I’m one of the few of the team (or so it feels) who hasn’t gone to the “AGU Fall Meeting”, which is a huge conference in San Francisco, where geoscientists of all kinds go to share and discuss their work. (AGU=American Geophysical Union.)
Luckily for me, there are many virtual options so I’ve been following things remotely. As I’m stuck at home with a cold (I don’t want to infect anyone else with it!), I’ve actually followed the conference much more than I would have done otherwise. And I thought I’d share some of the Arctic methane and MAMM related virtual options with you.
If you check out the hashtag #AGU13 on twitter, you will see the wide range of science that is available at the conference. If you don’t wish to read thousands of tweets, then you will find MAMM’s very own Sam Illingworth tweeting from the conference. He even managed to live-tweet his own talk yesterday. How’s that for communication skills, talking and tweeting at once?!
Podcasts
Sam is also podcasting with his colleagues on the Barometer Podcast. You can catch up on the past 4 days of the conference in one fell swoop.
Official AGU Virtual Options
AGU have an impressive range of virtual options. You can see lots of talks online at virtualoptions.agu.org once you register. There are live channels, which show some sessions as they are happening. However, I have not managed to get a decent connection to these, and have had to frustratedly abandon trying. Luckily, all the live channels, as well as some other sessions, are being put online afterwards, so they can be watched on demand. So that would be my recommendation. You can also see the AGU Fall Meeting Buzz, which somehow collates a selection of tweets about the meeting. That’s got to be an epic task for anyone!
I have just watched an excellent talk by Euan Nisbet, one of the MAMM team. I would highly recommend it as it’s a nice overview of methane in the atmosphere, including the Arctic, the tropics and globally. If you want to know:
- What are the top 10 most bovine-populated countries?
- Why did the American Embassy in Beijing tweet that the air was “crazy-bad”?
- How good/bad shale gas emissions are relative to other forms of gas for the UK?
- What does it look like when the northern hemisphere visits the southern hemisphere?
then take a look at Euan’s talk! If you can, I’d recommend higher definition so you can read my name in tiny letters next to some of the figures. That sounds like a pretty good game actually — you can play MAMM bingo too, by looking out for the names of team MAMM who feature. I spotted: Michelle Cain (that’s me), James France, Dave Lowry, Rebecca Fisher, Mathias LanoisellĂ©, Nicola Warwick, Alistair Manning and Andrew Manning (no relation!). I might have missed someone, so post in the comments if I have!
So head on over to Euan’s talk now, and feel free to post comments or questions about it in the comments here. (If the link doesn’t work because you need to register first, the talk is called:Â U33A-05. Atmospheric Methane In The 21st Century: What Does The Future Hold? (Invited).
–Michelle Cain, University of Cambridge
Arctic Methane 
Hello Michelle. I do have a question regarding Euan’s presentation, which I very much enjoyed. In the Q&A he mentions that we should use satellite data, station data as well as in situ data, in order to attempt a better understanding and to have a greater monitoring capacity. If that is the case, why did he not use the data from European Space Agencys (ESA) MetOp series of polar orbiting satellites via its Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI), in his presentation (U33A-05)?
A second question with regards to the flights conducted to gather in situ data; were they not still collecting from a comparatively small area and unable to assess methane releases from other locations in the Arctic?
Thanks for your time.
Thanks for your question! I’ll answer the second one first, as it’s the one I am able to answer myself.
It’s true that the aircraft data are collected on a relatively small area. I think they are helpful in “bridging the gap” so we can try and understand methane emissions on different scales. We can then try and apply what we measure on the ground to scale up to the 100s-1000s of kilometres that can be explored by aircraft. If what we measure on the ground doesn’t scale up to what we see from the aircraft, then we are misunderstanding something and need to figure out what that is. We can then try and link these local/regional measurements with the satellites, which are looking at horizontally large areas (but can’t distinguish differences in the vertical). So I hope that all different approaches are complementary, and bring something unique to the table.
The other aspect of in-situ aircraft measurements is that you can measure methane that has been brought long distances by the wind. Flying north of Norway, we think that some of the air we measured contained methane emitted in Russia. So we can observe methane emissions from many different sources in an aircraft, if we target where exactly we fly on a particular day.
To answer your first question, I will have to get in touch with Euan, so I’ll do that and write another post when I hear back.
Thanks again for getting in touch!
Michelle
I have managed to briefly get in touch with Euan before he heads off again. Here is his response:
—
IASI – the problem is the kernels – the satellite retrievals give very poor resolution of the low troposphere. It’s a bit like watching a football match through the bottom of a full beer glass from the very top back of the stadium. In contrast the direct measurement has extremely high precision.
As to the second question – wind brings air from all over the Arctic to Zeppelin, so if you sample daily for isotopes (and continuously for concentration) it’s like having a swinging telescope – you can sniff much of the Old World Arctic and a good deal of Canada too. In the plane we can hunt out different air masses from the east or west by going up and down as well as north-south.
—
Hope that helps!
Michelle
Hi Michelle, thank you so much for a quick response.
I knew that the resolution of the satellite data was poor but I am still unclear just how poor and the consequences of that limitation, in terms of the types of statements that some people are making with reference to it (?). Of course I am alluding to the AMEG group and the people running this site http://www.methanetracker.org/ .
As a lay person in this field (but none-the-less an academic with some scientific method, maths and statistics training), I have spoken to others directly so I come at such questions trying to assess for myself, the claims that are being made. I must admit to there being quite a disconnect between Euan’s position (and presumably yours?) and others.
This all said I am struggling to formulate a question with what I have just said in mind, without antagonizing people. To take that risk; what are the problems with the way some people are using said satellite data? What type of error margin, including ‘spatial’, are we working with, with said satellite measurement instruments?
Thanks again for your time!
I am no expert in satellites, so I have asked a colleague, Dr Sam Illingworth, to respond to your question. Hope this helps,
Michelle
Satellites offer a great way of being able to inform on a large spatial scale, however thermal imaging satellite instrumentation, such as IASI or the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) are unable to inform with any great certainty about surface concentrations, unless there is significant thermal contrast. This is because otherwise it is very difficult to differentiate between the surface and the lower part of the atmosphere.
The other issues that satellites have are that they are only able to offer a snapshot of what is happening at the point of measurement, they tell us nothing about where the measured concentrations have come from. Thus it is impossible to say (without in situ measurements and isotopic sampling) if the observed concentrations are a result of (for example) biogenic emissions over the region, or long range transport from elsewhere. The information that can be derived from satellites is very useful, but it should always be combined with information taken from in situ and ground based sampling to accurately characterise what is happening in a regional sense.
Hi Michelle. Thank for another good answer. I don’t think the respective people contend that the satellite data shows anything other than the more atmospheric readings. I agree, without in situ data and, for want of a better phrase, mapping the travel of methane from the ground or seabed up, it is difficult to make firm statements but unless there is something seriously wrong with the instruments on that satellite and/or the error margin is huge, there does seem to be a methane spike?
I would like to ask if your team has considered using drones or a system of drones as a swarm to collect data and keep a greater eye on things? When I attended a mathematical conference on complex systems hosted by Bristol Centre for Complexity Sciences with the likes of Barabasi et al (http://www.barabasilab.com/), there was one very interesting presentation on such a theme (drones in swarms and the AI for them).
More related and in terms of a limited budget, the more advanced hobbyists have come a long way with respects to drones (even part solar powered ones) and I think this would be a cheaper option for your team and a way to get good data over a longer time frame. I am very interested in your thoughts on such a suggestion.
On a final note, I hope you enjoyed some of my poetry and philosophic ramblings inasmuch as a reply to Nietzsche. Perhaps you think I was being a little too premature with regards to writing ‘The precariousness of us’? i.e the redefinition of the Goldilocks zone and the possible release of methane and the loss of planetary albedo? (quite interested in your personal thoughts on this last question!)
best wishes,
lifeisnotanerror
I think that if you see a step-change in methane observed by satellite that follows the coastline exactly, then this is an artefact of how the amount of methane is calculated from the satellite measurement. You wouldn’t really get straight lines in the atmosphere – it’s a fluid!
In terms of drones/unmanned aircraft – yes! These are great tools! I think many people are looking into their use, although we haven’t for this current project. There’s a balance between how much instrumentation you can fit on an aircraft against how expensive it is, so I think there’s scope for using all kinds of aircraft for looking at different regions of the atmosphere and different gases/aerosols.
I don’t feel qualified to comment on philosophy and poetry, however i think it’s great that you are contemplating such things, as I think this is an important subject to contemplate!
Michelle
Hello Michelle. I understand fully well that you don’t get ‘straight lines’ in the atmosphere and from looking at the satellite data, to me it seems that the methane observed by the satellite does not show confinement to just the coastlines but that is a rather obvious thing to say, as you know.
The great thing about philosophic poetry is that anyone is qualified to pass comment, albeit to varying degrees of comprehension! I doubt there are many that would get the references to quantum entanglement, string theory and cosmology in my latest post or even my earlier comments on Nietzsche’s relationship with his mother and sister but hey ho, it is an outlet.
I think there are quite a few people, some in the profession too, that are going to appreciate your team taking a look at that satellite data more fully, which is quite extensive given the archived day by day measurements. If I contact some of those using said satellite data would you or members of your team be willing to talk to them too? (no rush here)
For my part I would very much like to know the specific drone technology your team has considered and I say that with a view to researching myself just what is available out there and what could be custom designed, to meet your team’s needs.
I hope you have a great festive break
best wishes
lifeisnotanerror