TerryM
-
Posts
3,307 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by TerryM
-
Good catch - I'd missed that entirely. Terry
-
If I recall correctly all graphs and data from Skeptical Science are sourced - if you think there is a problem with any of them, it's possible to contact the agency that published them originally. Referring to them as "doctored" shows total contempt for the English language. Terry
-
Have you researched the effect of the sudden release of up to 1,400Gt of CH4? I apologize for not looking it up myself, but I'm distracted by a large tax problem that requires my attention between now and the end of the month. Terry
-
The dangers from ESAS CH4 release are pretty well documented by S&S. Those that wish to ignore the threat are of course welcome to do so, but I'd suggest a little research, even if it's just going back in this thread, before rejecting it out of hand. Terry
-
Could you at least quote the person you are responding to?
-
Everything you have said is wrong - amazing.
-
I think we're on the same page. What I'm concerned with is the albedo effect that the hot object possesses - ie. a black radiator will radiate heat a room more efficiently than a white one. What I'm thinking is that the energy captured by low albedo objects in the summer (through insolation) is radiated away more efficiently in the winter - unless a GHG blanket radiates some of the heat back, which is then easily re-absorbed because of the low albedo. Without the GHGs the low albedo object simply efficiently radiates it's heat away. A high albedo object is less efficient at ridding itself of heat during winter months whether there are GHGs present or not, and less efficient at recapturing the returning radiation, so a low albedo surface is going to be more severely impacted by GHGs in periods of low insolation than a high albedo surface. If the GHGs were to increase locally in winter, as the AIRS seem to be showing, open areas might be expected to expand even without any solar input. or not
-
I've heard speculation that the anomalous conditions in the Kara - Barents Sea area are a result of low albedo conditions due to low ice coverage. How would a lowering of albedo in the Arctic winter have this effect? A high albedo surface blocks radiation both ways so in Arctic summer a high albedo surface - snow or ice - reflects much of the solar energy back up. away from the surface. In Arctic winter a high albedo surface retains more heat - radiating less of it up into the atmosphere. If the Kara/Barents area is experiencing lower albedo (open water), it's radiating more - not less heat into the atmosphere. Only when insolation increases around the equinox will lower albedo result in higher surface temperatures. If CH4 is effectively blanketing the surface, leaving no escape for the heat, we might see ice losses even during Arctic Winter.
-
Friv I'm probably one of the most interested here in the possibility of catastrophic CH4 release. I don't think that it's terribly likely, but do feel that the results would be so horrendous that it should be explored rather than ignored. I can understand your concern that this could be misconstrued as an alarmist take off on AGW theory - but in my mind at least these are two completely separate topics. I can't imagine a scenario in which AGW theory could possibly be wrong. I can imagine many ways in which the catastrophic CH4 theory not only could, but probably is flawed. I think discussing the CH4 matters here, in a separate thread is a reasonable intellectual pursuit that can be carried out without resorting to emotional appeals. If it's real - we'll know here first (or close to first) If it's bogus - all we lost is a little free time, pursuing a subject that interests us I know the topic bothers you, but I ask for a little lee way to putter about in an area that none of us really know very much about. Terry
-
S&S Heading back out in March In March of this year, along with international collaborators, Natalia and I are conducting another research expedition, to a methane “hot spot” that we have located off the coast of the Laptev Sea in Siberia. http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/research/highlights/2012/sotm-feb-igor-semiletov
-
I thought that floods and droughts had been included in Hansen's paper that was covered in an earlier thread.
-
I'm not sure that my interpretation of the events as they are unfolding is the correct one. I am convinced though that whatever is happening will have serious implications, and costs that will be born by us all. I have difficulty understanding why people make light of the situation. Thinks are obviously changing. These changes are causing death and destruction in many parts of the world. The fact that you personally have not yet fallen victim to any of these events doesn't really give you the right to pretend that they are a figment of someone's imaginings, or that working to alleviate the present and future suffering is somehow part of a vast conspiracy. I welcome all thought out input - I came here to learn - but snide comments, 'gotcha' posts and input denying settled science are nothing but distractions. If you already have all the answers, stay out of the way and let the rest of us learn,
-
Skier I hope you are right. As you noted much higher numbers are attained at lower altitudes, and the fact that the higher altitude figures are climbing indicates, to me at least, that near ground levels are much higher. I thought that HIPPO dispelled some of the old notions about GHGs diffusing evenly through the atmosphere over a short period, and the AIRS charts seem to back this up. I suppose that you are attributing the ice free Kara Sea areas to diverted Gulf Stream waters. I see that as a possibility in the Barents, but not so much the Kara, That dang island gets in the way. Again I hope I'm wrong, and certainly allow for that probability.
-
An interesting weather site for the Barents Sea http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/index.php?option=com_gmapspro&task=viewMap&Itemid=28&mapId=3〈=en Temps seem so far above normal that, at the risk of a nasty gash from Occam's blade, I'd like to propose that CH4 may be involved. I had assumed that the lack of insolation in polar winters would render any greenhouse effect moot, having conveniently forgotten that the heat already trapped beneath the atmospheric blanket, augmented by heat transported north via oceanic currents, would be unable to escape and could then produce anomalies such as we are witnessing. I'm invoking CH4 as a local addition to CO2 because I feel that if this amount of blanketing was present throughout the atmosphere we would already be cooked. The recent AIRS maps as well as last years HIPPO studies seem to show that Arctic CH4 is still to a large degree, loitering in the upper latitudes. I hope that someone can point out the error of my ways and assure me that this is not what is happening.
-
I expected the January graph to show much lower readings. This is disturbing, and I'm torn as far as crafting a response. I think at the moment I'll continue with observations of Arctic Sea Ice melt out.
-
Big difference from a year ago
-
Verg The study seems to be relating to permafrost releases if "remedial steps" are taken to lessen Arctic warming. Our results also suggest that mitigation action in line with the lower scenario RCP3-PD could contain Arctic temperature increase sufficiently that thawing of the permafrost area is limited to 9–23 It's S&S's observations that scare the bejesus out of me.
-
But the other link was interesting anyway ;>)
-
Skeptical Science interview is available. http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-methane-outgassing-e-siberian-shelf-part2.html
-
Agreed that it is a good article, but it is the facts that are alarming, not the messaging. If S&S are to be believed (and they were the ones entrusted to make the observations) it sounds as though we are in for a rude awakening. I'm waiting for the Skeptical Science interview that should be published next week, and of course S&S's paper that will debut in April. If you don't see these reports as alarming, you are just not looking.
-
Am interesting presentation by Yurganov regarding Arctic CH4 measurements. ftp://asl.umbc.edu/pub/yurganov/methane/Yurganov_LondonCH4.pdf
-
Thanks!! It sounds as though part two may have some new information from Semiletov, who has been even less forthcoming than Shakhova since the return of the expedition. "We have to warn the world" I. Semiletov
-
At a lecture from 12/2010 the 3.5 GT figure was used - this was prior to the expedition that found venting orders of magnitude worse than previous observations. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PEIMdPkMpd8J:symposium2010.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/8914/107496/version/3/file/1A_Shakhova_Final.pdf+"esas"+3.5Gt&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl= page 34
-
Perhaps a 100-fold increase might be improbably low as compared to recent years.
-
Beth BEST was the data set that Spencer pledged to follow since it's methodology was so superior to the others - until the results came in. BTW why would global temperatures have any effect on Arctic methane - Arctic temperatures are all that are germane, and I doubt anyone would deny that these have been on the rise.
