We could be 16 years into a methane-fueled 'termination' event significant enough to end an ice age

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas emitted from both natural and human-caused sources.  (Image credit: Reuben Krabbe/ Ascent Xmedia via Getty Images)

A dramatic spike in atmospheric methane over the past 16 years may be a sign that Earth's climate could flip within decades, scientists have warned.

Large amounts of methane wafting from tropical wetlands into Earth's atmosphere could trigger warming similar to the "termination" events that ended ice ages — replacing frosty expanses of tundra with tropical savanna, a new study finds. Researchers first detected a strange peak in methane emissions in 2006, but until now, it was unclear where the gas was leaking from and if it constituted a novel trend.

"A termination is a major reorganization of the Earth's climate system," study lead author Euan Nisbet, a professor emeritus of Earth sciences at Royal Holloway, University of London, told Live Science. "These repeated changes have taken the world from ice ages into the sort of interglacial we have now."

Ice age terminations typically occur in three phases, which are recorded in ice cores going back 800,000 years. The initial phase is characterized by a gradual rise in methane and CO2, leading to global warming over a few thousand years. This is followed by a sharp increase in temperatures fueled by a burst of methane, leveling off in a third phase lasting several thousand years.

Related: New map of methane 'super-emitters' shows some of the largest methane clouds ever seen

"Within the termination, which takes thousands of years, there's this abrupt phase, which only takes a few decades," Nisbet said. "During that abrupt phase, the methane soars up and it's probably driven by tropical wetlands."

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas released both by human activities — including fossil-fuel burning, landfills and agriculture — and natural processes, such as decomposition in wetlands. Human emissions soared in the 1980s with the expansion of the natural gas industry and stabilized in the 1990s, Nisbet said.

Plants that grow in tropical wetlands decompose and release methane into the atmosphere. (Image credit: Humberto Ramirez via Getty Images)

But in late 2006, something "very, very odd" happened, he said. Methane started rising again, but there was no dramatic shift in human activity to blame — and researchers were left scratching their heads. Then, in 2013, Nisbet and his colleagues realized this rise was accelerating. By 2020, methane was increasing at the fastest rate on record, he said.

"It looks as if there's a big, new methane source turning on," Nisbet said.

A flurry of studies since 2019 has linked the strange spike to soaring emissions from tropical wetlands, predominantly in Africa. A "significant change" in tropical weather ascribed to human-caused climate change has led wetlands to get bigger and more plants to grow there, thus leading to more decomposition — a process that produces methane, Nisbet said.

In the new study, published July 14 in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Nisbet and colleagues compared current trends in atmospheric methane to the abrupt phase of warming during ice age terminations.

"The closest analogy we have to what we think is happening today is these terminations," Nisbet said. 

While the evidence remains inconclusive, the scale of such a shift in climate is worth pondering, he added. In the past, terminations have flipped vast expanses of icy tundra in the Northern Hemisphere into tropical grasslands roamed by hippos, Nisbet said. There is no way to know what a termination could signify today, given that we are not in an ice age. "We're not saying we've got proof this is happening, but we're raising the question."

Regardless of whether termination-scale climate shifts are on the horizon, tackling methane emissions should be high on our list of priorities, Nisbet said. "We can do a great deal to bring down methane," he said, and this includes plugging gas leaks, and tackling emissions from manure, landfill and crop waste.

Sascha Pare
Trainee staff writer

Sascha is a U.K.-based trainee staff writer at Live Science. She holds a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Southampton in England and a master’s degree in science communication from Imperial College London. Her work has appeared in The Guardian and the health website Zoe. Besides writing, she enjoys playing tennis, bread-making and browsing second-hand shops for hidden gems.

  • Broadlands
    "Regardless of whether termination-scale climate shifts are on the horizon, tackling methane emissions should be high on our list of priorities, Nisbet said. "We can do a great deal to bring down methane," he said, and this includes plugging gas leaks, and tackling emissions from manure, landfill and crop waste."
    However, none of that can be effectively done without using conventional transportation. And that adds CO2 in the process. Between a rock and a hard place?
    Reply
  • rjh
    The authors mistakenly state we are not in an ice age. We are in an ice age that started 3 million years ago, in an inter-glacial where the ice partially and temporarily receded 10,000 years ago. Would breaking out of an ice age be bad, overall? Things would change.
    "At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago."
    Reply
  • Giovani
    admin said:
    Methane emissions from tropical wetlands have been soaring since 2006 and accelerating at the same breakneck speed as when Earth's climate has flipped from a glacial to an interglacial period.

    We could be 16 years into a methane-fueled 'termination' event significant enough to end an ice age : Read more
    admin said:
    Methane emissions from tropical wetlands have been soaring since 2006 and accelerating at the same breakneck speed as when Earth's climate has flipped from a glacial to an interglacial period.

    We could be 16 years into a methane-fueled 'termination' event significant enough to end an ice age : Read more
    So many aspects to the current climate models. Ironically, humankind may be staving off the return to a cyclic ice episode naturally occurring but overridden due to the introduction of carbon emissions.
    If we were able to reduce this human generated condition, the earth would rapidly cool as should be. Ironic would be the word to describe our mortal wisdom.
    Reply
  • bolide2
    rjh said:
    The authors mistakenly state we are not in an ice age. We are in an ice age that started 3 million years ago, in an inter-glacial where the ice partially and temporarily receded 10,000 years ago. Would breaking out of an ice age be bad, overall? Things would change.
    "At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago."
    Source of your quotation?
    Reply
  • 7%solution
    After reading research reports about the current climate change phenomenon, I came to the same conclusion. We're in a warming period within the current ice age. We shouldn't call this an interglacial period. As long as significant ice sheets are present on the planet, we're part of an ice age. Just because ice sheets retreated around 11000 years ago doesn't signify the ice age is over.

    We have no idea how the current climate changes will play out. The best we can do is find similar occurrences in the climate history preserved in the oldest ice cores we can find. Even with that in hand we don't know if the current warming trend is unique or part of a reoccurring climate change pattern. Unless we create a method to harvest massive amounts of methane gas out of the atmosphere, we're pretty much just along for the ride. In absence of finding a fix for the greenhouse gases building up everywhere, we will be spectators of a potential climate change driven species extinction event. In some small ways that appears to be already happening. Instead of spending too many of our resources on reversing the trend, a futile undertaking considering the sheer scale of the ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, we should probably focus on how to survive what seems to become our inevitable future.
    Reply
  • Giovani
    7%solution said:
    After reading research reports about the current climate change phenomenon, I came to the same conclusion. We're in a warming period within the current ice age. We shouldn't call this an interglacial period. As long as significant ice sheets are present on the planet, we're part of an ice age. Just because ice sheets retreated around 11000 years ago doesn't signify the ice age is over.

    We have no idea how the current climate changes will play out. The best we can do is find similar occurrences in the climate history preserved in the oldest ice cores we can find. Even with that in hand we don't know if the current warming trend is unique or part of a reoccurring climate change pattern. Unless we create a method to harvest massive amounts of methane gas out of the atmosphere, we're pretty much just along for the ride. In absence of finding a fix for the greenhouse gases building up everywhere, we will be spectators of a potential climate change driven species extinction event. In some small ways that appears to be already happening. Instead of spending too many of our resources on reversing the trend, a futile undertaking considering the sheer scale of the ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, we should probably focus on how to survive what seems to become our inevitable future.
    We should discuss the implications arising from meeting every goal espoused concerning "climate change".
    Humankind is indeed affecting climate, but perhaps in a fashion not considered. The cycles of natural environmental glaciation and thawing won't be thwarted by our egos. Considering humans powerful enough to change the climate and bring about global catastrophe is sheer hubris.
    Rather, we are artificially warming the atmosphere, preventing the natural cooling which should be making itself known at present. Stop the greenhouse gasses and inter cold. Ironic, isn't it?
    Reply
  • 7%solution
    Giovani said:
    We should discuss the implications arising from meeting every goal espoused concerning "climate change".
    Humankind is indeed affecting climate, but perhaps in a fashion not considered. The cycles of natural environmental glaciation and thawing won't be thwarted by our egos. Considering humans powerful enough to change the climate and bring about global catastrophe is sheer hubris.
    Rather, we are artificially warming the atmosphere, preventing the natural cooling which should be making itself known at present. Stop the greenhouse gasses and inter cold. Ironic, isn't it?
    I agree with you. Most of the ongoing climate change is part of a natural cycle. Over 11000 years ago the planet suffered a catastrophic melt off that raised sea levels by about 150 meters within a relatively short time. If that happened today, humanity would be gravely affected. Realistically, we're talking about a potential worst case sea level rise of a few meters during the next 100 years or so. Although this may be bad news for coastal developments, it's a far cry compared to what happened 11000 years ago. Perhaps native Americans were always smarter than us. They didn't choose to live close to the shores of oceans, presumably because they knew that oceans could come for them, via tsunamis, and other sudden disasters. Well, 11000 years ago we had no polluting industries or any other greenhouse gas producing enterprises. In fact, the human population was so small back then, it could've hardly affected the climate. This in itself is evidence, we are way overestimating the ability of humans to affect our worldwide climate. No doubt, air pollution is a bad thing. That's why human induced air pollution needs to be curbed, but not necessarily for controlling climate change,. Rather, we should worry about the adverse health effects caused by breathing contaminated air. Apparently the oxygen percentage of our breathable atmosphere has been dropping for some time, while unhealthy atmospheric components have increased. That's a worrisome trend we can probably do something about.
    Reply