Why adoucette's opinion of methanotrophs "saving" us from ocean warming by consuming gigatonnes of methane should be treated with the scepticism it deserves:
"
Despite numerous recent studies of methane hydrates, modern fluxes of methane from the deep sea into surface waters and ultimately the atmosphere are very poorly constrained. Estimates of methane flux have been aided, to some degree, by recent advances in our understanding of marine microbiological influences on the global methane cycle. Aspects of the marine methane cycle remain largely unconstrained owing to limitations in methods and technologies that enable accurate assessment of methane concentration and flux, as well as rates of biological methanogenesis or methanotrophy.
Pressure and temperature have a pronounced effect on methane solubility. Therefore, upon retrieval of methane-saturated waters or hydrate-rich sediments from the deep ocean, methane rapidly outgasses to the atmosphere. Thus it has been challenging to constrain flux and microbial activity in situ, under environmentally relevant conditions.
Because previous data have shown that methane oxidation, both aerobic and anaerobic, are the largest methane sinks in marine environments (Reeburgh, 2007), understanding what controls methane oxidation, including concentration and abiotic flux, is paramount to understanding global methane dynamics. To better constrain the methane flux in chemically reducing environments, and ultimately to quantify the influence of biotic and abiotic processes on the methane cycle, we employed a newly developed in situ mass spectrometer (ISMS) to conduct direct measurements of methane concentration which, in concert with shipboard microbiological measurements,were used to generate more robust estimates of diffusive flux and net methane oxidation rates in a newly discovered brine pool in the Gulf of Mexico."
--by some research team or other whose identity isn't important just now.
I think it's also relevant that "the global contribution of methane from the Arctic is 2%", may be true now, but there isn't any reason to assume--as adoucette seems quite willing to do--that it will be 2% ten years from now, or twenty.
I think adoucette is being selective and has tried several times to reassure that "it isn't that much of a problem". But he simply can't know this is true, he can't and even the climate scientists can't know it is.
That he labeled the estimated 50 gigatonnes of methane in permafrost that "could be released at any time" as a scare story, is perfectly indicative of a blinkered point of view. I would be a lot less concerned about adoucette's opinion than about what scientists are saying (in their usually conservative fashion).
"
Despite numerous recent studies of methane hydrates, modern fluxes of methane from the deep sea into surface waters and ultimately the atmosphere are very poorly constrained. Estimates of methane flux have been aided, to some degree, by recent advances in our understanding of marine microbiological influences on the global methane cycle. Aspects of the marine methane cycle remain largely unconstrained owing to limitations in methods and technologies that enable accurate assessment of methane concentration and flux, as well as rates of biological methanogenesis or methanotrophy.
Pressure and temperature have a pronounced effect on methane solubility. Therefore, upon retrieval of methane-saturated waters or hydrate-rich sediments from the deep ocean, methane rapidly outgasses to the atmosphere. Thus it has been challenging to constrain flux and microbial activity in situ, under environmentally relevant conditions.
Because previous data have shown that methane oxidation, both aerobic and anaerobic, are the largest methane sinks in marine environments (Reeburgh, 2007), understanding what controls methane oxidation, including concentration and abiotic flux, is paramount to understanding global methane dynamics. To better constrain the methane flux in chemically reducing environments, and ultimately to quantify the influence of biotic and abiotic processes on the methane cycle, we employed a newly developed in situ mass spectrometer (ISMS) to conduct direct measurements of methane concentration which, in concert with shipboard microbiological measurements,were used to generate more robust estimates of diffusive flux and net methane oxidation rates in a newly discovered brine pool in the Gulf of Mexico."
--by some research team or other whose identity isn't important just now.
I think it's also relevant that "the global contribution of methane from the Arctic is 2%", may be true now, but there isn't any reason to assume--as adoucette seems quite willing to do--that it will be 2% ten years from now, or twenty.
I think adoucette is being selective and has tried several times to reassure that "it isn't that much of a problem". But he simply can't know this is true, he can't and even the climate scientists can't know it is.
That he labeled the estimated 50 gigatonnes of methane in permafrost that "could be released at any time" as a scare story, is perfectly indicative of a blinkered point of view. I would be a lot less concerned about adoucette's opinion than about what scientists are saying (in their usually conservative fashion).
Last edited:
