The question was for miss or mrs Basset but i edited out the intro and a part on assuming doomerism and a part of replication but we will get to that.
But thanks for the articles.
replication
The Sverus-3 paper
Although seafloor bubble plumes were observed at two locations in the study area, our calculations suggest that regionally, turbulence‐driven diffusive flux alone accounts for the observed atmospheric CH4 enhancements, with only a local, limited role for bubble fluxes
But the russian research starts from observing plumes and then calculating the other way.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2014.0451The fate of dissolved CH4 largely depends on the interaction between a few factors: the turnover time of dissolved CH4 in the water column, the stability of the water column against vertical mixing and the rates of turbulent diffusion and lateral advection. Dissolved CH4 in the outer ESAS requires 300–1000 days to be oxidized in the water column because CH4 oxidation rates are very low (mean±1 s.d.: 0.0988±0.1343 nM d−1, p=0.95, n=328). During this time, some of the aqueous CH4 inventory is likely to be released to the atmosphere during storms [10]. The remaining dissolved CH4, captured beneath the sea ice in winter, can spread further from the ESAS via currents (figure 4), and some can escape to the atmosphere through leads and breaks in the ice [34].
The approaches are measuring the same phenomenon in a different way.
Thornton:
However, important caveats of our limited spatial coverage must be applied to this estimate, and sea ice covers these areas for about 70% of the year [Proshutinsky et al., 1999], as discussed below. Our annual flux, not accounting for impermeable ice cover periods, is in rough agreement with previously reported regional fluxes based on measurements in open waters of the LS and ESS, 1–4.5 Tg yr−1 [Shakhova et al., 2005], though later work noted similar fluxes with additional contribution from subsea CH4 seeps [Salyuk and Semiletov, 2010]. A more recent study focused on shallower portions of the LS and ESS (6–24 m depth) and found an average flux of 287 mg m−2 d−1, based on bubble fluxes derived from sonar [Shakhova et al., 2014]. This same study also extrapolated shelf‐wide fluxes as well, reporting a flux from subsea CH4 seeps to the atmosphere of 9 Tg CH4 yr−1, and a total flux (including diffusive fluxes) of 17 Tg CH4 yr−1 for the LS and ESS, by estimating that their study accounted for 10% of extant ESAS seeps. Finally, we note that our in situ results (along with all previous in situ results) are higher than a recent model of CH4 release (bubbling + diffusion) from the Siberian continental shelves of 0.42 Tg yr−1 [Archer, 2015] but are similar to a recent modeling estimate based on Pan‐Arctic CH4 measurements from long‐term monitoring stations on land [Berchet et al., 2016].
So there is actual replication.
Second link says:
Based on a comprehensive statistical analysis of the observations and of the simulations, annual methane emissions from ESAS are estimated to range from 0.0 to 4.5TgCH4 yr−1
Doomerism
David Archer: She proposed that 50 of methane (a gigaton is 1015 grams) might erupt from the Arctic on a short time scale Shakhova (2010). Let’s call this a “Shakhova” event. There would be significant short-term climate disruption from a Shakhova event,
So now lets see what a Shakova event as proposed by Shakova looks like.
For the link
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/how-much-methane-came-out-of-that-hole-in-siberia/comment-page-3/#ITEM-17381-0You have to get it via real climate because it does not work if you lob of the tracker ID in the link.
It is not long so just read it on the link.
Scenario 1 was realized in line with the following algorithm: the smooth methane emission growth (without account for bubble emission) should occur over the subsequent 90 years due to increase in the surface temperature by 2°С owing to the increment of carbon dioxide concentrations [3]. Such an increase should result in 5% annual growth of methane production in northern ecosystems [9] or its tenfold increase over 50 years.
Seems reasonable?
As follows from the figure, most of the shelf (80–90%) is characterized by
emission intensity ranging from 1 to 1000 μM/(m2 day).
In the remainder of the East Siberian shelf, the emission intensity is substantially higher varying from 1000 to 5400 μM/(m2 day). The recent annual methane emission is as high as 5 Tg (Tg = 1012 g). Under the emission growth in line with scenario 1, >50, >30, and approximately 15% of the East Siberian shelf should be characterized by its intensity exceeding 1000, 4000, and 20 000 μM/m2 /day, respectively. The integral annual emission should be 50 Tg of methane (for comparison, the present day methane emission from the tundra is as high as 42 Tg [3]).
So this actually just a proposal which goes from recent measures which broadly agree (4,5 or 5) which does have any really crazy assumptions temperature wise.
Sadly i cannot paste from the results so read it yourself but basically nothing in the other articles argues that this is not possible. It is not happening yet but one of the articles mentioned 70% ice cover over the year in the area and i wonder what the recent percentages are. Probably worse.
So the papers cited are actually much closer then the debate.
The possible emission translated to the temperature is 1 to 1,3 C so the whole debate is basically do you believe that ongoing global warming which will continue for a while and is amplified in the high north where there is ongoing atlantic intrusion is not going to trigger something bad.
And the whole bottom line is we got to do what we can to prevent that now.
We do not know where the line is (only that Archers model is wrong) and we really do not want to cross the line. You can disagree but the earth does not care and that is the worrisome bit.