Methane Gas And Climate Change

[Gray-Wolf]

Whilst prof S. is on with her summer expedition odd things have been happening in yamal

 

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/first-pictures-from-inside-the-crater-at-the-end-of-the-world/

 

just as we scratched our heads news of another crater surfaced;

 

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/mystery-of-giant-hole-in-siberia-unraveling-with-2nd-discovery/503858.html

 

Are the mechanism of their creation tied in with the thawing of the permafrost there? Also the first hole is 70m deep, the area is only 50m above sea level.....

 

Could some of the methane now being produced off shore be migrating inland leading to these 'champagne cork' explosions?

 

I'm sure the results from Prof S. will shed some more light on the volatility of the region?

[BornFromTheVoid]

There's plenty more in the link, seems interesting.

 

"Vast methane plumes escaping from the seafloor" discovered in Siberian Arctic Sea

 

Vast methane plumes have been discovered boiling up from the seafloor of the Arctic ocean on the continental slope of the Laptev Sea by a dream team of international scientists. Over the last decade a warming tongue of Atlantic ocean water has been flowing along the Siberian Arctic ocean's continental slope destabilizing methane ice, hypothesize the team of Swedish, Russian and American scientists. The research team will take a series of measurements across the Siberian seas to attempt to understand and quantify the methane release and predict the effect of this powerful greenhouse gas on global and Arctic warming. Because the Siberian Arctic contains vast stores of methane ices and organic carbon that may be perturbed by the warming waters and Arctic climate, Arctic ocean and Siberian sea methane release could accelerate and intensify Arctic and global warming.

 

EDIT: A more official link http://www.su.se/english/research/leading-research-areas/science/swerus-c3-first-observations-of-methane-release-from-arctic-ocean-hydrates-1.198540

Edited July 29, 2014 by BornFromTheVoid

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe the chimneys that prof Shakova studied in the East Siberian Sea are the brothers/sisters of the holes being seem in Yamal? I take it that we are looking at the same permafrost blanket here?

 

The chimneys grew from 10m to over 1km  in 1 year so we are seeing a similar rate of growth for the features? The sea bed has warmed to above freezing year round now so the features there might be occuring before the land ones have reached similar thaw states ( having only the summer months to be 'active?).

[knocker]

Tweet from Jason Box

 

News piece juxtaposes Siberian holes with my carbon release concerns but I have no idea about the holes http://mobile.news.com.au/technology/environment/are-siberias-methane-blowholes-the-first-warning-sign-of-unstoppable-climate-change/story-fnjwvztl-1227006746397 â€¦

[Gray-Wolf]

Well if the vents are a land based relation of the offshore 'chimneys' it would suggest that we are on the edge of a new destabilisation event? Satellite images show the area full of past 'vents', now healed and level, but we have no idea of the dating of those scars? We do know that the off shore versions do not have an accompanying landscape of such scarring begging the question "have we not seen periodic warming of the sub sea permafrosts before?"

 

With water taking such a long time to warm any cyclical period of back to back warm summers would not prove enough to impact the submerged sediments but , apparently, decades of warmer waters and ice cover loss is doing the job?

 

#if land temps are now reaching levels to melt deep enough loosen the gas capped below then what will the oden mission find when the cover the submerged blanket of permafrost this time????

 

You get a much bigger interface between permafrost/sea water through an 80m cavern than through a crack in the ice that's for sure!!!

 

EDIT: http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-siberian-crater-attributed-to-methane-1.15649

 

appears we have a smoking gun? We normally measure methane in parts per billion but the concentration at the base was 9.6%!!!!!!!!

Edited August 1, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

How much methane came out of that hole in Siberia?

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/how-much-methane-came-out-of-that-hole-in-siberia/

Edited August 14, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

The Methane Bomb Thing Isn’t Really A Thing (Global Warming)

 

Peter Sinclair has done some nice work to clarify the famous Methane Bomb thing.

 

Briefly, the Methane Bomb is where methane trapped on the floor of the Arctic ocean gets out in large quantities because it is warm. This makes more warming. So, more of this Methane comes out, causing it to get warmer, then this cycle keeps up for a while and in short order civilization collapses and we all die.

It turns out that the science DOES NOT SUPPORT A METHANE BOMB OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. It just doesn’t. Unfortunately this has become a point of contention among people who are truly, seriously, concerned about climate change. It is a little like Ebola. If you take Ebola seriously and are approproately afraid of it, it seems, you are required to believe that it has already “gone airborne†and civilization will end and we will all die (Ebola has not gone airborne and will not go airborne). With Methane, if you truly love the planet then you are required to believe in the Methane Bomb. Even if it isn’t for real. And, it isn’t for real.

 

Dr. Carolyn Ruppel is one of the senior scientists who study Arctic Methane (and bottom-of-the-ocean Methane in general). In two videos put together by Peter Sinclair, she goes into significant detail about this problem.

 

Calling the Methane Bomb Squad

Methane Bomb Squad Part 2 – Dr Aradhna Tripati on Undersea Methane

Methane Bomb Squad Part 3: Dr. Carolyn Ruppel on Siberian Shelves

[4wd]

Doesn't playing down fanciful threats make you a denier or whatever the currently trendy insult is? 

[knocker]

Doesn't playing down fanciful threats make you a denier or whatever the currently trendy insult is? 

 

Not at all it makes me a true skeptic which emphasises yet again why the title of the other thread is a misnomer. Oh and the trendy insult is 'warmist'.

Edited October 16, 2014 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

Well if the vents are a land based relation of the offshore 'chimneys' it would suggest that we are on the edge of a new destabilisation event? Satellite images show the area full of past 'vents', now healed and level, but we have no idea of the dating of those scars? We do know that the off shore versions do not have an accompanying landscape of such scarring begging the question "have we not seen periodic warming of the sub sea permafrosts before?"

 

With water taking such a long time to warm any cyclical period of back to back warm summers would not prove enough to impact the submerged sediments but , apparently, decades of warmer waters and ice cover loss is doing the job?

 

#if land temps are now reaching levels to melt deep enough loosen the gas capped below then what will the oden mission find when the cover the submerged blanket of permafrost this time????

 

You get a much bigger interface between permafrost/sea water through an 80m cavern than through a crack in the ice that's for sure!!!

 

EDIT: http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-siberian-crater-attributed-to-methane-1.15649

 

appears we have a smoking gun? We normally measure methane in parts per billion but the concentration at the base was 9.6%!!!!!!!!

 

GW

 

Any comments?

[Gray-Wolf]

Let's remember we had a big expedition over this summer looking into the workings of the undersea methane issues? I'm waiting for the results from these studies before I'm willing to go out on a limb and sound the 'all clear'.

 

I've not yet watched Knock's offerings but I am aware of the scientists who feel it unlikely that we could see the 'methane bomb' type event but then , when I first had my interest in climate piqued, we used to think Arctic Sea ice would not start to disappear before the end of this century?

 

We know we have encountered rapid warming due to methane releases in past epochs so I do not think we can totally dismiss issues from this area esp. with the evolution of warming across the north still under debate?

 

EDIT: Not too impressed with her look at the Siberian submerged permafrost. It appears ( to me) that much of what she says had already been covered by Shakhova and co earlier this year and appears a little behind the times? I understand we have major rivers pouring out into the Laptev but the materials now being deposited by them are primarily the result of permafrost degradation from the mainland? Surely the major methane issue with those deposits comes from the degradation prior to transport even if we do see a second round of decomposition offshore?

 

The other thing that seemed 'queer' was her description of the permafrost in the region itself? According to Shakhova these deposits are unique in that they are hundreds of metres thick. My understanding of her concerns is that a shallow surface skim of permafrost/ice is effectively capping free methane that has been slowly accumulating for millenia? The surface of the undersea component had been kept below freezing by the presence of year round sea ice until the start of the noughties ( and via a vast ice sheet atop them through the last inter glacial?) meaning that this is the first time we might run into sudden releases of pre-formed methane, via the rapid melt of any 'capping' that the temps now drives.

 

There was no mention of the structures, and their rapid evolution, encountered in 2012 either?

 

As for studies in the Beaufort? We only have the McKenzie inputting vegetation into the area and this into a 'deep' ocean?

 

I'm not saying we should expect a 'time bomb' but I am saying we need to urgently investigate the offshore Laptev deposits.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

It would seem I was right to have doubts over the royal societies presentation? See this Email from Shakhova to the meeting:

 

October 4th, 2014
By mail and email

Dear Sir Paul Nurse,

We are pleased that the Royal Society recognizes the value of Arctic science and hosted an important scientific meeting last week, organized by Dr D. Feltham, Dr S. Bacon, Dr M. Brandon, and Professor Emeritus J. Hunt (https://royalsociety.org/events/2014/arctic-sea-ice/).

Our colleagues and we have been studying the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) for more than 20 years and have detailed observational knowledge of changes occurring in this region, as documented by publications in leading journals such as Science, Nature, and Nature Geosciences. During these years, we performed more than 20 all-seasonal expeditions that allowed us to accumulate a large and comprehensive data set consisting of hydrological, biogeochemical, and geophysical data and providing a quality of coverage that is hard to achieve, even in more accessible areas of the World Ocean.

To date, we are the only scientists to have long-term observational data on methane in the ESAS. Despite peculiarities in regulation that limit access of foreign scientists to the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone, where the ESAS is located, over the years we have welcomed scientists from Sweden, the USA, The Netherlands, the UK, and other countries to work alongside us. A large international expedition performed in 2008 (ISSS-2008) was recognized as the best biogeochemical study of the IPY (2007-2008). The knowledge and experience we accumulated throughout these years of work laid the basis for an extensive Russian-Swedish expedition onboard I/B ODEN (SWERUS-3) that allowed more than 80 scientists from all over the world to collect more data from this unique area. The expedition was successfully concluded just a few days ago.

To our dismay, we were not invited to present our data at the Royal Society meeting. Furthermore, this week we discovered, via a twitter Storify summary (circulated by Dr. Brandon), that Dr. G. Schmidt was instead invited to discuss the methane issue and explicitly attacked our work using the model of another scholar, whose modelling effort is based on theoretical, untested assumptions having nothing to do with observations in the ESAS. While Dr. Schmidt has expertise in climate modelling, he is an expert neither on methane, nor on this region of the Arctic. Both scientists therefore have no observational knowledge on methane and associated processes in this area. Let us recall that your motto “Nullus in verba†was chosen by the founders of the Royal Society to express their resistance to the domination of authority; the principle so expressed requires all claims to be supported by facts that have been established by experiment. In our opinion, not only the words but also the actions of the organizers deliberately betrayed the principles of the Royal Society as expressed by the words “Nullus in verba.â€

In addition, we would like to highlight the Anglo-American bias in the speaker list. It is worrisome that Russian scientific knowledge was missing, and therefore marginalized, despite a long history of outstanding Russian contributions to Arctic science. Being Russian scientists, we believe that prejudice against Russian science is currently growing due to political disagreements with the actions of the Russian government. This restricts our access to international scientific journals, which have become exceptionally demanding when it comes to publication of our work compared to the work of others on similar topics. We realize that the results of our work may interfere with the crucial interests of some powerful agencies and institutions; however, we believe that it was not the intent of the Royal Society to allow political considerations to override scientific integrity.

We understand that there can be scientific debate on this crucial topic as it relates to climate. However, it is biased to present only one side of the debate, the side based on theoretical assumptions and modelling. In our opinion, it was unfair to prevent us from presenting our more-than-decadal data, given that more than 200 scientists were invited to participate in debates. Furthermore, we are concerned that the Royal Society proceedings from this scientific meeting will be unbalanced to an unacceptable degree (which is what has happened on social media).

Consequently, we formally request the equal opportunity to present our data before you and other participants of this Royal Society meeting on the Arctic and that you as organizers refrain from producing any official proceedings before we are allowed to speak.

Sincerely,
On behalf of more than 30 scientists,
Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov

Edited October 20, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

I don't know whether you've seen this GW

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2014/10/20/methane-bomb-squad-part-5-shakhova-schmidt/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that Knocks! Seems other folks have voiced concerns over her absence in the first section?  

[knocker]

Ominous Arctic Methane Spikes Continue — 2666 Parts Per Billion on October 26th

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/ominous-arctic-methane-spikes-continue-2666-parts-per-billion-on-october-26th/

[Gray-Wolf]

That's a worry Knocks? In some ways it is healthy to see the debate over the potential harm that poorly modelled methane releases may have on our future world but the data, coming from the area that houses my greatest concerns, is not up for debate.

 

I suspect that things are moving so rapidly for the submerged permafrost that only constant observation will be fast enough to alert us to sudden developments?

 

As with many 'collapses' in nature the initial signs may not be overly dramatic ( like hairline cracks on a dam?) but that does not mean that sudden change is not being signalled? If Shakhova is right and we have many giant gas pockets ( the result of thousands of years of slow out gassing pooled under an ice cap) then how quick would be it's migration once a route out was made?) then the warming of the surface layer ( compounded by wave action now further mixing the water column)

may well be rapidly exposing route ways to the atmosphere. Once the gas has gone then will not the ocean fill these voids leading to more melt?

 

Shakhova's noting of a ten fold increase in the size of the structures, over one year, that she found in 07' tells me some dynamic process is ongoing???

[Gray-Wolf]

http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/global-mean-methane-moves-up.html

 

seems yearly methane increases are growing larger over time?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0013-now-siberian-craters-could-provide-energy-of-future/

 

Hmmm, so it was a gas explosion/eruption?

[knocker]

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0013-now-siberian-craters-could-provide-energy-of-future/

 

Hmmm, so it was a gas explosion/eruption?

 

Stunning photos as well GW

[knocker]

Methane flares in the Arctic dwarf the Golden Gate Bridge

https://cage.uit.no/news/methane-flares-arctic-dwarf-golden-gate-bridge/

[Gray-Wolf]

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-methane-leaking-permafrost-offshore-siberia.html

 

I think we will be hearing a lot more about these 'leaks' over the coming years!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0127-dozens-of-mysterious-new-craters-suspected-in-northern-russia/

 

More craters in yamal. Is this showing us that the area is approaching a period of rapid destabilisation after nearly 20yrs of having ice free summer conditions? And what of the permafrosts just off shore and bathed with warm ( relative) water 12 months a year???

[knocker]

New warning about climate change linked to peat bogs

 

A leading Siberian scientist has delivered another stark warning about climate change and said melting peat bogs could speed up the process.

 

Professor Sergey Kirpotin, director of the BioClimLand Centre of Excellence for Climate Change Research in Tomsk, said he has concerns over the 'awful' consequences in Russia’s sub-Arctic region.

 

He said that a thaw of the frozen bogs, which take up as much as 80 per cent of the landmass of western Siberia, will release billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide – into the atmosphere. That, he concluded, will greatly speed up the effects of global warming around the world with potentially devastating consequences.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2869575/thawing_arctic_carbon_threatens_runaway_global_warming.html

 

Every time we hear a 'there, there, nothing to worry about' we get another reason to worry ( and on top of all the other carbon/permafrost worries)?

 

When will we embrace that we are rapidly entering a very dangerous period in our warming?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.rgo.ru/sites/default/files/gi214_sverka.pdf

 

Spin on to page 68 for the report on the Yamal crater.

 

It would appear the extreme conditions in 2012 laid the seeds for the eruption but that surely begs the question of what we will see when most summers are like 2012 across the Yamal region???