This is not good.

[LithiaWx]

The SOLAS regulations pertaining to muster drills are fairly short and straightforward. They require that the drill take place within 24 hours of embarkation. The regulations differentiate between a muster and a "safety briefing." According to SOLAS rules, whenever new passengers embark, a safety briefing must be held "immediately before sailing, or immediately after sailing," consisting of at least a PA announcement. This may be supplemented with other info -- by written materials contained within each cabin, for instance. Regulations require that the safety briefing provides "clear instructions" that "detail the actions each person on board should follow in the event of an emergency." But a muster, where passengers are physically assembled, is required only within 24 hours of sailing. (In Concordia's case, the muster drill was scheduled to take place after additional passengers boarded on Day 2 in Savona, Italy, which would have been within the required 24-hour window.)

As for life jackets, the rules don't specifically say that passengers must don them during the drills -- but they must be shown how to put them on.

In recent years, lines with bigger ships, including Royal Caribbean and Carnival, have concluded that moving upward of 5,000 passengers, outfitted in bulky life jackets, to their muster stations had become unmanageable. These lines have instituted a new version of the muster drill. According to Bud Darr, director of environmental and health programs for the Cruise Line International Association (CLIA), a membership organization that represents the major cruise lines, passengers now assemble in large public rooms, instead of on the open decks, where they await further instructions.

I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with the thread.

[SVT450R]

That graph shows methane increasing at 1ppb/year. Let's make the radical assumption of DOUBLING that to 2/ppb year. Arctic methane concentrations will only be 2050ppb in the year 2100... far below any IPCC projection.

What we are witnessing are TINY TINY TINY methane increases that don't even come close to corroborating IPCC projections.. never mind the doomsday scenarios being claimed by alarmists. Global methane concentrations remain far below IPCC projections and are increasing at a slower rate than IPCC projections.

Skier you don't understand this is not good.

[TerryM]

An interesting weather site for the Barents Sea

http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/index.php?option=com_gmapspro&task=viewMap&Itemid=28&mapId=3〈=en

Temps seem so far above normal that, at the risk of a nasty gash from Occam's blade, I'd like to propose that CH4 may be involved. I had assumed that the lack of insolation in polar winters would render any greenhouse effect moot, having conveniently forgotten that the heat already trapped beneath the atmospheric blanket, augmented by heat transported north via oceanic currents, would be unable to escape and could then produce anomalies such as we are witnessing.

I'm invoking CH4 as a local addition to CO2 because I feel that if this amount of blanketing was present throughout the atmosphere we would already be cooked. The recent AIRS maps as well as last years HIPPO studies seem to show that Arctic CH4 is still to a large degree, loitering in the upper latitudes.

I hope that someone can point out the error of my ways and assure me that this is not what is happening.

[Vergent]

An interesting weather site for the Barents Sea

http://www.barentspo...mapId=3〈=en

Temps seem so far above normal that, at the risk of a nasty gash from Occam's blade, I'd like to propose that CH4 may be involved. I had assumed that the lack of insolation in polar winters would render any greenhouse effect moot, having conveniently forgotten that the heat already trapped beneath the atmospheric blanket, augmented by heat transported north via oceanic currents, would be unable to escape and could then produce anomalies such as we are witnessing.

I'm invoking CH4 as a local addition to CO2 because I feel that if this amount of blanketing was present throughout the atmosphere we would already be cooked. The recent AIRS maps as well as last years HIPPO studies seem to show that Arctic CH4 is still to a large degree, loitering in the upper latitudes.

I hope that someone can point out the error of my ways and assure me that this is not what is happening.

The percentage change is small so far. so I would suspect the gulf stream.

[The_Global_Warmer]

this is the top 5 meters.

[crossthread]

>snip< If the newly discovered vents are reaching the surface I expect they look like a larger version of these vents. And here's a video on 'The Door to Hell', a methane leak that's been burning for over thirty years.

>snip<

PhillipS your video link of that gas burning,(Or Methane as you call it), if I recall correctly, is from a failed drilling attempt at/for Oil/Natural gas, some time before "Blowout" Preventers, and other safty devices that prevented such things from happening. This is one of SEVERAL Old attempts where a well head couldn't be "capped", with the Ruskies leaving it to burn-out/burn up...

CT

[dabize]

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/02/methane-venting-in-arctic.html

This guy likes the methane idea specifically for the Kara because the warmer waters from the Atlantic don't seem to have quite made it as far east as the Kara.

I agree that the return of more normal weather to the area (Svalbard has a forecast high of -11C today with -23C days for early next week) will put the matter to the test......we look at new ice formation rates and thickness.

[skierinvermont]

An interesting weather site for the Barents Sea

http://www.barentspo...mapId=3〈=en

Temps seem so far above normal that, at the risk of a nasty gash from Occam's blade, I'd like to propose that CH4 may be involved. I had assumed that the lack of insolation in polar winters would render any greenhouse effect moot, having conveniently forgotten that the heat already trapped beneath the atmospheric blanket, augmented by heat transported north via oceanic currents, would be unable to escape and could then produce anomalies such as we are witnessing.

I'm invoking CH4 as a local addition to CO2 because I feel that if this amount of blanketing was present throughout the atmosphere we would already be cooked. The recent AIRS maps as well as last years HIPPO studies seem to show that Arctic CH4 is still to a large degree, loitering in the upper latitudes.

I hope that someone can point out the error of my ways and assure me that this is not what is happening.

Then you ignore the basic physics of GHGs which dictate that any local variation in CH4 concentrations are far too tiny to have a significantly different temperature impact. The local variation in CH4 concentrations are a small fraction of the 1000ppb increase in CH4 concentrations that have occurred globally which themselves cumulatively only represent a small fraction of the total GHG radiative forcing of the last century. The radiative forcing of CH4 is not significantly different in the arctic as anywhere else.

[skierinvermont]

I think that the polar methane plot is overdue for revision, at least for its scale. Here is the ESRL daily average methane chart for Barrow for 2011 and 1/2012:

Notice that the readings have not gone below 1850 ppb in the past 13 months, and most of the readings would fit in the 1870+ ppb color in the AIRS polar plot. Current values are around 1920 ppb - still off the scale on the AIRS plot. That makes it hard to see changes in the methane concentration.

AIRS is at 400mb and Barrow is on the surface where CH4 concentrations are higher.

[skierinvermont]

I wouldn't take too much comfort in the anomaly plot because it is showing global methane values, not arctic. Globally methane is well mixed that makes it harder to notice sudden increases such as the ones this thread is discussing. Here is the ESRL methane plot from the other pole, the South Pole Observatory, for 2009 to the present:

Now that is pretty data - the readings track the annual cycle very closely with little variance. Notice that the values have risen from just over 1740 ppb to 1760 ppb during the period shown - I'd call it around 6 ppb/year. In terms of percentage that's not a huge rate of increase, roughly 0.3%/year, but the rate has accelerated in the past decade and that is why it's worrisome to many people.

Funny this massive new fascination with arctic methane when the rate of increase in the arctic over recent years at 1ppb is much less than the increase in the Antarctic at 6ppb. Why is everyone suddenly fixated with this 1ppb increase in the arctic and not the 6ppb/yr increase in the Antarctic? Because in the Antarctic there is no potential for sudden catastrophic methane release. And thus no opportunity for alarmist headlines.

[TerryM]

Skier

I hope you are right. As you noted much higher numbers are attained at lower altitudes, and the fact that the higher altitude figures are climbing indicates, to me at least, that near ground levels are much higher.

I thought that HIPPO dispelled some of the old notions about GHGs diffusing evenly through the atmosphere over a short period, and the AIRS charts seem to back this up.

I suppose that you are attributing the ice free Kara Sea areas to diverted Gulf Stream waters. I see that as a possibility in the Barents, but not so much the Kara, That dang island gets in the way.

Again I hope I'm wrong, and certainly allow for that probability.

[PhillipS]

Funny this massive new fascination with arctic methane when the rate of increase in the arctic over recent years at 1ppb is much less than the increase in the Antarctic at 6ppb. Why is everyone suddenly fixated with this 1ppb increase in the arctic and not the 6ppb/yr increase in the Antarctic? Because in the Antarctic there is no potential for sudden catastrophic methane release. And thus no opportunity for alarmist headlines.

Could you help me understand where you got the 1 ppb per year figure. Just looking at the ESRL chart it appears that the arctic is also increasing at about 6 ppb per year - at least for recent years.

[The_Global_Warmer]

http://arctic-news.b...-in-arctic.html

This guy likes the methane idea specifically for the Kara because the warmer waters from the Atlantic don't seem to have quite made it as far east as the Kara.

I agree that the return of more normal weather to the area (Svalbard has a forecast high of -11C today with -23C days for early next week) will put the matter to the test......we look at new ice formation rates and thickness.

the Methane is coming from the arctic ocean. But it is not causing the arctic to warm like this. Ice and Snow albedo are combined with the overall pattern.

The methane is a background warming that is very slowly changing the heat distribution of globe, yes initially affecting the Arctic the most, but not very much.

[The_Global_Warmer]

January 2009 on AIRS was 1848ppb. 1ppb behind July of 2009 at 1849ppb.

January of 2012 anomaly was 12ppb higher than 2009. So roughly 1860ppb. This is for 70-90N. So roughly 11ppb higher.

December of 2011 was around 1852-1853ppb which broke the record high for 70-90N, now this breaks record for monthly ppb at 400mb.

This is also a new record for the 50-70N, NH, and global.

These increases are small though..

talking about this making any impact on temperatures right now outside of a 0.000?? something is a bit absurd and it makes folks think crazy alarm-ism is going on.

the important message here is that we know the arctic is leaking...and we need to keep track of it to see if this is the beginning of major rises in methane or just a blip.

[skierinvermont]

Could you help me understand where you got the 1 ppb per year figure. Just looking at the ESRL chart it appears that the arctic is also increasing at about 6 ppb per year - at least for recent years.

The line of best fit for below is ~1/ppb/yr.

Barrow AK != the entire arctic.

[skierinvermont]

Skier

I hope you are right. As you noted much higher numbers are attained at lower altitudes, and the fact that the higher altitude figures are climbing indicates, to me at least, that near ground levels are much higher.

1. Much higher? It appears to me that arctic as well as global concentrations have continued to rise at a very slow rate as they have for the last 5 years. Much much slower than they were rising for most of the last 80 years. And below predicted. Methane has risen 1000ppb over the last 100 years but suddenly the blogosphere is freaking out over a 10ppb increase.

2. My sole point was that the AIRS scale is fine and doesn't need to be changed as you suggested based off an inappropriate combination of surface and 400mb CH4 concentration data.

I thought that HIPPO dispelled some of the old notions about GHGs diffusing evenly through the atmosphere over a short period, and the AIRS charts seem to back this up.

I suppose that you are attributing the ice free Kara Sea areas to diverted Gulf Stream waters. I see that as a possibility in the Barents, but not so much the Kara, That dang island gets in the way.

Again I hope I'm wrong, and certainly allow for that probability.

3. Are you seriously saying the Kara is ice free due to methane being a few ppb higher than last year? What a joke. Have you never heard of weather? or the fact that the globe and arctic have been rising for 100 years due primarily to CO2?

4. Nobody ever said that CH4 or CO2 are EXACTLY evenly distributed. Both gases have some very small local variation. CH4 has risen 1000ppb over the last 100 years.. which dwarfs any local variation.

[Vergent]

By all accounts the vast majority of methane from these vents goes into solution, where it is metabolized by bacteria. Some energy is released immediatly and some when it is eaten or rots. So, methane should be contributing to warming the arctic, through it's chemical energy.

[turtlehurricane]

By all accounts the vast majority of methane from these vents goes into solution, where it is metabolized by bacteria. Some energy is released immediatly and some when it is eaten or rots. So, methane should be contributing to warming the arctic, through it's chemical energy.

No, that is such an insignificant effect.

[Vergent]

No, that is such an insignificant effect.

http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/v4/n10/full/ismej201057a.html

It only needs to be a few watts/M^2 to equal the green house effect locally. Something is melting the ice in the Kara.

[LithiaWx]

http://www.nature.co...mej201057a.html

It only needs to be a few watts/M^2 to equal the green house effect locally. Something is melting the ice in the Kara.

There is a word for it and it's called weather. I'll explain it to you. Winds which are caused by high and low pressure systems break apart thin ice. This is a weather board, you can't seriously be missing this.

[TerryM]

I'm not sure that my interpretation of the events as they are unfolding is the correct one. I am convinced though that whatever is happening will have serious implications, and costs that will be born by us all.

I have difficulty understanding why people make light of the situation. Thinks are obviously changing. These changes are causing death and destruction in many parts of the world. The fact that you personally have not yet fallen victim to any of these events doesn't really give you the right to pretend that they are a figment of someone's imaginings, or that working to alleviate the present and future suffering is somehow part of a vast conspiracy.

I welcome all thought out input - I came here to learn - but snide comments, 'gotcha' posts and input denying settled science are nothing but distractions. If you already have all the answers, stay out of the way and let the rest of us learn,

[turtlehurricane]

I'm not sure that my interpretation of the events as they are unfolding is the correct one. I am convinced though that whatever is happening will have serious implications, and costs that will be born by us all.

I have difficulty understanding why people make light of the situation. Thinks are obviously changing. These changes are causing death and destruction in many parts of the world. The fact that you personally have not yet fallen victim to any of these events doesn't really give you the right to pretend that they are a figment of someone's imaginings, or that working to alleviate the present and future suffering is somehow part of a vast conspiracy.

I welcome all thought out input - I came here to learn - but snide comments, 'gotcha' posts and input denying settled science are nothing but distractions. If you already have all the answers, stay out of the way and let the rest of us learn,

You wish there was death and destruction all over the world, we get it.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not sure that my interpretation of the events as they are unfolding is the correct one. I am convinced though that whatever is happening will have serious implications, and costs that will be born by us all.

I have difficulty understanding why people make light of the situation. Thinks are obviously changing. These changes are causing death and destruction in many parts of the world. The fact that you personally have not yet fallen victim to any of these events doesn't really give you the right to pretend that they are a figment of someone's imaginings, or that working to alleviate the present and future suffering is somehow part of a vast conspiracy.

I welcome all thought out input - I came here to learn - but snide comments, 'gotcha' posts and input denying settled science are nothing but distractions. If you already have all the answers, stay out of the way and let the rest of us learn,

Then show us the statistical studies documenting an increase in specific destructive events. There is no conclusive evidence of an increase in floods tornadoes hurricanes or strong storms. The only specific events to change is an increase in heatwaves and a decrease in severe cold.

[PhillipS]

You wish there was death and destruction all over the world, we get it.

Actually, I can't tell that you get anything at all - 'clueless' is the kindest description for your posts. Certainly your backward interpretation of Terry's post is a good example.

The various posters who have pointed out the seriousness and inevitability of global ice melting and the cosequencial sea level rise don't want it to happen - we are trying to wake people up to the reality that unless we reduce GHG emissions it is going to happen - and, in fact, a strong case can be made that it has already started. How about a quick review of the facts:

1. Fact - global temperatures have been rising for more than a century
   
2. Fact - global ice is melting
   
3. Fact - there is ample ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to raise sea levels more than 10 meters if the melting continues.
   
4. Fact - the global ice melting will continue until a new equilibrium is reached or until the ice is gone.
   
5. Fact - under BAU we will continue to dump gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere, pushing the global temperatures higher than today's temperature
   
6. Fact - the cost of adapting or mitigating several meters of coastal inundation in America and worldwide will be staggering.
   

Which of those facts do you either not understand or dispute? All of them can be supported with data so just let us know where your confusion lies and we'll help clear it up.

And the only fact that we have any control over is number 5. We can change that amount of GHGs we emit. I'm not saying that would be easy, or inexpensive, But the first four facts are observed data and basic physics.

The people who face facts are simply being realistic. Nothing in their actions implies that they want the consequences to occur. But those who deny the facts, or who choose wilful ingorance instead of facing the facts - well, those people are acting in a fashion consistent with wanting, or at least not caring whether, the disaster to occur.

So - what are you doing to keep sea level rise from occuring? How are you proving you care about those who would be affected by sea level rise? Posting snark and ill-considered opinions, which is all we've seen from you, seems pretty lame. But maybe that's all you're capable of.

.

[TerryM]

Then show us the statistical studies documenting an increase in specific destructive events. There is no conclusive evidence of an increase in floods tornadoes hurricanes or strong storms. The only specific events to change is an increase in heatwaves and a decrease in severe cold.

I thought that floods and droughts had been included in Hansen's paper that was covered in an earlier thread.

[The_Global_Warmer]

http://www.nature.co...mej201057a.html

It only needs to be a few watts/M^2 to equal the green house effect locally. Something is melting the ice in the Kara.

Surface temperature anomalies for the Kara From Dec 1-Present have been 10-17.50C. Mean temps have been around -8 to -10C towards the Laptev side to -2 to -4C on the Island side.

This is from the pattern, first and foremost. But also from how incredibly thin the ice was and how much warm open water was left over during the early fall period.

The Kara is shallow, so thin ice can form easy as the sun sets and cold sets in.

But even with the pattern, this hasn't happened before and the sheer ice retreat so far embedded in the arctic winter regime is quite absurd.

But taking in the extra thin ice, warm waters, and pattern. It is doable at this point.

I would say it is the by product of many positive feedback's + the pattern.

The models both show a Dipole anomaly or partial one the next 7-10 days. But in regards to the Kara show more southerly warm winds..not as warm as recent ones, but warm enough.

[dabize]

Actually, I can't tell that you get anything at all - 'clueless' is the kindest description for your posts. Certainly your backward interpretation of Terry's post is a good example.

The various posters who have pointed out the seriousness and inevitability of global ice melting and the cosequencial sea level rise don't want it to happen - we are trying to wake people up to the reality that unless we reduce GHG emissions it is going to happen - and, in fact, a strong case can be made that it has already started. How about a quick review of the facts:

1. Fact - global temperatures have been rising for more than a century
   
2. Fact - global ice is melting
   
3. Fact - there is ample ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to raise sea levels more than 10 meters if the melting continues.
   
4. Fact - the global ice melting will continue until a new equilibrium is reached or until the ice is gone.
   
5. Fact - under BAU we will continue to dump gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere, pushing the global temperatures higher than today's temperature
   
6. Fact - the cost of adapting or mitigating several meters of coastal inundation in America and worldwide will be staggering.
   

Which of those facts do you either not understand or dispute? All of them can be supported with data so just let us know where your confusion lies and we'll help clear it up.

And the only fact that we have any control over is number 5. We can change that amount of GHGs we emit. I'm not saying that would be easy, or inexpensive, But the first four facts are observed data and basic physics.

The people who face facts are simply being realistic. Nothing in their actions implies that they want the consequences to occur. But those who deny the facts, or who choose wilful ingorance instead of facing the facts - well, those people are acting in a fashion consistent with wanting, or at least not caring whether, the disaster to occur.

So - what are you doing to keep sea level rise from occuring? How are you proving you care about those who would be affected by sea level rise? Posting snark and ill-considered opinions, which is all we've seen from you, seems pretty lame. But maybe that's all you're capable of.

Phillip - I think you are wasting your time with him. I found using the Ignore button to have great utility...it improved my mood at once.

[PhillipS]

Phillip - I think you are wasting your time with him. I found using the Ignore button to have great utility...it improved my mood at once.

Well, you're probably right since it is clear that he is not on speaking terms with reality. But the major reason I write is to provide info for the new readers who may not realize what a troll he is. Hopefully they still have a genuine interest in learning the truth.

[WeatherRusty]

Phillip - I think you are wasting your time with him. I found using the Ignore button to have great utility...it improved my mood at once.

Lots of folks view these threads and individual posts with the hope of maybe learning something without ever posting here. The trolls need to be countered with credible information representing the side of mainstream science. Let the reader decide who makes the better case.

We can't convince those who can not be won over, but if we stay true to the science maybe we can influence the inquisitive and undecided.

[LithiaWx]

Lots of folks view these threads and individual posts with the hope of maybe learning something without ever posting here. The trolls need to be countered with credible information representing the side of mainstream science. Let the reader decide who makes the better case.

We can't convince those who can not be won over, but if we stay true to the science maybe we can influence the inquisitive and undecided.

Not the best thread to post this comment in considering mainstream science thinks this thread is an abomination.