The world’s scariest news? Methane bubbles from the arctic ocean
As the world’s junior ministers touch down from their holiday in Durban, The Independent today has perhaps the scariest story in human history. Perhaps. Russian scientists have observed vast plumes of methane rising in the Arctic Ocean.
Now, other than that, we can’t be sure what’s going on. I’m not a geologist, or oceanographer or expert in any of this. Perhaps there are other explanations. But we do know this: for a long time, we’ve been told that one of the potential positive feedback loops of climate change was the melting of things called methane hydrates (or methane clathrates). These vast stores of methane on the ocean floor will, according the the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis supported by people like former NASA climatologist James Hansen, melt as ocean temperatures rise. As they do, they will release vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas.
There’s a reason it’s called runaway climate change.
Some scientists argue that it is exactly this process which kicked off the End Permian Mass Extinction 251 million years ago. The mother of all mass extinctions (known as “the great dying”), this led to 96% of all marine life being wiped out, and 70% of terrestrial vertibrae.
Now, I’m not saying that that’s what’s gonna happen. But it’s important to remember that when we toy with the climate, we are playing with scary stuff. As far as we know, despite today’s news, we can still prevent runaway climate change. But this is a terrifying reminder that time is running out…
Related Posts
Not to deny the significance of this, but where’s the video/photos showing this bubbling methane they say is visible in some places as far as the eye can see? Don’t scientists carry cameras on their expeditions? There’s plenty of photo documentation of the melting & collapsing glaciers and ice formations, but none that I can find showing the large areas of methane plumes.
Having widely used a press release submission to promote many of my internet sites I always make sure that I access
the well-established newswires to circulate
my press release. I had experimented with the free press release
distribution online sites but you in reality do get what you pay for.
A press release is too mighty a promotional strategy
to be skimpy on. A paid for service like SBWire, PRBuzz,
Email Wire etc not only provide your trade name terrific publicity but in
addition strong quality backlinks and targeted traffic.
That is why I always make use of a press release the
moment my site goes online and let it work its magic!
What does runaway global warming run away to?
Dr. Peter Ward’s explanation in his book “Under A Green Sky” lays out his scenaro that paralells what he has found out about the Permian mass extinction. He takes an entire book to explain it. To make a long story short and over simplified, the runaway warming leads to another anoxic event. This leads to green alge bacteria forming near the bottom of the ocean. This produces hydrogen sulfide in huge amounts and nearly everything that breathes oxygen dies.
Climate communication problems arise because the media translates scientific reports into language suitable for newspapers and errors occur in the process. If 3 scientific papers on methane release were published on the same day with widely differing conclusions, it’s likely that the most sensational one would hit the headlines. This does not mean it’s the most valid theory, just the most appealing to the journalist in question.
We all know how complex climate studies are and it’s easy to misunderstand the science. For example, is it clear whether quoted ocean temperatures are for surface or deep waters? There’s a big difference with respect to methane release as what matters for melting clathrates is the temperature of the water surrounding them.
Local releases may look scary as methane bubbles to the surface but the climate impact of releasing methane depends on whether it is released all at once, faster than its lifetime in the atmosphere (about a decade) or in an ongoing, sustained release that lasts for longer than that. (from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/)
Methane releases (from land or sea) are as old as the Earth itseelf. As is the carbon cycle. The problem is rate of change and how able species are to adjust to the change. The ocean warming being recorded now, regardless of whether the cause is anthropogenic or not, will be causing some clathrates to melt and release their methane. So yes, this is an old phenomenon and the jury is out on whether clathrate melt is increasing. I suspect it is but monitoring may be insufficient to detect what are probably only small increases at this stage. This does not mean that methane is more or less of a climate problem than CO2 – it’s just another part of the overall process of climate change and one we’d do well not to ignore.
Methane obviously links to feedbacks and accelerated greenhouse effect. Thanks for the definition of ‘runaway’ – I will adjust my vocabulary accordingly!
Dr. Semiletov has been studying methane in the Arctic for over 15 years. He has published many articles in peer reviewed journals on his findings. His alarm at what he has found this year is to be taken very seriously.
I think someone would have reported it over the last few hundred years. That area has been traveled for a long time. That is why I am a little sceptical that it is a common phenomenon and that it is something new. After reading the articles about the methane I googled this theory because I was also aware of the causes of the Permian extinction.
The only way I see to resolve it is to determine whether it is coming from old or new material, whether we can catch the old clathrate deposits in the act of dissolving. If it is new mater then whatever. If it is old material that has been down there a long time then it is potentially game over.
Good God, it used to be said that a squirrel could run from the Atlantic ocean to the Mississippee river and never touch the ground. I have also heard that at times of population collapse trees gre back instead of us cutting anf burning them down all the time, the trees sucked so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it changed the climate. Couldn’t we just grow a mass load of trees?
Or another thought, why don’t we keep a tally of every dollar spent on lobbying to kill legislation, run a “talk show” or AM radio or every dollar spent on climate change denial be legally liable for any damages that occur that are directly linked to climate change? Like, when the oceans rise a few meters and we have to evacuate some cities shouldn’t they be stuck with the bill? Just keeping that list handy and public would have a siginificant effect in my opinion.
Anaerobic digestion by marine plankton releases 2-16 Tg of methane per year. Total natural sources are some 250 Tg. Human emissions go on top of this.
(US EPA http://www.epa.gov/outreach/sources.html)
Methane release by marine anaerobic digestion is a small contributor to the methane cycle. This work is concerned by breakdown of methane clathrates as Arctic coastal waters warm up. It’s a completely different thing, and could potentially be responsible for large, relatively quick, surges in methane emissions.
Your point that methane release by a different mechanism is normal is irrelevant. Such emissions are relatively small. The point is methane is a very strong greenhouse gas. It has a 20-year global warming potential of 72. Over a 20-year period, a given mass of methane traps 72 times more heat than CO2.
Mrs Lupin,
Why did you not ask anyone other than Professor for their experience and credentials, rather than simply praising an ‘excellent and enlightnening discussion’?
I don’t want to downplay “the scariest story in human history” but it was as usual badly and sensationally reported in the Indie, yet hardly made a ripple on RealClimate.org It was mentioned on this thread: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/agu-2011-day-5-and-wrap-up/
However, if you are partial to some doomer pOrn, you might like to read this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/methane-hydrates-and-global-warming/
I am not a denialist, quite the opposite in fact, but the methane thing isn’t an issue, so far… CO2 is by far our biggest issue.
Oh doomer porn, that’s how you reassure yourself and sleep at night. If it works for you. But don’t read too muc h from now on as it’s all going to be doomer porn. Having been environmentally aware and active for over fifty years,. I know when I see a rapid escalation. Remember when a month’s rain in 48 hours used to describe the downpours the UK was getting? Then it bec ame in 24 hours and more flooding occurred. Last week in Norfolk there was a month’s rain in three hours, I could barely believe the sheer volume of water crashing like, like living under a waterfall. And there’s much more to co me.
Where does you information come from Professor? What is your field?
This is very normal. Rivers, lakes, shallow seas and oceans all cause anaerobic digestion to occur on dissolved and submerged organic compounds.
This digestion produces approx. 40% methane and 60% CO2 however, CO2 dissolves in water but methane does not. As a result, most of what reaches the air sea interface surface is methane. The organic matter is transported to the oceans via the transport energy of the earth—severe weather, rain, ice melt, gravity and out flow.
The Arctic has vast quantities of organic matter that is being digested by anaerobic bacteria each day. This is a very normal phenomena and virtually innocuous. Some believe it is the release of methane that causes the mysterious events near the Bermuda Triangle.
The report is about fossil methane, buried in ice for millions of years, not normal production. But I’m sure we all learned something from the biology lesson.
Excellent enlightening discussion. Thanks everyone.
Hey Adam thanks for sharing this, you are right. Very scary stuff. Looks like Dunc has already answered the question on runaway climate change.
Countdown to the first denialist latching onto your mention of the Permian to say “See? It’s happened before, so it can’t have anything to do with human actions!” in 3… 2… 1…
‘major oceanic methane eruptions could release energy equivalent to 10,000 times the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange
Dunc – oh, OK. good to know.
Yeah, “runaway” is one of those terms that causes confusion – it has a very specific meaning in climatology (the meaning Angus has described here), but it’s used rather more loosely by many commentators. And every time you use it, you give a denialist the opportunity to claim that you’re saying we’re going to end up like Venus.
We could really use a better term for the situation where positive feedbacks start dominating over anthropogenic emissions. “Runaway” isn’t really appropriate.
Angus, thanks,
by runaway climate change, I mean (and I think others do too) climate change which has passed the point of no return – its no longer driven by human emissions, but cintinues of its own accord because of positive feedback loops, etc.
This is certainly a worrying development. The sensitivity of clathrates to temperature rise is a key issue in climate science. One key question is – how much of this is new, and how much of it is something we simply haven’t observed before? I would suspect it’s new, but at the moment there is an argument to be made either way.
One of the most concerning things about the talk on climate ‘tipping points’ is that people often forget how much inertia there is in the climate system. For example, if the whole of humanity stopped emitting today the Earth would continue to warm by about an addition 1 degree by the end of the 21st Century.
Carbon dioxide, once emitted into the atmosphere, hangs around for a long time – most of it on the scale of centuries. So unless we can suck CO2 out of the atmosphere (technologically possible but currently too expensive) we have less time than we think.
Final point – I don’t really know what people mean when they say ‘runaway climate change’. What is it running away to? To a scientist it means: temperatures will increase without limit until the oceans boil off and we end up like Venus. This scenario requires giving the climate system a *massive* kick, and some would argue even then it is not possible. So I’d like people to explain what they mean by ‘runaway’. Perhaps they just mean temperatures will continue increasing whether we stop emitting or not. As I said we already have that and there’s nothing we can do about it.