skierinvermont
-
Posts
13,101 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by skierinvermont
-
1. Much higher? It appears to me that arctic as well as global concentrations have continued to rise at a very slow rate as they have for the last 5 years. Much much slower than they were rising for most of the last 80 years. And below predicted. Methane has risen 1000ppb over the last 100 years but suddenly the blogosphere is freaking out over a 10ppb increase. 2. My sole point was that the AIRS scale is fine and doesn't need to be changed as you suggested based off an inappropriate combination of surface and 400mb CH4 concentration data. 3. Are you seriously saying the Kara is ice free due to methane being a few ppb higher than last year? What a joke. Have you never heard of weather? or the fact that the globe and arctic have been rising for 100 years due primarily to CO2? 4. Nobody ever said that CH4 or CO2 are EXACTLY evenly distributed. Both gases have some very small local variation. CH4 has risen 1000ppb over the last 100 years.. which dwarfs any local variation.
-
The line of best fit for below is ~1/ppb/yr. Barrow AK != the entire arctic.
-
Funny this massive new fascination with arctic methane when the rate of increase in the arctic over recent years at 1ppb is much less than the increase in the Antarctic at 6ppb. Why is everyone suddenly fixated with this 1ppb increase in the arctic and not the 6ppb/yr increase in the Antarctic? Because in the Antarctic there is no potential for sudden catastrophic methane release. And thus no opportunity for alarmist headlines.
-
AIRS is at 400mb and Barrow is on the surface where CH4 concentrations are higher.
-
Then you ignore the basic physics of GHGs which dictate that any local variation in CH4 concentrations are far too tiny to have a significantly different temperature impact. The local variation in CH4 concentrations are a small fraction of the 1000ppb increase in CH4 concentrations that have occurred globally which themselves cumulatively only represent a small fraction of the total GHG radiative forcing of the last century. The radiative forcing of CH4 is not significantly different in the arctic as anywhere else.
-
That graph shows methane increasing at 1ppb/year. Let's make the radical assumption of DOUBLING that to 2/ppb year. Arctic methane concentrations will only be 2050ppb in the year 2100... far below any IPCC projection. What we are witnessing are TINY TINY TINY methane increases that don't even come close to corroborating IPCC projections.. never mind the doomsday scenarios being claimed by alarmists. Global methane concentrations remain far below IPCC projections and are increasing at a slower rate than IPCC projections.
-
Your usage of the phrase "watts per year" tells me you do not know what the term watt means. A watt is a unit of power not energy.
-
Most people don't understand the complexity and fragility of nature. There are countless examples of unintended consequences.
-
The only thing alarming here is the willful ignoring of science. The science provides these reasons NOT to be alarmed: 1. The new large plumes found are in previously unexplored areas and so there is little basis to conclude that these plumes are a new phenomenon. 2. The new large plumes were found in deeper water farther offshore than that previously explored. This deep water would take longer to respond to recent agw and it should be the shallow water which responds first. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that these deep water plumes are responding to an old long term warming. This conclusion is strengthened by #3. 3. All modeling studies i am aware of conclude that it will take hundreds of years for arctic methane release to occur and that a large increase in methane concentration this century is improbable. 4. Arctic methane release this decade has been insufficient to raise regional methane concentration seriously, nevermind globally. 5. The long term warming of the last 10k years is both a sufficient explanation for these plumes and by far the most probable explanation according to modeling.
-
If it did represent an uptick due to agw that would be concerning but there isn't any evidence of that. The evidence is that this is a normal natural uptick and that the vaste majority of the 3200 gt is stable. This idea that 3200 gt is about to explode is nonsense. "ready" in this case means theoretically releasable given enough warming and especially TIME.
-
All you are doing is taking the word ready out of context.
-
Most of those 3200GT is buried deep in the arctic and would take 1000s of years to be released, if ever. All you are doing is looking at that 3200GT number and then in wishful ignorance assuming that this will suddenly belch from deep under the surface into the atmosphere. You are wishcasting and making wild assumptions with absolutely zero basis in fact or physics. The RC author assumes a 100-fold increase in methane emissions and finds that even in this bizarre and highly improbable worst case scenario which contradicts all modeling and observation to date, CH4 is still only comparable to CO2 and the effect is much more short-lived.
-
"so far there has not been strong evidence of agw enhanced methane release." But certain posters here will no doubt ignore this.
-
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.
-
At no point do they say that recent emissions are related to recent warming. In fact several of the scientists quoted specifically say it is not. All that the above quotes say is that in the future warming may cause methane release.
-
Hard to say for sure, as we have a poor accounting of the global methane budget. But humans continue to spew vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere. A slight increase in our emissions, or a slight decrease in the natural buffering capacity would send methane levels rising again, as they have risen from 750 to nearly 2000ppb in the last 150 years due to direct human emissions.
-
This is a complete lie that has been corrected multiple times throughout this thread. The field scientists are not saying 'it's happening.' They are also saying that it's not happening and that it is unlikely that recent methane release is related to recent global warming. Nor does the amount of methane occasionally emanating from the arctic and unrelated to recent global warming appear to be significant on a global scale.
-
Yep papers were posted earlier stating that it's not physically possible for the methane release to be occurring due to recent climate change because it takes longer for the sea floor to warm. Good to know that even the lead researchers investigating these plumes do not believe them to be due to recent climate change. And yet some in this thread are latching onto this study as proof of imminent CAGW
-
Still no idea what those charts are showing.
-
I remain unconvinced either way as to the validity of the Barrow readings. I would have expected to see more of a spike at Poker Flats considering it's not that far away. There's not spike at all at Poker Flats, while BRW shoots up nearly 300ppb and has remained elevated for 3 weeks. I also don't know what that graph of the flights from Greenland to BRW are showing.. the axis is 'elevation'??? what does this have to do with Ch4? I don't see any other data corroborating the BRW readings. Supposedly Alert and Svalbard show no such spike, and the boiling sea observations were occurring in the Laptev and ESB.
-
Wrong... 'normal' CH4 over the last 2000 years was near 750ppb, It's now approaching 3X that at 1900ppb globally.
-
It could be a leak somewhere in the equipment only certain gases are being affected. There's no reason for CO2 to be spiking and H2 to be crashing.
-
What is it you are trying to show? The CO2 and Hydrogen measurements are also out of whack.
-
The Barrow readings are probably incorrect. Other atmospheric measurements from the station are out of whack as well. It is generally wise to be suspicious of such anomalous readings.
-
Like I said, there may be other reasons, but the rise of CH4 which is largely/entirely attributable to direct human emissions, is not one of them.