University of Alaska, Fairbanks scientists reported the alarming news at the AGU meeting:
A team led by International Arctic Research Center scientist Igor Semiletov has found data to suggest that the carbon pool beneath the Arctic Ocean is leaking.
The results of more than 1,000 measurements of dissolved methane in the surface water from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf this summer as part of the International Siberian Shelf Study show an increased level of methane in the area. Geophysical measurements showed methane bubbles coming out of chimneys on the seafloor.
“The concentrations of the methane were the highest ever measured in the summertime in the Arctic Ocean,” Semiletov said. “We have found methane bubble clouds above the gas-charged sediment and above the chimneys going through the sediment.”
We first heard about this research when Semiletov talked to the U.K.‘s Guardian in September. These observations are extremely worrisome for four reasons. First, many fear that a huge methane release is what happened during the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Second, releasing even a small fraction of the sub-sea methane would make stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at non-catastrophic concentrations all but impossible.
Third, as NOAA reported earlier this year, levels of methane rose sharply last year for the first time since 1998:

Fourth, the findings are apparently based on very new and credible in situ measurements: “Semiletov said this year’s expeditions used both chemical and geophysical measurement techniques, a first in the area.”
The new data indicates the underwater permafrost is thawing and therefore releasing methane. Permafrost can affect methane release in two ways. Both underwater and on land, it contains frozen organic material such as dead plants and animals. When permafrost thaws, that organic material decomposes, releasing gases like methane and carbon dioxide. In addition, methane, either in gas form or in ice-like methane hydrates, is trapped underneath the permafrost. When the permafrost thaws, the trapped methane can seep out through the thawed soil. Methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, is thought to be an important factor in global climate change.
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a relatively shallow continental shelf that stretches more than 900 miles into the Arctic Ocean from Siberia. The area is a year-round source of methane to the globe’s atmosphere. However, until recently, scientists believed that much of the area’s carbon pool was safely insulated by underwater permafrost, which is, on average, 11 degrees Celcius warmer than surface permafrost.
Since 1994, Igor Semiletov of the Far-Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences “has led about 10 expeditions in the Laptev Sea but during the 1990s he did not detect any elevated levels of methane. However, since 2003 he reported a rising number of methane “hotspots,” which have now been confirmed using more sensitive instruments.” Why now?
Dr Semiletov has suggested several possible reasons why methane is now being released from the Arctic, including the rising volume of relatively warmer water being discharged from Siberia’s rivers due to the melting of the permafrost on the land.
This, of course, would be an amplifying feedback of the very worst kind.
The Arctic region as a whole has seen a 4C rise in average temperatures over recent decades and a dramatic decline in the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by summer sea ice. Many scientists fear that the loss of sea ice could accelerate the warming trend because open ocean soaks up more heat from the sun than the reflective surface of an ice-covered sea.
And, in fact, the NSIDC reported at the AGU that the early autumn Arctic was warming up thanks to the open ocean.
The time to act is January 20, 2009.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Comments
View as Threaded
amazingdrx Posted 3:20 am
20 Dec 2008
The answer is crucial, it means the difference between exponential run away climate disaster and some possibility of a turn around.
For the mathematically aware this is an important question. Most of the scientists and policy makers in the new administration are aware. Will that make any difference?
It is so difficult to understand how people who know how exponential growth works can keep their blinders on. Do the scientifically literate just become better at self-deception as they experience greater levels of information? Is it the tendency of ambitious people towards mental compartmentalization?
Those we rely on to understand and explain important scientific issues seem to be asleep at the keyboard.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:35 pm
20 Dec 2008
The ocean water sent into the atmosphere in warmer areas would eventually fall as rain, fresh water to green deserts that would increase CO2 capture through photosynthesis.
Middle eastern nations could invest oil wealth in this technology and turn their region back into the fertile crescent again. That would be a good way to use oil wealth.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 2:42 pm
31 Dec 2008
Frankly, there isn't enought space to give you the rundown of what I've done to raise awareness, nor the material I've been been circulating. Suffice it to say that I surmise that until the melting permafrost (both land and submarine type) is actually putting out tremendous amounts of methane, the danger will very likely be dismissed.
By the way, while popular culture claims that methane (CH4) is "20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide" (CO2), that is a retarded fact. Actually, the EPA says it is 23 times more powerful, but that still is retarded. Instead, CH4 is 100 times more power than CO2 over the first decade of emission. Furthermore, what I consider the best way to describe it, CH4 is 70 times more powerful over 20 years. In other words, it is dramatically more powerful a greenhouse gas over the short run, so is being underestimated by "experts."
Permalink