This is not good.

[BethesdaWX]

It kind of looks like a link, but you click on it, and nothing happens.

I quoted the reference..so is Roy Spencer inventing papers or not? I haven't read it, and it was never directly relevant to my original post anyway.

[BethesdaWX]

5th time

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/addressing-criticisms-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-at-13-century/

[PhillipS]

You know what here you go since you're having trouble:

So, the model vs. observational issue was not presented accurately in the post. This has been addressed in the peer reviewed literature by us and others (Christy et al. 2007, 2010, 2011, McKitrick et al. 2010, Klotzbach et al. 2009, 2010.)

You claimed that there is new peer-reviewed literature - none of the papers Dr Spencer referenced are new. So you still haven't backed up your assertion. Another FAIL on your part. And failing to produce data to back up an assertion is certainly defying the scientific method.

[Vergent]

Please, the subject is arctic methane venting. the 5049 people who have viewed this topic, are interested in this topic. Not what tin foil to wear as a hat.

[Vergent]

You claimed that there is new peer-reviewed literature - none of the papers Dr Spencer referenced are new. So you still haven't backed up your assertion. Another FAIL on your part. And failing to produce data to back up an assertion is certainly defying the scientific method.

Thank you for your support.

[BethesdaWX]

Please, the subject is arctic methane venting. the 5049 people who have viewed this topic, are interested in this topic. Not what tin foil to wear as a hat.

Then why did you go off topic and accuse me of making up a paper, first? I'm going to respond to that nonsense whether you like it or not.

[Vergent]

5th time

http://www.drroyspen...-at-13-century/

Another link to "fundanomics the free market simplified"

This is spam

[BethesdaWX]

You claimed that there is new peer-reviewed literature - none of the papers Dr Spencer referenced are new. So you still haven't backed up your assertion. Another FAIL on your part. And failing to produce data to back up an assertion is certainly defying the scientific method.

???

You said I made up Christy et al 2011, I just proved you wrong, in showing you that Roy Spencer referenced it.

How is that a fail on my part?

[BethesdaWX]

Another link to "fundanomics the free market simplified"

This is spam

I don't know if this is your idea of trolling or not, but whatever it is you're not good at it.

The paper exists, I did not make it up, unless Roy Spencer is lying. Is he lying?

[Vergent]

???

You said I made up Christy et al 2011, I just proved you wrong, in showing you that Roy Spencer referenced it.

How is that a fail on my part?

Where is the link? You, as a scientist must always check your references. Even if it is your guru.

"Of course I never defy science"

Please, the subject is arctic methane venting. the 5049 people who have viewed this topic, are interested in this topic. Not what tin foil to wear as a hat

[BethesdaWX]

Where is the link?

I don't know where it is because I haven't looked. I quoted Spencer's reference to the paper, thats all, and he is not going to blatantly make up a paper with his colleague as the Author.

I don't even know why you even want the paper given it is not relavent to my thread, let alone me finding it for you.

If Roy Spencer invented an imaginary paper to decieve the public, thats on him, not me.

[Vergent]

I don't know where it is because I haven't looked. I quoted Spencer's reference to the paper, thats all, and he is not going to blatantly make up a paper with his colleague as the Author.

I don't even know why you even want the paper given it is not relavent to my thread, let alone me finding it for you.

If Roy Spencer invented an imaginary paper to decieve the public, thats on him, not me.

Why did you decide that a topic about methane venting in the arctic was about you? Or your guru?

Are you saying " Roy Spencer invented an imaginary paper to decieve the public, thats on him, not me."

[BethesdaWX]

Why did you decide that a topic about methane venting in the arctic was about you?

I didn't, you did with your false assertion about me.

I'm done with this thread-trashing nonsense. Either the paper exists, or Roy Spencer is a backtabbing liar towards his colleagues, inventing papers. (lol)

If you want to keep your thread clean, think twice about spreading BS intentionally and expecting no response.

[Vergent]

Why did you decide that a topic about methane venting in the arctic was about you? Or your guru?

Are you saying " Roy Spencer invented an imaginary paper to decieve the public, thats on him, not me."

To the general public this process is called deprogramming.

[PhillipS]

???

You said I made up Christy et al 2011, I just proved you wrong, in showing you that Roy Spencer referenced it.

How is that a fail on my part?

I never said you made it up, I said it is not recent. A huge difference. Christy et al 2011 is not recent by any stretch of the term - it is old news and has been thorougly debunked. You claimed in clear, unambiguous language that there is "New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer". All you have to do to put this whole issue to rest is to provide the link to the paper(s) you were referring to. Were you telling the truth (in which case you can easily provide the links) or was your claim a complete fabrication?

If you understand the scientific method at all you know that all claims require supporting data. You have not provided the data to support your claim so you have failed to follow the scientific method. Even a child (or teenager) could understand that, and that is the failure I referred to.

[BethesdaWX]

I never said you made it up, I said it is not recent. A huge difference. Christy et al 2011 is not recent by any stretch of the term - it is old news and has been thorougly debunked. You claimed in clear, unambiguous language that there is "New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer". All you have to do to put this whole issue to rest is to provide the link to the paper(s) you were referring to. Were you telling the truth (in which case you can easily provide the links) or was your claim a complete fabrication?

If you understand the scientific method at all you know that all claims require supporting data. You have not provided the data to support your claim so you have failed to follow the scientific method. Even a child (or teenager) could understand that, and that is the failure I referred to.

HUH? You CLEARLY had asserted that I was lying about christy et al 2011 existing.

You have simply been caught telling a lie on this forum.

You said I invented it, now it suddenly exists, but it's debunked crap? Do you even know what the paper is about? Dude you're out of your mind.

Find me one paper that "debunks" it.

[Vergent]

Multiple stations have had recent, all time high readings consistant with methane whiffs pulled south by the jet stream. The Trinidad Head trajectory suggests that the methane vented to the stratosphere.

[LithiaWx]

Multiple stations have had recent, all time high readings consistant with methane whiffs pulled south by the jet stream.

Why do you continue to use the older Barrow data when it has been proven wrong? The data is not accurate, you know it but yet you still use it. The graph you posted was from the 12th, the more recent graph from the 28th shows the reading was obviously not correct which I said over and over again before it was proven. The other stations are not much to note either, they are consistent with a slow global rise in Methane levels worldwide. Why are you continuing to propagate the lie that Barrow saw a rise/spike in methane of nearly 20% when it was obviously an error?

[Vergent]

Why do you keep asking for something you do not want?

Right now we have virtually no data about this new development and the study is not even complete and some folks are jumping off the deep end.

I'd like to see much more data

Those ridiculous C4 anomalies are not showing up on any other locations.

That's all fine and dandy, but you never answered my question. Why is Barrow the ONLY location reporting a major spike in CO2 and Methane? You just quoted this :

At the VERY least everyone should be very skeptical that the Barrow reading are accurate. There is no other station that shows even remotely the same reading. Give me even one more station reporting a rise in Methane like Barrow and then I'll believe.

If you can find another measurement that supports the readings in Barrow get back to me then.

It should not be that hard for other stations to be picking up on an extreme methane spike.

with the sheer scale and high density with thousands of plumes you would think another station would pick up on this.

if there are 1000's of plumes why is barrow the only station reporting a spike in methane. It just did not apply to my post and someone decided to post it thinking they were proving something which hey were not. I'm disengaging TerryM and Vergent over this subject, it's really stupid and until another station shows something like this I remain skeptical.

Then you ignore this, a methane spike in California that tracks back to the East Siberian upper atmosphere. Which suggests that the bulk of the methane is in the upper atmosphere. Something I and others suspected.

It is also detected at other stations, just whiffs, but highest on record.

Siberian Seas Seethe Swamp Smell

Here is the ESS boiling methane, above is the trajectory map that carries it to California where we get the highest methane measurement on record. Is the reality of the situation sinking in yet?

"Give me even one more station reporting a rise in Methane like Barrow and then I'll believe."

[LithiaWx]

Why do you keep asking for something you do not want?

Then you ignore this, a methane spike in California that tracks back to the East Siberian upper atmosphere. Which suggests that the bulk of the methane is in the upper atmosphere. Something I and others suspected.

It is also detected at other stations, just whiffs, but highest on record.

Siberian Seas Seethe Swamp Smell

Here is the ESS boiling methane, above is the trajectory map that carries it to California where we get the highest methane measurement on record. Is the reality of the situation sinking in yet?

"Give me even one more station reporting a rise in Methane like Barrow and then I'll believe."

Wow, where to start? Why do you continue to use Barrow's false readings as an argument? The wind trajectories you posted don't even have the air moving over the arctic at all. California's rise in methane if accurate is no where near the extreme levels I objected to wrt Barrow's readings. I said show me another station with methane levels rising as sharply as Barrow's. The California one you posted is not even close and Barrows have not spiked at all recently. I think I'm done arguing with you. If you want to keep posting an erroneous graph from Barrow to prove your point, go ahead. Everyone who has read the thread knows they are inaccurate, all it does is cause you to lose credibility every time you post garbage. Methane levels are rising worldwide, to see a slightly higher than normal reading from a few months ago is not strange. The trend is up and we have set new methane records over and over again this is not a new development.

If methane were to spike as high as the Barrow one did before the correction then I would agree we have a serious issue. Right now we have a group of scientists with some data that has not even been written into a paper or peer reviewed yet. You are jumping the gun.

[Vergent]

The plume also expands wider as it moves farther away from the source.

Would this not dilute the methane? This is a 10,000 mile trip.

Wow, where to start? Why do you continue to use Barrow's false readings as an argument? The wind trajectories you posted don't even have the air moving over the arctic at all. California's rise in methane if accurate is no where near the extreme levels I objected to wrt Barrow's readings. I said show me another station with methane levels rising as sharply as Barrow's. The California one you posted is not even close and Barrows have not spiked at all recently. I think I'm done arguing with you. If you want to keep posting an erroneous graph from Barrow to prove your point, go ahead. Everyone who has read the thread knows they are inaccurate, all it does is cause you to lose credibility every time you post garbage. Methane levels are rising worldwide, to see a slightly higher than normal reading from a few months ago is not strange. The trend is up and we have set new methane records over and over again this is not a new development.

If methane were to spike as high as the Barrow one did before the correction then I would agree we have a serious issue. Right now we have a group of scientists with some data that has not even been written into a paper or peer reviewed yet. You are jumping the gun.

NOAA ESRL uses a 3-column quality control flag where each column

is defined as follows:

column 1 REJECTION flag. An alphanumeric other

than a period (.) in the FIRST column indicates

a sample with obvious problems during collection

or analysis. This measurement should not be interpreted.

column 2 SELECTION flag. An alphanumeric other than a

period (.) in the SECOND column indicates a sample

that is likely valid but does not meet selection

criteria determined by the goals of a particular

investigation.

column 3 COMMENT flag. An alphanumeric other than a period (.)

in the THIRD column provides additional information

about the collection or analysis of the sample.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/ch4/flask/README_surface_flask_ch4.html

Judging from the data set

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/ch4/flask/event/ch4_brw_surface-flask_1_ccgg_event.txt

a single or a double high reading is flagged in column 1; bad data

A string of four or more high readings is usually flagged in column 2; valid but does not meet the selection criteria.

This data set they are trying to show the atmospheric baseline, short-term elevated values are tossed out of the graph, not the data set. I can guarantee that they are there, and they are probably flagged in the second column. This years data will be added to this data soon I hope.

But to call it bad data without knowing how the displayed data is selected is self imposed ignorance. So all the high readings we are seeing will probably be flagged, and furthermore there are probably many valid high readings that never get displayed at all.

[LithiaWx]

Vergent we agree to disagree on this subject, anymore arguing by either of us is futile. Do you agree?

[Vergent]

Vergent we agree to disagree on this subject, anymore arguing by either of us is futile. Do you agree?

agree

I will not respond to you on this and you will not respond to me.

[BethesdaWX]

THIS IS NOT GOOD, WE MUST DO SOMETHING.

[TerryM]

Would this not dilute the methane? This is a 10,000 mile trip.

NOAA ESRL uses a 3-column quality control flag where each column

is defined as follows:

column 1 REJECTION flag. An alphanumeric other

than a period (.) in the FIRST column indicates

a sample with obvious problems during collection

or analysis. This measurement should not be interpreted.

column 2 SELECTION flag. An alphanumeric other than a

period (.) in the SECOND column indicates a sample

that is likely valid but does not meet selection

criteria determined by the goals of a particular

investigation.

column 3 COMMENT flag. An alphanumeric other than a period (.)

in the THIRD column provides additional information

about the collection or analysis of the sample.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa...._flask_ch4.html

Judging from the data set

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa...._ccgg_event.txt

a single or a double high reading is flagged in column 1; bad data

A string of four or more high readings is usually flagged in column 2; valid but does not meet the selection criteria.

This data set they are trying to show the atmospheric baseline, short-term elevated values are tossed out of the graph, not the data set. I can guarantee that they are there, and they are probably flagged in the second column. This years data will be added to this data soon I hope.

But to call it bad data without knowing how the displayed data is selected is self imposed ignorance. So all the high readings we are seeing will probably be flagged, and furthermore there are probably many valid high readings that never get displayed at all.

Good news indeed - I confess I had feared a Monnet event, where a researcher faced huge pressure to change his findings.

[blue sky]

Vergent.....Reading through all this......could you please explain what your point on Methane is? In your own words.

[mempho]

It's obvious alright. You may have won the political and PR battle but you have not and with not defy science and Mother Nature without paying the bill. The sad thing is, future generations and the environment will be paying the bill.

And exactly how would blanket worldwide acceptance of AGW have prevented anything if there were absolutely no dissenting opinions as of say, 1992?

The thing about these methane releases is that this was going to happen anyway. Therefore, we can't really blame anyone for it. Stuff happens. People live. People die. People get rich. People with private jets tell me that I am a cancer on the planet.

X

[Strongbad]

And exactly how would blanket worldwide acceptance of AGW have prevented anything if there were absolutely no dissenting opinions as of say, 1992?

The thing about these methane releases is that this was going to happen anyway. Therefore, we can't really blame anyone for it. Stuff happens. People live. People die. People get rich. People with private jets tell me that I am a cancer on the planet.

X

Ditto! It's always been thus, hasn't it?

[WeatherRusty]

And exactly how would blanket worldwide acceptance of AGW have prevented anything if there were absolutely no dissenting opinions as of say, 1992?

The thing about these methane releases is that this was going to happen anyway. Therefore, we can't really blame anyone for it. Stuff happens. People live. People die. People get rich. People with private jets tell me that I am a cancer on the planet.

X

I start by accepting the risk of AGW as a real threat based on the scientific evidence. From there it is reasonable to think of ways to minimize that threat. To ignore the threat is a fools gamble.

Fossil fuels are a finite resource, they won't last forever, especially as the demand continues to rise across the world. It is imperative that we develop and deploy complimentary and replacement sources of energy..and the sooner the better. We are unique among species in that we consciously alter our environment on a global scale. Since we can be aware of what we are doing, we stand a chance to rectify the problems we create. It's our decision to make. Also, natural climate variability is not poised to raise global temperature by several further degrees in the coming decades and centuries. It hasn't been as warm as we stand to make it for at least the past 15 million years.

If we can't or won't do it then we are in big trouble from both AGW and energy deficiency.

Methane releases from the frozen arctic tundra and seabed clathrates are not something which has to be inevitable. They will only worsen if the ambient temperature continues to rise, and if it happens that a tipping point has already been exceeded then you are correct, but we don't know that to be the case as of this time.

[Vergent]

Vergent.....Reading through all this......could you please explain what your point on Methane is? In your own words.

Siberian Seas Seethe Swamp Smell

THIS IS NOT GOOD.