PhillipS
-
Posts
1,210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by PhillipS
-
Anthropogenic warming is melting permafrost on land and under the ESAS seabed and releasing unprecedented amounts of CH4 to the atmosphere - in essence we are opening the spigots on massive CH4 reservoirs with no confidence we can slow of stop future CH4 releases. By all estimates I've seen there is enough CH4 in these reservoirs to cause devestating climate change if a large portion is released over the next century. Remember, CH4 is many times more potent as a GHG than CO2 is. This is not alarmism - it is simply alarming. And the discussion of what is happening and what the consequences may be is a perfect topic for this forum. If the discussion of today's reality and possible future scenarios bothers you for some reason then don't read the thread.
-
I know that you're just trying to be funny with the cow fart reference. And, as we all know, a love of flatulence humor is the hallmark of a serious scientist. Who will ever forget Al "Pull my Finger" Einstein, or the annual whoopee cushion hilarity at the Nobel Awards ceremony each year? If you're at all familiar with the Barrow Observatory, you probably know that the CH4 readings weren't from a wandering cow, or caribou. Here a shot from their live webcam: The webcam is on the 10 meter tower they use for collecting air samples. The area appears solidly snow covered so I think the methane is coming from the ocean and not from land (decomposing vegetation). The observatory is about 8km from the village of Barrow so it's pretty safe to rule out rush hour traffic as the source of the CH4.
-
Looking on the NOAA ESRL site at the data from the Barrow Observatory, they may be sampling the the first weak plumes of CH4 for this melt season. Here's the current in-situ hourly average CH4 plot for 2008 - present: It appears that the recent increase in CH4 levels is continuing and that the current concentration at Barrow is around 1900 ppm. The one data point at 2200 ppb may be a software artifact because it doesn't show up on all plots. What I found interesting is that the brief spikes of anomalously high readings (which are described on the site as "thought to be not indicative of background conditions, and represent poorly mixed air masses influenced by local or regional anthropogenic sources or strong local biospheric sources or sinks", i.e. plumes) seem to be starting earlier this year than in most years on record. Typically this sort of data pattern occurs in late summer to early fall. It will be interesting to see what this summer's melt season brings.
-
Well, you're probably right since it is clear that he is not on speaking terms with reality. But the major reason I write is to provide info for the new readers who may not realize what a troll he is. Hopefully they still have a genuine interest in learning the truth.
-
Actually, I can't tell that you get anything at all - 'clueless' is the kindest description for your posts. Certainly your backward interpretation of Terry's post is a good example. The various posters who have pointed out the seriousness and inevitability of global ice melting and the cosequencial sea level rise don't want it to happen - we are trying to wake people up to the reality that unless we reduce GHG emissions it is going to happen - and, in fact, a strong case can be made that it has already started. How about a quick review of the facts: Fact - global temperatures have been rising for more than a century Fact - global ice is melting Fact - there is ample ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to raise sea levels more than 10 meters if the melting continues. Fact - the global ice melting will continue until a new equilibrium is reached or until the ice is gone. Fact - under BAU we will continue to dump gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere, pushing the global temperatures higher than today's temperature Fact - the cost of adapting or mitigating several meters of coastal inundation in America and worldwide will be staggering. Which of those facts do you either not understand or dispute? All of them can be supported with data so just let us know where your confusion lies and we'll help clear it up. And the only fact that we have any control over is number 5. We can change that amount of GHGs we emit. I'm not saying that would be easy, or inexpensive, But the first four facts are observed data and basic physics. The people who face facts are simply being realistic. Nothing in their actions implies that they want the consequences to occur. But those who deny the facts, or who choose wilful ingorance instead of facing the facts - well, those people are acting in a fashion consistent with wanting, or at least not caring whether, the disaster to occur. So - what are you doing to keep sea level rise from occuring? How are you proving you care about those who would be affected by sea level rise? Posting snark and ill-considered opinions, which is all we've seen from you, seems pretty lame. But maybe that's all you're capable of. .
-
Could you help me understand where you got the 1 ppb per year figure. Just looking at the ESRL chart it appears that the arctic is also increasing at about 6 ppb per year - at least for recent years.
-
I wouldn't take too much comfort in the anomaly plot because it is showing global methane values, not arctic. Globally methane is well mixed that makes it harder to notice sudden increases such as the ones this thread is discussing. Here is the ESRL methane plot from the other pole, the South Pole Observatory, for 2009 to the present: Now that is pretty data - the readings track the annual cycle very closely with little variance. Notice that the values have risen from just over 1740 ppb to 1760 ppb during the period shown - I'd call it around 6 ppb/year. In terms of percentage that's not a huge rate of increase, roughly 0.3%/year, but the rate has accelerated in the past decade and that is why it's worrisome to many people.
-
I think that the polar methane plot is overdue for revision, at least for its scale. Here is the ESRL daily average methane chart for Barrow for 2011 and 1/2012: Notice that the readings have not gone below 1850 ppb in the past 13 months, and most of the readings would fit in the 1870+ ppb color in the AIRS polar plot. Current values are around 1920 ppb - still off the scale on the AIRS plot. That makes it hard to see changes in the methane concentration.
-
To paraphrase Coach Bear Bryant - It ain't arrogance if it's true. There is a mountain of data and observations supporting mainstream AGW. If a person can't (or won't) understand the probability and severity of the consequences we are creating by dumping gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere - what does that say about their intelligence?
-
SkepticalScience has started a new series of posts on arctic methane. The first post is: Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background I think it provides good background context for the discussion.
-
Start with the opening post for this thread and read the first page of responses - that will give you a good start. And links to papers related to arctic methane releases are scattered throughout the thread.
-
Ah, I think I see the source of your confusion - you need to understand the distinction between alarming and alarmism, Reading reports that Russian scientists are observing a large increase in the rate of methane release - is alarming. Running around screaming that the world is ending - that's alarmism. Nobody is doing that here. All clear now? BTW - your Nom de Blog is a good one, very appropriate. Blue Sky - empty and devoid of anything of interest. An inspired choice.
-
I feel that you're misreading the RC column - they are not saying the we can ignore the issue of methane releases. From my reading of the RC column they are saying that the worst-case scenarios have not materialized. The issue is serious, but not yet catastrophic. So the difference between the RC blog and the thread here is more a matter of degree of severity. Now if you have any real contribution to add to the thread, say, a legitimate scientist whose research comes to different conclusions - we'd love for you to share the link to the paper. But your snark really doesn't add as much as you obviously think it does.
-
The scale is shown at the bottom beginning at 1 minute into the video. The scale ranges from just under 1600 ppb to just over 1900 ppb. So the short-terms spikes over 2400 ppb recorded at Barrow (such as the one in 2004) were off the scale. And probably too localized to see on the global map.
-
I just heard back from the ESRL webmaster on the issue of why some plots from Barrow showed high methane readings while other plots didn't. Here's the response: Thanks for your questions regarding methane at Barrow. The reason for the differences in the graphs with the high two data points is due to a couple of things. The graphs of data for the entire time span are created beforehand, whereas the plots for the other time span options are created on the fly when the user asks for them. In this case for Barrow methane, the high data points have been determined to be invalid samples, due to some type of sampling or measurement problem, and were 'flagged' in the database as bad samples. But this flagging occurred after the pre-generated graph was made. So they showed up on the the plot of all the data, but not on the plots of other time spans. The pre-generated plots were updated yesterday, and now the plot of all the methane data for Barrow no longer shows those two high points. This is a good example of why any data points that are plotted in orange are considered preliminary, because it is possible that the quality control steps on the data have not been done yet, and invalid samples may be displayed but later will be fixed. The date on the lower right corner of the graph is the date that the graph was created. Kirk Thoning NOAA/ESRL/GMD Webmaster So as several posters suggested the anomalously high readings were just that - anomalies. Which have now been flagged and removed. The two lessons learned, for me anyway, are not to get too excited about provisional data, and that the NOAA QA process works.
-
I see what you are saying about the dates on the bottom of the graphs - so you may be correct. Would you agree that there is a conflict between the various Barrow CH4 plots that will have to be resolved by the ESRL webmaster? I'll contact him and post his response (and, of course, you're welcome to contact him too). Until we hear back with a definitive answer from him my suggestion is we table the issue. Monday is a federal holiday so I don't expect to hear anything until Tuesday at the earliest. BTW - I looked at CO2 adn CH4 plots from other ESRL observatories and they show a spectrum of dates. Don't know what, if anything, that means.
-
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.
-
I never said you made it up, I said it is not recent. A huge difference. Christy et al 2011 is not recent by any stretch of the term - it is old news and has been thorougly debunked. You claimed in clear, unambiguous language that there is "New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer". All you have to do to put this whole issue to rest is to provide the link to the paper(s) you were referring to. Were you telling the truth (in which case you can easily provide the links) or was your claim a complete fabrication? If you understand the scientific method at all you know that all claims require supporting data. You have not provided the data to support your claim so you have failed to follow the scientific method. Even a child (or teenager) could understand that, and that is the failure I referred to.
-
You claimed that there is new peer-reviewed literature - none of the papers Dr Spencer referenced are new. So you still haven't backed up your assertion. Another FAIL on your part. And failing to produce data to back up an assertion is certainly defying the scientific method.
-
You're correct no methane spike was seen at Alert in early December, but look at the altitude bar. The Siberian air crossed Alert at about 15,000 feet on 12/3 and it crossed Barrow at about 3,000 feet. That possibly made a difference. Look at the long-term trend you posted for Alert - I count at least nine episodes of anomalously high readings at Alert since observations began in 1985. That seems consistent with plumes periodically passing over the observatory there. COntrast that with the methane record for Samoa, the observatory farthest from the arctic: Not a single anomalously high high methane reading over the same period. I suspect that's because methane is well mixed by the time it reaches Samoa.
-
One of the cool features of the ESRL site is that you can select any of the observatories and see what air they were sampling on a given day. The Summit, Greenland, plot for 12/3/2011 (the same day Terry posted earlier for Barrow) is: Notice that Summit was sampling air that had traveled from Scandinavia ten days earlier. Nothing from Siberia. Now, methane plumes have been reported from the seafloor near Svalbard but they are small enough to diffuse into the water column before reaching the surface. No boiling sea effect and no plume to cause readings to spike upwards. Here's an image from another report on Svalbard:
-
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.
-
In my opinion you are correct in saying that everyone should be skeptical - all I would add is to not limit one's skepticism to just the bad news. Mistakes get made in both directions. Sensors go bad, operators screw up and so forth. But keep in mind that all NOAA observatories (including Barrow) have rigorous QA procedures because nobody benefits from posting data and then having to retract it. As for your question about why only Barrow is showing the high CH4 readings - as others have pointed out, Barrow is the observatory closest to the reported seafloor releases. And although CH4 is a well-mixed GHG,there will still be a plume with higher concentrations downwind from the emission site. (Similar in many ways to the emission plume downwind of a coal-fired power plant.) As with all plumes, the CH4 emissions will spread out and diffuse as they travel further from their vents. Keep in mind, too, that CH4 is lighter than air so the plume will rise as well as dissipate with distance from the source. Which, to me, is why it's not surprising that other arctic observatories, such as Summit, Greenland, don't show an identical spike in CH4 readings. I would expect elevated CH4 levels to be observable from aircraft, and that is exactly what the HIPPO flights reported. When we look at the long term record for Barrow we see that there have been a number of previous episodes of anomalous high CH4 readings which typically have lasted a month or so. This latest episode has only lasted a few weeks so far so it's too early to tell if it follows historic patterns. But even if it does that doesn't mean we can ignore the issue of destabilizing CH4 deposits. There is simply too much potential for disaster to be complacent.
-
You're right - and their concerns are legit. Simplistic models, and models with very coarse resolution (which is a different problem) are limited in what they can tell you, and in how much confidence you can have in their output. This is not to say that models, even simple models, aren't useful - it's just important to understand their limitations and caveats.
-
Thank you for the link to the research paper. Not being an AGU member and being too cheap to buy the full article I can only read the abstract, but it seems to me that there is more meat to the paper than there was to the Colin Schultz EOS article you originally linked to. However, I still have concerns about the simplistic permafrost model they used since we know from measurements that the actual methane hydrate deposits are more complex than that. And I am skeptical of their conclusions that today's methane release is simply the continuation of a process that began 8K years ago. The current CH4 values are around 1900 ppb and rising. Here's a plot of the full instrumental record at Barrow AK. As we can see, the atmospheric methane levels have risen from around 1700 ppb in 1983 to today's 1900 ppb. Which works out to a rate of increase of 200 ppb in 28 years, or about 7 ppb/year. Extrapolating back the 8K years at a constant rate would indicate that the Earth had an atmospheric methane level of -54,000 ppb at the start of this interglacial - if their conclusions are correct. Hmmm, a negative CH4 concentration seems a bit questionable. Well, some of the observed methane increase is from AGW so let's split the observed CH4 increase into natural and AGW. Picking values out of thin air, let's assume 99% (6.93 ppb/year) of the observed increase is from AGW and 1% (0.07 ppb/year) is from the natural process proposed by the paper's authors. This time for the extrapolation I'll assume 150 years of AGW methane release in addition to the 8K years of natural CH4 release. I come up with a combined AGW and natural release of 1600 ppb which when subtracted from today's readings gives a starting concentration of around 300 ppb. That's a lot easier to believe than -54,000 ppb if all of the release is natural. Now, before people start beating on me, my assumptions above are just a back of the envelope math exercise and only meant to illustrate how to be an honest skeptic and use available data to assess a paper's assertions. The data available today, limited though it may be, indicates that CH4 release is increasing as a consequence of AGW so anybody claiming otherwise has to show some solid evidence as to how this could be natural.
