A Note: Global Warming Threads

[adoucette]

AIRS 2006-2009 annual mean upper troposphere(359Hpa) methane concentration(ppm). Data source:http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/

LOL

Pretty funny when you put that kind of coloring on a difference of 1 ppm and to top it off, do the measurement at ~26,000 ft.

By the way, considering global air currents, do you think that methane at that altitude in the high latitudes actually came FROM the high latitudes?

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Well, I guess that throws the whole "cattle contributes to atmospheric methane" thing out the window, since South America, being the largest cattle exporter has a very low Methane level.

Makes me want to eat a hamburger!

Umm, no, because where the Methane is depends on how high in the atmosphere you look.

 

[Trippy]

LOL

Pretty funny when you put that kind of coloring on a difference of 1 ppm and to top it off, do the measurement at ~26,000 ft.

By the way, considering global air currents, do you think that methane at that altitude in the high latitudes actually came FROM the high latitudes?

Arthur

You're welcome to make what ever assumptions about what I think that make you feel better, Arthur, of course in some respects you've just demonstrated part of the point that I was making. Incidentally, if you look closely at your column averaged animation over the same time period, it too shows an enrichment in Methane during this time period in Siberia, however it's less obvious, in part due to the averaging.

 

[Trippy]

And please note, Arthur, I've made no claims about the relative importance of the Siberian contribution, only commented that it might be large than expected, or potentially, measured - do try and keep on track.

 

[adoucette]

And please note, Arthur, I've made no claims about the relative importance of the Siberian contribution, only commented that it might be large than expected, or potentially, measured - do try and keep on track.

I am on track, and that last picture was highly misleading as to the SOURCE of the Methane.

This on the other hand is not.

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

What's going on here? Are we being bilked?

Not "we". You.

You're being obtuse, willfully. You are also shilling for some awfully contemptible people, whether you know it or not - and you appear to be unaware, actually.

I mean, because, according to your linkys, the more CO2 you have, the more of the IR spectrum CO2 can absorb. It is logarithmic! Exponential! Catastrophic! Mars should be only a little cooler than Venus.
- - - -
Let me put it like this...if AGW is real, I don't think CO2, based on what I have read from OBJECTIVE sources (IE. nobody related to or paid by the UN) is the culprit.

You should actually check out my little linkys - there's a reasonable set of references to the key papers there, and some clear summaries of the past half century of research in this field,

and per your statements there you haven't bothered to read any of it - clearly you are completely unfamiliar with any of the research in the field done since WWII.

 

[Trippy]

I am on track, and that last picture was highly misleading as to the SOURCE of the Methane.

This on the other hand is not.

Arthur

Well, then you're just misrepresenting it.

http://www.earth-system-science.org...oxide_and_methane_retrievals_from_satellites/

The global distribution of atmospheric methane (CH4) as retrieved from SCIAMACHY/ENVISAT using a retrieval algorithm developed at IUP. Clearly visible are major methane source regions (red) such as wetlands in Siberia and rice paddies in China

So... The people who originated the data you're using to argue that I'm wrong compared the Siberian wetlands to the Chinese rice paddies in terms of importance.

Here's a link to a better quality version of the animation you're using:
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/sciamachy/NIR_NADIR_WFM_DOAS/
It's a 15M download though.

It clearly shows the Siberian wetlands emitting comparable amounts to what is seen in (for example) China.

 

[arfa brane]

Because you're making wrong assumptions about what I'm agreeing with him on - in this case, your lack of research.

I'm prepared to admit I haven't been to the Arctic.

What I did do is google "arctic permafrost". Then I chose to accept that although most of the links are to the same story, the research does reveal that methane contributions from the Arctic region have been underestimated.

So how was your field trip?

 

[arfa brane]

So you are saying the major contributor to the warming of Venus is not gaseous Sulfuric acid?

Not at all.

But when in the planet's geological history did sulphates get high enough that they are now the major contributor? Why isn't the earth's atmosphere saturated with sulphates like Venus, and why is the Venusian atmosphere mostly water vapor?

 

[adoucette]

But if there was an UNNATURALY high release then it would be far higher than these colors show.

It isn't.

What we learned recently was that plants of all sorts release Methane.
Take a look at Brazil for example.
Or look West of Siberia to see higher emissions from the forests of Europe, then from plains of Siberia.

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

But if there was an UNNATURALY high release then it would be far higher than these colors show.

It isn't.

What we learned recently was that plants of all sorts release Methane.
Take a look at Brazil for example.
Or look West of Siberia to see higher emissions from the forests of Europe, then from plains of Siberia.

Arthur

Are you sure?

How do you know that Orange isn't un-naturally high in the Permafrost?

That's not what the people who compiled the data you're citing are saying.
They're saying that the emissions seen in the Siberian wetlands are comparable to those seen in the chinese paddies - contrary to your claims.
The caption to the image you just cited contradicts your claims.
Tne image you cited, if one takes the time to examine it, contradicts your claims.

And yeah, I know, I linked to a paper that studied the variation of Methane emissions according to what was growing there, and found that (for example) rushes allowed higher methane emissions than mosses - or did you miss that one as well?

Incidentally, demonstrating that there are sources that are equally important doesn't actually prove that it's unimportant.

 

[Trippy]

I'm prepared to admit I haven't been to the Arctic.

What I did do is google "arctic permafrost". Then I chose to accept that although most of the links are to the same story, the research does reveal that methane contributions from the Arctic region have been underestimated.

So how was your field trip?

Who said anything about actually visiting the Arctic?
That claim is a red herring.

 

[adoucette]

Are you sure?

How do you know that Orange isn't un-naturally high in the Permafrost?

That's not what the people who compiled the data you're citing are saying.
They're saying that the emissions seen in the Siberian wetlands are comparable to those seen in the chinese paddies - contrary to your claims.
The caption to the image you just cited contradicts your claims.
Tne image you cited, if one takes the time to examine it, contradicts your claims.

And yeah, I know, I linked to a paper that studied the variation of Methane emissions according to what was growing there, and found that (for example) rushes allowed higher methane emissions than mosses - or did you miss that one as well?

Incidentally, demonstrating that there are sources that are equally important doesn't actually prove that it's unimportant.

Not at all, since the warming in the Arctic has been going on for over 30 years and YET the methane levels in the globe slowed down to flat over that time frame.

If a major NEW source of methane was happening because of permafrost melting then the levels wouldn't have stopped rising.

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Not at all, since the warming in the Arctic has been going on for over 30 years and YET the methane levels in the globe slowed down to flat.

If a major NEW source of methane was happening because of melting then the levels wouldn't have stopped rising.

Arthur

Not neccessarily.

I've already explained that Methane levels were nixed by the eruption of Pinatoubo, and I'm fairly sure that one of the links I've provided says as much.

I've also provided links that suggest that there's a lot of uncertainty, because of things like the unexpected effect the eruption of Pinatoubo had on precisely what happens to Methane once it enters the atmosphere.

 

[Trippy]

For Keln's benefit.

IR absorption spectrum for CO[sub]2[/sub].

From here


IR Calibration curve for the feature at 2350 cm[sup]-1[/sup]

From here

Quote from the second source:

A linear relation between peak absorbance at 2350 cm[sup]-1[/sup] and carbon dioxide partial pressure was observed up to ca. 0.03 atm (3 %CO2). A negative deviation from linearity was observed at higher pressures that may be a result of pressure broadening of the spectral feature.

300ppm = .03%

QED.

 

[adoucette]

Not neccessarily.

I've already explained that Methane levels were nixed by the eruption of Pinatoubo, and I'm fairly sure that one of the links I've provided says as much.

I've also provided links that suggest that there's a lot of uncertainty, because of things like the unexpected effect the eruption of Pinatoubo had on precisely what happens to Methane once it enters the atmosphere.

Not true, that was a ONE YEAR excursion (and they aren't even sure it was caused by Pinatabou), the nearly flat line of methane has gone on for decades because the rate of growth has been DECLINING even as the global temps have been rising.

Now compare this chart showing areas of permafrost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Circum-Arctic_Map_of_Permafrost_and_Ground_Ice_Conditions.png

To your previous polar chart and you will find that big PINK area in Russia, much of which isn't even in Siberia, and what is, isn't from an area with permafrost anyway.

Those areas are not hot pink.

(Helps to follow the 60d line just south of Finland on both maps).

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

Who said anything about actually visiting the Arctic?
That claim is a red herring.

Not really. If you want good data right now, you are obliged to do in situ measurements. But why not just rely on satellite data?

Or is that a trick question (well, it could be, I haven't really done the research, remember).

 

[Trippy]

Not true, that was a ONE YEAR excursion (and they aren't even sure it was caused by Pinatabou), the flat line of methane has gone on for decades because the rate of growth has been DECLINING even as the global temps have been rising..

I'm sorry, quote me claiming that Pinatoubo was responsible for the flatline in it's entirety?

Oh wait, you can't, because I didn't. It's not a claim I made, nor is it remotely implied by what I said. What I said was that Pinatoubo was an example of the uncertainty in the methan atmospheric chemistry.

Now compare this chart showing areas of permafrost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Circum-Arctic_Map_of_Permafrost_and_Ground_Ice_Conditions.png

To your previous polar chart and you will find that big PINK area in Russia, much of which isn't even in Siberia, and what is, isn't from an area with permafrost anyway.

Another claim I didn't make.
I didn't claim the pink correlated to Siberia.
I didn't claim the pink correlated to Permafrost.
I made no claim about any pink in Siberia, in fact I distinctly recall discussing Orange and red, not pink.
East Siberia.

For example, between Tiksi and Pevek.

Those areas are not hot pink.

(Helps to follow the 60d line just south of Finland on both maps).

Arthur

Never said they were - and i prefer scaling, cropping and rotating in paint.net

 

[Billy T]

Not at all, since the warming in the Arctic has been going on for over 30 years and YET the methane levels in the globe slowed down to flat over that time frame.
If a major NEW source of methane was happening because of permafrost melting then the levels wouldn't have stopped rising. Arthur

Most of your data (all of it?) stops in 2005 or 2006, but curves Trippy presents here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2686604&postcount=445
Extend past 2009 and clearly show the CH4 rise has resumed after a PAUSE, of a few years at the end of the time window you do present. The reasons for the pause is not clear, but it is likely that at least part, if not all, of the resumed greater release may be due to a new arctic phenomena: large fires, which in a few years change the nature of the arctic vegetation from rootless plants to plants with deeper roots, some of which are effectively “straws” to transport deeper CH4 to the surface air. See for example:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2686679&postcount=448
or the full post that is from at post 424.

In the first year after the large 2007 Alaskan fire, the well burned areas were free of mosses and had new plants with deeper roots (some type of willow, as I recall). And the CH4 release rate had essentially doubled in that year.

Also in post 445's third quoted section reports the measured values of the CH4 release rate from arctic tundra areas that had long established tall grass, "horsetail", and found it was 87 times greater than another still moss covered area. (I am not sure, but perhaps that other comparison area was actually a net absorber of CH4, not releasing on average.)

Given the positive feedback of fires, never before seen on this large scale*, via vegetation change and the fact that the pause in CH4 release rate has ended, with resumption of greater atmospheric concentrations measured (post 445 data) how can you be so confident in your now obsolete data?

Also it is important to note that there is a dramatic change in the shallow arctic shelf. Until a few years ago, USSR’s subs had no sonar problems with “bubble clouds” scattering their sonar signals. Presumably the lower rates to trapped CH4 leaking thru the sea were mainly dissolving in sea water, but in many areas it is now saturated, so the newly released CH4 from below the increasing failing permafrost “sealing cap” is not dissolving but bubbling up into the atmosphere as gaseous CH4. That too is another positive feedback system: Now that the trapped below permafrost CH4 is entering that atmosphere, (instead of dissolving in the sea) the rate of arctic warming (world's fastest) will further increase and cause more of the permafrost "sealing cap" to fail.

Again: why are you ignoring the more recent facts and remaining confident there is no reason for concern based on data that terminates in 2006 or before?

* I am not sure, but the references of my post states that the now warmer summers have more electrical storms; lightning may be the cause of the fires.

 

[adoucette]

why are you ignoring the more recent facts and remaining confident there is no reason for concern based on data that terminates in 2006 or before?

Because a few years does not a climatic trend make Billy.

Of course there is the literature on the subject:

Measurements of atmospheric CH4 from air samples collected weekly at 46 remote surface sites show that, after a decade of near-zero growth, globally averaged atmospheric methane increased during 2007 and 2008. During 2007, CH4 increased by 8.3 ± 0.6 ppb. CH4 mole fractions averaged over polar northern latitudes and the Southern Hemisphere increased more than other zonally averaged regions. In 2008, globally averaged CH4 increased by 4.4 ± 0.6 ppb; the largest increase was in the tropics, while polar northern latitudes did not increase.

E. J. Dlugokencky GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L18803, 5 PP., 2009

Which shows that while there was a modest increase, they weren't because of the northern latitudes.

And a chart of the year to year annual increases show a distinct long term downward trend:

Which the slight recent upticks, which were modest in size, don't change.

Now if this CONTINUES and the annual year to year increases get larger than they were in the 80s and the increases start coming from Polar Northern Latitudes, and the annual increases get to be HIGHER than the IPCC's estimates of annual increases of ~20 ppb, then get back to me.

Arthur