Guest Essay by Dr. Gavin Schmidt, NASA GISS
Yesterday, I carried this story: An alarmist prediction so bad, even Gavin Schmidt thinks it is implausible
Today, on Twitter, Karel Haverkorn asked why. To his credit, Dr. Schmidt replied on Twitter in multiple tweets with an essay of bullet points. This marks the first time Dr. Schmidt publishes on WUWT, as well as the first essay here ever composed on Twitter.
I’ve collated his responses below.
Also the PETM (55 My) and Eocene small events. But no evidence under near-current temps. Outside of quaternary range of arctic temps, many fewer constraints…. Pliocene CH4 may well have been higher (but no direct evidence), multiple sources though…
Some more context on Arctic methane release story to follow:
1) Methane is an important part of the anthropogenic radiative forcing over 20thC. Human caused increase from 0.7ppm to 1.8ppm
2) Methane emissions have a direct GHG effect, and they effect atmospheric chemistry and strat water vapour which have additional impacts
3) Direct forcing from anthropogenic methane ~0.5 W/m2, indirect effects add ~0.4 W/m2. (For ref: CO2 forcing is ~1.8W/m2)
4) natural feedbacks involving methane likely to be important in future – via wetland response to T/rain chng, atmos chem &, yes, arctic src
5) monitoring and analysis of atmos conc of CH4 is very important. However, despite dramatic Arctic warming and summer sea ice loss ….. > …. In recent decades, little change has been seen in atmos concentrations at high latitudes.
6) There are large stores of carbon in the Arctic, some stored as hydrates, some potentially convertible to CH4 by anaerobic resporation
7) there’s evidence in deep time records of large, rapid exogenous inputs of carbon into climate system; leading theory relates this to CH4
8) it is therefore not silly or alarmist to think about the possibilities, thresholds and impacts for these kinds of events
9) in more recent past, there have been a number if times when Arctic (not necessarily globe) has been significantly warmer than today.
10) Most recently, Early Holocene, which had significantly less summer sea ice than even 2012. Earlier, Eemian 125kyrs ago was sig warmer
11) At neither of these times is there any evidence for CH4 emissions or concentrations in excess of base pre-industrial conditions.
12) this means that we are not currently near a threshold for dramatic CH4 releases. (Though we may get there)
13) Much of the concern re dramatic changes in Arctic methane come from one off surveys and poorly calibrated remote sensing
16) But we should not take what-if sensitivity experiments as predictions.
###
Addenddum:
Dr. Judith Curry also thinks the “methane time bomb” is implausible.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Schmidt disappoints. – gavin
Good old Gav. I knew he was always on our side. He don’t need no weatherman to know which way the wind blows…
For goodness sake or even ffs would somebody please please inform the dorks over at CNN that there are a few folk who have a handle on it. They seem to think it suddenly came upon us, was discovered last week, and is almost certainly the cause of Hurricane Sandy, rain, cold, snow, heat, flood and drought, whatever comes first. I actually cringe every time their weather folk come on and spew utter garbage. My grandma’s corns were a better predictor.
does his mother know?
Good job Dr. Schmidt, on this one. Though I wasn’t impressed with an interview you did with NPR a few years ago, your opponent in that particular debate was weak on his atmospheric science, but good on economics. It made for a lousy interview from both sides, as you both had points to make, but couldn’t really point/counterpoint from the same platforms.
This particular note regarding CH4 is at least hopeful that you may be more pragmatic than I believed. Thank you.
Lots of typos, sloppiness, and ugly abbreviations in those bullet points; are they cut/pasted from somewhere else? If not, no excuse.
REPLY: Sheesh, did you read the head post? Try writing an essay on a cell phone in small chunks and get back to us – Anthony
KPO:
Why not stop watching CNN? I only watch them in airports.
I applaud him for posting here. I think we should make a concerted effort to remain civil and not pile on. I think the mods should be very strict on this thread.
Welcome, Dr.
‘Dr. Judith Curry also thinks the “methane time bomb” is implausible.’ must be true then!
TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:
July 25, 2013 at 9:46 am
Ina way I agree with you. But… If you can’t take it don’t dish it out. Over to you – Gav.
With that kind of reasoning, why should we believe in an anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 time bomb within the next century?
Debunking the methane-scare is so easy, even the Gav-man can do it.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt, why does nearly every adjustment of GISS warm the present and cool the past? Is it just because of chance or because you need to maintain the Global Warming scare so NASA can continue to cash in 1.2 bn USD a year in federal Climate Scare money?
TIA.
“16) But we should not take what-if sensitivity experiments as predictions.”
Dr. Gavin Schmidt, should we then also ignore the IPCC projections, as they are not predictions?
If not, why not? Has the theory of Antropogenic Global Warming ever made a prediction? If so, where? Was it confirmed or falsified? If the latter, was the theory reworked? Is there a complete list of predictions of the theory of Antropogenic Global Warming? If so, where?
TIA.
“But we should not take what-if sensitivity experiments as predictions”
NOW he say this?!?!?
Dr. Gavin fails to realize, there is a need in some quarters for alarming predictions. If he fails to satisfy this need aggresively enough, others will. Perhaps honest men like Tol would spit on my speculation, but I think there is a parallel between this situation and the business with the 97% consensus paper & the conflict between Nuticelli and Cook on one side and guys like Richard Tol and Mike Hulme on the other.
Careful when creating monsters, as everyone knows. They’ve got a bad habit of ignoring the commands of their creators after a while and wandering off to devastate the nearby population.
Well, well, well.
The hyper-alarmists sensing defeat looming ever closer turn up the rhetoric volume to which the merely alarmist respond with catastrophe denial.
PS: It’s twitter responses, not an intentional WUWT post by Gavin.
Yes well, I’m worried that it might be true. When Al Gore steps in and discounts it, I’ll really be worried it is true.
If Gavin Schmidt were serious about addressing this issue, he would publish his thoughts in a coherent essay on the GISS website versus a incoherent rambling on Twitter…but, alas, he is NOT serious about rebuking his fellow CAGW alarmists.
(see item #8 above – clearly doesn’t want to ruffle any feathers…)
Now, if he would just use that exact same logic and apply it to climate change……….
16) But we should not take what-if sensitivity experiments as predictions.
TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:
July 25, 2013 at 9:46 am (Edit)
I applaud him for posting here. I think we should make a concerted effort to remain civil and not pile on. I think the mods should be very strict on this thread.
Welcome, Dr.
——————–
What he says.
Likely just a ‘fell good’ PR campaign as part of a push for the GISS Directorship.
Nice to see a climate alarmist take down an alarm from another alarmist.
Feels like we’re getting somewhere.
Most people overestimate the capacity for a normal person to overcome the objections of their personal and professional peer groups in the name of “the Truth.” Don’t ever expect someone like Gavin to take a stand that hurts, even if deep down he might want to.
Antarctic Methane (CH4) levels over the last 800,000 years. It is nearly 3 times higher today than at any of these peaks over the time period (which have been as much as +2.5C warmer globally at various times, and at least +8.0C in the Arctic during the last peak in the graph in the Eemian interglacial at 130,000 years ago).
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0i5X_OMcSn8/T51ii_3v2fI/AAAAAAAAER4/r1kiY_DJSk8/s640/harris1.jpg
The individuals who wrote the latest Methane apocalypse story had the fundamental duty to point this out to the readers as it is now Gavin’s duty to try to set the record straight.
This story is making it into international news reporting and many, many people are going to be left with a fake false impression of reality (and some kids actually lose sleep over these apocalypse musings). If that is what climate science is going to be about, then there should be a law against it or something.