Leaking Siberian Methane

[skierinvermont]

I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-grid data", but all of the records from Mauna Loa are freely available as is 99% of all NOAA data.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa..../co2_mm_mlo.txt

It doesn't matter to him. The data has been fabricated!

[BethesdaWX]

I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-grid data", but all of the records from Mauna Loa are freely available as is 99% of all NOAA data.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa..../co2_mm_mlo.txt

Where that data came from is what I care about.... not that its just "there".

Either way, rising CO2 is not what I focus on when it comes to climate. I could be proven wrong in the future, so if we do begin warming again while we should be colling, then I'm changing sides....ok?

[salbers]

Your statement about being "there" is a bit too vague for any meaningful comment. Mauna Loa and NOAA folks do I think a good job at measuring trace gas levels. There hasn't really been anyone to credibly contradict them.

And we have been warming in terms of being the hottest decade and about tied for the hottest year. This is off topic though since this thread is about methane. How about staying on topic and showing your evidence about MWP methane levels?

[Kelvin Wave]

2 things.

1) Regarding your comment before that 3 years isn't climate. Methane emissions that occur on even a daily basis have a climate component. So while 3 years may not be generally referred to as climate by the overall community, what happens in 3 years (methane or not) has a component that projects onto the lower frequency (climate) trend.

2) Methane is a greenhouse gas, and molecule for molecule it is more potent than CO2. That it is a forcing term in climate is a FACT. Methane is a greenhouse gas because of its molecular structure and this is not, and cannot, be debated. Therefore, it MUST be a forcing term to the overall climate. One can argue the magnitude of its impacts till the cows come home, but it is important and always will be.

At Mauna Loa, perhaps (still no pre-grid data available, as always). Either way, it doesn't matter, given MWP Methane levels were much higher and nothing happened. Our "hypothesized" methne addition forcings are not supported.

[BethesdaWX]

2 things.

1) Regarding your comment before that 3 years isn't climate. Methane emissions that occur on even a daily basis have a climate component. So while 3 years may not be generally referred to as climate by the overall community, what happens in 3 years (methane or not) has a component that projects onto the lower frequency (climate) trend.

2) Methane is a greenhouse gas, and molecule for molecule it is more potent than CO2. That it is a forcing term in climate is a FACT. Methane is a greenhouse gas because of its molecular structure and this is not, and cannot, be debated. Therefore, it MUST be a forcing term to the overall climate. One can argue the magnitude of its impacts till the cows come home, but it is important and always will be.

Of course it cannot be debated that it is a greenhouse gas, I understand that.......but its level of forcing is what CAN be debated, most certainly. Alot of this methane is coming from the permafrost in the arctic regions, right? When the Glaciers in the Arctic were much smaller back in the MWP...what happened? Lets just say that freaking over it is premature.....knowing that the MWP was solar caused.....& now we had a solar Max & Higher CO2, and the extra CO2 hasn't had much effect on the climate. Actually, there is a heck of alot more Ice now than there was then.

Lets just wait & see on this one, we have no reason to crap our pants, we'll have more mood, more room, easier shipping routes if the the Unprecedented warming decides to Finally show up.

First, we need to start warming again! Been 1.5 decades, cooling since 2002. Lets start warming!

[Kelvin Wave]

Of course it cannot be debated that it is a greenhouse gas, I understand that.......but its level of forcing is what CAN be debated, most certainly. Alot of this methane is coming from the permafrost in the arctic regions, right? When the Glaciers in the Arctic were much smaller back in the MWP...what happened? Lets just say that freaking over it is premature.....knowing that the MWP was solar caused.....& now we had a solar Max & Higher CO2, and the extra CO2 hasn't had much effect on the climate. Actually, there is a heck of alot more Ice now than there was then.

Lets just wait & see on this one, we have no reason to crap our pants, we'll have more mood, more room, easier shipping routes if the the Unprecedented warming decides to Finally show up.

First, we need to start warming again! Been 1.5 decades, cooling since 2002. Lets start warming!

When you look at globally averaged surface temperature anomalies from 2000-2010, available from NCDC, you see this is clearly not the case.

2000 0.5174

2001 0.7207

2002 0.8318

2003 0.7735

2004 0.7115

2005 0.9593

2006 0.8158

2007 0.9852

2008 0.7801

2009 0.7595

2010 0.9642

Note that 2005, 2007, 2010 were all clearly warmer than 2002.

[BethesdaWX]

When you look at globally averaged surface temperature anomalies from 2000-2010, available from NCDC, you see this is clearly not the case.

2000 0.5174

2001 0.7207

2002 0.8318

2003 0.7735

2004 0.7115

2005 0.9593

2006 0.8158

2007 0.9852

2008 0.7801

2009 0.7595

2010 0.9642

Note that 2005, 2007, 2010 were all clearly warmer than 2002.

Satellite data disagrees...all of it. I only go by satellite data, NEVER modeled temperatures.

Satellite is higher quality too, and covers just as much in the arctic & antarctic.

[salbers]

Looks like 2010 was warmer (13 month running average) than 2002 and about tied with 1998.

http://www.drroyspen...l-temperatures/

You are therefore contradicted!

The decadal trend also is clearly up in this satellite time series.

[Kelvin Wave]

Looks like 2010 was warmer (13 month running average) than 2002 and about tied with 1998.

http://www.drroyspen...l-temperatures/

You are therefore contradicted!

The decadal trend also is clearly up in this satellite time series.

Lovely.

[BethesdaWX]

Looks like 2010 was warmer (13 month running average) than 2002 and about tied with 1998.

http://www.drroyspen...l-temperatures/

You are therefore contradicted!

The decadal trend also is clearly up in this satellite time series.

I'm sorry, I meant to add "interrupted by El Nino of 2010". Year 2011 looks Like a Chilly one for sure.

So........Cooling since 2002, with an interruption by a mega El Nino, before cooling resumes in 2011. 1 year don't make a trend buddy......We're currently +0.28C above average...January is looking like it may end up near +0.1C or lower.

Better?

[Vandy]

Where that data came from is what I care about.... not that its just "there".

I don't understand your question. It came from here:

"At MLO, continuous CO2 concentrations are recorded using a NDIR (nondispersive infrared) instrument with the air samples coming from three possible inlets."

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/coop/scripps/co2/co2.html

[BethesdaWX]

I don't understand your question. It came from here:

"At MLO, continuous CO2 concentrations are recorded using a NDIR (nondispersive infrared) instrument with the air samples coming from three possible inlets."

http://www.esrl.noaa...ps/co2/co2.html

Haha, that was a good one

[Kelvin Wave]

I'm sorry, I meant to add "interrupted by El Nino of 2010". Year 2011 looks Like a Chilly one for sure.

So........Cooling since 2002, with an interruption by a mega El Nino, before cooling resumes in 2011. 1 year don't make a trend buddy......We're currently +0.28C above average...January is looking like it may end up near +0.1C or lower.

Better?

Sure, the ENSO trend can project onto the total trend and bring down total temperatures. This happened during the big El Nino shown in the graph, and may happen this year with the La Nina. However, if you removed the ENSO component, you would still see a warming trend.

An example paper of doing just this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/abs/nature06982.html

[BethesdaWX]

Sure, the ENSO trend can project onto the total trend and bring down total temperatures. This happened during the big El Nino shown in the graph, and may happen this year with the La Nina. However, if you removed the ENSO component, you would still see a warming trend.

An example paper of doing just this: http://www.nature.co...ature06982.html

The Frequency of ENSO is the issue my friend. The Past 2 decades have been hit by 70% El Nino Dominance, 2 super Ninos, record +AMO, +PDO until 2007 (recent nino ran it positive for a bit too), also had the Huge Mddern Max, which still lingers (not 11yr, the Long term multi century solar influence), we also lost 3% of GCC during this time, which is a HUGE factor. Its all here in front of you, ok?

The El Nino frequency has been driven by the PDO/AMO cycles, ok?

And through this, its been 1.5 decades with no trend, and a cooling trend since 2002, interrupted by the Mega Nino of 2010, before our cooling trend resumes, ok?

[Snow_Miser]

The Frequency of ENSO is the issue my friend. The Past 2 decades have been hit by 70% El Nino Dominance, 2 super Ninos,

That +PDO is sure sneaky... warm the Pacific, you warm the equatorial regions. I think that there is no dispute that an El Nino causes the Globe's temperature to spike, which is what the +PDO causes to happen more often.

[Kelvin Wave]

The PDO doesn't necessarily cause ENSO, the two are very similar and given our understanding of both, it is very possible that the PDO and ENSO are the same phenomenon, just on different time scales. The spatial structure of the two is a bit different, but this is partially because when we look at ENSO we focus on equatorial regions, whereas when we look at the PDO, we look at the entire Pacific.

[BethesdaWX]

The PDO doesn't necessarily cause ENSO, the two are very similar and given our understanding of both, it is very possible that the PDO and ENSO are the same phenomenon, just on different time scales. The spatial structure of the two is a bit different, but this is partially because when we look at ENSO we focus on equatorial regions, whereas when we look at the PDO, we look at the entire Pacific.

Agree, the PDO doesn't cause ENSO, but it can lead to a more favorable developmental environment for one of the other. Warm PDO phase clearly favored El Nino.

[skierinvermont]

The Frequency of ENSO is the issue my friend. The Past 2 decades have been hit by 70% El Nino Dominance, 2 super Ninos, record +AMO, +PDO until 2007 (recent nino ran it positive for a bit too), also had the Huge Mddern Max, which still lingers (not 11yr, the Long term multi century solar influence), we also lost 3% of GCC during this time, which is a HUGE factor. Its all here in front of you, ok?

The El Nino frequency has been driven by the PDO/AMO cycles, ok?

And through this, its been 1.5 decades with no trend, and a cooling trend since 2002, interrupted by the Mega Nino of 2010, before our cooling trend resumes, ok?

The fact that the 90s were much more +ENSO than the 2000s would imply that the delta-ENSO had a net cooling effect from the 90s to the 2000s. The 80s and 90s were the pinnacle of +ENSO dominance.. we've been on a downtrend since then, which theoretically has had a cooling effect. The 2000s were essentially ENSO neutral (very slightly positive), much much lower than the 80s and 90s.

[BethesdaWX]

The fact that the 90s were much more +ENSO than the 2000s would imply that the delta-ENSO had a net cooling effect from the 90s to the 2000s. The 80s and 90s were the pinnacle of +ENSO dominance.. we've been on a downtrend since then, which theoretically has had a cooling effect. The 2000s were essentially ENSO neutral (very slightly positive), much much lower than the 80s and 90s.

The 2000's were still El Nino dominant. Problem is, the 90's didn't have the +AMO until late....and we haven't warmed since then obviously in the 1998 El Nino spike. The 1980's were nothing like the 90's or 2000's El Nino dominance wise.

Now.....we've been cooling since 2002, with the brief interruption of the recent El Nino, Now we continue the cooling trend, we're back to +0.28C.

Look at the 2000's....still very ENSO dominate until the PDO went cold in 2007

[skierinvermont]

No. The 2000s were not nearly as ENSO dominant as the 80s or 90s. Simple math here refutes you. The 2000s average only very slightly above 0 on the ONI... the 80s and 90s were much higher.

The 2000s average .1C on the ONI... I have this calculation in an excel and I am looking at it right now.

the 80s and 90s were around .3C I think.

[BethesdaWX]

Lets see it skier.

http://www.cpc.ncep....s-fcsts-web.pdf

This still doesn't change the Record +AMO was not in place during the 90's, and thats huge. The 2000'smay have had Weaker El Nino's.....but there were more of them. Heck, 2002-2006 was almost one entire El Nino the whole time.

The 1980's may have had stronger El Nino,but the "oscillation" betwen El Nino & La Nina were quite regular. The 90's & 00's had some ling, extended El Ninos, that were more frequent than La Nina. Until the PDO went cold in 2007.

[donsutherland1]

Mean ENSO 3.4 Anomalies by Decade:

1950s: -0.149

1960s: +0.071

1970s: -0.235

1980s: +0.045

1990s: +0.243

2000s: +0.066

Lowest 10-year figure: -0.282, 10-year period ended July 1976

Highest 10-year figure: +0.289, 10-year period ended April 1999

[skierinvermont]

Mean ENSO 3.4 Anomalies by Decade:

1950s: -0.149

1960s: +0.071

1970s: -0.235

1980s: +0.045

1990s: +0.243

2000s: +0.066

Lowest 10-year figure: -0.282, 10-year period ended July 1976

Highest 10-year figure: +0.289, 10-year period ended April 1999

Thanks Don, I didn't want to have to copy and paste the 80s and 90s into excel again. 80s a little lower than I remembered.

[donsutherland1]

Thanks Don, I didn't want to have to copy and paste the 80s and 90s into excel again. 80s a little lower than I remembered.

You're welcome. I believe the very strong La Niña at the end of the decade pulled down the average for the 1980s.

[nzucker]

Thanks Don, I didn't want to have to copy and paste the 80s and 90s into excel again. 80s a little lower than I remembered.

Basically confirms Bethesda's point...we've been El Niño dominated for a while so much of the warming owes to that factor alone. We'll see what the change towards La Niña/-PDO conditions this decade means; it's interesting to hear the GFS and ECM Weeklies are already showing global temperatures to be below the long-term average in the coming weeks.

[donsutherland1]

Basically confirms Bethesda's point...we've been El Niño dominated for a while so much of the warming owes to that factor alone. We'll see what the change towards La Niña/-PDO conditions this decade means; it's interesting to hear the GFS and ECM Weeklies are already showing global temperatures to be below the long-term average in the coming weeks.

If I have time tonight, I'll try to run multiple regression figures for the global temperature anomaly against various natural forcings (without atmospheric CO2) and then another set that includes natural forcings + atmospheric CO2. All the data will be decadal averages to smooth for yearly fluctuations.

[nzucker]

If I have time tonight, I'll try to run multiple regression figures for the global temperature anomaly against various natural forcings (without atmospheric CO2) and then another set that includes natural forcings + atmospheric CO2. All the data will be decadal averages to smooth for yearly fluctuations.

Wow, Don, impressive!

Thanks for all your contributions to this board, you're a great poster.

If only you'd stop wishing for a -PNA

[donsutherland1]

The following are the Coefficients of Determination ( r² ) for a range of scenarios using 10-year moving average figures:

1. AMO & PDO: 0.867 (scenario 1)

2. AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO, and Solar Flux: 0.950 (scenario 2)

3. Atmospheric CO²only: 0.981 (scenario 3)

4. All the natural variables and atmospheric CO²: 0.998 (scenario 4)

5. Time only (as a dummy): 0.955 (scenario 5)

What's interesting is that when the atmospheric CO² is introduced, some of the relationships between the natural variables and temperature trends change e.g., from direct to indirect relationships.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attach the spreadsheet to this message. The following are the images:

Climate Spreadsheet (10-year Moving Average):

Scenario 1:

Scenario 2:

Scenario 3:

Scenario 4:

Scenario 5:

Note: "Anomaly" refers to the temperature anomaly in degrees ( C ).

[skierinvermont]

Great stuff Don, thanks. Are the coefficients for the individual variables listed in the same order that you listed the variables in each of the scenarios?

[skierinvermont]

Basically confirms Bethesda's point...we've been El Niño dominated for a while so much of the warming owes to that factor alone. We'll see what the change towards La Niña/-PDO conditions this decade means; it's interesting to hear the GFS and ECM Weeklies are already showing global temperatures to be below the long-term average in the coming weeks.

No it doesn't it confirms my point. The 90s were the pinnacle of ENSO dominance and the downwards trend since then has had a cooling effect. Don's regression analysis confirms my assertion that the decline in ENSO has had a net cooling effect from the 1990s to the 2000s.

It doesn't even seem as if you are following the specifics of the argument here. Nobody is disputing that the upwards trend in ENSO enhanced warming in the 80s and 90s. The point of contention is 1) whether the 2000s were as ENSO dominant as the 1990s (ANSWER: NO) 2) Whether the aforementioned decline in ENSO has had a relative cooling effect (ANSWER: YES). Both of my assertions that ENSO has 1) declined from the 1990s to the 2000s and 2) that this decline from very high levels has had a net relative cooling effect, are confirmed by the statistics Don has provided. Try to follow along instead of inserting irrelevant and off topic comments which are obviously just trolling.