Investigating methane emissions from geologic microseepage in Western New York State, United States
Author:
Kazemi Roxana1, Schlageter William1, Hmiel Benjamin12, Weber Thomas S.1, Murray Lee T.1, Petrenko Vasilii V.1
Affiliation:
1. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA 2. Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY, USA
Abstract
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and a key player in atmospheric chemistry. Important uncertainties remain in the global atmospheric methane budget, with natural geologic emissions being one of the particularly uncertain terms. In recent bottom-up studies, geologic emissions have been estimated to comprise up to 10% of the global budget (40–60 Teragrams of methane per year, Tg CH4 yr–1). In contrast, top-down constraints from 14C of methane in preindustrial air extracted from ice cores indicate that the geologic methane source is approximately an order of magnitude lower. Recent bottom-up inventories propose microseepage (diffuse low-level flux of methane through soils over large areas) as the largest single component of the geologic methane flux. In this study, we present new measurements of methane microseepage from the Appalachian Basin (Western New York State) and compare these with prior microseepage measurements from other regions and with predicted values from the most recent bottom-up inventory. Our results show lower microseepage values than most prior data sets and indicate that positive microseepage fluxes in this region are not as widespread as previously assumed. A statistical analysis of our results indicates that mean microseepage flux in this region has very likely been overestimated by the bottom-up inventory, even though our measurements more likely than not underestimate the true mean flux. However, this is a small data set from a single region and as such cannot be used to evaluate the validity of the microseepage emissions inventory as a whole. Instead, the results demonstrate the need for a more extensive network of direct geologic emission measurements in support of improved bottom-up inventories.
Publisher
University of California Press
Subject
Atmospheric Science,Geology,Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology,Ecology,Environmental Engineering,Oceanography
Reference39 articles.
1. Ciotoli, G, Procesi, M, Etiope, G, Fracassi, U, Ventura, G. 2020. Influence of tectonics on global scale distribution of geological methane emissions. Nature Communications11(1): 1–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16229-1. 2. Copernicus Sentinel-5P (processed by ESA). 2019. TROPOMI Level 2 Methane total column products. Version 01. European Space Agency. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5270/S5P-3p6lnwd. 3. Dyonisius, MN, Petrenko, VV, Smith, AM, Hua, Q, Yang, B, Schmitt, J, Beck, J, Seth, B, Bock, M, Hmiel, B, Vimont, I. 2020. Old carbon reservoirs were not important in the deglacial methane budget. Science367(6480): 907–910. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0504. 4. Elder, CD, Thompson, DR, Thorpe, AK, Hanke, P, Walter Anthony, KM, Miller, CE. 2020. Airborne mapping reveals emergent power law of arctic methane emissions. Geophysical Research Letters47(3). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085707. 5. Etiope, G. 2005. Mud volcanoes and microseepage: The forgotten geophysical components of atmospheric methane budget. Annals of Geophysics48(1). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4401/ag-3175.
|
|