salbers

Thanks for helping to clarify what was in a sense a raw blog (yet informative) post. And yes, the audio interview is earlier from March 2010. Perhaps it's the symposium from November 2011 that had some larger numbers? I would greatly doubt that 3.5Gt/yr is already occurring though it might potentially occur at some point. I'm checking to see if the symposium website has any further details - so far no luck.

I elsewhere see this 2008 EGU reference that suggests a potential short-term release of 50Gt in the future.

http://www.cosis.net...008-A-01526.pdf

http://cid-yama.livejournal.com/368223.html

Non-gradual methane releases from ESAS quantified

From a symposium November 30th.

Bad news: directly observed fluxes exceed estimated by up to 3 orders of magnitude

Interpretation of acoustical data recorded with deployed multibeam sonar allowed moderate quantification of bottom fluxes as high as 44 g/m2/d (Leifer et al., in preparation). Prorating these numbers to the areas of hot spots (210×103 km2) adds 3.5Gt to annual methane release from the ESAS. This is enough to trigger abrupt climate change.

link

That's in addition to the 8 tg from non-abrupt releases. This is the figure we were waiting on. This is the estimated additional releases from abrupt non-linear sources. 3.5 Gt a year.

See Shakhova Interview

Perhaps a 100-fold increase might be improbably low as compared to recent years.

We should keep in mind that if we assume the 1400Gt is ready to release (from the 2011 AGU abstract), a 100 fold increase over the current 6Mt / year is only 0.6 Gt. This is only 1/2000 of the amount stated as ready to release.

At a minimum we should have more researchers sent to the ESAS to tell us why such an increase would be impossible.

http://www.realclima...#comment-224271

More vanilla from realclimate. They are pushing hard on this. They are still using numbers from a 2007 article that gets its numbers from even earlier articles.

200 Gt worst case???????

When there are 3,200 Gt of known vulnerable stores? 1,600 in Continental shelf hydrates, and an additional 1,600 in and under terrestrial semi-permafrost.

http://darchive.mblw....pdf?sequence=1

This article shows that the indirect forcing is double the direct forcing, and the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is greatly extended at higher concentrations.

Yes, good to see your posts in the second RC thread. I had posted briefly in the first one.

http://www.realclima...ane/#more-10412

RealClimate has a thread up no on the methane story, with the OP taking vanilla......

Should be worth watching

Was the RealClimate thread posted by David Archer? I've cited his papers before in this forum on the long term residence of CO2 in the atmosphere/ocean system.

So far from my reading this provides some good background information and perspective. Such as a Gigaton of sudden release is about like a volcano's temporary effect (though opposite in sign). And as WeatherRusty mentioned in the longer term it's more a function of the CO2 that Methane converts into.

The thread also confirms what I suggested earlier that we need another 1-2 orders of magnitude for the Arctic release to be really significant.

Here is a link to satellite vs. ground based comparisons:

http://www.agu.org/p...1GL047871.shtml

Back to the present - one day surface temperature anomalies are pretty warm in the Arctic:

http://www.esrl.noaa...s.fnl.anim.html

The sattelite measurements do not show that the methane has reached any of the field stations. How can they measure what isn't there?

I'm not sure I'm ready to state that the Barrow surface measurements are inaccurate (beyond occasional flask QC issues). For one thing, the AIRS for 2011 image posted earlier does show a CH4 rise near Barrow in the autumn (November compared with August). Perhaps the peak areas miss Barrow, yet the values at Barrow still rise.

Also recall my earlier post about the agreement between the hourly in-situ measurements and the flasks.

Secondly, it's possible that levels at the surface will be different than at 400mb.

Also, the surface measurements have more autumnal rise in some years compared with others, just like the satellite.

I just heard back from the ESRL webmaster on the issue of why some plots from Barrow showed high methane readings while other plots didn't. Here's the response:

Thanks for your questions regarding methane at Barrow. The reason for the differences in the graphs

with the high two data points is due to a couple of things. The graphs of data for the entire time

span are created beforehand, whereas the plots for the other time span options are created on the

fly when the user asks for them. In this case for Barrow methane, the high data points have been

determined to be invalid samples, due to some type of sampling or measurement problem, and were

'flagged' in the database as bad samples. But this flagging occurred after the pre-generated graph

was made. So they showed up on the the plot of all the data, but not on the plots of other time

spans. The pre-generated plots were updated yesterday, and now the plot of all the methane data for

Barrow no longer shows those two high points.

This is a good example of why any data points that are plotted in orange are considered preliminary,

because it is possible that the quality control steps on the data have not been done yet, and

invalid samples may be displayed but later will be fixed.

The date on the lower right corner of the graph is the date that the graph was created.

Kirk Thoning

NOAA/ESRL/GMD Webmaster

So as several posters suggested the anomalously high readings were just that - anomalies. Which have now been flagged and removed. The two lessons learned, for me anyway, are not to get too excited about provisional data, and that the NOAA QA process works.

I also think looking more at the hourly in-situ data would help give a better picture in real-time. It seems to be close to the same accuracy as the weekly flasks.

TerryM found arctic methane data above(previous page):

apologies to the low band width users. click the links

ftp://asl.umbc.edu/p...IRS_CH4_400.jpg

ftp://asl.umbc.edu/p...IRS_CH4_400.jpg

ftp://asl.umbc.edu/p...methane/MAPS/NH

This 35 ppb jump is more than double the 10-15 ppb jump of previous years

It is totally amazing how this methane gun has missed the monitoring stations.

http://www.esrl.noaa...ex.php?code=car

but it has

But it cannot hide from AIRS

The methane is caught up in the AO.

There are sometimes on this forum where it seams that the people you are talking to are blind and cannot see the pictures.

Bethesda, your opinion?

While we wait for Bethesda, I'll suggest that the 35ppb jump does show up at Barrow if you look at the running mean curve (plotted on top of the dots). The seasonal jump shows up during the second half of 2011. We can put this jump in perspective over the past decade of seasonal swings.

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

Also the longer term trend is up about 5ppb per year for the past 5 years as I eyeball this graph.

Over the past several decades we did have some strong rises in the 1990s as mentioned earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mlo_ch4_ts_obs_03437.png

When you look at it like that it is definitely on the rise. But nothing explosive so far at all.

Interesting plots. Just for reference I estimate that a 8Tg increased release (over a year) should raise global CH4 concentratoins by about 3ppb. Over a local high latitude area it could be more if there hasn't been enough time for dispersion.

It's important to remember that by and large, these figures are compiled based upon a proverbial HOST of projections, probabilities, and circular logic. From a climatology standpoint, there are many things that produce Methane Gas, and while our actions can largely be made to blame; our population is the biggest issue.

Freshwater/Wetlands/Ocean Water and interestingly termites make up ~32% of methane emission. What's not taken into account is our effect on the output of methane FROM Freshwater/Wetlands/Ocean Water/Termites/Release of fossil fuels, etc.

So, that being said 'latest data' would actually be an attempt to extrapolate how much of an effect we've had on the natural elements, and how much we've actually changed the earth as a whole. Once that can be established, and established on a per-capita plane; we'll be capable of determining our output and damage over-time.

It's not killing us, in fact - it will eventually escape quite successfully. Though, how it escapes the earth is another story altogether...which, I suppose is the real killer.

The thing is though that the Arctic methane stores have the potential to overwhelm the other sources.

If you want to determine the effect of an increase in CO2/Methane alone, then yes changes in albedo, natural or man made, will contaminate the dataset, hiding the "real" signal. How can you deny that?

Maybe you misunderstood me?

I think albedo feedbacks are part of the game though?

Wow. Many AGW posters buying into the Methane world death theory. Not the legit ones..but many.

Any stats that show how much methane was being released globaly 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago?

Every two to four years we have the methane scare.

There are ice cores that show the history of methane changes in the atmosphere (seen earlier in this thread). It's unclear what time resolution they have for various points in the past.

As I've said the present Arctic methane release may be related to the uptick in the global methane, though I'd agree it isn't proven yet and it isn't impacting the climate yet. It's great that we have the hourly (and weekly) monitoring at Barrow and other stations (along with satellite), so if the 8Tg per year really does increase by several fold or more we'll have a good way to assess and confirm the local observations of the ESAS. Future climate impact is possible as it's probably been a long time since the ESAS has been this free of ice and this warm.

So this isn't so much a theory as something unfolding that we can watch in near real-time. It is though a good question as to how to go about making an informed prediction of future releases. What is yours?

I think the "brochure" poster may be different from what was presented in the regular poster session at AGU. The title and author list are different. They are both related in subject matter though. One is more geared to the public, while the other abstract is geared more towards a scientific audience. It would be interesting if we can find a copy of the more scientific one (if they are in fact separate). I looked on the AGU eposter site and it wasn't there. Can it be found somewhere else?

I did find this informative presentation from Nov 2010 by the same authors:

http://www.google.co...e7ONJrQdh4-r8Sw

In this presentation are they saying we're already above the 8Tg per year emission by orders of magnitude? I think the observed uptick in the global CH4 concentration over the past few years is roughly consistent with an 8Tg per year emission rate, not yet higher than that. This is a fairly simple calculation to make if we wanted to pin it down more.

That will be interesting to track. I think the total amount of methane in the atmosphere is about 5000 Tg (teragrams) or 5 gigatons.

By the way here is the 2011 AGU abstract. I was at this conference, though I didn't know ahead of time to check out this poster. I wonder if the poster is available online somewhere, beyond the "brochure" we've seen?

...................................................................................................................................................

Yes I think I had noticed that line too and it might have been correct in 2008. When we say 3-4 orders of magnitude though, over what region are we talking about? The Arctic emissions overall are something like 10-20% of the total global emissions, and that is what supposedly increased by 1/3 on the link at the methane alert site. Here is a wikipedia page that breaks down the various emissions. It would be interesting to try to put some numbers on how these components are changing.

http://en.wikipedia....spheric_methane

Here's a quote from the paper in the previous post:

............................................................................................................................................................

The annual outgassing from the shallow ESAS of Tg C-CH₄ is of the same magnitude as existing estimates of total CH₄ emissions from the entire world ocean (1, 25). Although the oceanic CH₄ flux should be revised, the current estimate is not alarmingly altering the contemporary global CH₄ budget. These findings do change our view of the vulnerability of the large sub-sea permafrost carbon reservoir on the ESAS; the permafrost “lid” is clearly perforated, and sedimentary CH₄ is escaping to the atmosphere.

.........................................................................................................................................................

So that is about 8Tg per year from the ESAS, compared ot about 600Tg per year of global emissions (unless the units are actually different - Tg of Carbon vs. CH4). So we do have 1-2 orders of magnitude to go before this becomes globally significant. The question is how fast will this emission grow?

Here is a U.S. Government report from 2008 on methane emissions. It says we have 1000 years before this is a big factor, though I wonder what they would say if the report were updated with the latest data.

http://downloads.cli...-report-ch5.pdf

There also seems to be enough uncertainty so that at least some noticeable climate impact would be possible during this century.

I never denied it was full of good info...good info that was posted to refute nonfactual claims that also ruined my UAH thread. Those who originally posted the good info in this thread were bashed and ridiculed, for doing good research and thinking rationally and objectively..

This happens here quite alot, it is somewhat irritating.

The degree of alarmism is in the eye of the beholder. It is stated on that Methane alert site that the amount being released is still relatively small on a climate forcing basis, though it has increased by about 1/3 in the Arctic region in recent years. The question is what is the probability this increase will continue, and even accelerate on a geometric basis as the rapid warming continues?

On another note, perhaps we need more methane monitoring stations in Siberia and other permafrost areas.

Yes, that agrees with the eposter about Arctic CH4 levels rising quite a bit in the past 5 years.

I also see a trend in the AIRS data at latitudes around 60N where there's more rise over land rather than over the ocean. Perhaps related to soil/vegetation release?

"Losing the Arctic summer sea ice will accelerate the already rapid rate of Arctic warming, which will increase the rate of methane being emitted by the warming Arctic.

This emergency situation for survival

must go straight to the top of the global climate change agenda."

http://www.arctic-me...ncy-group.org/#

"Professor Peter Wadhams, on behalf of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, spoke about this critical issue at the December 2011 American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco, USA. Key elements of his talk have been widely reported, following an article in the UK's Independent newspaper. (Please find copies of this and subsequent articles attached.)

The substance of our concerns – and the basis for these media reports – is outlined in the attached 16-page document entitled Arctic Methane Alert. To summarise:

• The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and increased warming of the Arctic seas threaten methane hydrate instability and a massive catastrophic release of methane into the atmosphere, as noted in IPCC AR4.

• Research published by N. Shakhova* shows that methane is already venting into the atmosphere from seabed methane hydrates on the East Siberian Arctic shelf, or ESAS (the world's largest continental shelf), which, if allowed to escalate, would likely lead to abrupt and catastrophic global warming.

• The latest research expedition to the region (September/October 2011), according to Professor I. Semiletov, witnessed methane plumes on a "fantastic scale," "some one kilometer in diameter," "far greater" than previous observations, which were officially reported in 2010 to equal methane emissions from all the other oceans put together.

• The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and subsequent increased Arctic surface warming will inevitably increase the rate of methane emissions already being released from Arctic wetlands and thawing permafrost.

• The latest available data indicates there is a 5-10% possibility of the Arctic being ice free in September by 2013, more likely 2015, and with 95% confidence by 2018. This, according to the recognised world authorities on Arctic sea ice, Prof. Wadhams and Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski, is the point of no return for summer sea ice. Once past this point, it could prove impossible to reverse the retreat by any kind of intervention. The data indicate the Arctic could be ice free for six months of the year by 2020 (PIOMAS 2011)."

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

Ken Caldeira, Professor of Environmental Earth System Sciences, Stanford University, US;

Ed Dlugokencky, PhD, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US;

Michel Halbwachs, Professor of Physics, University of Savoie, France;

Veli Albert Kallio, Chairman of the Frozen Isthmuses’ Protection Campaign, UK/Finland;

Jon Egill Kristjansson, Professor of meteorology, Oslo University, Norway;

Mike MacCracken, PhD, Climate Institute, Washington, US;

David Mitchell, Associate Research Professor, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, DRI, US;

Brian Orr, PhD, former Principle Scientific Officer, Department of the Environment

Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering at Edinburgh University, UK;

Natalia Shakhova, PhD, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska, US;

Igor Semiletov, PhD, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska, US;

Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, Cambridge University, UK;

Leonid Yurganov, PhD, Dept of Physics, University of Toronto, Canada.

Skier, if you are going to accuse someone of "a complete lie", at least have something to back it up. Are you accusing these guys of making up a complete lie and sending it off to world leaders?

Yes, here is a related poster that summarizes some of these issues:

http://eposters.agu....12/Poster-2.pdf

What then is the reason global methane values have drifted more upward the past 4-5 years? Could it be from surface vegetation in warmer and wetter sub-arctic areas? What's happening in the arctic is significant on a global scale if you look at the higher average methane readings at high latitudes (post #66). This is a significant source region I would think.

Good question, hard to say for sure. I see in post #322 a periodicity in the spikes that seems to be of an annual frequency. And for 2011 in Barrow there were more spikes between June and November compared with other months. In post #319 (top figure) we see more spikes Jun-Nov in both 2009 and 2010, though not so much in 2008.

I'm unsure if the seasonal trend of mean values (as you show in monthly means at Barrow) is well correlated to the frequency of spikes or not.

Thanks for the link - I'd not noticed that page.

The methane spikes shown seem to increase over time with a large seasonal signal more or less in sync with CO2.

Yes, looks like more spikes in the warmer months when the soil is thawing and vegetation is active.

Any idea when the "Methane Tracker" will be available?

Unsure on the timing - it's been in the works for a while. Here though is a poster on Carbon Tracker for some general info and its extension called Carbon Tracker Methane is mentioned.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/posters_pdf/tans_poster.pdf

When you walk down that hall could you find out how we can see the preliminary data including the flagged data?

The FTP site is working for me now, and I can see the flagged data available here, though only up to the end of 2010. Column 14 represents the flag settings...

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa...._ccgg_event.txt

Here's an interesting comparison up till the beginning of 2011 showing both flask and in-situ measurements. We see spikes in the past, and these spikes are better sampled by the more frequent in-situ measurements (if we can plot all the points).

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

And thus below is 2011 hourly in-situ averages of Methane at Barrow so we can get a good view of the spike events over the year (up until Dec 12).

ESRL/GMD is also working on a "Methane Tracker" that will strive to model the sources and sinks of methane over time based on the observations.