Mauna
Loa Methane Measure Shows Rising Rates of Increase Through End 2014
8
December, 2014
(Atmospheric methane levels as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory. Image source:NOAA/ESRL.)
Atmospheric
methane levels as measured by the Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) showed
a continued steepening rate of increase through late 2014 —
featuring one rather troubling spike late last month.
The
measure, which has been recording atmospheric methane levels since
the middle of the 20th Century, continued to ramp higher with
readings hitting an average of 1850 parts per billion by late
November.
Notably,
this increase is at a faster pace than yearly averages for all of the
last decade.
In
addition, a single spike to 1910 parts per billion took place last
month. This large departure of 60 parts per billion above the average
was somewhat unusual for the Mauna Loa measure. The collection site
is rather far from human or Arctic emissions sources which makes it
less likely to feature anomalous spikes due to local influences. This
particular spike also represents the largest single departure from
the base line measure since 1984 (when the ESRL record begins).
Overall
drivers of the more recent increase in global methane levels
beginning around 2007 come from an increase in human emissions
(likely due to rising rates of fossil fuel exploitation — primarily
through hydrofracking and coal mining) as well as what appears to
also be an increase in Arctic emissions. Large methane sources in
Siberia, over the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, in the Laptev Sea, the
Nares Strait, and west of Svalbard have been observed in both
satellite monitors and through observations taken by scientists and
researchers on the ground.
Overall, a significant overburden of
greenhouse gasses centers on the Arctic and appears to be enhanced by
local carbon (methane and CO2) sources in the region.
More
comprehensive measurements of methane releases over Alaska (according
to NASA JPL),
on the other hand, have not yet shown methane release departures
above the global norm for land areas. But the observational record
for Alaska composes just one year (2012), so there is no way to yet
determine if permafrost carbon and methane releases from the tundra
in that region increased to achieve their current rates. It is worth
noting generally that the terrestrial zone for Alaska and its off
shore region are not, as yet, major carbon release hot spots.
Global
Warming Potential at Least 20 Times CO2
Methane
(CH4) is an important greenhouse gas due to the fact that its global
warming potential (GWP) over short periods is much higher when
compared to a similar volume of CO2 (most measures consider the GWP
of methane to be 20 times that of a similar volume of CO2). That
said, methane’s residence time in the atmosphere is much shorter
than CO2 and CO2 volumes are much larger. So CO2 is considered to be
a more important gas when it comes to long term climate change.
Nonetheless, CH4 increases since the start of the industrial
revolution put it as the #2 gas now forcing the world to warm.
Very
large outbursts of CH4 from the global carbon store (including
terrestrial and ocean stores) during the Permian and PETM are
hypothesized to have set off very rapid increases in global
temperature. For some prominent researchers, this potential hazard is
seen to be very low under current warming conditions. Others,
however, seem very concerned that a rapid methane outburst under the
very fast rate of human warming could be a tipping point we are fast
approaching.
Observations
in a Murky Scientific Context
It
is important to note that the current profile of atmospheric methane
increase does not yet look like one of catastrophic release. Instead,
what we see is an overall ramping up of atmospheric levels.
The
issue of catastrophic release potential — raised by Peter Wadhams,
the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, and Dr. Simeletov and Shakhova
among others — is not one that is certain or settled in the
science.
As
an example, Dr. Shakhova identifies a substantial but
non-catastrophic 17 megaton atmospheric release from the East
Siberian Arctic Shelf (equal to about 8 percent of the human emission
and a substantial increase from a previous estimate of 8 megatons per
year in 2010) as currently ongoing. However, both Simeletov and
Shakhova have been the object of criticism due to their
identification of a risk of a 3.5 gigaton per year methane release
should all the East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane hot spots become
active. Such a release would, in one year, nearly double the amount
of all methane currently in the atmosphere (5 gigatons).
Dr.
Peter Wadhams, another Arctic expert, has also received criticism for
his assessment that a 50 gigaton release from the large subsea Arctic
methane stores could be possible as sea ice retreat spurs Arctic
Ocean sea floors to warm.
Other
scientists such as GISS lead Gavin Schmidt and prominent Earth
Systems modeler David Archer have noted that such very large releases
aren’t currently likely. They point to natural traps that tend to
tamp down sea based release rates (sometimes stopping as much as 90
percent of a destabilized methane source from hitting the
atmosphere). They also note that current warming has probably not yet
exceeded levels seen during the Eemian (130,000 years ago) and no
large methane releases were observed at that time from Arctic carbon
stores like the ESAS. They tend to take the view that any increasing
rate of release coming from Arctic methane stores in particular and
Arctic carbon stores in general will be very slow — so slow as to
not be a significant amplifier of human warming (less than 5 percent)
this century.
In
general, between these two rather extreme and increasingly polarized
views on Arctic methane, there appears to be very little in the way
of middle ground.
Although, a loosely related survey of permafrost
carbon experts found a consensus opinion that the total carbon
emission (including CO2 and methane) from land based tundra alone
would equal between 10 and 35 percent of the current annual human
emission by the end of this Century. It’s worth noting that this
survey assessment does not include potential releases from the
submerged permafrost in the ESAS or releases from other global carbon
stores as a result of human warming.
The
current rapid pace of human-caused warming — heating some regions
of the Arctic as fast as 0.5 to 1 C per decade — also caused some
of Archer and Schmidt’s scientific forebears, particularly James
Hansen, to be rather less dismissive of the potential for a
significant release from global methane stores, especially those in
the Arctic. In any case, current human greenhouse gas emissions of
nearly 50 gigatons CO2e each year are now in the process of pushing
global temperatures past Eemian thresholds. An excession likely to
elevate Anthropocene temperatures beyond all Eemian estimates before
the mid 2030s under current rates of global greenhouse gas emissions
and expected increases in fossil fuel burning.
So
it is in this murky scientific context that we must interpret risks
involving a continuing and apparently ramping rate of atmospheric
methane increase. And what we can say with certainty is that there is
little evidence that we are now hitting an exponential rise in global
atmospheric methane levels. But that there is some evidence that a
risk for such an event is real and requires much more detailed
research and public dissemination of information to put what are some
very valid concerns to rest.
Links:
More Arctic methane trouble from Robertscribbler with an unexplained spike. "In addition, a single spike to 1910 parts per billion took place last month. This large departure of 60 parts per billion above the average was somewhat unusual for the Mauna Loa measure. The collection site is rather far from human or Arctic emissions sources which makes it less likely to feature anomalous spikes due to local influences. This particular spike also represents the largest single departure from the base line measure since 1984 (when the ESRL record begins)." The largest departure from baseline in 30 years. Anyone worried yet?
ReplyDeleteRobert addresses the debate coming from A.M.E.G. well and sumes it up very well.
"So it is in this murky scientific context that we must interpret risks involving a continuing and apparently ramping rate of atmospheric methane increase. And what we can say with certainty is that there is little evidence that we are now hitting an exponential rise in global atmospheric methane levels. But that there is some evidence that a risk for such an event is real and requires much more detailed research and public dissemination of information to put what are some very valid concerns to rest."