Melting ice sheets release tons of methane into the atmosphere, study finds

From EurekAlert!

Public Release: 3-Jan-2019

Melting ice sheets release tons of methane into the atmosphere, study finds

University of Bristol

189507_web
This photo shows a rhodamine dye injection into the proglacial river, just before a waterfall. The pink dye (the rhodamine) is used to calculate the water discharge of the proglacial river (i.e. how much water/melt if flowing in the river at that time). Credit: Jakub D Zarsky

Melting ice sheet release tons of methane into the atmosphere, study finds

The Greenland Ice Sheet emits tons of methane according to a new study, showing that subglacial biological activity impacts the atmosphere far more than previously thought.

An international team of researchers led by the University of Bristol camped for three months next to the Greenland Ice Sheet, sampling the meltwater that runs off a large catchment (> 600 km2) of the Ice Sheet during the summer months.

As reported in Nature, using novel sensors to measure methane in meltwater runoff in real time, they observed that methane was continuously exported from beneath the ice.

They calculated that at least six tons of methane was transported to their measuring site from this portion of the Ice Sheet alone, roughly the equivalent of the methane released by up to 100 cows.

Professor Jemma Wadham, Director of Bristol’s Cabot Institute for the Environment, who led the investigation, said: “A key finding is that much of the methane produced beneath the ice likely escapes the Greenland Ice Sheet in large, fast flowing rivers before it can be oxidized to CO2, a typical fate for methane gas which normally reduces its greenhouse warming potency.”

Methane gas (CH4) is the third most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere after water vapour and carbon dioxide (CO2). Although, present in lower concentrations that CO2, methane is approximately 20-28 times more potent. Therefore smaller quantities have the potential to cause disproportionate impacts on atmospheric temperatures. Most of the Earth’s methane is produced by microorganisms that convert organic matter to CH4 in the absence of oxygen, mostly in wetlands and on agricultural land, for instance in the stomachs of cows and rice paddies. The remainder comes from fossil fuels like natural gas.

While some methane had been detected previously in Greenland ice cores and in an Antarctic Subglacial Lake, this is the first time that meltwaters produced in spring and summer in large ice sheet catchments have been reported to continuously flush out methane from the ice sheet bed to the atmosphere.

Lead author, Guillaume Lamarche-Gagnon, from Bristol’s School of Geographical Sciences, said: “What is also striking is the fact that we’ve found unequivocal evidence of a widespread subglacial microbial system. Whilst we knew that methane-producing microbes likely were important in subglacial environments, how important and widespread they truly were was debatable. Now we clearly see that active microorganisms, living under kilometres of ice, are not only surviving, but likely impacting other parts of the Earth system. This subglacial methane is essentially a biomarker for life in these isolated habitats.”

Most studies on Arctic methane sources focus on permafrost, because these frozen soils tend to hold large reserves of organic carbon that could be converted to methane when they thaw due to climate warming. This latest study shows that ice sheet beds, which hold large reserves of carbon, liquid water, microorganisms and very little oxygen – the ideal conditions for creating methane gas – are also atmospheric methane sources.

Co-researcher Dr Elizabeth Bagshaw from Cardiff University added: “The new sensor technologies that we used give us a window into this previously unseen part of the glacial environment. Continuous measurement of meltwater enables us to improve our understanding of how these fascinating systems work and how they impact the rest of the planet.”

With Antarctica holding the largest ice mass on the planet, researchers say their findings make a case for turning the spotlight to the south. Mr Lamarche-Gagnon added: “Several orders of magnitude more methane has been hypothesized to be capped beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet than beneath Arctic ice-masses. Like we did in Greenland, it’s time to put more robust numbers on the theory.”

###

This study was a collaboration between Bristol University, Charles University (Czechia), the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, Newcastle University, the University of Toronto (Canada), the Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium), Cardiff University (UK), and Kongsberg Maritime Contros (Germany). It was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), with additional funds from the Leverhulme Trust, the Czech Science Foundation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Fond de Recherche Nature et Technologies du Québec (Canada).

Paper: ‘Greenland melt drives continuous export of methane from the ice sheet bed’ by Guillaume Lamarche-Gagnon, Jemma L. Wadham, et al. Nature, Doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0800-0

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
112 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 6, 2019 8:30 am

Some perspective is in order. The mean mass of Earth’s atmosphere has been calculated to be 5.15 E+18 kg (ref: Lide, David R. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 1996: 14–17), or about 5.15 E+15 metric tons.

Now the article only says “. . . team of researchers led by the University of Bristol camped for three months next to the Greenland Ice Sheet, sampling the meltwater that runs off a large catchment (> 600 km2) of the Ice Sheet during the summer months.” Although the size of the Greenland ice sheet is estimated to be presently around 1,710,000 km2, not all of its area will suffer the same degree of melting. Let’s generously assume that 20% of the total ice sheet suffers the same degree of melting as that observed by the researchers and contains the same proportion of methane. That would then represent a 570:1 multiplier on the “at least 6 tons of methane” calculated from the catchment they studied.

So, with these very broad (and unsubstantiated) assumptions, perhaps as much as 3,420 metric tons of methane are released from the total Greenland ice sheet during each summer’s melting. This then would represent an increase of .0007 PARTS PER BILLION by weight of methane when distributed throughout Earth’s atmosphere.

So, accuse me of being off by one, or even two, orders of magnitude in my calculations . . . I still won’t be alarmed.

In other words, why the heck was this study ever deemed worthy of publication?

tty
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
January 6, 2019 11:43 am

Well, it has some slight interest for glaciologists, but as you say it is completely irrelevant for climatology, but that is where the big money is, so they try to grab some of it.

Gary Kerkin
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
January 6, 2019 12:20 pm

If anyone has read the actual paper (I haven’t got access, or at least I don’t think I have) perhaps they could enlighten us to the measurement technology.

As reported in Nature, using novel sensors to measure methane in meltwater runoff in real time, they observed that methane was continuously exported from beneath the ice.

“Novel” always triggers warnings in my mind: how does it work; what does it actually measure; how was/is it calibrated; how often must it be calibrated; what is the precision, accuracy, and reliability of the measurement?

Co-researcher Dr Elizabeth Bagshaw from Cardiff University added: “The new sensor technologies that we used give us a window into this previously unseen part of the glacial environment. Continuous measurement of meltwater enables us to improve our understanding of how these fascinating systems work and how they impact the rest of the planet.”

How is the meltwater sampled? Presumably something like a diversion of a small part of the flow through the “device”. How many samples on a cross section? What flow regime is assumed to integrate across the cross section?

observa
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
January 6, 2019 4:14 pm

“In other words, why the heck was this study ever deemed worthy of publication?”

Let me guess. The use of fossil fuels to satisfy our production needs has created a wonderful environment in which we afford the many to dither about doing increasingly marginal tasks of little significance or nothing at all. So much so that said dilettantes and layabouts have no idea what sort of life it would be hoeing the fields or beating the iron on the blacksmith forge with only the horse, ox, cart, windmill and millstream for assistance. Keep it up and they’ll likely foster the Endustrial Evolution followed hopefully by the Second Enlightenment.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
January 6, 2019 5:24 pm

I told you already, we need somebody to pay our way to Antarctica so we can look at penguins.

Roger welsh
January 6, 2019 8:33 am

We should question the funding of these people. It never seems to be a measured scientific find, but more to further bend the minds of politicians who seem to be bereft of reality.

Roger welsh
January 6, 2019 8:34 am

We should question the funding of these people. It never seems to be a measured scientific find, but more to further bend the minds of politicians who seem to be bereft of reality.

Bob Hoye
January 6, 2019 8:38 am

The three “Daves” plus Allan.
Good on numbers and units of measure.
I recall the unit for measuring feminine beauty.
Helen of Troy was so beautiful that her’s was the “Face that launched a thousand ships”.
From which we get the “milli-Helen”.

Beauty sufficient to launch one ship.

Nick Werner
Reply to  Bob Hoye
January 6, 2019 8:45 am

I never heard of the milli-Helen before.
Just so I don’t get into trouble, which direction is Positive?

tty
Reply to  Bob Hoye
January 6, 2019 11:46 am

Have you heard of the unit of measure for genius: the “tary”

Einsten is considered to be equal to one tary.

Subidivided into decitary, centitary and millitary.

saveenergy
Reply to  Bob Hoye
January 6, 2019 11:57 am

“Helen of Troy was so beautiful that her’s was the “Face that launched a thousand ships”.”

No, she was so ugly they launched a thousand ships so they didn’t have to sleep with her !

January 6, 2019 8:48 am

The premise of this paper is based on quantitative analysis of CH4 gas which is dissolved in glacial melt water by a new sensor. The technologies for measuring CH4 are gas phase. These include GC-FID, IR, LASER and chemical reaction. All of these are gas phase measurements, therefore their first step would be to separate dissolved gases from the meltwater. One could de-gas the water by heat and/or vacuum. In either case, they will get a gas mixture of water vapor and the dissolved gases extracted from the meltwater.

There are basic questions about this extraction process. Did they extract 100% of the dissolved gases from the meltwater? How did they determine the extraction efficiency?

After the extraction, they have gas mixture of mostly H2O. How did they separate the water vapor from the dissolved gases for analysis? How effective was the separation? What percentage of CH4 was lost in the separation?

After these steps, they can analyze the extracted gases for CH4 concentration. Any of the available methods require calibration, both initially and periodically during the project. How did they calibrate and re-calibrate their CH4 analysis instrument?

Most analysis equipment needs to be run at a constant temperature. How did they do this on the glacier?

If the paper does not cover all of these issues, then the accuracy of their CH4 measurements is suspect. If they lacked tight analytical controls, then their paper could very well be another publication based on GIGO.

MarkW
Reply to  Brooks Hurd
January 6, 2019 5:35 pm

Did they verify that the sensor didn’t have any temperature sensitivity before sticking it into the ice water?

Reply to  Brooks Hurd
January 9, 2019 8:48 am

The paper gives very detailed descriptions of the calibration of the instrument, ( CONTROS HydroC CH4 sensor14 (Kongsberg Maritime Contros, Germany)), by the use of careful in situ sampling. I suggest you read the paper before making such ill-informed comments.

Robert W. Turner
January 6, 2019 8:59 am

I bet this paper is as brilliant as the press release. It took an untold number of professors from eight different universities to come up with it, so it must be good.

Coeur de Lion
January 6, 2019 9:18 am

Erm, when the ice refreezes methane is reabsorbed, yes? So that’s all right then

Eben
January 6, 2019 9:59 am

Does it occur to these geniuses that it was all vegetation there in the past and it completely blows their claim it is unprecedented warm today ???

tom0mason
January 6, 2019 10:43 am

Greenland has a considerable geothermal complex under all that snow and ice…
See http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2689.html and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19244-x
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Geothermal-Heat-Flux-Melts-Greenland-Ice-2005-2015-Rysgaard-2018.jpg

I wonder if this may modulate the extent of microbial life and the venting of methane.
Seismic activity is known to increase during solar minimums, presumably will also happen in all or parts of Greenland today.

MarkW
January 6, 2019 3:21 pm

They didn’t produce any evidence that more methane is being released. Only that more water is allegedly being released.
Presumably the rate of biological activity under the ice is pretty constant. A little bit more water trickling in from above isn’t going to increase it. If the biological activity hasn’t increased, then the amount of methane isn’t going to increase either. More water just means the methane in the water is more diffuse.

Robert
January 6, 2019 3:25 pm

I guess Loricifera is the only accepted life form on earth,according to greens?

John Sandhofner
January 6, 2019 4:31 pm

“how they impact the rest of the planet.” Interesting how they characterize a natural occuring process as having an “impact”. This is a part of nature and it interacts with all of nature, but to say it is an impact? Seems kind of extreme and intended to imply something bad.

Gary Kerkin
January 6, 2019 7:02 pm

Having been able to get a glimpse of the paper (actually a letter in Nature Letters) I see the nub to be this paragraph (typed, not copied and pasted!)

Because of the high uncertainties surrounding LG methane diffusive fluxes, it is difficult to accurately determine the overall contribution of methane to the atmosphere from the LG catchment and by extension from the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] margin as a whole.

LG is the Leverett Glacier. GrIS is the Greenland Ice Sheet.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the melt water was sampled continuously at a single point in a river downstream from the Leverett Glacier margin. This single point was then extrapolated to calculate the CH4 flux using flow and other dynamics used in another project which reported CO2 emissions from inland rivers.

I didn’t see any mention of the differences between CO2/water and CH4/water systems.

getitright
January 7, 2019 11:10 am

far more than previously thought.

_____________________________________
“far more than previously thought.” ….”far less than previously thought.” ….”Greater than previously thought.”….. “Less than previously thought.”

God help me my head is going to explode.
These expressions casually dissing away all the previous data in the face of “new” evidence when attempting to promote the same old ideology is enough to send a sane man over the edge.
The nutty alarmists must at the very least invent a new terminology when faced with evidence that obsoletes all previous data.

Steve O
Reply to  getitright
January 7, 2019 2:48 pm

We see these phrases often enough that they deserve to represented with an acronym. FMTPT. FLTHPT and Pthththththttt!