LithiaWx

CSt68

This particular thread is dealing with methane emissions that may or may not be increasing with or without man's assistance.

You are correct re. diesel autos, but wish you would move your argument to a more appropriate thread. Perhaps the one regarding natural vs man made warming.

Thanks

TerryM for moderator!

I love how some of you were so sure that the readings were accurate and even after NOAA said they are not some are still insisting they are. This is the opposite of agw denial ism.

^

This times a billion.

Phillip

The Barrow flasks have indeed been suspect since the discrepancy was first noted by Mathesda. AIR seems to be showing large emissions from iced over areas of the Arctic with much smaller seeps from ice free zones. I wonder if the bugs that eat methane also require oxygen to do their thing, and that the fairly anaerobic conditions under the ice shut them down. If so loosing the ice cover could retard atmospheric CH4 while at the same time allowing greater amounts to be released at the sea floor due to wave action and heating of the water column.

In this case a small atmospheric CO2 rise might be noted as well as increased oceanic acidification - not a great result, but easier to deal with than catastrophic warming.

I'm awaiting the April release of S&S's report, and hoping.

This is cute, I'll give you that.

Updated..

me and orange shirt my friends all make fun of. Taken last weekend

real men wear pink.

It seems that you are the one who is confused. Here is the long term CH4 plot from Barrow as of 12/31/2011:

The high methane readings are there. Now here's this year's plot, also from 12/31/2011:

The anomalous high readings are shown on this one, too. So why are you claiming that the readings are obviously not correct? Granted, they are shown in orange to indicate that they are still provisional, but that's a big difference from saying that they are incorrect.

Also, be aware that if you are trying to use the "Some - a subset of the available data" option on the ESRL webpage - it is a bit buggy and may not plot all data points. But that's an issue for you to take up with the webmaster if it bothers you.

Look at the date on the bottom of the graph and the dates from the bottom of the ones I'm posting. It's old information that is not showing up on the newer graphs.

Vergent we agree to disagree on this subject, anymore arguing by either of us is futile. Do you agree?

Why do you keep asking for something you do not want?

Then you ignore this, a methane spike in California that tracks back to the East Siberian upper atmosphere. Which suggests that the bulk of the methane is in the upper atmosphere. Something I and others suspected.

It is also detected at other stations, just whiffs, but highest on record.

Siberian Seas Seethe Swamp Smell

Here is the ESS boiling methane, above is the trajectory map that carries it to California where we get the highest methane measurement on record. Is the reality of the situation sinking in yet?

"Give me even one more station reporting a rise in Methane like Barrow and then I'll believe."

Wow, where to start? Why do you continue to use Barrow's false readings as an argument? The wind trajectories you posted don't even have the air moving over the arctic at all. California's rise in methane if accurate is no where near the extreme levels I objected to wrt Barrow's readings. I said show me another station with methane levels rising as sharply as Barrow's. The California one you posted is not even close and Barrows have not spiked at all recently. I think I'm done arguing with you. If you want to keep posting an erroneous graph from Barrow to prove your point, go ahead. Everyone who has read the thread knows they are inaccurate, all it does is cause you to lose credibility every time you post garbage. Methane levels are rising worldwide, to see a slightly higher than normal reading from a few months ago is not strange. The trend is up and we have set new methane records over and over again this is not a new development.

If methane were to spike as high as the Barrow one did before the correction then I would agree we have a serious issue. Right now we have a group of scientists with some data that has not even been written into a paper or peer reviewed yet. You are jumping the gun.

Multiple stations have had recent, all time high readings consistant with methane whiffs pulled south by the jet stream.

Why do you continue to use the older Barrow data when it has been proven wrong? The data is not accurate, you know it but yet you still use it. The graph you posted was from the 12th, the more recent graph from the 28th shows the reading was obviously not correct which I said over and over again before it was proven. The other stations are not much to note either, they are consistent with a slow global rise in Methane levels worldwide. Why are you continuing to propagate the lie that Barrow saw a rise/spike in methane of nearly 20% when it was obviously an error?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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,

Sorry you can't figure it out.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the topic prior to commenting, I don't see why the rest of us should wait for you to catch up though, so:

Barrow seems to be the only station with any chance of getting a whiff of the emissions, but, S&S will be presenting figures directly from the affected area in April - and they are warning us to " be open to the idea that new observations may significantly change what we understand about our world."

​I find little solace in that statement.

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.

American Weather Rules & Restrictions Boardwide Rules

• No porn or links to porn
  
• No threats of physical violence through postings or PMs
  
• No excessive trolling of other members
  

You may not post private messages or any part thereof unless you have approval from the originator. Weather Forum Rules

• No politics/religious discussion
  
• No foul language
  
• No personal attacks/OT arguing
  
• Try to stay on topic
  
• Attack the idea, not the poster
  
• Spell out your forecast/thinking/opposing viewpoint clearly
  
• If you post a map, explain it
  

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.

A 10,000 km^2 area is only 100 km wide.

Even if it 150 km wide, after it crosses the arctic ocean, it still takes some luck to hit one of the three arctic stations.

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 actually forgot about my post until now

Anywho...Thanks, but I thought, as usual, I looked rather stupid lol

You're crazy lol I normally wear sunglasses so that's why I had them on...plus it makes me look a little less ugly I've always thought but I could be wrong lol. I got to leave here in a bit and probably won't have time until tomorrow or friday but I'll think about embarrassing myself some more and take a new pic without the glasses lol

But on the other hand, you look great in those. I don't think I've ever seen your pic before but for some reason that's what I thought you would look like. You make a lot better picture than I do, that's for sure

I saw your pic before man, you look normal, not stupid. Quit being so hard on yourself and post away.