Methane Gas And Climate Change

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just wondering here, how well does methane mix within the atmosphere? Would it spread quickly from the Arctic and permafrost if large amounts were being released there?

As for the argument above, is it all simply over whether 6 years of methane increases constitutes a trend or not? I would have thought it must be a trend. While it may not be statistically significant yet compared to the history of the Earth's atmospheric methane levels, surely it warrants notice and investigation anyway?

[Gray-Wolf]

Are your concerns over whether the Methane would firstly pool over the northern hemisphere before migrating around the globe (leading to elevated concentrations here)?

If we do see a slow migration (with 'elevated' concentrations here) then that does not bode well for temps across the Arctic and the rest of the methane there.

[knocker]

Methane may be answer to 56-million-year question
Rice researchers show ocean could have contained enough methane to cause drastic climate change

The release of massive amounts of carbon from methane hydrate frozen under the seafloor 56 million years ago has been linked to the greatest change in global climate since a dinosaur-killing asteroid presumably hit Earth 9 million years earlier. New calculations by researchers at Rice University show that this long-controversial scenario is quite possible.
Nobody knows for sure what started the incident, but there's no doubt Earth's temperature rose by as much as 6 degrees Celsius. That affected the planet for up to 150,000 years, until excess carbon in the oceans and atmosphere was reabsorbed into sediment.

http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=16427&SnID=1819557214

[Gray-Wolf]

If you add the impacts that any destabilisation of our shallow depth (Continental slope) Methane hydrate deposits could bring ( as shown by the article in Weather Ships post) with the ongoing melt of the permafrost ( and most notably those under the shallow shelf sea off Siberia) as shown in this new research;

http://www.nature.co...ature10576.html

we may well have unknowingly released the Djjin from it's container!

Time tells us;

Arctic Permafrost: Climate Wild Card

Posted by Bryan Walsh Monday, November 7, 2011 at 12:24 pm

18 Comments • Related Topics: Climate Science , Arctic, climate science, feedback loop, melting, methane, permafrost

A hill in Canada's Northwest Territories slumps from melting permafrost. (Rick Bowmer / AP)On the basics, the science of climate change is pretty straightforward. Carbon dioxide released into the air—whether through the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation or other natural causes—adds to the greenhouse effect, which traps more solar energy in the atmosphere and warms the planet. But just how this will happen—how fast and exactly how the planet and the climate will respond to more carbon and more warming—gets very complicated very quickly. There are wild cards in the climate system, some of which—if they flip the wrong way—could vastly accelerate global warming well beyond anything most climate models predict.

One of those wild cards is the 1,672 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent trapped in the form of methane in the Arctic permafrost, the soils kept frozen by the far North's extreme temperatures. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas—it has 20 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide—and the total amount of carbon equivalent in the Arctic permafrost is 250 times greater than annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. As the Arctic warms—which it's doing rather rapidly—there's a risk that the permafrost could become less than permanent, releasing some of that trapped methane into the air, which would then accelerate warming, leading to more Arctic melt, more methane emissions...so on and so on. Climate scientists call this a "feedback loop"—and if it happens soon, you could just call us screwed.

More from TIME: Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks to Second-Lowest Level on Record

According to a new study published in the November 6 Nature, that wild card is still wild. Researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute and other institutions used metagenomic sequencing to study the permafrost, trying to determine how the microbes within the land might respond to thawing. The scientists drilled 3 ft. long-core samples of soil in Hess Creek, Alaska—the bottom two-thirds of which contains permafrost soil. Each samples was thawed at 5C and then sent for genetic analysis.

The team found almost 40 billion elements of raw DNA, which shows just how rich in life the permafrost really is. For the first two days after thawing, the melting ice released the methane that had been trapped within, but then the rate of emissions dropped significantly. That seems to be due to the fact that while some microbes in the soil went onto produce more methane, other microorganisms actually consumed the gas. The metagentic analysis done on the Arctic soil showed a novel and complex microbial system that responded dynamically to changes in temperatures and to the release of methane stored in the soil, as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researcher Janet Jansson put it:

By applying metagenomics to study microbial community composition and function, we can help to answer questions about how the currently uncultivated and unstudied microbial species residing in permafrost cycle organic carbon and release greenhouse gases during thaw. This will provide valuable information that could lead to improved carbon cycle models and eventual mitigation strategies.

In other words, as our scientific tools improve, our ability to better understand how complex and important systems like the Arctic permafrost are likely to respond to warming will improve as well. The only problem is that we're putting carbon into the atmosphere even faster than our science is progressing—which means we're still flying into the future nearly blind.

Read more: http://ecocentric.bl.../#ixzz1dEIdmUGL

Edited November 9, 2011 by jethro
Tidied up the double post bit.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'm guessing to destabilise the hydrate, the rate of ocean warming would have to be relatively faster than the rate of sea level rise (non thermal expansion).

I guess to put it another way, the added pressure of extra sea-water above the hydrates may improve the stability. So the rate of warming must exceed the extra stability from the rising sea levels to cause the hydrates to destabilise.

Is that happening now?

Edited November 9, 2011 by BornFromTheVoid

[Gray-Wolf]

With the warm water incursions around Greenland I'm guessing that warm water 'currents' and not general warming of the ocean is what is impacting the Svalbard deposits? Across the ocean on the Siberian shelf sea it seems like a combination of warm water influx and changes in sea ice /snow cover are having a large effect? Those reports of shipping seeing 'boiling oceans' do not sound good. That sounds like blowouts occuring to me?

http://arctictranspo...ange/#comment-5

Anyhow the 'Hastily assembled team' were in the field as those ships were reporting their encounters so maybe we have good data to come when the team reports over the coming months?

EDIT: I've just thought? The 'hastily assembled team' set off in mid Sept? I wonder if they are the 'Scientists' the ministry sent??? It would explain why they were so quickly pulled together and deployed and make this event even more worrisome (to me?).

Edited December 1, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

After seeing the 'boiling ocean' reports from sept. I've been scurrying around the info available on the web regarding the issue.

None of it makes for a reassuring read.

Estimates for the reserves held on land and ocean permafrosts have been trebled twice since 98' (as studies show the processes involved allow the carbon to reach down far deeper than originally thought). The production of methane by the bacteria has also been increased with 'wet' permafrost now believed to produce 10 times more methane than 'dry' permafrost.

Observations show that sea level rise is not dynamic enough to 'cap' the reserves and this is compounded by the methane producing Bacteria increasing it's production as temps rise (the latest paper on the PETM show us this).

The reduction of sea ice and the open water now seasonal along the Siberian coast line has allowed for normal ocean processes to resume along the shelf introducing warmer ocean waters to the reserves. We also see warm freshwater runoff from the melting permafrost on land.

The methane production is now a year round phenomena on both the Canadian/Alaskan side of the Basin and the Siberian side with the Reserves on the Svalbard continental slope also now increasing in their production of methane.

To me the analogy of a collapsing Dam works well. 06' saw us seeing the first 'cracks' in the structure, this year we were seeing the first spurts of water. Sadly some folk will only sit up and take notice when the whole structure fails.

The 'Cap' over the submerged deposits has now been breached and warm ocean waters are bathing the deposits below year round. The production of the methane further disrupts these deposits allowing for more warm water incursions. how long before we see a shelf wide outbreak of methane production reaching the atmosphere and what tonnage of reserves will be utilised? if, as the figures suggest, a 5 to 10% release of the reserves leads to an extra 2c rise then what of the rest of the land based reserves once this temp rise is ongoing???

The figures I have seen suggest the a reduction in atmospheric CO2 to 280-300ppm is need to 'stabilise the reserves. Can anyone see that occuring before a major breach occurs over the next 5 to 15years?

[laserguy]

Blah blah waffle etc..........

The figures I have seen suggest the a reduction in atmospheric CO2 to 280-300ppm is need to 'stabilise the reserves. Can anyone see that occuring before a major breach occurs over the next 5 to 15years?

Nope,and really couldn't give a monkey's.

[Gray-Wolf]

Nope,and really couldn't give a monkey's.

I don't think you've thought this through LG? Any continued rise in Methane pooh pooh's any notion that what we are seeing across the Arctic is merely a cyclical event that we have witnessed before (and so any notion that AGW is wrong) as we do not see this type of behaviour in the paleo records. We see locaslised ice retreat and localised higher temps but not Methane spike/CO2 spike.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Methane has a much shorter residency time in the atmosphere compared to CO2, so it may be the cause of some temperature spikes in the climate records, but we'd still need CO2 and the various feedbacks to induce a long term warming from this situation.

Saying that, it's often been the sudden changes in temperature that have led to the mass extinction events in the past, such as at the PETM.

[Gray-Wolf]

The impact of the methane is short lived but is it enough to push a further temp increase that impacts permafrost/hydrate reserves? Of course the methane also breaks down into longer lived CO2 so even after it's immediate impacts we are left with the longer term forcing?

The study showing that Antarctic's Glaciation was triggered by a fall below 600ppm CO2 (a level that was maintained for millions of years?) makes me wonder whether this is the next 'stable point' that the planet is aimed for with the permafrosts carbon burden and the remnants of those ancient ecosystems residing at the base of the Greenland/Antarctic ice sheets?

I'm no fan of 'runaway warming' but can see that there are some positive feedback loops involved with the permafrost. When we mull over the climate impacts of another sudden warming on carbon sinks (Amazonia and oceans) then the amount of CO2 available to the atmosphere increases even more.

Maybe 600ppm is not out of the question and this then raises the spectre of total Antarctic melt and the fantastic hike in sea levels this would drive?

[BornFromTheVoid]

The impact of the methane is short lived but is it enough to push a further temp increase that impacts permafrost/hydrate reserves? Of course the methane also breaks down into longer lived CO2 so even after it's immediate impacts we are left with the longer term forcing?

The study showing that Antarctic's Glaciation was triggered by a fall below 600ppm CO2 (a level that was maintained for millions of years?) makes me wonder whether this is the next 'stable point' that the planet is aimed for with the permafrosts carbon burden and the remnants of those ancient ecosystems residing at the base of the Greenland/Antarctic ice sheets?

I'm no fan of 'runaway warming' but can see that there are some positive feedback loops involved with the permafrost. When we mull over the climate impacts of another sudden warming on carbon sinks (Amazonia and oceans) then the amount of CO2 available to the atmosphere increases even more.

Maybe 600ppm is not out of the question and this then raises the spectre of total Antarctic melt and the fantastic hike in sea levels this would drive?

Agreed that it may have the potential to set off other warming feedbacks, but I think the quantity that would break down into CO2 would be negligible.

Considering CO2 levels have in the past been in the thousands ppm, 600ppm is easily attainable without much of a push from anthropogenic sources. It's hard to say what effect reaching that level would have on the Antarctic Ice sheet. It may take quite a while before enough warmth could penetrate the circumpolar current and really get at Antarctica.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that this (submerged permafrost melt) is a one to watch? We have seemingly completed the first phase of breaching the 'cap' over the deposits and introducing warm ocean water into the measures,

If we are seeing sections of ocean with such explosive looking outgassing then we are at the beginning of the destabilisation of this resource and things will only accelerate from now on. As such there will be no mistaking the issue and we will be seeing reports on the same over next summer at the latest.

[VillagePlank]

So, GW, should I sell my shares, now, and live my last ten years out in luxury in the comfort of knowing your research is good? If you're right, then you'd be doing me, the missus, and five children a huge favour.

Yes, or no answer, please.

[4wd]

I'm no fan of 'runaway warming'

Could've fooled me.

I'm no fan of 'runaway warming' but can see that there are some positive feedback loops involved with the permafrost. When we mull over the climate impacts of another sudden warming on carbon sinks (Amazonia and oceans) then the amount of CO2 available to the atmosphere increases even more.

Maybe 600ppm is not out of the question and this then raises the spectre of total Antarctic melt and the fantastic hike in sea levels this would drive?

There's a report of some gas bubbling to the surface, some of which may be methane.

We don't know if this is something which happens from time to time, is a chance obersevation of an unusual event or anything else - then two or three post later you're on about total melting of Antarctica?

Are we supposed to take this seriously?

Do you know how cold Antarctica is?

Do you think it will get about 30C warmer there so even some of it will melt?

[laserguy]

So, GW, should I sell my shares, now, and live my last ten years out in luxury in the comfort of knowing your research is good? If you're right, then you'd be doing me, the missus, and five children a huge favour.

Yes, or no answer, please.

Forget skyrocketing CO2 emissions/methane eruptions/melting icecaps and the rest of it - do it anyway,y'know it makes sense. I would if I could,if only to escape the constant badgering of eco types.

4wd - GW has completely lost it and now warrants the same attention from me as the "end is nigh" sandwich-board types one occasionally sees wandering around train stations and the like. Um,where's Devonian these days - living in a cave with Hansen living off gruel or summat?

[Gray-Wolf]

(EDIT) Soz guys, Bad day.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Now you two have got the mutual insults out of the way, can we get back to the topic in hand please.

[Gray-Wolf]

Report from the chief scientist from Fairbanks about what they found in 09/10 over the Siberian shelf. Remember any hydrates 'blowout' to over 2,000 times the Hydrate volume once the sea water gets to it so another year of disruption ,esp, with the early melt in 11', would leave things very messy.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

I think that this (submerged permafrost melt) is a one to watch? We have seemingly completed the first phase of breaching the 'cap' over the deposits and introducing warm ocean water into the measures,

If we are seeing sections of ocean with such explosive looking outgassing then we are at the beginning of the destabilisation of this resource and things will only accelerate from now on. As such there will be no mistaking the issue and we will be seeing reports on the same over next summer at the latest.

Agree with that, GW. At some point IMO (whether-or-not the warming is manmade) escaping methane poses a potentially dangerous hazard...

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that this continued 'uptick' has me a little phazed when read in conjunction with the latest research Pete?

When I can clearly remember reading that these reserves were 'sealed' (back in 02'?) and so posed no problem in terms of methane escapes only to watch , since 06', the problem emerge makes me realise that we are in another area of climate where we are 'running to catch up' with the facts emerging?

We did not expect the loss of sea ice volume that lead to such low ice min levels (with a potential for a seasonal pack with the next 07' type perfect storm?) nor the loss of the coastal ice which help keep the temp of these reserves chilled.

What I would like to know is what timescale we are to expect this event to pan out over. How 'abrupt' is abrupt? Are we looking at an initial phase of losing the submerged deposits which gives an initial surge in temps which then speeds up the loss of methane from the land based permafrosts?

When I read back over the NOAA yearly updates on CO2 and methane ( since the resumption in the 'uptick in methane') they are at pain to point out that the small methane signature is responsible for a lot of change ;

"Methane levels rose last year for the first time since 1998. Methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but there’s far less of it in the atmosphere—about 1,800 parts per billion. When related climate affects are taken into account, methane’s overall climate impact is nearly half that of carbon dioxide"

From here; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080423181652.htm

Any sudden 'lurches in climate' (natural cycles underpinned by an AGW forcing) could lead to other impacts that would reinforce the 'lurch'?

We saw what 03's warmth did to NW Europe or the Russian drought to it's cereal crop. Another 'super Nino' beyond 98's scale could bring all manner of issues to a world whose economy is already 'fragile' at best( imagine what the sight of numerous 'extreme weather events' would do to confidence in the markets ?)

So yes ,the speed of any methane surges is something I'd love to have a handle on!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html

Hmm , just another 'scare story' or more evidence of the 'letting go' of the submerged permafrost's now sea water has broken through the permafrost cap? (due to sea ice retreat)

[4wd]

It appears to be an alarmist version of the same story

They just started looking and find:

"unprecedented plumes of methane"

So, I guess that means never seen before (they started looking)...

[Gray-Wolf]

They've had a continuous 20yr presence in the region and have seen the evolution of this as the ice cover retreated. As they point out last year (2010) there was low scale activity with 'torches' only metres across. now they apparently see them up to km's across? I'd say that this is a 'ramping up' of what was seen previously and so they have never seen this phenomena before even though they have been in the area.

We have had a number of teams in the area this summer and have heard 'snippets' from some of them but they all point towards a dramatic change in the rate of methane leakage from the submerged permafrosts. We will get their reports but 'logic' dictates that warm sea water breaching the permafrost's 'cap' will naturally lead to rapid deterioration in the reserves below with the 'hydrate' being the first resource to be targeted by the sea water. The rapid expansion of this reserve (on melting) will create voids in the beds leading to more water ingress into the beds and more Hydrate loss.

When we move up , by a scale of 10 over 1 year, the size of features we see producing the gas then surely the amount of gass released can also be scaled up? With the oceans set to be similar in temps over the coming years where do we expect to find ourselves 5 years on from here?

To me it is simple. in 06' we started noting atmospheric methane on the rise again after it's 'stall' since 98'. At the same time we heard reports of 'bubbles' from the permafrosts submerged off Siberia. Year on year after we saw more reports of more vigorous activity and last year saw the formation of the 'chimneys/torches' acticively bubbling out methane into the atmosphere. This year the team finds these features expanded up to ten times the scale (over the 12 month period!!!) and this Sept we get reports of 'boiling oceans' ,from ships Capt.s in the area, and the deployment of a 'hastily assembled mission' to the region?

We are talking about 'melting' something that is frozen once it's protective 'cap' is breached. Pour in water and the reserve melts? if the reserve outgasses on melting you end up with a reserve riddled with pockets for water to migrate into melting out more as it contacts it.

[4wd]

It's still far-fetched to dramatise these observations into some unprecedented event.

Methane is just natural gas which is being produced from decaying material all over the world, all the time.

I'm unconvinced these observations amount to anything significant on a global scale, and as mentioned earlier, methane is short-lived in the atmosphere as it is gobbled up by micro-organisms and washed out by rain.

The constant narrative of doom from the Environment departments of most of the media is increasingly ridiculous and seems to delight in exaggeration and spin like this.