Earthquakes in the Arctic Ocean

Earthquakes in the Arctic Ocean

indications of imminent catastrophic methane eruptions?

1. Methane over Greenland

The image below shows high methane concentrations over Greenland and over the Arctic Ocean.

[ Yellow areas indicate methane readings of 1950 ppb and higher - click on image to enlarge ]

The large yellow areas on this image indicate that the methane entered the atmosphere there. This is especially likely when such large yellow areas keep appearing in the same area over a few days. In the case of the large yellow areas around Novaya Zemlya, the methane is likely to have travelled there underneath the sea ice, from the Gakkel Ridge, to enter the atmosphere where the sea ice was thin or fractured enough for the methane to pass through, as discussed in earlier posts.

As described in the post High methane readings over Greenland, huge temperature swings can hit areas over Greenland over the course of a few days. Temperature anomalies may go down as low as as -20°C one day, then climb as high as 20°C a few days later, to hit temperature anomalies as low as -20°C again some days later.

This could explain the methane over Greenland. Methane is present in the Greenland ice sheet in the form of hydrates and free gas. These huge temperature swings are causing the ice to expand and contract, thus causing difference in pressure as well as temperature. The combined shock of wild pressure and temperature swings is causing movement and fractures in the ice, and this enables methane to rise to the surface and enter the atmosphere.

To further illustrate this, the image below shows recent temperature anomaly forecasts over Greenland.

[ click on image to enlarge ]

2. What is causing these extreme weather events?

Frigid cold weather in the U.S., torrential rain and flooding in the U.K., and wild temperature swings over Greenland. What is causing these extreme weather events? 

As discussed in many previous posts, the Arctic has become warmer than it used to be and temperatures in the Arctic are rising several times faster than global temperatures. This decreases the temperature difference between the areas to the north and to the south of the Jet Stream, which in turn decreases the speed at which the Jet Stream circumnavigates the globe, making the Jet Stream more wavier and increasing opportunities for cold air to descend from the Arctic and for warm air to enter the Arctic.

3. Did temperature swings also trigger earthquakes?

[ click on image to enlarge ]

These wild temperature swings may be causing even further damage, on top of the methane eruptions from the heights of Greenland. Look at the above map, showing earthquakes that hit the Arctic in March 2014.

Topographic map of Greenland
without the Greenland Ice Sheet.

BTW, above map doesn't show all earthquakes that occurred in the Arctic Ocean in March 2014. An earthquake with a magnitude of 4.5 on the Richter scale hit the Gakkel Ridge on March 6, 2014.

Importantly, above map shows a number of earthquakes that occurred far away from faultlines, including a M4.6 earthquake that hit Baffin Bay and a M4.5 earthquake that hit the Labrador Sea. These earthquakes are unlikely to have resulted from movement in tectonic plates. Instead, temperature swings over Greenland may have triggered these events, by causing a succession of compression and expansion swings of the Greenland ice mass, which in turn caused pressure changes that were felt in the crust surrounding the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Glaciers could be the key to make this happen. Glaciers typically move smoothly and gradually. It could be, however, that such wide temperature swings are causing glaciers to come to a halt, temporarily, causing pressure to build up over a day or so, to then suddenly start moving again with a shock. Intense cold can literally freeze a glacier in its track, to be shocked into moving again as temperatures rise abruptly by 40°C or so. This can send shockwaves through the ice sheet into the crust and trigger earthquakes in areas prone to destabilization. The same mechanism could explain the high methane concentrations over the heights of Greenland and Antarctica.

Ominously, patterns of earthquakes can be indicators of bigger earthquakes yet to come.

4. Situation looks set to get a lot worse

This situation looks set to get a lot worse. Extreme weather events and wild temperature swings look set to become more likely to occur and hit Greenland with ever greater ferocity. Earthquakes could reverberate around the Arctic Ocean and destabilize methane held in the form of free gas and hydrates in sediments underneath the Arctic Ocean.

Meanwhile, as pollution clouds from North America move (due to the Coriolis Effect) over the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf Stream continues to warm up and carry warmer water into the Arctic Ocean, further increasing the likelihood of methane eruptions from the Arctic seafloor.

The above image shows the Gulf Stream off the coast of North America, while the image below shows how the Gulf Stream continues, carrying warmer water through the Atlantic Ocean into the Arctic Ocean.

Feedbacks, such as the demise of the Arctic's snow and ice cover, further contribute to speed up the unfolding catastrophe. Methane eruptions from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean have become especially noticeable over the past half year. The big danger is that this will develop into runaway global warming, as discussed in the recent post Feedbacks in the Arctic.

Furthermore, as-yet-unknown feedbacks may start to kick in. As an example, submarine earthquakes and volcanoes could add nutrients into the water that feed methane-producing (methanogenic) microbes. A recent study found that expansion of such microbes could have played a large role in the end-Permian extinction, and that it was catalyzed by increased availability of nickel associated with volcanism. Authors support their hypothesis with an analysis of carbon isotopic changes leading up to the extinction, phylogenetic analysis of methanogenic archaea, and measurements of nickel concentrations in South China sediments.

5. Need for comprehensive and effective action

The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action as described at the Climate Plan.




Related

- Methane Release caused by Earthquakes
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/09/methane-release-caused-by-earthquakes.html

- Seismic activity
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/seismic-activity.html

- Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

Methane and the risk of runaway global warming

By Andrew Glikson

A satellite picture reveals permafrost melting around Liverpool Bay in Canada’s northwest territories. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Research was published this week showing the financial cost of methane being released from Earth’s permafrosts. But the risks go beyond financial – Earth’s history shows that releasing these stores could set off a series of events with calamitous consequences.

The sediments and bottom water beneath the world’s shallow oceans and lakes contain vast amounts of greenhouse gases: methane hydrates and methane clathrates (see Figure 1). In particular methane is concentrated in Arctic permafrost where the accumulation of organic matter in frozen soils covers about 24% of northern hemisphere continents (see Figure 2a) and is estimated to contain more than 900 billion tons of carbon.

Methane, a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than CO₂, is released from previously frozen soils when organic matter thaws and decomposes under anaerobic conditions (that is, without oxygen present).

Most of the current permafrost formed during or since the last ice age and can extend down to depths of more than 700 meters in parts of northern Siberia and Canada. Thawing of part of the permafrost has not yet been accounted for in climate projections.

The Siberian permafrost is in particular danger. A large region called the Yedoma could undergo runaway decomposition once it starts to melt. This is because elevated temperatures cause microbes in the soil to decompose, which causes heat, which creates a self-amplifying process.

Figure 1: Global distribution of methane hydrate deposits on the ocean floor. Naval Research Laboratory

Palaeoclimate studies of stalagmite cave deposits across Siberia indicate they grew faster during the warm periods 424,000 and 374,000 years ago, due to permafrost melt. At that time, mean global temperatures rose by approximately 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. Thus Vaks et al state: “Growth at that time indicates that global climates only slightly warmer than today are sufficient to thaw extensive regions of permafrost.”

Evidence of melting of permafrost has also been reported from the dry valleys of Antarctica, where development of thermokarst (small surface hummocks formed as ice-rich permafrost thaws) has been reported, reaching a rate about 10 times that of the last ~10,000 years.

The mean temperature of the continents has already increased by about 1.5C. With sulphur aerosols masking some of the warming, the real figure may be closer to 2C.

Figure 2a: Vulnerable carbon sinks. CSIRO Global Carbon Project

Figure 2b: Global average abundances of
carbon dioxide and methane 1978-2011

Arctic air temperatures are expected to increase at roughly twice the global rate. A global temperature increase of 3C means a 6C rise in the Arctic, resulting in an irreversible loss of anywhere between 30 to 85% of near-surface permafrost. According to the United Nations, warming permafrost could emit 43 to 135 billion ton CO₂ (GtCO₂) equivalent by 2100, and 246 to 415 GtCO₂ by 2200.
The geologically unprecedented rate of CO₂ rise (~2.75 ppm/year during June 2012-2013) may result in faster permafrost collapse.

Already measurements along the Siberian shelf uncover enhanced methane release. In 2010 a Russian marine survey conducted more than 5000 observations of dissolved methane showing that more than 80% of East Siberian shelf bottom waters and more than 50% of surface waters are supersaturated with methane. Atmospheric methane levels (during glacial periods: 300–400 parts per billion; during interglacial periods: 600–700 ppb) have recently reached 1850 ppb – the highest in 400,000 years (see Figure 2b).

Hansen et al estimate that the rise of CO₂ forcing between 1750 and 2007 has already committed the atmosphere to between +2 and +3 degrees Celsius, currently mitigated in part by sulphur aerosols.

Figure 3: Change in average annual land surface temperature since 1750. Berkeley Temperatures

Hansen refers to the “Venus Syndrome”, drawing an analogy between the enrichment of Venus’ atmosphere in CO₂ (its atmosphere is 96.5% CO₂ and its surface temperature is 462C) and potential terrestrial runaway greenhouse effects. This needs to be placed in context.

On Earth, weathering processes and oceans draw down the bulk of atmospheric CO₂ to be deposited as carbonates. It’s therefore impossible for Earth to develop Venus-like conditions. But the onset of a hyperthermal – a huge release of carbon such as happened during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago, with an attendant mass extinction of species – is possible.

Figure 4. Estimates of fossil fuel resources and equivalent atmospheric CO2 levels, including (1) emissions to date; (2) estimated reserves, and (3) recoverable resources (1 ppm CO2 ~ 2.12 GtC). Hansen, 2012, figure 1; http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120127_CowardsPart1.pdf

Extraction and combustion of the current fossil fuel reserves (more than 20,000 billion tonnes of carbon – Figure 4) would inevitably lead to a hyperthermal commensurate with or exceeding the PETM. If that happens, CO₂ would rise to above 500ppm (see figure 4), temperature would rise by about 5C (figure 5) and the polar ice sheets would melt – it’s a future we could face if emissions continue to accelerate.

Figure 5: Growth in CO2 and CO2 equivalent (CO2+CH4) during the Pleistocene and the Holocene. IPCC AR4

Not that the above features too much in the Australian elections, where the reality of climate change has been replaced with pseudoscience notions, including by some who have not consulted basic climate science text books, and by hip-pocket-nerve terms such as “carbon tax”, “emission trading scheme” or “direct action”. The proposed 5% reduction in emissions relative to the year 2000 represent no more than climate window dressing.

Nor are coal exports mentioned too often, despite current exports and planned future exports, which represent carbon emissions tracking toward an order of magnitude higher than local emissions.

According to Dr Adam Lucas of the Science and Technology Studies Program at University of Wollongong, Australia (with ~0.3% of the global population) currently contributes domestic emissions of about 1.8% of global emissions. The total domestic and overseas consumption of Australian coal is responsible for more than 2% of global emissions. Plans to triple or even quadruple coal export volumes over the next 10 years would raise Australia’s total contribution to global GHG emissions to toward 9% to 11% by 2020 – an order of magnitude commensurate with that of Middle East oil.

Which places the “Great moral challenge of our generation” in perspective.

Andrew Glikson does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was earlier published at The Conversation.

How much will temperatures rise?

Runaway Global Warming

If we take the NASA Annual Mean Land-Ocean Temperatures and draw a projection into the future, temperatures will quickly be 3 degrees Celsius higher than the base period (1951-1980), i.e. well before 2050, as illustrated on image 1. below. 

Image 1. Temperatures will be 3 degrees Celsius higher well before 2050

Above projection appears to be steeper than even the worst-case scenario pictured by the IPCC for years, such as on the image below.

Image 2. from IPCC 2001. Projections of globally averaged surface temperature 2000-2100 are shown for six SRES scenarios and IS92a using a model with average climate sensitivity. The grey region marked "several models all SRES envelope" shows the range of results from the full range of 35 SRES scenarios in addition to those from a range of models with different climate sensitivities. The temperature scale is departure from the 1990 value.

Could temperatures rise faster in future than what the IPCC anticipated in 2001? The answer must be yes! In 2007, the IPCC described that, even if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere were stabilized for 100 years at year 2000 values (B1), then we would still be committed to a further warming of 0.5°Celsius. This committed warming should not be confused with ‘unavoidable climate change’ over the next half century, which would be greater because forcing cannot be instantly stabilized. And of course, as it turned out, emissions have not been stabilized at 2000 values, but have in fact increased substantially.

As it turned out, the models used by the IPCC made all kinds of assumptions that didn't eventuate. But before deciding to instead settle for a relatively simple extrapolation of observed data, there are some issues that require a further look.  

As discussed in the earlier post Accelerated Arctic Warming, temperatures in the Arctic have been rising at a much faster pace than global temperatures, and if this accelerated rise continues, we can expect a 10 degrees Celsius rise in the Arctic before 2040, as illustrated by image 3. below.  

Image 3. Three kinds of warming - 2: Accelerated warming in the Arctic 

Such a temperature rise in the Arctic will undoubtedly lead to additional greenhouse gas emissions in the Arctic, of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and particularly methane, threatening to trigger runaway global warming. 

The image below, from the methane-hydrates blog, combines these three kinds of warming, showing global temperatures that soon catch up with accelerated Arctic warming, as heatwaves at high latitudes will cause wildfires, in particular in Siberia, where firestorms in peat-lands, tundras and forests could release huge amounts of emissions, including soot, much of which could settle on the Himalayan plateau, darkening the ice and snow and resulting in more local heat absorption. Rapid melt of glaciers will then cause flooding at first, followed by dramatic decreases in the flow of river water that up to a billion people now depend on for water supply and irrigation.

In other words, the situation looks much more dire than what most models make us believe; the more reason to adopt the climate plan that is also described at the post at the methane-hydrates blog.

Image 4. Three kinds of warming - 1, 2 and 3 

References

- IPCC (TAR) - Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/figspm-10b.htm

- IPCC (AR4) - Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es-16-radiative-forcing.html#10-es-17-climate-change

- Accelerated Arctic Warming

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/01/accelerated-arctic-warming.html

- Methane hydrates

http://methane-hydrates.blogspot.com/2013/04/methane-hydrates.html

Runaway Global Warming

If you like, you can order prints of above image at Shutterfly (8 x 10 size works best).

AMEG Position Statement

DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY

Position Statement - Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) 

We declare there now exists an extremely high international security risk* from abrupt and runaway global warming being triggered by the end-summer collapse of Arctic sea ice towards a fraction of the current record and release of huge quantities of methane gas from the seabed. Such global warming would lead at first to worldwide crop failures but ultimately and inexorably to the collapse of civilization as we know it. This colossal threat demands an immediate emergency scale response to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months.

The immediacy of this risk is underlined by the discovery of vast areas of continental shelf already in a critical condition as a result of the warming of the Arctic Ocean seabed. Increasingly large quantities of methane are being emitted from the seabed. Moreover there is the possibility of methane held as hydrates or under thawing permafrost being suddenly released in very large quantities due to some disturbance such as an earthquake. The quantities of methane in the continental shelf are so vast that a release of only one or two percent of the methane could lead to the release of the remaining methane in an unstoppable chain reaction. Global warming would spiral upward way beyond the 2 degrees which many scientists consider the safety limit.

However we do not take a defeatist attitude towards this extremely dangerous situation. The present challenge to overcome almost impossible odds is reminiscent of World War 2. There exist the talent, technology and engineering skills to fight against these odds and win, given determination, focus and collaboration.

Governments must adopt a plan of action to cool the Arctic, halt the retreat of the Arctic sea ice and slow the release of methane. A variety of means of cooling the Arctic are available, some of which may be classed as geoengineering.

Governments must also take rapid measures to reduce short-lived climate forcers, such as methane and black carbon (commonly known as soot), especially where emitted at high northern latitudes.

Governments must furthermore put in place the necessary monitoring procedures for assessing the situation, allowing accurate modelling and determining the effectiveness and safety of the measures taken.

But intervention on a large scale has to be accepted in order to avert the ultimate catastrophe of runaway global warming. No amount of adaptation or insulation could make that survivable. We demand for all nations to pull together in battle against these threats. We consider it a moral duty: to fight against destruction of the climate system in order to protect the lives of all citizens.

Note that AMEG considers that the cooling of the Arctic should be seen one of many efforts to bring the atmosphere and oceans back towards their pre-industrial state, especially since such efforts reduce both immediate and longer-term risks arising from Arctic warming, sea ice retreat and methane release. AMEG is fully supportive of these efforts.

Source: http://AMEG.me

Rebuttal: Imminent collapse of Arctic sea ice drives danger of accelerated methane thaw

REBUTTAL:

         IMMINENT COLLAPSE OF ARCTIC SEA ICE DRIVES DANGER OF ACCELERATED METHANE THAW:

         Archer Errs in Dismissing Concern About Potential "Runaway" Feedback, Precautionary Principle Should Prevail  

by Professor Peter Wadhams

Image: Methane bubbles from: Sauter et al. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2006.01.041 

Background of rebuttal author -
Peter Wadhams Sc.D. is Professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge in the UK. He is an oceanographer and glaciologist involved in polar oceanographic and sea ice research and concerned with climate change processes in the polar regions He leads the Polar Ocean Physics group studying the effects of global warming on sea ice, icebergs and the polar oceans. This involves work in the Arctic and Antarctic from nuclear submarines, autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), icebreakers, aircraft and drifting ice camps. He has led over 40 polar field expeditions. His full background is available here: University of Cambridge DAMTP: Professor Peter Wadhams

---

In a Jan. 4 post on "Real Climate" (1), David Archer addressed those who are raising concern about the speed of ice loss in the Arctic and the resultant potential for warming water temperatures to thaw frozen methane and release it as gas to the atmosphere. In essence, he dismissed such concern as a form of unfounded alarmism making "much ado about nothing". In this rebuttal, I would like to respectfully challenge this dismissive stance and assert that severe dangers are arising in the Arctic which instead call for the full attention of humanity.

The present thinning and retreat of Arctic sea ice is one of the most serious geophysical consequences of global warming and is causing a major change to the face of our planet. A challenging characteristic of the behaviour is that both the rate of retreat (especially in summer) and the rate of thinning in all seasons have greatly exceeded the predictions of most models. The sea ice cover of the Arctic Ocean, particularly in summer, has been in retreat since the 1950s at a rate of about 4% per decade which has recently increased to 10% per decade. More seriously, the thickness of the ice has diminished.

Satellites can track ice area, but ice thickness distribution can be most accurately measured by sonar from underneath the ice. Since 1971, I have been going to the Arctic in UK nuclear submarines, mapping the ice thickness using upward-looking sonar along the vessel’s track. U.S. submarines have also allowed such availablity. Opening these submarines to scientific work has been a marvelous service to climate research. It was thanks to submarines that I was able to show for the first time that the ice in the Arctic is thinning (in a 1990 paper in Nature (2), showing a 15% thickness loss in 11 years), and recent work from UK and US submarines now shows a loss of more than 43% in thickness between the 1970s and 2000s, averaged over the ocean as a whole (3). This is an enormous loss – nearly half of the ice thickness – and has changed the whole appearance of the ice cover. Most of the ice is now first-year rather than the formidable multi-year ice which used to prevail.

The thinning is caused by a mixture of reduced growth in winter, because of warmer temperatures and more heat in the underlying water column, and greater melt in summer. A change in the direction and speed of ice motion has also played a role, with the ice departing quicker from the Arctic Basin through Fram Strait rather than circulating many times inside the Arctic.

The summer (September) area of sea ice reached a record low in 2007, almost matched in 2011, but what is most serious is that the thinning continues. It is inevitable that very soon there will be a downward collapse of the summer area because the ice will just melt away. Already in 2007, measurements indicated that during the summer there were 2 metres of melt off the bottom of of ice floes in the Beaufort Sea, while the neighbouring first-year floes had only reached in 1.8 metres during winter – so all first-year ice was disappearing. This effect will become more important and will spread throughout the Arctic Basin.

There is currently disagreement about when the summer Arctic will become completely ice-free. It depends on what model is being employed. My own view is based on purely empirical grounds, that is, matching the observations of area from satellites with observations from submarines (combined with some modelling) of thickness to give us ice volume. If we think in volume terms instead of area terms, the downward trend is more than linear, in fact it is exponential, and if extrapolated it gives us an ice-free summer Arctic as early as 2015.

Others have talked of later dates, like 2030-2040, but I do not see how the trend of summer ice volume can possible permit this. Those who agree include W Maslowsky, a leading ice modeller (Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey), and the PIOMAS project at University of Washington which generated the data shown below (4).

Arctic sea ice volume decline graph by Wipneus based on PIOMAS data. 

Minimum volume of Arctic sea ice in midsummer, based on areas observed from satellites and thickness trends inferred from submarine observations. Extrapolation leads to a zero volume in 2015. It must be pointed out that this perspective stands in direct contradiction to very complacent statements about the Arctic sea ice from the IPCC in the AR4 report of April 2007 saying the sea ice was very likely to last beyond the end of the century.

The ice retreat is having major impact on the planet. The Arctic is the most rapidly warming region on Earth. It has become widely accepted that Arctic amplification of global warming is due to the albedo effect of sea ice retreat. The increased open water reduces the albedo (fraction of solar radiation reflected into space) and causes warming at high northern latitudes to be 2-4 times as fast as in the tropics, with enormous implications for climatic instability. Secondly, the summer retreat of the ice from the wide Arctic continental shelves (particularly the East Siberian Sea) allows the shallow surface layer to warm up, bringing temperatures of up to 5 degrees C right down to the seabed.

Quantification of this affect has only very recently been attempted, in a paper to the 2011 AGU by Hudson (5). The startling conclusion is that the rate of warming of the Arctic could double or triple, once the Arctic Ocean is ice-free in September. And it could double or triple again, once the ocean is ice-free for half the year. But the timescale makes this all the more worrying.

The scientific community has drawn attention to the risk of dangerous climate change if the world does not reduce emissions of carbon dioxide - a worthy and critical objective. However, I wish to point toward a much more immediate problem that does not seem to be recognised among the climate change community at large: This is the problem of rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice, and likely consequence of catastrophic methane feedback.

These rapidly warming temperatures are accelerating the melt of offshore permafrost, releasing methane trapped as methane hydrates and causing large plumes of methane to appear all over the summer Arctic shelves (observed for the last 2-3 summers by Semiletov and colleagues on joint University of Alaska – Far Eastern Research Institute cruises). Methane levels in the Arctic atmosphere have started to rise (measured by Dr Leonid Yurganov, Johns Hopkins University) after being stable for some years. As methane is a very powerful, if short lived, greenhouse gas, this will give a strong upward kick to global warming.

According to research crew leader Igor Semiletov:

"We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale - I think on a scale not seen before.... This is the first time we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 meters in diameter." (6)

Semiletov has also described how warmer temperatures are making their way down to the bottom of the shallow seabeds in the Arctic continental shelves:

"When ice has gone, there are stronger winds and waves and a deeper mixing of water which causes the comparatively warm upper layer to mix with water at deeper levels. There are already studies which confirm that in some areas, bottom temperature in summer is 2 to 3 degrees above zero celsius (freezing). As this warming spreads to a larger area, the more that shelf-based permafrost will thaw." (7)

There have been warnings that a major methane outbreak may be imminent.

In a piece Archer co-authored in 2009, he acknowledged both the significant warming power of methane and the fragile and "intrinsically vulnerable" nature of hydrates:

"There are concerns that climate change could trigger significant methane releases from hydrates and thus could lead to strong positive carbon–climate feedbacks. .... Methane hydrate seems intrinsically vulnerable on Earth nowhere at the Earth's surface is it stable to melting and release of the methane." (8)

In this same piece, Archer affirms another key factor:

"Rapid warming well above the global average makes the Arctic hydrates particularly vulnerable to climate change." (8)

Archer clearly acknowledges the vulnerability of methane hydrates to thawing in response to rising Arctic temperatures. Given that ice loss is accelerating, which in turn will only accelerate that temperature rise through the albedo effect, one has to wonder why he does not perceive an imminent and urgent crisis. Ira Leifer - methane specialist at the Marine Science Institute at Univ. of Calif - Santa Barbara - describes the mechanics of a "runaway" methane feedback:

"A runaway feedback effect would be where methane comes out of the ocean into the atmosphere leading to warming, leading to warmer oceans and more methane coming out, causing an accelerated rate of warming in what one could describe as a runaway train." (9)

Given that this "train" would be one way and feed upon itself in a way that might well be unstoppable by humanity, it would seem to be a classic case where the precautionary principle should immediately be invoked. When Archer dismisses the legitimate concern that conditions in the Arctic are approaching a potentially catastrophic tipping point, he is deflecting away a vitally important perspective that needs to be communicated to the world's policymakers. I strongly urge Archer to re-consider his position.

It is also my understanding that one of the recipients of Archer's "dismissal" charge was documentary film-maker Gary Houser. Houser had submitted an earlier rebuttal to Archer - based on his interviews with scientists related to a program on the issue of Arctic methane - which was rejected by "Real Climate" on the grounds that he himself is not an accredited scientist. I have read his rebuttal and wish to link to it here (10), as I believe it contains points of merit I do not have space to address here.

Footnoted sources and links:
(1) RealClimate: Much ado about methane
(2) Wadhams: 1990 Wadhams, P. Evidence for thinning of the Arctic ice cover north of Greenland. Nature, Lond., vol 345, 795-797.
(3) Wadhams: Arctic Sea Ice Thickness: Past, Present & Future - European ...
(4) PIOMAS graph link: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi
(5) Hudson: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD015804.shtml
(6) UK Independent, Dec.13, 2011 Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats ...
(7) Documentary interview with Semiletov: www.590films.org/methane.html
(8) Archer, co-author Gas hydrates: entrance to a methane age or climate ... - IOPscience
(9) Documentary interview with Leifer: www.590films.org/methane.html
(10) Houser rebuttal to Archer, link: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/02/rebuttal-david-archer-wrong-to-dismiss.html

Professor Peter Wadhams is author of a recent science paper entitled "Arctic Ice Cover, Ice Thickness, and Tipping Points". It was published in AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment produced by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Link to abstract and full text preview of published article: Arctic Ice Cover, Ice Thickness and Tipping Points - SpringerLink This paper was written for the Arctic Tipping Points Project (www.eu-atp.org) - a large scale integrating project funded by the European Union 7th Framework Programme.

---

January 2012 shows record levels of methane in the Arctic

In January 2012, methane levels in the Arctic reached levels of 1870 ppb.

Particularly worrying is that, in the past, methane concentrations have fluctuated up and down in line with the seasons. Over the past seven months, however, methane has shown steady growth in the Arctic. Such a long continuous period of growth is unprecedented, the more so as it takes place in winter, when vegetation growth and algae bloom is minimal. The most obvious conclusion is that the methane is venting from hydrates.

Extract from: The need for geo-engioneering
and from: Methane venting in the Arctic

Arctic Methane Emergency Group Letter to World Leaders

Arctic Methane Emergency Group  

Emergency intervention to stabilize Arctic sea ice and thereby Arctic methane is today a matter of our survival

I write to you on behalf of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, which includes among its founding members Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, Cambridge; Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design, Edinburgh; and Brian Orr, former Principal Science Officer at the UK DoE (as was). The Group has received support and advice from many pre-eminent climate science colleagues around the world.  The purpose of this letter is to respectfully bring to your attention new evidence of the rapidly deepening climate change crisis in the Arctic. We appeal to you to support our call to put the imminent loss of Arctic summer sea ice and escalation of Arctic methane emissions at the top of the climate change agenda and to support emergency measures to cool the Arctic.

Professor Peter Wadhams, on behalf of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, spoke about this critical issue at the December 2011 American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco, USA. Key elements of his talk have been widely reported, following an article in the UK's Independent newspaper.

The substance of our concerns – and the basis for these media reports – is outlined in our 16-page document entitled Arctic Methane Alert. To summarise:

• The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and increased warming of the Arctic seas threaten methane hydrate instability and a massive catastrophic release of methane into the atmosphere, as noted in IPCC AR4. 

• Research published by N. Shakhova* shows that methane is already venting into the atmosphere from seabed methane hydrates on the East Siberian Arctic shelf, or ESAS (the world's largest continental shelf), which, if allowed to escalate, would likely lead to abrupt and catastrophic global warming.

• The latest research expedition to the region (September/October 2011), according to Professor I. Semiletov, witnessed methane plumes on a "fantastic scale," "some one kilometer in diameter," "far greater" than previous observations, which were officially reported in 2010 to equal methane emissions from all the other oceans put together.

• The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and subsequent increased Arctic surface warming will inevitably increase the rate of methane emissions already being released from Arctic wetlands and thawing permafrost.

• The latest available data indicates there is a 5-10% possibility of the Arctic being ice free in September by 2013, more likely 2015, and with 95% confidence by 2018. This, according to the recognised world authorities on Arctic sea ice, Prof. Wadhams and Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski, is the point of no return for summer sea ice. Once past this point, it could prove impossible to reverse the retreat by any kind of intervention.  The data indicate the Arctic could be ice free for six months of the year by 2020 (PIOMAS 2011).

It is on the basis of this latest and best information that we are calling for urgent and immediate action to arrest the escalating decline of Arctic sea ice.

Action is demanded by the precautionary principle and under the terms of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which states: "The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures."   

The conditions that have long been recognised as potentially causing vast quantities of methane to be released in the Arctic are clearly developing. The calamitous impacts of inaction are well-known – runaway climate change. As US Energy Secretary and Nobel Laureate, Steven Chu, said when addressing the consequences of an Arctic meltdown, "A runaway effect… We cannot go there." The only way to prevent this critical situation from developing into a global catastrophe is through international recognition of the issue, and collaboration on the immediate and urgent intensification of scientific inquiry and the emergency scale development of countermeasures such as geoengineering to cool the Arctic.

As you are a guardian of the global community, we are counting on your support.

John Nissen,
Chair, Arctic Methane Emergency Group

* "Remobilization to the atmosphere of only a small fraction of the methane held in East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming….Our concern is that the subsea permafrost has been showing signs of deabilization already. If it further destabilizes, the methane emissions may not be teragrams, it would be significantly larger. The release to the atmosphere of only one percent of the methane assumed to be stored in shallow hydrate deposits might alter the current atmospheric burden of methane up to 3 to 4 times."

— N. Shakhova, Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, Science, 5 March 2010