This is not good.

[BethesdaWX]

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?

Dude just answer the question instead of spitting personal attacks.

Have a nice day.

[BethesdaWX]

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 du

e to recent climate change."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-

oarctic-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

Pathetic, how dare you come in here posting objective reality based analysis..

You must be oil funded, we're on the verge of catastrophe and you just sit behind your PC and discredit climate science?! This is a scientific consensus bro, legit stuff..

[salbers]

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.

Yes, the orange measurements aren't yet quality controlled. Curiously I only get the older plots from Dec 12-17 rather than the new one from Dec 28 (today) that you posted.

[TerryM]

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.

Good eye!!

Something is indeed amiss

The new data using 2010/2011 actually shows the average CH4 dropping over the course of the year - something belied by all other monitoring stations.

[skierinvermont]

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.blog...imate-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.blog...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

Yep papers were posted earlier stating that it's not physically possible for the methane release to be occurring due to recent climate change because it takes longer for the sea floor to warm.

Good to know that even the lead researchers investigating these plumes do not believe them to be due to recent climate change. And yet some in this thread are latching onto this study as proof of imminent CAGW

[Vergent]

Here is a reassuring article. It quotes some very respectable climatologists that say basically that since the clathrate gun hasn't gone off in the last 800.000 years it must be impossible. There is one problem with this reasoning. Which year in the past 800,000 years is comparable to the present?

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/more-views-on-global-warmin-and-arctic-methane/

The GHG forcing in the present is significantly stronger than anytime in the past 800,000 years. The the important thing with methane release is the rate of release, because of the short half life in the atmosphere.

On the one hand the theoretical scientists are saying "its impossible", on the other hand the field scientists are saying "its happening"

[Vergent]

I found this picture by searching in Russian.

Siberian Seas Seethe Swamp Smell

http://planeta.moy.s...011-12-19-11793

http://www.ht-magazi...ye-zalezhi.html

[TerryM]

Both articles quoted

Tim Minshall saying that "T

he last time, when methane was raised in huge quantities on the surface planet Earth is just coming out of the last ice age about 15,000 years ago."

Would he be referring to the end of the Younger Dryas, when IIRC Greenland experienced a 10C raise in a 10 year period?

[Vergent]

Both articles quoted

Tim Minshall saying that "T

he last time, when methane was raised in huge quantities on the surface planet Earth is just coming out of the last ice age about 15,000 years ago."

Would he be referring to the end of the Younger Dryas, when IIRC Greenland experienced a 10C raise in a 10 year period?

I suppose so.

By the way, does "vast area of ocean boiling with methane" sound like an appropriate caption for that picture?

[Vergent]

The jet stream may be bring down whiffs

[mempho]

Going to be hard on the politicos who just wanted AGW as a means of consolidating transnational political control.

Sort of hard to sell a solution when nothing can be done.

Sent from my Milestone X

[WeatherRusty]

Going to be hard on the politicos who just wanted AGW as a means of consolidating transnational political control.

Sort of hard to sell a solution when nothing can be done.

Sent from my Milestone X

Conspiracy theorists everywhere. Can the collective of humanity actually allow themselves to be directed by these people? If so, we are doomed for sure.

[BethesdaWX]

Conspiracy theorists everywhere. Can the collective of humanity actually allow themselves to be directed by these people? If so, we are doomed for sure.

Dude... "We're in deep touble, the Earth is in trouble, we're emitting too much CO2"... way to fix it is... "rich countries reduce emmisions and pay poor countries, to deal with climate change"

I'm getting too political and will put a sock in it, but come on, really obvious what is going on.

[Vergent]

Someone, please help BB with his socks.

[BethesdaWX]

Someone, please help BB with his socks.

*chirp chirp chirp*

If personal attacks are all you have in your arsenal you're not going to get far here. I learned that.

[TerryM]

I suppose so.

By the way, does "vast area of ocean boiling with methane" sound like an appropriate caption for that picture?

Siberian Seas Seethe

(Alliteration Always Advances An Agenda)

[WeatherRusty]

Dude... "We're in deep touble, the Earth is in trouble, we're emitting too much CO2"... way to fix it is... "rich countries reduce emmisions and pay poor countries, to deal with climate change"

I'm getting too political and will put a sock in it, but come on, really obvious what is going on.

It's obvious alright. You may have won the political and PR battle but you have not and with not defy science and Mother Nature without paying the bill. The sad thing is, future generations and the environment will be paying the bill.

[Vergent]

Siberian Seas Seethe

(Alliteration Always Advances An Agenda)

okay,

"Siberian Seas Seethe Swamp Smell", it is

But, what about;

"Arctic Ass Airing Ardently"

[BethesdaWX]

It's obvious alright. You may have won the political and PR battle but you have not and with not defy science and Mother Nature without paying the bill. The sad thing is, future generations and the environment will be paying the bill.

Of course I never defy science, you're the one who has breached the scientific method, not me.

I think you'll find very shortly that your side is wrong. We'll see.

[TerryM]

okay,

"Siberian Seas Seethe Swamp Smell", it is

Superb!

[Vergent]

Of course I never defy science

Except when you make it up.

"New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011"

[BethesdaWX]

Except when you make it up.

"New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011"

Which I didn't, and niether did Roy Spencer in his reference. More BS as usual.

Can it for your sake.

[Vergent]

Which I didn't, and niether did Roy Spencer in his reference. More BS as usual.

Can it for your sake.

all I get when I google "Christy et al 2011" is:

FUNDANOMICS: The Free Market, Simplified

http://www.fundanomics.org/

Is this the Spencer you are talking about? Is this your guru?

What does he have to say about methane venting in the arctic?

[BethesdaWX]

all I get when I google "Christy et al 2011" is:

FUNDANOMICS: The Free Market, Simplified

http://www.fundanomics.org/

Is this the Spencer you are talking about? Is this your guru?

What does he have to say about methane venting in the arctic?

Yet again, not funny. Go to my UAH thread, click the second link, and read. Roy Spencer references Christy et al 2011. If you can't do it, I'll copy-paste and link it here for you.

You dragged this off topic, not me. I don't know what he thinks about methane leaking. I don't think much of it.

[Vergent]

I don't know what he thinks about methane leaking. I don't think much of it.

Then quit blowing methane on my topic.

By the way the "copy-paste and link it here for you." did not work.

More methane.

[BethesdaWX]

Then quit blowing methane on my topic.

By the way the "copy-paste and link it here for you." did not work.

You took it off topic, not me (accused me of making up a paper) So you did cannot find Spencer's reference on his blog? I'll post it here for all to see if you can't find it.

[Vergent]

You took it off topic, not me (accused me of making up a paper) So you did cannot find Spencer's reference on his blog? I'll post it here for all to see if you can't find it.

can you find methane in this post?

"Of course I never defy science, you're the one who has breached the scientific method, not me.

I think you'll find very shortly that your side is wrong. We'll see. "

This post is about you is it not? So, posting about you is the new topic. Is it not? So, now You making up fake references is fair game. You made the topic you. "I never defy science" is a statement of fact or falsehood.

"New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011"

This is a post you made. Back it up with a link.

[BethesdaWX]

can you find methane in this post?

"Of course I never defy science, you're the one who has breached the scientific method, not me.

I think you'll find very shortly that your side is wrong. We'll see. "

This post is about you is it not? So, posting about you is the new topic. Is it not? So, now You making up fake references is fair game. You made the topic you. "I never defy science" is a statement of fact or falsehood.

"New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011"

This is a post you made. Back it up with a link.

I said 5 trillion times that roy spencer referenced it in this blog post that I told you to read: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/addressing-criticisms-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-at-13-century/

I haven't read the paper, thats not why I mentioned it. I can't believe you think I attempted to invent a paper, even after I directed you to the reference numerous times.

[BethesdaWX]

You know what here you go since you're having trouble:

So, the model vs. observational issue was not presented accurately in the post. This has been addressed in the peer reviewed literature by us and others (Christy et al. 2007, 2010, 2011, McKitrick et al. 2010, Klotzbach et al. 2009, 2010.)

[Vergent]

You know what here you go since you're having trouble:

So, the model vs. observational issue was not presented accurately in the post. This has been addressed in the peer reviewed literature by us and others (Christy et al. 2007, 2010, 2011, McKitrick et al. 2010, Klotzbach et al. 2009, 2010.)

It kind of looks like a link, but you click on it, and nothing happens.