Arctic Permafrost Leaking Methane at Record Levels

**MustavaMond** · 17-01-2010, 06:03 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...afrost-methane

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels, figures show

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame

David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 January 2010 19.00 GMT
Article history

Photograph: Francis Latreille/Corbis

Methane emissions from the Arctic permafrost increased by 31% from 2003-07, figures show.

Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point.
Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.
The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.

They fear the warming caused by increased methane emissions will itself release yet more methane and lock the region into a destructive cycle that forces temperatures to rise faster than predicted.

Paul Palmer, a scientist at Edinburgh University who worked on the new study, said: "High latitude wetlands are currently only a small source of methane but for these emissions to increase by a third in just five years is very significant. It shows that even a relatively small amount of warming can cause a large increase in the amount of methane emissions."

Global warming [ please please stop calling it that , I suggest POLAR warming] is occuring twice as fast in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth. Some regions have already warmed by 2.5C, and temperatures there are projected to increase by more than 10C by 2100 if carbon emissions continue to rise at current rates.
Palmer said: "This study does not show the Arctic has passed a tipping point, but it should open people's eyes. It shows there is a positive feedback and that higher temperatures bring higher emissions and faster warming."
The change in the Arctic is enough to explain a recent increase in global methane levels in the atmosphere, he said. Global levels have risen steadily since 2007, after a decade or so holding steady.

The new study, published in the journal Science, shows that methane emissions from the Arctic increased by 31% from 2003-07. The increase represents about 1m extra tonnes of methane each year. Palmer cautioned that the five-year increase was too short to call a definitive trend.

The findings are part of a wider study of methane emissions from global wetlands, such as paddy fields, marshes and bogs. To identify where methane was released, the researchers combined methane levels in the atmosphere with surface temperature changes. They did not measure methane emissions directly, but used satellite measurements of variations in groundwater depth, which alter the way bacteria break down organic matter to release or consume methane.
They found that just over half of all methane emissions came from the tropics, with some 20m tonnes released from the Amazon river basin each year, and 26m tonnes from the Congo basin. Rice paddy fields across China and south and south-east Asia produced just under one-third of global methane, some 33m tonnes. Just 2% of global methane comes from Arctic latitudes, the study found, though the region showed the largest increases. The 31% rise in methane emissions there from 2003-07 was enough to help lift the global average increase to 7%.

Palmer said: "Our study reinforces the idea that satellites can pinpoint changes in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from a particular place on earth. This opens the door to quantifying greenhouse gas emissions made from a variety of natural and man-made sources."

Palmer said it was a "disgrace" that so few satellites were launched to monitor levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. He said it was unclear whether the team would be able to continue the methane monitoring in future. The pair of satellites used to analyse water, known as Grace, are already over their expected mission life time, while a European version launched last year, called Goce, is scheduled to fly for less than two years.
The new study follows repeated warnings that even modest levels of global warming could trigger huge increases in methane release from permafrost. Phillipe Ciais, a researcher with the Laboratory for Climate Sciences and the Environment in Gif-sur-Yvette, France, told a scientific meeting in Copenhagen last March that billions of tonnes could be released by just a 2C average global rise.
More on methane

While carbon dioxide gets most of the attention in the global warming debate, methane is pound-for-pound a more potent greenhouse gas, capable of trapping some 20 times more heat than CO2. Although methane is present in much lower quantities in the atmosphere, its potency makes it responsible for about one-fifth of man-made warming.
The gas is found in natural gas deposits and is generated naturally by bacteria that break down organic matter, such as in the guts of farm animal. About two-thirds of global methane comes from man-made sources, and levels have more than doubled since the industrial revolution.
Unlike carbon dioxide, methane lasts only a decade or so in the atmosphere, which has led some experts to call for greater attention to curbs on its production. Reductions in methane emissions could bring faster results in the fight against climate change, they say.

**billy the kid** · 17-01-2010, 08:24 PM

I get a feeling that what we humans do to counteract global warming is all too little too late. As with the methane rising so sharply in 5 years and with china and india in the energy game and also polical leaders guarding their economical situations i fear it will always be a road to misery for forth coming generations. The ever so selfish and greedy ways of capitalism will self destruct and the meek who were promised a good inheritance will perish for ever . We will pay for our stupity. Bank accounts rule, ok. Nobody wants to lose face but don't they just love to take the piss. Looks like a nice day today though weather wise.

**blackgang** · 17-01-2010, 08:38 PM

What the hell do you expect,, it has been 20k years since the last big freeze, so everything is getting warmer, if you unplug your freezer it will eventually warm up and the meat will gas off.
That is what has happened 3 or 4 times before on earth, and it is doing it again,
and with the tundra thawing and being full of woolly Mammoth and Mastodon shit it is going to put out methane gas,, what did you expect,, fresh orange juice??

**Gerbil** · 17-01-2010, 08:43 PM

Nice photo. More fossilized cow farts please.

**Begbie** · 17-01-2010, 09:01 PM

It's a virtuous cycle. The sudden release of large amounts of methane will heat the polar regions so much that the Greenland ice cap will melt. The result of this will be a very large amount of light freshwater pumped into the Labrador Sea. This will in turn end the North Atlantic Deep Water system by halting the descent of cold salt water. The result will be a fairly quick failure of the Gulf Stream and the onset of a new ice age.

Problem solved.

**Takeovers** · 18-01-2010, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Begbie

The result will be a fairly quick failure of the Gulf Stream and the onset of a new ice age.

Problem solved.

That would only work locally for that peninsula appendix of Asia that is known as Europe. Europe is dependent of that warm water heating system Gulf Stream.

The rest of the world would heat up even more.

But who says warming is a bad thing? Probably a few billion people would die. Possibly our present technology driven society would go. But the species is not in danger. We have proven to be adaptable to changing situations.

**Panda** · 18-01-2010, 07:46 AM

If jolly old England freezes over it will mean we end up with more of the buggers out here in Oz. This is potentially a huge crisis and needs urgent attention from all world governments!

**blackgang** · 18-01-2010, 09:13 AM

Damn Pandy, I ain't give ya a green for 4 years and it says I git to spread it around before I can give ya one,,, well never know

**MustavaMond** · 18-01-2010, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by Begbie

The result will be a fairly quick failure of the Gulf Stream and the onset of a new ice age.

Problem solved.

That would only work locally for that peninsula appendix of Asia that is known as Europe. Europe is dependent of that warm water heating system Gulf Stream.

The rest of the world would heat up even more.

But who says warming is a bad thing? Probably a few billion people would die. Possibly our present technology driven society would go. But the species is not in danger. We have proven to be adaptable to changing situations.

Perhaps this is the planet's way of dealing with a nasty virus called humans- run a temperature.

Agree, humanity will probably survive and may even improve regarding its collective respect for one another and the planet. However many species will not and that is sad.

I think it is all going to hit in our lifetimes, we may be the last generation to experience a life of relative ease and luxury.

**SunTzu** · 18-01-2010, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by MustavaMond

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by Begbie

The result will be a fairly quick failure of the Gulf Stream and the onset of a new ice age.

Problem solved.

That would only work locally for that peninsula appendix of Asia that is known as Europe. Europe is dependent of that warm water heating system Gulf Stream.

The rest of the world would heat up even more.

But who says warming is a bad thing? Probably a few billion people would die. Possibly our present technology driven society would go. But the species is not in danger. We have proven to be adaptable to changing situations.

Perhaps this is the planet's way of dealing with a nasty virus called humans- run a temperature.

Agree, humanity will probably survive and may even improve regarding its collective respect for one another and the planet. However many species will not and that is sad.

I think it is all going to hit in our lifetimes, we may be the last generation to experience a life of relative ease and luxury.

Yes. And going back to prehistoric/medieval type society is not really my idea of a "problem solved" nicely.

Just like internet too much ...

**Takeovers** · 18-01-2010, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by SunTzu

Yes. And going back to prehistoric/medieval type society is not really my idea of a "problem solved" nicely.

Just like internet too much ...

You are right.

But actually I don't believe the Greenland Ice Shelf will melt fast enough to stop the Gulf Stream. So I also believe that the UN figures of an ocean level increase of less than 30 cm a few years ago till the end of this century is closer to reality than some of the latest scare figures. So climate disaster will not struck in the lifetime of our children.

**Panda** · 18-01-2010, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by SunTzu

Yes. And going back to prehistoric/medieval type society is not really my idea of a "problem solved" nicely.

Just like internet too much ...

You are right.

But actually I don't believe the Greenland Ice Shelf will melt fast enough to stop the Gulf Stream. So I also believe that the UN figures of an ocean level increase of less than 30 cm a few years ago till the end of this century is closer to reality than some of the latest scare figures. So climate disaster will not struck in the lifetime of our children.

Any reasoning behind your beliefs?

There are so many theories around the mind boggles. Sorting the media hype from the often conflicting scientific studies can be a bit of a dilemma.

Saw a documentary recently that showed a small Pacific island community based on a coral atoll going under water on high tides these days. The doco was promoting it as a sign of global warming and sea level rise. But the island was 2 to 3 meters above sea level and the sea level has only risen about 4 millimeters over the past few decades. So how can a 4mm rise in sea level cause the tides to rise 2 meters? I suspect that the coral atoll itself is sinking, possibly due to natural processes of age, and/or possibly under the physical weight of human settlement which includes thousands of tons of rocks imported for flood prevention retaining walls.

Also saw another documentary where thousands of acres of solid land (in Bangladesh, I think) was being engulfed by the sea. As it turns out, its not that the sea is rising to cause the problem, but the land is sinking. A natural process in some places, but something that can be accelerated by decades of pumping out ground (fresh)water for drinking and irrigation. Ground levels can sink by several meters in some places when the subterranean aquifers supporting them are extracted. I have read that Bangkok is one of the places that could be affected by such subterranean aquifer depletion.

**Takeovers** · 18-01-2010, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Panda

Any reasoning behind your beliefs?

There are so many theories around the mind boggles. Sorting the media hype from the often conflicting scientific studies can be a bit of a dilemma.

You are stating my reasoning. That UN-study a few years ago seemed to be funded on scientific research. Much of what came recently only displays the most extreme scenarios like facts as a preparation for the world climate summit.

Global warming is happening, no doubt but like Al Gore it is fashionable now to paint an ever bleaker picture.

Originally Posted by Panda

Saw a documentary recently that showed a small Pacific island community based on a coral atoll going under water on high tides these days. The doco was promoting it as a sign of global warming and sea level rise. But the island was 2 to 3 meters above sea level and the sea level has only risen about 4 millimeters over the past few decades. So how can a 4mm rise in sea level cause the tides to rise 2 meters? I suspect that the coral atoll itself is sinking, possibly due to natural processes of age, and/or possibly under the physical weight of human settlement which includes thousands of tons of rocks imported for flood prevention retaining walls.

Agree with that. The problems there are homemade. They digged the coral reefs for building material and are now wondering why they have increasing problems. I saw documentaries on these practices a few years ago. It is now convenient to blame everything on global warming and sea level rise. It will come but is not yet the source of problems yet.

**blackgang** · 18-01-2010, 08:32 PM

To much ice is floating ice and not enough is on land to cause to much of a rise in water levels.
Has plenty of time for another ice age to start before to much shit happens.
It is all natural anyway so not much can be done anyway, it will eventually happen with or without human intervention.

**Takeovers** · 18-01-2010, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

To much ice is floating ice and not enough is on land to cause to much of a rise in water levels.

Floating, that would be mainly the northern polar ice cap. That melting would have no effect on the sea level aside from warming water expanding.

But there are huge amounts of inland-ice on Greenland and the south polar region. If the Greenland ice melts the sea level would rise 7m according to this site. That is enough for a major worldwide desaster but it would not destroy civilisation.

If the South Polar Ice melts it would rise 61m. If would would happen there would just be enough left of the City of Berlin to place a few dive stations there. But that won't happen any time soon because it is just too cold in that region.

**Sakeopete** · 18-01-2010, 11:49 PM

I think change is coming but keep in mind as areas around the world experience climate change we can adapt. Maybe in the future Thailand will grow wheat instead of rice if they receive less rain. Areas of norther Canada, Europe and Russia which were too cold to grow crops may be able to do so. With our ability to transport seed and share growing techniques we should adapt fine. They question is will developed countries help the poorer ones as they will be the real losers.

**SunTzu** · 20-01-2010, 09:14 PM

^ predictions for western Europe is mediterranean climate. (unless the gulf-stream ice-age thign happens of course)

much like Morocco.

**Takeovers** · 20-01-2010, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Sakeopete

I think change is coming but keep in mind as areas around the world experience climate change we can adapt. Maybe in the future Thailand will grow wheat instead of rice if they receive less rain. Areas of norther Canada, Europe and Russia which were too cold to grow crops may be able to do so. With our ability to transport seed and share growing techniques we should adapt fine. They question is will developed countries help the poorer ones as they will be the real losers.

I see it just the same. Since we cannot change the working of the world economy fast enough we should concentrate on adapting instead. Third world countries will need to adapt also and will need help. But if small subsistence farmers won't adapt there is no help for them.

When long term the water levels will rise more than a meter probably some big coastal cities will have to be abandoned. But that will not happen this century.

Long term we will have to change our energy source in any case as the present sources will run out.

Thread: Arctic Permafrost Leaking Methane at Record Levels

Thread Tools

Display

Arctic Permafrost Leaking Methane at Record Levels

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions