>I do not believe the warming is due to methane clathrates. If that were true, it would be huge news.

what source for that spacial anomaly in the temperature anomalies could then this else be ? Maybe not clathrates solely, but e.g. also other forms of methane leakage, but I currently can't come up with much other reasons. In particular the heat spot is rather constant in the images, it doesn't look like a bug (but I haven't yet scrutinized enough images). do you have any ideas ? Oil platforms?

The methane rates in the Barents sea are constantly rising, here
an overview by Leonid Yurganov.

In the doctoral thesis by Sunil Vadakkepuliyambatta this may at least in part be due to tectonic settings (where I am not sure wether this is about real tectonics (like in the lithossphere) or some special type of ice tectonics:

>"Large fluid leakage structures occurs in SW Barents Sea and shows links to the major tectonic setting. The glacial periods (uplift and erosion) have caused fluid leakage from deep reservoirs. In many locations, fluid leakage results in accumulations of shallow gas and gas hydrates that are relatively stable in structures containing thermogenic hydrocarbons. But gas hydrate stability varies widely throughout the SW Barents Sea. Possible gas hydrate occurrences in many parts of the SW Barents Sea can be sensitive to changes in ocean temperature due to global warming. This can then lead to melting of large quantities of gas hydrates in the upper 100 m below the seabed over a relatively short period (100-200 years)."

I don't know how this exactly may lead to those temperature anomalies, but either the involved gas is warmer than the sea (?) and/or something is burning (where I have not found
reports about burning clathrates in the Barents sea) and/or the warming potential of methane is vastly bigger than thought (where this sounds on a first look too vast to be true),
or eventually this is due to oil/gas drilling - all these are at least possible explanations. The complicated tectonics could also point to some kind of underwater "volcanos" with eventually even lava leakages ??

> I meant that “we”, whoever is interested in working

this is not necessarily only a question of "being interested", not everybody has the time to "work with you" without pay,
and this is not really a "recreational occupation".

>I didn’t mean you or any particular person needs to do this

I think someone should be concerned with this and while looking at all this I find it seems that there is not enough interest in the involved
topics as there should be. Like how many independent complete global methane measurements had been performed in the world since the eighties?

I know of one ! (that by NOAA, mainly by Ed Dlugokensky). if this is true and there is really only one such measurement
then pardon me?!!!! Fate of mankind may depend on this!

It kind of seems that everybody of the 6 billion people on earth thinks (falsely) that there are already enough people who care about this,
at least that's my current impression - last but not least I was myself shocked to learn that there are just that few measurements for such
an important quantity.