This is not good.

[Vergent]

Has it been mentioned yet this calculator has a thread on RealClimate?

http://www.realclima...ere/#more-10545

By the way, the methane concentration Y-axis on the previous post is a bit confusing to me, is it just 0.5 -3.0 parts per billion? That's 1000 times too small. Will be interesting to see the latest hourly data as well.

Thanks for pointing that out. There is a good discussion there about this model.

The current article is about this cartoon explanation of weather vs climate, should be required viewing for this forum.

[Vergent]

By the way, the methane concentration Y-axis on the previous post is a bit confusing to me, is it just 0.5 -3.0 parts per billion? That's 1000 times too small. Will be interesting to see the latest hourly data as well.

The in-sito data is not working for this year yet. I thing the graph rescaled to ppm because the data went over 2000, the label didn't change, is all.

[salbers]

This is a video of an ESAS expedition from a few years ago - nice to see some views from on the ship.

[Vergent]

[LakeEffectKing]

Here's another cool example of having fun with methane!

[prokaryotes]

[Video] SWIPA – A Changing Environment

Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA)

“Just the melting of all the floating ice in the arctic ocean, will add as much heat to the earth, as all the Co-2 we put in the atmosphere to date.” Dr. James Lovelock

Estimating the Global Radiative Impact of the Sea-Ice-Albedo Feedback in the Arctic

“…a more realistic ice-free-summer scenario (no ice for one month, decreased ice at all other times of the year) results in a forcing of about 0.3 W m−2, similar to present-day anthropogenic forcing caused by halocarbons. The potential for changes in cloud cover as a result of the changes in sea ice makes the evaluation of the actual forcing that may be realized quite uncertain, since such changes could overwhelm the forcing caused by the sea-ice loss itself, if the cloudi- ness increases in the summertime.”

http://climateforce.net/2012/01/19/swipa-a-changing-environment/

[prokaryotes]

Another impact from more methane and nitrous oxide (denitrification in the water column or from permafrost decomposing)

Drew Shindell of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, suggests that recovery of the ozone layer will be delayed 10 to 20 years by rising levels of two gases—methane and nitrous oxide—that also contribute to greenhouse warming. At low latitudes, methane in the stratosphere breaks down into hydrogen oxides, which attack ozone. Nitrous oxide can decompose to form ozone-eating nitrogen oxides. http://discovermagaz...nov/breakozone/

Second Hole in the Ozone Layer opened over the Artic North Pole in 2011 – Could be Harmful to People

The new tear in the layer of the atmosphere which protects us from the Sun’s harmful UV radiation, is currently smaller than that of the hole over Antarctica. However, the Arctic polar vortex, a persistent large-scale cyclone within which the ozone loss takes place is highly mobile in comparison to the Antarctic vortex.

This means that the Artic Ozone hole has a greater chance of occurring over densely populated northern areas on the earth, as opposed to the virtually unpopulated surface of Antarctica.

Forming in mid August, the Ozone Hole over Antarctica reached a larger than average 26 million square kilometers by September 12, 2011. While the 2011 Antarctic ozone hole briefly extended over the southern tip of South America, if the Arctic Ozone Hole were to eventually reach the size of its polar opposite, researchers estimate that it could expose over 700 million people, wildlife and plants to dangerous UV ray levels. http://newstaar.com/...-people/355050/

[prokaryotes]

Long lived CFC’s, Methane - Nitrous Oxide uptake and the destruction of the northern hemisphere Ozone Layer http://climateforce....re-ozone-layer/

I still compiling data but from a recent study it is assumed that the destruction of the ozone layer itself affects weather/climate change. Possible feedback mechanism are investigated..

Update

Water vapor breaks down in the stratosphere, releasing reactive hydrogen oxide molecules that destroy ozone. These molecules also react with chlorine containing gases, converting them into forms that destroy ozone as well. So a wetter stratosphere will have less ozone.

Observations of ozone show a thinning of the Earth's protective stratospheric ozone layer by about 3 to 8% overall since the 1970s. In the upper stratosphere, ozone depletion has been from 15 to 20%. Again, the model is better able to reproduce these values when increased water vapor is included. This is especially true in the upper stratosphere, where ozone is most sensitive to water. The model indicates that increased water vapor accounts for about 40% of the ozone loss in the upper stratosphere, and about 20% of the overall loss to date.

There are two driving forces behind the change in stratospheric moisture. Increasing emissions of methane are transformed into water in the stratosphere by chemical reactions. This can account for about a third of the observed increase in moisture there.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_05/

[Vergent]

REBUTTAL: DAVID ARCHER WRONG TO DISMISS CONCERN

ABOUT POTENTIAL METHANE RUNAWAY IN ARCTIC:

Why This Threat Is Real and the Imperative to Exercise

the Precautionary Principle When the Stakes Are This High

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/01/gary-housers-rebuttal-realclimates.html

Sorry, I posted the wrong link before.

[TerryM]

http://climatechange...alclimates.html

Sorry, I posted the wrong link before.

But the other link was interesting anyway ;>)

[Vergent]

For lower scenarios, e.g. the mitigation scenario RCP3-

PD, our results suggest that future warming is unlikely to

increase Arctic temperatures enough to release a large fraction

of the carbon stored in permafrost soils, although up to

22% could be thawed already by 2100. If strong mitigation

of emissions is pursued, it seems still possible to prevent the

release of large fractions of this permafrost carbon over the

coming centuries.

http://www.biogeosci...-9-649-2012.pdf

Hope they are right, but every model so far under predicts the arctic warming.

This would not be bad.

[TerryM]

Verg

The study seems to be relating to permafrost releases if "remedial steps" are taken to lessen Arctic warming.

Our

results also suggest that mitigation action in line with the

lower scenario RCP3-PD could contain Arctic temperature

increase sufficiently that thawing of the permafrost area is

limited to 9–23

It's S&S's observations that scare the bejesus out of me.

[Vergent]

Verg

The study seems to be relating to permafrost releases if "remedial steps" are taken to lessen Arctic warming.

Our

results also suggest that mitigation action in line with the

lower scenario RCP3-PD could contain Arctic temperature

increase sufficiently that thawing of the permafrost area is

limited to 9–23

It's S&S's observations that scare the bejesus out of me.

If this turns into an emergency, the ice losses can be reversed quickly by keeping the pacific waters out of the arctic, eliminating 1/3 of the melt.

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

The problem is, we have opened Pandora's box.

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2011/12/50-doomiest-graphs-of-2011.html

As a species, we haven't realized it yet.

[turtlehurricane]

As a species, we haven't realized it yet.

How arrogant of you, as if you're smarter than everyone else because they don't believe global warming is a big issue.

[PhillipS]

How arrogant of you, as if you're smarter than everyone else because they don't believe global warming is a big issue.

To paraphrase Coach Bear Bryant - It ain't arrogance if it's true.

There is a mountain of data and observations supporting mainstream AGW. If a person can't (or won't) understand the probability and severity of the consequences we are creating by dumping gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere - what does that say about their intelligence?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Time for them to change the Graphs ranges.

[LithiaWx]

The percentage increase is tiny.

[TerryM]

Big difference from a year ago

[Vergent]

This is not good.

[Vergent]

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.

[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.

wtf?

btw still a tiny increase

[Vergent]

wtf?

btw still a tiny increase

And exactly how do you know that? 90% of the arctic and Siberia are in the 1870+ category. You seem to be assuming that 1870+ = 1870.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It is relatively small but it is confirms that it originated from 70-90N. Which means its coming out of the ocean most likely.

[LithiaWx]

And exactly how do you know that? 90% of the arctic and Siberia are in the 1870+ category. You seem to be assuming that 1870+ = 1870.

Do you see the sporadic pixels that aren't 1870+ interlace in there. That's why this is just silly.

[Vergent]

Do you see the sporadic pixels that aren't 1870+ interlace in there. That's why this is just silly.

AND ALL THE METHANE IS JUST HANGING OUT AT 400Mb FOR SPRING BRAKE?

[skierinvermont]

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.

[dabize]

The Laptev and the Lena River Delta area look pretty solidly 1870+ only.

That could mean that they are a LOT more than this number, not just a bit more (as is reasonable to assume for, say, the Kara).

Looks like we just don't know and that AIRS should recalibrate their sensors and/or maps........

[PhillipS]

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.

[PhillipS]

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.

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.

[TerryM]

I expected the January graph to show much lower readings.

This is disturbing, and I'm torn as far as crafting a response.

I think at the moment I'll continue with observations of Arctic Sea Ice melt out.