Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures.
The abstract from the paper;
Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate can induce environmental changes that accelerate the microbial breakdown of organic carbon and the release of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. This feedback can accelerate climate change, but the magnitude and timing of greenhouse gas emission from these regions and their impact on climate change remain uncertain. Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate and present a research strategy with which to target poorly understood aspects of permafrost carbon dynamics.
Read More: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.html
Unfortunately the main paper is paywalled, but I think we get the general idea. And unless the climate starts to warm again, we won’t even get the slow release predicted by the authors of the paper.
For the last few years, alarmists have been test marketing various ideas to replace the failed carbon scare, with mostly unencouraging results. Methane appeared to be one of the big hopes, but this new paper eliminates any serious possibility that the “permafrost bomb” will be a viable replacement for the carbon scare.
You mean this study was not based on a computer model?
Obviously, otherwise it would not have been such a disappointment from the CAGW viewpoint. What fools the authors must seem to The Team et al. What would John Cook make of people who cannot land a paper within the 97% zone?
Can’t be true because the evidence doesn’t match the model prediction.
Then we can ignore it. It can’t be accurate if it’s not modeled, right?
“And unless the climate starts to warm again, we wonāt even get the slow release predicted by the authors of the paper.”
Plenty of warming going on up where the permafrost is!
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/2014_annual_w-colorbar.png
I think you mix anomaly and warming, i.e. the first derivative of anomaly.
Ooooh look mummy pretty colours. Meaningless junk idiot. Spaatch
Looks like the majority of the Earth is Plus 1-ing
spaatch How would you know there not enough thermometers up there to have any idea what going on, that illustration is pure projection of what someone thinks what going on up there. Give us another hundred years of satellite measurement and we might know it the temperature in the arctic is increasing, decreasing or stay the same, a half dozen thermometers placed willy nelly up there tells us nothing. The illustration is to the most part pure fiction, very little fact in it. To bad you don’t understand that.
Of course spaatch, it’s always warmer where there are no thermometers to measure it — a standard #AGWtrick. Here’s something funny: the satellite measurement shows far less warming than up-tweaked NOAA data.
So tell me, why didn’t positive-feedback methane release clima-geddon happen during Medieval Warm Period or Roman thermal optimum?
Paul;
That easy for the same reason it won’t happen now, all the CO2 gets stored WHEN its warm, how else does it get there in the first place. Pretty sure this is not the answer you would get spaatchula.
Because there were no computer models during the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Optimum… if there had been computer models it would have been retroactively ready to break out at any moment
Perhaps this will help spaatch face reality:
In studying the Sea Ice graphs that WUWT presents and updates monthly, it is clear that the record summer melts that the warming brigade refer to have all been significant only during the three months period August to October. But without exception, the winter freeze at the Jan ā February level, returns almost to the same level, year on year, whatever the degree of the summer melt. Winter freezing covering the mere 36 years since records began all give a constant average, within a few 1000Km2 each year. If there was a general 12 month warming, which is what the warmists like to argue, then the winter freeze would be expected to show similar declines in the ice extent over the remaining nine months, but it doesnāt. What is significant, and I believe generally overlooked, is that each year, before and after the three months summer melt, with the onset of winter, the ice returns to almost the same level as previous years. Yes there is some slight reduction in the winter ice extent where the summer melt has been strong, but this would be expected if the three month summer period melt was stronger due to a very warm summer in the Northern hemisphere.. Clearly, if the water starts warmer before the freeze sets in then it will take longer to freeze.
Looking at the WUWT Arctic Sea Ice Extent. EUMETSAT graph from 1979, one can see that the record summer melt of 2012 turned into a stronger winter freeze than during the January – March months of the previous year. It is clear therefore that the summer melt that we have seen over the last few years cannot be the result of general global warming, and more likely only the result of a few milder than usual mid- summer months over the past short 36 years. So to you many scaremongers out there, the Arctic is not melting, it just has to undergo the odd summer heatwave that has been part of our Northern hemisphere weather pattern since time began.
Spaatch, When you say; “Plenty of warming going on up where the permafrost is!”, could you please indicate some sort of numerical scaling over some kind of time interval?
Have you seen the considerable evidence that the 1940’s were on a par with today or warmer?
I’m with you spaatch, so far. I’m keeping my mind open to possibilities and learning from new evidence as it arrives. As far as I am aware, the UAH satellite dataset for the lower troposphere shows a similar distribution to the one you have presented. So cooling in NW US and antarctic, and a quite striking amount of warming HAS occurred in the Arctic over the last several decades.
As explained here:
“John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), has confirmed in a press release that the global average temperature for the lower troposphere in November that was 0.33oC warmer than seasonal norms. Only November 2009 has been warmer in the UAH satellite temperature data record.
That warming has not, however, been uniform around the globe. The fastest warming has been over the Arctic Ocean and the Arctic portions of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Those areas have warmed at the rate of 0.49oC per decade, or more than 1.76oC in 36 years. The fastest warming spot is in Baffin Bay, where temperatures have risen 0.82oC per decade since 1978.
By comparison, the oceans surrounding the Antarctic are cooling at the rate of 0.02oC per decade, or 0.07oC since December 1978. The fastest cooling area is in East Antarctica near Dome C, where temperatures have been dropping at the rate of 0.50 C per decade, according to UAH.”
I thought that this blog was the home of reasoned skepticism. Not trolling denialism.
Having said all that, it is pretty obvious that there is a problem with the theory that methane release rates will accelerate dramatically.
The problem being, that in precisely the circumstances in which they should have done – they haven’t.
As discussed here previously:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/17/another-example-of-clear-failure-of-ipcc-models-to-predict-reality-in-the-ar5-draft/
“I thought that this blog was the home of reasoned skepticism”
Are you kidding me?
yeah indeed plenty of warming in reality. so WUWT must deny it and call conspiracy and AGW trickery š
(Reply: If you do not like this site, you are invited to post your comments elsewhere. -mod)
spaatch,
Not really:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
“Not really:”
actually, really
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend
And how do you explain the near 19 years with no official warming whatsoever?
Daniel – Since thermometers are absent from the Arctic, don’t you think perhaps satellite measurements might… just might… be superior. Irregardless, your graph shows maybe a tenth of a degree anomaly (at sub zero temps). Just what catastrophic consequences has you alarming now. Your Klaxon needs resetting and sensitivity dialed down. GK
LOL – how’s your foot Daniel? Even in the falsified thermometer version, 0.1C of trend in 20 years is a long way from any alarmist claim.
“Since thermometers are absent from the Arctic, donāt you think perhaps satellite measurements mightā¦ just mightā¦ be superior. ”
UAH is a satellite dataset……. but ooooh, its adjusted btw.
“And how do you explain the near 19 years with no official warming whatsoever?”
not happening.
Daniel: So you do deny the actual worldwide global average temperature records that have actually been measured over all lands, seas, ice and water over all areas, but trust explicitly the NASA-GISS surface temperature record that HAS BEEN manipulated and modified and meaned and messed with by Big Government bureaucrats who have selectively changed the records to suite their political agenda. And budgets.
” So you do deny the actual worldwide global average temperature records that have actually been measured over all lands, seas, ice and water over all areas,”
no
” but trust explicitly the NASA-GISS surface temperature record that HAS BEEN manipulated and modified and meaned and messed with by Big Government bureaucrats who have selectively changed the records to suite their political agenda. And budgets.”
oh, that are quite some accusations.
Is it for sure is warming?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2014.png
try this one that shows more realistic 250km smoothing instead of 1200km…
http://i61.tinypic.com/250pdao.gif
As I have previously observed, the amount of warming is pretty much inversely proportional to the number of thermometers.
Spaach, is that a graph of ‘warming’ or areas of the Arctic we do not have monitoring stations and the scientists ‘infill’ data. Just asking?
Nice cherry picking of a time in the twentieth century when the climate was colder. Of course your anomaly is going to look horrible. In the seventies there was scientific theories being expressed that the world was entering a new ice-age.
Talking about temperature anomalies in the Arctic is a red herring, a 6°C degree rise from -30°C to -24 would be meaningless to the local climate, a 6° change from -2°C to 4°C is a huge change; it’s all in the context.
1951-79 was a period of cooling, modulated by ocean currents. 2014 was soon after the peak of the following warming period, now finished. Full cycle length c.64 years then repeated. Spaatch, you are not comparing apples with apples…..Brett.
Brett, yeah, you caught that, too. I didn’t see your comment before posting. GOOD OBSERVING!
When people post something so dumb as that cherry-picked time period as some sort of baseline, it is all I can do to keep from using profanity to rip them a new one.
HAHAHAHAHA – Doesn’t anybody even SEE that the map here has cherry-picked the HEART of the 30-year cool period centered on 1965?
WHAT A FREAKING JOKE OF A MAP.
As Steve McIntyre so often says, “You’ve got to keep your eye on the pea.”
A warm planet is a happy planet.
Does anyone still believe this garbage illustration??
Tons of data manipulation and infilling.. worthless at best.. at its worst a purposeful Propaganda piece..
I would like to have someone answer my question: How did the organic carbon get locked in to the permafrost in the first place? Wouldn’t it have to be organic, i.e. growing plants? If so, wouldn’t that also indicate that the tundra was NOT frozen and thus warmer than it is now? Just asking.
Erh that seems to be an inconvenient question Aussie. I wonder if that naughty old plant material has been carbon dated?
Most permafrost is is just frozen peat bog.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/863/restoring_the_uks_peat_bogs_as_a_carbon_sink
Maybe so, however, for there to be peat there have to plants,for there to be plants it would have to be warmer. Thus my original query.
mwhite, aussiebear is correct. You saying it was peat only put it back to a different form of animal decomposition and didn’t answer the question.
mwhite, I am studying this a bit myself at the present, and the normal attribution of the deposits underneath the surface soils is ice age glacial drift or glacial drift or basically moraine-like materials. Given the terrain in the region and such, I am personally not satisfied with this explanation. They are the same deposits which are found mammoth skeletons, BTW.
There are several meters of these deposits, with large boulders and small boulders in the mix at just about all elevations, with hardly any, if at all, stratification by size or type. And these deposits cover a very large area underneath the surface soils, whereas moraines are usually in two fairly narrow, parallel but often windy ridges (for lateral moraines) and in some sort of fairly narrow arc at the ends of glaciers. (The glacier was in between the there types of moraines.) One odd thing is that the northern Siberian region was not glaciated during the last ice ages, when the mammoths were there, and yet the deposits were lain down anyway. (So where were the glaciers/ice sheets that pushed these deposits into their current positions? I don’t know.)
If you look at maps of the geology of Illinois, you will see that the moraine patterns there are in what I’d call a “fluvial” pattern, emanating from the NE and ending halfway across the state, pushed/carried there by the late Wisconsinan ice advance. I am pretty darned sure the Siberian do not have such patterns. Though, I could be wrong on that. It is just my impression of my comparison of the two.
To be honest, from all the many photos of exposed Siberian permafrost deposits that I’ve seen there doesn’t appear to be any plant matter IN the deposits, except at the top few inches or maybe a foot or two, where the mosses and lichens grow. The deposits below that humus layer look to me to be devoid of plant matter. That sure does not appear to me to be enough volume of plant matter-filled soils to pee on. Anyone working on the surface soils and projecting any observations whatsoever down more than about a foot is fooling themselves, IMHO.
I am talking about ones along the Arctic coast. Further south I don’t know that much about, but if you look at photos of the banks along the northern Lena River or Kolyma River you might see things that contradict what I’ve said here. Especially look at the islands of the Lena delta on the coast. What I see there doesn’t indicate a lot of plant matter from which methane might process out.
Google plate tectonics, Pangea and continental drift. Most Global Warming Alarmists believe in a young Earth. Meanwhile 100 million years ago…..
“Most Global Warming Alarmists believe in a young Earth. ”
can you show me those polls?
Daniel: When I said most I should have said many. (97% š sarc.)
Those who grew up in the South (in the US) were most likely raised as fundamentalist Christians. They were taught that the Earth is about 6000 years old, man and dinosaurs coexisted and that the theory of evolution is baloney. These beliefs did not go away even after many of them obtained degrees in Medicine and Science.
You can see this mindset is implicit in many global warming articles, which only refer to recent history.
“2015 warmest year on record”.
“Polar bears dying because Arctic Ocean is Melting”.
“Canadian Glaciers and ice sheets are disappearing” (Hint – the one covering Lake Superior has already disappeared”.
“CO2 now at record levels”.
The whole “Anthropic Illusion”, that somehow the current temperatures and CO2 levels are optimal and that mankind could not survive in a slightly warming climate are rooted in the belief that the Earth is young.
Common sense would indicate that since humans are apes who have little hair or body fat, we must have evolved in a climate where we could survive year round wearing very little clothing. There is nothing special about the last two centuries, or the last few 1000 years.
[NASA’s Trenberth still believes in his flat-earth-disk theory of radiation equilibrium. .mod]
Walt D.
So you have no data, you just made it up and now you come with an insane story about people from the sourth US?…..
you simply lied.
“Walt D.So you have no data, you just made it up “.
Just got a consulting offer from Michael Mann š (sarc).
To answer your question as to where I got my data, according to a recent Gallup Poll, about 40% of the (Christian) population in the South attend church regularly. If you are European, you may find this surprising. If you want to do a quick check, look up how many churches there are in Tulsa Oklahoma.
(I think I read it on Huffington Post).
“about 40% of the (Christian) population in the South attend church regularly. If you are European, you may find this surprising. ”
only 40%? that does indeed suprise me. pretty low. i expected more.
but do all churches in the US south preach YEC?
None that I am aware do. And that adds Catholic, all other Christian denominations, and the fundamentalists you so fear.
“and the fundamentalists you so fear.”
i do? how would you know that?
Permafrost is mainly frozen soil, rock and water. There is no reason why its melting would release large quantities of GHGs.
It has gotten mixed up with frozen methane clathrates which is mainly in the oceans, in this case in the sediments at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean.
Correct. The permafrost is manly frozen rock and water, though I would not call the pulverized deposits mixed with the rocks “soil”.
I would wonder why methane clathrates would come up to near the surface when they got to land and NOT give up their methane at that time. They are held in by pressure, are they not? The pressures on dry land are much less than on the sea bottom. With all the crunching of moving ice sheets, the clathrates wouldn’t last long at depths sufficient to contain the methane.
And are you and others arguing that the ice sheets reached all the way to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean on its way down from the north? If so, that wold shock me. And if you say, “Well, the ice reached down far enough when it approached the shore, then the clathrates would have not had sufficient pressures at such shallow depths to keep them contained under the sea floor. None of that makes sense.
All I see below the thin surface soils is rock, pulverized rock, and water. I am not sure I’d call the pulverized materials “soil”. I was chastised recently about using the term soil sloppily.
A hightech methane monitor… Ha!! Just blame it on the dog, lots cheaper.
and probably more accurate.
Of course, mainstream Climte Science has never supported the ‘methane scare’. On this point at least the Village is on message with the Team. Please Google ‘Arctic Methane Nasty Surprise’
By ‘organic carbon’, do they mean carbon dioxide?
No.
Carbon dioxide is not considered organic carbon.
Look at these Arctic Temperatures.
5 degrees warmer than mean but still 20 degrees plus below freezing. The air is not melting any ice but the sea water has started the usual summer melt down which will proceed as normal for the Arctic.
Without knowing the details, I would offer that organic carbon in soil (humic substances, etc) could be being broken down by anaerobic microbes to generate methane and carbon dioxide. The rate of microbial breakdown is temperature dependent. That is, the microbes probably break down the soil carbon (a little bit) faster if it is warmer. Possibly the activity of psychrophiles given the environment?
New debunking supports old debunking. The carbon got there in the first place when it was a HECK is a lot warmer than it is now.
Is the heat hiding in the deep Earth?
now theres a thought:-) maybe we need the Goracle to dip his finger in some magma and tell us what percentage of millions of degrees its warmed by?
rofl
Surely If tectonic plate theory is true and the continents are moving, then you would expect half of the arctic (on a geological timescale average) to be in a long term thaw at any one time.
“unless the climate starts to warm again”
the planet is warming
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Daniel,
Using satellite data [the most accurate kind], and using the same time frame in your chart, we get this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
Where is your eco-god now?
“Using satellite data”
i used a satellite dataset. the UAH dataset.
and a ground based one, so atleast 2 datasets contradict RSS.
i can add another dataset
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend
3 vs 1
Sorry, I muddled that. Pls disregard
………..at a rate that need not worry anyone.
“at a rate that need not worry anyone.”
not according to experts.
Daniel;
What exactly do the “expert” say is going to happen. So far your experts have been wrong every time. How about you tell us what, with your apparent vast knowledge of the experts and the subject, is going to happen? give me a prediction or a reasonable range of options of the future that I can base my life on.
“give me a prediction or a reasonable range of options of the future that I can base my life on.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
Daniel;
I am sorry I am a little slow, this is a really big site could you direct me to the reasonable range or prediction part of it? I really need your help all of my life decision are at stake here.
“reasonable range or prediction part of it? ”
you mean projections? what projections do you mean?
you can’t even find those?
“not according to experts.”
Since those expert have overestimated rate of warming by at least a factor of 2, and failed to predict “The Pause”, what makes you think they actually know what they talking about?
Daniel, you posted a link to the FULL IPCC report,but fail to make a specific reference to a page,thus it is a waste of time.
But I can point an epic fail in progress from the previous report showing that they are waaaay off on the their temperature predictions:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2Ā°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1Ā°C per decade would be expected.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
Note they say about .35C minimum in first 14 years warming.
However two official data sets thinks there is no warming at all:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/temperature-analysis-of-5-datasets-shows-the-great-pause-has-endured-for-13-years-4-months/
Werner;
That does seem reasonable.
Daniel;
I am just curious whether you can find them.
RE Daniel:
Projections? You mean [those] things that are just based upon a made-up scenario and emphatically are not predictions? What the heck good are they?
Bob Boder wins the point:
Daniel says:
you mean projections? what projections do you mean? you canāt even find those?
Answering a question with a question. Clearly Daniel can’t find his ‘authority’ reference either.
“Since those expert have overestimated rate of warming by at least a factor of 2, and failed to predict āThe Pauseā, what makes you think they actually know what they talking about?”
can you show me the scientific sutdy you used to evaluate the projections?
Daniel, you say:
āSince those expert have overestimated rate of warming by at least a factor of 2, and failed to predict āThe Pauseā, what makes you think they actually know what they talking about?ā
can you show me the scientific sutdy you used to evaluate the projections?
Wait, you trying to tell me that I can’t evaluate projection but instead I need studies that do that? So, when IPCC says that warming trend is X and we observe that warming trend is X/2, we need a peer-reviewed paper that does the comparison?
“Wait, you trying to tell me that I canāt evaluate projection but instead I need studies that do that? ”
how do you do it? how do you account for the PDO timing and real TSI etc?
Daniel:
“An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field.”
This certainly applies to Global Warming experts.
how do you do it? how do you account for the PDO timing and real TSI etc?
TSI changes had been negligible. PDO is part of global climate, so models should be able model it correctly. If they can’t, that would be just another nail in the coffin of their predictive abilities.
3rd grader can compare 2 numbers, and result is pretty clear. But you are welcome to write your own “Scientific” explanation as to why statement that X>X/2 is wrong.
” PDO is part of global climate, so models should be able model it correctly.”
you should do some more reading on climate models.
“If they canāt, that would be just another nail in the coffin of their predictive abilities.”
so you have no clue how climate models work?
yet think you are qualified to evaluate them?
Daniel
āSince those expert have overestimated rate of warming by at least a factor of 2, and failed to predict āThe Pauseā, what makes you think they actually know what they talking about?ā
questioning this you said “can you show me the scientific study you used to evaluate the projections?”
Than you said
“the overestimation of atmospheric warming is aknowledged and is being researched by scientists around the planet.”
So apparently you already have seen the studies.
Have you found the prediction or a reasonable range of options of the future section in the IPCC web site yet or even their projections, I still have my life to plan?
Daniel
You say “so you have no clue how climate models work?” to UDAR, how have you demonstrated that you have any clue about anything let alone climate, models or saying anything that is comprehensible at all.
“So apparently you already have seen the studies.”
not for the claims being made here.
Daniel says
“no, we observed less atmospheric warming than expected”
How much less? What was projected and what have “we” seen?
Daniel;
While your at it could you please explain this bit of brilliance?
“i never claimed the hiatus does not exist, i acknowledged it.
but it does not mean that the planet has not warmed in that time period. this is evidently not true”
I am just trying to find the path to true enlightenment.
“I am just trying to find the path to true enlightenment.”
in an anti science cult like WUWT? good luck with that lol
Daniel;
No I was seek it from you, but the result is the same though.
It’s still not warming. The only difference between all those datasets is for how long. The shortest is 18 years, I believe, the longest 26. All of those are statistically significant to say it is not warming
The warming rate you are obsessed with, is less than HALF of the projected rate. Meanwhile you use the entire globe temperature data,to try convincing us that it is really warming up fast in the arctic region.
“The warming rate you are obsessed with, is less than HALF of the projected rate. Meanwhile you use the entire globe temperature data,to try convincing us that it is really warming up fast in the arctic region.”
no, i merely duebunked the article’s claim that the climate is not warming.
Daniel there has been no warming this century, in contradiction to the IPCC report:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend
The article was simply pointing out that a permafrost “bomb” is not likely to happen: “Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate and present a research strategy with which to target poorly understood aspects of permafrost carbon dynamics.”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2015.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2015.3/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2015.3/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2015.3/trend
why did you pick 2001?
why RSS over UAH?
why satellite data anyway?
what was the model output used, weighed 0 – 10000 m (like UAH and RSS) or 2meter above ground?
Daniel says:
why did you pick 2001? why RSS over UAH? why satellite data anyway? what was the model output used…
You can nitpick anything. Which is exactly what you’re doing. But the fact is that the endlessly predicted global warming (and runaway global warming) by the alarmist cult prior to 1997 never happened.
They were flat wrong.
Honest scientists would acknowledge that their conjecture was wrong, and try to understand why. But money hungry rent-seeking scientists, and the clueless eco-lemmings who believe them, will never admit that Planet Earth herself has debunked their wild-eyed conjecture.
Thus, they can be disregarded as cranks.
very telling that you are not able to explain your choices…..
the overestimation of atmospheric warming is aknowledged and is being researched by scientists around the planet.
but it simply does not mean that the planet or climate is not warming like it is claimedi n the article.
Daniel, you say:
why did you pick 2001?
why RSS over UAH?
why satellite data anyway?
what was the model output used, weighed 0 ā 10000 m (like UAH and RSS)
He, of course, did not pick 2001, he picked 2000. Why? Because he said there has been no warming this century, and that is when this century had started.
If you want details of how length of “Great Pause” is calculated you can read excellent posts by Lord Monckton, who does monthly updates on it here on WUWT. No matter what dataset you use, it started before this century.
Anyway, none of this is controversial. At this point, every scientist, including alarmists, had conceded of its existence. They try to say that it doesn’t matter and explain it away or they try to ignore it altogether, but none of them dare to claim it doesn’t exist. Which raises a question of why you keep insisting that?
“He, of course, did not pick 2001, he picked 2000. Why? Because he said there has been no warming this century, and that is when this century had started.”
and what has that to do with what the IPCC AR4 said?
“If you want details of how length of āGreat Pauseā is calculated you can read excellent posts by Lord Monckton,”
LOL
and i should ignore the only 2 remote sensing experts you have on your side and instead listen to Monckton?
that is hilarious.
“who does monthly updates on it here on WUWT. No matter what dataset you use, it started before this century.”
what exactly do you mean when you say great pause?
“Anyway, none of this is controversial. At this point, every scientist, including alarmists, had conceded of its existence.”
aah i see, you mean the hiatus?
“They try to say that it doesnāt matter and explain it away or they try to ignore it altogether, but none of them dare to claim it doesnāt exist. Which raises a question of why you keep insisting that?”
i never claimed the hiatus does not exist, i acknowledged it.
but it does not mean that the planet has not warmed in that time period. this is evidently not true.
Daniel, you are not helping yourself here when you posted your own temperature set up, starting at the wrong year.
Meanwhile……..
The IPCC stated this: “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2Ā°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1Ā°C per decade would be expected.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
That means the first two decades should see a warming of at least .40C up to .6 C warming.
My temperature data for first 13 + years show ZERO to a slight cooling, using two official temperature data sets.
The IPCC based their projections on MODELED scenarios with the overrated CO2 warm forcing effect factored in along with the never seen widespread positive feed back loop. This is feeble science, since it has no demonstrated forecast skill to depend on,fails the basic parameters of the Scientific Method.
It is over Daniel, there is no clear CO2 warm forcing driving effect showing up in the data.
and i should ignore the only 2 remote sensing experts you have on your side and instead listen to Monckton?
that is hilarious.
I have no idea what you mean. Nobody asks you to ignore anything – you asked for justification, I had provided. If you disagree – provide your own justification. Ad homs are not going to work though.
what exactly do you mean when you say great pause?
…
aah i see, you mean the hiatus?
Is that it’s “scientific” definition? Can you refer me to a peer-reviewed research that proves that it’s not a “plateau”? What about a “flat”. Although I’m partial to a “shelf” myself. But I digress.
i never claimed the hiatus does not exist, i acknowledged it.
but it does not mean that the planet has not warmed in that time period. this is evidently not true.
So, you are agree that global temperatures are not increasing, but that doesn’t mean that planet’s hasn’t warmed? How does it work, exactly?
“Daniel, you are not helping yourself here when you posted your own temperature set up, starting at the wrong year. ”
not the worng year.
the page you linked to makes it actually very clear that they start in 2000, not 2001……
“The IPCC based their projections on MODELED scenarios with the overrated CO2 warm forcing effect factored in ”
LOL
“This is feeble science, since it has no demonstrated forecast skill to depend on,fails the basic parameters of the Scientific Method.”
you are cute. no clue about climate modeling, yet thinks he can say if they have skill or not.
hilarious.
why are you posting here, why not publish your Climate micel evaluation in the scinetific literature?
“So, you are agree that global temperatures are not increasing, ”
no, we observed less atmospheric warming than expected.
āi never claimed the hiatus does not exist, i acknowledged it.
and later:
So, you are agree that global temperatures are not increasing, ā
no, we observed less atmospheric warming than expected.
Great Pause (I think I like that name, I’ll be using from now on – show me a peer-reviewed paper that says it’s incorrect if disagree) is defined as period of no warming
Now, you can say it’s period where there are no statistically significant warming” or where “mean warming is 0” or some other definitions. No matter what you define it to be, one thing you can not say – and that is there is any statistically significant measurable warming that happen during it.
So, if you acknowledged it, you agree that global temperatures did not go up in measurable way.
If you believe that temperatures did continue to increase, you did not acknowledged hiatus, and you will be outside of mainstream science and in realm of crazy science-denying anti-science flatearthers.
“did not go up in measurable way.”
so you also don’t know what statistical significance means…..
ādid not go up in measurable way.ā
so you also donāt know what statistical significance meansā¦..
Nice redirect. Your debating skills are amazing /sarc.
Ok, I bite.
How about you enlighten all of us?
“How about you enlighten all of us?”
when science failed to do that, i do not even need to try.
Daniel,
You are perfect example of a warmist. You should be proud. You also a troll (an oxymoron, I know)
Way less than any of the computer models predicted too.
“For the last few years, alarmists have been test marketing various ideas to replace the failed carbon scare, with mostly unencouraging results. Methane appeared to be one of the big hopes, but this new paper eliminates any serious possibility that the āpermafrost bombā will be a viable replacement for the carbon scare.”
failed carbon scare? what on earth is that?
that seems tobe a rather very twisted view on reality…
but yeah, it is WUWT, the Fox News of blogs.
(Reply: If you do not like this site, you are invited to post your comments elsewhere. -mod)
“(Reply: If you do not like this site, you are invited to post your comments elsewhere. -mod)”
i know you wish that. but no,
Of course you don’t, but you should realize that you are making a poor presentation here, with disjointed claims, being standoffish with others here.
I am one skeptic who is glad that Daniel and others like him post here. I don’t want WUWT to be an echo chamber like Real Climate. The give and take is healthy. If we can’t rebut him with reasoned arguments (and I believe we have) then maybe we should change our minds.
Daniel;
I don’t wish it, I enjoy a good laugh once in a while
“but yeah, it is WUWT, the Fox News of blogs”
The reason DrudgeReport, Rush Limbaugh exist in the first place was as a result of the mainstream media censoring the news feed – the Monica Lewinsky scandal appeared in the National Enquirer before it appeared in the mainstream media.
We have the same phenomena on TV. ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have been losing market share. If you do not like Fox News you can always tune in to MSNBC – if they leaned any further to the left they would fall over.
WUWT exists because the mainstream media produces a one-sided coverage of global warming/climate change.
If you look at the lead articles on WUWT, they are not all one-sided – the authors do not need to be Climate Skeptics for Anthony to post their articles – this is a good thing -“Minds are like parachutes – they only work well when they are open”.
msnbc are elaning just as much as fox news. just different directiosn.
“WUWT exists because the mainstream media produces a one-sided coverage of global warming/climate change.”
you mean like that extreme bias in their science shows? when they talk about the solar system, theyo nly invite heliocentrists and ignore the geocentrists…….
science is not about balance, it is about reality
“If you look at the lead articles on WUWT, they are not all one-sided ”
most of them are absolutely.
and misleading titles etc etc. ust like the real media. sensationalism, no care for accuracy or any fact checking.
the Article about the referendum in my country was just another of those examples.
and despite that the referendum did not reject a CO2 tax, nor did it end the CO2 tax we have already…
but stull today you can read the lie on WUWT…..
WUWT is just like MSNBC or FOX.
And Daniel is the Brian Williams of CAGW. It exists because he ‘saw’ it.
āMinds are like parachutes ā they only work well when they are openā.
Aye Walt, and only when they are fully open does the operator have any control.
Daniel, since you have come here with your certainties in place, it appears your function will be to attempt to educate us and effect change. If you have followed this blog long, you might notice that those who are the teachers always present the exact data that support their findings and the sources. You will need to do some homework to find specific research documents (not press articles) to support your agitated accusations, before any of us who are here to learn actual science will follow you. We are here to find out the truth, despite the press, and we are here on Anthony’s dime and time, as well as our own. Your constructive dialog will be appreciated by all who share the privilege of discussion here.
“attempt to educate us”
not at all.just debunking a claim here and there, just exposing hypocrisy etc.
it is more for my entertainment. when the Scientific community cannot educate you, sure i can’t.
but the climate will in the next 2-3 decades.
Daniel
When it continues to cool down towards its next 30 year short-cycle low point?
Or when it cools down towards the Modern Ice Age in 450 years?
Daniel says:
but stull today you can read the lie on WUWTā¦.. WUWT is just like MSNBC or FOX.
Why would you want to comment on a site that you hate? Only a crank does that.
The climate will not educate anyone who does not seek the knowledge, it will only cycle as it always has, despite our desire to predict and control it. Yes solar cycle 25 and the next oceanic oscillations might very well be as surprising as the recent decades have been. Or, the phantom demon greenhouse effect may finish hiding it’s heat somewhere and use it all at once fry us with our own emitted sins like a Hollywood fantasy.
If your presence here is simply to debunk and expose you will need reputable facts to have anyone believe you. Otherwise you serve only as a hindrance to those of us who wish to learn.
“When it continues to cool down towards its next 30 year short-cycle low point?
Or when it cools down towards the Modern Ice Age in 450 years?”
LOL
Daniel says
” just exposing hypocrisy ” I think he actually meant displaying not exposing.
Daniel,
From 1990 untill now global warming has been around 0,25 deg. C. That’s less than 50% of what was predicted by the IPCC (the years 1991- 1994 have about the same temperature as 1990 when you take into account the Pinatubo eruption).
see also: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/fig_tab/ngeo2098_F1.html
so?
Let me spell it out for you :
It proves that your so called “experts” have no idea what they talking about. So everything they produce is worthless.
So, that means you have been countered effectively,while you stand there speechless, with nothing of value in return.
Good day.
Don’t mind me, It is tax time and I’m not getting a refund because I had no earnings this year. Occupy doesn’t pay. I’m just attention seeking.
Daniel
Finally you said something I can actually believe
Bob Boder,
The truth comes out, eh? The guy is unproductive, probably laying around in his pajamas and arguing online about things he has no real knowledge about.
From his comments, Daniel gets his misinformation from the news media and alarmist blogs. No wonder commenters are treating him like the Mole.
“It proves that your so called āexpertsā have no idea what they talking about. So everything they produce is worthless.”
no.
“Donāt mind me, It is tax time and Iām not getting a refund because I had no earnings this year. Occupy doesnāt pay. Iām just attention seeking.”
oooh dishonesty on WUWT, who would have expected that…..
Daniel says
“oooh dishonesty on WUWT, who would have expected thatā¦..” from you no one. Of course that is the problem with purposefully dishonest people they think everyone else is trying to be dishonest too so that makes it OK.
Daniel you are about as clueless as it gets, you don’t actually believe anything you say because to you, and people like you, what you say is tool to further a political agenda. When honest people resist your agenda and try to follow the facts to whatever end it leads you can’t understand it, so you must attributed their actions as political in nature, because that’s all you understand. What you don’t get is that only one side of this argument is trying to dictate how peoples lives should be lived. If the honest people here a WUWT found the evidence supportive of CAGW they would be looking for answers, but that is not the issue with CAGW alarmist they know what we know that there isn’t a pending disaster, to them it is an opportunity. You are either a true believer in the statist world or your a shill. Either way your are clueless.
“Of course that is the problem with purposefully dishonest people they think everyone else is trying to be dishonest too so that makes it OK”
oh sweet irony.
“Daniel you are about as clueless as it gets, you donāt actually believe anything you say because to you, and people like you, what you say is tool to further a political agenda. ”
oh is that so?
what is my political agenda pls?
“When honest people resist your agenda and try to follow the facts to whatever end it leads you canāt understand it, so you must attributed their actions as political in nature, because thatās all you understand.”
you atack science on blogs instead of scientific journals…..
” What you donāt get is that only one side of this argument is trying to dictate how peoples lives should be lived. ”
how so? just because we want to reduce the CO2 emissions?
” If the honest people here a WUWT found the evidence supportive of CAGW they would be looking for answers, but that is not the issue with CAGW alarmist they know what we know that there isnāt a pending disaster, to them it is an opportunity. You are either a true believer in the statist world or your a shill. Either way your are clueless.”
funny, the evidence was so overwhelming even WUWT has to accept AGW, but you keep raving on about some CAGW…..
how much AGW does it take to become CAGW? how exactly do you define CAGW?
Daniel
You are a true gem. You argue against yourself and don’t even know it.
Well, for my two-penneth worth, as Doug Hoffman would say, “enjoy the interglacial while you can, & stay sceptical!”
It’s warming up in the North where the permafrost is even when using the cherry picked date of 1997!
http://s27.postimg.org/b3pwedm7n/trend.png
……….at a rate that need not worry anyone.
Martin
or cooling if you use the cherry picked data of 8000 years ago
or cooling if you use the cherry picked data of 1940
or unchanged if you use the cherry picked data of 1998
or warming if you used the cherry picked data of 300 years ago
or, so on and so on and so on.
Because god knows the 1/10th of a degree warming you show here is all important and really proves something. The arctic has been ice free in the past and has reached down into the lower 48 in the past what is your point? Oh that’s right the world is going to end any day now.
“Because god knows the 1/10th of a degree warming you show here is all important and really proves something.”
Love it! Not sure if Martin even looked at the scale of the graph he posted! More import question is wether whether that .1 degrees increase was happening in the long winter when the permafrost can not melt.
Sea Ice Extent Minimum.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_monthly-09_en.png
Ice Concentration.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/plots/satcon.arc.d-00.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
Your chart suggest this is a GLOBAL temperature plot.
Here is one just for the Arctic region only,showing that most of any warming occurs during the well below freezing part of the year:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
The Summer months last year was below average (2014):
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
and (2013),
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
It is a cooling trend in the summer months so far,will this year be third in a row?
sunsettommy
Well, technically, you’re not wrong – just a little bit incomplete.
See, the DMI 80 deg north daily records since 1958 show 0.0 degree warming during the summer months. (And, if you run a gif of all of the years between 1958 – 2015, you’ll see all of the recent years (since 2001) have a slight decline in summertime temperatures. (Winter time temperatures – when the Arctic sea ice is completely dark between October and late February – have increased. )
Thus, it is ONLY the “Arctic “average annual” temperatures from 60 north to 70 north (where there is no Arctic Ocean sea ice at all!) that are useful to the CAGW propagandists. And, you will notice, it it these “annual Arctic averages” that are used. Not summer time temperatures during the only part of the year when permafrost/sea ice/land snow can actually melt.
Can I explain why winter temperatures have increased over the Arctic sea ice while summer temperatures are (very slightly) declining? No.
Martin,
That’s not “up in the North”. You’re trying to imply that the chart shows Arctic trends. In reality, it shows Northern Hemisphere land temps ā which includes cities with a big UHI effect.
Using global satellite data instead, here is what we get for the same time frame:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
Martin @ 4:37am,
The linear trend line you plotted is 1.05Āŗ C/century. Not a problem.
You forgot the money shot: “…and it is all the fault of greedy, unconscious humans who need to be stopped by whatever totalitarian means necessary.”
There is no doubt that the time is ripe for an energy revolution. All of the fundamental inventions (internal combustion engine, turbines, etc.) are more than 100 years old. Meanwhile, in 1950 transistors were made one at a time, packaged in little cans with wires sticking out and costing a few bucks each. In 2014, more transistors were manufactured than all the galaxies in the universe, maybe times 10.
If the “fossil fuel reality deniers” want to be truly useful, instead of screaming and running around like chickens without heads, they would contribute something tangible to making the revolution actually happen.
Better to light a single candle of insight than create darkness…
markopanama, I believe there is a major reason this innovation hasn’t happened already.
āThe federal government ā which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed ā has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989, according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate.ā
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
Where US Federal climate-related expenditures go shown in this plotā¦
http://cdn.arstechnica.net//wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Screen-shot-2012-05-24-at-1.02.28-PM.png
I believe that money in the hands of the people who earned it is ALWAYS put to its most efficient use and creates the fastest rate of innovation and highest employment. There is ample evidence of this in history and the US economy has previously been a shining example of this concept. Just think if the $Billions (USD) mentioned above was not taken from entrepreneurs. We might just be blogging and rejoicing about the next energy solution/revolution sweeping through the world.
Now for a cynical view of this wasted opportunity based on what I see as a colossal failure of the CAGW/CACC acolytes to prove that man-emitted CO2 is a significant contributor to the small and largely beneficial warming trend on-going for several centuries. We have jumped the shark. Instead of innovation, as taxpayers, it seems to me that we are now funding a concerted, and choreographed plan to install worldwide socialism (which fails in reality and on a relatively short timescale everywhere it has been tried).
Bruce
Bruce,
Exactly. The alarmists seem to assume that over the next 100 years, nothing will change in our use of energy. Look at the phenomenal growth of civilization over the last hundred years, powered by fossil fuels. Now imagine the impact of, say, suitcase fusion, just to pick an example. It will come, in some form, when it is ready. No amount of government subsidies of non-starters like wind and solar (or climate research for that matter) will bring it about.
1895 saw the first two organized automobile races, one in Paris, the other in Chicago. Both were successful in shaping public understanding of the future of internal combustion engines. The very next year, more than 160 companies were manufacturing cars in Paris alone, and some 200,000 motors of the same type were produced. Governments were nowhere to be seen, except in the Chicago race, where the police arrested the Benz team because the law was that any automobile within the city limits had to be towed by a horse.
Meanwhile, I just read that the government of one state is proposing a carbon tax to fund – wait for it – reduced school class sizes.
When the revolution happens, no one will miss it.
There is no point in arguing with someone like Daniel, who proabaly couldn’t solve a middle school algebra problew much less calculus. All he knows is the spoon fed talking points that he believes with religious faith. to quote Thomas Paine ” to argue with someone that has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead”
Daniel, blindfolded, examines an elephant’s tail and confidently declares that an elephant is like a rope.
mmmm
rope rhymes with dope, a dope is the same as an idiot, or a fool, or a jester, harlequin or clown, and clowns appear in circuses as do elephants…
Seems reasonable to me.
oh so cute, and people like you think you can challange the scientific community on a blog š
Which is exactly what you’re trying to do.
i try to challange the scientific community on a blog? no. if i want to challange them, i would go into their arena, the scientific literature, and not some low impact pay to publish “journal”
Daniel says
“i try to challange the scientific community on a blog? no. if i want to challange them, i would go into their arena, the scientific literature, and not some low impact pay to publish ājournalā
you couldn’t challenge a 5th grader on a game show.
lol bob.
coming form a WUWTer…. that is really hilarious. you fail since years to convince any experts.
you are not even able to convince the majority of laymen.
but hey, just like truthers think that their truth will be accepted any day now, and creationists thinking, Evolution will collaps any day now…..
dream on. maybe tomorow the world will listen to WUWT instead of the most respected scientific institutions and universities aorund the planet…. could be any day this AGW hoax collapses and you at WUWT will be celebrated as the heroes. Anthony and Monckton will get a Nobel Proze and their names will be rempmbered together with the big names of science.
you save the world from this evil evil hoax by those evil evil climatologists……
Daniel
Funny most the polls show that people aren’t buying into to your crowd BS.
“Funny most the polls show that people arenāt buying into to your crowd BS.”
really?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country
http://climatechangecommunication.org/sites/default/files/reports/Politics_and_Global_Warming.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_409_en.pdf
http://environment.yale.edu/poe/v2014/
it rather seems that more do accept AGW than reject AGW.
Try Gallup
Bob
one of the links is about a gallup poll.
but here a new one from gallup
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182150/views-climate-change-stable-extreme-winter.aspx?utm_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles
most accept AGW and that the effects of global warming have alerady begun……
If you watch this you may end up drawing a hot bath, getting drunk, and cutting your wrists. BE WARNED!
/sarc.
Gateway to DOOOOOOMMMMM
It is hysterical end of times human extinction “conference” predicting ends to all human life due to CH4 poisoning.
These guys should be arrested and thanks to Eric Worrall we know that the perilous emergency is BullSh1t.
Noteworthy is a featured science class video c/w fun and games lighting fires with natural methane in Alaska. Clearly these students led a sheltered life and never played with firecrackers. oooo00000000 look….. methane catches fire! So therefore, the hype must be true! More lies and hype from the same bunch of bullsh1tters.
Actually methane is non-toxic, though it can cause asphyxiation by displacing oxygen. However an air-methane mixture becomes explosive when methane is above 5% (about 20,000 times the current concentration), so it’s really Gateway to BOOOOOOMMMMM.
Also methane only has a lifetime of about 10 years in the atmosphere so it’s real hard to get a high concentration.
TTY, I admit I was taking some poetic license with the doom-sayer’s hyperbole. I did not know about the 10 year life. What is the reaction?
Oxidation, same as combustion – just a lot more slowly
Really? What supplies the activation energy, the sun, or is it O3 or both or random kinetics?
Ok… I looked it up… spontaneous…
http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/51_thermo/Gibbs_synthlet_reaction.php?rxn_id=7
THx
There is some poetic justice here.
My radical environmentalist friend, whom I’ve mentioned before, has swallowed hook, line and sinker every single environmental scare ever uttered since we first met in 1980. He actively uncovers every tidbit of impending doom that he can lay his hands on, and then teaches them to kids at the community college where he works.
This perma-frost bomb is guaranteed to be added to his mental hoard.
The impact of this lifetime accumulation of negativity is obvious: he is a thoroughly unhealthy and unhappy individual, who can’t enjoy any beautiful spring morning or colorful sunset because all he sees and will point out is the appalling man-made destruction before our eyes. (All I see are spring shoots and pretty reds, but whatever.)
He is a nature lover who hates nature. He tries to help man, yet hates humanity. He sees himself as an atheist, yet is the biggest religious nut I have ever met.
I have stopped feeling sorry for him long ago because I have come to realize that he WANTS hell on earth. That is where he is most comfortable.
Ah … friends.
The terror of ELEs or other large catastrophes are psychologically necessary for those who have no perspective or purpose. I say, ya gotta have a reason to get up in the morning, and if this.. THIS is all there is… than THIS is all you worry about. I also say that THIS just ain’t worth the worry. I will be dead in < 25 years so THAT is the end of the world for me for sure.
Your REF, (we all have one) may present an enduring source of amusement it seems. Imagine Nietzsche living next door? LOL. Never smack a dog for barking…because the dog is designed to bark. The bark is as natural as spring shoots.Ya know what I mean?
I hear you š
I’m glad that you have noticed these widespread characteristics.
I have, too.
There is an apocalyptic mindset that actually craves for a disaster out of a suppressed envy and hatred.
Meanwhile the same people have harmed lives by resisting every major flood control, irrigation, reservoir, dam, water supply project. And now, when a flood or water shortage occurs, they rub their hand with glee and say, “see – climate change, just as I warned, all along”.
Meanwhile, 80% of the world’s renewable energy is currently derived from hydro-electric projects.
The projects that these apocalypse obsessed environmental obstructionists did not manage to stop.
And yet, they now present themselves as the supporters of renewable energy.
Ironically, we would have had a whole lot more of it, if the environmental movement had not stood in the way!!
Here’s a good example of this topsy turvy mentality, at play:
“As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” Phil Jones, Climategate files.
Average Arctic sea ice thickness over the ice-covered regions from PIOMAS for a selection of years. The average thickness is calculated for the PIOMAS domain by only including locations where ice is thicker than .15 m.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png
In the growth of ice in 2014 and 2015 has already can see a decline AMO. AMO will fall in 30 years.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iamo_ersst.png
If you ever notice all the red heating maps of the world…..the reddest areas are always the areas with the least temperature data
I think I found Daniel’s guru:
you think the scientific community is in this video?
As I said, I think he’s your guru.
*As I said, I think heās your guru.*
what makes you think so?
Daniel Kuhn:
I don’t know if the guy spouting drivel from his bedroom is or is not Daniel’s guru, but he could be because he clearly knows more about climate change than Daniel.
Richard
more speculation from you…. amazing how much assumptions you guys make when someone does accept science…..
Richard;
Are you sure about that? that could BE Daniel. how would we know?
It seems they would rather use astronomers, philosophers, psychologists and physicists to discuss the permafrost and what will happen. They seem oblivious to the fact (mining exploration geologist, I) that the Canadian Shield has an average of only a 3-4m of overburden and, by definition, this means bedrock below this. So with permafrost up to a kilometre or so maximum thickness, most of it is in CH4-free granite and greenstone rocks. Moreover, the active layer (so called) that freezes and thaws each season is of a similar thickness 1-3m, so even most of the overburden has already released any CH4 it might have had. I made this point (I guess to a different audience) last time this came up. In the link below, scroll down four pages to a regional image (satellite) – look at the percentage of bare rock compared to overburden. I have walked the distance perhaps one circumference of the world over this kind of terrain in lifetime.
http://dmec.ca/ex07-dvd/E07/pdfs/97.pdf
Please stop the permafrost baloney already. Before you write a paper on it, consult your geology department first!!!
Actually there are areas with both permafrost and deep organic deposits. These are the areas which have too dry a climate for glaciers ever to form, i e the central lowlands of Alaska and the lowland basins of northeastern Siberia (including the Laptev sea). Everywhere else the organic contents of permafrost is negligible. .
Yes, but have you seen the animated graphics of the earlier paper where they show vast tracts of the permafrost of the circumpolar tundra shrinking and giving off all this methane? Also, in my earlier critique of the other permafrost scare paper, I mentioned that much of the filled in areas are largely sand and gravel from the glacial action with no chance for any organics except a surface cling of moss.
I liked a comment above somewhere where someone noted it was during warm periods that any of these products were formed prior to the permafrost. How far down do you believe lush organics would exist? If I dig a hole in my back yard, I quickly get through the 6 inch organic layer into gray stoney clays that don’t look to have any organics except a tree root here or there. Where has all this organic stuff come from?
The guys on Gold Rush have no trouble encountering permafrost right through the Alsakan summers.
Also, the photo in the article of measurements of CH4 being taken in a valley. I hope the researchers averaged this with the “zero” over the mountains in the background.
Grammar question, would that make the science is settleder?
No, in Newspeak the proper conjugation is “settled”, “plussettled” and “doubleplussettled”.
More settlder?
Highly compacted.
Satellite Products
The ice surface temperature strongly affects heat exchange between the surface and the atmosphere and the rate of ice growth. In order to perform proper forecasting of weather and sea-ice conditions, it is essential to obtain accurate surface temperatures.
A sparsely distributed observational network, consisting of drifting buoys, cannot resolve the surface temperature variations in the Arctic sufficiently but satellite observations can fill in the gaps of the traditional observational network.
The DMI ice temperature product (IST) uses three thermal infrared channels from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) on board the Metop-A satellite to calculate the surface temperatures in the Arctic.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice_temp/plots/icetemp.arc.d-00.png
Anthony, can this please be added to the sea ice page?
Top: The total daily contribution to the surface mass balance from the entire ice sheet (blue line, Gt/day). Bottom: The accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now (blue line, Gt) and the season 2011-12 (red) which had very high summer melt in Greenland. For comparison, the mean curve from the period 1990-2011 is shown (dark grey). The same calendar day in each of the 22 years (in the period 1990-2011) will have its own value. These differences from year to year are illustrated by the light grey band. For each calendar day, however, the lowest and highest values of the 22 years have been left out.
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png
Current Surface Mass Budget of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Here you can follow the daily surface mass balance on the Greenland Ice Sheet. The snow and ice model from one of DMIās climate models is driven every six hours with snowfall, sunlight and other parameters from a research weather model for Greenland, Hirlam-Newsnow. We can thereby calculate the melting energy, refreezing of melt water and sublimation (snow that evaporates without melting first). The result of this is a change in the snow and ice from one day to the next and this change is shown below. All numbers are in water equivalent, that is, the amount of water the snow and ice would correspond to if it was melted.
The model has been updated 20 May 2014 and now gives a better picture of what happens with the meltwater. Earlier a large amount of the meltwater was treated as loss in the form of runoff from the ice sheet. The new model is better at taking into account the part of the meltwater that refreezes on its way to the coast, and this then remains a part of the ice sheet. This update means that the new maps, values and curves will deviate from the previous ones. Everything shown on this site, however, is calculated with this new model, so that all curves and values are comparable.
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Comparison of snow coverage in 2014 and 15 on April 9.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/testimage.2.sh?first=20140409.jpg&second=20150409.jpg
We don’t have good enough thermometer data and what data we have doesn’t go back far enough. We don’t really know if the planet is warming or cooling even today, because the data is that bad. Everyone can agree that the temperature today is not the hottest or coldest it has ever been. The concentration of CO2 is not the highest or lowest it has ever been. We could be on an upward or downward temperature trend that is part of a longer term oscillation and we wouldn’t know. We have no way to separate the theoretical heating component of CO2 from everything else. To say we *know* the earth is *heating* up because of *CO2* is triply not being honest. One reason I am a skeptic is the overselling of the non facts that CAGW is based on. Another reason is the overselling of the accuracy of proxies and the relevance of models that can’t reproduce anything measured. Show me all the charts of arctic temperatures you want but it doesn’t prove any relation between CO2 and arctic temperature. We have satellite data for 40 years. That is not long enough. We have a handful of ground based thermometers for 100 years. That is not long enough, enough coverage, or accurate. Even if the temp were increasing there are plenty of plausible reasons other than CO2. Done. Move on. Find real evidence. Build a real working model. In the meantime be happy that burning hydrocarbons fertilizes the world. Could be that every 5th plant or animal is alive because of oil? Wait… We don’t even know if the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from burning hydrocarbons.
When I was a resident of upstate New York a long time ago I personally experienced the same scenario as stated above ā¦ā¦ā¦.. only on a different ātime scaleā.
Whereas the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions are currently experiencing their per se āclimate changeā on a millennial ātime scaleā, ā¦.. my per se āclimate changeā residency time in upstate New York was measured via a yearly ātime scaleā.
Thus, each nā every year, for 20+ years, the Springtime warming of the upstate New York āclimateā quickly melted all the snow and ice ā¦.. which initiated the start of environmental changes that accelerated the microbial breakdown of organic carbon and the release of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. And who knows what all was outgassed from that winter accumulation of decomposing cow manure?
And that initial start of microbial breakdown of organic carbon was quickly followed by the āgreeningā of the vegetation ā¦. which was āsuckingā that carbon (CO2) back out of the atmosphere and re-sequestering it back in the soil and the newly growing plant biomass.
Its truly amazing, verging on the āunbelievableā, that the proponents of CAGW would tout the scientific fact that the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions are incapable of outgassing their dead biomass sequestered carbon until after their per se āwintertimeā has ended and the āwarmingā has commenced, ā¦. while at the same time, ā¦.. those same proponents of CAGW are claiming that the lower latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere are capable of outgassing humongous quantities of their dead biomass sequestered carbon (CO2) during the āwintertimeā when everything is extremely cold and/or frozen.
Maybe I should ask Ferdinand E for an explanation because that is what he is always touting as a āfact of scienceā.
Walt D at 8:27 wrote
Those who grew up in the South (in the US) were most likely raised as fundamentalist Christians. They were taught that the Earth is about 6000 years old, man and dinosaurs coexisted and that the theory of evolution is baloney. These beliefs did not go away even after many of them obtained degrees…
Walt D is an ignorant bigot, or an intentional liar.
I grew up in the heart of the southern US, have lived worked and raised a family in most of the old “Confederate” states and can confirm that this statement is incredibly ignorant, small-minded, provincial, and incorrect to boot. While the residents here are more likely to consider themselves religious than in other parts of the US, religion here is and has long been very diverse, and only a tiny percentage would argue that the earth is 6000 or so years old. On the other hand, I am not going to cast-out folks just because they have different beliefs, as Walt might desire.
I was taught that tolerance is a virtue. Alinsky taught that ridicule is a weapon.
+1 From an agnostic
I will judge each as one and for who they are, not by what group others class them in.
There seems to be some argument over the datasets. As in a noticable amount of alarmist “dont use RSS use the other datasets’ pushback on the ‘no warming in 18 years’ claim.
Heres the 4 datasets – HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS since 1997. 0C warming for RSS, and 0.1C to .15C for the other datasets. RSS is an outlier:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
From 2001, all the datasets are shows practically no warming. HADCRUT is flat, RSS is declining slightly, UAH up a few hundredths of a degree, GISTEMP up less than 0.05C (eyeballing the slope). Average of all 4 datasets would be practically no warming – less than 0.03C warming on average, or a decadal warming ternd of 0.02C. “Practically no warming this century thus far” seems a fair summation:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
For those skittish souls wanting to get their knickers in a twist over sudden and catastrophic release of an awesome amount of methane into Earth’s atmosphere, look no further than a whopping great earthquake along the Anatolian fault disrupting the huge volumes of methane at the deeper levels of the Black sea.