This is not good.

[Vergent]

Vergent, half of what you just posted has nothing to do with methane. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with all those links. I'll wait for more data to come out, you can panic.

You did not notice that all of these articles are written by Igor Semiletov. If you read all of them, you will know some but not all of what he knows about the arctic and carbon. He is shocked and astonished by the methane release. It is his expert opinion that the methane release he witnessed and measured is shocking, astonishing, and unprecedented in human history. If this experts description is any where near accurate, many gigatons of methane have been dumped into the atmosphere this year. That is enough to have world wide impact. If you want to ignore this until the paper is published you are free to do so. In fact please ignore it. Stop spamming with inane banalities.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Barrows CO2 levels also jumped to the 402-404 range from the 390-393 range.

This could be in error. This also couldbe from methane converting to CO2. It could also Be that some carbon was trapped along with methane that was released.

The Molecular Hydrogen also saw a big dive lower the last two weeks.

I don't know what this means but I would assume density of gases would stay pretty balanced.

[The_Global_Warmer]

That methane thats under the ice was probably the remains of plant/organic material that was left behind when there were actual plants growing in those spots.

The methane is in the sea floor. I am not sure what you meant there.

It is traped there.

Under pressure and lowertemps.

Unless the the sea ice regenerates the clathrates will break down and methane will continue to pour out at an accelerated rate with likely major releases that will have larger impacts on our climate.

As far as the billions of gigatons of methane being from plants that used to be there. Do you hace any thing to back this?

[Vergent]

The Independent has had a history of these shock headlines.

http://dotearth.blog...apocalypse-not/

"SHOCK THE WORLD OF SCIENCE: Arctic Ocean Methane threatens Earth"

Citeste mai mult pe REALITATEA.NET:

http://www.realitatea.net/soc-in-lumea-stiintifica-metanul-din-oceanul-arctic-ameninta-pamantul_895855.html#ixzz1gdd1r935

It's unbelievable, "Semiletov said.

"The threat of methane gas"

http://www.haberturk.com/dunya/haber/696566-metan-gazi-tehdidi

"Melting ice will free hundreds of millions of tons of methane"

http://www.khoahoc.com.vn/congnghemoi/cong-nghe-moi/36676_Bang-tan-se-giai-phong-hang-tram-trieu-tan-khi-metan.aspx

[The_Global_Warmer]

How much methane was released when the last iceage ended and a size of ice several times larger melted then we have today. The ice we have at the poles today is a fraction of the original sheet.

The ice albedo feedback would also be many times less potent.

this isn't bunk science. The methane is there abd its enough to cause major changes over a short period.

How much ice a have is irrelevent. This is happening because ladt summer and the last few recent ones are ice free ove

[Vergent]

How much methane was released when the last iceage ended and a size of ice several times larger melted then we have today. The ice we have at the poles today is a fraction of the original sheet.

Methane is relatively short lived in the atmosphere, 6-12 years.

It took over 6,000 years for the ice-age ice to melt. Even if there was 100 times as much methane, the rate and the air concentration would still be lower. It is the abruptness of this Arctic fart that is the danger.

[Vergent]

Here is what these same researchers were thinking a year ago.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12040&pageid=&pagename=

[skierinvermont]

A lot.

Agreed. I'd like to know how much this is on a global scale.

[Vergent]

http://www.agu.org/p...1EO490014.shtml

Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming

Colin Schultz

American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA

Eight thousand years ago, a rising sea inundated the vast permafrost regions off the northern coast of Siberia. Comprising the modern east Siberian shelf, the region holds enormous quantities of methane hydrates bottled up in remnant subterranean permafrost zones that are, in turn, trapped beneath the ocean waters. Records of seafloor water temperature showing a 2.1°C rise since 1985, coupled with recent observations of methane emissions from the seabed, have led some scientists to speculate that the rising temperatures have thawed some of the subsurface permafrost, liberating the trapped methane. The connection is compelling, but an investigation by Dmitrenko et al. into the sensitivity of permafrost to rising temperatures suggests the two observations are not connected. Using a permafrost model forced with paleoclimate data to analyze changes in the depth of frozen bottom sediments, the authors found that roughly 1 meter of the subsurface permafrost thawed in the past 25 years, adding to the 25 meters of already thawed soil. Forecasting the expected future permafrost thaw, the authors found that even under the most extreme climatic scenario tested this thawed soil growth will not exceed 10 meters by 2100 or 50 meters by the turn of the next millennium. The authors note that the bulk of the methane stores in the east Siberian shelf are trapped roughly 200 meters below the seafloor, indicating that the recent methane emissions observations were likely not connected to the modest modern permafrost thaw. Instead, they suggest that the current methane emissions are the result of the permafrost's still adjusting to its new aquatic conditions, even after 8000 years. (Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, doi:10.1029/2011JC007218, 2011)

In order be published now this article had to be submitted last spring i.e. It is based on last years data.

So, what this article is stating is that the 8 megatons emitted last year, was not primarily the result of warming. But that is 0.01% of what is being observed this year. What is causing the other 99.99%?

Also, this study is a model based. This model indicated that eruptions like the ones reported can't happen. Either the model is in error, or someone is telling a career ending whopper of a lie.

Who is Colin Shultz? "I am a science journalist"

http://colinschultz....ress.com/about/

We have run into him before. Remember "No tipping point for Arctic Ocean ice" He does have a masters in journalism. No post graduate science degree.

[Vergent]

How do you know that what they recently reported in the Independent has not been going on for a while now and there still

is no dramatic increases in methane? What makes them think that this something new and just not newly observed?

Did you read the article?

" the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years."

" Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing,"

[skierinvermont]

And despite all this alarmism, methane concentrations in the atmosphere remain way below where the IPCC predicted just 5 years ago. They've only recently begun to inch back upwards and nobody even knows if this is due to the arctic, or due to the massive amount of methane produced by human activity. Methane release is a serious concern, but the fact that plumes exist in the arctic doesn't add an incredible amount of knowledge to what we already knew. It remains to be seen exactly how stable these methane deposits will be in the long-run.

[PhillipS]

http://www.agu.org/p...1EO490014.shtml

Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming

Colin Schultz

American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA

Eight thousand years ago, a rising sea inundated the vast permafrost regions off the northern coast of Siberia. Comprising the modern east Siberian shelf, the region holds enormous quantities of methane hydrates bottled up in remnant subterranean permafrost zones that are, in turn, trapped beneath the ocean waters. Records of seafloor water temperature showing a 2.1°C rise since 1985, coupled with recent observations of methane emissions from the seabed, have led some scientists to speculate that the rising temperatures have thawed some of the subsurface permafrost, liberating the trapped methane. The connection is compelling, but an investigation by Dmitrenko et al. into the sensitivity of permafrost to rising temperatures suggests the two observations are not connected. Using a permafrost model forced with paleoclimate data to analyze changes in the depth of frozen bottom sediments, the authors found that roughly 1 meter of the subsurface permafrost thawed in the past 25 years, adding to the 25 meters of already thawed soil. Forecasting the expected future permafrost thaw, the authors found that even under the most extreme climatic scenario tested this thawed soil growth will not exceed 10 meters by 2100 or 50 meters by the turn of the next millennium. The authors note that the bulk of the methane stores in the east Siberian shelf are trapped roughly 200 meters below the seafloor, indicating that the recent methane emissions observations were likely not connected to the modest modern permafrost thaw. Instead, they suggest that the current methane emissions are the result of the permafrost's still adjusting to its new aquatic conditions, even after 8000 years. (Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, doi:10.1029/2011JC007218, 2011)

That is an interesting article, but please understand that it was not, and will not, be peer-reviewed. It was published in EOS, the weekly AGU newpaper and not in one of the AGU research journals. As expressed on the AGU.org website:

Eos

is a newspaper, not a research journal.

Furthermore:

Eos

does not consider or accept manuscripts

that have previously been published or that are being considered by other publications.

Which is not to say that it is automatically flawed, just that it is one journalist's opinion and not research. One thing that struck me when I read the abstract was the author's simplistic model of the methane deposits being 200 meters below the seafloor. That is simply not true and is very easy to debunk. The depth of the hydrate deposits, and the thickness of the overlying sediments (including permafrost if persent), vary considerably - with the methane hydrate deposits actually being exposed to seawater in some places. Here's a pic fyi:

The presentation TerryM linked to is a much better explanation of the situation off the coast of Siberia.

[dabize]

Ok, so here is the paper which the article was discussing. The story in the independent is a press release

also just no peer review paper to back it up yet.

http://www.agu.org/p...1JC007218.shtml

That abstract suggests that the current releases are due to long term permafrost degradation set in motion when the ESAS was flooded 8kya, rather than current warming.

Not particularly reassuring, considering the magnitude of the recent increase in CH4 release from the site.

It merely suggests that upcoming large-scale releases are coming and that there is nothing we can do to stop them.

[dabize]

The process has been going on for the last 8,000 years and those releases if the process continued would be very

far into the future.

http://dotearth.blog...apocalypse-not/

Not at all.

The process has continued for 8,000 years, and has reached a point where CH4 release is starting to increase rapidly.

That increase presumably reflects continued melting from the changes started 8,000 years ago.

Continuation of that melting may very well cause continued rapid increases in CH4 release rate, irrespective of AGW.

So AGW may not have caused the current increased release at the ESAS, but the interaction of increased CH4 release with an anthropogenically warmed world full of CH4 deposit sites the CAN be affected by AGW (such as thermokarsts throughout northern siberia and Canada) is something to be concerned about.

[PhillipS]

Ok, so here is the paper which the article was discussing. The story in the independent is a press release

also just no peer review paper to back it up yet. Once we actually have a peer review paper we can discuss

it at that point further. Until then I am always weary of sensational headlines without a paper to back it up.

http://www.agu.org/p...1JC007218.shtml

A dirty little secret of journalism has always been the degree to which some reporters rely on press releases and public relations offices as sources for stories. But recent newsroom cutbacks and increased pressure to churn out online news have given publicity operations even greater prominence in science coverage.

http://www.cjr.org/t...el.php?page=all

Thank you for the link to the research paper. Not being an AGU member and being too cheap to buy the full article I can only read the abstract, but it seems to me that there is more meat to the paper than there was to the Colin Schultz EOS article you originally linked to.

However, I still have concerns about the simplistic permafrost model they used since we know from measurements that the actual methane hydrate deposits are more complex than that. And I am skeptical of their conclusions that today's methane release is simply the continuation of a process that began 8K years ago. The current CH4 values are around 1900 ppb and rising. Here's a plot of the full instrumental record at Barrow AK.

As we can see, the atmospheric methane levels have risen from around 1700 ppb in 1983 to today's 1900 ppb. Which works out to a rate of increase of 200 ppb in 28 years, or about 7 ppb/year. Extrapolating back the 8K years at a constant rate would indicate that the Earth had an atmospheric methane level of -54,000 ppb at the start of this interglacial - if their conclusions are correct. Hmmm, a negative CH4 concentration seems a bit questionable. Well, some of the observed methane increase is from AGW so let's split the observed CH4 increase into natural and AGW. Picking values out of thin air, let's assume 99% (6.93 ppb/year) of the observed increase is from AGW and 1% (0.07 ppb/year) is from the natural process proposed by the paper's authors. This time for the extrapolation I'll assume 150 years of AGW methane release in addition to the 8K years of natural CH4 release. I come up with a combined AGW and natural release of 1600 ppb which when subtracted from today's readings gives a starting concentration of around 300 ppb. That's a lot easier to believe than -54,000 ppb if all of the release is natural.

Now, before people start beating on me, my assumptions above are just a back of the envelope math exercise and only meant to illustrate how to be an honest skeptic and use available data to assess a paper's assertions.

The data available today, limited though it may be, indicates that CH4 release is increasing as a consequence of AGW so anybody claiming otherwise has to show some solid evidence as to how this could be natural.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Well done phillip.

[tacoman25]

Thank you for the link to the research paper. Not being an AGU member and being too cheap to buy the full article I can only read the abstract, but it seems to me that there is more meat to the paper than there was to the Colin Schultz EOS article you originally linked to.

However, I still have concerns about the simplistic permafrost model they used since we know from measurements that the actual methane hydrate deposits are more complex than that. And I am skeptical of their conclusions that today's methane release is simply the continuation of a process that began 8K years ago. The current CH4 values are around 1900 ppb and rising. Here's a plot of the full instrumental record at Barrow AK.

Interesting...many skeptics have concerns about the simplistic global climate models used, since the actual global climate is much more complex.

[PhillipS]

Interesting...many skeptics have concerns about the simplistic global climate models used, since the actual global climate is much more complex.

You're right - and their concerns are legit. Simplistic models, and models with very coarse resolution (which is a different problem) are limited in what they can tell you, and in how much confidence you can have in their output. This is not to say that models, even simple models, aren't useful - it's just important to understand their limitations and caveats.

[skierinvermont]

Thank you for the link to the research paper. Not being an AGU member and being too cheap to buy the full article I can only read the abstract, but it seems to me that there is more meat to the paper than there was to the Colin Schultz EOS article you originally linked to.

However, I still have concerns about the simplistic permafrost model they used since we know from measurements that the actual methane hydrate deposits are more complex than that. And I am skeptical of their conclusions that today's methane release is simply the continuation of a process that began 8K years ago. The current CH4 values are around 1900 ppb and rising. Here's a plot of the full instrumental record at Barrow AK.

As we can see, the atmospheric methane levels have risen from around 1700 ppb in 1983 to today's 1900 ppb. Which works out to a rate of increase of 200 ppb in 28 years, or about 7 ppb/year. Extrapolating back the 8K years at a constant rate would indicate that the Earth had an atmospheric methane level of -54,000 ppb at the start of this interglacial - if their conclusions are correct. Hmmm, a negative CH4 concentration seems a bit questionable. Well, some of the observed methane increase is from AGW so let's split the observed CH4 increase into natural and AGW. Picking values out of thin air, let's assume 99% (6.93 ppb/year) of the observed increase is from AGW and 1% (0.07 ppb/year) is from the natural process proposed by the paper's authors. This time for the extrapolation I'll assume 150 years of AGW methane release in addition to the 8K years of natural CH4 release. I come up with a combined AGW and natural release of 1600 ppb which when subtracted from today's readings gives a starting concentration of around 300 ppb. That's a lot easier to believe than -54,000 ppb if all of the release is natural.

Now, before people start beating on me, my assumptions above are just a back of the envelope math exercise and only meant to illustrate how to be an honest skeptic and use available data to assess a paper's assertions.

The data available today, limited though it may be, indicates that CH4 release is increasing as a consequence of AGW so anybody claiming otherwise has to show some solid evidence as to how this could be natural.

The rise of CH4 concentrations over the last 20-100 years has nothing to do with natural methane release. It is a product of anthropogenic emissions. Humans represent HALF of global CH4 emissions, natural and anthropogenic (by comparison we are just 1 or 2% of CO2 emissions). That's why CH4 has risen from 750ppb to 1800ppb in the last 120 years.

Thus concluding that the current arctic bubbling is 'not normal' simply because global concentrations have skyrocketed makes no sense. Global concentrations have skyrocketed because of direct human emissions, not the arctic.

Whether arctic methane release is contributing significantly to the global increase in CH4 concentrations is a valid question which I don't have an answer to. But the global increase is not proof in and of itself that arctic emissions are abnormal or significant.

[dabize]

Thus concluding that the current arctic bubbling is 'not normal' simply because global concentrations have skyrocketed makes no sense.

I think that this conclusion is based on the comparison made by the investigators themselves between conditions in the Northern Laptev this year vs past years, plus inferences drawn from the failure of earlier surveys to see things of this magnitude in the ESAS (or for that matter anywhere).

Not ironclad, but reasonably convincing, especially given the extreme description of hundreds of km-wide plumes in a 10,000 square km area.

[skierinvermont]

I think that this conclusion is based on the comparison made by the investigators themselves between conditions in the Northern Laptev this year vs past years, plus inferences drawn from the failure of earlier surveys to see things of this magnitude in the ESAS (or for that matter anywhere).

Not ironclad, but reasonably convincing, especially given the extreme description of hundreds of km-wide plumes in a 10,000 square km area.

Like I said, there may be other reasons, but the rise of CH4 which is largely/entirely attributable to direct human emissions, is not one of them.

[WeatherRusty]

Like I said, there may be other reasons, but the rise of CH4 which is largely/entirely attributable to direct human emissions, is not one of them.

But if these plumes are confirmed to be emergent new prolific sources that may change. We will have to wait and see how this develops and if it worsens/spreads with time.

[Peter M]

The positive feed backs are kicking in far quicker then was thought- the IPCC said an 'ice free arctic' by '2060' and now some are saying 2020, or even before that.

Methane bubbling up with this level of warming thus far is disconcerting to say the least- but we will have to see the actual amount before making judgment.

At the AGU week before last Jim Hansen said climate sensitivity has been greater then even predicted 4 years ago. C02 will likely reach the yearly high in mid spring- near 397ppm- but this is in the pipeline- and will not be seen for perhaps 15-20 years. What we are seeing now is the effects of 360-365ppm- from the early 1990's. Its a matter of conjecture what happens when we see today's C02 level.

[dabize]

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/17/391462/our-extreme-weather-arctic-changes-to-blame/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Link to a very nice explanation of how low ice in the Arctic leads to high amplitude jet streams and potentially more and longer snowy periods at lower latitudes.

Helpful for us unwashed, at least.

I post it here because the comparison of the ice maps for 1980 and 2007 shows that the ESAS region is where most of the reduction in summer extent has occurred.

I know that correlation is not causation (this is not a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument!), but an argument COULD be raised to defend the idea that either one of these events (CH4 release and sea ice loss) might credibly play a role in facilitating the other.............

[The_Global_Warmer]

So this is a mostly a laptev and ESB event or kara and chuchki to barents and bearing.

Also, my cpu is broken. I am getting it fixed this week. Will someone please post any real time obs of ch4 in the arctic region, thank you.

[LocoAko]

http://thinkprogress...rce=twitterfeed

Link to a very nice explanation of how low ice in the Arctic leads to high amplitude jet streams and potentially more and longer snowy periods at lower latitudes.

Helpful for us unwashed, at least.

I post it here because the comparison of the ice maps for 1980 and 2007 shows that the ESAS region is where most of the reduction in summer extent has occurred.

I know that correlation is not causation (this is not a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument!), but an argument COULD be raised to defend the idea that either one of these events (CH4 release and sea ice loss) might credibly play a role in facilitating the other.............

Dr. Francis!

[TerryM]

An interesting paper showing that disruption of the thermohaline in the Laptev Sea in 2007 increased bottom temps by 3 degrees C

The observations from the Laptev Sea in 2007 indicate that the bottom water temperatures on the mid-shelf increased by more than 3�C

http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/6425/html_150

[tacoman25]

The positive feed backs are kicking in far quicker then was thought- the IPCC said an 'ice free arctic' by '2060' and now some are saying 2020, or even before that.

Methane bubbling up with this level of warming thus far is disconcerting to say the least- but we will have to see the actual amount before making judgment.

At the AGU week before last Jim Hansen said climate sensitivity has been greater then even predicted 4 years ago. C02 will likely reach the yearly high in mid spring- near 397ppm- but this is in the pipeline- and will not be seen for perhaps 15-20 years. What we are seeing now is the effects of 360-365ppm- from the early 1990's. Its a matter of conjecture what happens when we see today's C02 level.

Not if you go by global temperatures, which of course is the ultimate measure of global warming.

And how exactly are you determining that 15-20 year "pipeline warming" timeline?

[dabize]

Not if you go by global temperatures, which of course is the ultimate measure of global warming.

And how exactly are you determining that 15-20 year "pipeline warming" timeline?

For a phenomenon localized to the Arctic (we hope), you shouldn't use Arctic temperatures?

[tacoman25]

For a phenomenon localized to the Arctic (we hope), you shouldn't use Arctic temperatures?

His post seemed to imply more than just Arctic temperatures, referencing Hansen's claim that climate sensitivity was higher than previously thought. If that is the case, it should be influencing more than just the Arctic.