4.8 Article

Methane hydrate dissociation across the Oligocene-Miocene boundary

期刊

NATURE GEOSCIENCE
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 203-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41561-022-00895-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Texas A&M University Triads for Transformation Program [NA18OAR4170088]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analysis of lipid biomarkers from the Southern Ocean suggests that methane hydrate dissociation across the Oligocene-Miocene boundary may have played a role in ending glaciation, with implications for global carbon cycle perturbations and climate change. This study provides evidence of direct links between methane release and subsequent oxidation during this time period, shedding light on the mechanisms behind rapid climate changes in Earth's history.
Methane hydrate dissociation occurred across the Oligocene-Miocene boundary, which may have contributed to the termination of glaciation, according to analysis of lipid biomarkers from the Southern Ocean. Methane hydrate dissociation has long been considered as a mechanism for global carbon cycle perturbations, climate change and even mass extinctions in Earth's history. However, direct evidence of hydrate destabilization and methane release coinciding with such events is scarce. Here we report the presence of diagnostic lipid biomarkers with depleted carbon isotopes from three sites in the Southern Ocean that are directly linked to methane release and subsequent oxidation across the Oligocene-Miocene boundary (23 million years ago). The biomarker evidence indicates that the hydrate destabilization was initiated during the peak of the Oligocene-Miocene boundary glaciation and sea-level low stand, consistent with our model results suggesting the decrease in hydrostatic pressure eroded the base of global methane hydrate stability zones. Aerobic oxidation of methane in seawater consumes oxygen and acidifies the ocean, acting as a negative feedback that perhaps facilitated the rapid and mysterious termination of glaciation in the early Miocene.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据