This is not good.

[turtlehurricane]

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.

dear lord lol

[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.

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.

Are you guys reading the same subtitle I am? But you really think that? huh... what a fooking joke. It's people like Vergent and TerryM who give the Climate Change subject such a terrible name.

Crisis; critical cryospheric carbon clathrate causation. catastrophic climatic calamity could commence.

[The_Global_Warmer]

dear lord lol

There is no doubt that there is quite a bit of over zealous alarmism with the Methane. I know I have made some very wild projections.

But you come here bringing very little substance. You think this is some big joke. Why are you not bringing the science? This is all science. And you make vague statements with very little science. And go off trolling us in other forums. You tell us we want people to die, tell us we are not smart enough to understand the real science. Then bring none of it.

There is nothing you can post here that I wouldn't understand. So please post the science you believe is real.

[dabize]

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.

That's great if you can stand it....after a while it depresses me, so I skip them.

[turtlehurricane]

There is no doubt that there is quite a bit of over zealous alarmism with the Methane. I know I have made some very wild projections.

But you come here bringing very little substance. You think this is some big joke. Why are you not bringing the science? This is all science. And you make vague statements with very little science. And go off trolling us in other forums. You tell us we want people to die, tell us we are not smart enough to understand the real science. Then bring none of it.

There is nothing you can post here that I wouldn't understand. So please post the science you believe is real.

You are SO full of it. Whenever I've posted real science in here the response from you is a flurry of random graphs that are usually off topic.

This entire place is a trollathon for anyone that doesn't believe in extreme AGW, so the discussion has become personal attacks all the time. When I first started posting here I was trolled and insulted relentlessly even though I was trying to be cordial, and now I'm basically doing the same. You guys win, you can roll around in your own stupid ideas without me bothering you.

[WeatherRusty]

Are you guys reading the same subtitle I am? But you really think that? huh... what a fooking joke. It's people like Vergent and TerryM who give the Climate Change subject such a terrible name.

Crisis; critical cryospheric carbon clathrate causation. catastrophic climatic calamity could commence.

While methane clathrates and thawing permafrost are major concerns of climate science, I don't share the immediate concern implied by the thread title. Does there appear to be some escalation in methane release from certain areas? The evidence I have been presented indicates...maybe. This is one area of research which will require additional information to be placed into proper context.

The threat is very real, but the more immediate concern is CO2 and inevitable rise in temperature it is producing. That rise in temperature is what will destabilize the locked up methane clathrates and the rotting of plant material frozen in the permafrost.

[WeatherRusty]

You are SO full of it. Whenever I've posted real science in here the response from you is a flurry of random graphs that are usually off topic.

This entire place is a trollathon for anyone that doesn't believe in extreme AGW, so the discussion has become personal attacks all the time. When I first started posting here I was trolled and insulted relentlessly even though I was trying to be cordial, and now I'm basically doing the same. You guys win, you can roll around in your own stupid ideas without me bothering you.

Please don't leave! You have to realize one thing. It is mainstream science which is under attack and people like Friv are frustrated by the relentless beating climate science is taking. Anger is the response.

I understand you probably have a different perspective on it.

It is not "extreme AGW" which is under attack, it is any and all things related to AGW in any form. To us the skeptics are the ones being totally unreasonable.

[dabize]

While methane clathrates and thawing permafrost are major concerns of climate science, I don't share the immediate concern implied by the thread title. Does there appear to be some escalation in methane release from certain areas? The evidence I have been presented indicates...maybe. This is one area of research which will require additional information to be placed into proper context.

The threat is very real, but the more immediate concern is CO2 and inevitable rise in temperature it is producing. That rise in temperature is what will destabilize the locked up methane clathrates and the rotting of plant material frozen in the permafrost.

I agree completely.

I think that the differences among many of us are ones of communication - essentially word choice - more than anything else.

Obviously the threats from CO2 are far better defined than any posed by CH4 release, and people should say so.

That said, the CH4 threat does have a "high upside" potential (even if it is from a low base) which deserves exploration, if only because it is interesting.

It would be nice to be able to explore subjects like this without constantly having to parry accusations of "alarmism" from posters who want to establish their cred with the denial crowd. Such people should know that this is impossible - those guys are impervious to rational argument, and some of them are being paid to disrupt it - see my new thread on evidence for this.....

[TerryM]

S&S Heading back out in March

In March of this year, along with international collaborators, Natalia and I are conducting another research expedition, to a methane “hot spot” that we have located off the coast of the Laptev Sea in Siberia.

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/research/highlights/2012/sotm-feb-igor-semiletov

[dabize]

S&S Heading back out in March

In March of this year, along with international collaborators, Natalia and I are conducting another research expedition, to a methane “hot spot” that we have located off the coast of the Laptev Sea in Siberia.

http://www.iarc.uaf....-igor-semiletov

Wow - I hope they keep that drill bit well cooled.

I'd hate it if we had to start awarding a Heisenberg Award alongside the Darwin Award........

[The_Global_Warmer]

You are SO full of it. Whenever I've posted real science in here the response from you is a flurry of random graphs that are usually off topic.

This entire place is a trollathon for anyone that doesn't believe in extreme AGW, so the discussion has become personal attacks all the time. When I first started posting here I was trolled and insulted relentlessly even though I was trying to be cordial, and now I'm basically doing the same. You guys win, you can roll around in your own stupid ideas without me bothering you.

Please post your science.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You are SO full of it. Whenever I've posted real science in here the response from you is a flurry of random graphs that are usually off topic.

This entire place is a trollathon for anyone that doesn't believe in extreme AGW, so the discussion has become personal attacks all the time. When I first started posting here I was trolled and insulted relentlessly even though I was trying to be cordial, and now I'm basically doing the same. You guys win, you can roll around in your own stupid ideas without me bothering you.

This is exactly what happens, almost without fail.

Please come to the arctic sea ice thread and break down how you got us alarmists with Antarctica.

Use the science that we have right now to show us how the impacts of the menial sea ice gains in Antarctica. Are impactful and important like the large ice losses in the Arctic.

[TerryM]

Friv

I'm probably one of the most interested here in the possibility of catastrophic CH4 release. I don't think that it's terribly likely, but do feel that the results would be so horrendous that it should be explored rather than ignored. I can understand your concern that this could be misconstrued as an alarmist take off on AGW theory - but in my mind at least these are two completely separate topics. I can't imagine a scenario in which AGW theory could possibly be wrong. I can imagine many ways in which the catastrophic CH4 theory not only could, but probably is flawed. I think discussing the CH4 matters here, in a separate thread is a reasonable intellectual pursuit that can be carried out without resorting to emotional appeals.

If it's real - we'll know here first (or close to first)

If it's bogus - all we lost is a little free time, pursuing a subject that interests us

I know the topic bothers you, but I ask for a little lee way to putter about in an area that none of us really know very much about.

Terry

[salbers]

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

Barrow AK != the entire arctic.

This shows the methane levels were roughly level from 2000-2006. And from 2006 onward, the period of the surface observation uptick, we see here on the order of 2.5 ppb/yr rise. This assumes the baseline has no trend beyond an annual cycle.

Here's a link to another surface plot, from Mauna Loa showing roughly 6ppb yr since 2006.

http://upload.wikime...s_obs_03437.png

[TerryM]

I've heard speculation that the anomalous conditions in the Kara - Barents Sea area are a result of low albedo conditions due to low ice coverage.

How would a lowering of albedo in the Arctic winter have this effect? A high albedo surface blocks radiation both ways so in Arctic summer a high albedo surface - snow or ice - reflects much of the solar energy back up. away from the surface. In Arctic winter a high albedo surface retains more heat - radiating less of it up into the atmosphere.

If the Kara/Barents area is experiencing lower albedo (open water), it's radiating more - not less heat into the atmosphere. Only when insolation increases around the equinox will lower albedo result in higher surface temperatures.

If CH4 is effectively blanketing the surface, leaving no escape for the heat, we might see ice losses even during Arctic Winter.

[Vergent]

I've heard speculation that the anomalous conditions in the Kara - Barents Sea area are a result of low albedo conditions due to low ice coverage.

How would a lowering of albedo in the Arctic winter have this effect? A high albedo surface blocks radiation both ways so in Arctic summer a high albedo surface - snow or ice - reflects much of the solar energy back up. away from the surface. In Arctic winter a high albedo surface retains more heat - radiating less of it up into the atmosphere.

If the Kara/Barents area is experiencing lower albedo (open water), it's radiating more - not less heat into the atmosphere. Only when insolation increases around the equinox will lower albedo result in higher surface temperatures.

If CH4 is effectively blanketing the surface, leaving no escape for the heat, we might see ice losses even during Arctic Winter.

The energy is emitted from the surface then absorbed by GHG. It is then re-emitted in a random direction, half of which are down. If it hits a high albedo, it is reflected with another chance to escape into the universe. If it hits low albedo it is re-absorbed by the surface. You have lived up north, in winter, when it gets cloudy it warms up. On clear nights, temperatures drop rapidly. The clouds act in the same way as GHG.

[TerryM]

The energy is emitted from the surface then absorbed by GHG. It is then re-emitted in a random direction, half of which are down. If it hits a high albedo, it is reflected with another chance to escape into the universe. If it hits low albedo it is re-absorbed by the surface. You have lived up north, in winter, when it gets cloudy it warms up. On clear nights, temperatures drop rapidly. The clouds act in the same way as GHG.

I think we're on the same page. What I'm concerned with is the albedo effect that the hot object possesses - ie. a black radiator will radiate heat a room more efficiently than a white one.

What I'm thinking is that the energy captured by low albedo objects in the summer (through insolation) is radiated away more efficiently in the winter - unless a GHG blanket radiates some of the heat back, which is then easily re-absorbed because of the low albedo.

Without the GHGs the low albedo object simply efficiently radiates it's heat away.

A high albedo object is less efficient at ridding itself of heat during winter months whether there are GHGs present or not, and less efficient at recapturing the returning radiation, so a low albedo surface is going to be more severely impacted by GHGs in periods of low insolation than a high albedo surface.

If the GHGs were to increase locally in winter, as the AIRS seem to be showing, open areas might be expected to expand even without any solar input.

or not

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think we're on the same page. What I'm concerned with is the albedo effect that the hot object possesses - ie. a black radiator will radiate heat a room more efficiently than a white one.

What I'm thinking is that the energy captured by low albedo objects in the summer (through insolation) is radiated away more efficiently in the winter - unless a GHG blanket radiates some of the heat back, which is then easily re-absorbed because of the low albedo.

Without the GHGs the low albedo object simply efficiently radiates it's heat away.

A high albedo object is less efficient at ridding itself of heat during winter months whether there are GHGs present or not, and less efficient at recapturing the returning radiation, so a low albedo surface is going to be more severely impacted by GHGs in periods of low insolation than a high albedo surface.

If the GHGs were to increase locally in winter, as the AIRS seem to be showing, open areas might be expected to expand even without any solar input.

or not

This idea is pretty sound, but there likely isn't a high enough concentration of any GHG to force that locally and hard.

But I suppose it is all relative.

The radient body of Methane globally vs X increase is definely a different answer than the radiant body of the Kara's Methane vs X increase that gas.

a localized affect could be much stronger, but not sure if it is enough to play a large factor.

[Vergent]

We seam to have missed discussing this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-currier/methane-in-the-twilight-z_2_b_1256215.html

[dabize]

We seam to have missed discussing this.

http://www.huffingto..._b_1256215.html

That seems to be a good summary of the ESAS situation, and doesn't change my position on this:

1) Could be scary

2) Has too much company in possible AGW scariness for me to sweat it now

3) Too many variables to figure out whether it actually IS scary, leading me back to 2

One possible issue: I didn't see a discussion of the possible local depletion of OH- ion, which is consumed in the conversion of CH4 to CO2.

If the ESAS has been bubbling methane for a while now without the methane showing up in the atmosphere, presumably it has been converted to CO2 in the water before it could emerge as methane. This suggests possible future scariness if the CH4 release persists, which seems likely given the size of the source and the likely future temperature trend.

This has been raised in the "methane scenario" of the Permian/Triassic mass extinction, and might be worthy of discussion here.

[Vergent]

This is not bad.

[dabize]

This is not bad.

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/03/18/2116357/as-natural-gas-production-grows.html

This story raises a question that has been bothering me a bit, but according to your map there doesn't seem to be a correlation between highly "fracked" areas and CH4 levels.

But WTF is going on in the Sea of Okhotsk, and in Russia generally?

[salbers]

Video from 2011 ESAS expedition, posted Jan 30. 2012...

And here's an older 2010 video interview from Natalia S.

TerryM,

Do you know what journal S&S's paper will be in? Is this something beyond the SWIPA book chapter draft that is now available?

Also, there is an upcoming S&S seminar on Feb 9th.

http://www.iarc.uaf....d=1323818876406

Looking ahead further, I wonder if this topic will be covered at the next ESRL/GMD global monitoring conference?

http://www.esrl.noaa...nualconference/

Thanks,

Steve

To update this earlier post, the Feb 9th IARC seminar has been rescheduled for May 31st. Abstract available here:

http://www.iarc.uaf....nar-series/2011

May 31st

The IARC based Russia-US Siberian Shelf Studies (2003-2011): results and challenges

Speakers: Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov

1:30 PM - 2:30 PM, 401 Akasofu Building

The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by permafrost, which is being degraded at an increasing rate under conditions of warming which are most pronounced in Siberia and Alaska. Sub-sea permafrost is much more vulnerable than its terrestrial counterpart, because it experienced a drastic change in its thermal regime due to inundation by the ocean and consequent warming by as much as 12-17˚C, prior to the current ongoing climate change. Thaw and release of organic carbon (OC) from Arctic permafrost is postulated to be one of the most powerful mechanisms causing a net redistribution of carbon from land and ocean to the atmosphere. This report summarizes current understanding of transport and fate of OC to and within the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) and processes determining carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) fluxes from the ESAS to the atmosphere achieved from analyzing the data sets obtained on 20 expeditions performed from 1999 to 2011. The shallow ESAS is a unique area of the World Ocean where ~80% of predicted sub-sea permafrost exists. This study of the ESAS was aimed at investigating how redistribution of old carbon from degrading terrestrial and sub-sea permafrost and from coastal erosion contributes to the carbon pool of the ESAS, and which factors control CH4 and CO2 emissions from the ESAS. This report describes selected results achieved by a developing international scientific partnership that has been crucial at every stage of the study and will be even more important in the future.

[PhillipS]

Looking on the NOAA ESRL site at the data from the Barrow Observatory, they may be sampling the the first weak plumes of CH4 for this melt season. Here's the current in-situ hourly average CH4 plot for 2008 - present:

It appears that the recent increase in CH4 levels is continuing and that the current concentration at Barrow is around 1900 ppm. The one data point at 2200 ppb may be a software artifact because it doesn't show up on all plots. What I found interesting is that the brief spikes of anomalously high readings (which are described on the site as "thought to be not indicative of background conditions, and represent poorly mixed air masses influenced by local or regional anthropogenic sources or strong local biospheric sources or sinks", i.e. plumes) seem to be starting earlier this year than in most years on record. Typically this sort of data pattern occurs in late summer to early fall. It will be interesting to see what this summer's melt season brings.

[Jonger]

Looking on the NOAA ESRL site at the data from the Barrow Observatory, they may be sampling the the first weak plumes of CH4 for this melt season. Here's the current in-situ hourly average CH4 plot for 2008 - present:

It appears that the recent increase in CH4 levels is continuing and that the current concentration at Barrow is around 1900 ppm. The one data point at 2200 ppb may be a software artifact because it doesn't show up on all plots. What I found interesting is that the brief spikes of anomalously high readings (which are described on the site as "thought to be not indicative of background conditions, and represent poorly mixed air masses influenced by local or regional anthropogenic sources or strong local biospheric sources or sinks", i.e. plumes) seem to be starting earlier this year than in most years on record. Typically this sort of data pattern occurs in late summer to early fall. It will be interesting to see what this summer's melt season brings.

Looks like a cow wandered next to the sensor.

[PhillipS]

Looks like a cow wandered next to the sensor.

I know that you're just trying to be funny with the cow fart reference. And, as we all know, a love of flatulence humor is the hallmark of a serious scientist. Who will ever forget Al "Pull my Finger" Einstein, or the annual whoopee cushion hilarity at the Nobel Awards ceremony each year?

If you're at all familiar with the Barrow Observatory, you probably know that the CH4 readings weren't from a wandering cow, or caribou. Here a shot from their live webcam:

The webcam is on the 10 meter tower they use for collecting air samples. The area appears solidly snow covered so I think the methane is coming from the ocean and not from land (decomposing vegetation). The observatory is about 8km from the village of Barrow so it's pretty safe to rule out rush hour traffic as the source of the CH4.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Boy, while no conclusion can be drawn that is crazy in the sense that we know Methane is up quite a bit and no one is claiming a cause.

The most obvious one is the Arctic Ocean. It's only March, let's hope this is a blip and not a trend for this season.

[LithiaWx]

I know that you're just trying to be funny with the cow fart reference. And, as we all know, a love of flatulence humor is the hallmark of a serious scientist. Who will ever forget Al "Pull my Finger" Einstein, or the annual whoopee cushion hilarity at the Nobel Awards ceremony each year?

If you're at all familiar with the Barrow Observatory, you probably know that the CH4 readings weren't from a wandering cow, or caribou. Here a shot from their live webcam:

The webcam is on the 10 meter tower they use for collecting air samples. The area appears solidly snow covered so I think the methane is coming from the ocean and not from land (decomposing vegetation). The observatory is about 8km from the village of Barrow so it's pretty safe to rule out rush hour traffic as the source of the CH4.

It can't be coming from the arctic, specifically the ESAS which got so much attention last year. Methane is not going to get through meters of ice. The readings are a blip and don't mean much, if anything for the moment. Alarmists will be alarmists... The thread title is just as much of a joke now as it was when the thread was created. It's really pretty embarrassing and should be shut down. If someone wants to talk seriously about CH4 a good start would be to stop posting in this ridiculous thread and start one that has a more reasonable title.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It can't be coming from the arctic, specifically the ESAS which got so much attention last year. Methane is not going to get through meters of ice. The readings are a blip and don't mean much, if anything for the moment. Alarmists will be alarmists... The thread title is just as much of a joke now as it was when the thread was created. It's really pretty embarrassing and should be shut down. If someone wants to talk seriously about CH4 a good start would be to stop posting in this ridiculous thread and start one that has a more reasonable title.

Umm, I don't think it has to, I think it would come out of the open water that forms between cracks. Some of those cracks are 10-20 miles apart. The concentrations are built up in winter under the ice and will exhaust pretty strongly between cracks when it opens up.

One of the positive feedbacks from global warming is the thawing of Arctic permafrost. This releases methane, a greenhouse gas over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Investigations into Arctic methane have tended to focus on land permafrost. However, there are also vast amounts of methane held underwater in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS). This encompasses over 2 million square kilometres, three times as large as the nearby Siberian wetlands, which have been considered the primary Northern Hemisphere source of atmospheric methane. Underwater permafrost acts as a lid to restrain methane stored in the seabed. Until now, it was thought the permafrost was cold enough to remain frozen. However, recent observations have found that over 80% of the deep water over the ESAS is supersaturated, with methane levels more than eight times that of normal seawater (Shakhova 2010). More than half of the surface water is supersaturated also. The methane venting into the atmosphere from this one region is comparable to the amount of methane coming out of the entire world’s oceans.

To find out what was happening in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, field measurements, ice expeditions and a helicopter survey were conducted to measure methane levels in ESAS waters. They took 5100 samples from 1080 stations, the largest database for any ocean methane study. They found widespread supersaturation over the region. Most of the bottom waters are supersaturated and over half of surface waters are supersaturated. In some areas, the saturation levels reached at least 250 times that of background levels in the summer and 1,400 times higher in the winter.

Figure 1: Summertime observations of methane levels in the ESAS. Top is dissolved methane in deep water. Bottom is dissolved methane in surface water (Shakhova 2010).

Figure 2: Yearly flux of methane venting into the atmosphere over the ESAS (Shakhova 2010).

To find out how much methane is escaping into the atmosphere, they measured the flux of methane at the ocean surface. Methane levels were elevated overall and the seascape was dotted with more than 100 hotspots. A helicopter survey further confirmed this, finding methane levels were 5 to 10% greater at 1800 metres height. Methane is not only being dissolved in the water, it's bubbling out into the atmosphere.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-observations-find-underwater-arctic-shelf-is-perforated-and-venting-methane.html

It's not like it's not happening.

This is small potatoes, but it's an added positive feedback. this it self warms the atmosphere. No other way to slice it, expect the Arctic and Northern Hemisphere at large is retaining more heat that it was 10, 20, 30 and so on because of methane. This helps melt snow and ice faster which helps lower there effective albedos. This helps warm the water faster so methane hydrates can continue to melt further. Eventually methane oxidizes into Co2. This is a cycle from one thing to another that will help warm the Earth. That is important. And real.

[LithiaWx]

Umm, I don't think it has to, I think it would come out of the open water that forms between cracks. Some of those cracks are 10-20 miles apart. The concentrations are built up in winter under the ice and will exhaust pretty strongly between cracks when it opens up.

It's not like it's not happening.

This is small potatoes, but it's an added positive feedback. this it self warms the atmosphere. No other way to slice it, expect the Arctic and Northern Hemisphere at large is retaining more heat that it was 10, 20, 30 and so on because of methane. This helps melt snow and ice faster which helps lower there effective albedos. This helps warm the water faster so methane hydrates can continue to melt further. Eventually methane oxidizes into Co2. This is a cycle from one thing to another that will help warm the Earth. That is important. And real.

The warming impact of CH4 is minimal to near nil and most anyone with credibility will tell you the warming from CH4 is

nearly non -existent. Also the idea that methane is venting from cracks in the ice is very weak. Unless the methane is right below the large cracks it's not venting from them. We have no idea exactly where the methane is being vented so the idea that it's hitting one of these very small areas with large cracks is a huge stretch. This thread is still a joke and I'd be embarrassed to be pushing the "CH4! OMG we are all going to die!" agenda. This thread needs to be closed and if you guys really wanted to have an honest discussion about methane a new thread should be created free of alarmism. Right now this thread is not helping current perceptions about alarmism.