This is not good.

[The_Global_Warmer]

What happens to CH4 that is bubbing out while the arctic is freezing up. I am assuming it cant freeze at the surface of the ocean.

Iwould assume the ice blocks it from reentry to the ocean. How long does keltic keep pouring out of the ocean after freeze up?

the sun can give SW to parts of the ESAS until mid fall IIRC. Is that when its over ?

like do the clathrates keep leaking out methane or freeze back over the winter months while no sun?

Thanks in advance.

Next summer will be a big year to focus on this. There is no MYI left in the Russian side. The Russians do a hell of a job every week using satelittes, radar, shipping records, submarines, models, and ascat to track ice progresion. Ice in the barents, laptev, and kara has been continuously recycled under the near constant pattern. Not to mention the constant warm temp anomalies.

We could get another conplete meltout of the Russian seas.

Last summer the ESB didnt melt out because of that arm of MYI that extended well up into the Sea. That arm was crippled and pushed north towards the chuchki while the MYI running along the Kara, laptev, barents has been pushed out the fram into the greenland sea, and Canadian basin. That was mostly 2nd and 3rd year Ice that was about a half to meter thick in mid sept.

That ice will likely be 2-3 meter ice in the Canadian basin. While the ice in its place will be 1-2 meters wont make it.

[blue sky]

Wow. Many AGW posters buying into the Methane world death theory. Not the legit ones..but many.

Any stats that show how much methane was being released globaly 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago?

Every two to four years we have the methane scare.

[BethesdaWX]

Methane increased dramatically from 1979 to 1994...the Arctic atmosphere cooled during that time...when methane began leveling off is when temps began warming...Irony says hi, Arctic temps now in a little downward blip, coinciding with the methane spike...

Does that answer things?

Ironic(?) too that total column water vapor correlates inversely to global temps. Or does it make sense given the GHE drives convection and less water vapor = less low cloud cover and convective potential.

[TerryM]

Don't see the drop looking at a composite.

[salbers]

Wow. Many AGW posters buying into the Methane world death theory. Not the legit ones..but many.

Any stats that show how much methane was being released globaly 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago?

Every two to four years we have the methane scare.

There are ice cores that show the history of methane changes in the atmosphere (seen earlier in this thread). It's unclear what time resolution they have for various points in the past.

As I've said the present Arctic methane release may be related to the uptick in the global methane, though I'd agree it isn't proven yet and it isn't impacting the climate yet. It's great that we have the hourly (and weekly) monitoring at Barrow and other stations (along with satellite), so if the 8Tg per year really does increase by several fold or more we'll have a good way to assess and confirm the local observations of the ESAS. Future climate impact is possible as it's probably been a long time since the ESAS has been this free of ice and this warm.

So this isn't so much a theory as something unfolding that we can watch in near real-time. It is though a good question as to how to go about making an informed prediction of future releases. What is yours?

[BethesdaWX]

Don't see the drop looking at a composite.

Unlike UAH/RSS, GISS doesn't have any data in the Arctic, they just extrapolate, and either way it being surface data results in contamination due to variation in albedo while the LT measurements that UAH and RSS do not have as big a contamination signal.

[donsutherland1]

Unlike UAH/RSS, GISS doesn't have any data in the Arctic, they just extrapolate...

Given a lack of stations, ships, buoys, etc., it is useful to extrapolate, if extrapolation can be performed skillfully. Fortunately, it can. The estimated error, largely due to lack of spatial coverage, is 0.05°C (95% confidence limit).

http://demeterdesign.net/gistemp2010_draft0319.pdf

Regarding Arctic temperatures, here's what the GISS website states:

There are several reasons for the small discrepancies that exist between the three records. Most important, subtleties in the way the scientists from each institution handle regions of the world where temperature-monitoring stations are scarce produce differences.

While developed areas have a dense network of weather stations, temperature monitoring equipment is sparse in some parts of the Amazon, Africa, Antarctica, and Arctic. In the Arctic, particularly, the absence of solid land means there are large areas without weather stations.

The Met Office and the NCDC leave areas of the Arctic Ocean without stations out of their analyses, while GISS approaches the problem by filling in the gaps with data from the nearest land stations, up to a distance of 1200 kilometers (746 miles) away. In this way, the GISS analysis achieves near total coverage in the Arctic.

Both approaches pose problems. By not inferring data, the Met Office assumes that areas without stations have a warming equal to that experienced by the entire Northern Hemisphere, a value that satellite and field measurements suggest is too low given the rate of Arctic sea ice loss.

On the other hand, GISS's approach may either overestimate or underestimate Arctic warming. "There's no doubt that estimates of Arctic warming are uncertain, and should be regarded with caution," Hansen said. "Still, the rapid pace of Arctic ice retreat leaves little question that temperatures in the region are rising fast, perhaps faster than we assume in our analysis."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/

[Vergent]

Wow. Many AGW posters buying into the Methane world death theory. Not the legit ones..but many.

Any stats that show how much methane was being released globaly 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago?

Every two to four years we have the methane scare.

how about 800,000 years ago?

The antarctic ice cores go way back and have high resolution, and almost no contamination.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Thanks Don.

Buoys have shown us many cases that giss underestimates the arctic surface warming. This is highly evident in fall. Look at the Kara and Laptev in December. Giss will not even be close to getting that of warmth.

But apparently its just Contaminating the data set. Natural changes in surface albedo contaminates the data set. So were told.

[donsutherland1]

Thanks Don.

Buoys have shown us many cases that giss underestimates the arctic surface warming. This is highly evident in fall. Look at the Kara and Laptev in December. Giss will not even be close to getting that of warmth.

But apparently its just Contaminating the data set. Natural changes in surface albedo contaminates the data set. So were told.

You're welcome. GISS is a very robust dataset. Errors can, as you noted, understate temperatures at times, but the estimates are probably as close to accurate as is possible at present.

[ArmyMet]

Here is a U.S. Government report from 2008 on methane emissions. It says we have 1000 years before this is a big factor, though I wonder what they would say if the report were updated with the latest data.

http://downloads.cli...-report-ch5.pdf

There also seems to be enough uncertainty so that at least some noticeable climate impact would be possible during this century.

It's important to remember that by and large, these figures are compiled based upon a proverbial HOST of projections, probabilities, and circular logic. From a climatology standpoint, there are many things that produce Methane Gas, and while our actions can largely be made to blame; our population is the biggest issue.

Freshwater/Wetlands/Ocean Water and interestingly termites make up ~32% of methane emission. What's not taken into account is our effect on the output of methane FROM Freshwater/Wetlands/Ocean Water/Termites/Release of fossil fuels, etc.

So, that being said 'latest data' would actually be an attempt to extrapolate how much of an effect we've had on the natural elements, and how much we've actually changed the earth as a whole. Once that can be established, and established on a per-capita plane; we'll be capable of determining our output and damage over-time.

It's not killing us, in fact - it will eventually escape quite successfully. Though, how it escapes the earth is another story altogether...which, I suppose is the real killer.

[BethesdaWX]

Given a lack of stations, ships, buoys, etc., it is useful to extrapolate, if extrapolation can be performed skillfully. Fortunately, it can. The estimated error, largely due to lack of spatial coverage, is 0.05°C (95% confidence limit).

http://demeterdesign...0_draft0319.pdf

Regarding Arctic temperatures, here's what the GISS website states:

There are several reasons for the small discrepancies that exist between the three records. Most important, subtleties in the way the scientists from each institution handle regions of the world where temperature-monitoring stations are scarce produce differences.

While developed areas have a dense network of weather stations, temperature monitoring equipment is sparse in some parts of the Amazon, Africa, Antarctica, and Arctic. In the Arctic, particularly, the absence of solid land means there are large areas without weather stations.

The Met Office and the NCDC leave areas of the Arctic Ocean without stations out of their analyses, while GISS approaches the problem by filling in the gaps with data from the nearest land stations, up to a distance of 1200 kilometers (746 miles) away. In this way, the GISS analysis achieves near total coverage in the Arctic.

Both approaches pose problems. By not inferring data, the Met Office assumes that areas without stations have a warming equal to that experienced by the entire Northern Hemisphere, a value that satellite and field measurements suggest is too low given the rate of Arctic sea ice loss.

On the other hand, GISS's approach may either overestimate or underestimate Arctic warming. "There's no doubt that estimates of Arctic warming are uncertain, and should be regarded with caution," Hansen said. "Still, the rapid pace of Arctic ice retreat leaves little question that temperatures in the region are rising fast, perhaps faster than we assume in our analysis."

http://www.giss.nasa.../news/20110113/

If satellites suggest that GISS is too cold or too warm then GISS should adjust to match satellites. But GISS's trend has deviated warm from UAH and RSS in the Arctic rather than followed suit. Using the Actual Data is probably the bestway to go.

The LT is the place to measure the impact of Methane release itself and no the Surface, which is subject to contamination fro variation in albedo due to many factors.

[BethesdaWX]

But apparently its just Contaminating the data set. Natural changes in surface albedo contaminates the data set. So were told.

If you want to determine the effect of an increase in CO2/Methane alone, then yes changes in albedo, natural or man made, will contaminate the dataset, hiding the "real" signal. How can you deny that?

Maybe you misunderstood me?

[donsutherland1]

If satellites suggest that GISS is too cold or too warm then GISS should adjust to match satellites. But GISS's trend has deviated warm from UAH and RSS in the Arctic rather than followed suit.

Perhaps in the future. However, issues also exist with satellite measurements e.g., lower troposphere figures have been documented to be partially tainted by stratospheric readings in the past leading to cooler figures relative to the instrument record than might otherwise have been the case.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf

[Vergent]

TerryM found arctic methane data above(previous page):

apologies to the low band width users. click the links

ftp://asl.umbc.edu/pub/yurganov/methane/MAPS/NH/ARCTpolar2011.08._AIRS_CH4_400.jpg

ftp://asl.umbc.edu/pub/yurganov/methane/MAPS/NH/ARCTpolar2011.11._AIRS_CH4_400.jpg

ftp://asl.umbc.edu/p...methane/MAPS/NH

This 35 ppb jump is more than double the 10-15 ppb jump of previous years

It is totally amazing how this methane gun has missed the monitoring stations.

http://www.esrl.noaa...ex.php?code=car

but it has

But it cannot hide from AIRS

The methane is caught up in the AO.

There are sometimes on this forum where it seams that the people you are talking to are blind and cannot see the pictures.

Bethesda, your opinion?

[BethesdaWX]

Perhaps in the future. However, issues also exist with satellite measurements e.g., lower troposphere figures have been documented to be partially tainted by stratospheric readings in the past leading to cooler figures relative to the instrument record than might otherwise have been the case.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...2524-UW-MSU.pdf

The error bars on UAH published in peer review for all regions on a decadal scale is +/- 0.05C/decade, and by far it is a more viable method than extrapolating anomalies from outside the arctic, which leads to larger error bars than would be present in UAH data.

The fact that there are error bars present is not a way to scrutinize/discredit a dataset via the scientific method, especially compared to a dataset that has no data in the area of comparison,which would lead to larger error bars.

One rule in science, never alter observations to match a model. That is an immediate breach of the scientific method. Those operating the unversity of colorado sea level satellite readings breach the scientific method every time they "bump up" the trend, latest excuse was "due to observed CO2 increase,the oceans should have expanded by etc" based on model science, changing the observational dataset to reflect models that have been busting continuously in regards to the global temperature since the middle of last decade.

[Vergent]

The error bars on UAH published in peer review for all regions on a decadal scale is +/- 0.05C/decade, and by far it is a more viable method than extrapolating anomalies from outside the arctic, which leads to larger error bars than would be present in UAH data.

The fact that there are error bars present is not a way to scrutinize/discredit a dataset via the scientific method, especially compared to a dataset that has no data in the area of comparison,which would lead to larger error bars.

One rule in science, never alter observations to match a model. That is an immediate breach of the scientific method. Those operating the unversity of colorado sea level satellite readings breach the scientific method every time they "bump up" the trend, latest excuse was "due to observed CO2 increase,the oceans should have expanded by etc" based on model science, changing the observational dataset to reflect models that have been busting continuously in regards to the global temperature since the middle of last decade.

opinion noted. Please do not repost until Marietta responds.

Marietta opinion?

[The_Global_Warmer]

When you look at it like that it is definitely on the rise. But nothing explosive so far at all.

[The_Global_Warmer]

UAH can not properly analyze the arctic surface let alone analyze 82-90N. How many threads in how many different ways can UAH be brought into?

[donsutherland1]

The error bars on UAH published in peer review for all regions on a decadal scale is +/- 0.05C/decade, and by far it is a more viable method than extrapolating anomalies from outside the arctic, which leads to larger error bars than would be present in UAH data.

The fact that there are error bars present is not a way to scrutinize/discredit a dataset via the scientific method, especially compared to a dataset that has no data in the area of comparison,which would lead to larger error bars.

All estimates have uncertainty/error.

I could not find any peer-reviewed papers indicating that UAH is qualitatively superior to GISS when it comes to estimating Arctic temperatures. Also, GISS's extrapolations are reviewed against satellite, infrared, and other data. The extrapolations are very good--perhaps as good as science can get at this time (0.05°C error at a 95% confidence level). The bottom line is that GISS provides a reasonable idea of Arctic temperatures.

[WeatherRusty]

GISS attempts to arrive at a globally averaged surface temperature by measuring surface temperatures, infilling sparsely represented areas and correcting for known contamination by statistical techniques.

UAH attempts to determine the temperature profile of the troposphere by measuring the total column "brightness" of an oxygen isotope by satellite and applying algorithms to arrive at the most likely temperature at various levels. RSS and UAH use the same satellite raw data, but arrive at somewhat different estimates because the two analysis techniques differ somewhat.

Do I have that basically correct? All these methodologies are full of extrapolations, to claim one better than another is based on what?

[skierinvermont]

"Losing the Arctic summer sea ice will accelerate the already rapid rate of Arctic warming, which will increase the rate of methane being emitted by the warming Arctic.

This emergency situation for survival

must go straight to the top of the global climate change agenda."

http://www.arctic-me...ncy-group.org/#

"Professor Peter Wadhams, on behalf of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, spoke about this critical issue at the December 2011 American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco, USA. Key elements of his talk have been widely reported, following an article in the UK's Independent newspaper. (Please find copies of this and subsequent articles attached.)

The substance of our concerns – and the basis for these media reports – is outlined in the attached 16-page document entitled Arctic Methane Alert. To summarise:

• The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and increased warming of the Arctic seas threaten methane hydrate instability and a massive catastrophic release of methane into the atmosphere, as noted in IPCC AR4.

• Research published by N. Shakhova* shows that methane is already venting into the atmosphere from seabed methane hydrates on the East Siberian Arctic shelf, or ESAS (the world's largest continental shelf), which, if allowed to escalate, would likely lead to abrupt and catastrophic global warming.

• The latest research expedition to the region (September/October 2011), according to Professor I. Semiletov, witnessed methane plumes on a "fantastic scale," "some one kilometer in diameter," "far greater" than previous observations, which were officially reported in 2010 to equal methane emissions from all the other oceans put together.

• The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and subsequent increased Arctic surface warming will inevitably increase the rate of methane emissions already being released from Arctic wetlands and thawing permafrost.

• The latest available data indicates there is a 5-10% possibility of the Arctic being ice free in September by 2013, more likely 2015, and with 95% confidence by 2018. This, according to the recognised world authorities on Arctic sea ice, Prof. Wadhams and Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski, is the point of no return for summer sea ice. Once past this point, it could prove impossible to reverse the retreat by any kind of intervention. The data indicate the Arctic could be ice free for six months of the year by 2020 (PIOMAS 2011)."

http://www.arctic-me...ders/4558749249

Ken Caldeira, Professor of Environmental Earth System Sciences, Stanford University, US;

Ed Dlugokencky, PhD, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US;

Michel Halbwachs, Professor of Physics, University of Savoie, France;

Veli Albert Kallio, Chairman of the Frozen Isthmuses’ Protection Campaign, UK/Finland;

Jon Egill Kristjansson, Professor of meteorology, Oslo University, Norway;

Mike MacCracken, PhD, Climate Institute, Washington, US;

David Mitchell, Associate Research Professor, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, DRI, US;

Brian Orr, PhD, former Principle Scientific Officer, Department of the Environment

Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering at Edinburgh University, UK;

Natalia Shakhova, PhD, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska, US;

Igor Semiletov, PhD, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska, US;

Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, Cambridge University, UK;

Leonid Yurganov, PhD, Dept of Physics, University of Toronto, Canada.

Skier, if you are going to accuse someone of "a complete lie", at least have something to back it up. Are you accusing these guys of making up a complete lie and sending it off to world leaders?

At no point do they say that recent emissions are related to recent warming. In fact several of the scientists quoted specifically say it is not. All that the above quotes say is that in the future warming may cause methane release.

[donsutherland1]

All these methodologies are full of extrapolations, to claim one better than another is based on what?

Very well said. I don't believe there is empirical evidence that one approach is qualitatively better than another. There is evidence that GISS's extrapolations produce a reasonable outcome (remarkably small error) when it comes to estimating Arctic temperatures.

[salbers]

If you want to determine the effect of an increase in CO2/Methane alone, then yes changes in albedo, natural or man made, will contaminate the dataset, hiding the "real" signal. How can you deny that?

Maybe you misunderstood me?

I think albedo feedbacks are part of the game though?

[salbers]

It's important to remember that by and large, these figures are compiled based upon a proverbial HOST of projections, probabilities, and circular logic. From a climatology standpoint, there are many things that produce Methane Gas, and while our actions can largely be made to blame; our population is the biggest issue.

Freshwater/Wetlands/Ocean Water and interestingly termites make up ~32% of methane emission. What's not taken into account is our effect on the output of methane FROM Freshwater/Wetlands/Ocean Water/Termites/Release of fossil fuels, etc.

So, that being said 'latest data' would actually be an attempt to extrapolate how much of an effect we've had on the natural elements, and how much we've actually changed the earth as a whole. Once that can be established, and established on a per-capita plane; we'll be capable of determining our output and damage over-time.

It's not killing us, in fact - it will eventually escape quite successfully. Though, how it escapes the earth is another story altogether...which, I suppose is the real killer.

The thing is though that the Arctic methane stores have the potential to overwhelm the other sources.

[salbers]

When you look at it like that it is definitely on the rise. But nothing explosive so far at all.

Interesting plots. Just for reference I estimate that a 8Tg increased release (over a year) should raise global CH4 concentratoins by about 3ppb. Over a local high latitude area it could be more if there hasn't been enough time for dispersion.

[TerryM]

I posted this link back on page 5, but perhaps it's relevant at this stage of the discussion.

http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/6425/html_150

Talks about the lower regions of the Lapev Sea being heated 3C by a combination of albedo, and storm conditions due to lessened ice cover. When coupled with S&S's findings that permafrost becomes permeable at temperatures much lower than previously believed, it seems to provide a rational for the observations, and a warning of things to come if the ice continues to abate.

The spike upward in early 2008 shown on Friv's anomaly charts corresponds to the time that Semiletov began noting signs of dangerous emissions in the ESAS.

BTW Verg - Thanks for doing something with the AIR graphics, I think they will help guide the discussion.

[salbers]

TerryM found arctic methane data above(previous page):

apologies to the low band width users. click the links

ftp://asl.umbc.edu/p...IRS_CH4_400.jpg

ftp://asl.umbc.edu/p...IRS_CH4_400.jpg

ftp://asl.umbc.edu/p...methane/MAPS/NH

This 35 ppb jump is more than double the 10-15 ppb jump of previous years

It is totally amazing how this methane gun has missed the monitoring stations.

http://www.esrl.noaa...ex.php?code=car

but it has

But it cannot hide from AIRS

The methane is caught up in the AO.

There are sometimes on this forum where it seams that the people you are talking to are blind and cannot see the pictures.

Bethesda, your opinion?

While we wait for Bethesda, I'll suggest that the 35ppb jump does show up at Barrow if you look at the running mean curve (plotted on top of the dots). The seasonal jump shows up during the second half of 2011. We can put this jump in perspective over the past decade of seasonal swings.

http://www.esrl.noaa...am=ccgg&type=ts

Also the longer term trend is up about 5ppb per year for the past 5 years as I eyeball this graph.

Over the past several decades we did have some strong rises in the 1990s as mentioned earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mlo_ch4_ts_obs_03437.png

[LithiaWx]

Updated..

[BethesdaWX]

I think albedo feedbacks are part of the game though?

Yes they are, but the issue is albedo loss adds to warming near the surface, while higher up in the troposphere any effect you get is more likely to represent/display changes in GHGes, or at least more than would be seen at the surface.

The AO also needs to be corrected for to get any true GHG signal that would be present.