DOCSLIB.ORG

The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017 Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 1561–1623, 2020 https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020 © Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017 Marielle Saunois1, Ann R. Stavert2, Ben Poulter3, Philippe Bousquet1, Josep G. Canadell2, Robert B. Jackson4, Peter A. Raymond5, Edward J. Dlugokencky6, Sander Houweling7,8, Prabir K. Patra9,10, Philippe Ciais1, Vivek K. Arora11, David Bastviken12, Peter Bergamaschi13, Donald R. Blake14, Gordon Brailsford15, Lori Bruhwiler6, Kimberly M. Carlson16,17, Mark Carrol70, Simona Castaldi18,19,20, Naveen Chandra9, Cyril Crevoisier21, Patrick M. Crill22, Kristofer Covey23, Charles L. Curry24,71, Giuseppe Etiope25,26, Christian Frankenberg27,28, Nicola Gedney29, Michaela I. Hegglin30, Lena Höglund-Isaksson31, Gustaf Hugelius32, Misa Ishizawa33, Akihiko Ito33, Greet Janssens-Maenhout13, Katherine M. Jensen34, Fortunat Joos35, Thomas Kleinen36, Paul B. Krummel37, Ray L. Langenfelds37, Goulven G. Laruelle38, Licheng Liu39, Toshinobu Machida33, Shamil Maksyutov33, Kyle C. McDonald34, Joe McNorton40, Paul A. Miller41, Joe R. Melton42, Isamu Morino33, Jurek Müller35, Fabiola Murguia-Flores43, Vaishali Naik44, Yosuke Niwa33,45, Sergio Noce20, Simon O’Doherty46, Robert J. Parker47, Changhui Peng48, Shushi Peng49, Glen P. Peters50, Catherine Prigent51, Ronald Prinn52, Michel Ramonet1, Pierre Regnier38, William J. Riley53, Judith A. Rosentreter54, Arjo Segers55, Isobel J. Simpson14, Hao Shi56, Steven J. Smith57,58, L. Paul Steele37, Brett F. Thornton22, Hanqin Tian56, Yasunori Tohjima72, Francesco N. Tubiello59, Aki Tsuruta60, Nicolas Viovy1, Apostolos Voulgarakis61,62, Thomas S. Weber63, Michiel van Weele64, Guido R. van der Werf8, Ray F. Weiss65, Doug Worthy66, Debra Wunch67, Yi Yin1,27, Yukio Yoshida33, Wenxin Zhang41, Zhen Zhang68, Yuanhong Zhao1, Bo Zheng1, Qing Zhu53, Qiuan Zhu69, and Qianlai Zhuang39 1Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, LSCE-IPSL (CEA-CNRS-UVSQ), Université Paris-Saclay 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France 2Global Carbon Project, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Aspendale, VIC 3195 & Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia 3NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Biospheric Science Laboratory, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 4Department of Earth System Science, Woods Institute for the Environment, and Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2210, USA 5Yale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA 6NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305, USA 7SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Sorbonnelaan 2, 3584 CA Utrecht, the Netherlands 8Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Earth Sciences, Earth and Climate Cluster, VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 9Research Institute for Global Change, JAMSTEC, 3173-25 Showa-machi, Kanazawa, Yokohama, 236-0001, Japan 10Center for Environmental Remote Sensing, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan 11Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada 12Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden 13European Commission Joint Research Centre, Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra (Va), Italy 14Department of Chemistry, University of California Irvine, 570 Rowland Hall, Irvine, CA 92697, USA 15National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, 301 Evans Bay Parade, Wellington, New Zealand 16Department of Environmental Studies, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA 17Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA Published by Copernicus Publications. 1562 M. Saunois et al.: The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017 18Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Biologiche e Farmaceutiche, Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, via Vivaldi 43, 81100 Caserta, Italy 19Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, RUDN University, Moscow, Russia 20Impacts on Agriculture, Forests, and Ecosystem Services Division, Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici, Via Augusto Imperatore 16, 73100 Lecce, Italy 21Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, LMD-IPSL, Ecole Polytechnique, 91120 Palaiseau, France 22Department of Geological Sciences and Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, Svante Arrhenius väg 8, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 23Environmental Studies and Sciences Program, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, USA 24Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, University House 1, P.O. Box 1700 STN CSC Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada 25Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma 2, via V. Murata 605 00143 Rome, Italy 26Faculty of Environmental Science and Engineering, Babes Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania 27Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA 28Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA 29Met Office Hadley Centre, Joint Centre for Hydrometeorological Research, Maclean Building, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK 30Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6BB, UK 31Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Program (AIR), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2361 Laxenburg, Austria 32Department of Physical Geography and Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 33Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Onogawa 16-2, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan 34Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, City College of New York, City University of New York, New York, NY 10031, USA 35Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Sidlerstr. 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland 36Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstr. 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany 37Climate Science Centre, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Aspendale, Victoria 3195, Australia 38Department Geoscience, Environment & Society, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1050-Brussels, Belgium 39Department of Earth, Atmospheric, Planetary Sciences, Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA 40Research Department, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK 41Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, 223 62, Lund, Sweden 42Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada 43School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1SS, UK 44NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), 201 Forrestal Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540, USA 45Meteorological Research Institute (MRI), Nagamine 1-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0052, Japan 46School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Cantock’s Close, Clifton, Bristol BS8 1TS, UK 47National Centre for Earth Observation, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK 48Department of Biology Sciences, Institute of Environment Science, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, QC H3C 3P8, Canada 49Sino-French Institute for Earth System Science, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China 50CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Pb. 1129 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway 51Observatoire de Paris, Université PSL, Sorbonne Université, CNRS, LERMA, Paris, France 52Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Building 54-1312, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA 53Climate and Ecosystem Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 54Centre for Coastal Biogeochemistry, School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 1561–1623, 2020 https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020 M. Saunois et al.: The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017 1563 55TNO, Dep. of Climate Air & Sustainability, P.O. Box 80015, NL-3508-TA, Utrecht, the Netherlands 56International Center for Climate and Global Change Research, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, 602 Duncan Drive, Auburn, AL 36849, USA 57Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Lab, College Park, MD 20740, USA 58Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA 59Statistics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy 60Finnish Meteorological Institute, P.O. Box 503, 00101, Helsinki, Finland 61Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK 62School of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece 63Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA 64KNMI, P.O. Box 201, 3730 AE, De Bilt, the Netherlands 65Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA 66Environment and Climate Change Canada, 4905, rue Dufferin, Toronto, Canada 67Department of Physics, University of Toronto, 60 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 68Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA 69College of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai University, Nanjing, 210098, China 70NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reduced Net Methane Emissions Due to Microbial Methane Oxidation in a Warmer Arctic
    LETTERS https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0734-z Reduced net methane emissions due to microbial methane oxidation in a warmer Arctic Youmi Oh 1, Qianlai Zhuang 1,2,3 ✉ , Licheng Liu1, Lisa R. Welp 1,2, Maggie C. Y. Lau4,9, Tullis C. Onstott4, David Medvigy 5, Lori Bruhwiler6, Edward J. Dlugokencky6, Gustaf Hugelius 7, Ludovica D’Imperio8 and Bo Elberling 8 Methane emissions from organic-rich soils in the Arctic have bacteria (methanotrophs) and the remainder is mostly emitted into been extensively studied due to their potential to increase the atmosphere (Fig. 1a). The methanotrophs in these wet organic the atmospheric methane burden as permafrost thaws1–3. soils may be low-affinity methanotrophs (LAMs) that require However, this methane source might have been overestimated >600 ppm of methane (by moles) for their growth and mainte- without considering high-affinity methanotrophs (HAMs; nance23. But in dry mineral soils, the dominant methanotrophs are methane-oxidizing bacteria) recently identified in Arctic min- high-affinity methanotrophs (HAMs), which can survive and grow 4–7 eral soils . Herein we find that integrating the dynamics of at a level of atmospheric methane abundance ([CH4]atm) of about HAMs and methanogens into a biogeochemistry model8–10 1.8 ppm (Fig. 1b)24. that includes permafrost soil organic carbon dynamics3 leads Quantification of the previously underestimated HAM-driven −1 to the upland methane sink doubling (~5.5 Tg CH4 yr ) north of methane sink is needed to improve our understanding of Arctic 50 °N in simulations from 2000–2016. The increase is equiva- methane budgets.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Rapid Climate Change in the Arctic a Planetary Emergency? Peter Carter, November 2013 Updated 2019
    Is Rapid Climate Change in the Arctic a Planetary Emergency? Peter Carter, November 2013 updated 2019. Introduction This paper presents a compelling case, supported by the climate change research, that the combination of: • global inaction on greenhouse gas emissions, • climate system inertias, and • multiple enormous Arctic sources of amplifying feedbacks (covered in this paper) constitutes an extreme-risk planetary emergency, for the survival of civilization, the human race and most life Research on climate change and the Arctic shows that we face a catastrophic risk of uncontrollable, accelerating global warming due to several amplifying feedbacks from enormous feedback sources in the Arctic. These include the Arctic snow/ice-albedo feedback and greenhouse gas feedbacks (methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide). Under global warming, the Arctic is changing far faster than other regions of Earth. Numerous – and extremely large – Arctic sources of amplifying feedbacks are already responding (have been triggered in response) to rapid Arctic warming. These Arctic feedbacks, if not addressed in time (now) and with the appropriate degree of mitigation, can only be expected to accelerate the rate of global warming. They constitute a very large risk of planetary catastrophic consequences, including Arctic greenhouse gas feedback so-called "runaway" chaotic climate disruption / runaway global heating/ hot house Earth. This paper describes global warming positive feedbacks already operant in the Arctic, and explains the large risk of planetary
    [Show full text]
  • Working Towards a Just Peace in the Middle East
    KAIROS Policy Briefing Papers are written to help inform public debate on key domestic and foreign policy issues No. 41 April 2015 Hopeful Signs, Alarming Realities on the Road to Climate Justice By John Dillon Ecological Economy Program Coordinator “Climate change for us is a matter of life or death.”1 waiting for the Paris conference to make decisions These stark words were spoken by Rev. Tafue Lu- that, in most cases, will take effect only in 2020. sama, General Secretary of the Tuvalu Christian Church, in September 2014 at an interfaith summit in New York. How prophetic they were in March 2015 when Super Cyclone Pam wreaked havoc on the Pa- cific island state, killing dozens and destroying thou- sands of homes in neighbouring Vanuatu. Rising sea levels and warmer water temperatures have increased the frequency and intensity of tropical storms like this one and Typhoon Haiyan, which struck the Philip- pines in 2013. Yet, although climate change is already devastating the lives of millions of vulnerable people, Rev. Olav Cyclone Pam survivors survey damage in Vanuatu. Tveit, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, reminds us: “Despite all the negative condi- Hopeful signs include initiatives being undertaken tions, we have the right to hope, not as a passive wait- by some Canadian provinces such as putting a price ing but as an active process towards justice and on carbon emissions and declaring moratoria on hy- peace.”2 This Briefing Paper examines some hopeful draulic fracturing (fracking) to extract shale gas. As signs of progress in the struggle for climate justice, well, a number of civil society groups, such as Cli- despite major obstacles.
    [Show full text]
  • FIRST-ORDER DRAFT IPCC WGII AR5 Chapter 19 Do Not Cite, Quote
    FIRST-ORDER DRAFT IPCC WGII AR5 Chapter 19 1 Chapter 19. Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities 2 3 Coordinating Lead Authors 4 Michael Oppenheimer (USA), Maximiliano Campos (Costa Rica) 5 6 Lead Authors 7 Joern Birkmann (Germany), George Luber (USA), Brian O’Neill (USA), Kiyoshi Takahashi (Japan), Rachel Warren 8 (UK) 9 10 Contributing Authors 11 Franz Berkhout (Netherlands), Pauline Dube (Botswana), Wendy Foden (South Africa), Stefan Greiving (Germany), 12 Solomon Hsiang (USA), Klaus Keller (USA), Joan Kleypas (USA), Robert Kopp (USA), Carlos Peres (UK), Jeff 13 Price (UK), Alan Robock (USA), Wolfram Schlenker (USA), Richard Tol (UK) 14 15 Review Editors 16 Mike Brklacich (Canada), Sergey Semenov (Russian Federation) 17 18 Chapter Scientist 19 Solomon Hsiang (USA) 20 21 22 Contents 23 24 Executive Summary 25 26 19.1. Purpose, Scope, and Structure of the Chapter 27 19.1.1. Historical Development of this Chapter 28 19.1.2. The Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate 29 Change Adaptation (SREX) 30 19.1.3. New Developments in this Chapter 31 32 19.2. Framework for Identifying Key Vulnerabilities, Key Risks, and Emergent Risks 33 19.2.1. Risk and Vulnerability 34 19.2.2. Criteria for Identifying Key Vulnerabilities and Key Risks 35 19.2.2.1. Criteria for Identifying Key Vulnerabilities 36 19.2.2.2. Criteria for Identifying Key Risks 37 19.2.3. Criteria for Identifying Emergent Risks 38 19.2.4. Identifying Key and Emergent Risks under Alternative Development Pathways 39 19.2.5. Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and Emergent Risks 40 41 19.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Stolerov Arctic Meth
    Critical Review pubs.acs.org/est Review of Methane Mitigation Technologies with Application to Rapid Release of Methane from the Arctic Joshuah K. Stolaroff,* Subarna Bhattacharyya, Clara A. Smith, William L. Bourcier, Philip J. Cameron-Smith, and Roger D. Aines Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, United States *S Supporting Information ABSTRACT: Methane is the most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide, with particular influence on near-term climate change. It poses increasing risk in the future from both direct anthropogenic sources and potential rapid release from the Arctic. A range of mitigation (emissions control) technologies have been developed for anthropogenic sources that can be developed for further application, including to Arctic sources. Significant gaps in understanding remain of the mechanisms, magnitude, and likelihood of rapid methane release from the Arctic. Methane may be released by several pathways, including lakes, wetlands, and oceans, and may be either uniform over large areas or concentrated in patches. Across Arctic sources, bubbles originating in the sediment are the most important mechanism for methane to reach the atmosphere. Most known technologies operate on confined gas streams of 0.1% methane or more, and may be applicable to limited Arctic sources where methane is concentrated in pockets. However, some mitigation strategies developed for rice paddies and agricultural soils are promising for Arctic wetlands and thawing permafrost. Other mitigation strategies specific to the Arctic have been proposed but have yet to be studied. Overall, we identify four avenues of research and development that can serve the dual purposes of addressing current methane sources and potential Arctic sources: (1) methane release detection and quantification, (2) mitigation units for small and remote methane streams, (3) mitigation methods for dilute (<1000 ppm) methane streams, and (4) understanding methanotroph and methanogen ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Climatic Impact of Arctic Ocean Methane Hydrate Dissociation in The
    Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2017-110 Manuscript under review for journal Earth Syst. Dynam. Discussion started: 18 December 2017 c Author(s) 2017. CC BY 4.0 License. Climatic impact of Arctic Ocean methane hydrate dissociation in the 21st-century Sunil Vadakkepuliyambatta1*, Ragnhild B Skeie2, Gunnar Myhre2, Stig B Dalsøren2, Anna Silyakova1, Norbert Schmidbauer3, Cathrine Lund Myhre3, Jürgen Mienert1 1CAGE-Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment, and Climate, Department of Geosciences, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, 9037 Tromsø, Norway. 2CICERO-Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo, PB. 1129 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway. 3NILU - Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Instituttveien 18, 2027 Kjeller, Norway. 1 Abstract 2 Greenhouse gas methane trapped in sub-seafloor gas hydrates may play an important role in a 3 potential climate feedback system. The impact of future Arctic Ocean warming on the hydrate 4 stability and its contribution to atmospheric methane concentrations remains an important and 5 unanswered question. Here, we estimate the climate impact of released methane from oceanic 6 gas hydrates in the Arctic to the atmosphere towards the end of the 21st century, integrating 7 hydrate stability and atmospheric modeling. Based on future climate models, we estimate that 8 increasing ocean temperatures over the next 100 years could release up to 17 ± 6 Gt C into the 9 Arctic Ocean. However, the released methane has a limited or minor impact on the global 10 mean surface temperature, contributing only 0.1 % of the projected anthropogenic influenced 11 warming over the 21st century. 12 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Satellite Earth Observation for Permafrost Related Analyses—A Review
    remote sensing Review Trends in Satellite Earth Observation for Permafrost Related Analyses—A Review Marius Philipp 1,2,* , Andreas Dietz 2, Sebastian Buchelt 3 and Claudia Kuenzer 1,2 1 Department of Remote Sensing, Institute of Geography and Geology, University of Wuerzburg, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany; [email protected] 2 German Remote Sensing Data Center (DFD), German Aerospace Center (DLR), Muenchner Strasse 20, D-82234 Wessling, Germany; [email protected] 3 Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geography and Geology, University of Wuerzburg, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Climate change and associated Arctic amplification cause a degradation of permafrost which in turn has major implications for the environment. The potential turnover of frozen ground from a carbon sink to a carbon source, eroding coastlines, landslides, amplified surface deformation and endangerment of human infrastructure are some of the consequences connected with thawing permafrost. Satellite remote sensing is hereby a powerful tool to identify and monitor these features and processes on a spatially explicit, cheap, operational, long-term basis and up to circum-Arctic scale. By filtering after a selection of relevant keywords, a total of 325 articles from 30 international journals published during the last two decades were analyzed based on study location, spatio- temporal resolution of applied remote sensing data, platform, sensor combination and studied environmental focus for a comprehensive overview of past achievements, current efforts, together with future challenges and opportunities. The temporal development of publication frequency, utilized platforms/sensors and the addressed environmental topic is thereby highlighted.
    [Show full text]
  • Postglacial Response of Arctic Ocean Gas Hydrates to Climatic Amelioration
    Postglacial response of Arctic Ocean gas hydrates to climatic amelioration Pavel Serova,1, Sunil Vadakkepuliyambattaa, Jürgen Mienerta, Henry Pattona, Alexey Portnova, Anna Silyakovaa, Giuliana Panieria, Michael L. Carrolla,b, JoLynn Carrolla,b, Karin Andreassena, and Alun Hubbarda,c aCentre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and Climate, Department of Geology, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, 9037 Tromsø, Norway; bAkvaplan-niva, FRAM – High North Research Centre for Climate and the Environment, 9296 Tromsø, Norway; and cCentre of Glaciology, Aberystwyth University, Wales SY23 3DB, United Kingdom Edited by Mark H. Thiemens, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, and approved May 1, 2017 (received for review November 22, 2016) Seafloor methane release due to the thermal dissociation of gas methane-derived carbonate crusts and pavements formed above hydrates is pervasive across the continental margins of the Arctic gas venting systems, and, furthermore, hydrate dissociation within Ocean. Furthermore, there is increasing awareness that shallow sediments has been linked to megascale submarine landslides (12), hydrate-related methane seeps have appeared due to enhanced pockmarks (13), craters (14), and gas dome structures (15). warming of Arctic Ocean bottom water during the last century. Gas and water that constitute a hydrate crystalline solid within Although it has been argued that a gas hydrate gun could trigger the pore space of sediment remain stable within a gas hydrate abrupt climate change, the processes and rates of subsurface/ stability zone (GHSZ) that is a function of bottom water tem- atmospheric natural gas exchange remain uncertain. Here we perature, subbottom geothermal gradient, hydrostatic and litho- investigate the dynamics between gas hydrate stability and static pressure, pore water salinity, and the specific composition environmental changes from the height of the last glaciation of the natural gas concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Δ13c-CH4 and Δd-CH 4 to Constrain Arctic Methane Emissions
    Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 14891–14908, 2016 www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/14891/2016/ doi:10.5194/acp-16-14891-2016 © Author(s) 2016. CC Attribution 3.0 License. 13 Using δ C-CH4 and δD-CH4 to constrain Arctic methane emissions Nicola J. Warwick1,2, Michelle L. Cain1, Rebecca Fisher3, James L. France4, David Lowry3, Sylvia E. Michel5, Euan G. Nisbet3, Bruce H. Vaughn5, James W. C. White5, and John A. Pyle1,2 1National Centre for Atmospheric Science, NCAS, UK 2Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, CB2 1EW, UK 3Department of Earth Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, TW20 0EX, UK 4School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK 5Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA Correspondence to: Nicola J. Warwick ([email protected]) Received: 23 May 2016 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 28 June 2016 Revised: 21 October 2016 – Accepted: 27 October 2016 – Published: 1 December 2016 Abstract. We present a global methane modelling study 2007, the Arctic experienced a rapid methane increase, but assessing the sensitivity of Arctic atmospheric CH4 mole in 2008 and 2009–2010 growth was strongest in the trop- 13 fractions, δ C-CH4 and δD-CH4 to uncertainties in Arctic ics. This renewed global increase in atmospheric methane has methane sources. Model simulations include methane trac- been accompanied by a shift towards more 13C-depleted val- ers tagged by source and isotopic composition and are com- ues, suggesting that one explanation for the change could be pared with atmospheric data at four northern high-latitude an increase in 13C-depleted wetland emissions (Nisbet et al., measurement sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Arctic Regional Methane Fluxes by Ecotope As Derived
    Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 8619–8633, 2017 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-8619-2017 © Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Arctic regional methane fluxes by ecotope as derived using eddy covariance from a low-flying aircraft David S. Sayres1, Ronald Dobosy2,3, Claire Healy4, Edward Dumas2,3, John Kochendorfer2, Jason Munster1, Jordan Wilkerson5, Bruce Baker2, and James G. Anderson1,4,5 1Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 2Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division, NOAA/ARL, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA 3Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA 4Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 5Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Correspondence to: David Sayres ([email protected]) Received: 27 September 2016 – Discussion started: 30 September 2016 Revised: 19 May 2017 – Accepted: 7 June 2017 – Published: 14 July 2017 Abstract. The Arctic terrestrial and sub-sea permafrost re- measurements of surface flux can play an important role in gion contains approximately 30 % of the global carbon stock, bridging the gap between ground-based measurements and and therefore understanding Arctic methane emissions and regional measurements from remote sensing instruments and how they might change with a changing climate is important models. for quantifying the global methane budget and understand- ing its growth in the atmosphere. Here we present measure- ments from a new in situ flux observation system designed for use on a small, low-flying aircraft that was deployed over 1 Introduction the North Slope of Alaska during August 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Diverse Origins of Arctic and Subarctic Methane Point Source Emissions Identified with Multiply-Substituted Isotopologues
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 188 (2016) 163–188 www.elsevier.com/locate/gca Diverse origins of Arctic and Subarctic methane point source emissions identified with multiply-substituted isotopologues P.M.J. Douglas a,⇑, D.A. Stolper a,b, D.A. Smith a,c, K.M. Walter Anthony d, C.K. Paull e, S. Dallimore f, M. Wik g,h, P.M. Crill g,h, M. Winterdahl h,i, J.M. Eiler a, A.L. Sessions a a Caltech, Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, United States b Princeton University, Department of Geosciences, United States c Washington University, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, United States d University of Alaska-Fairbanks, International Arctic Research Center, United States e Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, United States f Natural Resources Canada, Canada g Stockholm University, Department of Geological Sciences, Sweden h Stockholm University, Bolin Center for Climate Research, Sweden i Stockholm University, Department of Physical Geography, Sweden Received 9 November 2015; accepted in revised form 18 May 2016; Available online 25 May 2016 Abstract Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and there are concerns that its natural emissions from the Arctic could act as a sub- stantial positive feedback to anthropogenic global warming. Determining the sources of methane emissions and the biogeo- chemical processes controlling them is important for understanding present and future Arctic contributions to atmospheric methane budgets. Here we apply measurements of multiply-substituted isotopologues, or clumped isotopes, of methane as a new tool to identify the origins of ebullitive fluxes in Alaska, Sweden and the Arctic Ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Cryosphere-Controlled Methane Release Throughout the Last Glacial Cycle
    Department of Geosciences, Faculty of Science and Technology Cryosphere-controlled methane release throughout the last glacial cycle — Pavel Serov A dissertation for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor – December 2018 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Key concepts and definitions .................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Evolution of the cryosphere on the Barents Sea shelf and the Kara Sea shelf from the Last Glacial Maximum to the 21st Century ................................................................................................. 9 1.4 Three study regions ............................................................................................................... 12 1.4.1 Yamal Shelf (South Kara Sea) ...................................................................................... 13 1.4.2 Storfjorden Trough (Barents Sea) ................................................................................. 15 1.4.3 Bjørnøya Trough (Barents Sea) ..................................................................................... 16 1.5 Cryosphere-controlled methane capacitors and climate change ............................................ 18 2 Summary of Articles ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]