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

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.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Arctic Ocean methane does not reach the atmosphere”
Really?
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.
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.
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
I haven’t seen any attacks on this yet, no doubt the climatology community are working feverishly to find anything to cause doubt
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
“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?
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.
Since methane is the most important greenhouse gas after CO2
Err, isn’t the most important green house gas Water?
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.
“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.
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
@markstoval
Looks like you used the “D” word.
Yes, I quoted the D-word. Darn.
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.
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
the narrative is that our CO2 is warming and this will activate the methane.
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…..
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!
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.
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.