 rising from an Arctic lake bottom is frozen into ice that is forming across the surface<br>
Scale: 10 centimeters between black lines.)
Methane Gas (white) rising from an Arctic lake bottom is frozen into ice that is forming across the surface
Scale: 10 centimeters between black lines.
Image: Courtesy of Katey Walter Anthony
In Brief
- Methane bubbling up into the atmosphere from thawing permafrost that underlies numerous Arctic lakes appears to be hastening global warming.
- New estimates indicate that by 2100 thawing permafrost could boost emissions of the potent greenhouse gas 20 to 40 percent beyond what would be produced by all natural and man-made sources.
- The only realistic way to slow the thaw is for humankind to limit climate warming by reducing our carbon dioxide emissions.
Touchdown on the gravel runway at Cherskii in remote northeastern Siberia sent the steel toe of a rubber boot into my buttocks. The shoe had sprung free from gear stuffed between me and my three colleagues packed into a tiny prop plane. This was the last leg of my research team’s five-day journey from the University of Alaska Fairbanks across Russia to the Northeast Science Station in the land of a million lakes, which we were revisiting as part of our ongoing efforts to monitor a stirring giant that could greatly speed up global warming.
These expeditions help us to understand how much of the perennially frozen ground, known as permafrost, in Siberia and across the Arctic is thawing, or close to thawing, and how much methane the process could generate. The question grips us—and many scientists and policy makers—because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, packing 25 times more heating power, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide. If the permafrost thaws rapidly because of global warming worldwide, the planet could get hotter more quickly than most models now predict. Our data, combined with complementary analyses by others, are revealing troubling trends.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
29 Comments
Add Comment"If the permafrost thaws rapidly because of global warming worldwide, the planet could get hotter more quickly than most models now predict."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather disturbing to discover "most models" are omitting such a huge, significant and well-known factor from their calculations.
By "well-known", I mean that I, personally, have known this for at least 10 years.
I doubt that I am better informed than Climate Scientists, so - what gives?
Is there anything else they've left out?
Oh yeah - and how much Methane Tax are we going to have to pay?
...You do realize this is just the first two paragraphs of a longer article, I haven't read the full article but I can only assume it goes into more detail of the process mentioned in the article. Basically this if what you have done, you've read the first two paragraphs of an article and then accused the person of being an incapable scientist because you would rather deny all the evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming for absolutely no evidence at all. Then you suggest that since you disagree with what she is writing about that she should quit her job...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh and since there is not an scientific opposition to anthropogenic global warming and the only people opposing anthropogenic global warming are political, you are the one on the political side of the argument not her. There is no denying that.
Until we find out how widespread climategate is, any data relating to global warming must be considered highly suspect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot that this will stop SA from continuing to whore its scientific legitimacy to the environmentalist movement.
what is "hotter"? 2 more degrees? 10? 100?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe would rather deny what data. Can you give us names and a look at there data. The data I've seen for years is good enof to fool children. What I'm looking for is a little more educated in nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets knock this out first:
"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," Theon wrote. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it."They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
Lets see. We have a few scientists in England who may have manipulated data or at least tried to limit discussion. Then all the right wing climate change doubters want to ignore all information gathered and climate studies performed for the last 100 years by ten's of thousand scientists because this is proof that all the scientists (tens of thousands) got together to decided what the conclusions were going to be and generated studies to support them? Wow. Most people apparently don't understand the scientific process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that the tens of thousands of scientists are trying to do the right thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also know, from fifty years of personal experience, that it only takes a little pressure to scare scientists away from any sort of controversy if it involves their grants and tenures, especially in government work, and especially in academic venues.
However, what the deniers never mention is that THEIR analyses of the raw data would also have to pass the same possibly tainted peer review.
Also note that climate analysis is an example of a public good, too expensive for private funding, and too diffuse in its benefits to be properly profiteered by the same corporations that are so busy funding deniers with the goals of crippling any government action that might regulate their environment-destroying behavior for profit.
This is a perfect example of the failure of corporate owned legislators to protect the actual citizenry, and I implore the deniers to think about their children, and their nations, and their species.
Read up on the tragedy of the commons, perhaps, instead of blindly following the profiteers herding you.
Here, I'll make it easy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
It is clear that the actual technologies bandied about to reduce Climate Change will not be implemented fast enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut there is one method which is cheap and does work : Biomass Pyrolysis. All that is required is to build 5,000,000 small pyrolysis retorts and place them every 40 miles or so all over the world. This will sequester CO2, produce hydrogen, biogas and/or biofertiliser giving work to biomass harvesters. The NASA, (via James Hansen) agrees.
See www.eprida.com for full technical details.
How far can the whole stuff go? What is the worst scenario for a greenhouse effect boom? Is the so called wet greenhouse situation a realistic threat? As global temperatures raise, global weather dynamic will accelerate, with more rain and storms, but where and how much? If temperature soars use of energy for heating will decrease. Is it a balancing mechanism of importance? Does anybody consider wise moving industries and employees to a less energy consuming place? Is this economically sound?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince I take the magazine version of SciAm I have read the entire article--and it is quite thorough. Methane is the source of natural gas, which may be "less" pollution when burned but we in Pennsylvania know TOO WELL how extremely polluting it is to extract! Even worse, "wild" methane, closely akin to that trapped beneath the permafrost, has bubbled up from deep lakes to kill people from toxic fumes. It badly pollutes water and air and catches fire easily. The author herself was caught in an explosion and burnt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, how I wish all the global warming and increasing pollution deniers (these go together) would gather their gangs on some distant archipelago, form their own dream-dumbed-down society in which they can happily blat their nonsense to each other, then wonder why the ocean is closing over their homes and heads! Let us hope they have the foresight to at least build canoes. But I doubt it--don't you?
Summer temperatures around the poles are increasing substantially due to anthropic CO2 emissions. As Ice temperatures rise from -1 to +1°C, there is a long temperature pause, as ice absorbs very large quantities of latent heat before melting . Climate change is described in terms of degrees centigrade, whereas climate is affected by heat exchange, measured in units of calories or some other standard. This explains some 'anomalies' in current data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" The only realistic way to slow the thaw is for humankind to limit climate warming by reducing our carbon dioxide emissions." Really? You don't have much imagination do you? How about we capture the methane and use it as fuel? How many death to the world scenarios do you think you need to create to try to get the world back to an Amish level?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe don't need to reduce to an Amish level, we just need to shift our energy sources and general practices away from things that will ruin the environment. If we reduce CO2 emissions, then the temperature will continue to rise until it reaches a new stability point, even if all emissions were ceased immediately the temperature would still rise for a little while, the concern is that we are moving the stability point ever higher. Solar and wind can each make large impacts, but I doubt they could do it all. Thermonuclear fusion would be a magic bullet if we could get it to work, but that seems unlikely in the near future. The main point about the article is that the temperature may rise enough to release huge amounts of methane in permafrost, which may heat up the planet enough to release the methane hydrates, heating up the planet even more. I'm sorry if this seems to be rambling, I'm tired.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImported cattle from Europe was overgrazing in Africa more than half a century ago. That created changes in the African microclimate through deforestation. Import cattle ranches in Australia are another example. In medecine, prevention is the best cure until all the side effects are known. Methane was a competitor for global warming but now threatens to be an amplifier of it. No amount of volcanic activity from at least the past 3 ice ages is matching the amount of CO2 found in ice core samples before the last hundred years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Until we (the deniers) agree with what climatologists are saying, any data relating to global warming will be considered highly suspect."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFixed.
this is another side issue my solution impacts due to the loss of methane generated from sewage!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDennis Earl Baker
103 - 66 Duncan avenue west
Penticton British Columbia V2A6Z3
Phone/Fax 778-476-3673
25/11/2009
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the world on the Latest Climate Science. Has again indicated urgency in action is imperative. Here's my solution and immediate areas of impact.
dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com
RE : The solution to climate change.
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase the life expectancy of humans.
The four main areas of concern globally are energy, food,water and air!
The radiologic decomposing of organic materials generates Hydrogen
By using our sewage as a source of energy we also get clean air , clean water, and no ethanol use of food stocks. Eat food first, create energy after.
Simply replacing the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities with these plants, would reduce CO2 emissions, and CH4 emissions, to acceptable levels, globally.
This would require a completely new reactor facility capable of converting human waste into hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen to generate electricity on site.
This solution is sellable to citizens because of all the side issue solutions. I've been able to convince most simply with concept of using nuclear waste to a productive end.
Superbugs ( antibiotic resistant ) apparently are created in the waters sewage is discharged into, which is one more side issue solution.
Anything not converting into hydrogen will potentially be disposed of using Transmutation.
The water emitted from hydrogen burning will have uses in leaching heavy metals from other contaminated site clean ups.
I thank you for your consideration, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Dennis Baker
A recent report in New Scientist talked about 250 recently found seeps of methane from clathrates found on the sea bottom in the vicinity of Svalbard. The suggestion was that about one degree of warming of the Arctic ocean has led to this. When the Arctic ocean becomes ice free, the ocean should warm rapidly, exacerbating the release of clathrate methane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am convinced that the climate is warming. I am pretty sure that it is anthropogenic but you can't deny that at present there are more vested interests with a stake in climate change being real and being anthropogenic than the reverse. Always worthwile applying a grain of salt when vested interests are at stake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/07/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not.html
Dennis Earl Baker
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this103 - 66 Duncan avenue west
Penticton British Columbia V2A6Z3
Phone/Fax 778-476-3673
25/11/2009
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the world on the Latest Climate Science. Has again indicated urgency in action is imperative. Here's my solution and immediate areas of impact.
dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com
RE : The solution to climate change.
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase the life expectancy of humans.
The four main areas of concern globally are energy, food,water and air!
The radiologic decomposing of organic materials generates Hydrogen
By using our sewage as a source of energy we also get clean air , clean water, and no ethanol use of food stocks. Eat food first, create energy after.
Simply replacing the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities with these plants, would reduce CO2 emissions, and CH4 emissions, to acceptable levels, globally.
This would require a completely new reactor facility capable of converting human waste into hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen to generate electricity on site.
This solution is sellable to citizens because of all the side issue solutions. I've been able to convince most simply with concept of using nuclear waste to a productive end.
Superbugs ( antibiotic resistant ) apparently are created in the waters sewage is discharged into, which is one more side issue solution.
Anything not converting into hydrogen will potentially be disposed of using Transmutation.
The water emitted from hydrogen burning will have uses in leaching heavy metals from other contaminated site clean ups.
I thank you for your consideration, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Dennis Baker
Oh, since the seas did not rise even the 1.5 inches claimed, nor are they going to, I guess we deniers will not do that. As to who is truly dumbed down. I guess that would have to be anyone who believes that Antarctica is warming, shrinking in area, or diminishing in any way. I like a good denier site, worldclimatereport.com, for all the facts and arguments about that kind of thing, and the names of plenty of scientists who darn well know what a pile of crap AGW is and has been from the start.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut nature herself will settle this debate by simply growing colder even as the trace carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere rises to 450 ppm or 500 ppm or even 550 ppm, as all the Chinese and Indian people get a petrol-fueled personal vehicle.
Nor will the permafrost give up appreciable methane through lakes that are frozen over 10 months of the year and only thaw at all for two months. Nor will polar bears all starve.
The true trend is towards a new little Ice Age, which is going to starve to death quite a number of humans even as backwards environmentalism cripples the fossil fuel sources we desperately need to grow our food with machinery and to keep economies sufficiently prosperous that they can invest in the agricultural changes they will need to make.
I'm a little slow here so bear with me . Theres millions of miloes of perma frost with huge supplies of methane to be harvested cheaply if someone puts a plastic blanket over the stuff and extracts the gases . Energy dependence problem solved so what the big deal about free energy ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest problem with extracting methane (the key component of natural gas) from diffuse sources in highly remote places is transmission costs. Gas pipelines are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. It makes far more sense economically to mine West Virginia coal and convert it to natural gas for piping to most Eastern seaboard cities than to gather thawed peat gasses from Canada's far north in a huge collection tent and pipe the gas southward a thousand miles or more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Anthony uses exasperate in one of the boxes in the story when she meant exacerbate. Either the copy editors put it in incorrectly, or did not catch it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid the author miss the irony, when she was expressing her mandatory alarm about climate warming, that the methane now being released originates from "dead plant and animal remains (which) has accumulated over tens of thousands of years", growing presumably before things froze over? Was the arctic a bit warmer before humans started screwing things up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos_links_es&sca=link_1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos_links_es&sca=link_1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe just have a few time to save our Planet.
BE VEGAN.
GO GREEN.
Save the Earth !!!
Having read the entire hardcopy article, which describes what appears to be mostly good science, one phrase caught my attention and caused me to wonder if the article reflected advocacy as well as science - p. 70 says, If deeper sources of methane were to escape such as that stored in material known as methane hydrates the temperatures could rise as high as several degrees . Reasonable use of modeling results ordinarily reports most probable results before citing possible extremes. This statement cites only the most potentially dangerous extremes. That is either advocacy on the part of the author, her source, or a Scientific American editor, or it is an uncharacteristic way of reporting model outputs for some other reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEspecially with the continuing unfolding of IPCC and other advocacy and bad science, it is critical that research findings be presented carefully so that they do not appear to mix advocacy and science. I am neither an advocate nor an opponent of anthropogenic global climate impact, but I would advocate science reporting that, especially due to the recent fiascoes, solidly uses established scientific procedures and does not appear to wander into propaganda.
wlhgmk at 12/10/2009,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVested interests? Hmm, how much vested interest do you think the fossil fuel industry has to loose by, say, going out of business?
Today,2011/3/6/,Japanese TV saied,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin oreder to get the methane hydrate,
Kansai Electric Power Company decided the Japanese neighboring waters to be dug.
Although the underground in Japan is the most important part in the plate in the
world.
The methane hydrate of Japan is defended Japan and the world from the earthquake.
Mr. Ryo Matumoto (Professor of Tokyou University, Affiliation Department of Earth
and Planetary Science, Graduate School of Science) guaranteed the safety of this
digging.
And Mr. Shigeharu Aoyama(President, Director of Social Sciences) also recommended
this digging, too.
He insisted on the economic effect and importance of this digging.
He sold the world for 15 trillion dollars（120 trillion yen）.
If Global warming accelerates, and the Earth is ruined, they are responsible for
this ruin.
Ryo Matumoto: ttp://www.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/people/index.php/MATSUMOTO%2C_Ryo
Shigeharu Aoyama: ttp://www.dokken.co.jp/en/cp/board_of_directors.html
Kansai Electric Power Company: ttp://www.kepco.co.jp/english/index.html