Jump to content

LithiaWx

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,945

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by LithiaWx

    This is not good.

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    For those who are complaining that more stations are not detecting the methane, this is how narrowly distributed a localized emission is(in this case ash). We are lucky to have caught a whiff of it at Barrow.

    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.

    "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,

    This is not good.

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    Barrows air is coming off the arctic fromGreenland, Greenlang, from northern Europe.

    The air did not have a methane spike when it left Greenland , but has a methane spike when it gets to Barrow. Looks like the arctic is the source of this methane to me.

    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.

    This is not good.

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    "When the AO index is positive, surface pressure is low in the polar region. This helps the middle latitude jet stream to blow strongly and consistently from west to east, thus keeping cold Arctic air locked in the polar region."

    http://en.wikipedia....tic_oscillation

    aoindex122011.gif

    This fall we had measurements from a surface vessel and a wide ranging aircraft survey.

    The vessel measured "100 times normal", the aircraft:

    "Something too new to fully understand (although a report on it is being prepared for publication), Wofsy says, is a finding of notable concentrations of methane in the Arctic’s atmosphere that trace back to the sea."

    “We observed that the ocean surface releases methane to the atmosphere all over the whole of the Arctic Ocean,”

    http://www.sciencene...imate_surprises

    Now, these people will not get their data published until spring. So we should just ignore their warning? What do you want to talk about? 2009? We have lots of published data about that.

    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 :

    “We observed that the ocean surface releases methane to the atmosphere all over the whole of the Arctic Ocean,”

    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.

    This is not good.

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    THIS IS NOT GOOD.

    “It is High Time to Warn People”

    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?

    This is not good.

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    "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."

    "Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."

    "Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost"

    "Dr Semiletov's team published a study in 2010 estimating that the methane emissions from this region were about eight million tonnes a year"

    "In late summer, the Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted an extensive survey of about 10,000 square miles of sea off the East Siberian coast."

    "on a scale not seen before. Some plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal."

    How mutch more data do you need to see that this is not good?

    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.

    This is not good.

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    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.

    Post a recent picture of yourself

    in Southeastern States

    Posted

    Fishing out of Destin in April. Not up to speed onsizing a pic. I can delete if to big.

    Lol.... makes my fish look like a minnow, even though the ones in my photo were about 19"....Very nice!!I added one more photo to the OP too!!!Keep them coming guys, this is good stuff. And Dave all I can say is lmao, that was good stuff, I should send that post link to Josh lol.

    Last day of school with one of my teachers. Freshman in 2 weeks! :lol:

    Awesome man, was wondering what you looked like dude.

×
×
  • Create New...