Vergent
-
Posts
981 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Vergent
-
This question deserves a more thorough answer than I gave above. There are peer reviewed papers both showing that a massive methane release is possible and not. But observation trumps theory, and the reported increase suggests that the arguments that is impossible are false. This is probably because they had the wrong thawing point for the sediments. The reports are from credible sources, people that have been studding these deposits for decades, they have many highly cited papers to their credit. The question of why we are not detecting the methane is a red herring. Methane spikes are weeded out of the displayed data(flagged in the data set) even when they are believed to be accurate, because the purpose of this data set is to track global methane and they do not want their figures inflated by transient local releases. We will have to wait for this years data to be published to analyse the flagged data. Eventually this methane will become well mixed and we can then quantify it. The are ways to stop this process. 1/3 of the arctic ice melt each summer is caused by the warm Pacific water that enters through the Bering Strait. Russia has green lighted a RR tunnel across the strait. If instead we built a bridge with flood gates to modulate the flow, this alone would be enough to reverse the ice loss in the western arctic. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/BS2007Heat.html Its not so deep, so large spans could be landfill with gated gaps. Further it would pay for itself as a railroad link between the Asian manufacturers and the west. Building the railroad and the bridge/dam would probably get the world economy out of the doldrums.
-
Siberian Seas Seethe Swamp Smell THIS IS NOT GOOD.
-
agree I will not respond to you on this and you will not respond to me.
-
Would this not dilute the methane? This is a 10,000 mile trip. NOAA ESRL uses a 3-column quality control flag where each column is defined as follows: column 1 REJECTION flag. An alphanumeric other than a period (.) in the FIRST column indicates a sample with obvious problems during collection or analysis. This measurement should not be interpreted. column 2 SELECTION flag. An alphanumeric other than a period (.) in the SECOND column indicates a sample that is likely valid but does not meet selection criteria determined by the goals of a particular investigation. column 3 COMMENT flag. An alphanumeric other than a period (.) in the THIRD column provides additional information about the collection or analysis of the sample. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/ch4/flask/README_surface_flask_ch4.html Judging from the data set ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/ch4/flask/event/ch4_brw_surface-flask_1_ccgg_event.txt a single or a double high reading is flagged in column 1; bad data A string of four or more high readings is usually flagged in column 2; valid but does not meet the selection criteria. This data set they are trying to show the atmospheric baseline, short-term elevated values are tossed out of the graph, not the data set. I can guarantee that they are there, and they are probably flagged in the second column. This years data will be added to this data soon I hope. But to call it bad data without knowing how the displayed data is selected is self imposed ignorance. So all the high readings we are seeing will probably be flagged, and furthermore there are probably many valid high readings that never get displayed at all.
-
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."
-
Multiple stations have had recent, all time high readings consistant with methane whiffs pulled south by the jet stream. The Trinidad Head trajectory suggests that the methane vented to the stratosphere.
-
To the general public this process is called deprogramming.
-
Why did you decide that a topic about methane venting in the arctic was about you? Or your guru? Are you saying " Roy Spencer invented an imaginary paper to decieve the public, thats on him, not me."
-
Where is the link? You, as a scientist must always check your references. Even if it is your guru. "Of course I never defy science" Please, the subject is arctic methane venting. the 5049 people who have viewed this topic, are interested in this topic. Not what tin foil to wear as a hat
-
Another link to "fundanomics the free market simplified" This is spam
-
Thank you for your support.
-
Please, the subject is arctic methane venting. the 5049 people who have viewed this topic, are interested in this topic. Not what tin foil to wear as a hat.
-
It kind of looks like a link, but you click on it, and nothing happens.
-
can you find methane in this post? "Of course I never defy science, you're the one who has breached the scientific method, not me. I think you'll find very shortly that your side is wrong. We'll see. " This post is about you is it not? So, posting about you is the new topic. Is it not? So, now You making up fake references is fair game. You made the topic you. "I never defy science" is a statement of fact or falsehood. "New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011" This is a post you made. Back it up with a link.
-
Then quit blowing methane on my topic. By the way the "copy-paste and link it here for you." did not work. More methane.
-
all I get when I google "Christy et al 2011" is: FUNDANOMICS: The Free Market, Simplified http://www.fundanomics.org/ Is this the Spencer you are talking about? Is this your guru? What does he have to say about methane venting in the arctic?
-
Except when you make it up. "New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011"
-
okay, "Siberian Seas Seethe Swamp Smell", it is But, what about; "Arctic Ass Airing Ardently"
-
Someone, please help BB with his socks.
-
The jet stream may be bring down whiffs
-
I suppose so. By the way, does "vast area of ocean boiling with methane" sound like an appropriate caption for that picture?
-
I found this picture by searching in Russian. Siberian Seas Seethe Swamp Smell http://planeta.moy.s...011-12-19-11793 http://www.ht-magazi...ye-zalezhi.html
-
Here is a reassuring article. It quotes some very respectable climatologists that say basically that since the clathrate gun hasn't gone off in the last 800.000 years it must be impossible. There is one problem with this reasoning. Which year in the past 800,000 years is comparable to the present? http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/more-views-on-global-warmin-and-arctic-methane/ The GHG forcing in the present is significantly stronger than anytime in the past 800,000 years. The the important thing with methane release is the rate of release, because of the short half life in the atmosphere. On the one hand the theoretical scientists are saying "its impossible", on the other hand the field scientists are saying "its happening"
-
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.gov/gmd/ozwv/traj.html Please read the thread before posting.
-
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.
