This is not good.

[WeatherRusty]

Taco,

Greenhouse gases do not directly warm the surface. It's the other way around, the surface warms the lower atmosphere. The only thing greenhouse gases do is slow down the loss of IR to space, so that the surface cools more slowly.

Since less IR is escaping to space, the Earth must warm in order to re-balance the energy budget out versus in. This warming takes time, it is not instantaneous like the disruption to the energy budget is.

If the surface is temporarily cooled by say a La Nina, the radiative warming will take longer to occur even as the the energy imbalance grows. If solar minimum depresses global temp 0.1C the warming will take longer to occur. Greenhouse gases directly affect the exchange of energy, the temperature response is a secondary effect.

[Vergent]

Does anyone know of any real-time monitoring of methane in the arctic?

[tacoman25]

Taco,

Greenhouse gases do not directly warm the surface. It's the other way around, the surface warms the lower atmosphere. The only thing greenhouse gases do is slow down the loss of IR to space, so that the surface cools more slowly.

Since less IR is escaping to space, the Earth must warm in order to re-balance the energy budget out versus in. This warming takes time, it is not instantaneous like the disruption to the energy budget is.

If the surface is temporarily cooled by say a La Nina, the radiative warming will take longer to occur even as the the energy imbalance grows. If solar minimum depresses global temp 0.1C the warming will take longer to occur. Greenhouse gases directly affect the exchange of energy, the temperature response is a secondary effect.

Right, I understand how greenhouse gases work. I'm just not convinced that just because the Arctic is not receiving energy from the sun right now, the increased methane would not be affecting other parts of the globe that are.

[Alpha5]

I can understand the interest in climate change. It's science, it's physics, it's weather. Many are interested in those very things. I guess that's why we have a weather board with about 10000 members.

What I can't understand is the fear. Regardless of the change, we'll adapt and so will the other life on the planet. That which does not, will die. It's not like there haven't been extinctions since life first appeared on this planet.

To hear these statements of how "unliveable" the planet will be is a "head scratcher". Unliveable for whom? The guy with a house on the beach? Yeah, might be a problem for him. For cold climate animals. Yeah, might be tough for them. But for humans, who don't live very well in the cold, you'd think that warmth would be a better scenario. Wet areas that become dry would most likely be replaced by dry areas that become wetter. Regions that can't support crop growth now would be able to if it were warmer in certain areas.

I love the science discussion here, but the sensationalism is a bit too much. Whatever happens, we'll adapt. Or we won't. Move on. Time waits for nobody.

Agree 100%.

The alarmism in here is getting a little ludicrous

[Jonger]

Bug attacks are the next worry. This comes straight from wunderground.com Dr.Masters.

http://classic.wunde...um=2000&tstamp=

[tacoman25]

Agree 100%.

The alarmism in here is getting a little ludicrous

I just don't understand how rational people can react this way. We don't even know the signficance of this methane release, and yet we have posters saying this means "the shoe has dropped" and we are all going to be climate refugees soon.

[Alpha5]

I just don't understand how rational people can react this way. We don't even know the signficance of this methane release, and yet we have posters saying this means "the shoe has dropped" and we are all going to be climate refugees soon.

Thats fine.

To each his own.....lets see what happens in the coming years

[aslkahuna]

Methane is very potent as a GHG as any IR image of Neptune would show you. Its one redeeming feature is that it disassociates readily under UV radiation so doesn't stick around as long as CO2. One point to make here. If we were to TOTALLY cease putting CO2 into the atmosphere right now, it would make little immediate difference because that CO2 we've already put there will still be there for a long time and the atmospher is, apparently, still responding to that input.

Steve

[WeatherRusty]

Right, I understand how greenhouse gases work. I'm just not convinced that just because the Arctic is not receiving energy from the sun right now, the increased methane would not be affecting other parts of the globe that are.

The methane is affecting the whole planet radiative energy balance. As a well mixed gas how could it not be?

My point is, don't look for some immediate, dramatic global temp response. Some small portion of 1 watt additional energy is not going to raise temp a noticable amount in a short period of time.

[LakeEffectKing]

LEK,

The magnitude of ocean oscillations is significantly greater short term than any greenhouse warming could be. Who knows what the next few decades will bring? In the longer run the greenhouse warming will prevail because it adds energy to the system while internal variability does not.

I know that does not meet your required test of AGW, but the physics is what it is.

You missed my question....Does this recent discovery of an "explosion" of methane that the OP is hyping, indicate a heightened fear or is this just part of the "normal" AGW apocalyptic fear? I'm getting the feeling from reading this thread that I should take shelter.....

[PhillipS]

Having read the back and forth in this thread, I think it's time for all parties to switch to decaf. Vergent, thank you for posting the link to the article. It is interesting and alarming - but it's just a news article. It's not peer-reviewed science . . . heck, it's not even non-peer-reviewed science. It is a news article which was written to grab the readers' attention. And I confess it did so.

I hope all parties can agree that before anybody can assess how significant and serious this methane release is we need real data. We don't know the extent of the venting, the amount of methane being released, or (worst case) whether this is an indication that the massive arctic methane deposits are becoming unstable. Hopefully the Russian researhers will publish their results soon. Until then it is largely pointless to speculate. Methane leaks are not new - you can search youtube and find lots of alarming videos. Here's the url to a video of

in the summer of 2007. If the newly discovered vents are reaching the surface I expect they look like a larger version of these vents. And here's a video on 'The Door to Hell', a methane leak that's been burning for over thirty years.

For those skeptical and denialist posters who keep singing "Don't worry, be happy!" - you might want to do some reading on Extinction Events and how methane releases have been implicated in several of them. Wikipedia has a good article on the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis which provides link for further reading. Here's an excerpt from that article:

One exception, however, may be in clathrates associated with the

Arctic ocean

, where clathrates can exist in shallower water stabilized by lower temperatures rather than higher pressures; these may potentially be marginally stable much closer to the surface of the sea-bed, stabilized by a frozen 'lid' of

permafrost

preventing methane escape. Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released, apparently through perforations in the seabed permafrost,

^[11]

with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times normal.

^[12]

^[13]

The excess methane has been detected in localized hotspots in the outfall of the

Lena River

and the border between the

Laptev Sea

and the

East Siberian Sea

. Some melting may be the result of geological heating, but more thawing is believed to be due to the greatly increased volumes of meltwater being discharged from the Siberian rivers flowing north.

^[14]

Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5

Mt

per year.

^[15]

Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400

Gt

of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open

taliks

. They conclude that "release of up to 50

Gt

of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve,

^[16]

^[17]

equivalent in

greenhouse effect

to a doubling in the current level of CO

₂

.

Remember, these methane vents are in addition to the warming caused by our fossil fuel use so if the article is true we could see a much larger rise in global temperatures over the next few decades.

So, for now, let's see what the researchers can tell us. I think we'll still have time for panic if it's warranted.

[LakeEffectKing]

Having read the back and forth in this thread, I think it's time for all parties to switch to decaf. Vergent, thank you for posting the link to the article. It is interesting and alarming - but it's just a news article. It's not peer-reviewed science . . . heck, it's not even non-peer-reviewed science. It is a news article which was written to grab the readers' attention. And I confess it did so.

I hope all parties can agree that before anybody can assess how significant and serious this methane release is we need real data. We don't know the extent of the venting, the amount of methane being released, or (worst case) whether this is an indication that the massive arctic methane deposits are becoming unstable. Hopefully the Russian researhers will publish their results soon. Until then it is largely pointless to speculate. Methane leaks are not new - you can search youtube and find lots of alarming videos. Here's the url to a video of

in the summer of 2007. If the newly discovered vents are reaching the surface I expect they look like a larger version of these vents. And here's a video on 'The Door to Hell', a methane leak that's been burning for over thirty years.

For those skeptical and denialist posters who keep singing "Don't worry, be happy!" - you might want to do some reading on Extinction Events and how methane releases have been implicated in several of them. Wikipedia has a good article on the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis which provides link for further reading. Here's an excerpt from that article:

One exception, however, may be in clathrates associated with the

Arctic ocean

, where clathrates can exist in shallower water stabilized by lower temperatures rather than higher pressures; these may potentially be marginally stable much closer to the surface of the sea-bed, stabilized by a frozen 'lid' of

permafrost

preventing methane escape. Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released, apparently through perforations in the seabed permafrost,

^[11]

with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times normal.

^[12]

^[13]

The excess methane has been detected in localized hotspots in the outfall of the

Lena River

and the border between the

Laptev Sea

and the

East Siberian Sea

. Some melting may be the result of geological heating, but more thawing is believed to be due to the greatly increased volumes of meltwater being discharged from the Siberian rivers flowing north.

^[14]

Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5

Mt

per year.

^[15]

Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400

Gt

of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open

taliks

. They conclude that "release of up to 50

Gt

of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve,

^[16]

^[17]

equivalent in

greenhouse effect

to a doubling in the current level of CO

₂

.

Remember, these methane vents are in addition to the warming caused by our fossil fuel use so if the article is true we could see a much larger rise in global temperatures over the next few decades.

So, for now, let's see what the researchers can tell us. I think we'll still have time for panic if it's warranted.

LMAO!! Classic!

[tacoman25]

The methane is affecting the whole planet radiative energy balance. As a well mixed gas how could it not be?

My point is, don't look for some immediate, dramatic global temp response. Some small portion of 1watt additional energy is not going to raise temp a noticabe amount in a short period of time. You must double methane concentration to raise temp 1.2C and the full response would require decades.

Then why were some earlier posts talking about this ushering in a sudden, severe spike in global temps? I guess you would agree that was a rather clueless overreaction to this article?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Phillip-

Thanks for that post. I saw that there was a lot of replys. I have a 45 min train ride to work. So I was pretty excited to have so much quality info to read.

That turned out to be a major let down.

The fact that no one could answer my questions tells me that both sides need a reality check.

We have seen no measurements on what impact this will have.

we don

[WinterWxLuvr]

Having read the back and forth in this thread, I think it's time for all parties to switch to decaf. Vergent, thank you for posting the link to the article. It is interesting and alarming - but it's just a news article. It's not peer-reviewed science . . . heck, it's not even non-peer-reviewed science. It is a news article which was written to grab the readers' attention. And I confess it did so.

I hope all parties can agree that before anybody can assess how significant and serious this methane release is we need real data. We don't know the extent of the venting, the amount of methane being released, or (worst case) whether this is an indication that the massive arctic methane deposits are becoming unstable. Hopefully the Russian researhers will publish their results soon. Until then it is largely pointless to speculate. Methane leaks are not new - you can search youtube and find lots of alarming videos. Here's the url to a video of

in the summer of 2007. If the newly discovered vents are reaching the surface I expect they look like a larger version of these vents. And here's a video on 'The Door to Hell', a methane leak that's been burning for over thirty years.

For those skeptical and denialist posters who keep singing "Don't worry, be happy!" - you might want to do some reading on Extinction Events and how methane releases have been implicated in several of them. Wikipedia has a good article on the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis which provides link for further reading. Here's an excerpt from that article:

One exception, however, may be in clathrates associated with the

Arctic ocean

, where clathrates can exist in shallower water stabilized by lower temperatures rather than higher pressures; these may potentially be marginally stable much closer to the surface of the sea-bed, stabilized by a frozen 'lid' of

permafrost

preventing methane escape. Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released, apparently through perforations in the seabed permafrost,

^[11]

with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times normal.

^[12]

^[13]

The excess methane has been detected in localized hotspots in the outfall of the

Lena River

and the border between the

Laptev Sea

and the

East Siberian Sea

. Some melting may be the result of geological heating, but more thawing is believed to be due to the greatly increased volumes of meltwater being discharged from the Siberian rivers flowing north.

^[14]

Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5

Mt

per year.

^[15]

Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400

Gt

of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open

taliks

. They conclude that "release of up to 50

Gt

of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve,

^[16]

^[17]

equivalent in

greenhouse effect

to a doubling in the current level of CO

₂

.

Remember, these methane vents are in addition to the warming caused by our fossil fuel use so if the article is true we could see a much larger rise in global temperatures over the next few decades.

So, for now, let's see what the researchers can tell us. I think we'll still have time for panic if it's warranted.

You can't have it both ways. If they happened before, who caused them. If not humans, who? If humans have both the ability to cause and stop global warming, then logic would suggest that we have the capacity to adapt to the climate, whatever it becomes. If we can't, if we aren't as smart and powerful as we think we are, then we become one of the "extinction events". You can't belong to both groups. Either we can overcome or we can't. So why worry?

Maybe the Mayans were right. Mayber next year is the end. I think I'm worried.

[WeatherRusty]

You missed my question....Does this recent discovery of an "explosion" of methane that the OP is hyping, indicate a heightened fear or is this just part of the "normal" AGW apocalyptic fear? I'm getting the feeling from reading this thread that I should take shelter.....

The modeling relied upon by the IPCC synthesis report did not include this form of methane release. The fear is that this becomes a self perpetuating issue, but is this recent finding an induction of that?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Phillip-

Thanks for that post. I saw that there was a lot of replys. I have a 45 min train ride to work. So I was pretty excited to have so much quality info to read.

That turned out to be a major let down.

The fact that no one could answer my questions tells me that both sides need a reality check.

We have seen no measurements on what impact this will have.

we dont know how much methane was released. We should wait to see how much was released and observe this region very closely the next few years to see if this kind of release continues to grow stronger or weaker.

Observations and information gathering are our best tools for future assesments. We know the Earth is going to warm more regardless of this. So we can't stop it any ways. If avrupt action is needed we will know soon enough.

Nothing I say about the childish behavior I this thread will be received and will promote more childish behavior. I just hope it stops.

So lets and have a discussion on what this means scientifically anything else should be deleted, the thread derailing is old.

I know Barrow and Hawaii have methane obs.

I am not on a cpu so I would apreciate it if someone else would find the latest for us.

[WeatherRusty]

Then why were some earlier posts talking about this ushering in a sudden, severe spike in global temps? I guess you would agree that was a rather clueless overreaction to this article?

What represents a severe spike? How long does it take to warm up the oceans which warm the air over them. With all the mixing circulations of the atmosphere and oceans this background warming is going to be relatively slow to occur. Is it even possible to warm the the entire system more than 0.2 or 0.3C per decade?

[skierinvermont]

I get called an alarmist. And whatever BS, but this report is sickening.

I guess some of the folks reading this want to deny it. But this isn't good. Let's hope this is a seasonal event. And was in response to high end in situ warming and not a long term thaw. But that is not the likely reality.

Can we tell how long this particular methane has been there?

Is there any studies out with their actual measurements?

How long before the Methane shows up on obs like Barrow or Hawaii?

What is the methane forcing formula? Like w/m2 per how much?

Before trying to answer your questions, I'd like to agree with other posters who've said that the newspaper article was a bit biased/frilly in using words like 'deadly' to describe the gas. But the possibility of rapid methane release is of great scientific concern. And it appears that arctic emissions are beginning to ramp up.

What I am not entirely sure of is how significant these methane releases are on a global scale. I do know there is enough methane stored in the arctic to cause massive global warming (like enough to turn earth into venus if it were all released into the atmosphere) but what these studies of recent surface emissions never answer is how significant the current emissions are on a global scale. Vergent claiming a 100000X increase may or may not be true on a regional scale, but that may still be quite small globally.

It appears that global CH4 concentration has again begun to rise in the atmosphere since 2006. See chart below. This may be a response to the increased arctic emissions, or to some other source of emissions, I do not know.

Methane is 25X more potent as a GHG than CO2 (per unit of mass).

[PhillipS]

You can't have it both ways. If they happened before, who caused them. If not humans, who? If humans have both the ability to cause and stop global warming, then logic would suggest that we have the capacity to adapt to the climate, whatever it becomes. If we can't, if we aren't as smart and powerful as we think we are, then we become one of the "extinction events". You can't belong to both groups. Either we can overcome or we can't. So why worry?

Maybe the Mayans were right. Mayber next year is the end. I think I'm worried.

Methane releases can happen, and have happened, for natural reasons - but that doesn't eliminate the possibility of humans triggering a massive methane release in the near term. Clathrates, frozen methane hydrates, can be found in many places around the world, for example in the Gulf of Mexico, and can be stable for eons so long as the temperature and pressure are correct. The massive methane deposits along the arctic coasts of Siberia, Alaska, and Canada are in relatively shallow waters so it is primarily temperature that keeps them stable. AGW is increasing the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) for the arctic, so some clathrate deposits are approaching instability. A recent paper on the topic:

Simulation of Arctic Gas Hydrate Dissociation in Response to Climate Change: Basin-Scale Assessment

And an excerpt from the abstract:

Paleooceanographic evidence has been used to postulate that methane from oceanic hydrates may have had a significant role in regulating climate. However, the behavior of contemporary oceanic methane hydrate deposits subjected to rapid temperature changes, like those now occurring in the arctic and those predicted under future climate change scenarios, has only recently been investigated. Field investigations have discovered substantial methane gas plumes exiting the seafloor along the Arctic Ocean margin, and the plumes appear at depths corresponding to the upper limit of a receding gas hydrate stability zone. It has been suggested that these plumes may be the first visible signs of the dissociation of shallow hydrate deposits due to ongoing climate change in the arctic.

Unfortunately, the full paper is behind a paywall, but a search with Google Scholar turns up a number of relevant papers.

WinterWxLuvr, adaptation isn't a quick, or inexpensive, process - and history is full of examples of civilizations collapsing from their failure to adapt to changes. The longer we continue BAU, the more GHGs we dump into the atmosphere, the less time and resources wil be available for the inevitable attempt to adapt. The era of cheap energy is unsustainable because fossil fuels are finite. So the question becomes do we look ahead to the future and make the needed transition soon, or do we ignore reality, put off the inevitable shift from fossil fuels until a full-blown crisis develops, and hope that we've left enough resources for our descendants to hold civilization together? Are we smart enough to be conservatives in the original sense - conserving resources for future generations?

[SVT450R]

I can understand the interest in climate change. It's science, it's physics, it's weather. Many are interested in those very things. I guess that's why we have a weather board with about 10000 members.

What I can't understand is the fear. Regardless of the change, we'll adapt and so will the other life on the planet. That which does not, will die. It's not like there haven't been extinctions since life first appeared on this planet.

To hear these statements of how "unliveable" the planet will be is a "head scratcher". Unliveable for whom? The guy with a house on the beach? Yeah, might be a problem for him. For cold climate animals. Yeah, might be tough for them. But for humans, who don't live very well in the cold, you'd think that warmth would be a better scenario. Wet areas that become dry would most likely be replaced by dry areas that become wetter. Regions that can't support crop growth now would be able to if it were warmer in certain areas.

I love the science discussion here, but the sensationalism is a bit too much. Whatever happens, we'll adapt. Or we won't. Move on. Time waits for nobody.

It's laughable the normal average Joe will see no difference in there life if the earth warms. I don't understand how people can act like we won't adapt to any changes if needed our technology is basically doubling every decade with no end in sight.

[donsutherland1]

We have seen no measurements on what impact this will have.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, the recent data only shows the existence of methane "fountains." The existence of such fountains, if they are the result of the observed warming in the region, might provide some insight into the resumption of increases in atmospheric methane. More data on the fountains, particularly trends in methane emissions, is needed. It will be interesting to see what the scientists reveal down the road. IPCC might also have additional data when its ongoing work is completed.

[tacoman25]

What represents a severe spike? How long does it take to warm up the oceans which warm the air over them. With all the mixing circulations of the atmosphere and oceans this background warming is going to be relatively slow to occur. Is it even possible to warm the the entire system more than 0.2 or 0.3C per decade?

According to climate models and the IPCC, yes.

[tacoman25]

Before trying to answer your questions, I'd like to agree with other posters who've said that the newspaper article was a bit biased/frilly in using words like 'deadly' to describe the gas. But the possibility of rapid methane release is of great scientific concern. And it appears that arctic emissions are beginning to ramp up.

What I am not entirely sure of is how significant these methane releases are on a global scale. I do know there is enough methane stored in the arctic to cause massive global warming (like enough to turn earth into venus if it were all released into the atmosphere) but what these studies of recent surface emissions never answer is how significant the current emissions are on a global scale. Vergent claiming a 100000X increase may or may not be true on a regional scale, but that may still be quite small globally.

It appears that global CH4 concentration has again begun to rise in the atmosphere since 2006. See chart below. This may be a response to the increased arctic emissions, or to some other source of emissions, I do not know.

Methane is 25X more potent as a GHG than CO2 (per unit of mass).

Do you know why it was rising so fast prior to the mid 1990s?

[skierinvermont]

Do you know why it was rising so fast prior to the mid 1990s?

Methane actually started rising from around 750ppb in 1800. It had stayed near 750ppb for most of the last 10,000 years.

So the rise is definitely anthropogenic given the rise coincides with rapidly increasing human methane emissions (primarily related to livestock and energy production). The pause is probably due to some natural factor temporarily overriding human emissions.

Here's a chart showing the rise.. current concentration is around 1810ppb:

[Rainman]

Right, I understand how greenhouse gases work. I'm just not convinced that just because the Arctic is not receiving energy from the sun right now, the increased methane would not be affecting other parts of the globe that are.

Outgoing longwave radiation is dominant in the radiation budget during the arctic winter, so the relative effect of the greenhouse gas effect would actually be be maximized right now. That alone would suggest that some kind of indirect effects are likely elsewhere on the globe, although I have no idea what they would be or if they even matter.

My guess is that the biggest and most immediate impact of the methane release was a skyrocketing of the frequency of the words "skeptic" and "alarmist" on the internet.

[tacoman25]

Methane actually started rising from around 750ppb in 1800. It had stayed near 750ppb for most of the last 10,000 years.

So the rise is definitely anthropogenic given the rise coincides with rapidly increasing human methane emissions (primarily related to livestock and energy production). The pause is probably due to some natural factor temporarily overriding human emissions.

Here's a chart showing the rise.. current concentration is around 1810ppb:

Ok...I guess the better question would be why has it slowed down since the mid 1990s? I realize it's just a short term change, but so is the "increasing trend" since 2006 (and that is a shorter term trend even). Per the other chart you posted, there was clearly a sharper rise in methane from the mid 1980s to mid 1990s.

[TerryM]

Ok...I guess the better question would be why has it slowed down since the mid 1990s? I realize it's just a short term change, but so is the "increasing trend" since 2006 (and that is a shorter term trend even). Per the other chart you posted, there was clearly a sharper rise in methane from the mid 1980s to mid 1990s.

Probably the break up of the Soviet Union - not the most environmentally conscious of regimes.

BTW here's a graph from a little closer to the impacted area.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Probably the break up of the Soviet Union - not the most environmentally conscious of regimes.

BTW here's a graph from a little closer to the impacted area.

The milks gone bad.

Lol, that sucks..luckily as that flows around the planet we won't see such a sharp rises. but that is pretty ridiculous. I wonder how long it will take to reach Hawaii.

It will be interesting to see how much has been released.

What is worse is the MYI has been pushed away from the Russian side. Basically it's almost guaranteed the same places melt out next summer barring a volcano.

[dabize]

The milks gone bad.

Lol, that sucks..luckily as that flows around the planet we won't see such a sharp rises. but that is pretty ridiculous. I wonder how long it will take to reach Hawaii.

It will be interesting to see how much has been released.

What is worse is the MYI has been pushed away from the Russian side. Basically it's almost guaranteed the same places melt out next summer barring a volcano.

http://www.agu.org/j...p01-tn-350x.jpg

According to this chart from a paper reporting CH4 measurements from a WAIS core, the sharp rise appears to be well mixed.

Unclear if the stuff being reported from the ESCS (or Svalbard, for that matter) has had any influence on it.

I would have thought that much of the general post-industrial revolution increase (shown in the chart) is due to intensive livestock practices and possibly the release of natural gas from oil drilling/extraction operations.

Although it seems likely that CH4 played a major role in the 55mya event (and also the Permian/Triassic event BTW), we admittedly don't know how much CH4 increase from sites like this can trigger those types of runaway increases.

This is the real issue - whether current AGW-induced thawing of the region is setting us up for catastrophic increases in CH4 from shallow Arctic sources such as the ESCS, which certainly have the POTENTIAL to trigger self regenerating changes (based on the total amount sequestered in nearby areas (remember we are fairly close to huge peat deposits in weak permafrost in the Ob/Irtysh located just above sea level, so we don't require deep oceanic warming to mobilize lots of carbon here)). This is why the recent reports of locally massive releases (i.e. "fountains" on the scale that the OP reported - much larger than any reported previously) from that particular region are so disturbing.

IMHO, anyone who isn't concerned about the possibility of something really bad coming of this just isn't paying attention......but I am admittedly a Nervous Nellie who looks for oncoming traffic whenever I turn into an intersection.