The first evidence that millions of tons of a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists. The Independent has been passed details of preliminary findings suggesting that massive deposits of sub-sea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats. Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species. Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane - sometimes at up to 100 times background levels - over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf. In the past few days, the researchers have seen areas of sea foaming with gas bubbling up through "methane chimneys" rising from the sea floor. They believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost, which has acted like a "lid" to prevent the gas from escaping, has melted away to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the last ice age. They have warned that this is likely to be linked with the rapid warming that the region has experienced in recent years.
The Independent has been passed details of preliminary findings suggesting that massive deposits of sub-sea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats.
Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species. Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane - sometimes at up to 100 times background levels - over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.
In the past few days, the researchers have seen areas of sea foaming with gas bubbling up through "methane chimneys" rising from the sea floor. They believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost, which has acted like a "lid" to prevent the gas from escaping, has melted away to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the last ice age.
They have warned that this is likely to be linked with the rapid warming that the region has experienced in recent years.
Heck I've even seen TV programmes where they set fire to russian lakes. Which actually may be a good idea in the long term. that or harvest the stuff. keep to the Fen Causeway
Do you mean as actually happening rather than predicted, and do you mean oceanic methane [the vast bulk of methane potewntially released]? Can you find sources? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I meant both permafrost capped methane as well as the oceanic stuff.
As to sources, jeez.....I thought it was common knowledge. I just googled permafrost methane and got a lot of hits going back a while. Undersea Methane hydrate is an issue as well, usually used as an explanation for ship losses in the "Bermuda Triangle". there are also similar phenomena in the North Sea called "Witching holes" keep to the Fen Causeway
But it's not that methane releases would ever go back to zero. Note that there are opposed trends: methane itself will fall apart in reactions in the atmosphere, with the carbon in it usualy ending up in CO2; while via microbes munching on ocean-absorbed CO2, methane gets back into clathrates.
So what we are talking about is a significant tip of the balance, a greatly increased rate of methane releases. A few years back, there was a(n I believe British) study saying that methane release from moors is increasing across the world (don't know if and how well it held up against peer review, will have to look up), so I thought you meant that. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Frozen Methane Chunks Not Responsible For Abrupt Increases In Atmospheric Methane
Icy chunks of frozen methane and water are not responsible for the periodic increases in atmospheric methane recorded in Greenland ice cores, according to a Penn State geoscientist. The ice core samples from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project II cover the last 40,000 years and present a picture of the Earth's climate over that time span.
I even diaried it...
And again:
This requires higher natural 13C-rich emissions or stronger sink fractionation than conventionally assumed. Constant 13CH4 during the rise in methane concentration at the YD-PB transition is consistent with additional emissions from tropical wetlands, or aerobic plant CH4 production, or with a multisource scenario. A marine clathrate source is unlikely.
And again.
And this year, again.
And before we forget:
It should be stressed that NOAA did register a slight uptick for 2007.
Of course clathrates could well be a second domino and top it off.
Then again, can you give me (are you aware of) any comparisons between the immediate pre-cataclysm climatic conditions before the 55 mio BP and Permian events and those today? (At least modellists seem to say we are still far from the tipping point today.)
But back to the article quoted: do you think that they are over-interpreting the scale of what they observed? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Models, don't mention models to me... *snort *
In short, that's a diary. And I really shouldn't make any promises, too much promises left unfulfilled with respect to diaries this year... I'd say that the Palaeocene-Eocene boundary is the more interesting for comparisons with the contemporary climate. The problem: even while ocean seds can provide some climate proxies, correlation with modern-day values (and hence temperatures) is tenuous at best. The temperature reconstruction of the past 2000 years is still messy, let alone reconstructions that go back 55 million years.
do you think that they are over-interpreting the scale of what they observed?
Likely. The Independent had it wrong on hurricanes, wrong on sea level rise and they had it spectacularly wrong on the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation. Every time a science report comes out, they seem to take the worst possible scenario and write it up fostering a nice big cuppa Doom. I'm not holding my breath on this one either. I'll wait for the actual science publication.
