LithiaWx

This suggests that we have more of a difference in attitude toward uncertainty than we may with the facts themselves (as they are known,) at least in regard to the CH4 question.

If I knew there was a high likelihood that massive amounts of CH4 would be released from the ESAS in the next 100 years, I'd be terrified. But the uncertainty around the question makes the risk impossible to assess accurately just now. As it is, I'm very much concerned that this MIGHT be true.

You seem to be not worried at all unless there is "peer reviewed evidence" that the catastrophe is going to happen, never mind all of the circumstantial indications that there is real (if unquantifiable) risk of this.

I can't understand this. The same approach to the terrorism risk after 9/11 would have us giving free flying lessons and plane tickets to all members of Al Qaeda..........

You are 100% correct wrt to the bold text I highlighted.

Well this potential has been discussed in many posts so far. Perhaps you might want to clarify how many Gt per year of methane and the percent probability to give us a point of reference?

idk... A large portion typically means most of it... From what I hear there are massive amounts down there. I was looking for peer reviewed papers that suggest most of that methane is unstable enough to be released in the next 100 years. Honestly, you are one of the only people in this thread who I feel is even worth responding to in a good faith manner. So there you have it.

It's not 100% definite, though this paper and other papers/letters that cite it suggest it is enough of a possibility to take seriously.

Also, there's enough methane in the ESAS so only a relatively small proportion would still have a climate impact.

You may have misread my OP. I was objecting to the idea that a large portion of the methane trapped in the ESAS has reasonable potential to be released in the next hundred years.

It's not 100% definite, though this paper and other papers/letters that cite it suggest it is enough of a possibility to take seriously.

Also, there's enough methane in the ESAS so only a relatively small proportion would still have a climate impact.

I read through it and didn't read that. If you have time could could show me this information? I would love to read it. I've heard the opposite that it is highly improbable that the vast amounts of methane stored there could have a large portion released in less than 100 years. I've heard a timescale more on the order of thousands of years.

If you review this thread you would find peer reviewed papers such as this:

http://www.sciencema...0/1246.abstract

if a large portion is released over the next century.

I missed the part that suggests a large portion of the methane trapped in the ESAS will be released in the next century.

Anthropogenic warming is melting permafrost on land and under the ESAS seabed and releasing unprecedented amounts of CH4 to the atmosphere - in essence we are opening the spigots on massive CH4 reservoirs with no confidence we can slow of stop future CH4 releases. By all estimates I've seen there is enough CH4 in these reservoirs to cause devestating climate change if a large portion is released over the next century. Remember, CH4 is many times more potent as a GHG than CO2 is.

This is not alarmism - it is simply alarming. And the discussion of what is happening and what the consequences may be is a perfect topic for this forum. If the discussion of today's reality and possible future scenarios bothers you for some reason then don't read the thread.

It's not going to be. There are no peer reviewed papers that suggest such a thing. Hence why this thread is a joke. There is a reason people like Don S and wxtrix have not said word one in this thread. They would never associate with such a crackpot theory. Skier did drop in but basically to call some of you out on how ridiculous the claims are.

Umm, I don't think it has to, I think it would come out of the open water that forms between cracks. Some of those cracks are 10-20 miles apart. The concentrations are built up in winter under the ice and will exhaust pretty strongly between cracks when it opens up.

It's not like it's not happening.

This is small potatoes, but it's an added positive feedback. this it self warms the atmosphere. No other way to slice it, expect the Arctic and Northern Hemisphere at large is retaining more heat that it was 10, 20, 30 and so on because of methane. This helps melt snow and ice faster which helps lower there effective albedos. This helps warm the water faster so methane hydrates can continue to melt further. Eventually methane oxidizes into Co2. This is a cycle from one thing to another that will help warm the Earth. That is important. And real.

The warming impact of CH4 is minimal to near nil and most anyone with credibility will tell you the warming from CH4 is

nearly non -existent. Also the idea that methane is venting from cracks in the ice is very weak. Unless the methane is right below the large cracks it's not venting from them. We have no idea exactly where the methane is being vented so the idea that it's hitting one of these very small areas with large cracks is a huge stretch. This thread is still a joke and I'd be embarrassed to be pushing the "CH4! OMG we are all going to die!" agenda. This thread needs to be closed and if you guys really wanted to have an honest discussion about methane a new thread should be created free of alarmism. Right now this thread is not helping current perceptions about alarmism.

I know that you're just trying to be funny with the cow fart reference. And, as we all know, a love of flatulence humor is the hallmark of a serious scientist. Who will ever forget Al "Pull my Finger" Einstein, or the annual whoopee cushion hilarity at the Nobel Awards ceremony each year?

If you're at all familiar with the Barrow Observatory, you probably know that the CH4 readings weren't from a wandering cow, or caribou. Here a shot from their live webcam:

The webcam is on the 10 meter tower they use for collecting air samples. The area appears solidly snow covered so I think the methane is coming from the ocean and not from land (decomposing vegetation). The observatory is about 8km from the village of Barrow so it's pretty safe to rule out rush hour traffic as the source of the CH4.

It can't be coming from the arctic, specifically the ESAS which got so much attention last year. Methane is not going to get through meters of ice. The readings are a blip and don't mean much, if anything for the moment. Alarmists will be alarmists... The thread title is just as much of a joke now as it was when the thread was created. It's really pretty embarrassing and should be shut down. If someone wants to talk seriously about CH4 a good start would be to stop posting in this ridiculous thread and start one that has a more reasonable title.

Lots of folks view these threads and individual posts with the hope of maybe learning something without ever posting here. The trolls need to be countered with credible information representing the side of mainstream science. Let the reader decide who makes the better case.

We can't convince those who can not be won over, but if we stay true to the science maybe we can influence the inquisitive and undecided.

Well, you're probably right since it is clear that he is not on speaking terms with reality. But the major reason I write is to provide info for the new readers who may not realize what a troll he is. Hopefully they still have a genuine interest in learning the truth.

Are you guys reading the same subtitle I am? But you really think that? huh... what a fooking joke. It's people like Vergent and TerryM who give the Climate Change subject such a terrible name.

Crisis; critical cryospheric carbon clathrate causation. catastrophic climatic calamity could commence.

Lots of folks view these threads and individual posts with the hope of maybe learning something without ever posting here. The trolls need to be countered with credible information representing the side of mainstream science. Let the reader decide who makes the better case.

We can't convince those who can not be won over, but if we stay true to the science maybe we can influence the inquisitive and undecided.

Not the best thread to post this comment in considering mainstream science thinks this thread is an abomination.

http://www.nature.co...mej201057a.html

It only needs to be a few watts/M^2 to equal the green house effect locally. Something is melting the ice in the Kara.

There is a word for it and it's called weather. I'll explain it to you. Winds which are caused by high and low pressure systems break apart thin ice. This is a weather board, you can't seriously be missing this.

The SOLAS regulations pertaining to muster drills are fairly short and straightforward. They require that the drill take place within 24 hours of embarkation. The regulations differentiate between a muster and a "safety briefing." According to SOLAS rules, whenever new passengers embark, a safety briefing must be held "immediately before sailing, or immediately after sailing," consisting of at least a PA announcement. This may be supplemented with other info -- by written materials contained within each cabin, for instance. Regulations require that the safety briefing provides "clear instructions" that "detail the actions each person on board should follow in the event of an emergency." But a muster, where passengers are physically assembled, is required only within 24 hours of sailing. (In Concordia's case, the muster drill was scheduled to take place after additional passengers boarded on Day 2 in Savona, Italy, which would have been within the required 24-hour window.)

As for life jackets, the rules don't specifically say that passengers must don them during the drills -- but they must be shown how to put them on.

In recent years, lines with bigger ships, including Royal Caribbean and Carnival, have concluded that moving upward of 5,000 passengers, outfitted in bulky life jackets, to their muster stations had become unmanageable. These lines have instituted a new version of the muster drill. According to Bud Darr, director of environmental and health programs for the Cruise Line International Association (CLIA), a membership organization that represents the major cruise lines, passengers now assemble in large public rooms, instead of on the open decks, where they await further instructions.

I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with the thread.

And exactly how do you know that? 90% of the arctic and Siberia are in the 1870+ category. You seem to be assuming that 1870+ = 1870.

Do you see the sporadic pixels that aren't 1870+ interlace in there. That's why this is just silly.

The SOLAS regulations pertaining to muster drills are fairly short and straightforward. They require that the drill take place within 24 hours of embarkation. The regulations differentiate between a muster and a "safety briefing." According to SOLAS rules, whenever new passengers embark, a safety briefing must be held "immediately before sailing, or immediately after sailing," consisting of at least a PA announcement. This may be supplemented with other info -- by written materials contained within each cabin, for instance. Regulations require that the safety briefing provides "clear instructions" that "detail the actions each person on board should follow in the event of an emergency." But a muster, where passengers are physically assembled, is required only within 24 hours of sailing. (In Concordia's case, the muster drill was scheduled to take place after additional passengers boarded on Day 2 in Savona, Italy, which would have been within the required 24-hour window.)

As for life jackets, the rules don't specifically say that passengers must don them during the drills -- but they must be shown how to put them on.

In recent years, lines with bigger ships, including Royal Caribbean and Carnival, have concluded that moving upward of 5,000 passengers, outfitted in bulky life jackets, to their muster stations had become unmanageable. These lines have instituted a new version of the muster drill. According to Bud Darr, director of environmental and health programs for the Cruise Line International Association (CLIA), a membership organization that represents the major cruise lines, passengers now assemble in large public rooms, instead of on the open decks, where they await further instructions.

wtf?

btw still a tiny increase

The percentage increase is tiny.

Since you guys are doing the retro thing here is one of me circa 1997ish. Taken in Panama City Beach,FL I was either a Sophomore or Junior in HS at the time.

My wife and I. Sorry about the size, not savvy enough to get it smaller. Congrats on the upcoming wedding Marietta, whens the date?

PS - the pic is about a year old... Ive got about as much hair as Brick now.

Thanks, it's March 3rd. Approaching very fast now lol

Here is a recent pic from my Engagement photo session.

I see I'm not the only one haunting Yurganov's archive, waiting for the December update.

Huff past is taking this seriously.

http://www.huffingto...tml#postComment

The Huffington Post? really? The place that thinks anything and everything Kim Kardashian is newsworthy?

LOL

AIRS animations almost alarming.

http://climateforce....ne-airs-videos/

I recommend November.

The entire scale from one side to to other represents about a 5% increase. Even though the colors look bad the total increase in the arctic is around 2% (give or take a bit) or so over of the course of that video. That's not alarming or even much of a concern for me, but to each their own.

For the record, while I am alarmed by a new source of GHG with the potential to multiply the current climate forcing, I am not panicked by it. There is a simple remediation.

• Ignite any strong local vents.
  
• Build a breakwater/railroad bridge across the Bering Strait. This would reduce the thermal import to the arctic by 1/3, and change the Arctic ice cap from a yearly net melt to a yearly net freeze. This would pay for itself.
  

These ideas are insane. We don't know the ramifications of doing either of these things. Big, big mistake.

This entire thread has no business being on a scientific forum. The subject I have no problem with but some of the posts in this thread are a joke.

The scale is shown at the bottom beginning at 1 minute into the video. The scale ranges from just under 1600 ppb to just over 1900 ppb. So the short-terms spikes over 2400 ppb recorded at Barrow (such as the one in 2004) were off the scale. And probably too localized to see on the global map.

Fair enough, I missed that tbh, it only stays on the screen for a few moments. That said I still can't get over the characterization of methane as farts right after he was talking about stations getting a whiff of methane a few days ago.

Honestly, when you have Friv and Skier saying that some posters in this thread are being alarmists, some of you should take a step back and consider if they are talking about you.

they used to publish daily global methane maps from the AIRS sensor. you can see methane farts coming out of the arctic on 1/18/05, 2/25/05, 2/3/07, 2/11/08, and 2/22/08. It seems they stopped publishing these maps and dumped the archive, too bad, bad timing.

BTW, thanks to the moderator.

The video is worthless, there is no scale to tell what the colors represent concentration wise for methane. Also I love your scientific use of the word farts, very professional.