Methane Thaw Worries Climate Scientists

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

SETH BORENSTEIN | October 25, 2008 12:39 AM EST | AP


This undated handout photo provided by the Scripps Institute shows Scripps geoscientists Ray Weiss, left, and Jens Muehle in San Diego, Calif., amid collection cylinders used to collect air samples from a variety of locations around the world. Weiss and Muehle led a study that found that the greenhouse gas nitrogen trifluoride, used in the manufacture of flat-panel monitors, escapes to the atmosphere at levels much higher than previously assumed. Two major and potent greenhouse gases are building in the atmosphere, raising an unexpected new threat for accelerating global warming, new studies show. The gases are methane and nitrogen trifluoride, and their levels are building faster than expected. (AP Photo/Scripps Institute, Robert Monroe)

WASHINGTON — Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas that worries climate scientists. Airborne levels of two other potent gases _ one from ancient plants, the other from flat-panel screen technology _ are on the rise, too. And that's got scientists concerned about accelerated global warming.

The gases are methane and nitrogen trifluoride. Both pale in comparison to the global warming effects of carbon dioxide, produced by the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. In the past couple of years, however, these other two gases have been on the rise, according to two new studies. The increase is not accounted for in predictions for future global warming and comes as a nasty surprise to climate watchers.

Methane is by far the bigger worry. It is considered the No. 2 greenhouse gas based on the amount of warming it causes and the amount in the atmosphere. The total effect of methane on global warming is about one-third that of man-made carbon dioxide.

Methane comes from landfills, natural gas, coal mining, animal waste, and decaying plants. But it's the decaying plants that worry scientists most. That's because thousands of years ago billions of tons of methane were created by decaying Arctic plants. It lies frozen in permafrost wetlands and trapped in the ocean floor. As the Arctic warms, the concern is this methane will be freed and worsen warming. Scientists have been trying to figure out how they would know if this process is starting.

It's still early and the data are far from conclusive, but scientists say they are concerned that what they are seeing could be the start of the release of the Arctic methane.

After almost eight years of stability, atmospheric methane levels _ measured every 40 minutes by monitors near remote coastal cliffs _ suddenly started rising in 2006. The amount of methane in the air has jumped by nearly 28 million tons from June 2006 to October 2007. There is now more than 5.6 billion tons of methane in the air.

"If it's sustained, it's bad news," said MIT atmospheric scientist Ron Prinn, lead author of the methane study, which will be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters Oct. 31. "This is a heads up. We're seeing smoke. It remains to be seen whether this is the fire we're really worried about.

"Whenever methane increases, you are accelerating climate change," he said.

Story continues below
advertisement

By contrast, nitrogen trifluoride has been considered such a small problem that it's generally been ignored. The gas is used as a cleaning agent during the manufacture of liquid crystal display television and computer monitors and for thin-film solar panels.

Earlier efforts to determine how much nitrogen trifluoride is in the air dramatically underestimated the amounts, said Ray Weiss, a geochemistry professor with Scripps Institution of Oceanography and lead author on a nitrogen trifluoride paper. It is set to be published in Geophysical Letters in November.

Nitrogen trifluoride levels in the air _ measured in parts per trillion _ have quadrupled in the last decade and increased 30-fold since 1978, according to Weiss, who is also a co-author of the methane paper.

It contributes only 0.04 percent of the total global warming effect that man-made carbon dioxide does from the burning of fossil fuels.

But nitrogen trifluoride is one of the more potent gases, thousands of times stronger at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Methane is more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide on a per molecule basis. Carbon dioxide remains the most important gas because of its huge levels and rapid growth.

Still, methane and the potential of future increases is a worry, Weiss and others say.

Its recent increase coincides with anecdotal evidence of more methane being released in the shallow parts of the Arctic Ocean. A scientific survey in late summer found methane levels in the east Siberian Sea up to 10,000 times higher than normal, said Orjan Gustafsson, an environmental scientist at Stockholm University who has just returned from the six-week survey.

Prinn's data are consistent with the early results of "whole fields of methane bubbles" that Gustafsson said he found last month.

The highest methane level increases were seen in monitoring stations in Alert, Canada, which with recent anecdotal evidence points to plants in permafrost thawing and decaying.

Stanford University environmental scientist Stephen Schneider cautioned that the recent increase is new and that "it is pretty hard to be very confident of any trend or big story yet on methane."

Methane levels have kept scientists guessing for the past decade. They were on the rise until about 1997, then soared in 1998 and then leveled off until jumping again in 2006.

WASHINGTON — Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas that worries climate scientists. Airborne levels of two other potent gases _ one from ancient plants, the other from flat-panel screen t...
WASHINGTON — Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas that worries climate scientists. Airborne levels of two other potent gases _ one from ancient plants, the other from flat-panel screen t...
 
Comments
19
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
- Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Patrick Takahashi permalink

Chapter 5 of a book I wrote last year,SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth, delves in some detail on the potential danger of methane. The above article seems to imply that methane is only a recent phenomenon. Actually, since 1750, carbon dioxide has increased by only a third, while methane has MORE THAN DOUBLED. My concern, in particular, are the marine methane hydrates found at the bottom of the ocean, for there is something on the order of twice the amount of energy in these deposits than that of all the known oil, coal and natural gas. There are various theories purporting that methane might have been the true culprit in global warming through geologic time. The fear I have is that man-made global warming might trigger the more fatal release of ocean methane. Mere species extinction, slightly warmer temperatures and slow sea level rise are inconveniences. What happens if we totally lose control and are threatened with a temperature of 900 degrees F? In June I posted a two part series in the Huffington Post on the THE VENUS SYNDROME.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 PM on 10/28/2008

Dear Patrick,

I began my work in alternative combustible materials in 1967.

SEE: Hydroxy (Goggle)

I focused on flammable arctic snows. In some areas, these snows are so volatile and contain so much methane that they will ignite just as you would expect petroleum saturated rag. At the time, we were hoping to harvest these methane rich snows to use as an alterative fuel for Arctic weather observation stations.

We had found examples of a,,, Tipping Point,,,, that seems to occur in regular and demonstrated cycles. The result seems to be drastic and radical warming trends, forestation drying, dehydration of inland seas and a clustering of terrestrial animal life near remaining rivers.

There are many sub-harmonics to this cycle but the ones that most concern me are the 65 Million year Mass extinction events.

Evidences:


Drying and rapid die-off of most forestation.
Continental wide, if not global, immolation of skeletal remains of forestations.
Low order combustion, (Oxygen poor) resulting in vast tracts of partially consumed and charred materials.
Asphyxiation and fossilized remains found Sandstone deposits (Lie rich) (wood ash leach) near inland lakes, or concentrated near ancient rivers or bends in these rivers.
Particulate generated global rains flushing out resins and organic residues into oceans, inland depressions and at the continental margins.
Massive erosions of exposed soils resulting in Sandstone capping of these organic oozes near shore or in submarine catch basins.
Terminating in Global Ice Age.

All the best

Knute Neo-LIB

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 PM on 10/29/2008
photo

A gigantic release of methane due to climate change millions of years ago is now suspected to be responsible for the great extinction..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 AM on 10/28/2008

Yes Darcy,

But there have been 5 such extinctions.

We know that frozen organic materials decay, only over huge timeframes. This by-product of that decay becomes trapped in artic snows. It becomes so concentrated, over millions of years that you can burn a snowball made from these deposits.

ANY rapid warming cycle can result in a massive release of these Greenhouse Gases.

The result would be a CASCADE effect of Global Warming. More warming, more release, even more warming, even more methane.

A Threshold Event.

All the best

Knute Neo-LIB

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:20 PM on 10/29/2008
- rpr I'm a Fan of rpr permalink

Over timescales of several years to decades it can definitely have a positive feedback effect. My main concern is that this positive feedback couples with the positive feedback of Greenland ice melt (=> more dark ground exposed => more radiation absorbed => increased temperature => more ice melting.) Right now Greenland is thawing very slowly but if that accelerates significantly we might have a problem with the gulf stream slowing and sea level rise.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 PM on 10/31/2008
photo

Is there a possibility of harnessing this methane gas to use it for fuel? Not necessarily for cars, but to create power?

I read in Audubon magazine this year that more methane gas is released into the atmosphere by cow flatulence (I kid you not) than all the SUVs on the planet. The bovine gas is exacerbated by the corn diet they are fed to fatten them up. If they were able to graze grass like nature intended the flatulence would be much less.
http://thebluepointofview.com

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:58 PM on 10/27/2008

Ahhhh, that's not at all hard to believe since SUVs do not emit methane.

As for harnessing the methane bubbling out of tundra bogs and Arctic coastal waters, look at a globe and comprehend the vastness and inaccessibility of the area we're talking about.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 10/28/2008

You think this methane release in the oceans can result in mass fish die-offs?

Is there any danger for nearby humans in terms of respiration given the methane release in the tundra areas?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:29 PM on 10/28/2008
- rpr I'm a Fan of rpr permalink

It's not flatulence, it's belching. The methane is generated in ruminants' special stomach where food is left to ferment before rumination and actual eating.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:13 PM on 10/31/2008

Let's eat less meat everyone. Spread the news too. Green energy is taking too long. We gotta go veg.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 AM on 10/27/2008
- rpr I'm a Fan of rpr permalink

Red meat is unhealthy anyway. Not only does it contain a lot of saturated fat, the protein isn't all that great either. But the food industry has been very good at brainwashing Americans into believing "Beef is good for you."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 PM on 10/31/2008

Why two threads on the exact same news report?

Just to get the obligatory polar bear photo up on the page?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 AM on 10/27/2008

Palin will have that Polar bear killed

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 AM on 10/27/2008

In so many words you're right. I have blasted see en en for holding off on their save the planet series on alaska until after the election. Cowards.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 PM on 10/27/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect