjectives “worst” and “most important”. Methane has a higher green-housiness, as it were, than CO2, but there is even less of it in the atmosphere. Of course, the evil H2O is wot keeps this planet warmer than it should be.
Let us praise Poseidon, God of the Ocean and keeper of a warm planet!

NW sage

Don’t forget Davey Jones!

Tom in Florida

And let’s all have a Pleasant Valley Sunday.

Dave,
You beat me to it. I was going to post the same observation but thought I would check to see if anyone else had noticed. By far water vapor is the most important green house gas.
Jack

Jim

WAIT !!!! I thought the “science was settled” !!!!
No, the ‘science’is juststarting the HEAT-UP <>

Green Sand

“Our results are exciting and controversial”
Why “controversial”?
Report what you have found, how others, no matter how many, no matter how important they may think they are, it is for them to allocate ‘controversy’ or not.
Don’t lead, leave PR activists free to demonstrate their competence or lack of it.

Tom Judd

It’s controversial because it doesn’t fit the expected scaremongering meme.

James Bull

Yep they weren’t able to wring their hands and say “It’s worse than we thought” especially as man is meant to be to blame for more gas released.
James Bull

Charles Dandy

“Since methane is the most important greenhouse gas after CO2”. Is this the new point of attack or just an uninformed reporter? What happened to water vapor, maybe they can’rt blame it on humans.

jones

“Maybe they can’t blame it on humans”……
Solved.

jones

Apologies, that’s just carbon.

I must take issue with the fact that these cooling towers have not been properly photoshopped. The smoke from them looks far too much like steam.

Frazier

This is not surprising sat all. Hydrocarbon Philic microorganisms are well known. Natural seeps of oil in the gulf far exceed the BP release (albeit not at such a concentrated point release) and nature deals with it.

TinyCO2

There will be some happy little ocean dwellers that have eaten it.

Steamboat McGoo

Noisy, too, methinks.

Don’t have a sea cow, man! There’s enough methane from other sources, for all! 🙂

Charlie

Can’t we frack it before it bubbles up and gets wasted? 🙂

Bob boder

What the frack

AndyG55

Do whales fart ?

JohnKnight

Sure, but they’re coy about it . . hence breaching . .

DonM

… thats why they do it!
Not the barnacles, not the parasites, just good manners. Thanks. 🙂

dennisambler

I know fishes can, I’ve seen the bubbles.

Latitude

well above normal values….
===
They don’t know squat…but they know what normal is
====
and be eaten by bacteria
====
suggestion: get an aquarium and cycle it…..learn something

Robert of Texas

So…if they can track bubbles coming up through the water column, shouldn’t the bubbles be EXPANDING as they reach lower pressure water? And how does a thermocline trap a big bubble exactly?
Is the bubble disappearing as the water pressure lowers? That is just weird.
So if the gas is dissolving into the water, the only mechanism that comes to mind is the water is very cold and not nearly saturated, and can hold a large amount of extra dissolved methane gas. But the entire bubble disappearing is still weird. Does water absorb methane that quickly? (Input…need input! LOL, I guess I’ll do some reading)

Methane does not readily dissolve in water. In fact, Landfill Gas is passed through water to remove CO2 (46% of Landfill Gas) and produce very high concentration Methane. Some methane likely oxidizes to CO2 and water, some gets used by microbes and some may return to hydrate status.

It is clear you have no idea of Chemistry or any technology. Methane is slightly soluble in water see table 2-2 (Physical Properties of Organic Compounds) in the Chemical Engineering handbook. The measured solubility of CH$ in water at 20C is 0.4 parts in 100 parts (v/v). Further CH$ is a very stable molecule and does not oxidise in water nor in the atmosphere at normal temperatures. It is a lie that CH4 is more of a so-called greenhouse gas than CO2 The absorption of radiation from the earths surface of pure CH4 is about one fifth of that of pure CO2 but then considering the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere at about 1.7 ppm the actual potential radiation absorption is so small to be unmeasurable. The whole discussion about methane is a waste time, money and effort. It just shows the ignorance and incompetence of all those in anyway associated with the the unscientific so-called climate science.

tty

“It is a lie that CH4 is more of a so-called greenhouse gas than CO2”
In a way yes, and in a way no. Like much of CAGW this is not quite a lie.
Measured as the effect for each additional CH4 molecule entering the atmosphere, methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. However this is only true because there are so incredibly few of them. Any greenhouse gas (including CO2) is very powerful at very low concentration. However even at quite low concentration (tens of ppm) the effect begins to saturate and then the effect of additional molecules quickly becomes minuscule. So somewhat simplified: greenhouse gases are only powerful as long as they don’t have much effect.

Steve Case

try 1:56AM
Exactly right CH4 has a powerful effect only at low concentrations for the simple fact it doesn’t take much to double it. Also it is the pathway for water vapor to populate rhe upper atmosphere because of oxidation. And finally it is a light molecule compared to CO2 and H2O. If you read carefully you will note that the usual claim is by mass, not volume.
So, does all that multiply up to the 28, or 72, or 84 times more powerful than CO2 that we are regularly treated to? I doubt it.

Robert of Texas

Found this which really helps me to visualize what is going on… *If* its correct, then it explains how the bubbles disappear at a certain boundary…
http://www.ooi.washington.edu/story/Bubbles+from+the+Seafloor
Relative Snipet: “…The limits on methane hydrate formation are well known. At the upper limit, temperatures are too high and pressures too low for hydrate to form. This boundary lies at 500 meters below sea level, which is roughly 300 meters above the seafloor at Hydrate Ridge. This is the same elevation to which bubble plumes regularly rise before disappearing. As the bubbles leave the seafloor, the methane within them reacts with the seawater to form a thin coating of solid hydrate at the bubble-water interface. This coating inhibits dissolution of the methane trapped within. In these first few seconds, as the hydrate skin forms, the bubbles’ hydrodynamic properties are perturbed, which causes the bubbles to barrel roll and swirl as they rise, their highly reflective hydrate skins flashing in the lights of the ROV. This hydrate skin protects the methane as it floats upward until the water becomes too warm and the pressure too low. The hydrate then melts and the bubble quickly dissolves… Peter Kannberg, Alden Denny, Evan Solomon, Martha Jame”

Very interesting! Thanks for that, Robert of Texas.

“Levels of methane in the atmosphere have risen by an average of 6 parts per billion (ppb) globally per year since 2006 …”
This reminds me of the old joke … “Just in a partial score .. Harvard 13”

R. Shearer

At that rate the atmosphere will be entirely methane in about 165 million years.

tty

No. Half of it. The other gases would still be around. But don’t worry methane is unstable in the atmosphere with a half lif of a few decades. Otherwise all those aurochs, mammoth (and dinosaur) farts would still be around.

Smart Rock

Interesting use of language. First it was:

250 methane flares release the climate gas methane from the seabed and into the Arctic Ocean

But further down it became:

“We are talking about 250 active methane seeps found at relatively shallow depths: 90 to 150 meters” says oceanographer Benedicte Ferré from CAGE.

“Flare” is a pretty loaded word to use when you’re talking about a seep.

DaveK

Oh, dear God! Please don’t tell me that the dreaded CH4 environmental doom gas is soluble in water! Next thing I know, I’m going to find my kitchen sink burning!
/sarc

Don’t frack in the kitchen!

DonM

“Please don’t bang on the piano”

Richard G

Well they have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at the CAGW scare. I’m sure they’ll eventually work flaming sinks in there before they’ll proclaim “it’s dead Jim”.

dennisambler

Don’t smoke when filling the kettle.

Bruce Cobb

A little more cowbell wouldn’t hurt, though.

TRM

“Since methane is the THIRD most important greenhouse gas after WATER VAPOUR & CO2”.
There. Fixed it. Funny how they ALWAYS ignore #1 isn’t it?

TRM, I still cannot figure out why C02 is still considered a “most important” green house gas compared to water vapor.

urederra

Yep, It is pretty much like saying that carnations are considered the second most beautiful flower after roses.

DC Cowboy

Well it’s pretty simple, there isn’t any way the world’s governments can tax the sources of water vapor and/or use ‘water vapor abatement’ as a means of gaining more control over it’s citizens.

Chris

Because it’s the greenhouse gas humans have had and can have the biggest impact on.

Oceanographers dream–the long term study of something really dangerous in parts per billion. Sounds like a job submission request. Let me see, the methane comes from 250 vents. This sounds like volatiles escape from a petroleum stratum. This is not climate change. To stop this, drill and tap the methane and petroleum. Second, you start by getting out your geochemical simulation software and see what CH4 can react with to consume the methane. This does not require bacteria. Sounds like an undergrad semester project to study bicarbonate, calcium, sodium, potassium, and chlorine reactions. With infrared spectroscopy, I have a group in the carbonates I call organo-calcite from the strong methyl and carboxy signatures at 2900 and 2600 cm-1 infrared, respectively. Oh look, the ocean is saturated in carbonate. Bad news. Long term study probably a waste of time.

noaaprogrammer

Let’s see … CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O
No wonder CO2 is increasing and the oceans are rising. It’s all coming from the methane! … Oh, where’s the combustion coming from? Didn’t Al say it was millions of degrees down there?

Proud Skeptic

Can someone tell me what a “climate gas” is?

Paul

“Can someone tell me what a “climate gas” is?”
Any emissions that can be regulated and taxed.

Proud Skeptic

Oh. I thought it was a scientific term. 😉

Pat Frank

It’s probably those darn bacteria again, screwing with everything holy, like scary methane releases and oil spills. Methane is a bacterial carbon source. They’re probably eating the methane out of the water column as it rises from the sea floor.
All those bacteria that happily feasted off the Deepwater Horizon oil plume have had to pull up stakes now the meal is eaten, and migrated off to the antarctic where methane is plentiful.
What’s an AGW scarist to do when life is so accomodating to dirt?

dennisambler

“All those bacteria that happily feasted off the Deepwater Horizon oil plume”
Gaia in action!

They lost me with this: “…It is also important to emphasize that the Arctic has in recent years experienced major changes and average temperatures well above normal values. A thorough description of the present state of the Arctic environment, possible only with adequate measurements, is essential to the detection of future changes of potentially global significance.” says Lund Myhre.”
Whatever they’ve found, however accurate, they’ve still got their collective heads in the sand. They are either appeasing the eco-mob after threatening them with this “important finding” that might undo things for them, or it’s a straight out cry for more funding.
To me it smacks of: “Give us money and we’ll make this inconvenient truth disappear.” We all know they can do it.
Apologies for being cynical. 😛

Tom Judd

Cynical or realistic?

John_C

There’s a difference?
[about climate SCIENCE! (TM)]

Cynically realistic. Ya got me. 🙂

tty

Now You are unkind. She is in the unfortunate position to have to go counter to the party line, something that can have disastrous personal and professional effects. She is just trying to show at heart she is a loyal hard-working plusgood doublethinker.

dp

Sounds like the newest way to squeeze more alarmist funding from an already alarmist-friendly government is to report evidence running counter to the agenda. Solution? More funding is obviously needed to find out why these conclusions are impossible. The science is settled, after all.

Looking at that picture that is some pilot flying that low over the sea surface. Danger pay?

Leo Smith

What I think is more impressive is the glass fronted tank with the boat in it.

tty
Marcus

In other news…….we are not alone !
GOP senators complain to DOJ over push to ‘stifle’ climate debate
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/28/gop-senators-complain-to-doj-over-push-to-stifle-climate-debate.html?intcmp=hpbt2

tony mcleod

“Arctic Ocean methane does not reach the atmosphere”
Really?

tty

Basically the ocean is quite nutrient-poor. The Arctic, perhaps unexpectedly, is less nutrient poor than the tropics but even so when something edible (like methane) is introduced into the ocean it is very unlikely to stay around for any length of time before being eaten. So, if stratification, sea-ice or anything else prevents the methane from rising quickly to the surface, it probably never will get there. This was already well-known for deep sources, but apparently it applies to relatively shallow ones too. It would be even more interesting to know if this also applies to the ultra-shallow (tens of meters) Laptev Sea methane seeps.

The ocean becomes richer when it has something to grow stuff on, like the bottom of a boat. What the arctic has is the bottom of the ice. The slime on the bottom of sea-ice is the start of a food chain that leads all the way to polar bears. This was a surprise to early arctic scientists who assumed the Arctic Sea would be especially sterile.

John Silver

Methane in the ocean water is the equivalent to the atmospheric carbon dioxide.
They are the first links in the food chain.
That is why the life hating satanists attacks them.

Before the “new” climate science (new= deprived of historical facts and common sense) appeared, methane was handled by bacteria. The bacteria used to have their weekly methane party, after spending the whole week collecting what wasn’t already dissolved and spread in the ocean currents. I think we learned that already in the 5th grade.

Marcus

Fox News is awake and listening…
Why is DOJ digging into records of climate change skeptics?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4916259511001/why-is-doj-digging-into-records-of-climate-change-skeptics/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips

Mark - Helsinki

I haven’t seen any attacks on this yet, no doubt the climatology community are working feverishly to find anything to cause doubt

tony mcleod

I guess if it is shallow enough and the flow is strong enough, quite a bit (like giga tonnes) will actually reach the surface, either dissolved or as bubbles. Maybe methane drives the warming and warming drives the CO2 rise. That would explain the CO2 lag in the ice cores.

We may not be alone: Comet contains glycine, key part of recipe for life
“Glycine, an organic compound contained in proteins, was found in the cloud around Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by the European Space Agency’s probe, Rosetta, said the study in the journal Science Advances.
In addition to the simple amino acid glycine, the instrument also found phosphorus. The two are key components of DNA and cell membranes.
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-comet-glycine-key-recipe-life.html

Ed Zuiderwijk

“Our results are exciting and controversial”.
Interesting they are, but “controversial”? To whom? Are the authors telling us that they rather had had other results? If so, why? But if not, why use the phrase? A sop to the AGW crowd?

Bruce Cobb

Here’s an interesting video showing a science writer in Vermont capturing methane in a jar simply by walking around in a shallow pond, dislodging the gas. He places the jar upside down in the water with a funnel in it, then places it directly over wherever he steps down. After capturing some, he puts the lid on it, still upside down and in the water. Then, back inside, they light it.

Robert of Ottawa

Since methane is the most important greenhouse gas after CO2
Err, isn’t the most important green house gas Water?

Dr. Strangelove

Methane hydrate as source of atmospheric methane is very small compared to swamps, rice paddies and cow fart and shit. Atmospheric methane increased by 143% since 1800. Much higher than the increase in CO2 of 40%. Since methane is 87x more potent than CO2, about 42% of global warming since 1800 may be attributed to methane. But activists blame it all on fossil fuels.

joel

“Since methane is the most important greenhouse gas after CO2, it is very important to explore why.”
Water vapor is the by far and away the major “greenhouse gas.” It is the major greenhouse gas, for example, in the computer models.

Unless the egregious error has been recently corrected, models treat water as “feedback only”.
In the real world every greenhouse gas besides water is second order, and among these ozone is more important than methane. Methane absorbs in the earth spectrum around wave number 1300 and again at about WN 3000. WN 3000 radiance is such low radiance (intensity) it us usually ignored in earth radiance graphics.

Bruce Cobb

Methane is a big red herring. And yes, they do blame a lot of the increase on man’s “activities”, some having to do with fracking. The truth is, it doesn’t matter, the same way our CO2 doesn’t matter, despite their most fervent, emotional desire for it to.

On another “surprise finding” —> “Solar Deniers Face Harsh Times …Flurry of New Studies, CERN, Show Sun’s Massive Impact On Global Climate”
http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/28/solar-deniers-face-harsh-times-flurry-of-new-studies-cern-show-suns-massive-impact-on-global-climate/

Mods. Did I get put on a moderation list? If so, please explain why if you will. If not, then what put that simple comment into moderation?
~ Mark

D. J. Hawkins

@markstoval
Looks like you used the “D” word.

Yes, I quoted the D-word. Darn.

Gary Pearse

Couple of questions, the atmosphere has warmed 0.6C in a century; how much has the Arctic Ocean sea bed warmed? Well, I’m not a climate scientist so I’m forced to use logic. Since the polar sea floor is maintained cold by the effect of sinking heavy salt water with freezing at the surface, I would say the temperature on the sea floor is ‘sustainable’, if I may be permitted to use the term in its dictionary sense, at close to zero C.
“The solubility of methane in deep water is but poorly known, as few measurements have been taken, but it seems to be about a hundred times higher than in near surface-water.”
http://dieoff.org/page225.htm
It seems that most breaking news is old hat in the climate bubble. The reason for this is that such information detracts from the end of the world narrative so it is suppressed. New “discoveries” of facts that mitigate the hype and fear are easy to find. Skeptics have been doing this regularly. This will feed a generation of scientists that will be winding down the claims of the climateers. Watch out for the return of the 1970s ice age.

whiten

The problem with methane emissions these days is that if claimed that the emissions are increasing considerably then the question to be answered is:
“How does the anthropogenic forcing do that? Or, how do human CO2 emissions cause significant methane emissions?”
If the anthropogenic effect in the methane emissions not considered anymore, then why do “we” still consider the human CO2 emissions as a certain and significant force or effect on the CO2 concentrations?
If there is no effect in one then there is not much to consider in the other; both constitute as increments of concentrations due to increment of emissions………..
Downplaying the scaremongering about methane (which has being a huge nuisance for a long time till lately):
This is a back door to a certain AGW with no need of a hypotheses or mechanisms to explain it……..
The last option to explore and try for an AGW case is through reaching a predetermined conclusion by number fitting and selective interpretation of circumstantial evidence.
Wasn’t AGW supposed to increase the methane emissions?! WHAT HAPPENED TO IT, to AGW?!
Is it being ready for a new redress? With no need anymore for any mechanism or hypothesis to explain it?
At first and until lately, methane emissions were supposed to support AGW. Now that it seems to be a problem for AGW……..simple solution………get rid of it quickly, like it was only a joke.
cheers

Gary Pearse

the narrative is that our CO2 is warming and this will activate the methane.

whiten

That was the narrative, same as the Runaway AGW …..one that has become a huge problem lately with the hiatus in the temp trend……that narrative now is a problem.
When it still can be claimed daftly that CO2 concentrations going up when temps not, because of the bulk of human CO2 emissions as the only cause, not the same can be said about the CH4 which the records show that it has a good correlation with temps……
Lack of warming is creating a problem for CO2 to be explained in the term of anthropogenic effect, but in same time the problem will be even greater with CH4 concentration if it keeps going up with no warming…:)
So lets “kill” the methane scare and forget about CH4 once and for all….lets get it out of picture quickly before too late…….that is the new narrative I think, about CO2-methane…..

leonid

Yes, methane does not reach the sea surface and atmosphere in summer. Satellites discover high methane since November and further to February. CAGE has been being too lazy to measure methane fluxes in winter. If they go to cruise in January, the picture would be completely different.

Latest Arctic shock!: Polar bear-Grizzly hybrids!
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36381785
That’s worrisome with an X rating.
Next thing you know, warmists will be mating with skeptics.
It’s worse than we thought!

Not Chicken Little

It’s worse than we thought. The methane is escaping through and into the ozone hole(s). This will be worse than Y2K. More funding is needed ASAP to produce more research papers and to avert certain catastrophe.

Alex B

It isn’t really surprising that the good woman isn’t mentioning good old H2O as the main greenhouse gas. She is Norwegian working for a Norwegian science institute and nowhere on earth is the science more settled than in Norway. Scepticism is almost criminalized here and open scientific debate is completely stifled. The Cicero institute is politicized with a former far left-wing woman policitian as head whose mouth is bigger than her brain. Haven’t seen any mentioning in the media here yet, will see if I find something.