Methane Gas: The Great Escape

It’s been talked about for years, and now it’s really happening — methane, a global warming gas far more deadly than carbon dioxide, is escaping from the Arctic seabed in vast quantities, adding to the atmospheric burden. What effect will it have on our planet’s climate?

Arctic Ice - from The IndependentUK newspaper The Independent led with what it described as an exclusive story on 23rd September 2008: The Methane Time Bomb. Science Editor Steve Connor reports that Arctic scientists have discovered what’s described as a new global warming threat — the melting permafrost is releasing into the atmosphere millions of tons of a gas 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide.

This is not a new idea — Whitley Strieber‘s Unknown Country web site has raised the subject numerous times over the past few years, and his 1999 book The Coming Global Superstorm discussed the contribution that methane released into the atmosphere would make to the conditions necessary for the formation of a Superstorm that could dump billions of tons of snow onto the northern hemisphere, causing another mini-ice age. What this new report brings is hard evidence that such methane releases are real — and that they’re happening right now.

Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species, writes Steve Connor. Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia’s northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane -– sometimes at up to 100 times background levels –- over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.

In the past few days, the researchers have seen areas of sea foaming with gas bubbling up through “methane chimneys” rising from the sea floor. They believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost, which has acted like a “lid” to prevent the gas from escaping, has melted away to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the last ice age.

Methane Gas Deposits - USGS 1996

If it’s happening in Siberian waters, it’s probably happening elsewhere — there are deposits of methane clathrate (also called methane hydrate, or methane ice) locked up in various undersea locations around the globe which must surely be at risk of escaping. Those in high latitudes have, until now, been kept locked down by the coldness of the surrounding permafrost conditions of the seabed, while deposits in other, more temperate locations are restrained by the relatively cold water currents circulating immediately on top of the strata where they’re entombed — but those cold currents are warming up, and once they reach a certain critical temperature, the methane will begin to expand. Eventually it will overcome the pressure of the water above and escape through fissures in the rock. Some of the methane will dissolve in the sea water — but where the gas has sufficient pressure, it will rise swiftly through the water and escape into the atmosphere. That’s what the scientists have been observing in the Siberian waters.

Methane gas also escapes from boggy and peaty landscapes, such as those in high latitude Russia and Canada, as the permafrost melts in higher temperatures. Overall, the Earth’s crust contains huge amounts of methane. When it gets into the atmosphere, it acts much more powerfully as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, though it doesn’t persist as long. But when it does eventually break down, it turns into water — and our old friend carbon dioxide, so even after it’s gone, it still has a sting in its tail.

What does the release of all this methane mean for our immediate future?

During the third and final part of a recent BBC2 documentary series called Earth — The Climate Wars, Dr. Iain Stewart spoke to Professor Jim White, who was a member of the US Geological Survey project in the late 1990s which collected ice cores from the Greenland ice sheet. Analysis of the chemical composition of these ice cores provides a window on the climatic conditions that prevailed when the ice was laid down, going back many thousands — even hundreds of thousands — of years. Dr. Stewart was particularly interested in finding out what happened around 11,000 years ago, at the end of a period known as the Younger Dryas. He visited Professor White in Denver, where the ice cores are now stored. Together they examined an ice core that covered the transition from the 1,000-year-long cold, dry Younger Dryas period into the next, warmer period known as the Holocene:

IS: So we’ve come out the last ice age, it’s started to warm up, and then we dip into this 1,000 year cold stage, the Younger Dryas. What does this core tell us about how it ends?

JW: As you come along in this particular core you see layers that are roughly half a centimetre thick, and then right here, these layers become about a centimetre thick all the way up the core. And that is a fundamental change in the amount of snowfall that occurs … this is the Younger Dryas cold period, [and] right here is the end of the Younger Dryas — you can actually put a line right there in the ice.

IS: So — right on that divide there?

JW: Right on that divide right there.

IS (narration): In the cold dry period of the Younger Dryas, the layers are cloudy, and so thin they seem to merge into each other. But then, there’s a sudden transition to clearer, thicker layers. These thicker bands show there was much heavier snowfall. And when they analysed the chemistry of the ice, it revealed the temperature had jumped by five degrees.

IS: So how quick is that transition?

JW: Well, if you look at it, basically one year.

IS: Wow.

JW: Yes. There’s enough ‘noise’ in here that one can argue it’s maybe one to three years — but it’s not one to five years and it’s certainly not one to ten years. It’s right around one year.

IS: So we go from essentially an ice age, in the Younger Dryas, to the warm period immediately afterwards within a year.

JW: In terms of snowfall, yes. It takes a little longer for the climate system to warm up.

IS (narration): The Earth’s climate was meant to take thousands of years to change. But the ice core showed that the climate could switch from an ice age to warm conditions in less than a human lifetime. And as they looked further back in time, there was more to come.

IS: So is this the only abrupt change you find?

JW: No. No, this ice core contains a couple of dozen abrupt climate changes that have warmings that are as fast and environmental changes that are as drastic as the one you see here.

IS: So are these rapid shifts characteristic of the climate system?

JW: It’s clearly not an artefact in the system, it’s clearly not just a once or twice kind of thing that maybe was a meteorite or something like that or a volcano — this is an inherent, intrinsic part of the climate system.

IS (narration): The discovery of sudden, rapid climate change was a scientific revolution. It meant that the climate was capable of sudden jumps in a time scale that modern civilization has never had to deal with.

IS: And — do you get genuinely scared about what that possibly means for us if we encounter it in the future?

JW: Yes. I don’t think anybody could not get scared. If you understood just how fast that was and how big this change was, just how fundamental it was — if something like that happened to us — and it’s important to recognise we’ve not seen anything like it — if something like that happened to us today, we would probably not be able to grow enough food, we would not have enough fresh water, it would challenge even the most industrialised society to adapt. And that is scary.

IS (narration) The most frightening thing is that no-one knows what causes the climate to change so quickly. So scientists began to worry that the changes already underway as a result of global warming could accelerate and turn out to be just as fast. It’s impossible not to look at that core and see that change from an ice age into a warm world over the course of a season or two, and realise that we could see climate change not in some distant future, but in our lifetime. And that’s made the debate much, much more urgent.

What strikes me here is the significance of past events depicted in the ice cores: the Earth had previously experienced a true Ice Age during the Pleistocene epoch, which began around 1.8 million years ago and lasted until about 11,500 years ago. During this time, repeated glaciation periods came and went in varying degrees as the planet warmed and cooled. Then came the Younger Dryas, a period lasting about 1,000 years when the planet was generally colder and dryer again. At the end of this period, the temperature at the Arctic rose very rapidly — by as much as five degrees — and the planet as a whole then began entering a warmer (interglacial) period. But the amount of snowfall in the northern hemisphere also suddenly became much heavier at this time — over the course of just one year.

This can be interpreted as a scenario where the sudden rise in temperature across the Arctic region caused huge reserves of methane — locked up on the seabed since before the Pleistocene epoch, at least two million years previously — to escape, adding to the greenhouse effect. This, in turn, would have forced temperatures to rise even more sharply, releasing even more methane, in a loop feedback effect. At a certain point the temperature, oceanic and atmospheric conditions could have converged to trigger a Superstorm — during which, in just one season, the northern hemisphere became covered once again in deep snow and ice that persisted for many years. As colder temperatures took hold once more, regions of permafrost re-formed, locking up the methane again until another sufficiently warm period arrived that melted the permafrost — i.e. what the scientists are now observing in Siberian waters.

The Coming Global SuperstormIt’s worth repeating here what Whitley Strieber and Art Bell wrote in their book:

By definition, a superstorm would involve an entire hemisphere. Its winds would reach extreme velocities, possibly in excess of two hundred miles an hour.

The storm would be triggered by a sudden increase in Arctic temperatures at the surface — exactly the kind of warm snap that could occur at any time during the global warming scenario presently unfolding — combined with extreme cold aloft. This warm flow of air would heat an ocean surface already affected by a loss of salinity due to polar melt and runoff from Greenland. The lack of salt in the water would cause it to take on heat quickly. At that point, the flow of the North Atlantic current would suddenly change, dropping south.

When this happened, the ultracold air trapped above the arctic by the warm airflow would slide southward, with a violent outcome.

The storm would last until the ocean cooled enough for the flow of the current to be reestablished. Before that happened, there would be a massive blizzard or series of blizzards that would dump billions of tons of snow across a fifth of the earth’s surface. When the sun finally did return, the huge increase in the earth’s albedo, or reflectivity, caused by the snow, would cause a dramatic drop in temperature. Whether the ice would melt or persist across the next summer would depend on its depth. If it persisted, a cooling trend of some duration would result. There would even be a possibility that a new ice age would begin …

The evidence that long-term changes in climate do take place is irrefutable. The ice keeps coming back, and we aren’t sure why. But something acts as the trigger, and we know that this event is a sudden one.

– The Coming Global Superstorm, Whitley Strieber & Art Bell, Pocket Books, 2000, pp/102-103
(Repeated from my post Climate Change: Competing Theories)

What came first, though, at the end of the Younger Dryas — the temperature rise, or the methane release? Surely, if the planet was cool enough to keep the methane safely locked up until that point, then methane release cannot have been responsible for the temperature increase. But there could have been many other factors simultaneously at work, such as the long-term cyclic variability in solar output and the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover; the variability in strength or even the temporary cessation of the Atlantic Gulf Stream; the emission of gases into the atmosphere from super-volcanoes; and other epic, relatively one-off events such as significant meteorite impacts which may have triggered seismic eruptions that affected entire continents and released deadly gases from deep within the Earth.

It has to be admitted that the picture’s far from complete. Today we know that the average global temperature is exhibiting a rising trend, even though we still can’t fully account for the reasons behind it. And the evidence of those ice cores cannot be ignored: no matter what triggered the Younger Dryas temperature rise, it shows that it is possible for the northern hemisphere to be subjected to a catastrophic cooling event within a geological blink of an eye — that is to say, over the course of just one year — as part of a general global warming trend. Searching for evidence to support that conjecture has been at the heart of my research during the past year or so.

I hate to say it, but I fear I may be edging closer to the answer.

Read my Climate Change posts in chronological order by using the Climate Change Log.

Arctic Ice Melt: 2008 Just Misses The Boat

Having recently passed the period of maximum retreat, the Arctic sea ice melt this year just missed beating last year’s record — but there’s little to celebrate.

On Tuesday 16th September 2008, BBC News reported that according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the ice covered 4.5 million sq km (1.7 million sq miles) at its lowest point on 12 September. Last year’s minimum was 4.1 million sq km (1.6 million sq miles). This summer’s ice cover was the second lowest since satellite records began 30 years ago, which NSIDC says emphasises the “strong negative trend”.

Graph Depicting Ice Loss 2008

With lower temperatures in the Arctic this year than in 2007, caused largely by La Nina conditions in the Pacific, which create a colder global climate, Walt Meier, a research scientist at NSIDC in Boulder, Colorado, said: “I think this summer has been more remarkable than last year, in fact, because last year we had really optimal conditions to melt a lot of ice. We had clear skies with the sun blazing down, we had warm temperatures, and winds that pushed the ice edge northwards. We didn’t have any of this this year, and yet we still came within 10% of the record; so people might be tempted to call it a recovery, but I don’t think that’s a good term — we’re still on a downwards trend towards ice-free Arctic summers.”

In the late 1990s, many climate computer models projected that it would be around 100 years before all the Arctic sea ice would disappear each summer (before returning to some extent in the winter). Around the turn of the millennium, as the annual melt rate rapidly accelerated, this period was revised to about 40 years. Now, increasing numbers of climate modellers think there’ll be nothing but open water each summer within five years.

“To my mind that’s a bit aggressive, but certainly not impossible,” said Dr Meier. “Five years ago that would have got someone laughed out of the room; but no-one’s laughing now.”

It may well be that the 2007 minimum won’t be broken for a number of years — according to another BBC News item published in May, scientists have predicted that the Earth’s temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase. German researchers have developed a new climate model suggesting the cooling will counter greenhouse warming. However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say. The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe. The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years.

Another piece of the complex jigsaw puzzle falling into place?

Read my Climate Change posts in chronological order by using the Climate Change Log.

Still No Sunspots

The current Solar Cycle — an indicator of the sun’s magnetic activity, which in turn is believed to influence our planet’s climate — is confounding astronomers by resolutely refusing to conform to predictions. There should be increasing numbers of sunspots blemishing the sun’s surface by now, but there are none. What does this trend indicate for our future?

According to Michael Asher, writing in Daily Tech on 1 September 2008, The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.

I wrote about the lack of sunspot activity back in March 2008, in There Goes The Sun — when I quoted from another Michael Asher article highlighting the sudden drop in global average temperature and its possible link to the lack of solar activity since the beginning of Solar Cycle 24, which kicked off at the start of 2008. By now, the sun should be exhibiting an increasingly frequent display of sunspots as it heads to a peak of activity around 2012 — but it isn’t.

Instead, reports Michael, this year has been extraordinarily long and quiet, with the first seven months averaging a sunspot number of only 3. August followed with none at all. The astonishing rapid drop of the past year has defied predictions, and caught nearly all astronomers by surprise. He says that When the sun is active, it’s not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop to near-zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins. This time, they haven’t.

Sunspot Numbers Graph - from Wikimedia Commons via Daily Tech

Graph from Wikimedia Commons, via Daily Tech

Sunspot data have been collected since 1749. The last time such a quiet entire month was recorded was in June 1913. Three events in the past 1,000 years have occurred where low sunspot activity had a measurable effect on the Earth’s climate. The Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minimums have all led to rapid cooling — the Maunder Minimum was what led to the Little Ice Age, when the European and North American continents suffered around 100 years of wan summers and freezing winters.

So is the general consensus changing? Are we moving from a global warming scenario to one of global cooling? Well, the jury’s still out — but it’s not surprising.

On the one hand, our planet has undoubtedly been warming up at an alarming rate recently. The Arctic ice pack has experienced a summer melt this year which almost matches 2007′s record melt. The legendary North-West Passage has been completely ice-free and navigable by commercial vessels for the second year running. This is causing increasing concern about the potential for conflict as countries rush to claim their alleged share of the oil and gas reserves that are coming within reach as the ice recedes. Senior US Coast Guard commander Rear Admiral Gene Brooks, in charge of the Coast Guard’s vast Alaska region, appealed for a diplomatic deal. “The potential is there with undetermined boundaries and great wealth for conflict, or competition. There’s always a risk of conflict,” he told BBC News. He added that this was especially the case “where you do not have established, delineated, agreed-upon borders”.

On the other hand, the same report makes the observation that the melt may also have an effect on the weather far beyond the Arctic region itself, as white reflective ice makes way for darker ocean that absorbs more solar radiation. At America’s northernmost climate research post, run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), station chief Dan Endres warns of the development of more severe weather systems. ‘As the icecap retreats, and we see changing weather patterns here, it could translate into stronger storms – we’ll see more severity in the storms we have, that’s part of climate change. And these storms, the weather patterns, often start in the Arctic and move south.’

Indeed, that’s the nub of Whitley Strieber and Art Bell‘s argument in their Superstorm theory: Arctic conditions may spiral out of control to such an extent that new, hitherto unobserved weather patterns could emerge that may trigger violent snowstorms across the northern hemisphere, despite — or in fact because of — what’s generally called global warming. Even though average temperatures across the northern hemisphere might be quite high at the time, a vast carpet of snow suddenly deposited across huge areas of Europe, Russia, Canada and North America would reflect enormous amounts of solar energy back into space, slowing that same snow cover’s melt. This would allow further falls of snow to accumulate as more normal weather patterns — influenced by the much colder atmospheric and ground temperatures — resumed, and much of Earth would be in the grip of a period of intense cold that could last for many hundreds of years.

Because Strieber and Bell work on science’s edgy frontier where many researchers fear to tread, their Superstorm theory is dismissed by most, if not all, climatologists. The sun’s current lack of activity, though, has certainly caught scientists’ attention. If it continues, it may well adversely influence our climate enough to neutralise the current warming trend and initiate another “Little Ice Age”. Under these conditions, it’s doubtful whether the atmospheric energy imbalance necessary for Superstorm formation would prevail.

What is certain is that the sun will become more normally active again at some point in the future, and this, in turn, will inject more energy into the complex systems responsible for rising global temperatures and — assuming we haven’t sufficiently curtailed our emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by then (judging by our current efforts, it’s very doubtful) — the whole warming mechanism will resume, eventually leading to a point where the necessary conditions for Superstorm formation are present once more.

Either way, it seems to this observer that the odds of our future involving some kind of Big Freeze are shortening dramatically.

Read my Climate Change posts in chronological order by using the Climate Change Log.