LithiaWx
-
Posts
9,945 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by 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
-
answers in red
-
I got the image from a post Vergent made. I tried to recreate the image off the site you linked and was unable to.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. 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. Have a nice day,
-
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. 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.
-
I saw your pic before man, you look normal, not stupid. Quit being so hard on yourself and post away.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Those ridiculous C4 anomalies are not showing up on any other locations. Why are you do hell bent on assuming the data is accurate when no other locations support a rise of over 20% in concentration. Cold Bay, AK, Nunavut, Canada and the location in Greenland do not show similar data.
-
I don't agree with you but for arguments sake what should we do about it? We warn people and tell them to do what? What are you going to do to stop this catastrophe? How many people are going to die because of this earth shattering discovery?
-
Vergent, half of what you just posted has nothing to do with methane. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with all those links. I'll wait for more data to come out, you can panic.
-
I'd like to see much more data, the survey is not even complete yet as I understand it. Do you not see the problem with getting upset before we have the full picture? All we have are as few snippets from the team. Again we don't know the significance of this yet, before going off the deep end don't you thnk we should try and gather more data first? Has the team even released it's report yet? Using words like over a relatively small area and should be don't instill much confidence in me yet.
-
Lots of people in this forum talk about being scientific. I have heard some very unscientific things being said in here. Such as "I have a bad feeling about this" and "This the other shoe we have been waiting on to drop". We don't know the significance and scale of this at all. Let's get some more data before folks go jumping the shark. Does this raise a concern for me? yes. Am I worried? no, not yet. Let's see what data we get on this then make the doomsday predictions if they are needed. Right now we have virtually no data about this new development and the study is not even complete and some folks are jumping off the deep end.
-
Weather References and Newbie Information
LithiaWx replied to burgertime's topic in Southeastern States
you could add a few links in the maps section so people can see models for themselves. This is a great thread, pin-worthy. http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/NCOMAGWEB/appcontroller http://raleighwx.americanwx.com/models.html http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~gadomski/ewall.html -
Devastating tornado strikes Joplin, Missouri
LithiaWx replied to Hoosier's topic in Weather Forecasting and Discussion
Omg, really unimaginable the force that would be required to do this.