1. PERmafrost and GAs hydrate related methane release in the Arctic and impact on climate change: European cooperation for long-term MONitoring: PERGAMON
ES0902
Start date: 11/11/2009
End date: 10/11/2013
Year: 1
Patrick Crill
Stockholm University, Sweden
Jérôme Chappellaz
Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l'Environnement
Jens Greinert (Chair)
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Barrow, Alaska.

2. Scientific context and objectives (1/3)
Large areas of the Arctic region are underlain by permafrost.
Thawing permafrost leads to the release of methane trapped within or beneath it into the ocean and atmosphere.
Most climate models predict a rapid increase in Arctic air and surface-water temperatures within the next few decades
increasing the release of methane from free-gas or from gas-hydrate reservoirs in terrestrial and marine permafrost and from wetlands, tundra and shallow marine sediments. Current significant emissions of CH4 may increase.
The main objective of PERGAMON is to quantify the methane input from marine and terrestrial sources into the atmosphere in the Arctic region and ultimately to evaluate the impact of Arctic methane seepage on global climate.
U.S. National Snow and
Ice Data Center

3. Scientific context and objectives (2/3)
Tasks related to establish/refine the methane inventory, e.g. in the sub-seafloor, include:
Quantifying the amount of gas hydrate particularly in the sub-seafloor using multichannel seismic, 3D seismic and electromagnetic studies
Enhancing our capabilities in detecting and extrapolating the occurrence of methane releasing seep sites by integrating multibeam data with hydroacoustic and visual data.
Other tasks related to the investigation of biogeochemical processes in the sediment and the water column that affect the ultimate release of methane to the atmosphere are:
Exploring the effectiveness of the biological methane filter in lake and ocean sediments by applying biogeochemical and microbiological studies
Researching the involvement and temporal relation of gas hydrate dissociation in the sediment with respect to buffering or enhancing methane fluxes; geochemical analyses on pressurized cores and modelling will be utilized
Studying the effectiveness of bubble transport vs. dissolved methane using geochemical and hydroacoustic mapping and monitoring

4. Scientific context and objectives (3/3)
Tasks to evaluate the methane fluxes from wetlands, tundra and Arctic-lakes include:
Direct flux measurements in specific habitats and extrapolation of these fluxes to larger areas
Studying methane formation and fluxes in regions of the marine to freshwater interface; this includes
microbiological investigations related to bacterial adaptation and methane oxidation rate measurements using radioactive tracers.
Paleo-analysis: retro-observations to evaluate how Arctic methane fluxes evolved during warmer periods in the past (e.g. the last interglacial, 130,000 y bp)
Other tasks that deal with atmospheric long term methane records and remote sensing include:
Atmospheric monitoring campaigns at various Arctic field stations (e.g. Siberia, Svalbard; marine cruises) using laser analysis techniques and eddy covariance measurements
Airplane and satellite based remote sensing to define global changes
Modelling to learn more about the input needed from e.g. marine sources to have a measurable impact on atmospheric concentrations.

5. Working groups
Based on the scientific topics, four work groups (6 sub-groups) have been established:
WG-A: Methane formation, transport and accumulation (free gas and gas hydrate) in terrestrial and marine sediments and permafrost
WG-B1: Biogeochemical processes in the shallow sub-seafloor and at the sediment-water interface
WG-B2: Effectiveness of methane transport through the water column (ocean and lakes) and assessment of methane fluxes into the atmosphere
WG-C1: Methane fluxes from the terrestrial environment (wetlands, tundra, Arctic lakes)
WG-C2: Remote and land-based atmospheric methane monitoring
WG-D: Data compilation, integration and organization of data distribution among the scientific community
Methane bubbles released from a seep. A question is: how much reaches the sea surface and enters the atmosphere?
Atmospheric methane concentrations detected by satellite. How much better can we get the spatial resolution to bridge the gap between earth surface and satellite measurements?

6. Results vs. Objectives
PERGAMON has just started 7 months ago. The direct results with respect to the objectives can be better evaluated after the next (1st) field season which has just begun. A few examples are listed:
Participating scientists are getting more and more involved in the Action (strong request for STSMs) and realize the potential in using PERGAMON as a network for cooperation and infrastructure to share information (e.g. PhD position adverts). This was an important network objective.
Joint field campaigns and sampling have been planned for the coming field campaigns and have been already undertaken for air sampling, e.g. offshore Barrow (Alaskan Arctic) and Svalbard. Isotope analyzes have been undertaken among PEGAMON partners (U. Tromsø; Royal NIOZ, Royal Halloway, University London). Sharing ship time and performing joint work on land is an important network objective of PERGAMON.
Granted STSMs will help to enhance our knowledge and improve methodologies, e.g. in using hydroacoustic methods; this STSM will be performed in summer this year as joint work between Poland and Israel with a ESR from Poland visiting Israel.

7. Significant highlights (1/2) Outcome and achievements
Despite PERGAMON just having started, there already some direct outcomes:
A close cooperation has been established between U.Tromsø and Royal NIOZ for repeated surveys and student training offshore Svalbard. The first joint cruise happened in June 2009, the next one is planned for October 2010.
Among the PERGAMON community, several joint project ideas and proposals emerged already in the last half year. One was between Royal NIOZ, NRL from the US and VIINO in St. Petersburg to work in the Kara Sea. Due to a relatively short planning period, the cruise has been shifted to next year.
A proposal for a Theme call in EUROCORES, “EuroMETHANE”, has been submitted as a joint effort. This initiative was lead by U. Basel (CH) in cooperation with five PERGAMON members (BE, NL, FR, FI, IL).
Various PERGAMON partners will join a proposal effort to apply for a project within the coming call “ENV : Vulnerability of Arctic permafrost to climate change and implications for global GHG emissions and future climate” in FP7.

8. Significant highlights (2/2) Impact, outreach and EU added value
… the publically funded TV channel ARTE is highly interested in creating a documentary on methane in the Arctic. Contacts have been established, the team will be presenting their proposal for filming at the next MC/work group meeting in October.

9. Coordination, management and internal functioning
With PERGAMON just having started, only the kick-off meeting and a strongly “ash cloud compromised” 1st work group meeting have taken place so far. The next meeting will take place in October 2010.
Work group meetings are seen as the backbone of the Action to coordinate research efforts, define new aims and make progress with planned tasks.
STSMs are used as a supporting tool for stimulating scientific cooperation. Two STSM have been finished already and an additional five have been granted.
Five of the seven STSMs include ESRs, with three of them being undertaken by PhD students.
Managing the Action is effectively done by the Action Chair and the Grant Holder being at the same institute (Royal NIOZ).
Coordination of the Action occurs by good cooperation between the Chairs and the Work Package leaders with a very quickly reacting web manager.

10. Action Parties Grant Holder: Royal NIOZ Prof. Dr. Jens Greinert
The Netherlands

11. Action Parties (Institutes)
Grant Holder:
Royal NIOZ
Prof. Dr. Jens Greinert
The Netherlands

12. Action participants Grant Holder: Royal NIOZ Prof. Dr. Jens Greinert
The Netherlands

13. Geographical impact COST Countries : 16 Chair : NL BE, DK, FI, FR, DE,
GR, IL, IT, NO, PL, PT, ES, SE, CH, UK
Non-COST countries:
USA, Russia, New Zealand (pending)

14. Use of COST instruments
YR 1
YR 2
YR 3
YR 4
No. of MC / WG meetings 3
No. of STSMs 8
No. of workshops / conferences 1
No. of joint publications
No. of training schools
GASG (activities)
Posters, talks, website
Website

15. Strengths and weaknesses
PERGAMON is a truly multinational/global Action with growing interest among additional institutions
Leverages off of a Good working atmosphere of a relatively close-knit scientific community
PERGAMON draws in scientists from three different fields of methane research that have not had much interaction: atmospheric science, terrestrial and marine geosciences
PERGAMON lies at the frontier of different disciplines (e.g. geochemistry, geophysics, microbiology, remote sensing, engineering...)
Weaknesses
Marine research is planned well in advance due to the need of ship time. Projects and joined cruises that are clearly related to PERGAMON will only emerge in 1 to 2 years.
Getting ship time funded on Russian vessels in Russian waters is difficult to achieve from national funding in some member countries and also from European funding.

16. Challenges
Arctic methane is one of the wild cards in the climate system; its understanding and projection into the future will require much more than a networking action such as PERGAMON.
Getting everybody involved in the action for meetings and the aims of the action is difficult due to the high cost of participation and the limitations of the COST action to support participation otuside of nationals reps and WG leaders.
PERGAMON is „only“ an infrastructure project that demands contributions from three very different scientific groups that normally do not work closely together
Establishing long term funding for monitoring methane release in a very well planned way on European level and this a relatively short time.