New study reports that Greenland is a methane sink rather than a source

Posted: January 31, 2024 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Emissions, research
Tags: ,

Greenland settlement [image credit: climatechangepost.com]


A large dent goes in to thawing permafrost scares, as another ‘ticking time bomb’ based on greenhouse gas theories turns out to be a dud. As for carbon dioxide, the professor leading the study commented: “…the ice-free parts of Greenland have only been without ice since the last ice age, meaning that they never stored much carbon”. Climate models will have to be revised.
– – –
Researchers at the University of Copenhagen have concluded that the methane uptake in dry landscapes exceeds methane emissions from wet areas across the ice-free part of Greenland.

The results of the new study contribute important knowledge to climate models, says Phys.org.

The researchers are now investigating whether the same finding applies to other polar regions.

It has long been thought [Talkshop comment – e.g. by alarmists like this] that the Arctic may be a ticking climate bomb. As local temperatures rise and permafrost thaws, more and more of the greenhouse gas methane is released.

But in a new study from the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management at the University of Copenhagen, researchers have been able to conclude that at least Greenland does not seem to be a methane bomb after all.

In fact, Greenland consumes more methane than it releases, according to analyses of soil samples from 11 areas across Greenland. The researchers used an existing dynamic methane model, which made it possible to quantify the methane budget for all of Greenland.

The researchers have been able to conclude that, on average and since 2000, dry landscapes of the ice-free part of Greenland have consumed more than 65,000 tons of methane annually from the atmosphere, while 9,000 tons of methane have been released annually from its wet areas.

“This is partly due to Greenland’s widespread dry landscapes, where methane from the atmosphere is consumed into the upper layers of soil, and partly because the ice-free parts of Greenland have only been without ice since the last ice age, meaning that they never stored much carbon, which could lead to large methane emissions, as can be measured elsewhere in the Arctic,” says Professor Bo Elberling, who led the study.

Full article here.
– – –
Study – Spatial controls of methane uptake in upland soils across climatic and geological regions in Greenland.
Quote: ‘As dry upland ecosystems cover 87% of the northern circumpolar region, our empirical and model findings highlight the need to consider these vast, well-drained areas as important contributors to the Arctic CH4 budget.’

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    Later in the Phys.org article:

    “We had just managed to demonstrate that methane uptake occurs in dry Siberian soils as well, but more studies will be needed in Siberia to provide a methane budget similar to what we now have for Greenland. Still, we have advanced considerably with similar studies in cold regions in Tibet, for example, where measurements indicate a similar conclusion as for Greenland.”

    They had to pull out of Siberia, where ‘the majority of Arctic wetlands’ are, when the Russia-Ukraine conflict started.

  2. darteck says:

    More obfustration ‘oldbrew’?

    ‘Water’ also ‘absorbs’ CO2. Not only that, water ‘promotes’ the growth of ‘plant life’ which converts CO2 into oxygen and locks this into the ‘carbon’ of the ‘plant’, ‘mollusk’.

    I’ve not read the ‘paper’ that you link to, but I find this ‘claim’ unrealistic.

    ‘Methane’ (produced by dead/dying organic matter) is best ‘burned’ within Earth’s atmosphere as its effect is the least ‘radiative forcing’ when ‘burned’ to produce ‘CO2’ and ‘WV’, other than ‘if the ‘virgin’ ‘~CH4’ is released into the atmosphere.

    There are ‘other’ chemical/mechanical issues involved that affect our atmosphere here ‘oldbrew’!

    Could you post them?

    Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).

  3. oldbrew says:

    The researchers have been able to conclude that, on average and since 2000, dry landscapes of the ice-free part of Greenland have consumed more than 65,000 tons of methane annually from the atmosphere, while 9,000 tons of methane have been released annually from its wet areas.

    Seems clear enough, absorption exceeds emission by about 7:1 in that region, which may well be replicated elsewhere as studies continue and early results suggest.

  4. darteck says:

    oldbrew says: February 2, 2024 at 7:42 pm

    “Seems clear enough, absorption exceeds emission by about 7:1 in that region, which may well be replicated elsewhere as studies continue and early results suggest.”

    Clear as ‘mud’ OB! These data are ‘apples and oranges’! Data for Ice/snow and dry/wet regions (are there any ‘dry regions’ there?) can’t be compared for ‘absorption’ and ’emission’ of CO2 for the same region, ‘not’ ‘one state’ of H2O (dry/wet) for ’emission’ against the ‘other state’ of H2O (‘frozen’ ice/snow) for ‘absorption’ in the ‘same region’. Please bear in mind that H2O in its ‘liquid state’ absorbs CO2, whilst H2O in its ‘frozen/freezing (ice/snow) state’ forces CO2 out of the ‘ice/snow’ (H2O) as it transitions its ‘phase change of state’. Thus, little ‘absorption’ of CO2 in/for the ‘frozen’ (ice/snow) state of H2O, but much ‘absorption’ in/for the ‘dry/wet’ state of H2O (not taking into consideration the ‘extra absorption’ by where and when ‘fauna’ is taken into consideration). Similar for ’emission’ (unless the process of ‘freezing’ H2O from its ‘liquid’ to its ‘ice/snow’ state is in progress where CO2 is forced from the body of H2O), but we already know this. ‘Dry/wet regions’ uncovered by receding ‘ice/snow regions’ shall ‘improve CO2 uptake’. Huh? Who knew?

    The data ‘results’ acquired depend on the ‘time of year’ (winter/summer), need to apply to a ‘singular H2O phase process’ for comparison between absorption and emission, and realize/state the differing properties between the behavior of H2O with CO2 through the ‘phase changes’ of H2O (water). Without a (pretty much) ‘full’ understanding of ‘how “water” behaves’, it’s difficult to envisage ‘what’s going on’.

    I think ‘these guys’ (the ‘paper’) are just trying to justify their ‘grant’. I just hope I’ve not made too many ‘typos’, it’s late for me! 🙂

    Kindest regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).

Leave a comment