LocoAko

Fantastic. Thanks for all your hard work Brett! 

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but yikes.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/california-natural-gas-leak-methane-climate-change-old-infrastructure?CMP=share_btn_tw

Not Arctic, but thought I'd share.

http://news.agu.org/press-release/satellite-data-shows-u-s-methane-hot-spot-bigger-than-expected/

SATELLITE DATA SHOWS U.S. METHANE ‘HOT SPOT’ BIGGER THAN EXPECTED

9 October 2014

Joint Release

WASHINGTON, D.C. – One small “hot spot” in the U.S. Southwest is responsible for producing the largest concentration of the greenhouse gas methane seen over the United States – more than triple the standard ground-based estimate — according to a new study of satellite data.

Methane is very efficient at trapping heat in the atmosphere and, like carbon dioxide, it contributes to global warming. The hot spot, near the Four Corners intersection of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, covers only about 6,500 square kilometers (2,500 square miles), or half the size of Connecticut.

This map shows anomalous U.S. methane emissions (that is, how much the emissions are higher or lower than average) for 2003-2009, as measured by SCIAMACHY. Purple and dark blue areas are below average. Pale blue and green areas are close to normal or slightly elevated. Yellows and red indicate higher-than-normal anomalies, with more intense colors showing higher concentrations. The Four Corners area is the only red spot on the map.

This map shows anomalous U.S. methane emissions (or how much the emissions differ from average background concentrations) for 2003 to 2009, as measured by the European Space Agency’s SCIAMACHY instrument. Purple and dark blue areas are below average. Pale blue and green areas are close to normal or slightly elevated. Yellows and red indicate higher-than-normal anomalies, with more intense colors showing higher concentrations. The Four Corners area – the area where Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah meet — is the only red spot on the map.

Credit:NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Michigan

In each of the seven years studied from 2003-2009, the area released about 0.59 million metric tons (0.65 million U.S. tons) of methane into the atmosphere. This is almost 3.5 times the estimate for the same area in the European Union’s widely used Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research.

In the study published online today in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, researchers used observations made by the European Space Agency’s Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography (SCIAMACHY) instrument. SCIAMACHY measured greenhouse gases from 2002 to 2012. The atmospheric hot spot persisted throughout the study period. A ground station in the Total Carbon Column Observing Network, operated by the Department of Energy’s Los Alamos National Laboratory, provided independent validation of the measurement.

To calculate the emissions rate that would be required to produce the observed concentration of methane in the air, the authors performed high-resolution regional simulations using a chemical transport model, which simulates how weather moves and changes airborne chemical compounds.

Research scientist Christian Frankenberg of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, first noticed the Four Corners signal years ago in SCIAMACHY data.

“We didn’t focus on it because we weren’t sure if it was a true signal or an instrument error,” Frankenberg said.

The study’s lead author, Eric Kort of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted the study period predates the widespread use of hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, near the hot spot. This indicates the methane emissions should not be attributed to fracking but instead to leaks in natural gas production and processing equipment in New Mexico’s San Juan Basin, which is the most active coalbed methane production area in the country.

Natural gas is 95-98 percent methane. Methane is colorless and odorless, making leaks hard to detect without scientific instruments.

“The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried,” Kort said. “There’s been so much attention on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, but we need to consider the industry as a whole.”

Coalbed methane is gas that lines pores and cracks within coal. In underground coal mines, it is a deadly hazard that causes fatal explosions almost every year as it seeps out of the rock. After the U.S. energy crisis of the 1970s, techniques were invented to extract the methane from the coal and use it for fuel. By 2012, coalbed methane supplied about 8 percent of all natural gas in the United States.

Frankenberg noted that the study demonstrates the unique role space-based measurements can play in monitoring greenhouse gases.

“Satellite data cannot be as accurate as ground-based estimates, but from space, there are no hiding places,” Frankenberg said.

In March 2014 the Obama Administration announced a strategy to reduce methane emissions under its Climate Action Plan. The strategy includes improving the measurement and monitoring of methane emissions and assessing current methane emissions data.

Your blog was tweeted by someone I follow & I read it there. Great write up. My Mom said it was a fairly somber day in Joplin yesterday. (heightened by the events in Moore I'm sure) After moving there from the Ft Lauderdale area. She is more certain than ever she will spend the rest of her life in Joplin. The will of the people there along with the kindness just over whelm her. She had to stop by Wal Mart yesterday & a random group of people where collecting the same supplies JoMo spoke about to send to Moore. She pitched in and did her part & then just broke down. When I talked to her last night she was just astounded by the acts of the people in the Midwest.

Can you do monthly break down. Im guessing the one extra you have is from Jun 10th.

See edit above. I believe the extra is 91F on April 16th.

Adding New Brunswick, NJ through today:

90 degree days: 17 (April: 1, May: 2, June: 6, July: 8)

89 degree days: 1

http://thinkprogress...rce=twitterfeed

Link to a very nice explanation of how low ice in the Arctic leads to high amplitude jet streams and potentially more and longer snowy periods at lower latitudes.

Helpful for us unwashed, at least.

I post it here because the comparison of the ice maps for 1980 and 2007 shows that the ESAS region is where most of the reduction in summer extent has occurred.

I know that correlation is not causation (this is not a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument!), but an argument COULD be raised to defend the idea that either one of these events (CH4 release and sea ice loss) might credibly play a role in facilitating the other.............

Dr. Francis!

It must be different everywhere. Wisconsin had a major focus on forecasting the weather along with the science. Synoptic meteorology, mesoscale meteorology, and radar and satellite took me from a novice to actually knowing what I'm doing. Other classes added bits and pieces to the forecasting puzzle too.

Well both our synoptic and mesoscale courses have extremely heavy focuses on forecasting (we're required to forecast every day, write summaries if we bust, use GEMPAK to forecast, etc.) but I'm not going to claim that when you graduate with a B.S. that you're a "good" forecaster just because you earned a BS and I think you know that wouldn't be true too - that was my point.

this is a possibilty...

but, i don't know the first thing about forecasting...getting my masters isn't going to teach me the operational forecasting meat and potatoes you get through undergrad...which is what i'm interested in...

i have thought about going into the Air Force

I think you'd be surprised at how little forecasting there is in undergrad. I mean, it is there, but it isn't a primary focus. I gather most forecasting skills are picked up along the way (using the knowledge you gained in school) and on-the-job. I know that even at bigger programs like Penn State, while graduate school is obviously researched-focused, they even have forecasting classes at the graduate level. So don't get too down about it.

Not to mention Mathematics and Computer Science? Something sounds screwy about that! Maybe Mathematics majors are doing ok (ones I know from my experience are) and Computer Science majors are ok (dido), but people with the combined degree are not getting a job specific to that major? IDK...

I noticed that they didn't specifically state it was 'in the field'. I wonder if that is to be implied or not? If it isn't, then I can easily see why meteorologists are so highly employed.

And yeah, boo to petroleum engineering. If we were interested in that we would have gone into it... The end.

Very cool graphic. I'm honostly pretty surprised that atmospheric science jobs are that highly employed. Although thinking back on it, just about everyone in my graduating class in 2006 got a job or went to grad school (and later got a job) in the field.

Also surprised that nuclear engineering is ranked high amongst unemployed, there is a big market for them right now

That and Biomedical Engineering. Would have assumed that was a big up-and-coming thing. Poor Studio Art.

For the average salary, I wonder if Meteorology should be included under Physical Sciences. ~$69,000 is certainly not bad....

Saw an interesting "Infographic" posted this morning.... Note: Meteorologists/Atmospheric Scientists are listed as having a near-100% employment rate and is the 10th most employed field.

Not only do people not know (or sometimes care?) what the difference is between a watch and a warning, but I think some of the media does an awful job of communicating it.

Example: My very first day here in Oklahoma last Saturday, a supercell erupted to our SE in Ada that had a tornado warning, and there were other storms around that had severe thunderstorm warnings associated with them. To my surprise, the scroll on the bottom of the screen on the local news (in Oklahoma of all places!) simply said "...A severe thunderstorm has been issued for _____".

Seriously?

So glad to hear you're okay, JoMo, and my thoughts are with you as you deal with this. Thanks for checking in.

If you love your job, you will never work a day in your life.

I would recommend (and reiterate what many many others have said in this thread) that you diversify your degree. If you major in metereorology, see if you can minor in math, or computor science, or oceanography, or anything else. It will be hard, but worth it

I'm minoring in Environmental Science, but do you actually think a minor really helps that much in getting employed? It is hardly the same as a double major and I don't think it makes one much more qualified to do something. Maybe just shows interest/drive?

From Bamawx:

That video was fantastic - the views of the mesovortices was unreal.. I'm sure they will be studied for further research.

Unreal footage from University Mall in Tuscaloosa.

3:00 min in is where the action starts really cranking.

Holy moly! Wow.

I had a dream last night that this thread quietly went away. Then I woke to this NIGHTMARE!

Sorry, I actually had something to add to it that was relevant (God forbid, you know?). I thought about posting it in the OT version but thought it was more pertinent here.

CareerCast (and I've seen this repeated on multiple other outlets) ranked being a meteorologist as the 6th best job to have in 2011.

http://www.careercas...jobs-best-worst

Average salary: $85,210 (methodology explains this isn't exactly an 'average')

Explanation of their methodology: http://www.careercas...ted-methodology

regarding the find a job anywhere thing, you gotta remember some people are in committed relationships or have family responsibilities preventing them from wanting to do this. Hence my saying that unless meteorology is the most important thing in your life and your willing to do anything for it you should probably find a different field since you won't be able to pick where you live.

Or you could just demand that your significant other move.

I think he was more focusing on the people who fit that bill who do get through the program basically implying they are screwing everyone around them in the field and don't even really have much of an interest yet they are stealing alot of the jobs.

He may be bitter, but if they did well in their classes and got internships and competed and got jobs, he has no right to blame them for that. They got it fair and square. IT doesn't make sense to dislike them because you don't deem them interested enough compared to you.

The people that need to get out are the ones who are like "oh, meteorology sounds cool - i'd love to chase storms some day. After watching twister it looks like it'd be so fun". These are the people who are responsible for the soaring numbers of mets and a good deal of them would have probably choose another career if they new the realities of the field. This was the whole reason for my post.

This is true, and a few of them remain in my classes even going to into being a Spring semester Junior. However, most of those people don't love it enough to hack the math and drop out of the major in the first two years.

Besides, I know grades don't mean that much, but do the people who go into the major with that mindset normally get tons of internships and great grades? I doubt that is your main competition....

So in that case, does Kean's meteorology program meet the federal meteorological requirements, as well as the AMS defined requirements?

Good point. I guess I was just thinking more about how the atmosphere works as opposed to what it is composed of. Atmospheric chemistry...that sounds like an interesting field. Would a dual degree in Chemistry and Meteorology be requisite to get in to that sort of thing?

I don't know if it would be a prerequisite but I know isohume has posted that a minor in chemistry or even a double major would help you immensely in getting into the air pollution and permitting field... I just couldn't bare the thought...

That brings up a question that's been in the back of my mind that maybe a Met could answer...does Chemistry ever come in handy in this field? I have a hard time thinking of a time where it would.

Yes. A lot of atmospheric pollution stuff deals directly with chemistry. Fate and transport, the chemistry and makeup of the pollution, etc. Not to mention that to understand the atmosphere yu have to have an understanding of its constitutents. It may not be using the details from your Gen Chem class but you do deal with some chemistry stuff (though obviously moreso physics).