Arctic methane emergency called off?

Here’s the issue, as described in Wikipedia:

The Arctic region is one of the many natural sources of the greenhouse gas methane. Global warming accelerates its release, due to both release of methane from existing stores, and from methanogenesis in rotting biomass. Large quantities of methane are stored in the Arctic in natural gas deposits, permafrost, and as submarine clathrates. Permafrost and clathrates degrade on warming, thus large releases of methane from these sources may arise as a result of global warming. Other sources of methane include submarine taliks, river transport, ice complex retreat, submarine permafrost and decaying gas hydrate deposits.

There’s an outfit called the Arctic Methane Emergency Group which dedicates themselves to, well, emergency alarm stuff. Things like this:

Planetary catastrophe is inevitable without geoengineering to cool the Arctic

Hold on there folks, some new research on actual Arctic soils over the last 20 years has provided some fresh insight. It seems there is no need to panic after all.

From Science News

News in Brief: Warming may not release Arctic carbon – Element could stay locked in soil, 20-year study suggests

In a 20-year experiment that warmed patches of chilly ground, tundra soil kept its stored carbon, researchers report.

In 1989, ecologists set up greenhouses on plots of tundra in northern Alaska. Air temperature inside the greenhouses was on average 2 degrees Celsius warmer than outside.

Over two decades, the team reports, mosses and lichens gave way to woody shrubs. Decomposition slowed in surface soil while it sped up deeper underground. Warmer soils may have allowed plant roots and plant litter to penetrate farther into the ground, increasing both the deep soil’s carbon stocks and its rates of decomposition, the researchers suggest. Overall, though, there was no difference in total soil carbon in the greenhouse plots compared with plots that had no greenhouses.

Oh, that’s gotta hurt. Here is the paper:

==============================================================

Long-term warming restructures Arctic tundra without changing net soil carbon storage

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12129.html

Seeta A. Sistla, John C. Moore, Rodney T. Simpson, Laura Gough, Gaius R. Shaver & Joshua P. Schimel

Abstract

High latitudes contain nearly half of global soil carbon, prompting interest in understanding how the Arctic terrestrial carbon balance will respond to rising temperatures1, 2. Low temperatures suppress the activity of soil biota, retarding decomposition and nitrogen release, which limits plant and microbial growth3. Warming initially accelerates decomposition4, 5, 6, increasing nitrogen availability, productivity and woody-plant dominance3, 7. However, these responses may be transitory, because coupled abiotic–biotic feedback loops that alter soil-temperature dynamics and change the structure and activity of soil communities, can develop8, 9. Here we report the results of a two-decade summer warming experiment in an Alaskan tundra ecosystem. Warming increased plant biomass and woody dominance, indirectly increased winter soil temperature, homogenized the soil trophic structure across horizons and suppressed surface-soil-decomposer activity, but did not change total soil carbon or nitrogen stocks, thereby increasing net ecosystem carbon storage. Notably, the strongest effects were in the mineral horizon, where warming increased decomposer activity and carbon stock: a ‘biotic awakening’ at depth.

=================================================================

What I get out of this is that plants overall did better with that extra warmth, and becuase they did better, the soil was managed better due to feedback loops. Yep, those unexpected surprises from “Nature will find a way” always get you when you least expect them.

About these ads

67 thoughts on “Arctic methane emergency called off?

  1. and the acidification of the world’s oceans is pretty much in an advanced state, meaning….. SHTF!!! uptake ability for CO2 going down, cycle is running….. not good.

  2. THAT’S the way you do science ladies and gentlemen. No stupid models. No stupid computers. No stupid scientists 2000 miles away in ivory towers. Go to the source, figure out how to collect the data, draw conclusions.

    Well done.

  3. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/review-paper-finds-growth-of.html

    A new review paper from SPPI and CO2 Science finds the growth rate of atmospheric methane has significantly decreased over the past 30 years, the opposite of IPCC predictions. Separately, a new paper finds, “Warming may not release Arctic carbon – Element could stay locked in soil, 20-year study suggests.”

    Atmospheric methane’s contribution to anthropogenic climate forcing is estimated to be about half that of CO2 when both direct and indirect components to its forcing are summed (see Figure 1, below); and nearly all models project atmospheric methane (CH4) concentrations will increase for at least the next 3 decades, with many of the scenarios assuming a much larger increase throughout the 21st century. A quick fact-check, however, reveals that observations lie far below the model projections, as shown in each of the four prior Assessment Reports of the IPCC. So what has caused the IPCC to get things so wrong?

  4. “Arctic methane emergency called off”

    I would be interested how you can infer this from a paper that does not mention methane once.

    At most this paper could find the response of moist acidic tussock ecosystem, nothing about other terrestrial and marine sources of methane in the Arctic.

    REPLY: I’m not talking about marine sources such as clathrates, I’m talking about earthen sources. Decomp = methane. They point out decomp sped up initially, then leveled off as plant systems started to manage better.

    Unless of course you want to refute this headline story too: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/27/501221/arctic-methane-release-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/?mobile=nc

    -Anthony

  5. Extract the worrisome methane and burn it for fuel. Methane has 21 times the greenhouse potential than methane. Problem solved and we have fuel. Or, don’t worry about apocalypse from sudden release of arctic methane.

    [Rather, "potential than CO2"? Mod ]

  6. O/t and my bad – Who the hell has buggered up twitter and farcebook at 12.30am BST – I’ll find ya.

  7. Over two decades, the team reports, mosses and lichens gave way to woody shrubs.

    And the shade from those shrubs inhibits warming of the soil and release of its methane.

  8. No abnormal weather.
    No worry about Tuvalu & Maldives.
    No methane amplification. …………. What’s next?

  9. richard telford says:
    May 15, 2013 at 4:23 pm …………..

    Methane was not a problem when the Arctic was ice free during summers of the Holocene. So no problem this century bearing in mind climate sensitivity is off somewhat according to observations.

    Abstract
    We therefore conclude that for a priod in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer. This may serve as an analogue to the predicted “greenhouse situation” expected to appear within our century.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F

    Abstract
    Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185

    Abstract
    Calcareous nannofossils from approximately the past 7000 yr of the Holocene and from oxygen isotope stage 5 are present at 39 analyzed sites in the central Arctic Ocean. This indicates partly ice-free conditions during at least some summers. The depth of Holocene sediments in the Nansen basin is about 20 cm, or more where influenced by turbidites.

    http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/21/3/227.abstract

    Abstract
    ….Nevertheless, episodes of considerably reduced sea ice or even seasonally ice-free conditions occurred during warmer periods linked to orbital variations. The last low-ice event related to orbital forcing (high insolation) was in the early Holocene,…

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.02.010

    Abstract
    A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability—View from the Beach
    We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.abstract

  10. yet again ideology-fuelled scare tactics trumped by science – isn’t it time Gore and his Groupies gave it up as a bad job and looked for honest work?

  11. This “arctic methane scare” has always seemed a bit foolish to me, considering even Wikipedia (with their debunked hockey stick) suggests it was warmer around 6000 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

    They suggest arctic temperatures were a half degree warmer for how long? Oh, a mere two or three thousand years. It seems to me that would have released all the methane there was to release.

    Others, (including geologists who have studied evidence that suggests the arctic ocean wasn’t frozen for substantial periods of time,) (IE: land forms made by surf and not ice; radio-carbon dated driftwood from the far side of the arctic ocean, higher sea levels, and so on,) dare to differ with Wikipedia, and suggest that temperatures 6000 years ago were as much as 2 degrees warmer than they are now.

    If there was going to be some sort of methane calamity it would have already happened.

    Therefore, if you really want to get people alarmed, you have show proof it has already happened. That was what wiped out the Woolly Mammoths and the Greenland Vikings! And it will happen again, if you don’t use curly light bulbs!

    (Forgive me. I likely shouldn’t give Alarmists any ideas, however my heart is prone towards pity, and these days those guys are obviously in need of help.)

  12. Thank God. They were just about ready to place the orders for a billion air conditioners to be stationed all around the arctic to keep the tundra cool. All powered by windmills, of course.

  13. During the Eemian interglacial Hippopotamus frolicked in the rivers Thames and Rhine. Some Warmists will tell you that it was about as warm as the present. The Arctic’s methane was kept under control. Relax good people, the climate (false) alarm is almost over. Did I mention the even warmer PETM? Did I mention methane eating microbes? Did I mention…………..oh, forget it.

  14. @Jimbo, sorry I could not resist:

    During the Eemian interglacial Hippopotamus frolicked rivers Thames and the Rhine.
    Some Warmists will tell you that it was about as warm as the present.
    Personally I am biding my time.

  15. It looks like “the canary in the coal mine” Methane measurements from Barrow Alaska have ticked up again this year – a few parts per billion.

    Overall, Methane levels in the atmosphere have nearly flatlined now – a little known fact it seems. 6 years ago, it looked like Methane had peaked but it seems to be increasing slightly again – probably the increased activity in the natural gas industry (natural gas being about 97% Methane – don’t blame the cows please since they have nothing to do with it).

    Barrow is the leading indicator for the world and the leading indicator for Arctic methane releases I guess.

    Methane does not appear to be an issue that should be worried about (unless you are a professional worrier – paid to be a worrier that is – as in doomsday prognisticator, please send money to save us from the few parts per billion trend of Methane).

  16. The growth of Arctic trees (which are already present in highly stunted forms) increases each time the temperature rises. Their dead remains can be seen in Labrador well north of the ‘treeline’. If the Arctic warms considerably, trees will take over, just like everywhere else further south. Freezing out plant life increases the level of CO2 in the atmosphere because one removal mechanism is shut off. Rotting of vegetation => methane => CO2 continues as the study showed.

  17. Funny how all these skeptic points we pointed out over the years are all coming to pass.

  18. This research was about the soil as a carbon sink (positive or negative) not about methane. The title is in error.

  19. nigelf, just a rewording:

    Funny how all those warmist points that skeptics pointed out were completely wrong…

    It’s almost as if warmists are completely unaware of how the planet works. There’s this little thing called “LIFE” that changes everything. To some creatures, methane is food. Increased methane means more food for the little guys, who experience a population boom. Once they’ve eaten all that is available, they starve and die, their microscopic bodies ultimately creating a thin strata layer for geologists to puzzle over in the far future.

    Same goes for CO2. Increase it, and organisms and plants have a feeding / multiplying frenzy, lower the levels, and die off. Oh, and EXACTLY the same for crude oil. Surprise, surprise! Virtually every substance out there breaks down eventually and the components are food for something. Even toxic chemicals. Even… gasp… radioactivity integrates into nature!

  20. GENUG (@GENUG) says:
    May 15, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    and the acidification of the world’s oceans is pretty much in an advanced state, meaning….. SHTF!!! uptake ability for CO2 going down, cycle is running….. not good.

    Actually, the neutralization of the ocean is barely detectable, and we have little historical information with which to compare it.

    Nice try at shrill fact-free hysteria, though,

    w.

  21. Things burying AGW seem to be emerging on an almost daily basis now – taking studies such as this and media into account. It gives the sense of a long suppressed protest of dissent starting to emerge.

  22. Most of the Alarmists don’t care how wrong or absurd they are; they just shout loudly in the hope of attracting attention, funds, and creating some action (whatever it is).

    We’ll be able to test AMEG in about 7 months or so. They state:

    “Climate extremes are all too apparent resulting in food prices rising ominously towards a level which could put over a billion people into starvation next year and provoke food riots all over the world.’

    and

    “What is happening will seriously impact food, agriculture and the insurance industry in 2013,”

  23. GENUG (@GENUG) says:
    May 15, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    Good practice is to end a post parodying warmist hysterics with “sarc off”. Not all readers get the sarcasm and might think that you are a genuine nutter!

  24. “‘Shut up,’ he explained.” [Ring Lardner]

    Glad ol’ Geenug started us off with a bit of humor. LOL.

    Those AGW guys (head shake). They’re a laugh a minute!

    Just a leeetle bit frustrated.

  25. Richard Telford and DB are right. This paper is not about methane, and the abstract does not mention it. It is about total soil carbon.

    “Decomp = methane. They point out decomp sped up initially, then leveled off as plant systems started to manage better.”
    No, decomp usually produces carbon dioxide. Methane would only be produced in a totally anaerobic environment, where the roots of the woody plants could not survive. There’s no evidence of that here.

  26. Like the approach of this guy: Georg Delisle – permafrost expert – pulls no punches

    “…it is utter imbecility to suppose that the entire permafrost could thaw out by the end of the century. It would take thousands of years.”

    His study ‘Near-surface permafrost degradation: How severe during the 21st century?’ was the basis for his presentation.

    From http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/01/permafrost-far-more-stable-than-claimed-german-expert-calls-danger-of-it-thawing-out-utter-imbicility/

    Geoscientist and permafrost expert Georg Delisle from Hanover presented his research.

    He studied time periods from the last 10,000 years when the global temperature was warmer than today for several thousand years by as much as 6°C. Ice cores that had been extracted from Antarctica and Greenland provide exact information about the composition of the atmosphere during these warm periods.

    His conclusion: ‘The ice cores from both Greenland and Antarctica provide no indication of any elevated release of greenhouse gases at any time even though back then a deep thawing of the permafrost when compared to today would have been the case.’

    http://donnerunddoria.welt.de/files/2012/11/2007GL029323.pdf

  27. So now what are we going to do with our huge, half-built, planetary catastrophe averting, geo-engineering device???

  28. Bloke down the pub says:
    [on WUWT Diminishing CO2 Returns Thread at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/ ]

    on May 8, 2013 at 1:57 PM

    “[*] is one of the reasons warmists bang on about ocean ‘acidification’. They know mother nature won’t play ball with warming so they need something else to scare the children with.”

    *
    MODTRAN calculates that 50% of the warming effect of current (almost 400 ppm) CO2 levels would be accomplished by just 20 ppm CO2 (for a tropical atmosphere w/ constant relative humidity):

    http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/MODTRAN_etc.html

    The NCAR radiation code says that 40 ppm CO2 would be needed to get 50% of the current CO2-caused warming, rather than 20 ppm, but, either way, … we’re well past the point of diminishing returns w/r/t the warming effect of CO2.

    The alarmist projections of wild increases in temperature are based on assumptions of dramatic amplifications of the warming effect through positive feedbacks. But for the tropical atmosphere MODTRAN calculates only +65% amplification from water vapor, and that’s really an upper-bound, because it doesn’t taking into account various negative feedbacks, such as water-cycle (evaporative) cooling.” [Dave Burton on above thread on May 8, 2013 at 1:25 pm]

  29. Nick Stokes says:May 15, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    Richard Telford and DB are right. This paper is not about methane, and the abstract does not mention it.

    Nor does the abstract mention that the sky is blue, either. You know damn well, Nick, that the MSM has been spouting crap about the concern over methane release from a warming tundra for years.

  30. The mind boggles at the number of deluded people who think that catastrophe is right around the corner. How in he#$ do these people think that the Earth has reached its benign environment after 4.6 billion years if there were such lethal traps everywhere?

  31. When I see something like this, I simply have to wonder what in the anthropogenic world happened at the end-Eemian (yes, we were indeed there) when sea levels rose +6 to +45M above mean sea level (amsl):

    http://www.uow.edu.au/business/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow045009.pdf

    Some say +52M amsl:

    http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf

    Immediately thereafter:

    “…sea level fell with apparent speed to the MIS 5d lowstand and much cooler climatic conditions.”

    http://www.uow.edu.au/business/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow014948.pdf

    We have little choice here. Something wreaked climate havoc, not once but twice at the end-Eemian:

    http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf

    On the other hand, if we do not restrict our inquiry to just methane we have this:

    http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf

    “Would you like fries with that?” inquires the attendant through the drive-thru climatesoup squak-box…….

  32. Got that link from an AGWer — figures (sorry about that, folks).

    Let’s try again (just like all good modellers do!):

  33. Go, Pat Frank!

    Since they HAVE NO EVIDENCE, you’ll either be blessed with a peacefully quiet evening, or….. do I hear shuffling footsteps down the hall?……. Uh, oh…. put on your helmet and goggles (and nose plug) for —————— INCOMING! ———— large load of regurgitated baloney headed your way….. (ugh — AGW stinks).

  34. Of course! #[:)]

    At least (if Honeydew can perfect his design), it will be something USEFUL (can crusher?).

    Edison would have been proud.

  35. I think it would be fair to say that this might be a surprise to those whose sole focus as a specialist was atmospheric meteorology.

    It wouldn’t be fair to say that this would prove overly surprising to soil scientists, ecologists or agricultural biologists.

    The lesson to learn is that reductionist science is entirely inappropriate in complex systems and that fluid thermodynamics specialists would have a greater intuitive insight into soil biology than those devoted to newtonian mechanics.

    Just as biologists in the UK betray their ignorance when wading into climate politics, it may be the case that physicists should be cautious before straying into areas of complex system biology.

  36. rtj1211 says: May 15, 2013 at 11:26 pm
    “I think it would be fair to say that this might be a surprise to those whose sole focus as a specialist was atmospheric meteorology.
    It wouldn’t be fair to say that this would prove overly surprising to soil scientists, ecologists or agricultural biologists.”

    This paper comes from Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California Santa Barbara. They thought it worth publishing.

  37. REPLY: I’m not talking about marine sources such as clathrates, I’m talking about earthen sources. Decomp = methane. They point out decomp sped up initially, then leveled off as plant systems started to manage better.

    Unless of course you want to refute this headline story too: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/27/501221/arctic-methane-release-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/?mobile=nc

    ———–
    So rather than admit that your post grossly misrepresents Sistla et al, you divert me to a realclimate-written post that confirms that Arctic methane releases will play a significant role in climate evolution, even if sudden enormous releases of methane are unlikely.


    REPLY:
    My view comes from the way methane has been portrayed in the Arctic. There are numerous essays which suggest methane will be released from tundra. One of the problems in the use of the word “carbon” is it is often shorthand for carbon dioxide or for methane, they don’t make that clear. I read it as a combination of CO2 and methane from soil decomp. For example here’s a story about an NSF press release where Carbon and Methane are used interchangeably in the Arctic. From Think Progress

    Scientists learned last year that the permafrost permamelt contains a staggering “1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon, about twice as much carbon as contained in the atmosphere,” much of which would be released as methane. Methane is is 25 times as potent a heat-trapping gas as CO2 over a 100 year time horizon, but 72 times as potent over 20 years!

    The carbon is locked in a freezer in the part of the planet warming up the fastest (see “Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss“). Half the land-based permafrost would vanish by mid-century on our current emissions path (see “Tundra, Part 2: The point of no return” and below).

    Here’s what the NSF says (much like what Nic Stokes says):

    Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide. It is released from previously frozen soils in two ways. When the organic material (which contains carbon) stored in permafrost thaws, it begins to decompose and, under anaerobic conditions, gradually releases methane.

    I’ve long been exposed to this idea, and that is what I thought was going on here since they artificially elevated temperatures. I just recent ran a critique of a story in the Guardian where we talking about how if surface vegetation is disturbed/removed, we end up with the permafrost below it melting which leads to decomp and methane release. In this study, they point out how a 2 degree warming was “expected” to cause issues like this, but instead the vegetation responded favorably, against their expectations.

    Now I don’t defer the possibility that I could be wrong, but at the same time I’ll point out that when press releases and news stories are written, when “carbon” is used, it should be made perfectly which form of “carbon” they are talking about. From my perspective, the word “carbon” as shorthand for CO2/Methane in the Arctic needs to be clarified in many places.

    Of course it would also help if Science would stop paywalling everything (including those studies done in California where I pay taxes to make it possible, where they should be public domain) so only those with perceived unlimited funds (feeding at the government trough – You and Nick for example) can read the papers. I went to UCSB looking for it, and was denied access. Of course if I had access to the paper, it may have clarified the issue to the point where it was clear that “Carbon” was not shorthand for Methane/CO2 in this case.

    Next time there’s a story here at WUWT or elsewhere where “carbon” is used as shorthand, I’ll expect you to complain to the authors. Something tells me you won’t though, because your demonstrated holier than thou critical commentary is always one way.

    -Anthony

  38. Isn’t that Methane burried in clathrates below the ocean bottom?

    Isn’t the temperature at that depth around 4 degrees or less, and isn’t that the case worldwide irrespective of what the temperature of the surface waters is?

    So what is the problem?

  39. They thought it worth publishing.

    After spending two decades on their experiment, they could hardly have thought otherwise, although in this case they seem to be right.

    However, rtj1211 still has a point. Results that confirm what some people (the groups he mentioned) would already have thought, but disprove what other people appear to have thought are worthwhile.

  40. Nothing surprising here. The tundra was pretty much completely wooded during the last interglacial. Nothing happened with the methane concentration.

  41. GENUG (@GENUG) says:
    May 15, 2013 at 3:25 pm
    “and the acidification of the world’s oceans is pretty much in an advanced state, meaning….. SHTF!!! uptake ability for CO2 going down, cycle is running….. not good.”

    Average pH dropped by 0.1 over the past decades. If the uptake ability were going down, which I would call conjecture, how would that be a problem? Even the ongoing rise of CO2 concentrations between 1998 and 2013 did nothing to warm the planet, so where is the problem when the concentration rises further; it obviously does not correlate in a meaningful way with temperatures – neither with real local temperatures nor with the theoretical, meaningless construct they call global average temperature. Of course ESPECIALLY not with real temperatures; the diurnal temperature fluctuation in my place seems entirely unimpressed by CO2 levels.

    Try to think rationally. I know it’s hard after decades of green brainwashing but try. Start with a book about simple boolean logic.

  42. This link Planetary catastrophe is inevitable without geoengineering to cool the Arctic
    Geoengineering has been going on sense the 2nd world war when radar was put to good use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar They knew the side effect was atmospheric heating and over time and good science observations they thought it a good idea to sign this http://www.scribd.com/doc/3436120/UN-1976-Weather-Weapon-Treaty
    But they didn’t go as far to stop it being used on their own people. Making it rain and snow over catchments for hydro-electric has been happening for over 60 years. I was reading here just the other day about cosmic rays suppling the neuclei for clould formation, so why not use the same understanding to create the same reactions from the ground up like they found out here back in the 70’s http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/IONO/Dynasonde/SpEatHeating.htm Here’s what Noaa had to say back in 75 http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/IONO/Dynasonde/images/HeatPrecip.pdf Abit of history on the dinasonde http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/IONO/Dynasonde/history.htm
    Lets jump forward 20 years to 94 when they created this http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/64/49/PDF/angeo-16-1212-1998.pdf They proved they could do all sorts of things to the polar jet stream even a reversal So lets move into the now It looks to me this could be why the jet stream moved south to make Sandy do that left hand turn Sandy’s energy was enough to keep polar jetsream south over winter But why would they do this you ask well with all the money dramas going on all round the world and the one with the most has control, it’s a well known fact we use more energy (electricity) when its cold I often ponder over how may people out there grow their own vegie’s and how well they did this year with all the cold For those that want to know WHY here you go http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

  43. Dick/DB/Steve: You guys know damn well that carbon=methane when they are talking about permafrost thaw. That’s all they’ve warned us about for years. You are word parse trolling. Just stop…

  44. I wounder how much methane is Russia releasing into the arctic http://rt.com/business/russia-arctic-reserves-kept-idle-142/ Natural gas contains between 70 and 90% methane dosen’t it ? No wounder the Arctic is in so much trouble with Russia trying to speed up the thaw When you start to look down this road sure gives new meaning to the cold war Because he who controlls the cold controlls the climate and weather .

  45. Rick Bradford says:
    May 15, 2013 at 7:40 pm

    Most of the Alarmists don’t care how wrong or absurd they are; they just shout loudly in the hope of attracting attention, funds, and creating some action….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is part of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

    RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people…..

    RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions….

    RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)….

    Think Looney Lew and – Royal Society calls Lewandowsky “outstanding” for an example of all three rules.

    Skeptics are always behind the 8-ball. CAGW types think up something new write a ‘Peer-Reviewed Science Paper’ then hand the lap-dog ‘journalists’ a press release so it makes headlines. By the time skeptics have come up with a rebuttal a new catastrophic ‘Peer-Reviewed Science Paper’ is making headlines and the old paper is wrapping fish. It does not matter if the paper is complete bumkin, all that matters is that it grabs headlines.

    Actual science started heading out the door when the Age of Enlightenment or Age of Reason gave way to Romanticism.

    An Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals in 18th century Europe, that sought to mobilize the power of reason, in order to reform society and advance knowledge. It promoted science and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition,[1] intolerance and abuses in church and state. Originating about 1650 to 1700, it was sparked by philosophers Baruch Spinoza (1632?1677), John Locke (1632?1704), Pierre Bayle (1647?1706), physicist Isaac Newton (1643?1727), and historian Voltaire (1694?1778)….

    The Enlightenment flourished until about 1790–1800, after which the emphasis on reason gave way to Romanticism’s emphasis on emotion and a Counter-Enlightenment gained force….

    http://www.ask.com/answers/116661941/what-s-the-difference-between-the-enlightenment-and-the-renaissance

    Politicians of course do not want the vioting public to be able to reason. As H. L. Mencken said,
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” So a dumb electorate swayed by emotion is just what politicians want.

    Pascal Lamy let the true goal of the politicians out of the bag:

    …All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty

    This then is ‘THE CAUSE’ that Michael Mann is talking about when he said
    “I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.” in a climate gate e-mail. Don’t forget one of the other climategate e-mails was asking for the Climate Team™ to review Ged Davis’s Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1). Davis was at the time a Shell Oil VP. “During the late 1990s, he served as Director of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Global Scenarios and as Facilitator and Lead Author of the IPCC’s Emission Scenarios” – from InterAcademy Council, Annex A. Study Panel Biographies (Link now dead)

    Pascal Lamy also states the problem facing those who want global governance:

    ….It is true that popular criticism of globalization can be irrational — or worse.

    So it looks like climate skeptics will have to be lumped into the group called ” irrational — or worse.” (enter Lewandowsky and Cook stage left)

    Lamy states the progress that has been made:

    ….Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)…. [GATT led to WTO] — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history….All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order …

    He states the problem now facing globalists:

    This raises a final challenge: How to provide global leadership? Mobilizing collective purpose is more difficult when we no longer face one common enemy, but thousands of complex problems. The Cold War was about the clash, not just of geopolitical interests, but of big ideas — democracy against totalitarianism, freedom against state control. But the Cold War “glue” has disappeared….

    And finally he states the ‘Solution’ to the problems facing globalists, Mencken’s endless series of hobgoblins

    …With the recent economic crisis we discovered that the collapse of one part of an economy can trigger a chain-reaction across the globe. With the climate crisis, that our planet is an indivisible whole. With the food crisis, that we are dependent on each other’s production and policies to feed ourselves. And with the flu epidemic, that speedy international cooperation is vital…. Pascal Lamy: Global governance
    is the globalization of local governance

    (All other Lamy quotes from Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization?)

    All four of these events were carefully orchestrated of course.

    For those not familiar with ‘The Flu Epidemic Crisis’ Live Avian Flu Virus Placed in Baxter Vaccine Materials Sent to 18 Countries “The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses.”

    ‘The Food Crisis’ : How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis

    The economic crisis I have traced to the five banking laws signed by Clinton, a pal of Lamy. The laws repealed the depression era laws put in place to prevent another depression. Matt Taibbi has done a really great job investigating the situation: Matt Taibbi: The Great American Bubble Machine, Goldman Sachs
    It is worth looking at Taibbi’s other articles on banks and finance. link

  46. While the “methane gun” scare has mainly to do with marine clathrates, this paper is about CO2 released from warming tundra soils. It does not address those methane fears one way or another.

  47. Gail Combs says: May 16, 2013 at 5:36 am

    “..For those not familiar with ‘The Flu Epidemic Crisis’ Live Avian Flu Virus Placed in Baxter Vaccine Materials Sent to 18 Countries “The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses.”… http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/live-avian-flu-virus-placed-in-baxter-vaccine-materials-sent-to-18-countries/

    This is an interesting topic Gail, and to many here will seem very far fetched or fantastic. However, there is little doubt this occurred, and whether or not it could have been accidental in this case I won’t comment on.

    But, there is little doubt that in the past viral and bacterial commercial and trial vaccines (for both animal and human patients) were quite possibly contaminated by other viruses, often these were unknown at the time. (ie, it is more difficult to QC test for contamination with the unknown).

    I have found no-one likes to discuss the topic, but in some specific cases (animal) I pursued researchers have told me this was very likely the reason for the rapid worldwide spread of ‘new’ pathogens. (I believe often ‘new’ may mean suddenly of importance in a developed country with high tech farming practices … it could have been lurking forever in some corner of the less developed world, barely visible with long term natural immunity largely protecting backyard operations).

  48. markx says:….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    At least in the USA the commercial vaccine would be produced in a isolated building with lots of QC (cGMP). You even have a ‘Label Control Officer’ who has to count the number of labels and reconcile the labels given to production, the number of labels destroyed and the amount of product labeled. All this with double signatures tracking the labels in and out of a secured inventory. Given that type of control of something like labels, not to mention other raw materials it is hard to figure out how they managed to screw-up. Especially since you are talking double signatures on every blasted step. (Yeah BTDT as a QC Engineer.)

    Austria may use a different system but cGMP, now called ISO, is pretty universal since it is designed to prevent exactly this type of SNAFU from happening. It is one of the reasons I am not happy about drugs being produced outside of the USA. The FDA does have that part of industry well controlled and rightly so.

    The other half of the story is all the media hoopla happening at the same time about a flu epidemic that completely fizzled.
    …………………..

    On the Methane front. I am surprised no one has mentioned what the Russian who study permafrost/methane say:

    Nikolai Osokin is a glaciologist at the Institute of Geography, the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    …It seems that the permafrost should be melting if the temperature is rising. However, many areas are witnessing the opposite. The average annual temperature is getting higher, but the permafrost remains and has even started to spread. Why? An important factor is the snow cover. Global warming reduces it, therefore making the heat insulator for the permafrost thinner. Then even weak frosts are enough to freeze the ground deeper below the surface….

    http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070323/62485608.html

    Vladimir Melnikov is the director of the world’s only Institute of the Earth’s Cryosphere. The Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute is located in the Siberian city of Tyumen and investigates the ways in which ground water becomes ice and permafrost.

    the newspapers claimed that the permafrost covering Siberian swamps is rapidly thawing due to climatic warming. They said that billions of tons of methane could be released into the air causing an ecological disaster.

    Academician Vladimir Melnikov spoke to RIA Novosti about the problem….

    The Russian Academy of Sciences has found that the annual temperature of soils (with seasonable variations) has been remaining stable despite the increased average annual air temperature caused by climate change. If anything, the depth of seasonal melting has decreased slightly.

    “Unscrupulous scientists are exaggerating and peddling fears about permafrost thawing and swamp methane becoming aggressive,” said Professor Nikolai Alexeyevsky, Doctor of Geography and head of the land hydrology department at Moscow State University….

    This is just another scare story, this time about the Siberian swamps.” This was Melnikov’s first reaction… This ecological structure is balanced and is not about to harm people with gas discharges.

    …The boundaries of the Russian permafrost zone remain virtually unchanged. At the same time, the permafrost is several hundred meters deep. For methane, other gases and hydrates to escape to the surface, it would have to melt at tremendous depths, which is impossible.”
    Yuri Izrael, director of the Institute of Climatology and Ecology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605-print.html

  49. Hockey Schtick says:
    May 15, 2013 at 3:52 pm
    quote
    A new review paper from SPPI and CO2 Science finds the growth rate of atmospheric methane has significantly decreased over the past 30 years, the opposite of IPCC predictions.
    unquote

    What methane release there has been may (possible/could be/perhaps) due to the reduction of SO2 release. There was a prediction that when the acid rain stopped the tundra would release methane.

    So perhaps the warming is doing less than nothing.

    JF

  50. Once upon a time it was customary to describe a first-class salesman with the phrase “He could sell refrigerators to Eskimos.”
    If there are any such highly skilled salesmen remaining, this is their Moment of Opportunity.

  51. GENUG (@GENUG) says:
    May 15, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    and the acidification of the world’s oceans is pretty much in an advanced state, meaning….. SHTF!!! uptake ability for CO2 going down, cycle is running….. not good

    Foraminiferal boron isotope ratios as a proxy for surface ocean pH over the past 21 Myr shows evidence that ocean alkalinity is near record highs.

    See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v363/n6425/pdf/363149a0.pdf

    It is a common mistake to overstate the acidity of carbonic acid by 1,000 times: “Although the concentration of CO2(aq) far exceeds that of dissolved H2CO3 (in the order of 10³) we denote the concentration of all dissolved CO2 by [H2CO3]” – from section 9.2 of CHEMISTRY OF CARBONIC ACID IN WATER at http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/global_cycle/vol%20I/cht_i_09.pdf

  52. Friday’s Achorage Daily News (a historically AGW biased paper) had an article about this research: (http://www.adn.com/2013/05/17/2906074/climate-change-researchers-surprised.html)
    Unless you go to the second article reference under “Read More” from Ars Technica and read
    almost half way though it, you would not know that the “increased soil temperature” was not natural due to global warming, but artificially achieved by building actual greenhouses and studying the soil under them over a period of years. They do have a picture of the tundra with the greenhouses in the distance, but the impression to the casual lay-reader is definitely left that the scientists have been up to Alaska studying the effects of the global warming occurring there. This type of sloppy reporting has been rampant in our mainstream media, especially when it comes to the subject of global warming and has a lot to do with the general public buying into the idea that the planet is warming rapidly due to man’s use of fossil fuels.

  53. What a moron ! AMEG is composed of the leading scientist in the world on the topic… ignore those guys at your children’s peril. It is of course comforting to think this is all bunk,… its called whistling past the graveyard. Unfortunately it really doesn’t matter anymore… entertain yourself with stupidity til the cows come home and fall dead of heat exhaustion at the barnyard door,… its way to late already and there is nothing that can be done about it. The scientific community has allowed itself to be cowed for years by these idiots, and we are on our way out as a result. Their projections which everyone screams about are always drastically on the long side, never ever once on the short side ….. now its ice free in 20015,….which is finally about right. and famine in five years I figure. When you start to watch your children starve and go thinking about a gun to get some food,… remember what you wrote here, then take a good look in the mirror.

  54. Well geoengineering is still happening. What about that and how do we stop it? Who is in charge of this spraying of the skies? Why is it happening then?

Comments are closed.