Good news: Methane hydrate breakdown unlikely to cause massive greenhouse gas release

From the US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Gas hydrate (white, ice-like material) under authigenic carbonate rock that is encrusted with deep-sea chemosynthetic mussels and other organisms on the seafloor of the northern Gulf of Mexico at 966 m (~3170 ft) water depth. Although gas hydrate that forms on the seafloor is not an important component of the global gas hydrate inventory, deposits such as these demonstrate that methane and other gases cross the seafloor and enter the ocean. CREDIT Photograph was taken by the Deep Discoverer remotely operated vehicle in April 2014 and is courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Ocean Exploration and Research Program.
Gas hydrate (white, ice-like material) under authigenic carbonate rock that is encrusted with deep-sea chemosynthetic mussels and other organisms on the seafloor of the northern Gulf of Mexico at 966 m (~3170 ft) water depth. Although gas hydrate that forms on the seafloor is not an important component of the global gas hydrate inventory, deposits such as these demonstrate that methane and other gases cross the seafloor and enter the ocean. CREDIT Photograph was taken by the Deep Discoverer remotely operated vehicle in April 2014 and is courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Ocean Exploration and Research Program.

The breakdown of methane hydrates due to warming climate is unlikely to lead to massive amounts of methane being released to the atmosphere, according to a recent interpretive review of scientific literature performed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Rochester.

Methane hydrate, which is also referred to as gas hydrate, is a naturally-occurring, ice-like form of methane and water that is stable within a narrow range of pressure and temperature conditions. These conditions are mostly found in undersea sediments at water depths greater than 1000 to 1650 ft and in and beneath permafrost (permanently frozen ground) at high latitudes. Methane hydrates are distinct from conventional natural gas, shale gas, and coalbed methane reservoirs and are not currently exploited for energy production, either in the United States or the rest of the world.

On a global scale, gas hydrate deposits store enormous amounts of methane at relatively shallow depths, making them particularly susceptible to the changes in temperature that accompany climate change. Methane itself is also a potent greenhouse gas, and some researchers have suggested that methane released by the breakdown of gas hydrate during past climate events may have exacerbated global warming.

The new review concludes that current warming of ocean waters is likely causing gas hydrate deposits to break down at some locations. However, not only are the annual emissions of methane to the ocean from degrading gas hydrates far smaller than greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere from human activities, but most of the methane released by gas hydrates never reaches the atmosphere. Instead, the methane often remains in the undersea sediments, dissolves in the ocean, or is converted to carbon dioxide by microbes in the sediments or water column.

The review pays particular attention to gas hydrates beneath the Arctic Ocean, where some studies have observed elevated rates of methane transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere. As noted by the authors, the methane being emitted to the atmosphere in the Arctic Ocean has not been directly traced to the breakdown of gas hydrate in response to recent climate change, nor as a consequence of longer-term warming since the end of the last Ice Age.

“Our review is the culmination of nearly a decade of original research by the USGS, my coauthor Professor John Kessler at the University of Rochester, and many other groups in the community,” said USGS geophysicist Carolyn Ruppel, who is the paper’s lead author and oversees the USGS Gas Hydrates Project. “After so many years spent determining where gas hydrates are breaking down and measuring methane flux at the sea-air interface, we suggest that conclusive evidence for release of hydrate-related methane to the atmosphere is lacking.”

Professor Kessler explains that, “Even where we do see slightly elevated emissions of methane at the sea-air interface, our research shows that this methane is rarely attributable to gas hydrate degradation.”

The review summarizes how much gas hydrate exists and where it occurs; identifies the technical challenges associated with determining whether atmospheric methane originates with gas hydrate breakdown; and examines the assumptions of the Intergovernmental Panels on Climate Change, which have typically attributed a small amount of annual atmospheric methane emissions to gas hydrate sources.

The review also systematically evaluates different environments to assess the susceptibility of gas hydrates at each location to warming climate and addresses the potential environmental impact of an accidental gas release associated with a hypothetical well producing methane from gas hydrate deposits.

Virginia Burkett, USGS Associate Director for Climate and Land Use Change, noted, “This review paper provides a truly comprehensive synthesis of the knowledge on the interaction of gas hydrates and climate during the contemporary period. The authors’ sober, data-driven analyses and conclusions challenge the popular perception that warming climate will lead to a catastrophic release of methane to the atmosphere as a result of gas hydrate breakdown.”

###

The paper, “The Interaction of Climate Change and Methane Hydrates,” by C. Ruppel and J. Kessler, is published in Reviews of Geophysics and is available here. The USGS and University of Rochester research that contributed to the review was largely supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
52 Comments
dudleyhorscroft
February 10, 2017 4:33 am

One thing less to worry about. But on the other hand, if there is enough gas hydrate, should be work while farming.

February 10, 2017 4:35 am

Another good example of how much we know we don’t know. We are helpless when it comes to estimating the contribution sources and quantities of atmospheric methane. Let alone predict the future.

commieBob
February 10, 2017 4:47 am

Methane is irrelevant as a greenhouse gas. link

daveburton
February 10, 2017 4:52 am

Excellent! I’ve added a link to this here:
http://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#permafrost

Steve Ta
February 10, 2017 4:54 am

Although gas hydrate that forms on the seafloor is not an important component of the global gas hydrate inventory, deposits such as these demonstrate that methane and other gases cross the seafloor and enter the ocean.

Translation please, someone. Where is this ‘seafloor’ of which they speak that is apparently not in the ocean?

Jerry Henson
February 10, 2017 5:51 am

Off the coast of the Carolinas there is a layer of natural gas which
is about 500 meters thick. It occurs under about 500 feet of sediment.
It is natural gas, not just methane.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890410000701

hunter
February 10, 2017 5:52 am

So once again skeptics are proven correct to doubt the claims of. climate alarmists.

Jerry Henson
February 10, 2017 6:27 am

Since natural gas perks up all around the world all the time.
some is being released into the atmosphere continuously.
Small releases are mans from habits, such as natural gas
releases from rice paddies. The soil upon, which the paddies
are built, owe its richness to the amount of the gas up welling
through the soil which are normally oxidized, eaten, by microbes.
when the soil is dry. When the paddies are flooded, the water
forces the gasses to the surface quicker than the microbes
can eat them, causing a “man made” release of natural gas
For a major release to occur, a very large event is required,
such as a meteorite or comet strike. The shock and vibration
introduces mechanical heat to the earth,s core. This
could release very large amounts of hydrates from their zone
of stability.

Lance Wallace
February 10, 2017 6:28 am

Perhaps this is the first of a continuing series of research findings that fall into line with the views of the current administration. (improves funding outlook).

Adam_0625
February 10, 2017 6:49 am

Non-issue even if it does get released. The IR absorption bands for methane are few, narrow, and close to (if not already) saturated. Adding more methane has little if any energy to absorb. It, therefore, can contribute little, to any, to warming.

Jerry Henson
February 10, 2017 6:55 am

A similar process to the rice paddy event occurs to a lesser extent in all
rich upland soils. The natural gas up wells continuously, usually
at a rate which the local culture can oxidize. Frozen soil can block
oxidation or rain saturated soil can cause the natural gas to rise
faster than it can be eaten by the microbes.
The USEPA is confused by the finding of methane, actually natural
gas, in the top soil, claiming that it is absorbed from the atmosphere.
Their past methane budget has listed upland soil in the USA as
a 30 tg per year sink. This means that they actually have no idea
where the gasses come from.
When methane hits the atmosphere, it rises.

Jerry Henson
February 10, 2017 7:06 am

Giuseppie Etiope’s finding come close to my findings. He has
many papers on upwelling gasses.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5913/478/F1

February 10, 2017 7:06 am

If warming led to release of methane hydrates that in turn caused warming then the climate could not have been stable enough to have prevented the runaway feedback from already happening.
This was obviously a silly scare story. Most of us called it then. We are still calling it now that observations are finding the methods by which the feedback is prevented.
But the scare story got a lot more press than the science. Some people will keep on believing it regardless of logic.

Jerry Henson
February 10, 2017 7:22 am

Le Chatelier’s principle applies here. Since natural gas has always risen
continuously after the earth’s internal fires were lit, events which caused
a major release of gasses were corrected by microbes and oxidation in
the atmosphere.
Minor events such rising and falling sea levels are adjusted without much
notice.
For those who believe that ice cores are a reliable measure of CO2,
past sea level changes would reflect in massive releases, and major
spikes of CO2.

Jerry Henson
February 10, 2017 7:33 am

The Giuseppie Etiope link I promised earlier.
The reason researchers call a natural gas reading methane is that
they are told to expect methane, so they call any combustible gas
reading methane. Conformation bias.
It takes a more expensive instrument to differentiate the gasses
and the instruments are just now becoming reasonably portable.
http://inside.indiana.edu/editors-picks/research/2013-05-16-iniub-rsch-eternal-flame.shtml

Jai Mitchell
February 10, 2017 8:24 am

Filed under
“It isn’t happening now so it probably won’t ever happen”
This is just another clear example of climate scientists failing on the ‘side of least drama’. Obviously, Arctic ocean temperatures have not changed significantly up to this point. However, there will be great changes in the Arctic over the next 3-7 years and then massive increases in warming after that. The way things stand, we won’t see a methane hydrate release until at least 2065 as the loss of Summer sea ice moves earlier and earlier in the melt season.
Emissions of methane from melting permafrost and boreal peat will be growing much more rapidly before then.

Editor
February 10, 2017 8:34 am

Virgina Burkett’s statement is far more straightforward than the conclusion of the study.
Maybe we are seeing federal employees being freed from the constraints of the climate mafia – free speech at last?

Jerry Henson
February 10, 2017 8:57 am

@Khwarizimi- 7:15 AM. Sorry. I am packing for a trip and didn’t take time to
read your reference.

MarkW
February 10, 2017 9:11 am

According to AGW theory, at the same time that the oceans are warming, they are also getting deeper because of melting ice.
Wouldn’t the increased pressure compensate for the warming and as a result the methane would stay in it’s hydrate form?

Jerry Henson
February 10, 2017 9:25 am

The atmosphere has been much warmer in the past, and according to the
ice core CO2 reading, no spike in CO2, therefore, no spike in natural gas.

February 10, 2017 9:47 am

The Trump effect is operating more rapidly than previously thought. It seems that we are about to find out the real ratio of political scienceyness to objective, empirical science. The old 97/3 has already swooned.

February 10, 2017 9:48 am

Are those live mussels clinging to the overhanging crest of hydrate? I don’t think the methane has a chance to rise through the water column.

Jerry Henson
February 10, 2017 9:54 am

Gary, at the “black smokers”, the base food is hydrocarbons. Microbes eat
the natural gas and the mollusks are then fed.

Resourceguy
February 10, 2017 10:57 am

The USGS is 2-0 with this and the earlier release on the core data on corals and the AMO record. Real science takes time.

February 10, 2017 2:38 pm

OMG!!! It’s not worse than we thought! It’s not even as bad as we thought! It’s not even bad at all! This is really, really bad news! It’s a crisis! What are we going to frighten the peasants with now?
Better add /sarc –