This is not good.

[TerryM]

His post seemed to imply more than just Arctic temperatures, referencing Hansen's claim that climate sensitivity was higher than previously thought. If that is the case, it should be influencing more than just the Arctic.

We have a thread addressing climate sensitivity.

Please try to stay on topic.

[tacoman25]

We have a thread addressing climate sensitivity.

Please try to stay on topic.

Perhaps you meant to address this post, by Peter M? Please try to follow the conversation.

At the AGU week before last Jim Hansen said climate sensitivity has been greater then even predicted 4 years ago. C02 will likely reach the yearly high in mid spring- near 397ppm- but this is in the pipeline- and will not be seen for perhaps 15-20 years. What we are seeing now is the effects of 360-365ppm- from the early 1990's. Its a matter of conjecture what happens when we see today's C02 level.

[Vergent]

So this is a mostly a laptev and ESB event or kara and chuchki to barents and bearing.

Also, my cpu is broken. I am getting it fixed this week. Will someone please post any real time obs of ch4 in the arctic region, thank you.

There has been independent widespread measurement of elevated methane in the arctic.

"Something too new to fully understand (although a report on it is being prepared for publication), Wofsy says, is a finding of notable concentrations of methane in the Arctic’s atmosphere that trace back to the sea.

“Oceanographers have known for some time that there is production of methane in surface waters of the Arctic,” he says, but “it’s never been observed in the atmosphere.” Those oceanographic data, he says, suggest a source for this methane other than sediments or the melting of icy gas hydrates.

The phenomenon also appears very widespread. “We observed that the ocean surface releases methane to the atmosphere all over the whole of the Arctic Ocean,” Wofsy says."

http://www.sciencene...imate_surprises

This is not good.

[The_Global_Warmer]

There has been independent widespread measurement of elevated methane in the arctic.

"Something too new to fully understand (although a report on it is being prepared for publication), Wofsy says, is a finding of notable concentrations of methane in the Arctic’s atmosphere that trace back to the sea.

“Oceanographers have known for some time that there is production of methane in surface waters of the Arctic,” he says, but “it’s never been observed in the atmosphere.” Those oceanographic data, he says, suggest a source for this methane other than sediments or the melting of icy gas hydrates.

The phenomenon also appears very widespread. “We observed that the ocean surface releases methane to the atmosphere all over the whole of the Arctic Ocean,” Wofsy says."

http://www.sciencene...imate_surprises

This is not good.

Thank you so much for posting this. I am glad to see oxy production was up in the southern hemisphere. But the rest sucks.

[TerryM]

An interesting post at

http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2011/12/semiletov-v-dmitrenko-tale-of-tape.html

promises more from Semiltov and gives an assessment of his work vs Dmitrenko's

[Vergent]

An interesting post at

http://theidiottrack...le-of-tape.html

promises more from Semiltov and gives an assessment of his work vs Dmitrenko's

Thank you so much for the post. Well reasoned article. There is a good laugh at the end. But it is graveyard humor...

[Vergent]

Thank you so much for posting this. I am glad to see oxy production was up in the southern hemisphere. But the rest sucks.

Have to give TerryM the credit, he linked to the article first, I missed his post.

[Vergent]

More elevated methane measurements at Barrow. It still has'nt shown up else where, but AO+ traps air in the arctic.

[TerryM]

More elevated methane measurements at Barrow. It still has'nt shown up else where, but AO+ traps air in the arctic.

Ouch - Much easier to ignore 2 anomalous readings.

[TerryM]

With CH4 bubbling through Arctic waters we would expect, at some point, to experience the dreaded ocean acidification that will ultimately cause the collapse of fish stocks around the world. Most scenarios put this eventuality far into the future, and only potentially a problem if we continue on a BAU path.

Recent studies find this is happening now in the Bering Sea - another sign of underwater methane release?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1150

[matthewweatherwatcher]

Ouch - Much easier to ignore 2 anomalous readings.

Looks to me about 3 or 4 points that are all pointed upwards big time. If this is for reals, O'crap! Between point 1 and 3-4 shows a 250 ppb rise. Things are happening if this is without error. With the discovery, I doubt it's a error.

[TerryM]

I wonder what the readings would be if that "ice hurricane" hadn't mixed things up?

[skierinvermont]

More elevated methane measurements at Barrow. It still has'nt shown up else where, but AO+ traps air in the arctic.

Ouch - Much easier to ignore 2 anomalous readings.

I wonder what the readings would be if that "ice hurricane" hadn't mixed things up?

The Barrow readings are probably incorrect. Other atmospheric measurements from the station are out of whack as well.

It is generally wise to be suspicious of such anomalous readings.

[Vergent]

The Barrow readings are probably incorrect. Other atmospheric measurements from the station are out of whack as well.

It is generally wise to be suspicious of such anomalous readings.

The barrow mass spec is clearly bonkers.

[skierinvermont]

The barrow mass spec is clearly bonkers.

What is it you are trying to show?

The CO2 and Hydrogen measurements are also out of whack.

[Vergent]

What is it you are trying to show?

I'm showing that there is nothing wrong with the equipment at Barrow. SF6 is the least noisy gas they monitor. Barrow is in perfect agreement with the Greenland station.

By the way mass spec is one of the most accurate measurements in science, it counts molecules. You get as many significant figures as you want.

[skierinvermont]

I'm showing that there is nothing wrong with the equipment at Barrow. SF6 is the least noisy gas they monitor. Barrow is in perfect agreement with the Greenland station.

By the way mass spec is one of the most accurate measurements in science, it counts molecules. You get as many significant figures as you want.

It could be a leak somewhere in the equipment only certain gases are being affected. There's no reason for CO2 to be spiking and H2 to be crashing.

[Vergent]

What is it you are trying to show?

The CO2 and Hydrogen measurements are also out of whack.

methane oxidizes in the atmosphere to make CO2. hence the mildly elevated CO2.

Oxidation of methane involves the hydroxyl radical (·OH) which is highly reactive with hydrogen, hence the mildly lower H2.

"

Oxidation by hydroxyl radicals

Because of its hydroxyl radicals-mediated oxidation reaction, H₂ is seen as an indirect greenhouse gas. Indeed, H₂ oxidation exerts indirect incidences on methane and ozone concentrations, the latter being two greenhouse gases. Having a hydroxyl radicals-mediated oxidation rate similar to methane,"

http://www.eoearth.o...hydrogen_budget

These readings are consistent with each other: Elevated methane, elevated methane oxidation product(CO2), co-oxidation of hydrogen. Since they have similar rate constants the CO2 gain and the H2 loss should be equal, they are.

Nothing is out of whack.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Thats pretty sweet science.

But this is reality. You don't have methane plumes at that level and no atmospheric changes.

With The Hippo data now out there.

We are about to see new papers with better models predicting things so we can continue to refine projections

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Excellent Vergent!! This stuff is Geo Chemistry 101 though, there is no way that Mass Spectrometer is out of wack. That instrument is incredibly accurate, everything you pointed out is correct. Thats one of the main reasons why methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long because it oxidizes into CO2 and thusly H2 levels should come down. I think it is incredible that people think we can't get changes like this. For every action there is a reaction, PERIOD. Even the flap of a butterfly has an effect, what makes human kind think they can continue doing what that are doing with no effects???? Everything is constantly evolving either by direct or indirect causes. Don't get me wrong, I think natural causes are to blame for some of the warming, but AGW is definetly a major contributor, the rate at which this is taking place is unprecedented in geologic time.

[TerryM]

Vergent

Well thought out - and disturbing.

A few thoughts:

AGW removes enough ice cover to allow storms to mix the thermocline causing a 3C increase in bottom temperature in the Lapev Sea.

http://www.polarrese...w/6425/html_150

The Laptev is a shallow water body overlaying a permafrost cap beneath which vast amounts of methane are trapped. The warm water increases the permeability of the cap allowing methane to escape.

http://tyeebridge.com/?p=608

Most of the methane remains in the water column causing Ocean Acidification as is noted in the Bering Sea off Barrow.

http://www.skeptical...news.php?n=1150

The CH4 being 100 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 over a short period, causing temperature anomalies of over 10C in many locations in the Arctic. The buoyancy of the gas causes low pressure zones which bring the melt season to an abrupt end at the earliest date ever recorded.

Much of the escaping methane, being much lighter than the surrounding air, streams up to the Ozone Layer causing the first ever Arctic Ozone Hole. Much of the remainder is forced high in the atmosphere by severe low pressure systems (think ice hurricane), and above the altitude of the sensing stations - except for a small amount registered at Barrow.

Assuming next summer's Arctic ice melt off to be similar to those since 2007 is there any reason to expect this not to continue?

Not sure all the dots are connected and welcome constructive comments.

[Vergent]

Vergent

Well thought out - and disturbing.

A few thoughts:

AGW removes enough ice cover to allow storms to mix the thermocline causing a 3C increase in bottom temperature in the Lapev Sea.

http://www.polarrese...w/6425/html_150

The Laptev is a shallow water body overlaying a permafrost cap beneath which vast amounts of methane are trapped. The warm water increases the permeability of the cap allowing methane to escape.

http://tyeebridge.com/?p=608

Most of the methane remains in the water column causing Ocean Acidification as is noted in the Bering Sea off Barrow.

http://www.skeptical...news.php?n=1150

The CH4 being 100 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 over a short period, causing temperature anomalies of over 10C in many locations in the Arctic. The buoyancy of the gas causes low pressure zones which bring the melt season to an abrupt end at the earliest date ever recorded.

Much of the escaping methane, being much lighter than the surrounding air, streams up to the Ozone Layer causing the first ever Arctic Ozone Hole. Much of the remainder is forced high in the atmosphere by severe low pressure systems (think ice hurricane), and above the altitude of the sensing stations - except for a small amount registered at Barrow.

Assuming next summer's Arctic ice melt off to be similar to those since 2007 is there any reason to expect this not to continue?

Not sure all the dots are connected and welcome constructive comments.

THIS IS NOT GOOD.

“It is High Time to Warn People”

[BethesdaWX]

Question. If over the next 15 years the global temperature cools at approx 0.15C/decade, and the arctic ice pack begins to regain it's old form, will your opinion change? Just want to know.

I know if within 15-20 years if we've continued to warm I'll be rethinking my position.

[LithiaWx]

THIS IS NOT GOOD.

“It is High Time to Warn People”

I don't agree with you but for arguments sake what should we do about it? We warn people and tell them to do what? What are you going to do to stop this catastrophe? How many people are going to die because of this earth shattering discovery?

[TerryM]

Question. If over the next 15 years the global temperature cools at approx 0.15C/decade, and the arctic ice pack begins to regain it's old form, will your opinion change? Just want to know.

I know if within 15-20 years if we've continued to warm I'll be rethinking my position.

Yes - but if little green men land on the White House lawn and demand a meeting with our leader I'll also change my position. ;-)

If your position wasn't changed by the last 15 - 20 years of warming, why would an additional period warrant a change?

[BethesdaWX]

Yes - but if little green men land on the White House lawn and demand a meeting with our leader I'll also change my position. ;-)

If your position wasn't changed by the last 15 - 20 years of warming, why would an additional period warrant a change?

Because natural forcings and response from the climate favored warming up until the 2010 El Nino, which I do not think we'll ever see a year that warm again unless a strong Nino occurs again before 2014. But heck that is an easy way to test my theory, if we warm and see new "record warm years" then I'll have been invalidated.

And if I'm invalidated I'll gladly accept that and deal with my being incorrect.

[Vergent]

I don't agree with you but for arguments sake what should we do about it? We warn people and tell them to do what? What are you going to do to stop this catastrophe? How many people are going to die because of this earth shattering discovery?

1. Declare global war on GHG.
   
2. Invest in sustainable energy: solar, wind, wave, ethanol, hydrogen, geothermal(this will kick the world economy into high gear as a secondary effect.) then:
   
3. stop mining and pumping fossil fuels.
   
4. Go back to returnable reusable bottles, compost able packaging.
   
5. Build durable(1,000+ yr) infrastructure(like the Romans did. Some of their aquiducts, roads bridges, sewers, and buildings are still in use.).
   
6. Use bicycles and walking for routine, local, travel.
   
7. Replant the forests.
   
8. Invest in research in sustainable farming and living.
   
9. Stop dumping chemicals into the environment.
   
10. Stop human population growth through education and economic incentives.
    
11. Back off from the natural world. Have a smaller footprint.
    
12. Love thy neighbor as thyself.
    

That would be a reasonable start. Its a twelve step program for fossil fuel addiction.

[Vergent]

I don't agree with you but for arguments sake what should we do about it? We warn people and tell them to do what? What are you going to do to stop this catastrophe? How many people are going to die because of this earth shattering discovery?

How long are the deniers and the fossil fuel companies going to dig their heels in and prevent meaningful action?

[LakeEffectKing]

1. Declare global war on GHG.
   
2. Invest in sustainable energy: solar, wind, wave, ethanol, hydrogen, geothermal(this will kick the world economy into high gear as a secondary effect.) then:
   
3. stop mining and pumping fossil fuels.
   
4. Go back to returnable reusable bottles, compost able packaging.
   
5. Build durable(1,000+ yr) infrastructure(like the Romans did. Some of their aquiducts, roads bridges, sewers, and buildings are still in use.).
   
6. Use bicycles and walking for routine, local, travel.
   
7. Replant the forests.
   
8. Invest in research in sustainable farming and living.
   
9. Stop dumping chemicals into the environment.
   
10. Stop human population growth through education and economic incentives.
    
11. Back off from the natural world. Have a smaller footprint.
    
12. Love thy neighbor as thyself.
    

That would be a reasonable start. Its a twelve step program for fossil fuel addiction.

What if "thy neighbor" has 2 Hummers and a 10,000sq. ft. home??? And if they love you just enough to take the bus into work a couple times a week....will he/she be vindicated of their environmental crimes in your eyes, because they indeed have "sacrificed" to an extent? Questions to ponder.....

[The_Global_Warmer]

As I learned before talking solutions are not very productive. But science in thread has been extremely productive.

I thought someone posted the ch4 levels from svalbard?

Between the myi and perpetuall blow torch. 2012 in the arctic will see the russian side melt out again. likely assuring more and more clathrates to repeat and do more.

If we get an pattern like now look out.

Remember in middle sept when I said the Ice was very thin and we saw Ice retreat 100 miles in 3 days with good winds, not great.

The Ice along the kara, esb, laptev, and barents will be .50 to 2m thick at best.

Solar insolation starts back up around 78N in late Feb.

Gonna be an interesting spring.