Welcome to American Weather
  • Announcements

    • Wow

      New Tropical Forums   08/25/2016

      It is with great pleasure that I announce the creation of a new forum to the board dedicated to tropical weather discussions.  We will be encouraging all tropical related discussions in this forum to promote a stronger community and more robust discussion.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Vergent

This is not good.

854 posts in this topic

post-6603-0-54982400-1326996258.jpg

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

Using the 14ppb number for 70-90N I get 0.9Mt C. This was for a four month period, so the yearly number would be 2.7Mt/year. This represents a 34% increase in arctic methane sourcing, over the previously reported 8Mt/year. There is a long way to go before it is a global threat. But it has gone from next to nothing to Mt/year in about three years.

BTW

ccgg.BRW.ch4.1.none.discrete.2012.2012.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David archer has an online model for atmospheric methane release.

http://forecast.uchi...ts/methane.html

methane.rf.11181746.gif

This is the result of releasing 16Gt over a 20 year period.(a 100 fold increase over the current 8Mt rate). This corrisponds to 1% of the known ESAS reserves being vented. With 5 watt forcing the permafrost would be vanishing very fast so lets release 1% of those reserves over the next 20 years 32Gt over 40 years.

methane.rf.11181947.gif

This is not good.

Has it been mentioned yet this calculator has a thread on RealClimate?

http://www.realclima...ere/#more-10545

By the way, the methane concentration Y-axis on the previous post is a bit confusing to me, is it just 0.5 -3.0 parts per billion? That's 1000 times too small. Will be interesting to see the latest hourly data as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it been mentioned yet this calculator has a thread on RealClimate?

http://www.realclima...ere/#more-10545

By the way, the methane concentration Y-axis on the previous post is a bit confusing to me, is it just 0.5 -3.0 parts per billion? That's 1000 times too small. Will be interesting to see the latest hourly data as well.

Thanks for pointing that out. There is a good discussion there about this model.

The current article is about this cartoon explanation of weather vs climate, should be required viewing for this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, the methane concentration Y-axis on the previous post is a bit confusing to me, is it just 0.5 -3.0 parts per billion? That's 1000 times too small. Will be interesting to see the latest hourly data as well.

The in-sito data is not working for this year yet. I thing the graph rescaled to ppm because the data went over 2000, the label didn't change, is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Video] SWIPA – A Changing Environment

Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA)

Just the melting of all the floating ice in the arctic ocean, will add as much heat to the earth, as all the Co-2 we put in the atmosphere to date.” Dr. James Lovelock

Estimating the Global Radiative Impact of the Sea-Ice-Albedo Feedback in the Arctic

“…a more realistic ice-free-summer scenario (no ice for one month, decreased ice at all other times of the year) results in a forcing of about 0.3 W m−2, similar to present-day anthropogenic forcing caused by halocarbons. The potential for changes in cloud cover as a result of the changes in sea ice makes the evaluation of the actual forcing that may be realized quite uncertain, since such changes could overwhelm the forcing caused by the sea-ice loss itself, if the cloudi- ness increases in the summertime.”

http://climateforce.net/2012/01/19/swipa-a-changing-environment/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another impact from more methane and nitrous oxide (denitrification in the water column or from permafrost decomposing)

Drew Shindell of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, suggests that recovery of the ozone layer will be delayed 10 to 20 years by rising levels of two gases—methane and nitrous oxide—that also contribute to greenhouse warming. At low latitudes, methane in the stratosphere breaks down into hydrogen oxides, which attack ozone. Nitrous oxide can decompose to form ozone-eating nitrogen oxides. http://discovermagaz...nov/breakozone/

Second Hole in the Ozone Layer opened over the Artic North Pole in 2011 – Could be Harmful to People

The new tear in the layer of the atmosphere which protects us from the Sun’s harmful UV radiation, is currently smaller than that of the hole over Antarctica. However, the Arctic polar vortex, a persistent large-scale cyclone within which the ozone loss takes place is highly mobile in comparison to the Antarctic vortex.

This means that the Artic Ozone hole has a greater chance of occurring over densely populated northern areas on the earth, as opposed to the virtually unpopulated surface of Antarctica.

Forming in mid August, the Ozone Hole over Antarctica reached a larger than average 26 million square kilometers by September 12, 2011. While the 2011 Antarctic ozone hole briefly extended over the southern tip of South America, if the Arctic Ozone Hole were to eventually reach the size of its polar opposite, researchers estimate that it could expose over 700 million people, wildlife and plants to dangerous UV ray levels. http://newstaar.com/...-people/355050/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long lived CFC’s, Methane - Nitrous Oxide uptake and the destruction of the northern hemisphere Ozone Layer http://climateforce....re-ozone-layer/

I still compiling data but from a recent study it is assumed that the destruction of the ozone layer itself affects weather/climate change. Possible feedback mechanism are investigated..

Update

Water vapor breaks down in the stratosphere, releasing reactive hydrogen oxide molecules that destroy ozone. These molecules also react with chlorine containing gases, converting them into forms that destroy ozone as well. So a wetter stratosphere will have less ozone.

Observations of ozone show a thinning of the Earth's protective stratospheric ozone layer by about 3 to 8% overall since the 1970s. In the upper stratosphere, ozone depletion has been from 15 to 20%. Again, the model is better able to reproduce these values when increased water vapor is included. This is especially true in the upper stratosphere, where ozone is most sensitive to water. The model indicates that increased water vapor accounts for about 40% of the ozone loss in the upper stratosphere, and about 20% of the overall loss to date.

There are two driving forces behind the change in stratospheric moisture. Increasing emissions of methane are transformed into water in the stratosphere by chemical reactions. This can account for about a third of the observed increase in moisture there.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_05/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For lower scenarios, e.g. the mitigation scenario RCP3-

PD, our results suggest that future warming is unlikely to

increase Arctic temperatures enough to release a large fraction

of the carbon stored in permafrost soils, although up to

22% could be thawed already by 2100. If strong mitigation

of emissions is pursued, it seems still possible to prevent the

release of large fractions of this permafrost carbon over the

coming centuries.

http://www.biogeosci...-9-649-2012.pdf

Hope they are right, but every model so far under predicts the arctic warming.

This would not be bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

If this turns into an emergency, the ice losses can be reversed quickly by keeping the pacific waters out of the arctic, eliminating 1/3 of the melt.

Woodgateetal2007BStraitHeat_Fig1forweb.JPG

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/BS2007Heat.html

The problem is, we have opened Pandora's box.

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2011/12/50-doomiest-graphs-of-2011.html

image%5B6%5D.png?imgmax=800

As a species, we haven't realized it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How arrogant of you, as if you're smarter than everyone else because they don't believe global warming is a big issue.

To paraphrase Coach Bear Bryant - It ain't arrogance if it's true.

There is a mountain of data and observations supporting mainstream AGW. If a person can't (or won't) understand the probability and severity of the consequences we are creating by dumping gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere - what does that say about their intelligence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SOLAS regulations pertaining to muster drills are fairly short and straightforward. They require that the drill take place within 24 hours of embarkation. The regulations differentiate between a muster and a "safety briefing." According to SOLAS rules, whenever new passengers embark, a safety briefing must be held "immediately before sailing, or immediately after sailing," consisting of at least a PA announcement. This may be supplemented with other info -- by written materials contained within each cabin, for instance. Regulations require that the safety briefing provides "clear instructions" that "detail the actions each person on board should follow in the event of an emergency." But a muster, where passengers are physically assembled, is required only within 24 hours of sailing. (In Concordia's case, the muster drill was scheduled to take place after additional passengers boarded on Day 2 in Savona, Italy, which would have been within the required 24-hour window.)

As for life jackets, the rules don't specifically say that passengers must don them during the drills -- but they must be shown how to put them on.

In recent years, lines with bigger ships, including Royal Caribbean and Carnival, have concluded that moving upward of 5,000 passengers, outfitted in bulky life jackets, to their muster stations had become unmanageable. These lines have instituted a new version of the muster drill. According to Bud Darr, director of environmental and health programs for the Cruise Line International Association (CLIA), a membership organization that represents the major cruise lines, passengers now assemble in large public rooms, instead of on the open decks, where they await further instructions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SOLAS regulations pertaining to muster drills are fairly short and straightforward. They require that the drill take place within 24 hours of embarkation. The regulations differentiate between a muster and a "safety briefing." According to SOLAS rules, whenever new passengers embark, a safety briefing must be held "immediately before sailing, or immediately after sailing," consisting of at least a PA announcement. This may be supplemented with other info -- by written materials contained within each cabin, for instance. Regulations require that the safety briefing provides "clear instructions" that "detail the actions each person on board should follow in the event of an emergency." But a muster, where passengers are physically assembled, is required only within 24 hours of sailing. (In Concordia's case, the muster drill was scheduled to take place after additional passengers boarded on Day 2 in Savona, Italy, which would have been within the required 24-hour window.)

As for life jackets, the rules don't specifically say that passengers must don them during the drills -- but they must be shown how to put them on.

In recent years, lines with bigger ships, including Royal Caribbean and Carnival, have concluded that moving upward of 5,000 passengers, outfitted in bulky life jackets, to their muster stations had become unmanageable. These lines have instituted a new version of the muster drill. According to Bud Darr, director of environmental and health programs for the Cruise Line International Association (CLIA), a membership organization that represents the major cruise lines, passengers now assemble in large public rooms, instead of on the open decks, where they await further instructions.

wtf?

btw still a tiny increase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wtf?

btw still a tiny increase

And exactly how do you know that? 90% of the arctic and Siberia are in the 1870+ category. You seem to be assuming that 1870+ = 1870.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And exactly how do you know that? 90% of the arctic and Siberia are in the 1870+ category. You seem to be assuming that 1870+ = 1870.

Do you see the sporadic pixels that aren't 1870+ interlace in there. That's why this is just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you see the sporadic pixels that aren't 1870+ interlace in there. That's why this is just silly.

AND ALL THE METHANE IS JUST HANGING OUT AT 400Mb FOR SPRING BRAKE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That graph shows methane increasing at 1ppb/year. Let's make the radical assumption of DOUBLING that to 2/ppb year. Arctic methane concentrations will only be 2050ppb in the year 2100... far below any IPCC projection.

What we are witnessing are TINY TINY TINY methane increases that don't even come close to corroborating IPCC projections.. never mind the doomsday scenarios being claimed by alarmists. Global methane concentrations remain far below IPCC projections and are increasing at a slower rate than IPCC projections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Laptev and the Lena River Delta area look pretty solidly 1870+ only.

That could mean that they are a LOT more than this number, not just a bit more (as is reasonable to assume for, say, the Kara).

Looks like we just don't know and that AIRS should recalibrate their sensors and/or maps........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the polar methane plot is overdue for revision, at least for its scale. Here is the ESRL daily average methane chart for Barrow for 2011 and 1/2012:

ccgg.BRW.ch4.4.none.daily.2011.2012.png

Notice that the readings have not gone below 1850 ppb in the past 13 months, and most of the readings would fit in the 1870+ ppb color in the AIRS polar plot. Current values are around 1920 ppb - still off the scale on the AIRS plot. That makes it hard to see changes in the methane concentration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.