archive-org.com » ORG » R » REALCLIMATE.ORG

Total: 1481

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Unforced Variations: Feb 2016 « RealClimate
    in air pressure between the poles and more central latitudes led to the extremely low ice coverage throughout much of the Arctic region One imagines winter ice affecting summer ice and negative AO s in spring and summer having some effect 102 Killian says 12 Feb 2016 at 9 35 AM But but but y all said I was un non scientifical Except Intact nature offers best defense Thus the logical correlation is bio mimicked nature is the second best defense Yeah 103 Jim Galasyn says 12 Feb 2016 at 11 29 AM More on the fallout from the CSIRO hit Cuts to Australia climate research devastating almost 3000 scientists tell PM Malcolm Turnbull CSIRO chief defends cuts promising to keep vital climate capability Climate science and the end of the Enlightenment in the land down under Previous 1 2 3 Leave a Reply Comment policy Note we have re activated the ReCaptcha plug in to reduce spam Please let us know if there are any problems Click here to cancel reply Name required Mail will not be published required Website Site Google Custom Search Recent Comments What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Patrick Eriksson What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Kevin McKinney Anti scientists Carbomontanus What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Spencer Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Chris Colose Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow What is the best description of the greenhouse effect James Powell Unforced Variations Feb 2016 Jim Galasyn What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Jack Barrett With Inline Responses Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis steve s Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Andrew Kerber Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System Hank Roberts Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis MartinM Anti scientists Don McKenzie Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Matt Skaggs Anti scientists mikeworst New On line Classes and Models Marcus Pages Acronym index Data Sources Categories Climate Science Aerosols Arctic and Antarctic Carbon cycle Climate impacts Climate modelling El Nino Geoengineering Greenhouse gases Hurricanes Instrumental Record IPCC Oceans Paleoclimate Sun earth connections Communicating Climate Reporting on climate skeptics Extras Attic Comment Policy Contributor Bio s FAQ Glossary In the News Reviews Supplemental data Tutorials hydrological cycle Open thread RC Forum Scientific practice statistics The Bore Hole Books Contributors Highlights Dummies Guide to the latest Hockey Stick controversy El Nino Global Warming and Anomalous U S Winter Warmth Hurricanes and Global Warming Myth vs Fact Regarding the Hockey Stick On attribution On mismatches between models and observations On Sensitivity Part I Tropical Glacier Retreat Water Vapour feedback or forcing Welcome

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/unforced-variations-feb-2016/comment-page-3/%5C (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Acronym index « RealClimate
    LW Longwave infra red radiation MCA Medieval Climate Anomaly MDR Main Development Region for Atlantic hurricanes MJO Madden Julian Oscillation or Intra Seasonal Oscillation MOC Meridional Overturning Circulation ocean MWP Medieval Warm Period MCA is probably more apt NAO North Atlantic Oscillation NH Northern Hemisphere OHC Oceanic Heat Content OLR also OLW Outgoing Longwave Radiation PCA Principal Component Analysis PDF Probability Density Function PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation PETM Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum PHEV Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle PNAS Proceeding of the National Academies of Science a journal RCS Regional Curve Standardization method for processing tree ring data from different trees RH Relative Humidity RMS Royal Meteorological Society or Root Mean Square SAM Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode positive wind belt around Antarctic stronger colder SAR Second Assessment Report IPCC SLR Sea level rise SOI Southern Oscillation Index see ENSO SPE Solar Proton Event SPM Summary for Policy Makers usually with respect to IPCC reports SRM Solar Radiation Management SSM Standard Solar Model SST Sea Surface Temperature STP Standard Temperature and Pressure a reference for physical properties SW Shortwave solar radiation TAR Third Assessment Report of the IPCC TC Tropical Cyclone any hurricane TCR Transient Climate Response THC Thermohaline Circulation that driven by temp and salinity effects TOA Top of the atmosphere TSI Total Solar Irradiance WAIS West Antarctic Ice Sheet WMO World Meteorological Organization XBT eXpendable Bathy Thermograph deep ocean temperature measuring devices Comments Off on Acronym index Comments are closed Site Google Custom Search Recent Comments What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Jim Eager What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Patrick Eriksson What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Kevin McKinney Anti scientists Carbomontanus What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Spencer Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Chris Colose Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow What is the best description of the greenhouse effect James Powell Unforced Variations Feb 2016 Jim Galasyn With Inline Responses Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis steve s Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Andrew Kerber Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System Hank Roberts Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis MartinM Anti scientists Don McKenzie Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Matt Skaggs Anti scientists mikeworst New On line Classes and Models Marcus Pages Acronym index Data Sources Categories Climate Science Aerosols Arctic and Antarctic Carbon cycle Climate impacts Climate modelling El Nino Geoengineering Greenhouse gases Hurricanes Instrumental Record IPCC Oceans Paleoclimate Sun earth connections Communicating Climate Reporting on climate skeptics Extras Attic Comment Policy Contributor Bio s FAQ Glossary In the News Reviews Supplemental data Tutorials hydrological cycle Open thread RC

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/acronym-index/%5C (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • How much methane came out of that hole in Siberia? « RealClimate
    Killian says 14 Aug 2014 at 10 49 PM I d feel so much better about your continued calm in the face of multiple lines of evidence indicating rapidly increasing methane escaping in the arctic if you were actually researching methane which you aren t so far as I know Response My latest research publication is entitled A model of the methane cycle permafrost and hydrology of the Siberian continental margin In review Biogeosciences Discussions Don t know if that counts David Let s review he scientifically reticent statements on methane since 2007 or so It would take 100 years at least for seabed methane to destabilize Or maybe not Thermokarst lakes probably don t mean much But now we have have holes blowing out too It will take a very long time for widespread CH4 emissions Except it hasn t Yes you are speaking solely in the scientific sense but it is beyond obvious that has not been appropriate forquite some time In fact I am not claiming your analysis I scientificaly incorrect I am saying without consideration of risk assessment and the whole system Your analysis is as ever simplistic in the sense I speak of above 1 How can we assume 1 Shakhova event 2 As the atmosphere and oceans saturate won t residence times increase 3 As other emissions sources kick in or speed up do they not reinforce 4 What of research showing significant melting of permafrost inland at temps similar to today over the last 3 million years or so 5 And what of the simple awareness of what happens to systems when all segments are falling apart at the same time And on and on As has been the case before you address only specific aspects of potential CH4 emissions without addressing the whole system What if the Arctic is ice free in summer the next year or two and the and the resulting amplification of temps far inland I don t do6bt your science but I continue to see little objectivity and systems awareness in these posts I don t know you well enough to know if that is a normal mode for you but it seems pervasive wrt methane emissions and climate urgency Then there s risk assessment but that heads to mitigation 16 jyyh says 15 Aug 2014 at 1 38 AM During the Pleistocene Holocene transition one possible explanation to the amplification of the ghg effect could have been the release of South Siberian European and North American then permafrost land based carbon Seriously hoping for a more mundane explanation for the ending of the ice age In fact could you do an article on that Response If the rise in atmospheric CO2 at the end of the last glacial time had come from organic carbon trees peat dissolved organic matter in the ocean or especially methane which is even more isotopically light than CO2 it would have left an isotopic signature What it looks like is that CO2 came from bicarbonate in the ocean to drive the rise but no one can figure out quite what changed or why David 17 Kevin Hester says 15 Aug 2014 at 2 23 AM Sadly we can be certain that there will be no reduction in the CO2 emissions due to an international agreement as our addiction both social and economic is all powerful The seven sisters will simply no allow it and they will fight to the death ours and theirs to prevent it As economic collapse draws ever nearer we will see massive releases due to military attacks on oil fields and infrastructure let s assume that the volume of the hole is the same as the volume of the original now escaped bubble Measuring the volume of release based on the size of the hole seems nonsensical as arterial linkages into this hole could well be immeasurable I think it is fair to say we have no idea how much methane escaped this hole and others and this relatively new phenomenon is greatly to be feared Response Do you think the released methane could be thousands or millions of times higher than the volume of the hole Seems to me like a long shot from here that this event could have any global climate significance Either you need it millions of times larger or you need millions more of them David 18 Tim Osborn says 15 Aug 2014 at 2 49 AM Just trying to imagine what 20 million explosions holes would look like Area of permafrost is a bit less than 20 million km 2 So 20 million such explosions holes is a bit more than one for every km 2 of permafrost With a diameter of 80 m one hole for every km 2 of permafrost is about half a percent of the area One every km 2 seems a lot within a few years What about spread over a 30 year period one every 30 km 2 per year Is that more feasible Given the few reported so far I doubt that s much more feasible With a lifetime of 10 years spreading emissions over 30 year period would of course reduce the peak atmospheric burden though CH4 lifetime would presumably increase with higher CH4 concentration 19 wili says 15 Aug 2014 at 2 52 PM Thanks for the informative reply David high salinity channels I hadn t heard of those And as for the pockmarks are those the same as the Pingo like Features that were the subject of some discussion a few years ago here iirc One thing I do agree with Secular Animist on is that in line responses from scientists are among the best features of this site So thanks again 20 Andy Revkin says 15 Aug 2014 at 4 08 PM Great to see one of America s top climatologists putting a lid on Arctic methane hysteria Click here for more Siberian sense from the only permafrost expert who actually inspected one of the Siberian holes Fresh Focus on Siberian Permafrost as Hole Count Rises http nyti ms 1nDRUcR 21 MartinJB says 15 Aug 2014 at 6 31 PM Pingos What a lovely name For those that are wise in the way of the pingo could you provide some insight for those of us that are new to their mysteries Some questions that come to mind How fast does a pingo collapse It doesn t look like a rapid process I can see how the melting of the ice lens and destabilization of the earth above could cause a modest depression but how does the scoured crater and sink hole looking formation happen Are pingo collapses likely to contribute substantial methane to the atmosphere Thanks for any illumination you can provide as we strive to become more pingo savy 22 chriskoz says 15 Aug 2014 at 11 21 PM Tim Osborn CH4 lifetime would presumably increase with higher CH4 concentration No CH4 lifetime is a simple exponential decay relative to emissions So the level of CH4 air concentrations in equilibrium 10y timeframe is directly proportional to emissions The rate of emission from holes popping one at every year as estimated by David above is at least 10000 times smaller than other emissions e g fugitive FF mining and agricultural that are in the order of 100s Mt CH4 Response Tim is correct There is a positive feedback of CH4 concentration on it s own lifetime which basically means that the more CH4 there is the longer it lasts This is not a huge effect but it does need to be included It arises from the reduction in OH radical as CH4 oxidation increases At the highest conceivable CH4 concentration we estimated that you could increase the lifetime to about 40 years from about a decade now gavin 23 Hank Roberts says 16 Aug 2014 at 8 16 AM Killian if you were actually researching methane which you aren t so far as I know You can look this stuff up as far as I know isn t far because it s hindsight It s a poor memory that only works backwards David Archer and methane returns in 0 05 sec about 70 results as far as I know is hindsight 24 Christopher Keating says 16 Aug 2014 at 12 24 PM How would the volume of methane from the amount of hydrates in a hole that size taking hydrate density into account compare with the volume of methane you calculated Response Great question Hydrate is condensed phase so much higher density overall but it s only one methane per many water molecules The density of the gas is much more pressure dependent so the relative abundances of hydrate vs gas depends on pressure as well I know that engineers are considering hydrate for hydrogen storage in cars etc so there is a storage advantage to hydrates under some conditions For this feature however I don t think methane hydrate would have been stable unless it was deeper than a few hundred meters depending on the surface temperature If it had been hydrate it would not have exploded but would have taken time and heat energy to melt David 25 Lewis Cleverdon says 16 Aug 2014 at 12 43 PM David some aspects of this strange hole have yet to be discussed and I d like to hear your views on them First assuming the present void was formed by a pingo for lack of any other known suitable mechanism it would have been of around 40 000m3 volume Is this not far larger than any previously found and also of a novel ratio of depth to width Response I presume so since it s in the news but this is not really my area There s a lot of impact of permafrost melting on landforms coastal erosion and so on Second given that the exposed ground shows the depth of the extant permafrost cap it seems clear that the pingo s ice did not melt from the top down as the surface material remained frozen gas tight before finally being blown out So are we looking at some geological heat source rather than AGW as the instigator of this event Third if pingoes on this scale were present at 20 000 000 sites across the permafrost they would surely be widely reported by drillers as a common occurrence As they are not so reported should we not assume that this hole and its two smaller local siblings are an odd and possibly localised phenomena reflecting unusual conditions Response Seems like a reasonable supposition to me With regard to the combined effects of permafrost and clathrate methane emissions I m rather less sanguine than you though I continue to press for the requisite Emissions Control treaty as the paramount mitigation priority My apols to any who find this statement shrill or in some way objectionable Shakhova has to have known that she was breaking protocol in proposing a worst case 50Gt CH4 event rather than writing of say a 1 0Gt CH4 yr release from geological seepage stocks trapped beneath perforating seabed permafrost Response 1 Gt CH4 yr from the Arctic is still orders of magnitude higher than it is today To this extent I d say that her 2010 paper was somewhat impolitic in raising highly critical opposition rather than constructive discussion Response It gets people worried in my opinion for no solid reason What troubles me is that even an all sources arctic methane release of 1 0Gt per year equates on the 20yr horizon to an additional 84GtCO2e yr rising somewhat due to the atmospheric glut effect Last January s report of the 79 12 satellite record of the Albedo Loss feedback showing it on average to have equalled 25 of the forcing from anthro CO2 in combination with that level of arctic methane release would offset our best case of emissions control of say near zero by 2050 over three fold With the observation of six other major feedbacks ongoing acceleration mostly from currently small outputs along with that of a burgeoning number of direct interactive couplings between them I m unable to share your view that the fossil fuel industry poses the dominant threat to climate but would entirely agree that it is the earliest and most controllable threat Yet even a best case of emissions control would not see the last outputs warming realized before the 2080s giving 70 yrs of warming for the major interactive feedbacks to gain momentum Addressing the overall threat thus appears to demand not the dismissal of the feedbacks as a minor secondary concern but their citing as justification for the urgent agreement of a protocol within the emissions control treaty for the stringent supervision of geo engineering research by a mandated scientific agency Beside being commensurate with the predicament this approach would also preclude the folly of pretense that Geo E offers anything more than the essential complement to rapid emissions control Response What if we postulate a feedback between ozone depletion which causes people to get better sun tans warming the climate due to decreasing planetary albedo I personally think that s a negligible effect but should I argue that it could be thousands of times bigger making it a good argument against I guess in this case ozone depletion Better to call it small if it looks small don t want to be alarmist Regards Lewis 26 Tim Osborn says 16 Aug 2014 at 6 17 PM chriskoz Tim is correct Gavin Sorry chriskoz I have an advantage my first ever published paper was about estimating CH4 lifetime changes according to OH changes determined by CH4 itself and CO NOx NMHCs Osborn TJ and Wigley TML 1994 A simple model for estimating methane concentration and lifetime variations Climate Dynamics 9 181 193 http link springer com article 10 1007 BF00208251 27 Lewis Cleverdon says 16 Aug 2014 at 6 43 PM A typo in mine at 25 is where 40 000m3 should read 400 000m3 and an addendum is the reference for the forcing from the Albedo Loss feedback shown in the satellite record Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice See http eisenman ucsd edu publications Pistone Eisenman Ramanathan 2014 pdf 28 prokaryotes says 17 Aug 2014 at 12 16 AM Lewis in this video scientists explain some implications and in regards to your question about heat transfer penetration The hottest years mentioned in the video are also echoed in the recent Nature study cited above i e Plekhanov and his team believe that it is linked to the abnormally hot Yamal summers of 2012 and 2013 I doubt that drillers would find all the holes potentially formed in recent times in addition to those observed by chance the area is huge My guess is NASA will probe now for sink formation and similar characteristics 29 chriskoz says 17 Aug 2014 at 12 23 AM Tim Osborn Gavin My textbook knowledge about OH radicals is they are plentiful ensured by production from sun s photons It turns out to be a simplistic view that I need to adjust as I learn from your papers and references therein Thanks for showing me 30 wili says 17 Aug 2014 at 7 39 AM Uh oh If Refkin is agreeing with Archer now perhaps Archer is wrong about this after all D 31 Morley Sutter says 17 Aug 2014 at 8 02 AM Siberia has explosion holes in it that smell like methane first line Perhaps a minor point but methane is odourless 32 Pete Dunkelberg says 17 Aug 2014 at 9 36 AM Kevin McKinney 4 says 14 Aug 2014 at 5 49 AM the future of Earth s climate in this century and beyond will be determined mostly by the fossil fuel industry and not by Arctic methane One certainly hopes so One certainly hopes not 33 Hank Roberts says 17 Aug 2014 at 10 09 AM emissions control treaty for the stringent supervision of geo engineering Point 1 stop burning carbon which is the strongest form of geo engineering Look away from the arguments about what should be done and instead look at what s being done you know how to find this stuff seabed drilling and pipe laying are righ now getting far more investment than any non geoengineering approach This will change the world In fact it already has Oops 34 Matt says 17 Aug 2014 at 10 10 AM There appears to be two different presentation methods on this article One version says 1 GTon 1015 g The desktop version With the brown bar going down the right side says 1 GTon 10 raised to the 15th power Response 10 to the 15th power is what s meant 35 Hank Roberts says 17 Aug 2014 at 10 48 AM Honest there were links behind that colored text when I posted it I checked I suspect there s a linkovore hiding somewhere in the blog software Let s see if it s still hungry You can look this stuff up as far as I know isn t far because it s hindsight It s a poor memory that only works backwards David Archer and methane returns in 0 05 sec about 70 results Meanwhile how much natural gas is going to be extracted from the area Look it up many companies and governments are drilling and laying distribution pipelines now 36 Leland Palmer says 17 Aug 2014 at 12 53 PM Wow that s an interesting scientific approach to a new phenomenon assuming that it s unique there are now two other examples by the way assuming that the emissions were of gaseous methane under pressure rather than solid methane hydrate continuing to dissociate assuming no methane flows in from surrounding areas and so on These appear to be very very conservative assumptions and any calculation done under such assumptions will of course lead to a conservative answer But large areas of Siberia are covered with tens of thousands of circular lakes and circular landscape features and some of them are ten miles or so across It seems possible that those tens of thousands of circular depressions were generated by similar methane gas eruptions followed by melting of ice and methane hydrate and subsidence to enlarge the initial gas eruption craters Andrey Plekhanov Senior Researcher at the State Scientific Centre of Arctic Research thinks this might be the case http siberiantimes com science casestudy news first pictures from inside the crater at the end of the world I also want to recall a theory that our scientists worked on in the 1980s it has been left and then forgotten for a number of years The theory was that the number of Yamal lakes formed because of exactly such natural process happening in the permafrost Such kind of processes were taking place about 8 000 years ago Perhaps they are repeating nowadays If this theory is confirmed we can say that we have witnessed a unique natural process that formed the unusual landscape of Yamal peninsula So instead of applying your calculation to the current ejection event maybe it would be better to apply a different more realistic calculation to the hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of circular Siberian landscape features which could plausibly have been generated by this process Since erosion might soon erase such landscape features it seems possible that most of the circular features visible in Google Earth were generated in a burst of methane gas eruption activity a few thousand years ago perhaps in the early Holocene Perhaps that will still result in a conservative answer Perhaps no realistic scenario exists that would release sufficient methane rapidly enough to make a big difference But our rate of change of temperatures in the Arctic is very very rapid and a similar burst of methane eruptions might occur more rapidly now than in the early Holocene And of course these possible widespread methane gas eruptions are not the only change occurring in the Arctic as permafrost melts and decomposes What do you think are the possibilities of similar eruptions occurring in the shallow waters of the the East Siberian Arctic Shelf as the shallow underwater permafrost there melts and potentially uncaps more reservoirs of methane The Yamal area gas fields by the way have been supplying large quantities of natural gas to Russia and Europe for decades so there is a lot of methane in the area In fact there may be an association between gas fields and these circular landscape features which should probably be investigated 37 Ruff says 17 Aug 2014 at 6 59 PM Thanks for the article You are probably right we should ignore these anomalies that we have never seen before With out proper study lasting many years and pear review how credibly can we take all of the unique and troubling warning signs I too share you concern for the fossil fuel industry We should as a planet maybe send around a some sort of collection tin for them It is unfortunate that they are so under funded but hopefully once all that pesky sea ice is gone we can drill baby drill them some meager trickle of profitability As I once read Sure kids the planet is now f ked but for a short beautiful time we managed to create real value for our shareholders 38 Frank says 18 Aug 2014 at 8 29 AM Methane is an odourless gas 39 Mike Coday says 18 Aug 2014 at 9 41 AM I do not that being alarmed about the methane holes in the far north means that we are taking our eye off the real problem of fossil fuels I don t this is an either or situation I think it hurts our movement to move away from fossil fuels to pass on a sense that the methane release from frozen reserves is not a serious concern 40 Jerry Dickens says 18 Aug 2014 at 10 18 AM wili 19 This is largely unrelated to the initial topic because the described feature likely has nothing to do with dissociation of gas hydrate for reasons noted by several people However in the spirit of your last sentence the following it might address several comments in your threads and others There are multiple processes for CH4 passing upward through a regional gas hydrate stability zone GHSZ The first thing to recognize is that CH4 escapes almost all gas hydrate systems through two mechanisms 1 AOM within shallow sediment and 2 venting from the seafloor And it probably should be stated that in a steady state world these outputs are balanced by inputs methane production so there is no net carbon gain or loss through escaping methane The first mechanism which very likely dominates on a global scale is fairly easy to understand In most places on continental slopes gas hydrate does not exist in the upper 10 meters of sediment which is another reason for why David is very likely correct in stating that the process of thermal dissociation is slow heat has to propagate into the sediment As such there is a diffusion gradient of dissolved CH4 between the top of gas hydrate and the seafloor However the CH4 does not escape the seafloor because it reacts with SO42 in pore water via anaerobic oxidation of methane AOM to generate HCO3 The second mechanism venting clearly happens in many locations although it most likely is not the major CH4 escape path at least in a steady state world The interesting question as raised is how methane directly passes through a GHSZ without forming gas hydrate David mentioned two processes temperature anomalies and salinity anomalies In some places notably above faults there can be upward advection of warm fluids This leads to a situation whereby the base of the GHSZ is shoaled toward the seafloor Such shoaling also occurs if rising fluids are very saline for example above salt diapirs Great examples of where both processes operate can be found on slopes in the Gulf of Mexico There is however an intriguing and different means of a causing a salinity anomaly This occurs during gas hydrate formation which excludes dissolved ions In areas of rapid gas hydrate formation surrounding pore waters can become very saline and surpass the point of gas hydrate free gas equilibrium Basically free gas co exists with gas hydrate and a brine and no additional gas hydrate can form because the pore water is too salty There is good evidence of this occurring in several places such as Hydrate Ridge offshore Oregon There is also a third process whereby during gas hydrate formation gas hydrate can separate free gas from surrounding water The idea here is that free gas can move upward within connected space within gas hydrate There is good evidence of this occurring in several places such as Hydrate Ridge Here it should be noted that this process and the above salt exclusion process may be coupled None of the above addresses the fate of CH4 once it leaves the seafloor With AOM excess HCO3 at least that not precipitating carbonate leaves the seafloor so it is not CH4 This is another wonderful topic but will leave this to another time other than to state that very little probably enters the atmosphere as CH4 As to the other query pingos by definition are restricted to permafrost regions although one might note they can be found in the ocean where permafrost underlies the continental shelf Some pingos may have led to pockmarks in this type of environment However pockmarks can be found in many places where there is no permafrost Some are likely related to CH4 expulsion for example on the slopes off west Africa I ll guess that David s new paper might include some of this The suggestion that David is not an expert on methane was a rather silly comment 41 Hank Roberts says 18 Aug 2014 at 11 13 AM Look at the Siberian Times picture off to the right is another lake with fresh slumping of the banks Look with Google Earth at the Yamal Peninsula If it was a man made disaster linked by gas pumping it would have happened closer to the gas fields Andrey Plekhanov told The Siberian Times These are about 30 kilometres away Gas workers would have been on alert letting us know about it immediately a theory that our scientists worked on in the 1980s it has been left and then forgotten for a number of years The theory was that the number of Yamal lakes formed because of exactly such natural process happening in the permafrost Such kind of processes were taking place about 8 000 years ago Perhaps they are repeating nowadays If this theory is confirmed we can say that we have witnessed a unique natural process that formed the unusual landscape of Yamal peninsula some 10 000 years ago this area was a sea Yamal a large peninsula jutting into Arctic waters is Russia s main production area for gas supplied to Europe But looking back rapid changes were happening Environ Res Lett 4 October December 2009 045004 doi 10 1088 1748 9326 4 4 045004 Spatial and temporal patterns of greenness on the Yamal Peninsula Russia interactions of ecological and social factors affecting the Arctic normalized difference vegetation index D A Walker1 M O Leibman2 H E Epstein3 B C Forbes4 U S Bhatt1 M K Raynolds1 J C Comiso5 A A Gubarkov2 A V Khomutov2 G J Jia6 E Kaarlejärvi4 J O Kaplan7 T Kumpula8 P Kuss9 G Matyshak10 N G Moskalenko2 P Orekhov2 V E Romanovsky1 N G Ukraientseva2 and Q Yu3 1 University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks AK USA 2 Earth Cryosphere Institute Russian Academy of Science Siberian Branch Tyumen Russia 3 University of Virginia Charlottesville VA USA 4 Arctic Center University of Lapland Rovaniemi Finland 5 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center MD USA 6 Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute for Atmospheric Physics Beijing People s Republic of China 7 Swiss Federal Institute for Forest Snow and Landscape Research Birmensdorf Switzerland 8 University of Joensuu Joensuu Finland 9 University of Berne Berne Switzerland 10 Moscow State University Moscow Russia Published 15 October 2009 Abstract The causes of a greening trend detected in the Arctic using the normalized difference vegetation index NDVI are still poorly understood Changes in NDVI are a result of multiple ecological and social factors that affect tundra net primary productivity Here we use a 25 year time series of AVHRR derived NDVI data AVHRR advanced very high resolution radiometer climate analysis a global geographic information database and ground based studies to examine the spatial and temporal patterns of vegetation greenness on the Yamal Peninsula Russia Many of the greenest landscapes on the Yamal are associated with landslides and drainage networks that have resulted from ongoing rapid permafrost degradation A warming climate and enhanced winter snow are likely to exacerbate positive feedbacks between climate and permafrost thawing This was seabed 8 10 000 years ago covered with pingos I expect like many similar areas around the Arctic Ocean whether above or below current sea level 42 Hank Roberts says 18 Aug 2014 at 1 11 PM Useful perspective quoting from http arstechnica com science 2014 01 methane release around arctic islands predates recent climate change Plumes of rising methane bubbles have been mapped off the coast of Svalbard to where the water is about 400 meters deep the edge of the stability zone for hydrates In order to find out if these plumes are the result of that recent warming or are simply a feature of the area a team of researchers led by Christian Berndt of Germany s GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel used a submersible to get a look at the seafloor where the methane is bubbling up There they found crusts of calcium carbonate formed by bacteria living off the methane In fact there were communities of chemosynthetic bacteria and a kind of tubeworm living at all the methane seeps they visited The age of geologically recent precipitated carbonate in the ocean can be measured using radioactive isotopes of uranium and thorium so these crusts provided a record of how long methane had been bubbling up at these spots The carbonate turned out to be much older than anthropogenic climate change with measurements dating them anywhere from 500 years to over 8 000 years old That means that at least in the locations they sampled methane has been bubbling for quite a long time The researchers also made measurements of seasonal water temperature variation and the ability of the sediment to conduct heat which they used to create a model of the study area The model showed that there should be a seasonal cycle in the behavior of the shallow water hydrates just below the seafloor with some additional hydrates forming while the water temperature is cooler and then melting when the water is warmer That process could affect the total rate of methane coming up by clearing out pathways to the surface during the warmer part of the year The study allays concerns that these bubbling plumes of methane around Svalbard are a brand new phenomenon triggered by global warming but it s still unknown if the rate of bubbling is changing The researchers summarize their work by writing that observations of large contemporary emissions reported in other studies cannot be considered proof of accelerating hydrate destabilization although neither do they prove that catastrophic destabilization is not accelerating Figuring that out will simply take continued monitoring and a better understanding of the conditions on the Arctic seafloor Science 2014 DOI 10 1126 science 1246298 About DOIs 43 Rick Brown says 18 Aug 2014 at 2 52 PM For the apparently metaphor challenged e g 31 38 Think of expressions such as smells like money smells like a scam or smells like truth 44 Hank Roberts says 18 Aug 2014 at 8 52 PM Thank you for the inline responses Anyone new to this don t forget to scroll back and look for those they come in a few days or more after the original post right inline with it Sanity check especially appreciated One speculation about the shape and depth of the hole Looking at e g this discussion http www ig utexas edu outreach ice bound pepperoni pdfdocs pongo 20paul pdf GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS VOL 34 L01603 doi 10 1029 2006GL027977 2007 Origin of pingo like features on the Beaufort Sea shelf and their possible relationship to decomposing methane gas hydrates Remember for a long time pingos were surface land features odd hills on the flat tundra in areas that that had been under the ice age ice then had been underwater as that ice melted and sea level rose then exposed again during the next ice age Then they showed up underwater as well A puzzlement at the time These authors start by saying The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise During this transgression comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf A thermal pulse of more than 10 C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost A search for gas venting on the Arctic seafloor focused on pingo like features PLFs on the Beaufort Sea Shelf because they may be a direct consequence of gas hydrate decomposition at depth We offer a scenario of how PLFs may be growing offshore as a result of gas pressure associated with gas hydrate decomposition Now those illustrations are again talking about bumps on the surface like pingos but underwater Look at their illustration Fig 2 on page L01603 upper left corner The caption says in part s the subsurface warms the top of the gas hydrate stability zone will move downward Warming results in gas hydrate decomposition in a gradually thickening zone brown releasing gaseous methane into the sediments yellow Bubble formation associated with this phase change will create overpressured conditions b Shows how material may flow red arrows both laterally and vertically in response to overpressure Displaced sediments rise upward to form the PLF and allow the gas to vent VG As the pressure is dissipated through both the transfer of solids and degassing subsidence in the area immediately surrounding the PLF black arrows creates the moat That s for pingos underneath the ocean where slow warming has thawed the seabed which can collapse into a moat but the material brown red arrows being forced up from below is dense mud and rock and clathrate and ice And the gas expanding and cooling as the gas expands could push up a mass of ice and reformed hydrates creating the typical bump in the seabed We know that methane will rise up and cool and freeze into fresh clathrates it clogs up deepsea oil wells routinely But imagine this Here warming now is faster Think baked Alaska toasty on the outside frozen on the inside Some warmth gets to the deep source material however What we re seeing might be due to much more gas and less solids pushing up through still hard frozen material blowing out a deep narrow hole with mostly gas bubbles and not all that much dirt rock ice So my speculation maybe instead of pushing up a dome with a mass of ice lifted by the gas we re seeing a Mentos ebullition That would be gas blowing up through a narrow channel expanding but not refreezing maybe with not enough dirt and rock in the mess to freeze around The pressure would end up throwing the surface dirt and plant root layer to the sides then

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/how-much-methane-came-out-of-that-hole-in-siberia/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faking it « RealClimate
    implies that this article when seen in context is actually strongly confirming of a considerable decline in Arctic sea ice over the last 90 years Not that CFACT is going to tweet that Comments pop up 21 21 Responses to Faking it 1 Paul Williams says 30 Apr 2014 at 8 04 AM The historical reconstruction of sea ice extent before 1950 cannot be accurate for the sea ice minimum Sea ice minimum around 11 million km2 That is what the ice is like now at the end of May No open water on the north side of Alaska the Beaufort Sea or in the NorthWest Passage Why did the Inuit invent whaling boats and kayaks if there was no open water even at the sea ice minimum How did the last wave of Inuit migrate over from north western Siberia in whaling boats 1 000 years ago when there was no open water It does not match history Drop the numbers down 2 or 3 million km2 at the minimum Response This is sea ice extent not area Extent includes areas of potential open water within the 15 concentration contour which is what can be gleaned from pre satellite observations Annals of early explorers see Breton s Arctic Grail demonstrate that there was seasonal open water in the Archipelago though much less than today even with extents much greater In any case these data are based on ice charts and so if you want to question the numbers look at those Just declaring they re wrong because Inuits isn t going to cut it gavin 2 Pete Dunkelberg says 30 Apr 2014 at 8 09 AM Thanks for digging into this While the way certain sources operate is not news the back story of the item is fascinating 3 Hank Roberts says 30 Apr 2014 at 10 16 AM Paul Williams look at the 1921 1922 charts See the words St of ice unkn in several areas on both charts State of ice unknown seems a reasonable meaning for that caption Unknown to the chart makers likely known to the Inuit See the edge of the ice marked with little red circles and straight red lines in several places I d guess that marks areas in the extent of the ice where the state of the ice had been identified probably partly open water by the navigators 4 Hank Roberts says 30 Apr 2014 at 10 22 AM Red marks are identified on the full size charts linked in the original post Red lines are land floe landfast Open red circles are open ice Solid red circles are tight pack ice 5 michael sweet says 30 Apr 2014 at 11 13 AM Paul I was reading about shipwrecks near Barrow and in 1876 on September 12 a number of ships were sunk when the fast ice broke loose and the ships were carried to the pack ice several miles offshore There was essentially no open water north of Barrow at the very end of the melt season This was the typical summer just enough space to get to Barrow Perhaps you should read up on historical sea ice before you make your next comment 6 Russell says 30 Apr 2014 at 1 43 PM Nothing new New species of obscurantism are being discovered all the time 7 Kevin McKinney says 30 Apr 2014 at 5 21 PM Thanks the back story is indeed interesting I ve had some online discussions with folks who fell for this one hook line and sinker so to speak Referred them to Chapman et al for a reconstruction and also the Danish charts But I didn t know about that codicil 8 Pete Dunkelberg says 30 Apr 2014 at 5 50 PM Svalbard is far out of the ice right now and the melt season has barely begun 9 Michael Hauber says 30 Apr 2014 at 6 48 PM There was still a large amount of open water north of Spitzbergen in mid March this year at sea ice maximum Although winds turned around late in March and this area has been ice bound again since 10 Eli Rabett says 30 Apr 2014 at 9 20 PM Yeah it was pretty open even late into the winter but if the winds are blowing the ice down to Svalbaard then that would imply a pretty low minimum this year 11 Kevin O Neill says 30 Apr 2014 at 10 19 PM I shouldn t even mention his name but Steve Goddard loves to repost these old newspaper stories over and over again to prove today s sea ice retreat is nothing new As discussed here nearly every story is interesting when viewed in context and similar to the article discussed here when they mention a latitude it s always a region where open water is commonplace today but was news back then Similarly they ll point to historical expeditions from the 19th or early 20th century that traversed the Northwest Passage or Northeast Passage as proof again that sea ice was just as low Forgetting of course that it took these early expeditions 2 3 or 4 years to make the trip Many times their ships were frozen in the ice and they simply drifted along with the ice pack 12 Kevin McKinney says 1 May 2014 at 8 42 AM http en m wikipedia org wiki HMS Resolute 1850 http en m wikipedia org wiki Octavius ship 11 Yes or OT alert even the romantic but almost certainly false story of the Octavius sometimes presented as if factual see link above It echoes the true story of the Resolute timbers from which are found in the White House today also linked above my tablet gets fussy about pasting links 13 Tom Scharf says 1 May 2014 at 11 10 AM Error bars 14 Sou says 1 May 2014 at 12 13 PM Thanks for this debunking I ve dug up a few interesting articles

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/faking-it/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The new IPCC climate report « RealClimate
    Bingham says 27 Sep 2013 at 4 47 PM Concerning sea level rise I worry that there is still so much that can not be proven that it has been left out Listening to scientists who are working on Greenland they think that there may be a sudden collapse not overnight but a real acceleration There is a lot going on in the depths of the ice that we do not understand but can only suspect 14 Rob Nicholls says 27 Sep 2013 at 5 04 PM Philip Machanick 8 The old fake balance I suppose you know the way they always follow the market reports at the end of the news by a Trotskyist rebuttal Thanks for making me laugh 15 Lennart van der Linde says 27 Sep 2013 at 5 21 PM Of course I meant below 2 degrees instead of above in my comment at 7 16 Jim S says 27 Sep 2013 at 5 38 PM I m a little confused with the sea ice extent diagram the 2 degree september extent is HIGHER than the current 0 8C extent Is the arctic going to recover Also is there a version of the report that actually has figures and tables instead of place markers such as INSERT TABLE SPM 1 HERE or INSERT FIGURE SPM 6 HERE Cheers 17 SCM says 27 Sep 2013 at 6 12 PM I m a bit puzzled at the September sea ice map for a 2 degree world in 2080 2100 Even the smaller subset version looks comparable to this years september which was quite a bit higher than last Is the label correct I know models are lagging reality but I though they were getting a bit closer than that 18 GlenFergus says 27 Sep 2013 at 6 56 PM On the sea ice Figure 4 SPM 8 c looks seriously problematic The left panel for a 2 C world appears to show a September extent late this century that is greater than the observed extent in recent years That s at barely 0 5 C vs 1961 1990 or is that meant to be pre industrial just me or do those damn goal posts keep moving It would have been better if the SPM admitted that CMIP5 still can t do sea ice PIOMAS and CryoSat 2 say it ll all be gone by 2020 see website link 19 sidd says 27 Sep 2013 at 9 55 PM Based on current understanding only the collapse of marine based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet if initiated could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century However there is medium confidence that this additional contribution would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century 13 4 13 5 How much is several Ten maybe I have medium confidence that they are incorrect 1 Greenland NEGIS is a big unknown and ELA has exceeded the saddle height at 67N 2 WAIS PIG and Thwaites 3 EAIS more unstable than we thought To put some numbers to this I expect a saddle collapse at 67N in Greenland and NEGIS acceleration over some of the deepest icebeds on earth PIG eating into Thwaites on the east even as Thwaites retreats south EAIS is showing signs of wobbliness Put me down for a meter best case from AIS and GIS alone sidd 20 Dave says 28 Sep 2013 at 1 16 AM Has anyone produced a graph of the last 100 year global temps where the element that is attributed to man s influence takien out How would that look Where do we think we would be right now What degree of cooling would we have seen over the last 15 years Response The graph you want is SPM 6 scroll down the SPM the tables and figs are at the end stefan 21 Martin Vermeer says 28 Sep 2013 at 2 24 AM Lennart 7 the figure caption says Figure SPM 9 Projections of global mean sea level rise over the 21st century relative to 1986 2005 from the combination of the CMIP5 ensemble with process based models for RCP2 6 and RCP8 5 The assessed likely range is shown as a shaded band The assessed likely ranges for the mean over the period 2081 2100 for all RCP scenarios are given as coloured vertical bars with the corresponding median value given as a horizontal line And in the Table SPM 2 caption Calculated from projections as 5 95 model ranges These ranges are then assessed to be likely ranges after accounting for additional uncertainties or different levels of confidence in models Now likely in IPCC lingo is a probability between 66 and 100 So this means there could be a 17 probability worst case that it goes over 98 cm by 2100 AD There is more See a comment by Aslak Grinsted 22 Adam Gallon says 28 Sep 2013 at 3 16 AM The report claims 95 confidence that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid 20th century How is this value calculated especially since there is a great discrepancy between the models and observed temperatures that this tome completely fails to account for I do not consider the various It might be due to or to to be sufficient explanations Please also tell us what human influence comprises of and the relative proportions of the warming seen and how this differs from the warming seen in the instrument record from the 1880s to the 1940s I regard the claims of accelerating increase in sea levels to be unsustained as the record shows a steady 3 2mm year rate I see now mention of the increase in Antarctic sea ice nor the cooling seen over the majority of Antartica so what s happened to Polar Amplification How have previous reports faired with their prediction Or scenarios as they seem to be called Response What discrepancy between data and models The observations are within the range of models Perhaps you do not understand that short term variability like that caused by ENSO is not predicted by models but is stochastic i e largely random and IPCC has never claimed it can predict that IPCC projects only the long term climate evolution Which is why the IPCC scenarios look smooth rather than showing ups and downs like the observed temperature stefan 23 Steve Milesworthy says 28 Sep 2013 at 4 03 AM It would be interesting to understand in more detail what has led to the increase in confidence in the attribution statement I have heard hints that it is related to better models more attribution better observations and so forth but these were a summary from a senior scientist not directly involved in this report but involved in the other 4 reports as a lead author or lead reviewer Response I discussed the basis for the attribution statement in AR4 before If you follow that methodology and add further years of data where natural forcings were more negative the danger of conflating multiple causes decreases thereby increasing confidence More and better models also helps as does the fact that long term trends have not much changed gavin 24 Fred Magyar says 28 Sep 2013 at 5 24 AM Why don t they title it Were All F cked With apologies to Dr Laurence Krauss Seriously though as I read through the summary and I tried to reconcile it with what I actually see being done by our so called policy makers My heart sank a few notches And when I read comments about anthropogenic climate change in the mainstream media or online sites like for instance at the Wall Street Journal it quite frankly almost leads me to despair It s difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it Upton Sinclair Any coward can fight a battle when he s sure of winning but give me the man who has pluck to fight when he s sure of losing That s my way sir and there are many victories worse than a defeat George Eliot Best Hopes that there is still might be time to change the fundamental paradigms on which our current global civilization is based 25 MARodger says 28 Sep 2013 at 5 28 AM Jim S et al 16 18 The caption attached to the figures in the post above have been simplified and in the case of Fig 4 this is perhaps a simplification too far The two maps are for RCP 2 6 and RCP 8 5 The first of these which has raised the concern here results from global emissions dropping very very quickly beginning before 2020 and the resulting global temperature rise is projected at 0 95ºC 2 6ºC above pre industrial At the lower end this is not dissimilar to today s temperatures 0 1ºC The average RCP 2 6 above pre industrial is a little less than 2ºC 1 65ºC and with the famous IPCC under estimation of Arctic Sea Ice loss the map perhaps then begins to enter the realm of being understandable 26 Fred Magyar says 28 Sep 2013 at 5 41 AM Adam Gallon 22 I do not consider the various It might be due to or to to be sufficient explanations A bloke who s been a professor of dentistry for 40 years does not have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door Dara O Briain Just sayin 27 Lennart van der Linde says 28 Sep 2013 at 7 04 AM Stefan 7 and Martin 21 thanks for the clarification That s a confusing statement by IPCC as Aslak Grinsted also notes I m curious what they have to say about the semi empirical models and expert elicitation in the full report A worst case of 1 5 1 7m of SLR in 2100 seems to be the implication of all this We could even argue that almost 2m can be considered the worst case since they mention this but then say there s no consensus on this But how much consensus is needed from a precautionary perspective The more risk is involved the less consensus is needed I would think 28 Susan Anderson says 28 Sep 2013 at 9 22 AM Adam Gallon 22 If you are genuinely interested in the answers I d suggest a look at SkepticalScience which is much abused by the promoters of misleading talking points because it is effective in providing detailed answers with lots of links and backup that are easy to access and organized by topic There s a helpful list on the left and it just might also open your eyes to the organized nature of the distraction effort http www skepticalscience com You could also read some of the other recent articles here at RealClimate and use Start Here at the upper left If you are just repeating the various points that have grabbed your attention from the clever alternate universe of counterfacts I d suggest you take a closer look at what they are trying to prevent you from seeing It s easy for a nonscientist to tease out how it is not ethical but very well funded and organized to mislead people like you and prevent action Remember that many of the accusations are exact duplicates of honest points just cleverly reversed in meaning since it is easier to snark and destroy than to build understanding For lay readers the graphics in the report are terrific as presented above more silly almost relevance from captcha omixgd OMG mixed technique 29 Jef Jelten says 28 Sep 2013 at 9 35 AM Was there any discussion information on aerosols part in variables of measurements IMO aerosols are an important part in understanding what is happening Is there any one or group focusing on this issue and if so then links please Thanks 30 Tokodave says 28 Sep 2013 at 10 18 AM Something that Gavin had in one of the other comment strings fits here as well Here s a test If you read something written by someone who basically knows what they are talking about and it seems absurd to you ponder at least for a second or two that it might be your interpretation that is at fault rather than the statement I d certainly second Susan s suggestions as the SKS site and Start Here at Real Climate as good places to start for a fundamental understanding of the science 31 Hank Roberts says 28 Sep 2013 at 10 27 AM Adam Gallon See the right hand sidebar under the heading With Inline Responses There s an inline response for Adam Gallon 32 Radge Havers says 28 Sep 2013 at 10 54 AM Heh The IPCC Report In Pictures Notice that when you squint your eyes turn your head sideways and take some LSD you can see a highly significant decline hiatus pause or even cooling in global temperatures that if you ve taken enough drugs seems to obviate global warming But if you look at the data by decade even very strong mushrooms are not going to let you see what isn t there http scienceblogs com gregladen 2013 09 27 the ipcc report in pictures 33 Alex says 28 Sep 2013 at 11 12 AM IPCC projects only the long term climate evolution Which is why the IPCC scenarios look smooth rather than showing ups and downs like the observed temperature stefan Beg pardon The IPCC models assembled into Figure SPM 7 and the models used in CMIP ensembles show annual ups and downs in both temperature and sea ice predictions http www realclimate org index php archives 2013 02 2012 updates to model observation comparions 34 Rob Nicholls says 28 Sep 2013 at 11 13 AM Philip Machanick 9 The old fake balance I suppose you know the way they always follow the market reports at the end of the news by a Trotskyist rebuttal Thanks for making me laugh Amusingly skeptic websites are often full of irate comments denouncing the commie BBC for its pro warmist bias I think climate change reporting is generally a massive failure of journalism There are exceptions to this but where are the front page headlines to wake us all up to urgent action I m not confident that many journalists who report on criticise IPCC reports have ever actually read one otherwise it s hard to understand the endless obsession with that one mistake about Himalayan Glacier melting in AR4 WG2 the BBC has mentioned that mistake very prominently at least twice again this week with no context given about the size of the error compared to the size of the report etc I would hope that anyone who s read part of any IPCC report might be able to find something more interesting to talk about than that single error It s hard to know the causes of the BBC s poor coverage but I suspect that it s partly a mixture of ignorance if you don t know anything about the evidence then skeptics may seem to have a point so you may end up parroting their statements and fake balance that s presumably why this week the BBC gave Prof Myles Allen and Andrew Montford seriously Andrew Montford roughly equal airtime in a news item about climate change Maybe Nigel Lawson was busy that day We are just so lucky that it s only major changes to the climate of the planet on which all known life depends that we re talking about 35 cynicus says 28 Sep 2013 at 12 06 PM I m aware of what the article says about short timescales TCS and internal variability but Steve McIntyre and Lucia Liljegren try to suggest that even at longer timescales 25 and 30 years the models differ significantly from the measurements I notice that both do not include uncertainty for the measurements Using the SkepticalScience trend calculator I get uncertainties that would make measurements overlap models uncertainty again I think But is that all there is to say about these graphs 36 Martin Vermeer says 28 Sep 2013 at 12 12 PM Alex 33 Beg pardon The IPCC models assembled into Figure SPM 7 and the models used in CMIP ensembles show annual ups and downs in both temperature and sea ice predictions Not a lot And not remotely as much as the individual models that are combined into ensembles Remember that each ensemble member contains one simulated realisation of natural variability with the statistics about right but the timing completely arbitrary Averaging evens this out but complete removal would require an ensemble size of infinite 37 Hank Roberts says 28 Sep 2013 at 1 01 PM Alex you re confusing models with scenarios Models are run repeatedly each result is a bit different Scenarios are sets of assumptions Someone besides me should explain this better than I can Look at the discussion for SPM2 10 Model results over the historical period 1860 2010 are indicated in black The coloured plume illustrates the multi model spread over the four RCP scenarios 38 Rob Nicholls says 28 Sep 2013 at 1 06 PM Fred Magyar 24 I love the suggested title maybe WG2 can use it although I would put some caveats around it which spoils the snappiness 39 Carl says 28 Sep 2013 at 1 17 PM Hi Stefan Can you please reproduce here the calculation giving 95 confidence Thanks Response The evidence backing up the SPM statements is found in the full report which will become publically available next week I don t know why you think I can reproduce it here I am not one of the authors of this report stefan 40 Michael Sweet says 28 Sep 2013 at 1

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The new IPCC climate report « RealClimate
    likely range is shown as a shaded band The assessed likely ranges for the mean over the period 2081 2100 for all RCP scenarios are given as coloured vertical bars with the corresponding median value given as a horizontal line And in the Table SPM 2 caption Calculated from projections as 5 95 model ranges These ranges are then assessed to be likely ranges after accounting for additional uncertainties or different levels of confidence in models Now likely in IPCC lingo is a probability between 66 and 100 So this means there could be a 17 probability worst case that it goes over 98 cm by 2100 AD There is more See a comment by Aslak Grinsted 22 Adam Gallon says 28 Sep 2013 at 3 16 AM The report claims 95 confidence that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid 20th century How is this value calculated especially since there is a great discrepancy between the models and observed temperatures that this tome completely fails to account for I do not consider the various It might be due to or to to be sufficient explanations Please also tell us what human influence comprises of and the relative proportions of the warming seen and how this differs from the warming seen in the instrument record from the 1880s to the 1940s I regard the claims of accelerating increase in sea levels to be unsustained as the record shows a steady 3 2mm year rate I see now mention of the increase in Antarctic sea ice nor the cooling seen over the majority of Antartica so what s happened to Polar Amplification How have previous reports faired with their prediction Or scenarios as they seem to be called Response What discrepancy between data and models The observations are within the range of models Perhaps you do not understand that short term variability like that caused by ENSO is not predicted by models but is stochastic i e largely random and IPCC has never claimed it can predict that IPCC projects only the long term climate evolution Which is why the IPCC scenarios look smooth rather than showing ups and downs like the observed temperature stefan 23 Steve Milesworthy says 28 Sep 2013 at 4 03 AM It would be interesting to understand in more detail what has led to the increase in confidence in the attribution statement I have heard hints that it is related to better models more attribution better observations and so forth but these were a summary from a senior scientist not directly involved in this report but involved in the other 4 reports as a lead author or lead reviewer Response I discussed the basis for the attribution statement in AR4 before If you follow that methodology and add further years of data where natural forcings were more negative the danger of conflating multiple causes decreases thereby increasing confidence More and better models also helps as does the fact that long term trends have not much changed gavin 24 Fred Magyar says 28 Sep 2013 at 5 24 AM Why don t they title it Were All F cked With apologies to Dr Laurence Krauss Seriously though as I read through the summary and I tried to reconcile it with what I actually see being done by our so called policy makers My heart sank a few notches And when I read comments about anthropogenic climate change in the mainstream media or online sites like for instance at the Wall Street Journal it quite frankly almost leads me to despair It s difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it Upton Sinclair Any coward can fight a battle when he s sure of winning but give me the man who has pluck to fight when he s sure of losing That s my way sir and there are many victories worse than a defeat George Eliot Best Hopes that there is still might be time to change the fundamental paradigms on which our current global civilization is based 25 MARodger says 28 Sep 2013 at 5 28 AM Jim S et al 16 18 The caption attached to the figures in the post above have been simplified and in the case of Fig 4 this is perhaps a simplification too far The two maps are for RCP 2 6 and RCP 8 5 The first of these which has raised the concern here results from global emissions dropping very very quickly beginning before 2020 and the resulting global temperature rise is projected at 0 95ºC 2 6ºC above pre industrial At the lower end this is not dissimilar to today s temperatures 0 1ºC The average RCP 2 6 above pre industrial is a little less than 2ºC 1 65ºC and with the famous IPCC under estimation of Arctic Sea Ice loss the map perhaps then begins to enter the realm of being understandable 26 Fred Magyar says 28 Sep 2013 at 5 41 AM Adam Gallon 22 I do not consider the various It might be due to or to to be sufficient explanations A bloke who s been a professor of dentistry for 40 years does not have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door Dara O Briain Just sayin 27 Lennart van der Linde says 28 Sep 2013 at 7 04 AM Stefan 7 and Martin 21 thanks for the clarification That s a confusing statement by IPCC as Aslak Grinsted also notes I m curious what they have to say about the semi empirical models and expert elicitation in the full report A worst case of 1 5 1 7m of SLR in 2100 seems to be the implication of all this We could even argue that almost 2m can be considered the worst case since they mention this but then say there s no consensus on this But how much consensus is needed from a precautionary perspective The more risk is involved the less consensus is needed I would think 28 Susan Anderson says 28 Sep 2013 at 9 22 AM Adam Gallon 22 If you are genuinely interested in the answers I d suggest a look at SkepticalScience which is much abused by the promoters of misleading talking points because it is effective in providing detailed answers with lots of links and backup that are easy to access and organized by topic There s a helpful list on the left and it just might also open your eyes to the organized nature of the distraction effort http www skepticalscience com You could also read some of the other recent articles here at RealClimate and use Start Here at the upper left If you are just repeating the various points that have grabbed your attention from the clever alternate universe of counterfacts I d suggest you take a closer look at what they are trying to prevent you from seeing It s easy for a nonscientist to tease out how it is not ethical but very well funded and organized to mislead people like you and prevent action Remember that many of the accusations are exact duplicates of honest points just cleverly reversed in meaning since it is easier to snark and destroy than to build understanding For lay readers the graphics in the report are terrific as presented above more silly almost relevance from captcha omixgd OMG mixed technique 29 Jef Jelten says 28 Sep 2013 at 9 35 AM Was there any discussion information on aerosols part in variables of measurements IMO aerosols are an important part in understanding what is happening Is there any one or group focusing on this issue and if so then links please Thanks 30 Tokodave says 28 Sep 2013 at 10 18 AM Something that Gavin had in one of the other comment strings fits here as well Here s a test If you read something written by someone who basically knows what they are talking about and it seems absurd to you ponder at least for a second or two that it might be your interpretation that is at fault rather than the statement I d certainly second Susan s suggestions as the SKS site and Start Here at Real Climate as good places to start for a fundamental understanding of the science 31 Hank Roberts says 28 Sep 2013 at 10 27 AM Adam Gallon See the right hand sidebar under the heading With Inline Responses There s an inline response for Adam Gallon 32 Radge Havers says 28 Sep 2013 at 10 54 AM Heh The IPCC Report In Pictures Notice that when you squint your eyes turn your head sideways and take some LSD you can see a highly significant decline hiatus pause or even cooling in global temperatures that if you ve taken enough drugs seems to obviate global warming But if you look at the data by decade even very strong mushrooms are not going to let you see what isn t there http scienceblogs com gregladen 2013 09 27 the ipcc report in pictures 33 Alex says 28 Sep 2013 at 11 12 AM IPCC projects only the long term climate evolution Which is why the IPCC scenarios look smooth rather than showing ups and downs like the observed temperature stefan Beg pardon The IPCC models assembled into Figure SPM 7 and the models used in CMIP ensembles show annual ups and downs in both temperature and sea ice predictions http www realclimate org index php archives 2013 02 2012 updates to model observation comparions 34 Rob Nicholls says 28 Sep 2013 at 11 13 AM Philip Machanick 9 The old fake balance I suppose you know the way they always follow the market reports at the end of the news by a Trotskyist rebuttal Thanks for making me laugh Amusingly skeptic websites are often full of irate comments denouncing the commie BBC for its pro warmist bias I think climate change reporting is generally a massive failure of journalism There are exceptions to this but where are the front page headlines to wake us all up to urgent action I m not confident that many journalists who report on criticise IPCC reports have ever actually read one otherwise it s hard to understand the endless obsession with that one mistake about Himalayan Glacier melting in AR4 WG2 the BBC has mentioned that mistake very prominently at least twice again this week with no context given about the size of the error compared to the size of the report etc I would hope that anyone who s read part of any IPCC report might be able to find something more interesting to talk about than that single error It s hard to know the causes of the BBC s poor coverage but I suspect that it s partly a mixture of ignorance if you don t know anything about the evidence then skeptics may seem to have a point so you may end up parroting their statements and fake balance that s presumably why this week the BBC gave Prof Myles Allen and Andrew Montford seriously Andrew Montford roughly equal airtime in a news item about climate change Maybe Nigel Lawson was busy that day We are just so lucky that it s only major changes to the climate of the planet on which all known life depends that we re talking about 35 cynicus says 28 Sep 2013 at 12 06 PM I m aware of what the article says about short timescales TCS and internal variability but Steve McIntyre and Lucia Liljegren try to suggest that even at longer timescales 25 and 30 years the models differ significantly from the measurements I notice that both do not include uncertainty for the measurements Using the SkepticalScience trend calculator I get uncertainties that would make measurements overlap models uncertainty again I think But is that all there is to say about these graphs 36 Martin Vermeer says 28 Sep 2013 at 12 12 PM Alex 33 Beg pardon The IPCC models assembled into Figure SPM 7 and the models used in CMIP ensembles show annual ups and downs in both temperature and sea ice predictions Not a lot And not remotely as much as the individual models that are combined into ensembles Remember that each ensemble member contains one simulated realisation of natural variability with the statistics about right but the timing completely arbitrary Averaging evens this out but complete removal would require an ensemble size of infinite 37 Hank Roberts says 28 Sep 2013 at 1 01 PM Alex you re confusing models with scenarios Models are run repeatedly each result is a bit different Scenarios are sets of assumptions Someone besides me should explain this better than I can Look at the discussion for SPM2 10 Model results over the historical period 1860 2010 are indicated in black The coloured plume illustrates the multi model spread over the four RCP scenarios 38 Rob Nicholls says 28 Sep 2013 at 1 06 PM Fred Magyar 24 I love the suggested title maybe WG2 can use it although I would put some caveats around it which spoils the snappiness 39 Carl says 28 Sep 2013 at 1 17 PM Hi Stefan Can you please reproduce here the calculation giving 95 confidence Thanks Response The evidence backing up the SPM statements is found in the full report which will become publically available next week I don t know why you think I can reproduce it here I am not one of the authors of this report stefan 40 Michael Sweet says 28 Sep 2013 at 1 28 PM Stephan In the Land and Sea ice section you say In the Eemian the last interglacial period 120 000 years ago when the global temperature was higher by 1 2 C Is that 1 2 C higher than temperatures in 2013 or 1 2 C higher than some other baseline If another baseline how much warming have we seen so far from that baseline 41 Adam Gallon says 28 Sep 2013 at 2 31 PM Discrepency between data models as per Hans von Storch http www spiegel de international world interview hans von storch on problems with climate change models a 906721 html At my institute we analyzed how often such a 15 year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations The answer was in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation In other words over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase If things continue as they have been in five years at the latest we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models A 20 year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario But even today we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations NOAA s 2008 State of the Climate report said 15 or more years without global warming would indicate what was delicately described as a discrepancy between prediction and observation we ve achieved that length of time now We have CO2 emissions above Dr Hansen s Scenario A levels with temperatures at his Scenario C levels http orssengo com GlobalWarming Hansen1988Fig3b PNG Oh and why do you want me to run analytics js Response Unfortunately Von Storch has gone to the media with this statement without a peer reviewed publication to back it up so there is no way for other scientists to check or have any basis for commenting on it stefan 42 John L says 28 Sep 2013 at 4 00 PM Hi I have two questions 1 What is the reason for the changed lower end of the climate equilibrium sensitivity likely interval since the last IPCC report 1 5 4 5K vs 2 0 4 5K I ve read that the PALAEOSENS study which summed up the paleoevidence gave a likely range of 2 2 4 8 K Dessler recently posted a video where he argues that it most probably is 2 0K based on modern observations of feedbacks CMIP5 climate models are also all 2 0K i e from Forster et al 2013 with an average of 3 2K Is it recent studies based on recent from 20th century observations of temperature and forcings that is reponsible for the drop 2 Are feedbacks from the carbon cycle included in the sensitivity assessment i e melting permafrost or oceans becoming less of a sink 43 William Hughes Games says 28 Sep 2013 at 4 42 PM If sea level is rising at 16cm per decade over the last decade of this century what beyond this It has often been stated that a man should plant a tree the shade of which he will never sit under We should also avoid a catastrophe that will never effect us personally 44 Killian says 28 Sep 2013 at 6 05 PM Wiki on von Storch Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information 3 The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous extremely bad and that overselling a little bit if it serves a good purpose is not that bad 4 This is the more recent of the flavors of denial The Minimalist When a scientist is using loaded words like alarmists they are not using scientific reasoning they are inserting their own beliefs and ideology When we speak of denial of climate science we are discussing verifiable history It s not subjective No scientist working to do good science would denigrate the fact that models and future looking statements exist and need to be addressed Extremes happen The do nothing crowd are now the dominant

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/langswitch_lang/po/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Arctic and Antarctic « RealClimate
    of the Greenland ice sheet and from another colleague working up at the Summit Both were independently writing to report the exceptional conditions they were witnessing The first was that the bridge over the Watson river by the town of Kangerlussuaq on the west coast of Greenland was being breached by the high volumes of meltwater coming down from the ice sheet The second was that there was a new melt layer forming at the highest point of the ice sheet where it very rarely melts A front loader being swept off a bridge into the Watson River Kangerlussuaq Greenland in July 2012 Fortunately nobody was in it at the time Photo K Choquette I ve been remiss in not writing about these observations until now I m prompted to do so by the publication in Nature today January 23 2013 of another new finding about Greenland melt This paper isn t about the modern climate but about the climate of the last interglacial period It has relevance to the modern situation though a point to which I ll return at the end of this post More Comments pop up 114 Some AGU highlights Filed under Aerosols Arctic and Antarctic Climate impacts Climate modelling Climate Science gavin 8 December 2012 Here a few of the videos of the named lectures from last week that are worth watching There are loads more videos from selected sessions on the AGU Virtual Meeting site the AGU YouTube channel has quite a lot more from past meetings too All well worth the time More Comments pop up 62 Older Entries Newer Entries Site Google Custom Search Recent Comments What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Jim Eager What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Patrick Eriksson What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Kevin McKinney Anti scientists Carbomontanus What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Spencer Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Chris Colose Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow What is the best description of the greenhouse effect James Powell Unforced Variations Feb 2016 Jim Galasyn With Inline Responses Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis steve s Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Andrew Kerber Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System Hank Roberts Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis MartinM Anti scientists Don McKenzie Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Matt Skaggs Anti scientists mikeworst New On line Classes and Models Marcus Pages Acronym index Data Sources Categories Climate Science Aerosols Arctic and Antarctic Carbon cycle Climate impacts Climate modelling El Nino Geoengineering Greenhouse gases Hurricanes Instrumental Record IPCC Oceans Paleoclimate Sun earth connections

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/arctic-and-antarctic/page/2/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • El Nino’s effect on CO2 causes confusion about CO2’s role for climate change « RealClimate
    drop in insolation and subsequent reduction in SSTs Of course there could well be subsequent positive feedbacks whereby cloud changes caused by lower SSTs impart a further cooling but that assertion would probably require more than presumably Searching the literature some papers do refer to stratospheric aerosol clouds as opposed to water vapour clouds in the troposphere so it s possible their sentence is simply ambiguously worded 9 Stephen Baines says 11 Sep 2012 at 9 26 AM The errors in the paper are so obvious that I m not sure they even deserve this much discussion It almost lends the conclusions credibility I would reduce the critique to a few simple points such as 1 If increasing CO2 is due solely to a warming ocean why is the annual rate of change in CO2 always positive while the annual change in SST is often negative see Figs 2 and 3 2 It is the consistently positive mean annual change of atmospheric CO2 that creates the long term trend for the most part A correlation that explains variations in annual change in CO2 does nothing to explain this positive mean rate of change 3 How could pH be decreasing and aqueous pCO2 in the ocean be increasing if the ocean is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere 4 Where do Humlum et al think all the anthro CO2 has gone The real question is why didn t the peer reviewers require answers to these and other obvious questions Is it too much to ask for logical consistency appropriate interpretation of statistical analyses and adherence to principles like conservation of mass 10 GWS says 11 Sep 2012 at 9 30 AM It may be useful to know that the authors are known contrarians in Norway who have argued in various non peer reviewed periodicals in Norwegian in recent time that observed warming is due to naturals cycles It is therefore a fair assumption IMHO that they set out with the conclusion in mind and worked diligently until they created the evidence they needed 11 mark48 says 11 Sep 2012 at 10 24 AM The source of the new carbon in the atmosphere beyond the natural fluxes is revealed by isotopic geochemistry This is old carbon depleted in 14C and from photosynthetic fractionation read fossil fuels The BEST group discovered the link between CO2 levels and warming perhaps some day klimarealistene will also 12 Didactylos says 11 Sep 2012 at 10 48 AM There is bad science that needs ignoring and bad science that needs retracting Which is this I know what I think but I doubt the editors would listen to me 13 Jacob says 11 Sep 2012 at 10 59 AM Thank you for this analysis I knew this paper would be slaughtered sooner or later given its premises and its mere repetition of rather well aged skeptical arguments Wonderful job though so thanks again RC rocks 14 Jos Hagelaars says 11 Sep 2012 at 11 08 AM The influence of an El Nino on CO2 fluxes from oceans and land is no surprise at all There is a paragraph in the IPCC AR4 report where this issue is mentioned http www ipcc ch publications and data ar4 wg1 en ch7s7 3 2 4 html Despite what one might intuitively assume it is not the warming of the oceans that influences the CO2 flux during after an El Nino but several processes on land e g see figure 4 and 5 in http eas8803 eas gatech edu Reading Materials Bakeretal2006 IAV pdf Some information of the CO2 rich water being replaced by water with less CO2 induced by El Nino can be found in http climate columbia edu sitefiles file 2006Feely pdf It is visualized on the following NOAA website http www pmel noaa gov co2 elnino html If a lay person can find this rather quickly on the internet Humlum et al should have mentioned all this In my opinion they should be ashamed of themselves 15 Marco says 11 Sep 2012 at 11 11 AM This analysis is not complete without reference to Troy s work which shows that even his own model which has CO2 forcing temperature gives an apparent lag of CO2 versus temperature in the Humlum methodology Link here https troyca wordpress com 2012 08 31 comment on the phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature Oh and Rasmus Troy is looking for a co author willing to do the hard work 16 Yves says 11 Sep 2012 at 11 21 AM gp 5 Thanks for the information The Jones et al 2001 article you link to is a serious analysis and by comparison a good reminder of the crankness of this debated article as well as other tries M Salby L Hocker W Spencer the skepticalscience site is a mine of information on this topic which amount to just attempts at rediscovering tepid water followed by wild conclusions Bseides the interesting part of the analysis of the ENSO effect on CO2 variations is that the land biosphere pedosphere not the ocean is the main source of CO2 during ENSO events If the contrarian view anthro CO2 excess rapidly homogeneised into the entire 38000 GtC ocean and recent CO2 rise mainly due to ocean outgassing had any validity then dCO2 dt should be maximal during the La Nina events or at least compensate for the land sink 17 Yves says 11 Sep 2012 at 11 22 AM Oops R Spencer of course 18 BillS says 11 Sep 2012 at 11 44 AM RE 8 Paul S Ahhh right you are I missed it thanks If they are going to state as one of their conclusions 7 that On the time scale investigated the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2 presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases aerosols and volcanic debris wouldn t it be helpful to be a bit more definitive about the causes of such a reduction Just a thought 19 Occam says 11 Sep 2012 at 1 19 PM I thought this linked plot that I have constructed would add some grist for the mill in the discussion of short term on a monthly scale CO2 concentration and LT temperature relationship http i161 photobucket com albums t231 Occam bucket CO2TempCorr gif The plot shows a comparison between the deviation of monthly global LT temperature from its linear trend line and the deviation of the rate of CO2 change from its exponential trend curve Or in other words it shows a deviation from the expected temperature vs a deviation from the derivative of expected CO2 curve You can see a highly significant correlation which appears to be close to coincident The R 2 value is 30 but if you lag the temperature data by 2 months you would get a 33 value which I doubt is significantly different but there might be something to that fact Lagging the CO2 values on the other hand causes R 2 to drop off quickly I am not an expert so I won t offer opinions on the meaning of it all as there are many complicating considerations that might explain the time relationship between CO2 and temperature changes and or the measurements themselves However it seems clear to me that the short term CO2 fluctuations are caused by the short term temperature changes It is easy to see from a physical perspective that a change in absolute temperature could impact the rate of change in CO2 but the converse does not seem physical i e acceleration of CO2 concentration regardless of absolute concentration causing temperature changes This plot says nothing about long the term relationship I am sure this is not news to the climate scientists but I found it interesting to see graphically 20 Kooiti Masuda says 11 Sep 2012 at 1 32 PM Basically the same message as gp s and Jos Hagelaars but some more information Relationship bewteen El Nino and CO2 budgets is also shown by Japan Meteorological Agency here http www data kishou go jp obs env cdrom report html exesum e html Executive Summary of the Annual Report on Atmospheric and Marine Environment Monitoring No 11 in the figure titled Time series of the NINO 3 deviation and estimated monthly CO2 fluxes from land and ocean areas estimated by inversion analysis This is an estimate of global CO2 budget though the rest of the report discusses more local features El Nino events peaks in the yellow curve which shows Eastern Equatorial Pacific sea surface temperature tends to coincide with peaks of the net land to atmosphere CO2 flux the green curve Note that a certain reference value has been subtracted Their full report in Japanese http www data kishou go jp obs env cdrom report html 2 1 2 html says that net loss of carbon from terrestrial biosphere by drought condition in Southeast Asia is responsible at least in the 1997 1998 El Nino event Watanabe et al 2000 Patra et al 2005 Their list of references is here http www data kishou go jp obs env cdrom report html 2 1ter html 21 Edward Greisch says 11 Sep 2012 at 1 54 PM Thanks for this article because there is no doubt that Humlum will be quoted as proof by the denialists for the next 5 years Those problems with the statistical tools are things that should have been learned in school 22 MARodger says 11 Sep 2012 at 2 37 PM All these helpful graphs appearing on this thread are clouding the main point to take away from the discussion I had hoped the graphs of Dikran Marsupial that he linked to 8 would be the things to demonstrate clearly and conclusively the arrant nonsense in Humlum et al 2012 but they are perhaps too numerous and use synthetic data So using GISS MLO data and ripping away the smoke and mirrors this appears to be the full substance of Humlum et al 2012 Usually two clicks to download your attachment I would suggest that calling it arrant nonsense is perhaps being too generous 23 Toby Thaler says 11 Sep 2012 at 3 03 PM Seems to me if the paper is a poorly done as the article and comments here indicate more pointed questions should be directed to the journal that published it http www journals elsevier com global and planetary change description Is it a credible journal I do not have the time or expertise to evaluate the matter although the top popular download Thermal pollution causes global warming by B Nordell Global Planet Change 38 2003 305 312 doesn t sound too promising 24 MMM says 11 Sep 2012 at 3 55 PM Toby Thank you for pointing me to a great oeuvre I had previously overlooked Bo Nordell not only published his 2003 GPC paper but a 2009 paper in the International Journal of Global Warming http www zo utexas edu courses THOC Nordell Gervet2009ijgw pdf Sadly some scientists who think that understanding atmospheric physics is necessary for publishing climate papers published rebuttals http www ltu se cms fs 1 5035 covey 20et al 20gpc 20vol 2047 20p72 73 pdf and http www ltu se cms fs 1 5035 gumbel rodhe 20gpc 20vol 2047 20p75 76 pdf Fortunately the great Nordell was unperturbed as can be seen in his two replies to said comments http www ltu se cms fs 1 5035 nordell 20gpc 20vol 2047 20issue 201 20p74 pdf http www ltu se cms fs 1 5035 nordell 20gpc 20vol 2047 20issue 201 20p77 78 pdf Actually really sadly is that my first first author climate paper was in fact published in Global Planetary Change and every dumb skeptic paper that appears there makes my paper feel that much less worthy 25 Robert Murphy says 11 Sep 2012 at 4 11 PM Toby That Bo Nordell paper is a hoot He s claiming in that article that the warming we ve seen since 1880 was mostly caused by heat released from burning fossil fuels and not at all from GHG s The journal sounds very fishy PS The same Bo Nordell wrote this ditty in 1988 in support of dowsing http www ltu se cms fs 1 5014 dowsing pdf 26 richard pauli says 11 Sep 2012 at 5 09 PM Because confusion is a human trait that might not be easily or directly caused by El Nino and CO2 I might suggest a title revision to Confused researchers bothered by El Nino s effect On the other hand I wonder perhaps hypoxia actually did cause the confusion 27 Magnus W says 11 Sep 2012 at 5 24 PM Have a lot of crazy stuff from Nordell wrote one article to discredit his nonsense cure for all kinds of pain the Crystal Plaster basicly a plaster with rocks in it but all my debunks are in Swedish 28 Martin Manning says 11 Sep 2012 at 6 20 PM This paper could become a classic for postgraduate courses in the carbon cycle with students asked to come up with at least two reasons why it does not stand up to scrutiny Back in the 1950s Rafter had considered the idea that increases in CO2 might come from a warming ocean but his very early pre bomb work on radiocarbon measurements showed that the difference between the surface ocean and atmosphere was not large enough to be consistent with that Then Keeling s work at Scripps deliberately included 13C measurements and provided stronger evidence again that the ocean could not be a source As already mentioned for the Humlum et al paper to do an analysis like this without treating the ENSO variability quite explicitly is just trying to fit it to a subjective opinion rather than doing an objective analysis 29 Jeffrey Park says 11 Sep 2012 at 6 42 PM I tried to understand some of the relationships between CO2 fluctuations and temperature fluctuations and got plenty of evidence confirming the ENSO relationship If you try to correlate various global temperature time series with the CO2 fluctuations on interannual time scales the cleanest coherences with the most interpretable phase relationships come from the time series that include SST data e g not the satellite based tropospheric time series The interesting feature was that the phase between CO2 and global average temps changed in the late 1970s This change is best seen in the frequency domain not the time domain because the change went from a simple time lag in the early part of the data series to a 90 degree phase lag i e CO2 varies with the first integral of global temps see http earth geology yale edu jjpark Park 2011 CO2coherence pdf Park J Evidence for oceanic control of interannual carbon cycle feedbacks American Journal of Science 311 485 516 DOI 10 2475 06 2011 01 2011 For SVD lovers there are a few cases where I reconstructed phase delays at all the GLOBALVIEW CO2 recording stations with 30 years of data suggesting that although the pacing of the ENSO scale CO2 variations in the far northern hemisphere is tied to tropical SST variations the signal probably originates from terrestrial plants via rainfall variations and not the continental temperatures themselves 30 Leif says 11 Sep 2012 at 7 45 PM People the world over readily accept the scientific fact that changing a patch of South Pacific from warm to cool by only a couple of degrees C and the resulting comparatively narrow El Nino La Nina current across the Equatorial Pacific to South America can have a profound effect on the weather Not only here in the United States but to a lesser degree Europe and Africa On the other hand transforming a much closer boarders in many cases highly reflective patch of earth from significantly bellow freezing to dark open water above freezing a difference of 10 s of degrees C and couple that with an area that is larger than India and it is just going to be no problem Get real I am telling you Science is telling you and the on the ground reality is telling you we have trouble here Of course vested interests are spending big bucks trotting out red herrings as fast as they can Perhaps that must be factored into the attitudes of the masses you think Time to toast the deniers not the Kidders 31 Grumalg says 12 Sep 2012 at 2 05 AM There s an interesting take on Humlum et al here http troyca wordpress com 2012 08 31 comment on the phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature Where the Diff12 approach is tested against the one box energy balance model and shows the same kind of results the paper does Looks like a nice refutation to me The author freely offers the technique to be used by anyone who would like to get it peer review published as a refutation to the paper 32 Magnus W says 12 Sep 2012 at 2 54 AM You can see Humlum Sadly invited på the Swedish royal acadamy why Feel free to ask them having a really bad debate here here http kva screen9 tv 6xOBFturYGoDFhodx5SU6Q http kva screen9 tv iEH5CzCOHF9oylk1Dh ViQ Thankfully Scott Denning also where there 33 Christoffer Bugge Harder says 12 Sep 2012 at 4 39 AM As usual you do a very nice job of taking down the specific analyses and assumptions in Humlum s paper Rasmus However as a terrestrial ecologist the part I find most troubling about their main claim about non anthropogenic CO2 rise is that nobody apparently challeged them on the isotopic data C13 C12 ratio and the decline in C14 as briefly mentioned by 11 and 27 or pointed them to e g Sabine et al 1994 or just any

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •