Discussing a rapid increase in methane emissions over 6 months

Here is my summation of the situation as I see it at this moment as regards methane.

Methane levels have increased since a methane spike in late- May and have not got down since

Seemorerocks

This is the latest from CAMS on methane emissions.

There has been some (but very little) discussion on this but silence from the people who are capable of unpacking all of this.

There has been this one comment that came below the above video:“It is such a shame that CAMS totally contradicts the MetOp 1 and 2 Satellites as regards methane release in the Arctic Ocean shallow water areas. I see they are back to their 75,600 ppb scale again which is totally discrediting”

I can say straight off that I strongly disagree with this.

As can be seen from the above, the highest readings (dark brown) do not represent 75,600 ppb but a range between 2040 ppb and 75,600 ppb. 

The actual readings could be anything between those figures.

Sam Carana on why methane Peaks Matter

You will see that the scale below the NOAA information also has a colour code representing a similar range although it gives the actual readings (including the maximum) above.

 

It is more helpful to look at just the one set of data.

I will go with CAMS because that is what Margo and I have been following and because it offers a comparison that allows us to compare "apples with apples".

Back in late May Guy McPherson did an extraordinarily clear and useful interview with Margo.

In this excerpt from the interview Guy explains how, although methane is degraded in the atmosphere after a period and turned into carbon dioxide and water vapour, it accumulates in an exponential manner.

Here Guy explains how although CO2 increases gradually and in a linear manner  methane has gone from about 750 ppb of methane in the 1750's to an recent average of between 1800-2000 ppb (that was 6 months ago when the video was made).

Methane emissions are far less stable than CO2 emissons and can fluctuate greatly.

He revealed that in the week before the interview there was a 3,000 + ppb spike in emissions.

Following hot on that interview Margo did a video in which she identified where the spike was likely to have occurred.

Since then there has been another 3,046 ppb spike, on 6 August.

What is clear is that the situation has changed remarkably quickly and in a very short (6-month) period.

What the CAMS data with its colour coding has demonstrated is that the background level of methane has gone from about 1800 ppb (green) to about 2,000 ppb (ochre) with striking spikes of above this level.

The main thing to take from this is that since those earlier spikes (in May and August) occurred, things have not gone back to what they were.

In fact they are getting worse - much worse.

The following shows the changes very clearly:

Methane at surface level - Arctic view

24 July




17 August

18 October

23 November

Methane readings 30 August - 2 September, 2018

12 December, 2018

Methane surface emissions - GLOBAL VIEW

28 April, 2018 at 500 hPa 

20 May, 2018 prior to a 3,000 ppb spike

26 May, 2018 after a 3,000 ppb spike - global view

17 August, 2018 at 500 hPa (approx 18,000 feet)

12 December, 2018 at 500 hPa (approx 18,000 feet)

Discussing the changes

The above data indicates that there have been rapid changes, not only in the Arctic (which raises the biggest alarm bells) but generally.

For instance, look at the Indian subcontinent in the representations above and compare them with the following where the subcontinent can scarcely be made out for the very high (brown) readings.

It has been that way for many weeks, but not months.

I am a total loss to explain these changes. Presumably, high methane levels in India and China come from high levels of industrial activity and pollution, but what could have caused the situation to have changed almost qualitatively?

Most people are right into providing answers based on very little,or no, evidence.

I recall that during the height of the summer melt, Robert Fanney (aka. Robertscribber), whom I now see as disinformation agent as much as anything, went  through the levels of high methane with his own off-the-cuff, instant explanations, such as industrial activity in China, forest fires in Siberia etc.

Robertscribbler - Tracking Present Surface Methane Hot Spots

Has Robert Fanney ('Robertscribbler') been turned?

However, what seemed to completely escape his attention was the dark brown colour that remained over Scandinavia, and still remains,4-5 months later.

But that will not have suited his easy (and largely bogus explanations).

In lieu of a conclusion

I have no explanation for the rapid increase in global methane emissions but the changes in the Arctic are positively frightening.

If we compare the above with what is coming out from NOAA and the Metop-1 and Metop-2 satellites it suggests that emissions have increased to an 'average' of 1900 ppb (up from about 1800 ppb not so long ago) with maximum levels of 2300-2400 ppb and spikes of over 3,000 ppb.

However, if we take the CAMS data on its own and do an internal comparison the situation looks nothing less than frightening.

If Margo gets a reply back with her email asking for clarification we may be able to shed some light on all of this  (although I am not holding my breath.

****

Methane emissions keep rising – and rising

MEAN GLOBAL METHANE REACHES HISTORIC LEVEL OF 1900 PPB

For the first time in human history, mean global methane levels as high as 1900 ppb have been recorded. The measurements were recorded by the MetOp-1 satellite on the morning of August 22, 2018, at 307 mb and 321 mb.

****

In the meantime Margo has made another methane update 

P.S. I liked the following....

"I did a quick calculation and a 1 gigaton burst would raise the arctic atmospheric concentrations by 1.9ppm or 1900 ppb. The 50 gigaton burst that has been suggested would raise concentrations by 94.9ppm or 94,900ppb. This seems consistent with an emission of around 1 gigaton methane. Here, I'm assuming that the arctic atmosphere is 10% of global, then it's just a volumetric calculation."

---Dingle Jack

I see no reason why we are not in the middle of a methane event – or even a series – across the globe, and not just in the East Siberian shelf.

If you are new to all this and don't see the problem watch this: