So, I present you with a mystery: what caused this hole?
The 30 metre wide crater on the Yamal Peninsula, Siberia. Source: www.siberiantimes.com |
Analysis has shown that air at the bottom of the crater has a methane concentration of 9.6%, compared to the usual 0.000179%, providing a large clue as to its origins (Moskvitch, 2014). When permafrost (soil, rock or sediment that remains frozen for at least two years) thaws, methane is released. It is thought that the methane released here was trapped underground by a layer of ice, leading to a build up of pressure, and subsequent explosion (Moskvitch, 2014). This is worrying, especially given the close proximity of the site to the Bovanenkovskoye gas field (Moskvitch, 2014).
While the enigma of the crater in itself attracted a lot of attention, the implications of this story for the rest of the Arctic are also deserving of some study.
Map to show Arctic permafrost distribution. Darker shading represents areas with a greater percentage of permanently frozen ground. Source: www.nsidc.org |
During the summers of 2012 and 2013, the Yamal Peninsula experienced unusually high temperatures (~5°C above average (Moskvitch, 2014)). While some believe this to be the cause of the permafrost thaw in the region, others attribute the large amount of methane released to long-term global warming (Moskvitch, 2014). Indeed, it has been suggested that permafrost temperatures rose by as much as 6°C over the course of the 20th Century (NSIDC, 2014). As shown by the map above, permafrost covers a significant area of ground in the Arctic region (to be more specific, ~22.79 million square kilometres), making this a large-scale issue (NSIDC, 2014).
As discussed by Rowland et al. (2011), it can be difficult to model the response of the Arctic ecosystem to permafrost thawing, owing to the complexity of the potential feedback mechanisms involved. For example, loss of permafrost can lead to drying of the substrate surface, increasing fire risk (Rowland et al., 2011). A fire would in turn alter the albedo of the land surface, leading to more permafrost warming and thawing (Rowland et al., 2011). However, some likely consequences of permafrost degradation have been suggested. Permafrost contains both ground ice and massive ice (basically just large blocks of ground ice). When massive ice melts, voids are left in the ground, making it unstable. This can lead to erosion and the creation of thermokarst (an irregular land surface formed through subsidence), causing problems for Arctic communities (Rowland et al., 2011). Increased sediment from erosion of river channels could have implications for Arctic fisheries, and permafrost melting also alters soil permeability, changing surface water flow (Rowland et al., 2011). This list is not exclusive, but gives an indication of the sorts of issues that may arise as a result of permafrost melt.
Of course, although I want to focus on the Arctic specifically today, it would be impossible to finish without mentioning the potential global impact of melting permafrost. What was the cause of the explosion that created the Siberian crater? Methane. According to Anthony et al. (2012), "the Arctic geologic methane reservoir is large", "with a carbon store of over 1200Pg". This figure is particularly striking when compared to the 5Pg store of the atmospheric methane reservoir (Anthony et al., 2012). When permafrost melts, methane can be released via physical or biological processes: through the release of methane clathrate, or decay of organic matter, respectively. It is thought that microbial processes will be of fundamental importance in the transfer of carbon to the atmosphere (Schuur et al., 2008), but further research is needed before they can be fully understood (see Graham et al., 2012). It has been estimated that thawing permafrost may release as much as 100Pg of carbon into the atmosphere by the end of the century (Schuur et al., 2008). Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its release would lead to positive feedback cycles as increased warming caused more permafrost to melt. As such, media coverage on this topic seems to be increasing, with the situation often being referred to as a 'time bomb'...
I just thought I'd mention another potential global impact from melting permafrost - rising sea levels. The NSIDC have estimated that it could contribute to a 3-10 cm rise in global mean sea level - I think this also ties in with what you were saying about it being difficult to model permafrost degradation - it's hard to know to what extent the melting of permafrost will sea level, let alone anything else.
ReplyDeleteYes, thanks Breffni, that's a really good point - it shows how the changes occurring in the polar regions could have repercussions for the whole planet, which is pretty scary. Have you seen this?
ReplyDeletehttp://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map
It shows what would happen if all the ice melted, rather than just permafrost, but I think it's a nice way of visualising the potential extent of sea level rise. (I say nice, it's also very worrying!) I know you've written lots about this in your blog, so you might have come across it already...
Hi! The amount of methane that can be released by permafrost thawing is alarming! Do you think we can still keep this at a minimum (by reducing our GHG emissions) or is it to late to keep those "100 Pg of carbon" underground?
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, thanks for that NatGeo link - I had been looking for it ever since I saw an unreferenced screen capture!
I'm glad you found the link useful! Yes, it is pretty alarming...Worryingly, the '100 Pg of carbon' statistic is an estimate for the amount of carbon that could be lost with a warming of just 2 degrees (see Gruber et al., 2004, page 60 - http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~gruber/teaching/papers_to_read/gruber_scope_04_crc_corr.pdf).
ReplyDeleteAs you know, 2 degrees is commonly being used as a target figure in policy! In their latest report, the IPCC state that under scenarios RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (where radiative forcing continues to increase after the end of the century) an atmospheric temperature increase greater than 2 degrees is 'likely', and it is 'more likely than not' for scenario 4.5 (where radiative forcing stabilizes by the end of the century) (IPCC AR5, 2013). However, maybe there's hope! Under scenario RCP2.6, a warming greater than 2 degrees is deemed 'unlikely'; under this scenario, radiative forcing has already peaked and is beginning to decrease by the end of the 21st Century (IPCC AR5, 2013). So it depends upon whether we could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions enough for this to happen. In my opinion, this doesn't seem likely at the moment...but we should never think it's too late to make a difference - any reduction in GHG emissions must surely help. Here's the link to the IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers, which tells you about the scenarios in a bit more detail...
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf