Semiletov and Shakhova..who were the source for the original article say "We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change."
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methane-project-clarify-climate-concerns/
They go on later "Observations are at the core of our work now. It is no surprise to us that others monitoring global methane have not found a signal from the Siberian Arctic or increase in global emissions"
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arctic-seas-apocalypse-not/
Revkin echoes my point from an earlier post" it’s important to get a handle on whether these are new releases, the first foretaste of some great outburst from thawing sea-bed stores of the gas, or simply a longstanding phenomenon newly observed.”
The Barrow readings of methane mean little. It's like taking the temperature reading of one city and claiming that represents global climate change. Of course if the Barrow readings went off the charts that would be something different. That's not happening.
Chicken Little newspaper stories does not help climate research
