Options

Northern methane concentration

nad
edited March 2015 in - - Climate

There is an Arctic methane deposit page but I am not sure wether the below table fits into it, apart from that it seems I currently can't edit the project anyways. John had just posted on his google+ account a link to graphs of methane stations. I picked now some stations around the northpole and some more southern and roughly read of (unfortuately rather unprecise) the values for the years 1992, 2000 and 2014. Result: the methane values in the north are quite higher than in the southern parts of the world. This is of course no statistics, but the pattern looks to me clearly visible:

Here around the north pole:

Summit Greenland 1998:1825 2014:1900

Shemya Island, Alaska 1992:1810 2000:1850 2014:1910

Tiksi, Russia 2014:1925

Ny-Alesund, Svalbard, Norway and Sweden 1992:1825 2000:1850 2014:1910

Alert, Nunavut, Canda 1992:1825 2000:1859 2014:1950

Not so northern but eventually subject to permafrost issues:

Ulaan Uul, Mongolia

The typical southern values are way lower like e.g.:

Ragged Point Barbados 1992:1730 2000:1840 2014:1870

and even in Antarctica it is lower (part of the different concentration is probably partially due to the wind, but as the values in Antartica show that this component seems not so high):

Syowa Station, Antarctica, Japan1992:1670 2000:1725 2014:1750

There are though some outliers like

Moody, Texas, United States, where the methane value sometimes shooted over 2000....guess there are some gas fields.

Comments

  • 1.

    Nad wrote:

    and even in Antarctica it is lower

    That makes sense, since methane is mainly released by bogs: there are a lot of bogs in Siberia and Canada, but none in Antarctica.

    Comment Source:Nad wrote: > and even in Antarctica it is lower That makes sense, since methane is mainly released by bogs: there are a lot of bogs in Siberia and Canada, but none in Antarctica.
  • 2.
    nad
    edited March 2015

    I actually meanwhile found a graph showing this northern-southern and the position of the respective station in that graph.

    That makes sense, since methane is mainly released by bogs: there are a lot of bogs in Siberia and Canada, but none in Antarctica.

    I am not sure wether it's only the bogs which are causing the methane release. There seems also methane from arctic seabeds. And scarily enough if I scrutinize this image:

    methane

    it looks as if what was in 2000 and 2001 a slight tilt down towards 90 degrees South turned in around 2007 into a slight tild upward. But one can't see this too well in that 3D graphic. Would be good if one could turn it. I hope that doesn't mean that there are now also methane releases from antarctic seabeds!

    From an article from National geographic:

    A team led by oceanographer Sunke Schmidtko of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Germany found that the shallow waters in the Amundsen and nearby Bellingshausen Seas have been warming over the last three decades.

    By looking at it I think I remember now that this graph (however may be without the seperate stations) was displayed here on the forum...somewhere. I have though no idea where, but I think it could have been you John who posted it. Wouldn't it make sense to post that on the Arctic methane deposits page? I am currently spam blocked.

    Comment Source:I actually meanwhile found a graph showing this <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=RPB&program=ccgg&type=ts">northern-southern and the position of the respective station in that graph</a>. >That makes sense, since methane is mainly released by bogs: there are a lot of bogs in Siberia and Canada, but none in Antarctica. I am not sure wether it's only the bogs which are causing the methane release. There seems also methane from <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150205101921.htm">arctic seabeds.</a> And scarily enough if I scrutinize this image: ![methane](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/iadv/graph/rpb/rpb_ch4_rug_surface_00020.png) it looks as if what was in 2000 and 2001 a slight tilt down towards 90 degrees South turned in around 2007 into a slight tild upward. But one can't see this too well in that 3D graphic. Would be good if one could turn it. I hope that doesn't mean that there are now also methane releases from antarctic seabeds! From an article from <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/141204-antarctic-ice-melt-sea-level-climate-environment-science/">National geographic</a>: >A team led by oceanographer Sunke Schmidtko of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Germany found that the shallow waters in the Amundsen and nearby Bellingshausen Seas have been warming over the last three decades. By looking at it I think I remember now that this graph (however may be without the seperate stations) was displayed here on the forum...somewhere. I have though no idea where, but I think it could have been you John who posted it. Wouldn't it make sense to post that on the <a href="http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Arctic+methane+deposits">Arctic methane deposits page</a>? I am currently spam blocked.
  • 3.

    I just saw ...upon scrolling that the methane page has the 3D graphics. Anyways I am still spam blocked.

    Comment Source:I just saw ...upon scrolling that the methane page has the 3D graphics. Anyways I am still spam blocked.
  • 4.

    Nad, according to your report, is it just that single link that is being blocked? Then can you proceed with your editing, apart from that link, or is your work more generally blocked.

    Look at the end of the Sandbox page, I was able to paste in the link that you posted to the forum, and it saved there. Can you try copying that text, and saving it again? Just a wild guess, but I'm wondering if there were some control characters in that specific text you were posting.

    I really want to help here, but I'll need some more specific information to work in order to get anywhere.

    What I've gathered so far are:

    • You can save something to the Sandbox page

    • A particular link you tried to save gave you an error message. Can you post the exact text of the message?

    • I'm unclear if it's just that one phrase, or if its other phrases too

    If it's other phrases too, then can you experiment to find the minimal examples which produce the error. Often times, the very act of producing a minimal example will contain the solution to the problem. For instance, when Jacob wasn't able to post an article, by repeated efforts of cutting the text in half, etc., I boiled it down to a minimal example: the word "gambling." Well, that was the answer, "gambling" was on the list of spam-blocked keywords.

    I realize quite well that this can be tedious, and I would volunteer to do the testing myself -- but here, you are the only one who can take steps to find a minimal example and thereby isolate the problem.

    It could have worked for me to isolate it by posting your problem text to the forum, but as you can see from the text at the end of the sandbox, I am not getting the problem with the text that you have posted to the forum.

    Comment Source:Nad, according to your report, is it just that single link that is being blocked? Then can you proceed with your editing, apart from that link, or is your work more generally blocked. Look at the end of the Sandbox page, I was able to paste in the link that you posted to the forum, and it saved there. Can you try copying that text, and saving it again? Just a wild guess, but I'm wondering if there were some control characters in that specific text you were posting. I really want to help here, but I'll need some more specific information to work in order to get anywhere. What I've gathered so far are: * You can save something to the Sandbox page * A particular link you tried to save gave you an error message. Can you post the exact text of the message? * I'm unclear if it's just that one phrase, or if its other phrases too If it's other phrases too, then can you experiment to find the _minimal_ examples which produce the error. Often times, the very act of producing a minimal example will contain the solution to the problem. For instance, when Jacob wasn't able to post an article, by repeated efforts of cutting the text in half, etc., I boiled it down to a minimal example: the word "gambling." Well, that was the answer, "gambling" was on the list of spam-blocked keywords. I realize quite well that this can be tedious, and I would volunteer to do the testing myself -- but here, you are the only one who can take steps to find a minimal example and thereby isolate the problem. It could have worked for me to isolate it by posting your problem text to the forum, but as you can see from the text at the end of the sandbox, I am not getting the problem with the text that you have posted to the forum.
  • 5.

    Hold on -- I was able to reproduce the problem, when I tried to add your link to the Methane page (rather than Sandbox).

    I will look into this.

    Comment Source:Hold on -- I was able to reproduce the problem, when I tried to add your link to the Methane page (rather than Sandbox). I will look into this.
  • 6.
    edited March 2015

    Nad, I have almost identified the issue. It is not related to your connection properties, but rather to the page in question. I am going to start a separate discussion to go over this.

    Comment Source:Nad, I have almost identified the issue. It is not related to your connection properties, but rather to the page in question. I am going to start a separate discussion to go over this.
  • 7.
    nad
    edited March 2015

    Nad, I have almost identified the issue. It is not related to your connection properties, but rather to the page in question. I am going to start a separate discussion to go over this.

    Thanks David. But now I unfortunately have to postpone editing.

    Comment Source:>Nad, I have almost identified the issue. It is not related to your connection properties, but rather to the page in question. I am going to start a separate discussion to go over this. Thanks David. But now I unfortunately have to postpone editing.
  • 8.

    it looks as if what was in 2000 and 2001 a slight tilt down towards 90 degrees South turned in around 2007 into a slight tild upward. But one can't see this too well in that 3D graphic. Would be good if one could turn it. I hope that doesn't mean that there are now also methane releases from antarctic seabeds!

    Here are all from NOAA (which I guess is all globally) available flask station data for methane in Antarctica:

    Halley station antarctica methane curve

    Synova

    Palmer

    South Pole

    As one can see the curve shows after a plateau a rather steep upward trend after 2007. The plateau and the upward trend after 2007 is by the way also globally visible*. The question is wether this is steeper for Antarctica. I briefly looked into the data (Here the Halley data). I currently can't really afford to write a program and to collect and read out all that scattered data and like take averages of the differences of data between 2007 and 2014 and 2000 and 2007 (An averaged "discrete differential" so to say) to check wether things are really turning bad in Antarctica. And if science works properly this should be/had been done somewhere anyways. So please let me know in case you find something on that.

    *It is also visible in this visualization(2007=49). (The fact that temperature after that do not fully reflect this behaviour may eventually be due to lousy temperature collections.)

    In any case I think this should URGENTLY be further investigated.

    Comment Source:>it looks as if what was in 2000 and 2001 a slight tilt down towards 90 degrees South turned in around 2007 into a slight tild upward. But one can't see this too well in that 3D graphic. Would be good if one could turn it. I hope that doesn't mean that there are now also methane releases from antarctic seabeds! Here are all from NOAA (which I guess is all globally) available flask station data for methane in Antarctica: ![Halley station antarctica methane curve](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/iadv/ccgg/graphs/ccgg.HBA.ch4.1.none.discrete.all.png) ![Synova](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/iadv/ccgg/graphs/ccgg.SYO.ch4.1.none.discrete.all.png) ![Palmer](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/iadv/ccgg/graphs/ccgg.PSA.ch4.1.none.discrete.all.png) ![South Pole](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/iadv/ccgg/graphs/ccgg.SPO.ch4.1.none.discrete.all.png) As one can see the curve shows after a plateau a rather steep upward trend after 2007. The plateau and the upward trend after 2007 is by the way also globally visible*. The question is wether this is steeper for Antarctica. I briefly looked into the data (<a href="ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/ch4/flask/surface/ch4_hba_surface-flask_1_ccgg_event.txt">Here the Halley data</a>). I currently can't really afford to write a program and to collect and read out all that scattered data and like take averages of the differences of data between 2007 and 2014 and 2000 and 2007 (An averaged "discrete differential" so to say) to check wether things are <a href="http://news.ucsc.edu/2012/08/antarctic-methane.html">really turning bad in Antarctica.</a> And if science works properly this should be/had been done somewhere anyways. So please let me know in case you find something on that. *It is also visible in this <a href="http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Does+global+warming+lag+or+lead+a+rise+in+greenhouse+gas+concentration%3F">visualization</a>(2007=49). (The fact that temperature after that do not fully reflect this behaviour may eventually be <a href="https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/exploring-climate-data-part-3/#comment-63931">due to lousy temperature collections.</a>) In any case I think this should URGENTLY be further investigated.
  • 9.
    edited March 2015

    Hi Nad, Are these posts on the wrong thread? Anyway, I've been reading the critcisms of Whiteman, G., Hope, C. & Wadhams, P. (2013) Climate science: Vast costs of Arctic change. Nature Climate Change, DOI:10.1038/499401a which is paywalled so I can't read it. I've been folowing Igor Semiletov's work for some time and the 50Gt figure criticised in the responses to Whiteman et al. is from * N.E. Shakhova, V.A. Alexeev and I.P. Semiletov, Predicted methane emission on the Siberian ice shelf (2010), Nature 499, 401–403 (25 July 2013).

    One of the 2 responses burbles on, repeating another paper from some years ago, that permafrost can't melt at 250-360m and it'll take some 10s of thousands of years for it to diffuse to the atmosphere. But Shakhova and Semiletov's 2010 paper and August 2014 research expeditions investigated the Laptev seas hotspot, about 10% of the East Siberian Arctic Sheet (ESAS) where the sea is about 50m deep and at zero degrees C. and ebullition to the atmosphere perhaps take a few seconds; Shakhaova et al also deal with taliks and Karst lakes. Neither of the responses to Whiteman et al. mentioned this research afaict but, as I said, I don't know what the Wadham group (aka AMEG) wrote.

    I'll try post some graphs here tomorrow if I can aquire the fu.

    Great that you've started these threads btw.

    Comment Source:Hi Nad, Are these posts on the wrong thread? Anyway, I've been reading the critcisms of Whiteman, G., Hope, C. & Wadhams, P. (2013) Climate science: Vast costs of Arctic change. Nature Climate Change, DOI:10.1038/499401a which is paywalled so I can't read it. I've been folowing Igor Semiletov's work for some time and the 50Gt figure criticised in the responses to Whiteman et al. is from * N.E. Shakhova, V.A. Alexeev and I.P. Semiletov, [Predicted methane emission on the Siberian ice shelf (2010)](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS1028334X10020091), Nature 499, 401–403 (25 July 2013). One of the 2 responses burbles on, repeating another paper from some years ago, that permafrost can't melt at 250-360m and it'll take some 10s of thousands of years for it to diffuse to the atmosphere. But Shakhova and Semiletov's 2010 paper and August 2014 research expeditions investigated the Laptev seas hotspot, about 10% of the East Siberian Arctic Sheet (ESAS) where the sea is about 50m deep and at zero degrees C. and ebullition to the atmosphere perhaps take a few seconds; Shakhaova et al also deal with taliks and Karst lakes. Neither of the responses to Whiteman et al. mentioned this research afaict but, as I said, I don't know what the Wadham group (aka AMEG) wrote. I'll try post some graphs here tomorrow if I can aquire the fu. Great that you've started these threads btw.
  • 10.

    Hi Nad, Are these posts on the wrong thread?

    I was so to say discussing northern methane and then mentioned southern methane and that got then so elaborated that I opened up a new thread.

    I've been folowing Igor Semiletov's work for some time and the 50Gt figure criticised in the responses to Whiteman et al. is from * N.E. Shakhova, V.A. Alexeev and I.P. Semiletov, Predicted methane emission on the Siberian ice shelf (2010), Nature 499, 401–403 (25 July 2013).

    Did you see John's post? He also mentioned that discussion. In the comments to that post I tried to recover David Archers calculations, which I sort of did with some guessing work up to a factor 10.

    Great that you've started these threads btw.

    I am not sure, like if one compares northern and southern methane than it is hard to decide which thread this should go to, but keeping everything in the methane thread is may be also not optimal, so I opened up the northern and southern methane concentration threads. In principle one should then some time later summarize the discussions in the Wiki.

    Comment Source:>Hi Nad, Are these posts on the wrong thread? I was so to say discussing northern methane and then mentioned southern methane and that got then so elaborated that I opened up a new thread. >I've been folowing Igor Semiletov's work for some time and the 50Gt figure criticised in the responses to Whiteman et al. is from * N.E. Shakhova, V.A. Alexeev and I.P. Semiletov, Predicted methane emission on the Siberian ice shelf (2010), Nature 499, 401–403 (25 July 2013). Did you see <a href="https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/melting-permafrost-part-4/">John's post</a>? He also mentioned that discussion. In the comments to that post I tried to recover <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/how-much-methane-came-out-of-that-hole-in-siberia/comment-page-2/?wpmp_switcher=mobile">David Archers calculations</a>, which I sort of did with some guessing work up to a factor 10. >Great that you've started these threads btw. I am not sure, like if one compares northern and southern methane than it is hard to decide which thread this should go to, but keeping everything in the methane thread is may be also not optimal, so I opened up the northern and southern methane concentration threads. In principle one should then some time later summarize the discussions in the Wiki.
  • 11.
    edited March 2015

    One of the sanity checks on methane outgassing is to compare the activation energies of methane clathrates against other known quantities.

    The Arrhenius rates of outgassing will be a sensitive combination of temperature changes and the magnitude of the activation energy. If the temperature change is small and activation energy is similar to CO2 in water, one might think that the growth of methane due to outgassing of clathrates may be moderated.

    Here is a very recent paper on clathrate formation: http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2015/pdf/2484.pdf

    " A standard Arrhenius analysis (inset) yields a relatively modest activation energy of 12.3 kJ/mol."

    I am surprised that this is so small, which translates to only 0.127 eV. This equates to a very gradual change in outgassing rate with temperature. Perhaps that is why the majority of climate scientists are not that worried about methane clathrates? I have been puzzled by this for awhile.

    EDIT: Here is another reference to methane clathrate activation energy: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236109003007

    "The experimental reaction rate constant was found to increase with temperature, following an Arrhenius-type relationship, from 8.3 × 10−8 m/s to 6.15 × 10−7 m/s over the 4° range investigated, resulting in an activation energy of 323 kJ/mol. "

    This is 3.35 eV, which has a much stronger dependence on temperature. By comparison solubility of CO2 in water has an activation energy of only 0.2 to 0.3 eV.

    Now I am not sure how to get the definitive story on this. The low activation energy is not worrisome, but the higher activation energy is.

    Comment Source:One of the sanity checks on methane outgassing is to compare the activation energies of methane clathrates against other known quantities. The Arrhenius rates of outgassing will be a sensitive combination of temperature changes and the magnitude of the activation energy. If the temperature change is small and activation energy is similar to CO2 in water, one might think that the growth of methane due to outgassing of clathrates may be moderated. Here is a very recent paper on clathrate formation: http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2015/pdf/2484.pdf > " A standard Arrhenius analysis (inset) yields a relatively modest activation energy of 12.3 kJ/mol." I am surprised that this is so small, which translates to only 0.127 eV. This equates to a very gradual change in outgassing rate with temperature. Perhaps that is why the majority of climate scientists are not that worried about methane clathrates? I have been puzzled by this for awhile. EDIT: Here is another reference to methane clathrate activation energy: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236109003007 > "The experimental reaction rate constant was found to increase with temperature, following an Arrhenius-type relationship, from 8.3 × 10−8 m/s to 6.15 × 10−7 m/s over the 4° range investigated, resulting in an activation energy of 323 kJ/mol. " This is 3.35 eV, which has a much stronger dependence on temperature. By comparison solubility of CO2 in water has an activation energy of only 0.2 to 0.3 eV. Now I am not sure how to get the definitive story on this. The low activation energy is not worrisome, but the higher activation energy is.
  • 12.
    nad
    edited March 2015

    The low activation energy is not worrisome, but the higher activation energy is.

    ?? I don't know much about chemical reactions, and in particular I don't know what a "standard Arhenius analysis" is. If this means the applicaiton of the Arhenius equation then e^{-activation energy/something) is in Wikipedia explained as -up to a proportionality - decribing the speed of a reaction and e^{-activation energy/something) gets smaller if activation energy gets bigger (assuming it is positive) while "something" stays positive constant.

    But may be some other Arhenius method is meant since I am not sure that what seems like a macroscopic law (Arhenius) would work for probes of the size of

    The capillary (Polymicro Technologies) consists off used quartz with polyimide coating, has a squarecross-section,and inner diametersof 50-100μm.

    Apart from that the activation was for clathrate formation, I don't know wether that says anything about methane release.

    Comment Source:>The low activation energy is not worrisome, but the higher activation energy is. ?? I don't know much about chemical reactions, and in particular I don't know what a "standard Arhenius analysis" is. If this means the applicaiton of the Arhenius equation then e^{-activation energy/something) is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_rate_constant">in Wikipedia</a> explained as -up to a proportionality - decribing the speed of a reaction and e^{-activation energy/something) gets smaller if activation energy gets bigger (assuming it is positive) while "something" stays positive constant. But may be some other Arhenius method is meant since I am not sure that what seems like a macroscopic law (Arhenius) would work for probes of the size of >The capillary (Polymicro Technologies) consists off used quartz with polyimide coating, has a squarecross-section,and inner diametersof 50-100μm. Apart from that the activation was for clathrate formation, I don't know wether that says anything about methane release.
  • 13.

    If it is 3.35 eV, it means that the reaction rates is highly temperature sensitive, and it helps explain why the stuff needs to stay buried in very cold water, encased in a good heat sink. With that high an activation energy, even a 1C change in the a m b i e n t temperature will increase the reaction rate kinetics by 50%. A change of 20C will increase the rate by a factor of 10,000. If there are volcanic vents near the ocean floor, that would vaporize the local clathrate deposits quickly.

    Try the Wolfram Alpha rate calculator: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=exp(-A/(kT))/exp(-A/(k*(T+d)))+where+A=3.348,+k=8.6e-5,+T=300,+d=-1

    Comment Source:If it is 3.35 eV, it means that the reaction rates is highly temperature sensitive, and it helps explain why the stuff needs to stay buried in very cold water, encased in a good heat sink. With that high an activation energy, even a 1C change in the a m b i e n t temperature will increase the reaction rate kinetics by 50%. A change of 20C will increase the rate by a factor of 10,000. If there are volcanic vents near the ocean floor, that would vaporize the local clathrate deposits quickly. Try the Wolfram Alpha rate calculator: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=exp%28-A%2F%28kT%29%29%2Fexp%28-A%2F%28k*%28T%2Bd%29%29%29+where+A%3D3.348%2C+k%3D8.6e-5%2C+T%3D300%2C+d%3D-1
  • 14.
    edited March 2015

    I've written a small program to strip off the file headers and extract the methane concentrations from the NOAA greenhouse gases ftp repo files

    Daily methane emissions 15.08.2011-30.12.2013, station code TIK

    tik

    There is a list of surface flask locations

    And a list for in-situ flask locations

    Comment Source:I've written a small program to strip off the file headers and extract the methane concentrations from the NOAA greenhouse gases [ftp repo files](ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/greenhouse_gases/ch4/flask/README_surface_flask_ch4.html) Daily methane emissions 15.08.2011-30.12.2013, station code TIK ![tik](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61621163/Images/tikccgg1.png) There is a list of [surface flask locations](ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/greenhouse_gases/ch4/flask/README_surface_flask_ch4.html) And a list for [in-situ flask locations](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/site/site_table.html#ccg_obs)
  • 15.
    edited March 2015

    Monthly isotope data Barrow Alaska Jan.1998-Dec.2011

    Isotope data are reported as 'delta' values: the ratio of minor to major isotopes relative to a standard, VPDB-CO2. The 'delta' notation is

    delta = [ (13C/12C)sam / (13C/12C)ref - 1 ] * 1000

    and is expressed in units of 'permil' (parts per thousand).

    BRWCH41998-2011

    • src: ch4c13_brw_surface-flask_1_sil_month.txt
    • download
    Comment Source:Monthly isotope data Barrow Alaska Jan.1998-Dec.2011 > Isotope data are reported as 'delta' values: the ratio of minor to major > isotopes relative to a standard, VPDB-CO2. The 'delta' notation is > delta = [ (13C/12C)sam / (13C/12C)ref - 1 ] * 1000 > and is expressed in units of 'permil' (parts per thousand). ![BRWCH41998-2011](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61621163/Images/ch4brwmonthc13.png) * src: ch4c13_brw_surface-flask_1_sil_month.txt * [download](ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/ch4c13/flask/)
  • 16.
    nad
    edited March 2015

    delta = [ (13C/12C)sam / (13C/12C)ref - 1 ] * 1000

    huh? I don't understand this notation. Is there a bracket wrong? (13C/12C)sam / (13C/12C)ref = sam/ref so delta would be [sam/ref-1]*1000 ???? and what is sam and what is ref? From the intro

    The data files in this archive list measurements of the stable isotopic composition (13C) of atmospheric methane.

    What is 12C ? Another isotope? And what is VPDB-CO2 ?What are those indicating? Jim why did you do this visualization?

    Comment Source:>delta = [ (13C/12C)sam / (13C/12C)ref - 1 ] * 1000 huh? I don't understand this notation. Is there a bracket wrong? (13C/12C)sam / (13C/12C)ref = sam/ref so delta would be [sam/ref-1]*1000 ???? and what is sam and what is ref? From the <a href="ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/ch4c13/flask/README_surface_flask_ch4c13.html">intro</A> >The data files in this archive list measurements of the stable isotopic composition (13C) of atmospheric methane. What is 12C ? Another isotope? And what is VPDB-CO2 ?What are those indicating? Jim why did you do this visualization?
  • 17.

    I don't know the notation. It's the first time I've seen it. As I said on the Southern methane concentration page, interpretation will have to wait till tomorrow. Afaict the ratio is a proxy methane measure but Paul might be able to explain. I just cut and pasted what it said in the readme.

    Comment Source:I don't know the notation. It's the first time I've seen it. As I said on the Southern methane concentration page, interpretation will have to wait till tomorrow. Afaict the ratio is a proxy methane measure but Paul might be able to explain. I just cut and pasted what it said in the readme.
  • 18.
    nad
    edited March 2015

    If it is 3.35 eV, it means that the reaction rates is highly temperature sensitive.....Try the Wolfram Alpha rate calculator: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=exp(-A/(kT))/exp(-A/(k*(T+d)))+where+A=3.348,+k=8.6e-5,+T=300,+d=-1

    OK. If you look at temperature sensitvity that's another discussion. Try:

    www.mathics.org

    A=0.2

    B=20.0

    Plot[Exp[-A]/Exp[-A/(1+d)], {d,-B,B}]

    Plot[-A+A/(1+d), {d,-B,B}]

    Comment Source:>If it is 3.35 eV, it means that the reaction rates is highly temperature sensitive.....Try the Wolfram Alpha rate calculator: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=exp(-A/(kT))/exp(-A/(k*(T+d)))+where+A=3.348,+k=8.6e-5,+T=300,+d=-1 OK. If you look at temperature sensitvity that's another discussion. Try: www.mathics.org >A=0.2 >B=20.0 >Plot[Exp[-A]/Exp[-A/(1+d)], {d,-B,B}] >Plot[-A+A/(1+d), {d,-B,B}]
  • 19.
    edited March 2015

    The gas isotope methodology is described in:

    John B. Miller, Kenneth A. Mack, Richard Dissly, James W. C. White, Edward J. Dlugokencky and Pieter P. Tans, Development of analytical methods and measurements of 13C/12C in atmospheric CH4 from the NOAA/CMDL global air sampling network.

    Nad, didn't you try and get some data or explanation of something from Dlugokencky the other year?

    Comment Source:The gas isotope methodology is described in: John B. Miller, Kenneth A. Mack, Richard Dissly, James W. C. White, Edward J. Dlugokencky and Pieter P. Tans, [Development of analytical methods and measurements of 13C/12C in atmospheric CH4 from the NOAA/CMDL global air sampling network](ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/pub/john/ch4c13/text1.PDF). Nad, didn't you try and get some data or explanation of something from Dlugokencky the other year?
  • 20.

    The formula in Development of analytical methods and measurements of 13C/12C in atmospheric CH4 from the NOAA/CMDL global air sampling network looks different:

    13C/12C is commonly expressed as δ13C, which is defined as the part per thousand deviation of the13C/12C ratio in a sample to that in a standard;i.e.,δ13C≡[(Rsample/Rreference)-1] x1000‰, where R=13C/12C and reference is V-PDB[Craig,1957]

    Anyways thanks, as suspected the 13C/12C ratio seems to be the ratio of CH4's which have a 13C or 12C Carbon and the ratio seems to indicate the type of CH4 source. That's probably why the researchers could determine say that there were less methane emissions:

    Using a 3-D transport model, we show that this change is consistent with a decrease in CH4 emissions of ~10 Tg CH4 from north of 50�N in the early-1990s.

    Nad, didn't you try and get some data or explanation of something from Dlugokencky the other year?

    No, I just asked him wether there are other relevant global methane collections and he said basically that there aren't, which I found pretty shocking.

    Comment Source:The formula in <a href="ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/pub/john/ch4c13/text1.PDF">Development of analytical methods and measurements of 13C/12C in atmospheric CH4 from the NOAA/CMDL global air sampling network</a> looks different: >13C/12C is commonly expressed as δ13C, which is defined as the part per thousand deviation of the13C/12C ratio in a sample to that in a standard;i.e.,δ13C≡[(Rsample/Rreference)-1] x1000‰, where R=13C/12C and reference is V-PDB[Craig,1957] Anyways thanks, as suspected the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-13">13C/12C</a> ratio seems to be the ratio of CH4's which have a 13C or 12C Carbon and the ratio seems to indicate the type of CH4 source. That's probably why the <a href="https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1606/why-was-there-a-plateau-from-around-1999-to-2007-in-methane-values">researchers could determine say that there were less methane emissions:</a> >Using a 3-D transport model, we show that this change is consistent with a decrease in CH4 emissions of ~10 Tg CH4 from north of 50�N in the early-1990s. >Nad, didn't you try and get some data or explanation of something from Dlugokencky the other year? No, I just asked him wether there are other relevant global methane collections and he said basically that there aren't, which I found pretty shocking.
  • 21.
    nad
    edited March 2015

    The article Boston’s Natural Gas Pipes Leaking High Levels of Heat-Trapping Meth talks of what seems to be another method of distinguishing different methane sources:

    The researchers measured methane in the air from stations both on the ground and atop skyscrapers, and at sites both near and far from Boston. Then they compared the ratios of methane and ethane, which is a major component of natural gas, whereas other methane sources such as landfills and sewage produce little or no ethane.
    Comment Source:The article <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/news/boston-natural-gas-pipes-methane-leaks">Boston’s Natural Gas Pipes Leaking High Levels of Heat-Trapping Meth</a> talks of what seems to be another method of distinguishing different methane sources: <blockquote>The researchers measured methane in the air from stations both on the ground and atop skyscrapers, and at sites both near and far from Boston. Then they compared the ratios of methane and ethane, which is a major component of natural gas, whereas other methane sources such as landfills and sewage produce little or no ethane.</blockquote>
  • 22.

    by the way whats the ratio of plumbers versus category theorists in Boston?

    Comment Source:by the way whats the ratio of plumbers versus category theorists in Boston?
  • 23.
    edited March 2015

    Thanks for the Boston link which is more recent than any of my refs. Did you see Jan Galkowski's G+ post which I reshared?

    Comment Source:Thanks for the Boston link which is more recent than any of my refs. Did you see Jan Galkowski's G+ post which I [reshared](http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Blog%20-%20stationary%20stability%20in%20finite%20populations)?
  • 24.

    I found a reference for the US EPA's baseline emissions estimated data from way back in 2004 which attributes 14.8% of US emissions to CH4/NO2 combined. So there are some prior numbers to start with. It will be interesting to see their 2014 numbers.

    Comment Source:I found a [reference](http://www.epa.gov/cpd/pdf/brochure.pdf) for the US EPA's baseline emissions estimated data from way back in 2004 which attributes 14.8% of US emissions to CH4/NO2 combined. So there are some prior numbers to start with. It will be interesting to see their 2014 numbers.
  • 25.

    EPA data published in 2010.

    Comment Source:EPA [data](http://www.epa.gov/outreach/pdfs/Methane-and-Nitrous-Oxide-Emissions-From-Natural-Sources.pdf) published in 2010.
  • 26.

    Did you see Jan Galkowski's G+ post which I reshared?

    ?? the link is to Marc Harpers post.

    Comment Source:>Did you see Jan Galkowski's G+ post which I reshared? ?? the link is to Marc Harpers post.
  • 27.

    As it's recent rises in CH4 concentrations I'm interested in some new numbers were published in Feb. 2015 in the National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data (Draft). Nad, is a new thread needed?

    Comment Source:As it's recent rises in CH4 concentrations I'm interested in some new numbers were published in Feb. 2015 in the [National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data (Draft)](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html). Nad, is a new thread needed?
  • 28.
    edited March 2015

    I've come across this statement (which appear in Annex V of this NGGED inventory) before:

    Although this report is intended to be a comprehensive assessment of anthropogenic sources and sinks of greenhouse gas emissions for the United States, certain sources have been identified but not included in the estimates presented for various reasons. Before discussing these sources, however, it is important to note that processes or activities that are not anthropogenic in origin or do not result in a net source or sink of greenhouse gas emissions are intentionally excluded from a national inventory of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, in line with guidance from the IPCC in their guidelines for national inventories.

    So this inventory only deals with emissions which can be directly attributed to anthropogenic processes. I noted this was a big limitation.

    Comment Source:I've come across this statement (which appear in [Annex V](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/usinventoryreport/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Annex-5-Sources-and-Sinks-Not-Included.pdf) of this NGGED inventory) before: > Although this report is intended to be a comprehensive assessment of anthropogenic sources and sinks of greenhouse gas emissions for the United States, certain sources have been identified but not included in the estimates presented for various reasons. Before discussing these sources, however, it is important to note that processes or activities that are not anthropogenic in origin or do not result in a net source or sink of greenhouse gas emissions are intentionally excluded from a national inventory of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, in line with guidance from the IPCC in their guidelines for national inventories. So this inventory only deals with emissions which can be directly attributed to anthropogenic processes. I noted this was a big limitation.
  • 29.

    So this inventory only deals with emissions which can be directly attributed to anthropogenic processes. I noted this was a big limitation.

    ???

    it is important to note that processes or activities that are not anthropogenic in origin or do not result in a net source or sink of greenhouse gas emissions are intentionally excluded from a national inventory

    By this sentence also nonanthropogenic net sources or sinks could be included.

    Comment Source:>So this inventory only deals with emissions which can be directly attributed to anthropogenic processes. I noted this was a big limitation. ??? >it is important to note that processes or activities that are not anthropogenic in origin or do not result in a net source or sink of greenhouse gas emissions are intentionally excluded from a national inventory By this sentence also nonanthropogenic net sources or sinks could be included.
  • 30.

    Here's Steven Wolfsy (lead author of the Boston study)'s recent methane publications list for plenty to read and comment on:

    • Reply to Hristov et al.: Linking methane emissions inventories with atmospheric observations S. M. Miller and A. M. Michalak and S. C. Wofsy PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 111 E1321 (2014)

    • Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems A. R. Brandt and G. A. Heath and E. A. Kort and F. O'Sullivan and G. Petron and S. M. Jordaan and P. Tans and J. Wilcox and A. M. Gopstein and D. Arent and S. Wofsy and N. J. Brown and R. Bradley and G. D. Stucky and D. Eardley and R. Harriss SCIENCE 343 733-735 (2014)

    • Observational constraints on the distribution, seasonality, and environmental predictors of North American boreal methane emissions S. M. Miller and D. E. J. Worthy and A. M. Michalak and S. C. Wofsy and E. A. Kort and T. C. Havice and A. E. Andrews and E. J. Dlugokencky and J. O. Kaplan and P. J. Levi and H. Tian and B. Zhang GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES 28 146-160 (2014)

    • Evaluation of the airborne quantum cascade laser spectrometer (QCLS) measurements of the carbon and greenhouse gas suite - CO2, CH4, N2O, and CO - during the CalNex and HIPPO campaigns G. W. Santoni and B. C. Daube and E. A. Kort and R. Jimenez and S. Park and J. V. Pittman and E. Gottlieb and B. Xiang and M. S. Zahniser and D. D. Nelson and J. B. McManus and J. Peischl and T. B. Ryerson and J. S. Holloway and A. E. Andrews and C. Sweeney and B. Hall and E. J. Hintsa and F. L. Moore and J. W. Elkins and D. F. Hurst and B. B. Stephens and J. Bent and S. C. Wofsy ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES 7 1509-1526 (2014)

    • Inferring regional sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2 from GOSAT XCO2 data F. Deng and D. B. A. Jones and D. K. Henze and N. Bousserez and K. W. Bowman and J. B. Fisher and R. Nassar and C. O'Dell and D. Wunch and P. O. Wennberg and E. A. Kort and S. C. Wofsy and T. Blumenstock and N. M. Deutscher and D. W. T. Griffith and F. Hase and P. Heikkinen and V. Sherlock and K. Strong and R. Sussmann and T. Warneke ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS 14 3703-3727 (2014)

    Comment Source:Here's Steven Wolfsy (lead author of the Boston study)'s recent methane publications list for plenty to read and comment on: * Reply to Hristov et al.: Linking methane emissions inventories with atmospheric observations S. M. Miller and A. M. Michalak and S. C. Wofsy PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 111 E1321 (2014) * Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems A. R. Brandt and G. A. Heath and E. A. Kort and F. O'Sullivan and G. Petron and S. M. Jordaan and P. Tans and J. Wilcox and A. M. Gopstein and D. Arent and S. Wofsy and N. J. Brown and R. Bradley and G. D. Stucky and D. Eardley and R. Harriss SCIENCE 343 733-735 (2014) * Observational constraints on the distribution, seasonality, and environmental predictors of North American boreal methane emissions S. M. Miller and D. E. J. Worthy and A. M. Michalak and S. C. Wofsy and E. A. Kort and T. C. Havice and A. E. Andrews and E. J. Dlugokencky and J. O. Kaplan and P. J. Levi and H. Tian and B. Zhang GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES 28 146-160 (2014) * Evaluation of the airborne quantum cascade laser spectrometer (QCLS) measurements of the carbon and greenhouse gas suite - CO2, CH4, N2O, and CO - during the CalNex and HIPPO campaigns G. W. Santoni and B. C. Daube and E. A. Kort and R. Jimenez and S. Park and J. V. Pittman and E. Gottlieb and B. Xiang and M. S. Zahniser and D. D. Nelson and J. B. McManus and J. Peischl and T. B. Ryerson and J. S. Holloway and A. E. Andrews and C. Sweeney and B. Hall and E. J. Hintsa and F. L. Moore and J. W. Elkins and D. F. Hurst and B. B. Stephens and J. Bent and S. C. Wofsy ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES 7 1509-1526 (2014) * Inferring regional sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2 from GOSAT XCO2 data F. Deng and D. B. A. Jones and D. K. Henze and N. Bousserez and K. W. Bowman and J. B. Fisher and R. Nassar and C. O'Dell and D. Wunch and P. O. Wennberg and E. A. Kort and S. C. Wofsy and T. Blumenstock and N. M. Deutscher and D. W. T. Griffith and F. Hase and P. Heikkinen and V. Sherlock and K. Strong and R. Sussmann and T. Warneke ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS 14 3703-3727 (2014)
  • 31.

    processes or activities that are not anthropogenic in origin or do not result in a net source or sink of greenhouse gas emissions are intentionally excluded from a national inventory

    By this sentence also nonanthropogenic net sources or sinks could be included.

    Unfortunately they aren't.

    Comment Source:> processes or activities that are not anthropogenic in origin or do not result in a net source or sink of greenhouse gas emissions are intentionally excluded from a national inventory >> By this sentence also nonanthropogenic net sources or sinks could be included. Unfortunately they aren't.
  • 32.

    Here is an interesting article on methane release:

    Comment Source:Here is an interesting article on methane release: * Robert Scribbler, [Concern over catastrophic methane release — overburden, plumes, eruptions, and large ocean craters](https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/cause-for-appropriate-concern-over-arctic-methane-overburden-plumes-eruptions-and-large-ocean-craters/), 9 March 2015. A nice map, explained in this article: <img src = "https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/airs_methane.png?w=693&h=388" alt = ""/>
  • 33.
    nad
    edited April 2015

    A nice map, explained in this article

    Who is Robert Scribbler? Unfortunately the map is not explained. Like at what height were the measurements made? That is there is only a general link to the Goddard Center and I couldn't find the image there.

    I also checked Leonid Yurganovs website, because as I understood he is the author of most images in the blog post, but couldn't find the image nor an explanation. Unfortunately the NASA website is not very self-explanatory. What I figured out sofar is that this page probably provides in principle the methane data from satelites (MODIS?) and stations (you can see this by pushing the browser button) or maybe ships ? (what is this DRAGON-xxx among the stations?). The stations might be partially different from the NOAA collection, so maybe there is more data. For the satellites the researchers warn however, that the data should be taken with a grain of salt, that is from the readme:

    Note that particular observing conditions may degrade the accuracy of remotely-sensed data products, which may cause processing algorithms to fail and result in missing data. Other types of conditions may make a data product less accurate, even though the data values may appear valid. Thus, all remotely-sensed data products should be evaluated with caution, and with respect to conditions that may cause them to be incomplete or inaccurate. Below we list several papers that address some of the challenges in working with and comparing remotely sensed aerosol data products.

    I also looked wether I could find methane data on official European sites, apart from the finished ecad project mentioned by Webhubtel, sofar I though have only found the following projects listed on theEuro4m site:

    EURO4M is an important building block for GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security), the European initiative for the establishment of a European capacity for Earth Observation. Related projects ahead of a future GMES Climate Service are MONARCH-A , CARBONES and ERA-CLIM .

    The successor of the EURO4M project is the UERRA project . UERRA is a European FP7 reanalysis project of meteorological observations. It includes recovery of historical (last century) data, estimating uncertainties in the reanalyses and user friendly data services. It aims to contribute to a future Copernicus climate change service.

    GMES is currently not reachable. The european projects seem to focus primarily on European climate (and a bit of north Africa and middle east though) variables and they are rather specialized like the Carbones project seems to deal mainly with C02 only. The project MONARCH-A contains though even datasets from Arctic, I found though no methane data. They write:

    The EU FP7 MONARCH-A (MONitoring and Assessing Regional Climate change in High latitudes and the Arctic) project occupies an extremely important niche in the current structure of Earth observations projects at high latitudes.

    Adopting an Earth system approach the MONARCH-A project executes systematic provision of tailored information and products to assist climate change research. MONARCH-A generates and make available reliable, up-to-date scientific input for the elaboration and implementation of European and international policies and strategies on climate change and society. The MONARCH-A information package is based on generation of time series of observation datasets and reanalyses of past observational data enabling adequate descriptions of the status and evolution of the high latitude and Arctic region Earth system components.

    The follow-up project of EURO4m is called UERRA:

    UERRA is designed to deliver observations and atmospheric data sets of climate quality and to show the quality and uncertainty for climate research and applications in Europe.

    and although it started only in Spring 2014 as I understood it provides already some deliverables (last update 18. Aug 2014):

    D 1.1 A comprehensive list of possible additional sources that can be accessed for digitisation and encoding

    D 1.2 Report on the locations of the station data: digitsed and to be digitised

    D 2.11 A probabilistic observation data set for assimilation in ensemble nudging and statistical observations

    D 3.1 Workshop on the definition of a common evaluation procedure: Minutes/report

    D 3.2 Preliminary table summarizing common evaluation procedures shared among WP3 partners

    D 4.3 Data services and visualisation prototype

    D 4.6 HYPE EURO4M Evaluation Report

    D 6,1 Coordination plan

    D 7.1 General dissemination plan

    D 7.6 UERRA Web Site Scientific News

    The data sources in D1.1 and D1.2 (unfortunately you have to download the documents for seeing this) seem to contain however mainly temperatures and the digitization of old files seems to be rather difficult (as I understood partially scanning and using OCR was not possible but there were 15 students manually copying data).

    by the way be careful: the MAPSS Explorer makes browsers crashing.

    Comment Source:>A nice map, explained in this article Who is Robert Scribbler? Unfortunately the map is not explained. Like at what height were the measurements made? That is there is only a general link to the <a href="http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/">Goddard Center</a> and I couldn't find the image there. I also checked <a href="http://jcet.umbc.edu/directory/yurganov-leonid/">Leonid Yurganovs website</a>, because as I understood he is the author of most images in the blog post, but couldn't find the image nor an explanation. Unfortunately the NASA website is not very self-explanatory. What I figured out sofar is that <a href="http://giovanni.gsfc.nasa.gov/aerostat/">this page</a> probably provides in principle the methane data from satelites (MODIS?) and stations (you can see this by pushing the browser button) or maybe ships ? (what is this DRAGON-xxx among the stations?). The stations might be partially different from the NOAA collection, so maybe there is more data. For the satellites the researchers warn however, that the data should be taken with a grain of salt, that is <a href="http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/aerosols/services/aerostat/AeroStat_ReadMe.html">from the readme:</a> >Note that particular observing conditions may degrade the accuracy of remotely-sensed data products, which may cause processing algorithms to fail and result in missing data. Other types of conditions may make a data product less accurate, even though the data values may appear valid. Thus, all remotely-sensed data products should be evaluated with caution, and with respect to conditions that may cause them to be incomplete or inaccurate. Below we list several papers that address some of the challenges in working with and comparing remotely sensed aerosol data products. I also looked wether I could find methane data on official European sites, apart from the finished <a href="http://www.ecad.eu/">ecad</a> project mentioned by <a href="https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/14470/#Comment_14470">Webhubtel</a>, sofar I though have only found the following projects listed on the<a href="http://www.euro4m.eu/index.html">Euro4m site:</a> >EURO4M is an important building block for GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security), the European initiative for the establishment of a European capacity for Earth Observation. Related projects ahead of a future GMES Climate Service are MONARCH-A , CARBONES and ERA-CLIM . >The successor of the EURO4M project is the UERRA project . UERRA is a European FP7 reanalysis project of meteorological observations. It includes recovery of historical (last century) data, estimating uncertainties in the reanalyses and user friendly data services. It aims to contribute to a future Copernicus climate change service. GMES is currently not reachable. The european projects seem to <a href="http://www.euro4m.eu/datasets.html">focus primarily on European climate (and a bit of north Africa and middle east though) variables</a> and they are rather specialized like the <a href="http://www.carbones.eu/wcmqs/asset/7f9b06fa-8f6a-474b-9a8c-5d0673e6a9d1/Carbones%2520data%2520assimilation%2520system%2520and%2520product%2520presentation%5B1%5D.pdf">Carbones project</a> seems to deal mainly with C02 only. The project <a href="http://monarch-a.nersc.no/">MONARCH-A</a> contains though even <a href="http://monarch-a.nersc.no/datasets?page=1">datasets from Arctic</a>, I found though no methane data. They write: >The EU FP7 MONARCH-A (MONitoring and Assessing Regional Climate change in High latitudes and the Arctic) project occupies an extremely important niche in the current structure of Earth observations projects at high latitudes. >Adopting an Earth system approach the MONARCH-A project executes systematic provision of tailored information and products to assist climate change research. MONARCH-A generates and make available reliable, up-to-date scientific input for the elaboration and implementation of European and international policies and strategies on climate change and society. The MONARCH-A information package is based on generation of time series of observation datasets and reanalyses of past observational data enabling adequate descriptions of the status and evolution of the high latitude and Arctic region Earth system components. The follow-up project of EURO4m is called <a href="http://www.uerra.eu/">UERRA:</a> >UERRA is designed to deliver observations and atmospheric data sets of climate quality and to show the quality and uncertainty for climate research and applications in Europe. and although it started only in Spring 2014 as I understood it provides already some <a href="http://www.uerra.eu/publications/deliverable-reports.html">deliverables (last update 18. Aug 2014):</a> >D 1.1 A comprehensive list of possible additional sources that can be accessed for digitisation and encoding >D 1.2 Report on the locations of the station data: digitsed and to be digitised >D 2.11 A probabilistic observation data set for assimilation in ensemble nudging and statistical observations >D 3.1 Workshop on the definition of a common evaluation procedure: Minutes/report >D 3.2 Preliminary table summarizing common evaluation procedures shared among WP3 partners >D 4.3 Data services and visualisation prototype >D 4.6 HYPE EURO4M Evaluation Report >D 6,1 Coordination plan >D 7.1 General dissemination plan >D 7.6 UERRA Web Site Scientific News The data sources in D1.1 and D1.2 (unfortunately you have to download the documents for seeing this) seem to contain however mainly temperatures and the digitization of old files seems to be rather difficult (as I understood partially scanning and using OCR was not possible but there were 15 students manually copying data). by the way be careful: the <a href="http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/">MAPSS Explorer</a> makes browsers crashing.
  • 34.

    I forgot to say that of course if there are other european datasets of climate quality then please mention them here.

    Comment Source:I forgot to say that of course if there are other european datasets of <a href="https://forum.azimuthproject.org/vanilla/post/editcomment/14474">climate quality</a> then please mention them here.
Sign In or Register to comment.