This is not good.

[Vergent]

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.

As was posted above by Terym this map is the backtrack of the air that was sampled on that day. It is where the air came from.

He also gave this link

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

Please read the thread before posting.

[LithiaWx]

As was posted above by Terym this map is the backtrack of the air that was sampled on that day. It is where the air came from.

He also gave this link

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

Please read the thread before posting.

I read the thread and it still does not mean anything in relation to the discussion at hand. Like I said before there are legitimate questions as to why this is significant to the discussion and you and TerryM keep ignoring it.

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.

There should be thousands of plumes according to the article you posted earlier, with the sheer scale and high density with thousands of plumes you would think another station would pick up on this.

"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,

Have a nice day,

[TerryM]

I read the thread and it still does not mean anything in relation to the discussion at hand. Like I said before there are legitimate questions as to why this is significant to the discussion and you and TerryM keep ignoring it.

What questions? If you don't understand what the map represents how can you pose legitimate questions?

[LithiaWx]

What questions? If you don't understand what the map represents how can you pose legitimate questions?

I'm not asking again, if you choose to ignore them that's your prerogative. They are asked about three times in the last six posts.

[TerryM]

I'm not asking again, if you choose to ignore them that's your prerogative. They are asked about three times in the last six posts.

Thank you

Trying to understand some new data before attacking it is a sign of progress.

Now on with the conversation.

Do you find S&S's research to be alarming?

[LithiaWx]

Thank you

Trying to understand some new data before attacking it is a sign of progress.

Now on with the conversation.

Do you find S&S's research to be alarming?

I don't see how the map posted has anything to do with why the supposed massive amounts of plumes of methane are only showing up on Barrow's data. So I'm not attacking the map but I am attacking the reason why it was brought up in response to my question about why is Barrow the only station picking up on the methane when there are 1000's of plumes. The map posted literally shows us nothing of significance in relation to this thread. The map is not even an exact depiction of how the air traveled across the arctic it's an estimate based on large scale circulations not the exact path.

Any given trajectory produced by this model should be reasonably representative of the large scale circulation, and as such, may be used to suggest potential source regions. However, this does not imply that a particular air parcel sampled at the trajectory destination followed this path.

The map means nothing to the discussion.

[PhillipS]

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.

I confess it took me a bit to understand these plots so perhaps I can help. They're pretty cool really. If I'm reading them correctly, they are a 'backtrack' of the air over Barrow on a particular day. They are generated from met data.

In the plots shown for 12/3/2011, if a weather balloon (or high methane concentration) was observed at Barrow on that day we can have good confidence that its journey originated from Siberia ten days before. Or somewhere along the paths shown less than ten days earlier. This sort of plot is particularly useful for determining the source of transient phenomona such as the alarming methane spikes this thread is discussing.

If the plots showed that Barrow was measuring air from, say, Greenland then it might mean that the reported Siberian methane releases are only part of a larger problem, i.e. methane deposits throughout the arctic are beginning to destabilize. Instead they appear to correlate with the reported ESAS releases, and other observatories aren't seeing similar spikes, so perhaps we're looking at a regional issue instead a massive methane belch. On the other hand, the long-term methane record from Barrow shows a number of anomalously high episodes so possibly we're just now understanding a serious development tha't been unfolding for years.

[LithiaWx]

I confess it took me a bit to understand these plots so perhaps I can help. They're pretty cool really. If I'm reading them correctly, they are a 'backtrack' of the air over Barrow on a particular day. They are generated from met data.

In the plots shown for 12/3/2011, if a weather balloon (or high methane concentration) was observed at Barrow on that day we can have good confidence that its journey originated from Siberia ten days before. Or somewhere along the paths shown less than ten days earlier. This sort of plot is particularly useful for determining the source of transient phenomona such as the alarming methane spikes this thread is discussing.

If the plots showed that Barrow was measuring air from, say, Greenland then it might mean that the reported Siberian methane releases are only part of a larger problem, i.e. methane deposits throughout the arctic are beginning to destabilize. Instead they appear to correlate with the reported ESAS releases, and other observatories aren't seeing similar spikes, so perhaps we're looking at a regional issue instead a massive methane belch. On the other hand, the long-term methane record from Barrow shows a number of anomalously high episodes so possibly we're just now understanding a serious development tha't been unfolding for years.

I appreciate the nice reply. I think the maps have some significance but what I was objecting to was the map being posted in response to my claim that if there are 1000's of plumes why is barrow the only station reporting a spike in methane. It just did not apply to my post and someone decided to post it thinking they were proving something which hey were not. I'm disengaging TerryM and Vergent over this subject, it's really stupid and until another station shows something like this I remain skeptical.

[TerryM]

I don't see how the map posted has anything to do with why the supposed massive amounts of plumes of methane are only showing up on Barrow's data. So I'm not attacking the map but I am attacking the reason why it was brought up in response to my question about why is Barrow the only station picking up on the methane when there are 1000's of plumes.The map posted literally shows us nothing of significance in relation to this thread. The map is not even an exact depiction of how the air traveled across the arctic it's an estimate based on large scale circulations not the exact path.

The map means nothing to the discussion.

Except to answer your questions.

You seem to be implying that the methane plume - which has been observed -Does not exist because only one of the three Arctic stations (the other two being up wind of the event) did not record it.

Have I stated your position correctly?

[LithiaWx]

Phillip if they showed me a plot of Cold Bay or Greenland or Nunavut where there are no spikes showing that the air sampled in those locations did not travel over the arctic then I could understand posting the map but when the map was posted this morning in response to my post it did not fit.

Look at this post from Vergent and tell me if anyone thinks his response makes sense to the question I asked. The plots are meaningless unless you find the day on which a location did or did not show a spike and then trace it back from that date. someone earlier posted a map that showed Barrows air from Christmas day and traced it back 10 days, what does that show? Nobody has shown a map of barrows methane readings from the 25th yet we have a trajectory map from that date. What does that show us? wind trajectories change daily it seems so unless you pinpoint data to an exact date and then trace from then it's meaningless. Also some traces from the other locations up there would at least show something.

[LithiaWx]

Except to answer your questions.

You seem to be implying that the methane plume - which has been observed -Does not exist because only one of the three Arctic stations (the other two being up wind of the event) did not record it.

Have I stated your position correctly?

My position is I have doubts about the data, it may be accurate it may not be. Until there are other locations showing something I remain skeptical. I never once said the plumes don't exist, I said I have my doubts about Barrow's data and rightfully so. I'm done for the day I need to get to work I've wasted enough time with this for now.

[PhillipS]

Phillip if they showed me a plot of Cold Bay or Greenland or Nunavut where there are no spikes showing that the air sampled in those locations did not travel over the arctic then I could understand posting the map but when the map was posted this morning in response to my post it did not fit.

One of the cool features of the ESRL site is that you can select any of the observatories and see what air they were sampling on a given day. The Summit, Greenland, plot for 12/3/2011 (the same day Terry posted earlier for Barrow) is:

Notice that Summit was sampling air that had traveled from Scandinavia ten days earlier. Nothing from Siberia. Now, methane plumes have been reported from the seafloor near Svalbard but they are small enough to diffuse into the water column before reaching the surface. No boiling sea effect and no plume to cause readings to spike upwards. Here's an image from another report on Svalbard:

[LithiaWx]

No methane spike... and the air came from Siberia. I can show you many other plots all showing air coming from the same area where Barrows air came from and on another station there is no spike.

[TerryM]

Very good - see the maps are relevant!

Now go back to a date more in keeping with time being discussed and see if your theory still holds. - but wait till you're off work - boss could get nasty.

[LithiaWx]

Very good - see the maps are relevant!

Now go back to a date more in keeping with time being discussed and see if your theory still holds. - but wait till you're off work - boss could get nasty.

The maps are not very relevant. Since that air crossed an area that supposedly contained water that was "boiling" with methane why did it not show up as a methane spike? There was no spike in the data up till the 12th of December, no spike on the third occurred yet the air that was sampled went right across the area that was "boiling". The point is the maps prove nothing, mine or vergents.

[TerryM]

How 'bout this one - from a time a little closer to the relevant period?

The point is that all Arctic stations could not be expected to experience the anomalous readings - and the fact that one did is enough to verify the observations. I'd assume that the observations of the plumes plus the observations of ocean acidification off Barrow plus the observed arctic 'hot spots' with temperatures >10C above normal would be enough to convince any fair minded person that we have a problem. The fact that the Kara Sea is not frozen over when we are passed the solstice may also add some weight to the argument.

I watched the very late thaw of Foxe Basin this last season with interest, this is another shallow area that may be out gassing, possibly at a high enough rate to slow ice melt by freshening and cooling the waters due to clathrate breakdown. The waters there are known to be brown in color, although currents are not particularly strong. Doubt if Harper's government will do anything to investigate, but if someone does I'd be interested in the results.

[TerryM]

A link to show high temperature clathrate response.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n16_v150/ai_18795944/

[PhillipS]

No methane spike... and the air came from Siberia. I can show you many other plots all showing air coming from the same area where Barrows air came from and on another station there is no spike.

You're correct no methane spike was seen at Alert in early December, but look at the altitude bar. The Siberian air crossed Alert at about 15,000 feet on 12/3 and it crossed Barrow at about 3,000 feet. That possibly made a difference.

Look at the long-term trend you posted for Alert - I count at least nine episodes of anomalously high readings at Alert since observations began in 1985. That seems consistent with plumes periodically passing over the observatory there. COntrast that with the methane record for Samoa, the observatory farthest from the arctic:

Not a single anomalously high high methane reading over the same period. I suspect that's because methane is well mixed by the time it reaches Samoa.

[LithiaWx]

How 'bout this one - from a time a little closer to the relevant period?

The point is that all Arctic stations could not be expected to experience the anomalous readings - and the fact that one did is enough to verify the observations. I'd assume that the observations of the plumes plus the observations of ocean acidification off Barrow plus the observed arctic 'hot spots' with temperatures >10C above normal would be enough to convince any fair minded person that we have a problem. The fact that the Kara Sea is not frozen over when we are passed the solstice may also add some weight to the argument.

I watched the very late thaw of Foxe Basin this last season with interest, this is another shallow area that may be out gassing, possibly at a high enough rate to slow ice melt by freshening and cooling the waters due to clathrate breakdown. The waters there are known to be brown in color, although currents are not particularly strong. Doubt if Harper's government will do anything to investigate, but if someone does I'd be interested in the results.

How about this one from the same time period in Barrow, AK.. runs right across the same area where methane is "boiling" and no spike appears to have happened on 10/1/11. I just don;t agree that these maps tell us anything significant wrt this thread. We agree to disagree.

[salbers]

Marietta Wx - curiously when I look at the ESRL site I only see the Barrow CH4 plot updated on Dec 12 and it is missing the data point at 2100ppb. Do you have a link that yields the more updated plot? It's good practice to post a link along with an image when possible. Thanks.

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

In-situ daily averages show more scatter and that this scatter is a more common occurrence:

[The_Global_Warmer]

Until we see say 50-100 million gt of mthane break oit at once or a very short period. we won't see wide spread changes.

This is the pre-Cursor to massive releases this shows us that clathrates are breaking down from melting. These may temporarily freeze or have a slowdown also the ice around 5-1 meter has grown by now , this will block or slow the release.

Next summer this will likely seem like a minor event compared to then. What do you think 2-3 months of ice free solar insolation will do?

How about 2013?

2014?

Even if by some miracle the ice extent naturally variables its way to 5.0-5.5 km2 extent. Remember that is 15% the entire arctic could sit at 30% concentration and the I've extent would be 8.5 mil km2.

The arctic ice albedo feedback won't stop. Our buoys tell us that more heat is being trapped than any recent times.

hopefully we have better tracking up there next summer.

[TerryM]

My position is I have doubts about the data, it may be accurate it may not be. Until there are other locations showing something I remain skeptical. I never once said the plumes don't exist, I said I have my doubts about Barrow's data and rightfully so. I'm done for the day I need to get to work I've wasted enough time with this for now.

What data are you skeptical about?

You agree that the plumes are real.

Do you doubt the validity of the Barrow testing procedures?

How else would you explain the high readings?

[salbers]

Seems like the daily in-situ measurements at Barrow show variability and spike events over the years?

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

[LithiaWx]

Marietta Wx - curiously when I look at the ESRL site I only see the Barrow CH4 plot updated on Dec 12 and it is missing the data point at 2100ppb. Do you have a link that yields the more updated plot? It's good practice to post a link along with an image when possible. Thanks.

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

In-situ daily averages show more scatter and that this scatter is a more common occurrence:

I got the image from a post Vergent made.

I tried to recreate the image off the site you linked and was unable to.

[LithiaWx]

What data are you skeptical about?

Barrow's spike in Methane

You agree that the plumes are real.

Possibly, I have not seen them personally but once the researchers release a peer reviewed paper I'll believe they exist. What impact said plumes will have on the arctic is not known.

Do you doubt the validity of the Barrow testing procedures?

I doubt the instruments are infallible.

How else would you explain the high readings?

instrument error

answers in red

[salbers]

I got the image from a post Vergent made. http://www.americanw...ost__p__1223477

I tried to recreate the image off the site you linked and was unable to.

Vergent and I have the same link. For this link one still has to select the appropriate options.

My larger point is that maybe the Barrow readings aren't that unusual, and that local methane releases have been occasionally occurring over the years in that area?

[LithiaWx]

Well interesting. I was able to recreate it and found some issues... Depending on your start date it changes the readings around quite a bit, some of them don't even show a spike the second half of this year. Go to time span and and select a time range. I'm even more skeptical now, the data does not even match once you change the starting date everything else being equal.

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

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

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

[salbers]

You can get different results depending on whether you select the less frequent surface flasks, or the more frequent daily in-situ measurements. I forget how often they do the surface flasks - maybe weekly?

Otherwise, your plots seem to match OK given only a change in the start date.

[LithiaWx]

You also get different results depending on whether you select the less frequent surface flasks, or the more frequent daily in-situ measurements. I forget how often they do the surface flasks - maybe weekly?

Otherwise, your plots seem to match OK given only a change in the start date.

All the images I posted were using surface flasks. This does not make any sense unless the reading was an error. One chart is newer than the other, perhaps the readings were bad and the reason it is variable depending on the start date is that one image is newer than the other. All the images showing no spike are newer than the one that showed the spike. I think the spike was an error, this post is basically proof.

[blue sky]

Semiletov and Shakhova..who were the source for the original article say "We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change."

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

They go on later "Observations are at the core of our work now. 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"

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arctic-seas-apocalypse-not/

Revkin echoes my point from an earlier post" it’s important to get a handle on whether these are new releases, the first foretaste of some great outburst from thawing sea-bed stores of the gas, or simply a longstanding phenomenon newly observed.”

The Barrow readings of methane mean little. It's like taking the temperature reading of one city and claiming that represents global climate change. Of course if the Barrow readings went off the charts that would be something different. That's not happening.

Chicken Little newspaper stories does not help climate research