Today’s Popular Posts
- .
Popular Posts
- ,
Posts in this Impact Area: (Climate Change)
- Mapping commercial sea routes in the Arctic Sea
- What on Earth are global tipping points?
- The Planet Under Pressure conference
- Key ocean currents warming at accelerated rate
- The Global Warming controversy is ended…
- Arctic Council: Getting serious about making money from global warming
- Mapping the impact of climate change
- Global warming: The climatology of resignation
- New evidence: Change in North Atlantic currents
- Wild seeds for climate change
- Addressing the climate change information gap(s)
- New projections: Drought increasing worldwide
- New light on solar cycle and Earth’s climate
- Possible Tipping Point: Arctic approaches Pliocene conditions
- A framework for thinking about a healthy planet
- Climate Change: Madness in their methane?
- Doubling down on climate change prediction
- Global warming may have unforeseen (and nasty) tipping points
- New study: Stratospheric water vapor affects global warming
- New study: Sea rise underestimated
- The Copenhagen Diagnosis - a new global warming report
- Study: Oceans may be losing capacity as carbon sink
- Update: New figures for CO2 and global warming
- New study: Atmospheric carbon-dioxide unchanged since 1850
- Follow-up: More and faster global warming

Climate Change: Madness in their methane?
A few years ago the whole ‘cow farts are global climate threat’ thing seemed more than a bit overblown. (Cow and other farts being mostly methane, dontcha know.) It became difficult to mention methane in connection with global warming without raising images of bovine herds worldwide in a massive chorus of postprandial flatulence. Besides, CO2 is the real bête noir of climate. Methane would be if there was a lot more of it in the atmosphere, but its percentage is small (< 1%). It’s a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. It can make lots of ‘interesting’ atmospheric combinations at the molecular level, and its concentration in the atmosphere can change more rapidly than CO2. That last point, rapid change in concentration, may be the parameter of concern for the new study that (revising figures from a 2005 study) indicates there may be more methane outgassing from the Siberian shelf than thought.
The East Siberian shelf is a region north of present-day Siberia (Russia) that at one time was above sea-level, and where extremely thick beds of peat once formed. However, these beds were frozen, becoming part of the permafrost and then submerged by a rising sea. In theory, the methane produced by peat beds (which can over time become lignite, brown coal) should have stopped forming, or have been trapped in the permafrost and under the sea. So when significant quantities of atmospheric methane were detected after 2003, it was assumed that something was happening to release the methane.
The speculation (hypothesizing) was that as the Arctic Sea warms due to Global Warming, especially in the summer months, the frozen beds of peat begin to unfreeze and release ever increasing amounts of methane. Then, instead of mixing with sea-water to produce CO2, the methane was making it to the surface of the sea and being released more or less raw into the atmosphere.
The new study, conducted by the University of Alaska Fairbank in conjunction with 12 other institutions, puts more data into the methane pot:
Other experts point to problems with this hypothesizing. First and foremost, there is not enough data from previous years to prove the Siberian outgassing is new. Methane outgassing could have been taking place for hundreds or thousands of years; it could be a regular feature of the Arctic regions (with variations). We don’t know.
Another problem is the absolute quantity of methane. While the figures indicate that the Siberian region might produce as much methane as the rest of the world; methane from ocean sources is but a fraction of that from land – unless a catastrophic release of some kind is generated, the Siberian Margin would not, of itself, increase the methane proportion in the atmosphere that significantly. This is particularly true because methane remains in the atmosphere a relatively short time, a decade or two at most. Only a catastrophic release of methane from frozen peat (land or sea) would be significant – and there’s no evidence of such a catastrophe in the offing.
There are problems with the criticism: We will never know if this is a new phenomenon from direct data of observation. The history will have to be inferred, if reconstructed at all. What’s important is the ongoing data. Calculating the absolute amount of additional methane is also very difficult. Mostly the data shows ‘indicators’ – samples – not actual volumes. Nevertheless, the team that put together this study is currently drilling into the seafloor to attempt estimates of how much methane is stored there.
This is typical give and take for a significant scientific body of research. It’s why, in the final analysis, “More research is needed” is often the prescription.