The_Global_Warmer

We can discuss it all you want... Just not in THAT forum. I have been PMed to STOP discussing CC in THAT forum.

PM'ed by who?

I haven't recieved this.

Hooiser?

Who asked you to create this thread to stop talking about climo.

I am assuming a moderator?

Which moderator personally asked you to stop talking about climo.

This was spun off from the "Lakes/OV region".... He tries to work AGW into just about every discussion on the sub-forum and I thought I would spare them another round by diverting discussion to this thread.

You mean you love snow so much you can't emotionally handle the changes taking place. So you will do anything to cirmcumvent discussing Climo at all that isn't a fantasy analog like 1978 or 1994.

But we can't talk about Climo changes.

This is amazing, what justification do you have for this?

Wanna look up Spring/Summer Temp trends ?

Cuz I'm pretty sure the warming will be much more visible in that data along with overall yearly temperature trends..

He doesn't understand the spatial impact of AGW. It's been explained so many times.

But more sadly the snow bunnys immediately reject using or allowing any talk of Climo.

He Is trying to prove that most mid latitude climates have barely changed from AGW.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-than-150000-methane-seeps-appear-as-arctic-ice-retreats

Scientists have found more than 150,000 sites in the Arctic where methane is seeping into the atmosphere, according to a report published Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Aerial and ground surveys in Alaska and Greenland revealed that many of the methane seeps are located in areas where glaciers are receding or permafrost is thawing as the climate warms, removing ice that has trapped the potent greenhouse gas in the ground.

Researchers at the University of Alaska and Florida State University say the amount of methane being released from the seeps now is relatively small but could grow in coming decades as climate change intensifies, shrinking the ice that has prevented ancient deposits of the heat-trapping gas from reaching the atmosphere.

"As permafrost thaws and glaciers retreat, it is going to let something out that has had a lid on it," said lead author Katey Walter Anthony of the University of Alaska.

Scientists have long known of the existence of methane seeps in the Arctic, but the new study is one of the first to map them over large areas.

Walter Anthony and her colleagues used airplanes to fly over 6,700 lakes in Alaska during the winters of 2008, 2009 and 2010.

The survey revealed 77 previously unknown seep sites, which the scientists narrowed down to 50 lakes they visited on foot.

They documented the seeps they found, using carbon-dating to determine the age of methane released at the sites. The scientists performed the same analysis at 25 lakes in western Greenland.

Seep sites in Alaska tended to occur where permafrost is thawing or at the edges of receding glaciers. In Greenland, the scientists found seeps in places where glaciers have retreated over the past 150 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age.

The researchers calculate that methane seeps in Alaska alone are releasing 250,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere each year, 50 to 70 percent more than previously estimated.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

Going up.

They say the Beaufort Sea, in the western Canadian Arctic, holds clues to several environmental mysteries of global significance - chief among them why so much methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is now seeping out of the sea floor.

I see so now a small percentage equals "a large portion"

your a pretty abrasive guy for posting that you saw MYI growth where there was none. You still haven't posted how the MYI is growing.

You cliamed there were Countless papers on cryosat2. You posted ZERO of them.

You completely dismissed out right methane leaking through ice cracks and again you were wrong.

Is ironic that your in this thread grilling these guys on this when you continue to not back up

the claims you make.

You may want to be more fair

Yes, weird and not good ?

It's interesting that the article mentions possible biological activity in surface waters being the source. However the link below has an informative video that does show the flight path north of Alaska on the edge of the ESAS, and they do mention the shallow ocean sediments being a possible source of their enhanced methane measurements.

http://hippo.ucar.ed...ns-from-hippo-i

Well, it's obviously coming from the Clathrates. But it is also obviously coming from the Permafrost as well.

The Russians have proof of it coming out of the Russian Sea's especially the shore area in the Laptev. Where they measured a 3C temp on the arctic floor(al beit in very shallow water. Doesn't matter. These Clathrate sit 30-75M deep. all over the region. Clearly some are in much deeper water.

We know Spring snow cover has declined rapidly in recent years, especially in Russia.

We know arctic sea ice has declined to an average summer min around 3.1 mil km2 in area the last 5 years. Allowing unprecedented heating of the arctic sea's, especially the Russian side.

We have Observed this getting a stronger out let for Methane.

We have observation record of Methane picking up and our charts show it's coming from the Arctic region and Permafrost higher than before.

We have real humans with real technological devices, going to real Russian Sea's flying real helicopters over Russians Sea's, tracking and observing tens of thousands of individual samples the last decade.

We have photographs of the methane clathrates blowing out methane from the arctic floor, we have photographs of the methane bubbling out into ice crack, ice floes, pancake ice, open seas,stormy seas.

We have measured and extrapolated large quantities of this.

If you brought this much evidence to prove anything else it would be accepted at first glance.

Does it mean it will blow out in a catastrophic way? Absolutely Not.

is it Alarming? Umm, Yeah, arctic methane clathrates melting out is quite alarming.

Does even this little bit that came out so far enhance warming? Yep.

Is there reason to believe it will get much worse?

Yeah. Let's see how warm the Laptev can get if the arctic ice melts out to 2 million square kilometers butting up against Canada/Greenland. With the Laptev Ice free since June. Those 10-15C water temps over the shallow areas won't be good.

The warming impact of CH4 is minimal to near nil and most anyone with credibility will tell you the warming from CH4 is

nearly non -existent. Also the idea that methane is venting from cracks in the ice is very weak. Unless the methane is right below the large cracks it's not venting from them. We have no idea exactly where the methane is being vented so the idea that it's hitting one of these very small areas with large cracks is a huge stretch. This thread is still a joke and I'd be embarrassed to be pushing the "CH4! OMG we are all going to die!" agenda. This thread needs to be closed and if you guys really wanted to have an honest discussion about methane a new thread should be created free of alarmism. Right now this thread is not helping current perceptions about alarmism.

http://www.nasa.gov/...th20120422.html

This is weird, and unsettling if true.

NASA has detected CH4 coming from the ocean in the Arctic - seems to be leaking out from under the icepack.

They do not think it is from the seabed, as the sites sampled were relatively deep.

I thought that the ocean would fairly efficiently turn any CH4 produced into CO2, no?

If not, then it could be a bit of a problem.

Where the hell is it coming from - jellyfish?

It can't be coming from the arctic, specifically the ESAS which got so much attention last year. Methane is not going to get through meters of ice. The readings are a blip and don't mean much, if anything for the moment. Alarmists will be alarmists... The thread title is just as much of a joke now as it was when the thread was created. It's really pretty embarrassing and should be shut down. If someone wants to talk seriously about CH4 a good start would be to stop posting in this ridiculous thread and start one that has a more reasonable title.

Umm, I don't think it has to, I think it would come out of the open water that forms between cracks. Some of those cracks are 10-20 miles apart. The concentrations are built up in winter under the ice and will exhaust pretty strongly between cracks when it opens up.

One of the positive feedbacks from global warming is the thawing of Arctic permafrost. This releases methane, a greenhouse gas over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Investigations into Arctic methane have tended to focus on land permafrost. However, there are also vast amounts of methane held underwater in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS). This encompasses over 2 million square kilometres, three times as large as the nearby Siberian wetlands, which have been considered the primary Northern Hemisphere source of atmospheric methane. Underwater permafrost acts as a lid to restrain methane stored in the seabed. Until now, it was thought the permafrost was cold enough to remain frozen. However, recent observations have found that over 80% of the deep water over the ESAS is supersaturated, with methane levels more than eight times that of normal seawater (Shakhova 2010). More than half of the surface water is supersaturated also. The methane venting into the atmosphere from this one region is comparable to the amount of methane coming out of the entire world’s oceans.

To find out what was happening in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, field measurements, ice expeditions and a helicopter survey were conducted to measure methane levels in ESAS waters. They took 5100 samples from 1080 stations, the largest database for any ocean methane study. They found widespread supersaturation over the region. Most of the bottom waters are supersaturated and over half of surface waters are supersaturated. In some areas, the saturation levels reached at least 250 times that of background levels in the summer and 1,400 times higher in the winter.

Figure 1: Summertime observations of methane levels in the ESAS. Top is dissolved methane in deep water. Bottom is dissolved methane in surface water (Shakhova 2010).

Figure 2: Yearly flux of methane venting into the atmosphere over the ESAS (Shakhova 2010).

To find out how much methane is escaping into the atmosphere, they measured the flux of methane at the ocean surface. Methane levels were elevated overall and the seascape was dotted with more than 100 hotspots. A helicopter survey further confirmed this, finding methane levels were 5 to 10% greater at 1800 metres height. Methane is not only being dissolved in the water, it's bubbling out into the atmosphere.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-observations-find-underwater-arctic-shelf-is-perforated-and-venting-methane.html

It's not like it's not happening.

This is small potatoes, but it's an added positive feedback. this it self warms the atmosphere. No other way to slice it, expect the Arctic and Northern Hemisphere at large is retaining more heat that it was 10, 20, 30 and so on because of methane. This helps melt snow and ice faster which helps lower there effective albedos. This helps warm the water faster so methane hydrates can continue to melt further. Eventually methane oxidizes into Co2. This is a cycle from one thing to another that will help warm the Earth. That is important. And real.

Boy, while no conclusion can be drawn that is crazy in the sense that we know Methane is up quite a bit and no one is claiming a cause.

The most obvious one is the Arctic Ocean. It's only March, let's hope this is a blip and not a trend for this season.

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

This idea is pretty sound, but there likely isn't a high enough concentration of any GHG to force that locally and hard.

But I suppose it is all relative.

The radient body of Methane globally vs X increase is definely a different answer than the radiant body of the Kara's Methane vs X increase that gas.

a localized affect could be much stronger, but not sure if it is enough to play a large factor.

You are SO full of it. Whenever I've posted real science in here the response from you is a flurry of random graphs that are usually off topic.

This entire place is a trollathon for anyone that doesn't believe in extreme AGW, so the discussion has become personal attacks all the time. When I first started posting here I was trolled and insulted relentlessly even though I was trying to be cordial, and now I'm basically doing the same. You guys win, you can roll around in your own stupid ideas without me bothering you.

This is exactly what happens, almost without fail.

Please come to the arctic sea ice thread and break down how you got us alarmists with Antarctica.

Use the science that we have right now to show us how the impacts of the menial sea ice gains in Antarctica. Are impactful and important like the large ice losses in the Arctic.

You are SO full of it. Whenever I've posted real science in here the response from you is a flurry of random graphs that are usually off topic.

This entire place is a trollathon for anyone that doesn't believe in extreme AGW, so the discussion has become personal attacks all the time. When I first started posting here I was trolled and insulted relentlessly even though I was trying to be cordial, and now I'm basically doing the same. You guys win, you can roll around in your own stupid ideas without me bothering you.

Please post your science.

dear lord lol

There is no doubt that there is quite a bit of over zealous alarmism with the Methane. I know I have made some very wild projections.

But you come here bringing very little substance. You think this is some big joke. Why are you not bringing the science? This is all science. And you make vague statements with very little science. And go off trolling us in other forums. You tell us we want people to die, tell us we are not smart enough to understand the real science. Then bring none of it.

There is nothing you can post here that I wouldn't understand. So please post the science you believe is real.

http://www.nature.co...mej201057a.html

It only needs to be a few watts/M^2 to equal the green house effect locally. Something is melting the ice in the Kara.

Surface temperature anomalies for the Kara From Dec 1-Present have been 10-17.50C. Mean temps have been around -8 to -10C towards the Laptev side to -2 to -4C on the Island side.

This is from the pattern, first and foremost. But also from how incredibly thin the ice was and how much warm open water was left over during the early fall period.

The Kara is shallow, so thin ice can form easy as the sun sets and cold sets in.

But even with the pattern, this hasn't happened before and the sheer ice retreat so far embedded in the arctic winter regime is quite absurd.

But taking in the extra thin ice, warm waters, and pattern. It is doable at this point.

I would say it is the by product of many positive feedback's + the pattern.

The models both show a Dipole anomaly or partial one the next 7-10 days. But in regards to the Kara show more southerly warm winds..not as warm as recent ones, but warm enough.

January 2009 on AIRS was 1848ppb. 1ppb behind July of 2009 at 1849ppb.

January of 2012 anomaly was 12ppb higher than 2009. So roughly 1860ppb. This is for 70-90N. So roughly 11ppb higher.

December of 2011 was around 1852-1853ppb which broke the record high for 70-90N, now this breaks record for monthly ppb at 400mb.

This is also a new record for the 50-70N, NH, and global.

These increases are small though..

talking about this making any impact on temperatures right now outside of a 0.000?? something is a bit absurd and it makes folks think crazy alarm-ism is going on.

the important message here is that we know the arctic is leaking...and we need to keep track of it to see if this is the beginning of major rises in methane or just a blip.

http://arctic-news.b...-in-arctic.html

This guy likes the methane idea specifically for the Kara because the warmer waters from the Atlantic don't seem to have quite made it as far east as the Kara.

I agree that the return of more normal weather to the area (Svalbard has a forecast high of -11C today with -23C days for early next week) will put the matter to the test......we look at new ice formation rates and thickness.

the Methane is coming from the arctic ocean. But it is not causing the arctic to warm like this. Ice and Snow albedo are combined with the overall pattern.

The methane is a background warming that is very slowly changing the heat distribution of globe, yes initially affecting the Arctic the most, but not very much.

this is the top 5 meters.

It is relatively small but it is confirms that it originated from 70-90N. Which means its coming out of the ocean most likely.

Time for them to change the Graphs ranges.

Your usage of the phrase "watts per year" tells me you do not know what the term watt melp

ans. A watt is a unit of power not energy.

Your right. Thanks for letting me know.

You could also just refute the point and the affect months of open water will have VS little to no open water.

Just so people don't carry away the wrong impression, there has been no long term warming trend over the past 10k years. The natural peak temp of the Holocene period occured about 8,000 years ago and slowly declined over the following 6,000 years. The temperature began to rise about 2,000 years ago with the big jump occuring over the past 150 years which has returned temp to near what it was during the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago.

Yes it should take hundreds of years to destablise the deeply buried hydrates, but what about exasperating those already outgasing and those potentially already close to doing so?

2011 like 2007 was a bit off the charts...but the length of time that the Laptev was exposed to max sun was absurd. This still though is with ice using up most of the incoming solar energy until early to mid July.

Just a couple decades ago. These areas only had a short window at the end of the summer of open water, And even then the water was still filled with ice floes and cold. Before the early to mid 80s it was nearly ice covered to some extent all year or only open for less than a month.

There is 500,000-1,000,000 mil km2 of water area that used to see a very small amount of direct w/m2 maybe 30-50 watts per year. Now these areas are getting 150-200 w/m2. This is very new. This is concerning to me.

This is pretty simple science IMO.

That seems to me that melting would be accelerated by more than a factor of 2 because the amount of solar energy reaching these areas has gone up by hundreds of percent in some cases on a year to year basis.

We know that the December anomaly is 14ppb higher than 2010. This means the methane must be up at 1854ppb, off the chart.

The jump started in July and now soars to a new record high that is quite a bit higher than before. Clearly a "new" source or the ESAS just was a stronger source to feed the Northern Hemisphere.

It is also no wonder the arctic has suffered amplified warming with these gases being strongest and most concentrated up there. This is also the hardest place to keep track of SATs which I hope soon they deploy a new satelitte soley for arctic temperature. That can reach the pole or closer at a more accurate depiction than the current satelittes.

Anyways. Is methane only coming out of the Laptev and ESB or also the Chuchki, Kara, and Barents?