This is not good.

[WeatherRusty]

Vergent.....Reading through all this......could you please explain what your point on Methane is? In your own words.

There exists several times the global warming potential from mankind's burning of fossil fuels locked up in the frozen arctic environment. If it becomes warm enough up there due to AGW, then the melting tundra and sea floor should release methane in increasing quantity. Unlike the burning of fossil fuel, we have no control over that process and the threat is if this potential is unleashed the worst case global warming scenarios become inevitable and beyond our potential to control.

[blue sky]

There exists several times the global warming potential from mankind's burning of fossil fuels locked up in the frozen arctic environment. If it becomes warm enough up there due to AGW, then the melting tundra and sea floor should release methane in increasing quantity. Unlike the burning of fossil fuel, we have no control over that process and the threat is if this potential is unleashed the worst case global warming scenarios become inevitable and beyond our potential to control.

And yet peer reviewed papers posted in this thread don't support that position at all. The source(the authors) of the article that prompted this thread reject that position also. There is no history beyond several years to even speculate on methane release. (Not even a hockey stick with cherry picked tree data as proxy to temperature. Tree data that is replaced with real data the last 50 years because real data does not match the proxy.)

There are many things we do not know about climate change. Somehow massive releases of methane have not doomed the planet in the history of the planet. Even when dinosaurs roamed the poles.

[TerryM]

And yet peer reviewed papers posted in this thread don't support that position at all. The source(the authors) of the article that prompted this thread reject that position also. There is no history beyond several years to even speculate on methane release. (Not even a hockey stick with cherry picked tree data as proxy to temperature. Tree data that is replaced with real data the last 50 years because real data does not match the proxy.)

There are many things we do not know about climate change. Somehow massive releases of methane have not doomed the planet in the history of the planet. Even when dinosaurs roamed the poles.

Read up on the Permian Extinction.

[Jonger]

There exists several times the global warming potential from mankind's burning of fossil fuels locked up in the frozen arctic environment. If it becomes warm enough up there due to AGW, then the melting tundra and sea floor should release methane in increasing quantity. Unlike the burning of fossil fuel, we have no control over that process and the threat is if this potential is unleashed the worst case global warming scenarios become inevitable and beyond our potential to control.

Or not.

[blue sky]

Read up on the Permian Extinction.

However, the pattern of isotope shifts expected to result from a massive release of methane do not match the patterns seen throughout the early Triassic. Not only would a methane cause require the release of five times as much methane as postulated for the PETM,^[13] but it would also have to be re-buried at an unrealistically high rate to account for the rapid increases in the ¹³C/¹²C ratio (episodes of high positive δ¹³C) throughout the early Triassic, before being released again several times.^[

^Fail

[PhillipS]

Why do you continue to use the older Barrow data when it has been proven wrong? The data is not accurate, you know it but yet you still use it. The graph you posted was from the 12th, the more recent graph from the 28th shows the reading was obviously not correct which I said over and over again before it was proven. The other stations are not much to note either, they are consistent with a slow global rise in Methane levels worldwide. Why are you continuing to propagate the lie that Barrow saw a rise/spike in methane of nearly 20% when it was obviously an error?

It seems that you are the one who is confused. Here is the long term CH4 plot from Barrow as of 12/31/2011:

The high methane readings are there. Now here's this year's plot, also from 12/31/2011:

The anomalous high readings are shown on this one, too. So why are you claiming that the readings are obviously not correct? Granted, they are shown in orange to indicate that they are still provisional, but that's a big difference from saying that they are incorrect.

Also, be aware that if you are trying to use the "Some - a subset of the available data" option on the ESRL webpage - it is a bit buggy and may not plot all data points. But that's an issue for you to take up with the webmaster if it bothers you.

[LithiaWx]

It seems that you are the one who is confused. Here is the long term CH4 plot from Barrow as of 12/31/2011:

The high methane readings are there. Now here's this year's plot, also from 12/31/2011:

The anomalous high readings are shown on this one, too. So why are you claiming that the readings are obviously not correct? Granted, they are shown in orange to indicate that they are still provisional, but that's a big difference from saying that they are incorrect.

Also, be aware that if you are trying to use the "Some - a subset of the available data" option on the ESRL webpage - it is a bit buggy and may not plot all data points. But that's an issue for you to take up with the webmaster if it bothers you.

Look at the date on the bottom of the graph and the dates from the bottom of the ones I'm posting. It's old information that is not showing up on the newer graphs.

[Vergent]

Vergent.....Reading through all this......could you please explain what your point on Methane is? In your own words.

This question deserves a more thorough answer than I gave above. There are peer reviewed papers both showing that a massive methane release is possible and not. But observation trumps theory, and the reported increase suggests that the arguments that is impossible are false. This is probably because they had the wrong thawing point for the sediments. The reports are from credible sources, people that have been studding these deposits for decades, they have many highly cited papers to their credit.

The question of why we are not detecting the methane is a red herring. Methane spikes are weeded out of the displayed data(flagged in the data set) even when they are believed to be accurate, because the purpose of this data set is to track global methane and they do not want their figures inflated by transient local releases. We will have to wait for this years data to be published to analyse the flagged data. Eventually this methane will become well mixed and we can then quantify it.

The are ways to stop this process. 1/3 of the arctic ice melt each summer is caused by the warm Pacific water that enters through the Bering Strait. Russia has green lighted a RR tunnel across the strait. If instead we built a bridge with flood gates to modulate the flow, this alone would be enough to reverse the ice loss in the western arctic.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/BS2007Heat.html

Its not so deep, so large spans could be landfill with gated gaps.

Further it would pay for itself as a railroad link between the Asian manufacturers and the west.

Building the railroad and the bridge/dam would probably get the world economy out of the doldrums.

[salbers]

Why are the older graphs showing up presently on the ESRL website then?

Since I work at ESRL, I should try walking down the hall to find out... Or the webmaster can probably be contacted...

[Vergent]

Why are the older graphs showing up presently on the ESRL website then?

Since I work at ESRL, I should try walking down the hall to find out... Or the webmaster can probably be contacted...

If you look at the bottom of the graph, you will see the date it was generated. When you request a graph that has been generated recently they just give you that file rather than regenerate.

If you choose the "some" option and plug in 2005, 2011, you get a 12/28 graph without the spike. If you put in 2006, 2011, you get a 12/17 graph with the spike. The spike data points were flagged between those dates.

[PhillipS]

Look at the date on the bottom of the graph and the dates from the bottom of the ones I'm posting. It's old information that is not showing up on the newer graphs.

I see what you are saying about the dates on the bottom of the graphs - so you may be correct. Would you agree that there is a conflict between the various Barrow CH4 plots that will have to be resolved by the ESRL webmaster? I'll contact him and post his response (and, of course, you're welcome to contact him too). Until we hear back with a definitive answer from him my suggestion is we table the issue. Monday is a federal holiday so I don't expect to hear anything until Tuesday at the earliest.

BTW - I looked at CO2 adn CH4 plots from other ESRL observatories and they show a spectrum of dates. Don't know what, if anything, that means.

[Vergent]

I see what you are saying about the dates on the bottom of the graphs - so you may be correct. Would you agree that there is a conflict between the various Barrow CH4 plots that will have to be resolved by the ESRL webmaster? I'll contact him and post his response (and, of course, you're welcome to contact him too). Until we hear back with a definitive answer from him my suggestion is we table the issue. Monday is a federal holiday so I don't expect to hear anything until Tuesday at the earliest.

BTW - I looked at CO2 adn CH4 plots from other ESRL observatories and they show a spectrum of dates. Don't know what, if anything, that means.

For convenience i will re-post the links for this data set.

The read me

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa...._flask_ch4.html

The data set

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa...._ccgg_event.txt

[salbers]

Thanks for the tips. Does the "some" option then mean that only somewhat random points are shown? Maybe that could explain the Barrow extreme points not showing up. I tried the text file download though it isn't working for me yet.

[Vergent]

I see what you are saying about the dates on the bottom of the graphs - so you may be correct. Would you agree that there is a conflict between the various Barrow CH4 plots that will have to be resolved by the ESRL webmaster? I'll contact him and post his response (and, of course, you're welcome to contact him too). Until we hear back with a definitive answer from him my suggestion is we table the issue. Monday is a federal holiday so I don't expect to hear anything until Tuesday at the earliest.

BTW - I looked at CO2 adn CH4 plots from other ESRL observatories and they show a spectrum of dates. Don't know what, if anything, that means.

Sounds like their server is overloaded and they are finding ways to save time. once the data is a year old(no longer preliminary) it is stable, so they cut and paste to save rendering time.

[Vergent]

Thanks for the tips. Does the "some" option then mean that only somewhat random points are shown? Maybe that could explain the Barrow extreme points not showing up. I tried the text file download though it isn't working for me yet.

I just tested them, both are working. There is probably huge traffic on the net now.

[Vergent]

Why are the older graphs showing up presently on the ESRL website then?

Since I work at ESRL, I should try walking down the hall to find out... Or the webmaster can probably be contacted...

When you walk down that hall could you find out how we can see the preliminary data including the flagged data?

[WeatherRusty]

And yet peer reviewed papers posted in this thread don't support that position at all. The source(the authors) of the article that prompted this thread reject that position also. There is no history beyond several years to even speculate on methane release. (Not even a hockey stick with cherry picked tree data as proxy to temperature. Tree data that is replaced with real data the last 50 years because real data does not match the proxy.)

There are many things we do not know about climate change. Somehow massive releases of methane have not doomed the planet in the history of the planet. Even when dinosaurs roamed the poles.

Thanks for the reassurance! It's comforting to belief that as temperatures continue to rise in the arctic that the melting permafrost will not increasingly release methane (estimated 900 billion tons) as the organic material it contains decays.

[The_Global_Warmer]

And yet peer reviewed papers posted in this thread don't support that position at all. The source(the authors) of the article that prompted this thread reject that position also. There is no history beyond several years to even speculate on methane release. (Not even a hockey stick with cherry picked tree data as proxy to temperature. Tree data that is replaced with real data the last 50 years because real data does not match the proxy.)

There are many things we do not know about climate change. Somehow massive releases of methane have not doomed the planet in the history of the planet. Even when dinosaurs roamed the poles.

Will you show me where this is being used?

[salbers]

Here's an interesting comparison up till the beginning of 2011 showing both flask and in-situ measurements. We see spikes in the past, and these spikes are better sampled by the more frequent in-situ measurements (if we can plot all the points).

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

And thus below is 2011 hourly in-situ averages of Methane at Barrow so we can get a good view of the spike events over the year (up until Dec 12).

ESRL/GMD is also working on a "Methane Tracker" that will strive to model the sources and sinks of methane over time based on the observations.

[TerryM]

Here's an interesting comparison up till the beginning of 2011 showing both flask and in-situ measurements. We see spikes in the past, and these spikes are better sampled by the more frequent in-situ measurements (if we can plot all the points).

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

And thus below is 2011 hourly in-situ averages of Methane at Barrow so we can get a good view of the spike events over the year (up until Dec 12).

ESRL/GMD is also working on a "Methane Tracker" that will strive to model the sources and sinks of methane over time based on the observations.

Thanks for the link - I'd not noticed that page.

The methane spikes shown seem to increase over time with a large seasonal signal more or less in sync with CO2.

Any idea when the "Methane Tracker" will be available?

[salbers]

When you walk down that hall could you find out how we can see the preliminary data including the flagged data?

The FTP site is working for me now, and I can see the flagged data available here, though only up to the end of 2010. Column 14 represents the flag settings...

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa...._ccgg_event.txt

[Vergent]

Thanks for the link - I'd not noticed that page.

The methane spikes shown seem to increase over time with a large seasonal signal more or less in sync with CO2.

Any idea when the "Methane Tracker" will be available?

Before opining about trends, you need to look at the longest time frame available. It actually looks like the local ch4 sources are being exhausted, or are becoming inactive. Or, maybe they moved the sensor point(as they moved their flask collection point after a string of flagged samples).

[TerryM]

Verg

Good point re longer data sets - Could the collapse of the USSR play a role in the readings?

[salbers]

Any idea when the "Methane Tracker" will be available?

Unsure on the timing - it's been in the works for a while. Here though is a poster on Carbon Tracker for some general info and its extension called Carbon Tracker Methane is mentioned.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/posters_pdf/tans_poster.pdf

[salbers]

Thanks for the link - I'd not noticed that page.

The methane spikes shown seem to increase over time with a large seasonal signal more or less in sync with CO2.

Yes, looks like more spikes in the warmer months when the soil is thawing and vegetation is active.

[TerryM]

Yes, looks like more spikes in the warmer months when the soil is thawing and vegetation is active.

I'm not sure. This seasonal chart seems to be showing both CO2 & CH4 peaking during freeze -up.

Does not include the spikes of course.

Wonder if it could have anything to do with local residential heating during winter months?

[TerryM]

Sorry - pasted wrong graph

[salbers]

Good question, hard to say for sure. I see in post #322 a periodicity in the spikes that seems to be of an annual frequency. And for 2011 in Barrow there were more spikes between June and November compared with other months. In post #319 (top figure) we see more spikes Jun-Nov in both 2009 and 2010, though not so much in 2008.

I'm unsure if the seasonal trend of mean values (as you show in monthly means at Barrow) is well correlated to the frequency of spikes or not.

[Vergent]

I'm not sure. This seasonal chart seems to be showing both CO2 & CH4 peaking during freeze -up.

Does not include the spikes of course.

Wonder if it could have anything to do with local residential heating during winter months?

Actually, summer isolation oxidizes the methane. Summer foliage/algae lower CO2.

[TerryM]

Summer decreases through insolation & plant growth certainly makes sense.

I know this is old news - but I for one was not aware that methane venting from shallow Antarctic Seas was being investigated.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100903/full/news.2010.442.html

I haven't been able to locate any newer info on the venture, but possibly someone fluent in Spanish will have better luck.

The postulation about seal mortality being tied to methane releases could tie into recent Arctic die offs.