From WOODS HOLE RESEARCH CENTER and the Peter Wadhams is still wrong, no record low this year department, comes this overt hand-wringing worry over permafrost, most of which is about methane releases, which aren’t accelerating and don’t seem to be a big problem at all as seen in this IPCC chart below showing observed reality compared to model projections, and a recent examination of the real-vs-perceived issues of methane. Plus, then there’s the bugs that will appear to eat it, canceling the effect, since nature always capitalizes on a boom of nutrients.
Scientists to discuss global threats from climate change in the Arctic
Hoping for real commitments at COP 21 in December, climate experts and international policymakers gather at the Arctic Circle Conference in Iceland to discuss permafrost thaw and other Arctic challenges
Three leading Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC) experts on the threats of climate change in the Arctic will urge France’s President Hollande and other political leaders to address the threat posed by thawing permafrost in the Arctic at the Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavik, Iceland on October 15. WHRC scientists Scott Goetz, Max Holmes and Susan Natali, who advised the State Department and helped to inform President Obama’s strong remarks at the GLACIER conference in Alaska last month, will present research on permafrost thaw and other serious threats caused by climate change.
“Given that permafrost contains almost twice as much carbon as the atmosphere, permafrost thaw and the subsequent loss of carbon from permafrost has the potential to throw a wrench in current policy solutions to contain global warming,” said Dr. Max Holmes, a Senior Scientist at WHRC.
The carbon released by permafrost thaw causes more warming, which in turn causes more permafrost thaw. “This potentially self-reinforcing cycle could constitute a ‘tipping point’ that would be difficult to stop once underway. But the magnitude of this feedback can be controlled–the less fossil fuels we emit, the less carbon that is released from permafrost,” said Dr. Susan Natali, an Assistant Scientist at WHRC and presenter at the Arctic Circle conference.
Despite the well-documented urgency of this problem, it has received little attention from policy makers. Unlike deforestation and fossil fuel combustion, which are under direct human control, permafrost thaw cannot be immediately turned off once begun. According to WHRC Senior Scientist Scott Goetz,
“President Obama said recently in Alaska that we cannot deny the science of climate change. While there is still much to be learned about the magnitude and timing of this threat, the message we are taking to Iceland is we must act now to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion, lest it be too little too late to avoid a runaway train of thawing permafrost.”
Arctic 21 is a network of organizations calling attention to the impacts of climate change in the Arctic and the rest of the world. For Rafe Pomerance, Chairman of Arctic 21and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Development,
“The Arctic is unraveling. Our hope for the Arctic Circle Conference is to raise global awareness about the realities and threats of climate change in the Arctic so that world leaders will act on the science at COP 21 in Paris.”
WHRC scientists have been a part of a series of high-level US government conversations about climate change in the Arctic beginning this past spring, leading to the technical meeting of international climate change negotiators in Bonn, Germany in June. This Arctic conference follows closely on the heels of the GLACIER Conference in Alaska in August where President Obama spoke passionately about the impacts of climate change already occurring in the Alaskan Arctic. At COP 21 in Paris this December expectations run high that the international policy community will execute real commitments to combat climate change in Paris. President Hollande’s presence in Iceland encourages optimism.
The key science points, implications and recommendations can be found in the WHRC Policy Brief, “Permafrost and Global Climate Change.” http://whrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PB_Permafrost.pdf
###
1) The arctic isn’t warming all that much
2) Actual studies have shown that methane releases are being consumed by bacteria before they can reach the atmosphere.
3) This same permafrost survived the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods that were each several degrees warmer than the present.
4) 18 years and 8 months.
Plus, the evidence that ANY of this is in any measurable way related to human activity, let alone fossil fuel consumption, is NONEXISTENT. How can so many “smart” people be so stupid for so long?
money. grant dollars are scarce in any of the sciences unless you are doing climate related work. professors gotta eat, you know….
So we have the Minoan warm period followed by the Roman warm period followed by the Medieval warm period and now we have the Minion warm period. The Mann and his Minions are wreaking havoc
Takes brains!
So how warm was it during the period when plant life thrived before it got turned into permafrost?
Besides, what’s been so permanent about permafrost in paleoclimate?
Great point!
I’ve asked the same question form the first time I saw reference to the permafrost scare/threat.
I’ve seen one statement that the methane from deep source (geologic) and is simply trapped by the permafrost. I don’t know about geology, so I don’t know if this is crap or not….
I am curious how institutes such WHRC consider their credibility. Should the time come that they are seen as supporting/promoting poor science, how would they attempt to restore their reputation?
WHRC gets its fake credibility by being a chameleon. It uses the ‘Woods Hole’ name just like the legitimate WHOI. But the W.H. ‘Research Center’ is an eco-alarmist group of climate propagandists. They are not the original, highly respected W.H. Oceanographic Institute.
Sort of like the old Soviets recruiting American boys to fight in the “Abraham Lincoln Brigade” for the commies during the Spansh Civil war in the 1930’s.
Wow, thanks for making that distinction. I fell for the trick, associating the name without listening closely, and not doing research.
Here is the nugget…
“They are not the original, highly respected W.H. Oceanographic Institute.”
That’s the association I and probably a lot of others made.
Those boys, men and women comrades “For Whom The Bell Tolls”…
Dbstealy
Thanks for calling out the name distinction. I was ready to write off whoi which was disappointing because I liked a lot of bob ballards work. Haven’t heard much from bob lately. Has he retired ?
Similar to the Berkley name used by Muller and co.
Just more Crap On Parade 21 nonsense…….
This is another misleading article
Woods Hole’s leading role in an entirely new concept of what ‘science’ is can be found here. http://ma-marine-ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/mme_fj_vol44no1_screen1OPT.pdf
Current and tied to the Next Generation Sciences Standards financed by the Gates Foundation for all K-12. Complete with graphics.
I looked at that pdf, and I don’t see any direct link to “Wood’s Hole.”
It’s probably time for a reminder:
WHOI is the Wood Hole Oceanographic Institute. They do good work, in general, though that press release today over hypes the study. The first three authors are from WHOI, the paper’s title is the much milder Divergent trajectories of Antarctic surface melt under two twenty-first-century climate scenarios.
This post is about hand wringing from WHRC, the Woods Hole Research Center, which is also located at Wood’s Hole but is a warmist/activist site. The less written about them the better.
The Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment is not at Woods Hole, but Stanford University (i.e. the Stanford Woods). Infamous Stephen Schneider was there, as in infamous warmist Noah Diffenbaugh. They’re smarter than the folks at WHRC but equally deluded.
Robin’s link to a newsletter from Massachusetts Marine Educators (MME) is odd in that the organization has a contact point at the Boston Aquarium and has no real linkage to the town of Woods Hole or the organizations there. MME is “a dynamic, grass roots organization of teachers, informal educators, students, educational institutions, and others.”
Woods Hole is also home to the Marine Biological Lab, my sister was there when the amateur marine biologist Emperor Hirohito of Japan (yes, of WWII fame) visited, and the National Fisheries.
Woods Hole to me goes back to the Woods Hole Conference that redirected the nature of curriculum that we are still living with today. I will agree I do not designate the different entities. I do track the conferences and their links to NSF’s curriculum work now. This is on point to how historic Woods Hole, period, is to any education researcher. http://www.amscied.net/Publications_files/2002-Rudolph%20TCR.pdf Page 228 starts the most pertinent discussion.
I know about all this not because I am a science geek, but because I have tracked everything Jerome Bruner wrote. It matters because ‘science’ becomes dominated by the behavioral and social sciences without being kind enough to give us a head up in the change of the meaning of science.
That version of science is what drives every UN initiative.
You might want to take a look at this grant WHOI is a partner to. http://news.neaq.org/2012/08/55-million-grant-for-climate-change.html And NSF and Boston Aquarium.
Now another partner the Frameworks Institute gets us into the Earth Institute at Columbia University and I have put those links up before at WUWT. The whole point is to use the media and education to simply change what people believe.
Robin says:
The whole point is to use the media and education to simply change what people believe.
That’s the reason that WHRC is piggybacking on WHOI. This has been written about here before. WHRC pretends to be the legit research center, when in relaity they’re impostors using the Woods Hole name to promote enviro-activism. The media plays along, rarely if ever making the distinction.
Thanks to Ric Werme for the reminder. If it weren’t for that devious tactic, the climate scare alarmists would have one less way to fool the public.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/10/04/why-is-the-arctic-climate-and-ice-cover-so-variable/
This is the true picture of why the Arctic is in a period of warmth which will not last and which is just part of natural variability.
“The Arctic is unraveling”.
No, but Climate Alarmism is.
What an ugly choice of words, “unravelling”. What is the arctic in their minds, a big knitted sweater?
And yeah, you’re right – the word is far more suited to the description of the slow unravelling of all the now disproven spaghetti graph model predictions and crappy reconstructions.
So let’s not freak out. Change is not always a terrible thing. Sometime stuff unravels. Especially old sweaters. And failed models. That’s entropy in action.
I’ll just leave this here…
?w=720
Mike,
Really? That’s all you’ve got? We are talking about long term climatic trends and you point to a single day? Not only is that meaningless in the current context, but it is laughable. Go away troll.
Paul Penrose
Look at the date of the photo. Try surfacing three SSNs in open water last May.
Climate changes, one year the ice is 10-15 feet thick over the Pole, tens years prior or later just the opposite. The photo shows that.
michael
Paul, what about this? August 23, 1962 NY Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C07E3DC173CE53BBC4B51DFBE668389679EDE
What? No soviet subs?
“RoHa October 13, 2015 at 5:29 pm
What? No soviet subs?”
Well, who do you think took the photo?
(Grin)
michael
A graphic suffices on my thoughts on the usefulness of discussing wanting to stop a natural event that they openly admit couldn’t be stopped in warming slightly warmer world:
http://cdn.funnyisms.com/cdb55d31-ad11-4436-aa5e-fea10ae92cfe.jpg
The Arctic has warmed due to heat ventilating from the ocean. Sea ice is gaining in volume and as it increasingly insulates the Arctic temperatures will decline as has been witnessed by the Arctic Iris effect. http://landscapesandcycles.net/arctic-iris-effect-and-dansgaard-oeschger-event.html
I was going to say “1500 petagrams”? Is that all? My dog got more than that when he was sick”.
But I think I’ll bite on this one. Virtually all northern (Arctic) settlements are wholly dependent on fossil fuels. Let’s start there. No more quad-runners or snow mobiles. No more diesel electricity or propane heaters.
Let the climate scientists start there.
Yet another article that says carbon. Not carbon-dioxide. So all carbon is bad. Wow.
But especially our 4% contribution. That’s the part that’s to blame. It’s all our fault….*sarcasm* 🙂
Something else from the article – I don’t know where she’s from, but Dr. Susan Natali says we “emit fossil fuels” which is a new one on me: “the magnitude of this feedback can be controlled–the less fossil fuels we emit….”
She may emit fossil fuels but I don’t, especially in polite company.
Yeah, I got hung up on the fact that the summary talks about methane, but the press release only mentions “carbon.” Until I realized the authors of the press release probably used the word to refer to either CH4 and C02. Very lazy, and misleading.
This is the second shoe to drop next to W.E’s post on cow methane. This is the real boogyman…REAL? Boogyman? I mean this is the big lie in reference to methane poisoning of the planet. Gad!
I note that the CH4 concentration models all outpace the observed measurements. In particular, there is no model or observation of an instantaneous CH4 release as the doomsday prognosticators prognosticated.
Can I say how heartily fed up I am with the 2 degrees threshold c**p of the first picture. Why do we have to put up with this, why is preindustrial mini ice age the most benevolent of temperatures, what is wrong with the present temperature – as far as trends and paleoclimate records go isnt today a better zero or even a +1 degrees from now zero. There never seems to be an explanation of the zero or of the 2 degree threshold – why 2 degrees – cant we have the scientific reasoning rather than this pathetic blindfold finger pointing at a temperature chart to suit the argument
What do we want? 2degrees warming.
When do we want it? 2100.
Come on, let’s organize protests.
Where is the warming that we are constantly been promised.
My stove is out of action and I’m currently wearing three pairs of leggings.
2 degrees threshold used to bother me too but I’ve re thought it a little. I’d love to see the 2c in reality or even better in tampered data. And look nothing happened. Another stake in the heart but this vampire has survived many previous stakes. Oh wait. We meant 2.5c
The MacDonald et al study shows much warmer temps in Nth Russia during the Hol climate Opt. Here’s a summary and the study link. http://epic.awi.de/4164/1/Mac2000c.pdf
Received March 9, 1999
Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils are used to document Holocene
treeline history across northern Russia (including Siberia). Boreal
forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P.
Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic
coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its
present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment
and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of
northern Russia. Treeline advance on the Kola Peninsula, however,
appears to have occurred later than in other regions. During
the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures
along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to
7.0°C warmer than modern. The development of forest and expansion
of treeline likely reflects a number of complimentary
environmental conditions, including heightened summer insolation,
the demise of Eurasian ice sheets, reduced sea-ice cover,
greater continentality with eustatically lower sea level, and extreme
Arctic penetration of warm North Atlantic waters. The late
Holocene retreat of Eurasian treeline coincides with declining
summer insolation, cooling arctic waters, and neoglaciation.
© 2000 University of Washington.
“Mike,
Really? That’s all you’ve got? We are talking about long term climatic trends and you point to a single day? Not only is that meaningless in the current context, but it is laughable. Go away troll.”
Paul, I took Mike’s statement differently – 1987, open water, 28 years ago.
The 2010 Miller et al study sums up the much warmer Arctic temps during the Eemian interglacial and the warmer temps of the Holocene climate optimum. Here’s the abstract and full study.——————
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/MillerArctic.pdf
a b s t r a c t
As the planet cooled from peak warmth in the early Cenozoic, extensive Northern Hemisphere ice sheets
developed by 2.6 Ma ago, leading to changes in the circulation of both the atmosphere and oceans. From
w2.6 to w1.0 Ma ago, ice sheets came and went about every 41 ka, in pace with cycles in the tilt of
Earth’s axis, but for the past 700 ka, glacial cycles have been longer, lasting w100 ka, separated by brief,
warm interglaciations, when sea level and ice volumes were close to present. The cause of the shift from
41 ka to 100 ka glacial cycles is still debated. During the penultimate interglaciation, w130 to w120 ka
ago, solar energy in summer in the Arctic was greater than at any time subsequently. As a consequence,
Arctic summers werew5 C warmer than at present, and almost all glaciers melted completely except for
the Greenland Ice Sheet, and even it was reduced in size substantially from its present extent. With the
loss of land ice, sea level was about 5 m higher than present, with the extra melt coming from both
Greenland and Antarctica as well as small glaciers. The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) peaked w21 ka ago,
when mean annual temperatures over parts of the Arctic were as much as 20 C lower than at present.
Ice recession was well underway 16 ka ago, and most of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets had melted
by 6 ka ago. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) w11 ka ago and has
been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy
elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1e3 C above 20th century averages,
enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice
Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially
smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was
substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished
or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean
Sigh. Learn to remove the hard line breaks before pasting and posting.
As the planet cooled from peak warmth in the early Cenozoic, extensive Northern Hemisphere ice sheets developed by 2.6 Ma ago, leading to changes in the circulation of both the atmosphere and oceans. From w2.6 to w1.0 Ma ago, ice sheets came and went about every 41 ka, in pace with cycles in the tilt of Earth’s axis, but for the past 700 ka, glacial cycles have been longer, lasting w100 ka, separated by brief, warm interglaciations, when sea level and ice volumes were close to present. The cause of the shift from 41 ka to 100 ka glacial cycles is still debated. During the penultimate interglaciation, w130 to w120 ka ago, solar energy in summer in the Arctic was greater than at any time subsequently. As a consequence, Arctic summers werew5 C warmer than at present, and almost all glaciers melted completely except for the Greenland Ice Sheet, and even it was reduced in size substantially from its present extent. With the loss of land ice, sea level was about 5 m higher than present, with the extra melt coming from both Greenland and Antarctica as well as small glaciers. The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) peaked w21 ka ago, when mean annual temperatures over parts of the Arctic were as much as 20 C lower than at present. Ice recession was well underway 16 ka ago, and most of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets had melted by 6 ka ago. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) w11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1e3 C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean
Please explain?
Thanks Neville, a nice abstract.
Thanks Michael, for the easier read!
Neville, sometimes (especially from pdfs) copying also takes across the line break symbols. If you first copy/paste into MS Word (or similar), you may note that the text does not reformat to the page size. Turn on line break markings and you can see them. A find/replace (usually find ^p and replace with a space) will sort it out, but you may need a few manual edits.
You can write a simple Word macro (I have) that will replace paragraph markers with spaces in highlighted text. It’s much more foolproof and faster than doing it by hand. But you should apply it to paragraphs individually, or you will have to replace some spaces with paragraph markers.
PS: This macro is something that WordPress should incorporate. (But won’t, you can be sure.)
“Arctic summers were 5 C warmer than at present, and almost all glaciers melted completely except for
the Greenland Ice Sheet, and even it was reduced in size substantially from its present extent … although the Greenland Ice
Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present …”.
=================
Nu poți împăca și capra și varza ( You can’t reconcile the goat and the cabbage ).
Real scientists doing real field work have clearly shown that, in MELTING PERMAFROST, the life in it wakes up and QUICKLY BECOMES A CARBON SINK, THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE ALARMIST CLAIMS.
I’m no chemist, but isn’t IR absorbed by molecular bonds, not “carbon,” as Dr. Naftali asserts in this garbled statement – “the less fossil fuels we emit, the less carbon that is released from permafrost”? So for example, the bonds in H2O, N-O, N-H, N=N=N and numerous other chemical species also absorb IR and presumably contribute to “climate change” despite being free of carbon. And “less” should be fewer, or “fuels” should be fuel if she insists on saying less. (Can she really have a PhD?) More importantly, isn’t the bigger problem for warmists burning fossil fuels rather than emitting them? Fuel seems an odd word choice combined with emit. Methane emitted by permafrost isn’t used as a fuel. Or maybe she means natural gas escaping from drilling operations or gasoline spills at the gas station, or pipeline leaks.
All she cared about was getting the words ” climate change” or ” global warming ” in there so she could get more grant money !!!!
So again, other than road cuts, excavations, open pit mines, site grading operations, trenching and other disturbances, where is this melting permafrost? Let’s see some science demonstrating mass permafrost loss in non-disturbed areas.
Oh dear.
That graph is just all wrong.
WHOI once upon a time studied oceanography things like the Atlantic Ocean.
I suppost that since the “We’ve hit a critical de-salinatization point” was a failure they will try “We’ve hit a critical carbonization point”. After COP21 fails they might just go back to oceanography. Let’s hope.
Ha ha
PS Funny in the LA Times on the El Nino that is “too big to fail”.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-84657283/
That’s like someone from WHOI saying, “my chance of breaking the bank is too big to fail”. Casino’s love people this these, and for good reason.
Ja ja
“That graph is just all wrong.”
It’s one of the world’s most valuable graphs.
It’s a visual representation of hubris and failure to learn from and adapt to new evidence.
As Keynes once said, “when the fact’s chance, I change my mind”.
Not these people. They just kept on making the same daft failed prediction, even in light of repeated failure.
Imagine if this had been a trend in currency or stock value, and they had been an analyst working for an investment firm.
I think that we can safely say that they would have been out of a job.
Not in climate science modelling.
Where being wrong all of the time has become perfectly acceptable.
And where the output of models is so respected for it’s veracity that it is known as “data” and other such “data” is “checked” against it. Thus creating a world where illusions are conformed to other illusions.
In the minds of the obsessive doom-mongers, their predictions have a more concrete reality in their minds than the reality which they presume to predict.
Hence, they are still discussing their anticipated methane explosion, even though reality has concertedly refused play along.
Reality is just another annoyance, like skeptics.
Maybe it should be investigated or prosecuted under RICO.
“Not these people. They just kept on making the same daft prediction, even in light of repeated failure……..
Where being wrong all of the time has become perfectly acceptable.”
Was it Einstein who described this state as being INSANE?
Before this is over there will be models that show arctic conditions are becoming unlivable for tundra unicorns.
On my recent trip I found that unicorn numbers had already dwindled significantly.
After several days of “research” we did successfully capture a unicorn like creature, but on closer inspection it was discovered that some joker had strapped the tusk off a narwhal onto a shetland pony, as a prank, to wind us up. And one of our researchers was severely gored in the process.
I suppose that this is the price that we pay for doing real “science” in the field.
“I suppose that this is the price that we pay for doing real “science” in the field.”
It would have been far easier and much safer to just model the habitats of the unicorn, and project the population contraction, Field work all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
Add to that, the fact that the Arctic was basically ice free in summer for a substantial part of the first 3/4 of the Holocene,…
.. and guess what…. all that permafrost methane had NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER….
In fact…….The Earth got COLDER. !!
But it will be completely different with anthropogenic global warming. In that case the methane will bubble up.
Besides, the holocenic warm Arctic was only a local phenomena and it will be much worser now. Actually there never was no warm period. Mann said he removed the blip. WMO will publish the updated graph with instrumental temps grafted on in a jiffy./sarc
And the use of areas graphed by radius ratios is just outright PROPAGANDA TRASH worthy only of a low end junior high student.
Arctic 21. Agenda 21. What’s the difference?
All 5 of the Dem candidates mentioned solving “climate change” in their opening statements!!!
I thought this was last on the list of voters…
can’t see the public being convinced:
13 Oct: Yorkshire Evening Post: Weather warning: Yorkshire ‘set for months of snow’
AN early weather warning has been issued across the UK as experts forecast months of heavy show in what is expected to be the worst winter in half-a-century…
The forecast shows snow is expected to start falling in Yorkshire in December and continue until March, although the earliest snowfall could arrive by early November…
It is thought low temperatures, snowfall and north-easterly winds in Russia have encouraged Bewick’s swans to start their westwards migration through Europe early this year. The swans have also been spotted on lakes in the Netherlands…
Unsually cold weather has developed over a large part of continental Europe and is likely to persist through this week with temperatures around 5-10 degrees below average. Daytime temperatures in Russia on Monday were around 3-4C which is more like the average nighttime temperature for this time of year…
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/trending/weather-warning-yorkshire-set-for-months-of-snow-1-7511317
13 Oct: Globe Newswire: As Snow Creeps Down From The Himalayas, World Patent Marketing Reviews the Cost of Developing the Driveway Snow Blanket The New York Inventor Exchange approves Driveway Snow Blanket for licensing and trading intellectual property rights
MIAMI, Fla. via PRWEB – World Patent Marketing, a vertically integrated manufacturer and engineer of patented products, announces the Driveway Snow Blanket, a snow melting invention that helps people in clearing snow away from the streets and driveways.
“The Snowplowing Services industry is worth $17 billion and will continue to grow at 3.8% per year,” says Scott Cooper, CEO and Creative Director of World Patent Marketing and Desa Industries Inc. “In the next five years, industry revenue growth will go higher as we experience colder winters with higher levels of winter precipitation.”…
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/10/13/775540/10152333/en/As-Snow-Creeps-Down-From-The-Himalayas-World-Patent-Marketing-Reviews-the-Cost-of-Developing-the-Driveway-Snow-Blanket.html
13 Oct: Accuweather: Early-Season Snow to Whiten Germany by Wednesday
By Kristina Pydynowski, Senior Meteorologist
Fritzlar should also see snow, marking the earliest such occurrence in October since Oct. 5, 1994, according to AccuWeather Meteorologist Tyler Roys…
The impending snow may be a preview of what is expected this winter with the AccuWeather Long Range Forecasting Team anticipating an elevated threat for snowfall events across Germany later this winter.
I personally saw a small group of Brent Geese arrive in the Somerset Levels last week which is a VERY early appearance for them. November is usually when they start to arrive. This of course is more a sign of bad weather where they were rather than an indicator for here but given the effect a cold central European air mass can have its a little worrying.
Ya know, the warmists might want to tone down all their belly aching about all the carbon in the permafrost. They don’t really want to draw attention to it. ‘Cuz if there’s that much, it is only a matter of time before some enterprising company figures out out to harvest the stuff so we can burn it.
tragic:
13 Oct: The Hill: Sanders: Climate change is biggest national security threat
“The scientific community is telling us: if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be inhabitable,” the Vermont Independent said during the first Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas.
“That is a major crisis,” he said to strong applause and cheering from the crowd in attendance.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley also mentioned climate change as one of the top national security threats, saying it “makes cascading threats even worse.”…
O’Malley has repeatedly highlighted global warming as a top security threat, inviting mockery from Republicans and others. But he has doubled down on his statements, even saying that climate change is partly to blame for the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
President Obama has made similar assessments…
All candidates except Webb mentioned the need to fight climate change in their opening statements.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/256859-sanders-climate-is-biggest-national-security-threat
They are going to Reykjavik, Iceland? Been there, done it. Keflavik also, and all points in between. There is not 1 square inch of permafrost in Iceland! What a bunch of money stealing, sociopathic people who ought to be in an asylum, or better yet, jail.
Iceland has ‘a floor heating’ installed, but it doesn’t even need any permafrost, it has glaciers instead.
To mwh: The 2 degree limit is according to professor Phil Jones (the mother of all climate alarmists) “pulled out of thin air” (quotation verbatim). So much for the science behind it.
We got 2C already since 1800, and no-one complains. 60°N, average yearly temp around +4°C. I could do with 10°C more, but of course that would not yet allow banana production.
No we haven’t because there is no reliable global data before the 1850’s, although agree most would hardly notice the difference if we had.
There is barely 0.7 c rise since 1860’s
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/plot/hadcrut4gl
Just to add 60 N or just below covers parts of the world where temperature increases are hardly any different to global. For regions 64 N+ temperatures have warmed more than 2 c since 1980’s, but they also cooled more than 2 c until 1970’s.
Shown below the surface land warming in the Arctic, but satellites disagree and likely due to bias selection of places surface stations are placed. Only land surface stations with no coverage of Arctic ocean, with latter that warms and cools much more slowly.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/ArcticTempsSurface1936_zpspod7pd2i.png
I’m not talking about any global data, but my place here in the North.
2C did little and definitely no harm.
[“did a little good and definitely no harm” ? >mod]
Nullschool Earth is a great tool to actually show people what conditions are like in the Arctic and Antarctic.
will somebody PLEASE put the nail in the coffin on this crap.
….another round of climategate emails?
……..wife of one of the protagonists discovering a conscience and posting some tape recordings?
…………..one of the major players fessing up to the data-doctoring and ratting out?
we all know it is going to happen sooner or later….nobody fools everybody forever. AG, KT, MM, and the like will all go into the history books as slime no less fecal than Bernie Madoff, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, and VW. It isn’t a matter of “if”, it is only a matter of “when”. Whoever comes clean first will get some credo for having a conscience…..who will it be?
Updated methane concentration data seems to be either disappearing or it’s presented in a shoddy fashion. For example, here’s a link to an EPA methane chart. Not only is it out of date, it has a bungled comment (it refers to ozone, but the chart is said to be methane):
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/ghg-concentrations.html
Or try going here, an European reference page. The charts disappeared, but try going to the “New!” Link. See if you can find the methane graph. I couldn’t find it.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/atmospheric-concentration-of-ch4-ppb-1
“Humans have 275 petagrams of carbon left to emit to stay this side of the 2C threshold”
This is extraordinarily precise with an assumption that it is certain that the atmosphere will respond to carbon and if it did just like a domestic thermostat. Also Carbon is an abundant element so how can we emit it as it’s already here and does that mean that life is bad because it is carbon based? What kind of mark would this statement get in a school science exam?
The 3 circles figure is a classic example of “How to Lie with Statistics”. Unusually, the actual numbers are given (in smaller letters).
The use of the diameter of the circles to represent the amount is downright dishonest. A casual reading will get the impression (based on the coloured areas) that the permafrost is far and away the largest source while it is actually less than half the total. This assumes the numbers mean anything at all. The figures are for “carbon” storage on land, whatever this means, The ocean that the Woods Hole people are so keen on studying is ignored. I wonder why?
Anyone producing rubbish figures like this need to be sacked from science and put into PR.
Yes and it seems everyone is talking about Carbon and not CO2. This subject is supposed to be a science?
In the last 800,000 years, methane never got above 800 ppb, despite going through:
– 8 interglacials,
– including the last Eemian interglacial in which Arctic temperatures were about 5C warmer than today; and
– the interglacial 400,000 years ago which lasted for about 25,000 years, the longest one yet.
Therefore, even when Arctic temperatures are 5C higher than today and even when the interglacial lasts 10,000 years longer than the current one has, the methane time bomb in the Arctic never goes off.
Today, we are at 1750 ppb methane mostly because of natural gas releases from the oil and gas industry and, in all the last 8 interglacials, it never got above 800 ppb. (and then there is Willis’ post from a few days ago which shows that at these very low parts per billion concentrations, methane produces little if any climate forcing).
http://depagter.com/peakoil/img/CO2andCH4.jpg
Plus garbage dumps, irrigation, a few others … but not permafrost melting.
Despite all the panic about declining Arctic sea ice and warming there, satellites don’t show that much warming there. This data set covers more of the Arctic region area than any other and considered to be the best observation tool there.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/UAH_ArcticTemps1979_zpstf88xnmu.png
Since 2001 there has been little warming in the Arctic and yet GISS apparently say recent warming in global temperatures are warming more due to covering more Arctic regions. Funny that GISS shows more warming since 2001 then previous years in the Arctic, that showed much more warming via satellite.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/UAH_ArcticTemps2001_zps4ffhcszg.png
That is one hell of a turn around to show much more warming since 2001 when there has been hardly any.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/GlobalvDifference1997-98ElNino_zps8wmpmvfy.png
If there wasn’t any science evidence that tampering was occurring than this adds the final nails to the coffin.
“Given that permafrost contains almost twice as much carbon as the atmosphere, permafrost thaw and the subsequent loss of carbon from permafrost has the potential to throw a wrench in current policy solutions to contain global warming,” said Dr. Max Holmes, a Senior Scientist at WHRC.
++++++++
The fact that permafrost contains carbon does not mean that it will emerge as either CO2 or methane. The concept is flawed. The carbon content of soil is not zero. While it is certain that some of the canbonaceous material will decompose to methane and CO2 there is nothing we know about Arctic soils that indicates the soils will void themselves of carbon it the temperature rises above freezing.
Quite the opposite. Once it is warm enough to grow plants, vegetation will sequester Carbon from the air at a rate dependent on the local climate including the availability of water. These rates are well known from adjacent areas where permafrost used to exist.
If melting permafrost were truly to transform into gaseous emissions then tropical peat bogs, which are very similar to melted permafrost, would long ago have vanished. Anoxic peat bogs preserve biomass very well, even bodies of deceased humans, for centuries. So too anoxic sodden soils in Alaska and Siberia.
The alarm raised about melting permafrost causing runaway global warming is completely false and no aspect of our collected scientific knowledge supports the claims. They are baseless and against common sense.