This is not good.

[TerryM]

Wtf

You don't like my explanation for how all this false information was propagated?

What's yours.

[Jonger]

You don't like my explanation for how all this false information was propagated?

What's yours.

It sounded rediculous and not worth responding to.

[WeatherRusty]

It sounded rediculous and not worth responding to.

But that is what you are doing, treating the threat from AGW as if it is some kind of joke.

[LithiaWx]

"When the AO index is positive, surface pressure is low in the polar region. This helps the middle latitude jet stream to blow strongly and consistently from west to east, thus keeping cold Arctic air locked in the polar region."

http://en.wikipedia....tic_oscillation

This fall we had measurements from a surface vessel and a wide ranging aircraft survey.

The vessel measured "100 times normal", the aircraft:

"Something too new to fully understand (although a report on it is being prepared for publication), Wofsy says, is a finding of notable concentrations of methane in the Arctic’s atmosphere that trace back to the sea."

“We observed that the ocean surface releases methane to the atmosphere all over the whole of the Arctic Ocean,”

http://www.sciencene...imate_surprises

Now, these people will not get their data published until spring. So we should just ignore their warning? What do you want to talk about? 2009? We have lots of published data about that.

That's all fine and dandy, but you never answered my question. Why is Barrow the ONLY location reporting a major spike in CO2 and Methane? You just quoted this :

“We observed that the ocean surface releases methane to the atmosphere all over the whole of the Arctic Ocean,”

At the VERY least everyone should be very skeptical that the Barrow reading are accurate. There is no other station that shows even remotely the same reading. The Barrow station rose over 20% it seems in Methane concentrations. If there was that much Methane being pumped into the arctic why is it not showing up at other locations near Barrow? There are some big question marks right now, I'm concerned because if the readings are right then that's a sign of a big problem up there but I'm just not buying it yet. Give me even one more station reporting a rise in Methane like Barrow and then I'll believe.

[Vergent]

That's all fine and dandy, but you never answered my question. Why is Barrow the ONLY location reporting a major spike in CO2 and Methane? You just quoted this :

At the VERY least everyone should be very skeptical that the Barrow reading are accurate. There is no other station that shows even remotely the same reading. The Barrow station rose over 20% it seems in Methane concentrations. If there was that much Methane being pumped into the arctic why is it not showing up at other locations near Barrow? There are some big question marks right now, I'm concerned because if the readings are right then that's a sign of a big problem up there but I'm just not buying it yet. Give me even one more station reporting a rise in Methane like Barrow and then I'll believe.

Barrows air is coming off the arctic fromGreenland, Greenlang, from northern Europe.

The air did not have a methane spike when it left Greenland , but has a methane spike when it gets to Barrow. Looks like the arctic is the source of this methane to me.

The elevated methane has been measured by land air and sea, by three separate programs, the venting has been witnessed.

[LithiaWx]

Barrows air is coming off the arctic fromGreenland, Greenlang, from northern Europe.

The air did not have a methane spike when it left Greenland , but has a methane spike when it gets to Barrow. Looks like the arctic is the source of this methane to me.

Fine, if you refuse to answer the question then that's all I need from you. There are a few other locations not very far from Barrow and in the arctic to look at and NONE of them show anything close to what the Barrow station is. If you can find another measurement that supports the readings in Barrow get back to me then. I'm very open minded about this but with so little in the way of corroborating information I'm very skeptical. One thing I do agree with you on is if the readings are accurate then there is a pretty big problem up there.

[PhillipS]

That's all fine and dandy, but you never answered my question. Why is Barrow the ONLY location reporting a major spike in CO2 and Methane? You just quoted this :

At the VERY least everyone should be very skeptical that the Barrow reading are accurate. There is no other station that shows even remotely the same reading. The Barrow station rose over 20% it seems in Methane concentrations. If there was that much Methane being pumped into the arctic why is it not showing up at other locations near Barrow? There are some big question marks right now, I'm concerned because if the readings are right then that's a sign of a big problem up there but I'm just not buying it yet. Give me even one more station reporting a rise in Methane like Barrow and then I'll believe.

In my opinion you are correct in saying that everyone should be skeptical - all I would add is to not limit one's skepticism to just the bad news. Mistakes get made in both directions. Sensors go bad, operators screw up and so forth. But keep in mind that all NOAA observatories (including Barrow) have rigorous QA procedures because nobody benefits from posting data and then having to retract it.

As for your question about why only Barrow is showing the high CH4 readings - as others have pointed out, Barrow is the observatory closest to the reported seafloor releases. And although CH4 is a well-mixed GHG,there will still be a plume with higher concentrations downwind from the emission site. (Similar in many ways to the emission plume downwind of a coal-fired power plant.) As with all plumes, the CH4 emissions will spread out and diffuse as they travel further from their vents.

Keep in mind, too, that CH4 is lighter than air so the plume will rise as well as dissipate with distance from the source. Which, to me, is why it's not surprising that other arctic observatories, such as Summit, Greenland, don't show an identical spike in CH4 readings. I would expect elevated CH4 levels to be observable from aircraft, and that is exactly what the HIPPO flights reported.

When we look at the long term record for Barrow we see that there have been a number of previous episodes of anomalous high CH4 readings which typically have lasted a month or so. This latest episode has only lasted a few weeks so far so it's too early to tell if it follows historic patterns. But even if it does that doesn't mean we can ignore the issue of destabilizing CH4 deposits. There is simply too much potential for disaster to be complacent.

[TerryM]

Barrows air is coming off the arctic fromGreenland, Greenlang, from northern Europe.

The air did not have a methane spike when it left Greenland , but has a methane spike when it gets to Barrow. Looks like the arctic is the source of this methane to me.

The elevated methane has been measured by land air and sea, by three separate programs, the venting has been whitnessed. I could buy skepticism of one set of readings, but all three: Denialism

Thanks for the data - Personally the eye witness accounts of the "boiling sea". The US & Russia spending huge amounts on the emergency expedition, and the reports by Semiletov were enough.

[dabize]

In my opinion you are correct in saying that everyone should be skeptical - all I would add is to not limit one's skepticism to just the bad news. Mistakes get made in both directions. Sensors go bad, operators screw up and so forth. But keep in mind that all NOAA observatories (including Barrow) have rigorous QA procedures because nobody benefits from posting data and then having to retract it.

As for your question about why only Barrow is showing the high CH4 readings - as others have pointed out, Barrow is the observatory closest to the reported seafloor releases. And although CH4 is a well-mixed GHG,there will still be a plume with higher concentrations downwind from the emission site. (Similar in many ways to the emission plume downwind of a coal-fired power plant.) As with all plumes, the CH4 emissions will spread out and diffuse as they travel further from their vents.

Keep in mind, too, that CH4 is lighter than air so the plume will rise as well as dissipate with distance from the source. Which, to me, is why it's not surprising that other arctic observatories, such as Summit, Greenland, don't show an identical spike in CH4 readings. I would expect elevated CH4 levels to be observable from aircraft, and that is exactly what the HIPPO flights reported.

When we look at the long term record for Barrow we see that there have been a number of previous episodes of anomalous high CH4 readings which typically have lasted a month or so. This latest episode has only lasted a few weeks so far so it's too early to tell if it follows historic patterns. But even if it does that doesn't mean we can ignore the issue of destabilizing CH4 deposits. There is simply too much potential for disaster to be complacent.

What he said.........

[Vergent]

Thanks for the data - Personally the eye witness accounts of the "boiling sea". The US & Russia spending huge amounts on the emergency expedition, and the reports by Semiletov were enough.

Not really a spike, but they set a new record.

[Vergent]

I was disappointed that there was not more discussion about Arctic Methane Emergency Group.

http://www.arctic-me...ders/4558749249

It certainly lays to rest the notion that the article in the Independent was a tabloid exaggeration.

There is a page discussing the impacts of arctic meltdown

http://www.arctic-me...acts/4558297042

It also has suggestions for remediation.

http://www.arctic-me...onse/4558229020

It also explains why the scientists consider this an emergency.

http://www.arctic-me...ency/4558130767

there is also an interesting FAQ page.

http://www.arctic-me...faqs/4558804295

Searching google news:

" No results found for "arctic methane emergency group".

Does anyone else find this alarming?

[turtlehurricane]

Not really a spike, but they set a new record.

Note that the amounts are in nanomol/mol, there's not much CH4 to begin with, and it's only increased slightly relative to the total amount of CH4.

[skierinvermont]

Note that the amounts are in nanomol/mol, there's not much CH4 to begin with, and it's only increased slightly relative to the total amount of CH4.

Wrong... 'normal' CH4 over the last 2000 years was near 750ppb, It's now approaching 3X that at 1900ppb globally.

[skierinvermont]

I remain unconvinced either way as to the validity of the Barrow readings. I would have expected to see more of a spike at Poker Flats considering it's not that far away. There's not spike at all at Poker Flats, while BRW shoots up nearly 300ppb and has remained elevated for 3 weeks. I also don't know what that graph of the flights from Greenland to BRW are showing.. the axis is 'elevation'??? what does this have to do with Ch4?

I don't see any other data corroborating the BRW readings. Supposedly Alert and Svalbard show no such spike, and the boiling sea observations were occurring in the Laptev and ESB.

[TerryM]

Perhaps this from 10/01/11 may help

[skierinvermont]

Still no idea what those charts are showing.

[TerryM]

Traces where the air came from before it was sampled.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ozwv/traj.html

[blue sky]

Been a way for a while. But before I left this forum had kinda agreed that posting articles about climate from Uk newspaper was stupid.

This artical was stupid. No links from peer reviewed papers. No explanation how loss of sea ice enabled Methane to be released from under the ocean. This is not a political sub forum.

[turtlehurricane]

Wrong... 'normal' CH4 over the last 2000 years was near 750ppb, It's now approaching 3X that at 1900ppb globally.

Your chart is in nanomol/mol, the CH4 is ~1000 so it's in micromol/mol. The change in CH4 is on the order of about 10-100 nanomol/mol.

[turtlehurricane]

I suppose you're talking about the very long term trend where there's been a 3X increase since 1750. Things have stabilized relatively in recent decades though, as your graph shows.

What I want to see is how even a 3-fold increase affects the atmosphere, and that doesn't mean it's likely to happen again anytime soon. A back of the envelope calculation is CH4 increased from 0.6 to 1.8 ppm, while CO2 increased from 280 to 380 ppm. CH4 is 25X more potent than CO2, so the CH4 increase is 30 ppm if it were "converted" to CO2. So the 3-fold CH4 increase accounts for ~25% of AGW so far, significant but not catastrophic, since AGW is probably about 1 °C so far.

Basically, very extreme releases, well more than anything we've seen, will be needed to really cause some climate change.

[dabize]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methane-project-clarify-climate-concerns/?src=recg

Looks like Shakhova and Semiletov got back to Andy Revkin and (reading between the lines) biffed him on the nose for telling people to move along, no story here.

They are pointedly saying nothing to either reassure or alarm - indeed they are saying NOTHING ahead of publication, but there are a couple of interesting points of emphasis..........the deep thawing may have nothing to do with recent AGW, but is still much greater than expected according to modeling.

Also - "It is no surprise to us that others monitoring global methane have not found a signal from the Siberian Arctic or increase in global emissions."

Video interview with Shakhova is excellent

[The_Global_Warmer]

Been a way for a while. But before I left this forum had kinda agreed that posting articles about climate from Uk newspaper was stupid.

This artical was stupid. No links from peer reviewed papers. No explanation how loss of sea ice enabled Methane to be released from under the ocean. This is not a political sub forum.

The Ice reflects the Shortwave radiation back. Between the Laptev, ESB, Chuchki, and Kara the amount of extra W/M2 since say 2007 could be pretty high like in the Hundreds of Billions, or maybe Trillions by now. I am not sure. But that will definitely even heat up the arctic floor enough, expecially if it is 100M or shallower, the futher down in latitude the more deep the sun rays can reach. Some places with tons of methane are closer to shore with 30-60M deep water that might be getting 2-3 months of extra sun that it never got before or very very rare.

So without the Sea Ice retreat/loss of thickness/loss of age/lost all together this would not be happening. There is no doubt about that.

[dabize]

The Ice reflects the Shortwave radiation back. Between the Laptev, ESB, Chuchki, and Kara the amount of extra W/M2 since say 2007 could be pretty high like in the Hundreds of Billions, or maybe Trillions by now. I am not sure. But that will definitely even heat up the arctic floor enough, expecially if it is 100M or shallower, the futher down in latitude the more deep the sun rays can reach. Some places with tons of methane are closer to shore with 30-60M deep water that might be getting 2-3 months of extra sun that it never got before or very very rare.

So without the Sea Ice retreat/loss of thickness/loss of age/lost all together this would not be happening. There is no doubt about that.

Either that or it is a massive coincidence that the permafrost melting set in motion by the flooding of the ESAS 8kya has just reached paydirt at the time when humans decided to burn 200 millions of years worth of fossil fuels.

Nominally, S&S are saying the latter - at least until they look over their data - but I can't believe they really mean it. They're just being conservative.

[TerryM]

I believe the video is from before the latest expedition. That expedition came back reporting emissions some orders of magnitude larger than those found earlier - and those new results have caused S&S to join with the Arctic Methane Emergency Group.

The fact that they pulled thawed core samples over 50 meters long, at temperatures down to 1.2 degrees may be the most alarming data that she references.

[Vergent]

For those who are complaining that more stations are not detecting the methane, this is how narrowly distributed a localized emission is(in this case ash). We are lucky to have caught a whiff of it at Barrow.

[LithiaWx]

For those who are complaining that more stations are not detecting the methane, this is how narrowly distributed a localized emission is(in this case ash). We are lucky to have caught a whiff of it at Barrow.

The plume also expands wider as it moves farther away from the source. Also according to an article you quoted there should be thousands of those plumes in the arctic. It should not be that hard for other stations to be picking up on an extreme methane spike.

"The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years."

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."

A 100 fold increase in diameter equals a 10,000 fold increase in area or a 1,000,000% increase in methane venting from the arctic. In one year.

I am alarmed!

Lets talk about a hockey stick.

Or a tipping point.

We are no longer in control.

The arctic can increase its GHG faster than we can diminish (lol) ours.

Have a nice day,

[Vergent]

The plume also expands wider as it moves farther away from the source. Also according to an article you quoted there should be thousands of those plumes in the arctic. It should not be that hard for other stations to be picking up on an extreme methane spike.

A 10,000 km^2 area is only 100 km wide.

Even if it 150 km wide, after it crosses the arctic ocean, it still takes some luck to hit one of the three arctic stations.

[LithiaWx]

A 10,000 km^2 area is only 100 km wide.

Even if it 150 km wide, after it crosses the arctic ocean, it still takes some luck to hit one of the three arctic stations.

Why do you keep posting that map? It makes no sense to the discussion. What determines the starting point? do you really think that the wind stream is only as wide as the lines? Why is elevation changing with the days? What does this map prove in terms of how wide a plume is or how many there are or well anything related to this discussion? Explain your map other than just saying wind trajectories, because that simply does not make sense at all.

[TerryM]

Sorry you can't figure it out.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the topic prior to commenting, I don't see why the rest of us should wait for you to catch up though, so:

Barrow seems to be the only station with any chance of getting a whiff of the emissions, but, S&S will be presenting figures directly from the affected area in April - and they are warning us to " be open to the idea that new observations may significantly change what we understand about our world."

​I find little solace in that statement.

[LithiaWx]

Sorry you can't figure it out.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the topic prior to commenting, I don't see why the rest of us should wait for you to catch up though, so:

Barrow seems to be the only station with any chance of getting a whiff of the emissions, but, S&S will be presenting figures directly from the affected area in April - and they are warning us to " be open to the idea that new observations may significantly change what we understand about our world."

​I find little solace in that statement.

If it's so easy to figure out then why don't you answer my questions. Skier also commented that the map makes no sense based on the discussion. The questions I raised are valid, you not being able to answer says a lot. Try and lighten up a bit, every single post you make is pretty nasty. Forums ruiles state if you post a map you must explain it. I guess you think the rules don't apply to some people.

American Weather Rules & Restrictions Boardwide Rules

• No porn or links to porn
  
• No threats of physical violence through postings or PMs
  
• No excessive trolling of other members
  

You may not post private messages or any part thereof unless you have approval from the originator. Weather Forum Rules

• No politics/religious discussion
  
• No foul language
  
• No personal attacks/OT arguing
  
• Try to stay on topic
  
• Attack the idea, not the poster
  
• Spell out your forecast/thinking/opposing viewpoint clearly
  
• If you post a map, explain it
  

I'll try again :

Why do you keep posting that map? It makes no sense to the discussion. What determines the starting point? do you really think that the wind stream is only as wide as the lines? Why is elevation changing with the days? What does this map prove in terms of how wide a plume is or how many there are or well anything related to this discussion? Explain your map other than just saying wind trajectories, because that simply does not make sense at all.