Advertisement

Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 251–258 | Cite as

Influence of methane sources in Northern Hemisphere high latitudes on the interhemispheric asymmetry of its atmospheric concentration and climate

  • E. M. VolodinEmail author
Article

Abstract

Numerical experiments with the INMCM4 climate model have shown that the observed 10% difference in the lower tropospheric methane concentration between the Arctic and the Southern Hemisphere can be reproduced in a climate model in which only the present-day spatial distribution of anthropogenic methane emissions and calculated emissions from wet ecosystems are considered. In model runs with an additional 50- or 100-Mt/year methane emission in the Arctic, the difference in atmospheric methane concentrations between the Arctic and the Southern Hemisphere is higher than the observed one. An additional methane emission of 4000 Mt/year in the Arctic is shown to result in an increase of 1.5° in global mean surface air temperature. The spatial distribution of warming is similar to that induced by an increase in the carbon dioxide concentration, depends on the global mean methane concentration, and does not depend at all on where the additional methane source lies.

Keywords

methane source climate change concentration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, et al., “Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing,” in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis-Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ed. by T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, et al. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013), pp. 661–740.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Mayer, D. Blake, S. Tyler, et al., “Methane interhemispheric concentration gradient and atmospheric residence time,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 79(2), 1366–1370 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. P. Semiletov, S. A. Zimov, Yu. V. Voropaev, et al., “Atmospheric methane in the past and presnt,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk 339(2), 253–256 (1994).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Ciais, C. Sabine, G. Bala, et al., “Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles,” in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis-Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ed. by T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, et al. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013), pp. 465–570.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. P. Kennett, K. G. Cannariato, L. Ingrid, et al., “Carbon isotopic evidence for methane hydrate instability during quaternary interstadials,” Science 288(5463), 128–133 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. E. Shakhova, V. A. Alekseev, and I. P. Semiletov, “Predicted methane emission on the East Siberian shelf,” Dokl. Earth Sci. 430(2), 190–194 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. E. Shakhova, V. I. Sergienko, I. P. Semiletov, et al., “On the role of the East Siberian arctic shelf in the current methane cycle and global climatic processes,” Vestn. Dal’nevost. Otd. Ross. Akad. Nauk, No. 4, 3–15 (2008).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. N. Denisov, M. M. Arzhanov, A. V. Eliseev, and I. I. Mokhov, “Sensitivity of methane emissions by marsh ecosystems of West Siberia to climate changes: Multimodel estimates,” Opt. Atmos. Okeana 24(4), 319–322 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. N. Denisov, M. M. Arzhanov, A. V. Eliseev, and I. I. Mokhov, “Estimating the response of subequal methane-hydrate reservoirs to a possible climate change in the 21st century,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk 441(5), 685–688 (2011).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. M. Arzhanov and I. I. Mokhov, “Model assessments of organic carbon amounts released from long-term permafrost under scenarios of global warming in the 21st century,” Dokl. Earth Sci. 455(1), 346–349 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. M. Volodin, N. A. Diansky, and A. V. Gusev, “Simulating present-day climate with the INMCM4.0 coupled model of the atmospheric and oceanic general circulations,” Izv., Atmos. Ocean. Phys., 46(4), 414–431 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. M. Volodin, “Methane cycle in the INM RAS climate model,” Izv., Atmos. Ocean. Phys. 44(2), 153–159 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. M. Volodin and N. A. Diansky, “Response of a coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model to increased carbon dioxide,” Izv., Atmos. Ocean. Phys. 39(2), 170–186 (2003).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. E. Shakhova, V. I. Sergienko, and I. P. Semiletov, “The contribution of the East Siberian shelf to the modern methane cycle,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk 79(3), 237–246 (2009).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Numerical MathematicsRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations