It'd be better to have some actual facts before attempting to draw conclusions.

First, Methane levels have been more or less stable for about 10 years. Of course, the levels have varied slightly over 10 years and the were not uniform at all the differant locations.

So, how large was increase expressed as a percentage?

Second, how large was increase compared to annual variations over last 10 years and before that?

Finally, as far as I know, the primary concern with Methane hasn't been that man is the primary generator, but that the oceans and permafrost are potentially much larger sources that could start to dwarf man's emission and would be huge positive warming feedback mechanisms from CO2 warming.

Bottom line: If Methane levels are starting to take off again from a world wide positive feedback, we may see much larger global warming than already predicted.

What a confusing article - they basically arnt sure about anything!

Who knows, maybe some day scientists will actually acknowledge how little we actually know (or knew) as of the end of the 20th/beginning of the 21st Century regarding Earth's climate and the (likely so small as to be unmeasurable) impact of human activities on it.

It's also interesting that despite increasing levels of GHGs, Earth isn't currently warming. The "greenhouse effect" has less influence on CHANGES to Earth's climate than imagined, obviously.

tgdaily.com sounds like the FOX News of global warming. Take a look at some of the other articles on climate change, and bask in the glow of the denialist agenda shining forth.

Global Cooling Is Here

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EAS20081101&articleId=10783

Like I said.............

Andrew: The excesses are largely attributed to human activity.
Livestock is one primary source, Also another primary source is a result of AGW, CO2 in the atmosphere resulting in warming, frozen wastes, permafrost and oceans. Hydrates have been filmed releasing methane from deep sea beds.
Coal mining is another source. Don't you find it curious that this person doesn't believe in global warming either. KIPP

Off-Topic

Brett, did you see the weekly ENSO discussion yet ? Looks like many of the IRI models are now at or near weak La Nina territory, and the November CFS models are deep into LaNina territory...

It will be very interesting to see what the MEI comes in at when Wolter issues his monthly update at the end of the week.

Will the precipitous drop into LaNina territory over the past two months continue or not ? ? ?

Yes, it will be very interesting indeed...........

Brett: If you post from this unsubstantiated skeptic web site, could you please counter this, for the sake of fairness, articles or facts from the IPCC and their current findings. I just read a cool article from a bunch of scientists, or were they scientologists, I'm not quite sure?
keep up the good work, KIPP

Reply: The same article was posted on several other sites.

Here are links to 2 good articles.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/methanetrend.jpg

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-10-24-greenhouse-gases_N.htm

First link is NOAA graph of methane levels since 2004. Notice, that the annual methane cycle of concentration really broke down during the summer of 2007. Before that, the variations were as they had been. Summer 2007 is when the artic sea ice was reaching surprising lows and just before La Nina started up. Perhaps the increase is a combination of the two.

Second link is a better article than in tg site.

Here's an excerpt:

Still, methane and the potential of future increases is a worry, Weiss and others say.

Its recent increase coincides with anecdotal evidence of more methane being released in the shallow parts of the Arctic Ocean. A scientific survey in late summer found methane levels in the east Siberian Sea up to 10,000 times higher than normal, said Orjan Gustafsson, an environmental scientist at Stockholm University in Sweden, who has just returned from the six-week survey.

Prinn's data are consistent with the early results of "whole fields of methane bubbles" that Gustafsson said he found last month.

The highest methane level increases were seen in monitoring stations in Alert, Canada, which with recent anecdotal evidence points to plants in permafrost thawing and decaying.

Stanford University environmental scientist Stephen Schneider cautioned that the recent increase is new, and "it is pretty hard to be very confident of any trend or big story yet on methane."

Termites are the second largest source of atmospheric methane?

Hmmm.

Here is the article (different version) from MIT News.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029.html

Levels of the greenhouse gas methane begin to increase again
New surge ends a decade of stability; cause still unknown

Reply: Thanks Mary.

A little off topic. Interesting new study about the Sun-Earth connection and an Earth sized portal, openning and closing to the Sun every 8 minutes.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Magnetic_Portals_Connect_Sun_And_Earth_999.html

It would prove difficult for the global warming alarmists to blame man for 10 years of decreasing N2O levels prior to 2007.

The next thing you know, the UN IPCC may quantify the global warming effect of water vapor (99.999% of which is producued by nature) as being 26 times greater than CO2. But don't hold your breath!

"The two lead authors of a paper published in this week's Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science,"

Bleen & Kipp: What difference does the website mean? If you AGW faithfull cite 'arguement from authority', look at the papers' authors. Article was also published in MIT news.

Time to recalibrate your religious oriented spin. Look at the data. All of it, not just that which confirms your 'faith'.

"The two lead authors of a paper published in this week's Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science,"

Bleen & Kipp: What difference does the website mean? If you AGW faithfull cite 'arguement from authority', look at the papers' authors. Article was also published in MIT news.

Time to recalibrate your religious oriented spin. Look at the data. All of it, not just that which confirms your 'faith'.

Brett: As I read another book on global warming it is amazing how overly eager journalists and the press have used these facts to sell their stories and points of view to the public. Now I understand your remark about how difficult it is to separate the science from the Political.
Thanks,KIPP

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently published an article titled "Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed to Answer Questions" - http://ecoworld.com/features/2008/10/30/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/

For cryophiles like me, October was a bad month for Shepherd Bay in Nunavut. Shepherd Bay is one of mainland North America's cold poles, but it averaged F for the month of October, which is about 10 F above average.
Brett, any idea what was going on up there? October seemed to be pretty chilly down in the lower 48. Was more cold air than usual draining from Northern Canada?

The climate of the world has gone from Tropical to Artic back and forth numerous times during the history of the Earth....all before man had the idea that man was the cause.....

Give me a break!

Methane, just another smelly gas given off by Hysterics in addition to the hot air....

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=310695037962525

Excerpt:
It's been a bad year for global warming alarmists. Record cold periods and snowfalls are occurring around the globe. The hell that the radicals have promised is freezing over.

Read More: Global Warming

As the British House of Commons debated a climate-change bill that pledged the United Kingdom to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, London was hit by its first October snow since 1922.

Apparently Mother Nature wasn't paying attention. The British people, however, are paying attention � to reality. A poll found that 60% of them doubt the claims that global warming is both man-made and urgent.

Elsewhere, the Swiss lowlands last month received the most snow for any October since records began. Zurich got 20 centimeters, breaking the record of 14 centimeters set in 1939. Ocala, Fla., experienced its second-lowest October temperature since 1850.

October temperatures fell to record lows in Oregon as well. On Oct. 10, Boise, Idaho, got the earliest snow in its history � 1.7 inches. That beat the old record by seven-tenths of an inch and one day on the calendar.

In the Southern Hemisphere, where winter was winding down, Durban, South Africa, had its coldest September night in history in the middle of the month. Some regions of the country had unusual late-winter snows. A month earlier, New Zealand officials reported that Mount Ruapehu had its largest snow base ever.

At the top of the world, the International Arctic Research Center reported last month, there was 29% more Arctic sea ice this year than last.

None of this matters, of course, to the warming zealots. It doesn't matter if it's too dry or too wet, too hot or too cold. All of it, they say, is caused by global warming.

Brett: Could you please explain why the use of standard quotation marks, etc, in a word program, etc. like Microsoft Word, when a response is typed up on this program and transferred to your comment box and looks as it should when the responder edits it, then when posted these quotation marks become an i with two dots and upside down question mark and a 1/2 ? (Reply: It has something to do with the MT program, and we use an outside source to host it. Out of my hands. Sorry.)

I have seen this on many responses over the preceding months as well as several of my own and recently in a late response to Kipp Alpert.

Sorry guys,

In my last post I should have said

"...but it averaged 20F for the month of October."

Could you please explain why the use of standard quotation marks, etc, in a word program, etc. like Microsoft Word, when a response is typed up on this program and transferred to your comment box and looks as it should when the responder edits it, then when posted these quotation marks become an i with two dots and upside down question mark and a 1/2 ?

When you type what you think is a "standard" quotation mark into MS Word, MSWord (like all too-many MS programs) emits a sequence of bytes that are incompatible with almost everything on the web except other MS programs. What you see is the result of a failed attempt by rest of the software of the web to turn that MS-specific sequence back into a double quote for display in your browser.

The gibberish you see is a transliteration of the raw and unintelligible (except to MS software) bytes emitted by MSWord.

The best way to avoid it is to *never* paste directly from word into any blog window. Sometimes it helps to paste into a "typewriter" (non-formatting) tool like notepad, and then copy from there into the browser window.

The most reliable way, for small posts, is to manually retype the text directly into the browser.

Even better is to avoid MSWord altogether.

Reply: Thanks for your input BT.

Off-Topic

Brett : Well the MEI update for November has been posted. Have you had a chance yet to review the weekly ENSO update ? Review the MEI update too.

I don't want to spoil the suspense, here; you should do a post about it.

Regards

Steve Rowland, the preview function inserts those character errors, which at least creates an opportunity to fix them before posting.

Kipp: "Now I understand (Brett's) remark about how difficult it is to separate the science from the Political."

Kipp, this isn't really so hard. In the case of this post, for example, all Brett would have had to do is spend the two minutes (at most) necessary to find the scientific source (as Mary did). FYI there are several science news/press release sites that make this easy.

As I've said before, it seems that the root of the problem is this site's premise that it covers "all sides" of the "debate." Since the science is for the most part so one-sided, covering "all sides" means having to feature lots of non-scientific *opinions* about the science and what it means.

Notice also that Brett hasn't corrected this post, in particular the absurd headline. I'm not holding my breath on that.

What's the book you're reading, BTW?

Anonymous AKA 1776: As you shroud yourself with our flag, my religion is none of your business. I don't spute spin but what I believe is true. You can't fit everyone into your box, and my belief in the science of AGW is true. If you wish to counter the global warming arguments, please do. Show some eloquence to your arguments, that you could apply to people who have a different view.
The earth is warming, and due to the PDO the AO and a neutral ENSO, we will experience a little cooling. That global warming is not without climate changes is also accepted science. It has been trending through rapid climate change for 150 years. A little cooling will not diminish the CO2 and other GHG's that cause global warming. A little cooling has been forecasted, just as the IPCC predicted. The Earth has a highly complex climate system, and some modelling and long term forecasting will inevetablitlity be wrong. That just doesn't change the overall energy budget, CO2 increases, the carbon cycle or AGW. KIPP

Hey BT:

Nice to see you reading, even if it is only for computer programming stuff.

Hope you have been well. The wife and I were over in your neck of the woods in August. Went to Concord and Lexington and then onto to 495 on the way to Maine.

Very pretty area, Loved the history, drivers are nuts though.

Brookline Tom, Steve Bloom:

Many thanks to you both!

srr

So is Accuweather going to admit that you were hoaxed? "Comfortably Dumb: The TGDaily MIT/Methane Fraud" http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/comfortably-dumb-the-tgdaily-mitmethane-fraud/

Or will you maintain the fiction that this was a credible story?

Reply: Mike, I just got back from a long weekend. I will check out your links and will take any necessary action. Thanks. Brett

Brett: You've managed to eliminate the spin from both sides, while presenting the meat of the report. Great follow-up post.

Thanks Brett

You have restored my faith in Accuweather ;-)

Mike

Brett,
There is no reference in the MIT regarding percentage of man-made vs naturally occurring methane and free-radical. That is still up for debate, the kind of debate that Mike K. would like to suppress.
Fred

Greenfyre and his website have made a career out of promulgating global warming alarmism. Anything you read on his site should be taken with a grain a salt as he clearly has an agenda, has not only guzzled the kool-aid but will gladly share it with the uninformed, and has non-existent climate credentials. This is just a person with too much time on his hands and too much room in his skull.

Brett;

I guess it can be hard for some to really understand climate science with so many pushing and publishing their economic and political agendas on the topic.

Methane in particular is not understood as well as CO2. However, if this increase that was noted represents a tipping point in production from Siberia and Canada, then we may read more articles on this subject in the future. Not trying to scare people, but methane releases are a potential feedback mechanism for global warming.

Brett:
[ IF ] this story is a Hoax, it only serves to illustrate the sheer desperation now gripping the dying AGW religious movement.

Reply: The misleading story was from a skeptic site.

As their house of card collapses ever faster under the weight of reality, the rhetoric gets ever more absurd and the attempt s to sabotage the truth get ever bolder.
Recently I posted a link to the Chairman of the IPCC boldly and openly lying to a lecture audience in Australia.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/michael-duffy/truly-inconvenient-truths-about-climate-change-being-ignored/2008/11/07/1225561134617.html

Today the propaganda arm of the David Suzuki Foundation (desmogblog.com) is another excellent example.
Having thrown in the towel against Realist Bloggers they now censor any non-AGW conforming comments. (like RC has always done) Their articles have become almost comedic in their attempts to restore fear and panic to the shrinking readership.
Seems almost pathetic actually. You should all visit them to see how utterly silly the zealots can get when cornered. http://www.desmogblog.com/
Again, I predict there will be lots more of this sort of desperate nonsense as the dying AGW animal spasms and lashes out at the inevitable.

Interesting:
An accident?
Or deliborate?

Quote:
Update: Thanks to an email from John S. - a patron of climateaudit.org - we have learned that the Russian data in NOAA�s GHCN v2.mean dataset is corrupted. For most (if not all) stations in Russia, the September data has been replicated as October data, artificially raising the October temperature many degrees. The data from NOAA is used by GISS to calculate the global temperature. Thus the record-setting anomaly for October 2008 is invalid and we await the highly-publicised corrections from NOAA and GISS.

Note the problem appears to extend to other locations including the UK, which had a cold October but shows warm in the Hansen analysis. See also coverage of this NOAA/NASA error at Climate Audit

Even more interesting:
Definately deliberate:

Scroll up and down and see the Hansen effect on global temps.

The past gets "adjusted" down while the present gets "adjusted" up.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NASATEMPS.pdf

Clear desperation.

Thanks for making the correction, Brett.

Just for the record:

You write "When I wrote up this blog at the time I was unable to find the MIT article(.)"

The press release appeared on both EurekAlert and the MIT site (according to the date stamp there) on the 29th, while the TG Daily article is dated the 30th. I read Eurekalert every day, so I know the press release was there on the 29th.

Reply: I believe you Steve. I guess I did not look hard enough.

Brett: Again you prove you are the most honest moderator on the blogosphere. When finding a rather uncertain asssumption, you doggedly pursued the truth wherever, and whatever it said.
Your Blog is excellant, and this is probably
one of many things you do here. Your higher power must be giving you an assist. I hope Accuweather knows what a great job you are doing for us.
Highest Regard, Kipp

FYI, Brett, in addition to EurekAlert, Science Daily, Climate Ark and Physorg (am I missing any?), there's an excellent new site called The Daily Climate that's combines daily news aggregation with their own in-depth articles. The site is run by professional journalists and looks to be off to a good start.

Steve Rowland:Enjoyed your last post from Nov.9th.
It was thorough and unbiased. I think a new president offers something for both the right and the left. I would think that people in business must see the many opportunities we have to get America up and running again, especially in the Energy sector. Just look at what computers, and the software field has brought us.
KIPP

FredN: There is no debate about the amount of methane know to exist in clathrates under the permafrost and in the bottom of the oceans. "Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times above normal". Although it has a shorter half life, it is believed to be the reason for the death ending the Jurassic period. The ever popular James Hansen
believes that this would be our end. Since I am not given to mood swings and hysteria like the good Doctor, it could cause a remarkable increase in Global Warming.
KIPP
.

If the Goddard Institute is correct we may see some catastrophic rises in methane levels following their recent release of October 2008 temperature rises over Siberia. Al Gore�s scientific advisor, James Hansen from NASA�s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), publishes monthly mean global surface temperature data. The recently published GISS global temperature anomaly for October 2008 is arguably the largest monthly temperature rise ever recorded for Siberia where these sorts of temperature rises could trigger catastrophic methane releases.

Some �sceptics� are claiming that the spike is a mistake, it�s all to do with wrong temperature recordings in eastern Europe and Russia and that many areas experienced close to record cold temperatures in October.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/giss-releases-october-2008-data/

If they are correct, it may be an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt by Hansen/GISS to mislead the public into believing in man made global warming. If the GISS October 2008 average is found to be false and misleading there may be other errors hidden in the database.

Apparently, there has been a serious error in reporting some Russian weather data.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4318#comments

It just proves that there is still so much to learn about global warming it's causes and what we can do about it.

The MIT article specifically states:

"Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming."

My "Under Water Suspension Tunnel" idea prevents and reverses this trend also.

Interesting, after having 2008 temperature decreases pooh-poohed as short term glitches, this is what qualifies as a "surge".

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008.fig2.png

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/methanetrend.jpg