This is not good.

[PhillipS]

I just heard back from the ESRL webmaster on the issue of why some plots from Barrow showed high methane readings while other plots didn't. Here's the response:

Thanks for your questions regarding methane at Barrow. The reason for the differences in the graphs

with the high two data points is due to a couple of things. The graphs of data for the entire time

span are created beforehand, whereas the plots for the other time span options are created on the

fly when the user asks for them. In this case for Barrow methane, the high data points have been

determined to be invalid samples, due to some type of sampling or measurement problem, and were

'flagged' in the database as bad samples. But this flagging occurred after the pre-generated graph

was made. So they showed up on the the plot of all the data, but not on the plots of other time

spans. The pre-generated plots were updated yesterday, and now the plot of all the methane data for

Barrow no longer shows those two high points.

This is a good example of why any data points that are plotted in orange are considered preliminary,

because it is possible that the quality control steps on the data have not been done yet, and

invalid samples may be displayed but later will be fixed.

The date on the lower right corner of the graph is the date that the graph was created.

Kirk Thoning

NOAA/ESRL/GMD Webmaster

So as several posters suggested the anomalously high readings were just that - anomalies. Which have now been flagged and removed. The two lessons learned, for me anyway, are not to get too excited about provisional data, and that the NOAA QA process works.

[blue sky]

how about 800,000 years ago?

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

Those ice cores show that Co2 and Methane FOLLOW! temperature changes and no run away effect.

[TerryM]

Phillip

The Barrow flasks have indeed been suspect since the discrepancy was first noted by Mathesda. AIR seems to be showing large emissions from iced over areas of the Arctic with much smaller seeps from ice free zones. I wonder if the bugs that eat methane also require oxygen to do their thing, and that the fairly anaerobic conditions under the ice shut them down. If so loosing the ice cover could retard atmospheric CH4 while at the same time allowing greater amounts to be released at the sea floor due to wave action and heating of the water column.

In this case a small atmospheric CO2 rise might be noted as well as increased oceanic acidification - not a great result, but easier to deal with than catastrophic warming.

I'm awaiting the April release of S&S's report, and hoping.

[Vergent]

If we look at the actual methane concentrations, we get a different story. Last summer, lower ch4 air from the south displaced the high ch4 arctic air, dropping the ch4 to below 1800 ppb, since then the ch4 has risen an unprecedented 50ppb to almost 1850. This was at 400MB. We do not know about the other altitudes. The normal peak does not happen till later than November 31. The December update does not happen till mid January. It will be interesting to see what will happen. the normal December rise is in the 10ppb range , so we will probably set a record.

[LithiaWx]

Phillip

The Barrow flasks have indeed been suspect since the discrepancy was first noted by Mathesda. AIR seems to be showing large emissions from iced over areas of the Arctic with much smaller seeps from ice free zones. I wonder if the bugs that eat methane also require oxygen to do their thing, and that the fairly anaerobic conditions under the ice shut them down. If so loosing the ice cover could retard atmospheric CH4 while at the same time allowing greater amounts to be released at the sea floor due to wave action and heating of the water column.

In this case a small atmospheric CO2 rise might be noted as well as increased oceanic acidification - not a great result, but easier to deal with than catastrophic warming.

I'm awaiting the April release of S&S's report, and hoping.

This is cute, I'll give you that.

[Vergent]

Those ice cores show that Co2 and Methane FOLLOW! temperature changes and no run away effect.

The cores show us that we do not have a high resolution record of what happens to planet Earth with 1899ppb ch4 and 400ppm co2. The critical issue with the hydrates is the rate at which they are released. CH4 is short lived in the atmosphere.

When in the last 800,000 years has greenhouse forcing in the arctic been as strong as it is today? When would the arctic have been warming as fast as it is now?

[salbers]

I just heard back from the ESRL webmaster on the issue of why some plots from Barrow showed high methane readings while other plots didn't. Here's the response:

Thanks for your questions regarding methane at Barrow. The reason for the differences in the graphs

with the high two data points is due to a couple of things. The graphs of data for the entire time

span are created beforehand, whereas the plots for the other time span options are created on the

fly when the user asks for them. In this case for Barrow methane, the high data points have been

determined to be invalid samples, due to some type of sampling or measurement problem, and were

'flagged' in the database as bad samples. But this flagging occurred after the pre-generated graph

was made. So they showed up on the the plot of all the data, but not on the plots of other time

spans. The pre-generated plots were updated yesterday, and now the plot of all the methane data for

Barrow no longer shows those two high points.

This is a good example of why any data points that are plotted in orange are considered preliminary,

because it is possible that the quality control steps on the data have not been done yet, and

invalid samples may be displayed but later will be fixed.

The date on the lower right corner of the graph is the date that the graph was created.

Kirk Thoning

NOAA/ESRL/GMD Webmaster

So as several posters suggested the anomalously high readings were just that - anomalies. Which have now been flagged and removed. The two lessons learned, for me anyway, are not to get too excited about provisional data, and that the NOAA QA process works.

I also think looking more at the hourly in-situ data would help give a better picture in real-time. It seems to be close to the same accuracy as the weekly flasks.

[Vergent]

I also think looking more at the hourly in-situ data would help give a better picture in real-time. It seems to be close to the same accuracy as the weekly flasks.

The sattelite measurements do not show that the methane has reached any of the field stations. How can they measure what isn't there?

[salbers]

The sattelite measurements do not show that the methane has reached any of the field stations. How can they measure what isn't there?

I'm not sure I'm ready to state that the Barrow surface measurements are inaccurate (beyond occasional flask QC issues). For one thing, the AIRS for 2011 image posted earlier does show a CH4 rise near Barrow in the autumn (November compared with August). Perhaps the peak areas miss Barrow, yet the values at Barrow still rise.

Also recall my earlier post about the agreement between the hourly in-situ measurements and the flasks.

Secondly, it's possible that levels at the surface will be different than at 400mb.

Also, the surface measurements have more autumnal rise in some years compared with others, just like the satellite.

[The_Global_Warmer]

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

http://www.polarrese...w/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.

Lower regions of the Laptev are between 72 and 76N. Which are also very shallow.

Those Clathrates are in places 50M or shallower. We know that the sun in the arctic can get down to about 100-125M. Obviously the more shallow the more time that more energy will be reaching into the water as well as the more time the energy will be available.

The Laptev starts to see Sunlight again in a few weeks.

Looking back into the past. There were many years of open water in the Laptev. But what has changed dramatically is how early this is starting now.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=21&fy=1979&sm=07&sd=21&sy=2011

I am sure if someone wants to find one year and try to spin as if it is normal for the Laptev to have regions be ice free as long as now then so be it.

2011 was quite remarkable in the length of time that the Laptev had open water during the summer. The Polyanas started to form at the every end of May/first week of June. In the past this was more common towards mid to late June into early July, but not only that would come and go or slowly open up as the summer melt would go on and by August sometime the sea would open up or not, or be partialy open.

Not until the 2000s and really 2007 have we seen such abrupt summer changes up there coming earlier and earlier. Clearly the MYI probably played a role. 2008 didn't melt out early because of an anomolous pattern.

Basically what happened in 2011 compared to other years which explains the extra methane is probably a factor of longer term melting over time. And having so much open water for so long during peak sun between 72-78N for the seas to warm(Remember polarstern found a 3C water temp 10 meters deep in September hudnreds of miles off the coast in the Laptev). They also noted how incredibly late ice formation was in this region as well. Not the ice we see on concentration graphs but the very beggenings.

So far 2007 and 2011 are pretty anomalous in terms of how much peak solar time the water was exposed to the sun. Logically we can assume a combo of longer term melting and excessive in situ warming are the faults for this taking place.

If the in situ warming continues the only obvious conclusion is the rate of methane release will go up faster and faster.

When, how much, and where a massive release could take place is hard to say. But this directly coincides with a substansial increase in early ice loss in the areas where methane is bubbling out.

It would be very irresponsible to ignore the reality here. It is equally irresponsible to proclaim anything that doesn't have enough evidence to validate it will happen.

Even if we see the ice trends stop right here and stay here for a while, given the dynamics in play I would still think more and more methane will continue to pour out. If we continue to see arctic warming and early ice loss in the key areas. Then hope the amount of methane close to being released is not absurd.

[BethesdaWX]

The sattelite measurements do not show that the methane has reached any of the field stations. How can they measure what isn't there?

*satellite*

[dabize]

Lower regions of the Laptev are between 72 and 76N. Which are also very shallow.

Those Clathrates are in places 50M or shallower. We know that the sun in the arctic can get down to about 100-125M. Obviously the more shallow the more time that more energy will be reaching into the water as well as the more time the energy will be available.

The Laptev starts to see Sunlight again in a few weeks.

Looking back into the past. There were many years of open water in the Laptev. But what has changed dramatically is how early this is starting now.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=21&fy=1979&sm=07&sd=21&sy=2011

I am sure if someone wants to find one year and try to spin as if it is normal for the Laptev to have regions be ice free as long as now then so be it.

2011 was quite remarkable in the length of time that the Laptev had open water during the summer. The Polyanas started to form at the every end of May/first week of June. In the past this was more common towards mid to late June into early July, but not only that would come and go or slowly open up as the summer melt would go on and by August sometime the sea would open up or not, or be partialy open.

Not until the 2000s and really 2007 have we seen such abrupt summer changes up there coming earlier and earlier. Clearly the MYI probably played a role. 2008 didn't melt out early because of an anomolous pattern.

Basically what happened in 2011 compared to other years which explains the extra methane is probably a factor of longer term melting over time. And having so much open water for so long during peak sun between 72-78N for the seas to warm(Remember polarstern found a 3C water temp 10 meters deep in September hudnreds of miles off the coast in the Laptev). They also noted how incredibly late ice formation was in this region as well. Not the ice we see on concentration graphs but the very beggenings.

So far 2007 and 2011 are pretty anomalous in terms of how much peak solar time the water was exposed to the sun. Logically we can assume a combo of longer term melting and excessive in situ warming are the faults for this taking place.

If the in situ warming continues the only obvious conclusion is the rate of methane release will go up faster and faster.

When, how much, and where a massive release could take place is hard to say. But this directly coincides with a substansial increase in early ice loss in the areas where methane is bubbling out.

It would be very irresponsible to ignore the reality here. It is equally irresponsible to proclaim anything that doesn't have enough evidence to validate it will happen.

Even if we see the ice trends stop right here and stay here for a while, given the dynamics in play I would still think more and more methane will continue to pour out. If we continue to see arctic warming and early ice loss in the key areas. Then hope the amount of methane close to being released is not absurd.

My money is on the West Kara as well

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=31&fy=1979&sm=12&sd=31&sy=2011

Still hasn't frozen.

It, like the Laptev, was not glaciated during the Wurm (or for large parts of it, anyway), and is very shallow, and so should have lots of inundated permafrost.

The West Kara is away from the immediate freshening influence of the Ob/Irtysh and Yenisey (as the CH4 source sites in the Laptev are away from the Lena delta, but not very far away). This helps to retard freezing a bit as well

[dabize]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/#more-10412

RealClimate has a thread up no on the methane story, with the OP taking vanilla......

Should be worth watching

[skierinvermont]

I love how some of you were so sure that the readings were accurate and even after NOAA said they are not some are still insisting they are. This is the opposite of agw denial ism.

[skierinvermont]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/#more-10412

RealClimate has a thread up no on the methane story, with the OP taking vanilla......

Should be worth watching

"so far there has not been strong evidence of agw enhanced methane release."

But certain posters here will no doubt ignore this.

[dabize]

"so far there has not been strong evidence of agw enhanced methane release."

But certain posters here will no doubt ignore this.

It's a discussion.

All too many posters here seem to be oblivious of what that term means.

[WeatherRusty]

http://www.realclima...ane/#more-10412

RealClimate has a thread up no on the methane story, with the OP taking vanilla......

Should be worth watching

Like skier, I haven't gotten to overly worked up over the latest methane scare. I like David Archer's article because it explains the likely consequence of a growing (not a catastrophic, sudden release) arctic methane release to be an escalating factor in the atmospheric accumulation of CO2. Like human caused emissions of CO2, degrading methane to CO2 will produce a longer term forcing on climate which will ultimately result in an even warmer climate decades and centuries into the future.

It takes decades and centuries to warm up the oceans in response to a change in climate forcing, any sudden, huge release of methane would degrade to CO2 long before the enhanced methane forcing had time to really warm things up. The much longer lasting atmospheric lifetime of CO2, even though producing a weaker instantaneous forcing, does allow it to add to the ocean heat content.

EDIT:

I believe a 12 fold increase in sustained methane concentration over today's levels would be required to produce the same forcing as one doubling of CO2. Molecule to molecule, that's still a whole lot less methane than CO2 required to produce the same forcing.

[LithiaWx]

I love how some of you were so sure that the readings were accurate and even after NOAA said they are not some are still insisting they are. This is the opposite of agw denial ism.

^

This times a billion.

[dabize]

Like skier, I haven't gotten to overly worked up over the latest methane scare. I like David Archer's article because it explains the likely consequence of a growing (not a catastrophic, sudden release) arctic methane release to be an escalating factor in the atmospheric accumulation of CO2. Like human caused emissions of CO2, degrading methane to CO2 will produce a longer term forcing on climate which will ultimately result in an even warmer climate decades and centuries into the future.

It takes decades and centuries to warm up the oceans in response to a change in climate forcing, any sudden, huge release of methane would degrade to CO2 long before the enhanced methane forcing had time to really warm things up. The much longer lasting atmospheric lifetime of CO2, even though producing a weaker instantaneous forcing, does allow it to add to the ocean heat content.

EDIT:

I believe a 12 fold increase in sustained methane concentration over today's levels would be required to produce the same forcing as one doubling of CO2. Molecule to molecule, that's still a whole lot less methane than CO2 required to produce the same forcing.

Fair enough. It's fine to not get too worked up about it, if thats how it strikes you.

The scorn shown by some here (not you) for being concerned about a potentially big problem with a lot of unknown variables is a good deal less fine.

I tend to agree with you that a "runaway" loop fed by short term CH4 release would not be able to feed itself on causing additional CH4 release directly from the sea floor for the reason that you mention. I am a bit disturbed by the S&S-observed increase in the ESAS, since this seems to be real and reflects a short term increase for this particular site - it is unclear whether the increase is due to AGW or via coincidental attainment of a melting threshold caused by ESAS flooding 8kya. The latter seems like a bit of a coincidence, yes, but that threshold has to be reached sometime.

If there is going to be runaway feedback, it is most likely to be due to thermokarst-related effects.

THAT could be due to AGW, no problem.

[Sickman]

I know it's a fine line at times, but let's try to keep politics out of this discussion. Thanks.

[BethesdaWX]

They can't even prove man is causing global warming.

This one sentence in your post I think is what needs to be focused on aside from the political stuff. Within the scientific method, CO2 induced warming is a simple hypothesis. In fact, when looking at the data we have, observations, and other mechanisms, it's closer to being "disproven" now than it is "proven", at least when it comes to how the climate system processes changes in LW energy. More work needs to be done on understanding the GHE, total atmospheric conduction body, and the kinetic budget before we declare catastrophe. It is actually quite complicated when it comes to the climate system, and evidence for solar induced change is growing by the day. I'm hoping I find the chance to debate some new findings.

What if I could find something that correlates to every El Nino, every blip in temperature, and even the long term trend in temperature in a stove-kettle relationship? Without going into details, the climate system is all about maintaining equilibrium, and the GHE is never not in equilibrium. If it weren't for CO2 and other GHGes, the global temp would actually be warmer. The answer lies in convection, involving the kinetic budget.

I could rant for hours but I'll cease on that for now.

[TerryM]

CSt68

This particular thread is dealing with methane emissions that may or may not be increasing with or without man's assistance.

You are correct re. diesel autos, but wish you would move your argument to a more appropriate thread. Perhaps the one regarding natural vs man made warming.

Thanks

[LithiaWx]

CSt68

This particular thread is dealing with methane emissions that may or may not be increasing with or without man's assistance.

You are correct re. diesel autos, but wish you would move your argument to a more appropriate thread. Perhaps the one regarding natural vs man made warming.

Thanks

TerryM for moderator!

[WeatherRusty]

Fair enough. It's fine to not get too worked up about it, if thats how it strikes you.

The scorn shown by some here (not you) for being concerned about a potentially big problem with a lot of unknown variables is a good deal less fine.

I tend to agree with you that a "runaway" loop fed by short term CH4 release would not be able to feed itself on causing additional CH4 release directly from the sea floor for the reason that you mention. I am a bit disturbed by the S&S-observed increase in the ESAS, since this seems to be real and reflects a short term increase for this particular site - it is unclear whether the increase is due to AGW or via coincidental attainment of a melting threshold caused by ESAS flooding 8kya. The latter seems like a bit of a coincidence, yes, but that threshold has to be reached sometime.

If there is going to be runaway feedback, it is most likely to be due to thermokarst-related effects.

THAT could be due to AGW, no problem.

Don't get me wrong, the stability of the methane hydrates and thawing permafrost are very much a serious issue which stands to exacerbate anthropogenic induced climate change. That this should occur as the arctic continues to warm is to be logically expected, at least along periphery zones where stability is marginal.

Also, I agree that of more immediate concern is the release of methane from melting permafrost. Again, however it is the relatively slow build up of atmospheric methane and conversion to CO2 which will have the long standing impact rather than some sudden release of methane.

Methane release from tropical wet lands and to some degree releases from the arctic may have been sources of Holocene Period natural background methane concentrations. The addition of methane from human activity has contributed to the rise in concentration over the past couple centuries beyond the natural background, while human induced warming may be speeding up the release from natural stores. Time will tell.

[BethesdaWX]

Don't get me wrong, the stability of the methane hydrates and thawing permafrost are very much a serious issue which stands to exacerbate anthropogenic induced climate change. That this should occur as the arctic continues to warm is to be logically expected, at least along periphery zones where stability is marginal.

Also, I agree that of more immediate concern is the release of methane from melting permafrost. Again, however it is the relatively slow build up of atmospheric methane and conversion to CO2 which will have the long standing impact rather than some sudden release of methane.

Methane release from tropical wet lands and to some degree releases from the arctic may have been sources of Holocene Period natural background methane concentrations. The addition of methane from human activity has contributed to the rise in concentration over the past couple centuries beyond the natural background, while human induced warming may be speeding up the release from natural stores. Time will tell.

How can warming (let alone human caused warming) be causing the release of natural stores of methane across the globe when the globe has not seen any statistically significant warming in the past ~ decade?

What irks me about your post is your breaching of the scientific method, it can be argued many ways as to what is causing the warming, so unobjective comments like this seem to clog up the forum with unscientific banter.

[TerryM]

Over the last 25 yrs atmospheric methane appears to have increased at a rate of about 6 ppb/yr. and the 400Mb charts we have seem to show more and more of this increase is emanating from Arctic regions.

Whether this is due to present Arctic warming or is a function of a heat pulse dating back to the inundation of the area 8k BP may not yet be settled, but the people actually in the field are warning that the lid could blow at any time.

I think that HIPPO and the 400Mb charts are indicating that CH4 is not mixing as rapidly in the atmosphere as had been predicted and I assume that part of the recent extreme Arctic temperatures is due to CH4 "plumes". As long as these are confined to the most northern regions they have to add to further loss of ice coverage, the heating of the ocean and further methane releases. If the Arctic vortex should weaken and these "plumes" escape further south there are areas that would be devastated by temperatures 15-20C above normal.

Fortunately at present the winter months seem by far the most severely effected.

[Vergent]

http://www.realclima...ane/#more-10412

RealClimate has a thread up no on the methane story, with the OP taking vanilla......

Should be worth watching

http://www.biogeosci...-4-521-2007.pdf

The 2007 paper that gives him such comfort that the hydrates can't make big changes. The problem is the paper also concludes that arctic methane acceleration "is probably decades away" and also that the uncertainty in the quantity of vulnerable hydrate is about 10 to 1. It also talked about the direct venting to the atmosphere(bubbles) as not being significant. They estimate the hydrates in the arctic to be "hundreds" of Gt for the whole arctic.

http://www.agu.org/p...9JC005602.shtml

"The total amount of carbon preserved within the ESAS as organic matter and ready to release CH4from seabed deposits is predicted to be ∼1400 Gt. Release of only a small fraction of this reservoir, which was sealed with impermeable permafrost for thousands of years, would significantly alter the annual CH4 budget and have global implications, because the shallowness of the ESAS allows the majority of CH4 to pass through the water column and escape to the atmosphere."(2010)

Now we have hundreds fountains of methane bubbles, some more than a kilometer across, coming from a 1,500 Gt store, observed by experts in the field who are quite alarmed.

So this paper is invalidated by observation, and further studies, and should give no such comfort. I liked the quote in comment #2.

"One Arctic expert said to me recently “If there’s a conflict between reality and models, the modelers stick to their models.”"

[TerryM]

Beth

BEST was the data set that Spencer pledged to follow since it's methodology was so superior to the others - until the results came in.

BTW why would global temperatures have any effect on Arctic methane - Arctic temperatures are all that are germane, and I doubt anyone would deny that these have been on the rise.

[BethesdaWX]

Wow. So blending GISS, HADCRUT, UAH, RSS, and NCDC together means I'm a denier of (something?)?

[dabize]

http://www.biogeosci...-4-521-2007.pdf

The 2007 paper that gives him such comfort that the hydrates can't make big changes. The problem is the paper also concludes that arctic methane acceleration "is probably decades away" and also that the uncertainty in the quantity of vulnerable hydrate is about 10 to 1. It also talked about the direct venting to the atmosphere(bubbles) as not being significant. They estimate the hydrates in the arctic to be "hundreds" of Gt for the whole arctic.

http://www.agu.org/p...9JC005602.shtml

"The total amount of carbon preserved within the ESAS as organic matter and ready to release CH4from seabed deposits is predicted to be ∼1400 Gt. Release of only a small fraction of this reservoir, which was sealed with impermeable permafrost for thousands of years, would significantly alter the annual CH4 budget and have global implications, because the shallowness of the ESAS allows the majority of CH4 to pass through the water column and escape to the atmosphere."(2010)

Now we have hundreds fountains of methane bubbles, some more than a kilometer across, coming from a 1,500 Gt store, observed by experts in the field who are quite alarmed.

So this paper is invalidated by observation, and further studies, and should give no such comfort. I liked the quote in comment #2.

"One Arctic expert said to me recently “If there’s a conflict between reality and models, the modelers stick to their models.”"

I hear you - its just that on this topic, it seems to me that there are just too many variables to get a good feel for where this is going. As I have made clear in my posts, I find the S&S observations quite alarming, particularly in the context of the sea ice loss trend and all the reports of thermokarsts appearing with melting permafrost. It is very easy to see how this could become a really bad thing, especially given the willingness of most people to ignore this sort of thing until they are forced to pay attention......which they have not yet been.

However, it also does seem hard to tell what the Arctic overall has been doing re CH4 release, especially before 2008. That prevents one from seeing the proper context of the S&S observations. I myself just don't know enough about other methane sources (is most atmospheric methane really tropical in origin?) to be confident about the effect of Arctic methane.

My position on methane is the sort that really bugs me when I hear/see it applied to AGW overall, because the larger context for that is quite clear. But with methane (especially seabed methane), it seems that we really still don't know.

I for one am really looking forward to S&S's paper

And the RC thread SHOULD be interesting.....................