Models have always been a poor substitute for reality, especially the supermodels. That said, some models are clearly more revealing than others, and it is these models on which we should spend most of our attention. What you never want to do, is presume a model is exposing truth. It is far better for the average person to assume that what they’re seeing in the model is a half-truth that can turn into self-deception about the worthiness of the model. It is only through laying the model bare in the sunlight to invite the criticisms of all that its flaws and strengths are exposed. It is this which we should be doing as often as possible.
/what? I’m talking about software.
Stephen Brown
February 18, 2011 8:12 am
I was drinking a cup of tea when I clicked on the “continue reading” link and saw Josh’s latest.
To whom should I send the bill for my new keyboard! 🙂
Jeremy says:
February 18, 2011 at 7:38 am
“It is only through laying the model bare in the sunlight to invite the criticisms of all that its flaws and strengths are exposed.”
You must be in Britain. Here in the USA we have learned that we must also obtain all of the model’s medical records. Otherwise, we don’t know if the internals have been jerry-rigged to present a pleasing exterior.
MikeCal
February 18, 2011 8:37 am
Love the *Elastic Truth* part.
I might have made the *Hidden Decline* arrow a bit longer (pointing to the center).
Thanks
Activating the Carbon Brief could neutralize that funny dead rat smell.
Metryq
February 18, 2011 10:39 am
When does Al get a public debriefing?
AndrewWH
February 18, 2011 11:18 am
Josh, I think the full component is referred to the “Pouch Panel Protective Peer-Review Padlock”. It is an erm… combination lock.
JS in SD
February 18, 2011 12:41 pm
How about an extreme event leaking out of the briefs?
P Gosselin
February 18, 2011 1:11 pm
Does it have low alibido?
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
February 18, 2011 1:12 pm
What up Josh, who you is!
Love the cartoons man. I am thinking about starting a site titled “realclimate2” and the objective of the site will be to ridicule the grand dragons of the global warming movement and their sister sites like Tamino. They’re all cowards who hide behind walls of comment moderation screens. The way the site will work is I will paste comments from losers at sites like realclimate and spin topics off the comments like why the people are such losers and cowards. Unlike those sites, there will be no moderation whatsover, unless the FBI comes directly to my house and threatens to put me in jail. Seriously, I want an anything goes site, complete with swearing and personal attacks. I find it insulting to my intelligence that a portion of my tax dollars go to funding a sham site like realclimate. But unlike those cowards, I will let them respond on my site. Anyone who is interested, please let me know. I’m going to bother doing it unless I have some interest. Josh, I have some great cartoon suggestions.
P Gosselin
February 18, 2011 1:13 pm
Is it made by Fruit of the Doom?
Zeke the Sneak
February 18, 2011 1:16 pm
Theo Goodwin says:
February 18, 2011 at 8:36 am
“You must be in Britain. Here in the USA we have learned that we must also obtain all of the model’s medical records. Otherwise, we don’t know if the internals have been jerry-rigged to present a pleasing exterior.”
Well that is another black mark upon the alarmists. Silicone gel it turned out is perfectly safe – in fact it has even saved lives. So if it is a choice between the neurotoxin mercury in one’s home light fixtures in its volatalized form, or silicon enhancements which model ideal conditions (while preserving sensitive feedback within the system), I know which element men of science must choose. I mean for safety’s sake. Zeke
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
February 18, 2011 1:26 pm
Awaiting moderation! Anthony are you kidding me? Dude, the whole moderation thing is for the cowards at realclimate and it’s sister sites. You don’t need to have a moderation screening thingy.
[Reply: You don’t see some of the vile posts that get deleted. ~dbs, mod.]
The “DUDS” are on inside out,you know ,green on the outside,red on the inside,and “BACK TO FRONT”as well,like , Co2 comes after temperature and the Ocean warms the atmosphere not the other way round.
Konrad
February 18, 2011 2:16 pm
“Made from super non-transparent material”? Does this mean the AGW believers are admitting the fundamental flaw in the emperors’ new clothes?
Scott
February 18, 2011 3:05 pm
An upgrade to “long johns” would not go astray. They come with a flap at the back.
1DandyTroll
February 18, 2011 3:16 pm
What all the art work really paints is the truth. A bunch of crazies trying to paint the rational folks as insane because those “insane” folks are being rational.
What is the real mental state of crazed hippies really? Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, Romm, et al.
Compared to Watts, Pielke jr and his senior, Bastardi, Lidzen, Svalgaard, et al. Christ even Lord Monckton is behaving properly and adhering to ethics even when he’s smearing the opponents with verbal post-bananas.
So on the faithful die hard believer fanatical side you’ve got a bunch of anxiety ridden, stricken with chronic depression, paranoid to a fault, for what appears to be, schizoid personalities, who shout about end of the world stuff being perpetrated by evil big business and mankind. On the other side you’ve got a bunch of bores doing boring stuff that they present in a boring correctly manner to explain the current state of affairs, so to speak, all the while refraining from being judgmental, giving all information, as is, so the listener, who might happen to still be awake, can make an informed decision to come to his/her own conclusion.
Of course that might be a hard choice to make I imagine if one has gone completely and utterly bonkers to boot.
Josh, is this the version that offers a charcoal liner?
Zeke the Sneak
February 18, 2011 4:10 pm
“The thaw and decay of permafrost carbon is irreversible and accounting for the PCF will require larger reductions in fossil fuel emissions to reach a target atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
Looks like you’re going to have to add a matching carpetbag to those shorts, Josh.
Ross Brisbane says:
“BOMBSHELL.
“NSIDC bombshell: Thawing permafrost feedback will turn Arctic from carbon sink to source in the 2020s, releasing 100 billion tons of carbon [sic] by 2100”
Finally, some good news. The more CO2 the better.
[For some reason I had a mental image of Ross running around in circles and shouting, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!”☺]
BOMBSHELL.
…
while it seemed nobody was bothering to look at the gut-clenching speed with which global weather patterns (and other climate-related events) were changing. How could cautious predictions for the climate a century later be accurate when dramatic change was already occurring during a single decade?
…
What we are watching folks is the beginning of tipping points. I really pray that your tundra Northern of America parts actually freeze over.
Is there any evidence of this “gut-clenching speed” that climate is changing? Everything I see reported (other than shrill yelling and had-waving like this) tells me there is no increase in severe weather events. There is certainly a dramatic loss of life from such events over the last century.
Is there any evidence that this release of methane has not been going on all the time (with no discernible effects on the climate, mind you).
Is there any evidence (NB: models are NOT evidence) that any tipping points exist? Have they been observed in the past. Do any records indicate any such constant wild swings of climate that would be certain to exist if these tipping points existed. For example, in the MWP the temperatures rose to a greater level than today. This is pretty certain now. If these tipping points existed, and were reached through a rise in temperature (as you seem to claim) then why were these tipping points not reached then, and why did runaway warming not ensue. Same with the Roman Warm Period.
I would love to know the answers to these questions. I assume you have them, but just did not have space. Please feel free to continue.
John Whitman
February 18, 2011 6:37 pm
Josh,
Also, you could add “These briefs are endorsed by the Climate Hockey Stick team, who say ‘the briefs keep your hockey sticks safe and snug’ “.
John
Darren Parker
February 18, 2011 6:49 pm
Josh – Here’s an idea. You know the film Heat by the Director Michael Mann….parody the film poster but replace Pacino with Tamino and De Niro with the hocket stick mann.
Brian H
February 18, 2011 8:03 pm
Those methane panickers are so drunk on Catastrophism I think their crises should be called “Tippling Points”.
apachewhoknows
February 18, 2011 8:14 pm
On sale at trader Joes CO2 exchange.
Ross Brisbane
February 18, 2011 8:48 pm
Jerome,
Is there any evidence (NB: models are NOT evidence) that any tipping points exist?
Yes – This crazy notion that you can discount ALL models is purely an opinion expressed by you and holds no veracity with me. Models are calibrated to past climate sensitivity as well. The data is not plucked from nothing.
Have they been observed in the past?
Yes
Quote: Do any records indicate any such constant wild swings of climate that would be certain to exist if these tipping points existed.
Yes – tipping point can be both regional and global climate change and create population drift and even national and ethnic extinctions if the event happens too quickly. Greenland/Southern American Indians/Egypt. For example the brief little ice age event caused massive starvation across Europe, England and the Northern American continent. It is not a normal benchmark as claimed for temperature rise start and analysis. Its cause: Some of the most severe volcanic eruptions at that time causing massive ash cloud covers that plunged the world temporarily into a mini-ice age.
Climate change is when there is DISLOCATION on a massive scale and are extreme events affecting not thousands but millions or a whole nation at once.
Quote: For example, in the MWP the temperatures rose to a greater level than today. This is pretty certain now.
Limited Regional yes – globally no. Data is too spatial. Southern Europe cooler then today at the time of MWP.
Quote: If these tipping points existed, and were reached through a rise in temperature (as you seem to claim)
The most severe tipping points require a century prolonged free CO2 above 300ppm and is a quantum measurement. Your problem is that you see the tipping points in too short time framed durations.
Quote: Then why were these tipping points not reached then, and why did runaway warming not ensue.
Runaway warming cannot sighted to any measure in our present as these only exist in likely projections based by present trends.
Quote: Same with the Roman Warm Period.
These short durations of climate variance bear no correlation or magnitude of effects on humanity NOW as the world’s population at that time was way below a billion in population. You are talking of millions as opposed to billions. So any event today will affect humanity with huge impacts. There is no correlation to warming of the past 2,000 years to CO2 except in the last 175 years. We in a very different playing field and its cause is human based for the FIRST time. So you cannot correlate the direction our global climate will take in the next hundred years. The best we can derive from these events of the past is to understand the effects on those populations it presented itself to. Like crops/human occupation etc. You must also understand that we will pass 400ppm very shortly. This is not static. It will still continue to rise and have ever increasing effects, based on the radiative laws of physics.
Its about time you became aware of what’s happening now. The past will not help you.
ES
February 18, 2011 9:52 pm
Ross Brisbane @February 18, 2011 at 3:52 pm says:
What we are watching folks is the beginning of tipping points. I really pray that your tundra Northern of America parts actually freeze over.
Don’t worry , the tundra is frozen solid and the ice is nearly four feet thick. The ice road, which travels over the permafrost opened on January 28th. http://jvtcwinterroad.ca/
But thank’s for praying!
Ross Brisbane
February 18, 2011 11:39 pm
Re: Tundra – early evidence of climate shift:
Climate change leave Arctic tundra vulnerable to fire
Montana State University
March 6, 2008
The ancient sediment cores showed the shrub tundra burned as frequently as modern boreal forests in Alaska — every 140 years on average, but with some fires spaced only 30 years apart.
Higuera’s research is important because other evidence indicates that as the climate has warmed in the past 50 to 100 years, shrubs have expanded across the world’s tundra regions.
“There is evidence of increasing shrub biomass in modern tundra ecosystems, and we expect temperatures to continue to increase and overall moisture levels to decrease. Combine these two factors and it suggests a greater potential for fires,” Higuera said. “The sediment cores indicate that it’s happened before.”
The world’s high latitude tundra and boreal forest ecosystems contain roughly 30 percent of the planet’s total soil carbon. Currently, much of the carbon is locked in permafrost. But a warming climate could cause the permafrost to melt and release its carbon stores into the atmosphere where it would contribute to the greenhouse effect.
“Vegetation change through an increase in shrub biomass and more frequent burning will change a great deal of the carbon cycle in these high latitudes,” Higuera said. “We don’t fully understand the implications, except that it’s reasonable to expect that carbon that was previously locked up could enter the atmosphere.”
The paper is the first in a series Higuera expects to publish from his field work. Future papers will examine how climate, vegetation, and fire regimes have interacted over the past 15,000 years in the region.
Higuera was assisted in his research by MSU undergraduate Alison Kennedy, who graduated in from Earth Sciences in 2007 and co-authors Linda Brubaker and Patricia Anderson from the University of Washington, Thomas Brown from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Feng Sheng Hu from the University of Illinois. A National Parks Ecological Research Fellow, Higuera works in the Paleoecology Lab led by MSU professor Cathy Whitlock.
Higuera PE, Brubaker LB, Anderson PM, Brown TA, Kennedy AT, et al (2008). Frequent Fires in Ancient Shrub Tundra: Implications of Paleorecords for Arctic Environmental Change. PLoS ONE 3(3): e0001744. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001744 http://www.plosone.org/doi/pone.0001744
____
Climate is like one hell a of picture puzzle – everything interlocks and not one situation stands alone as a Climate Change indicator.
@Ross Brisbane
What an ideal source of fuel. Surely the Americans could use all that methane to power their snow dragons. That would help by converting it into harmless and beneficial CO2.
Here’s a graph of CO2 temperature forcing in W/m^2.
And here’s a graph showing the additional heating effect for each 20 ppm increase of CO2.
Now would it really matter if the CO2 concentration were increased, say tenfold to around 4000 ppmv? That’s assuming, of course, that it’s even possible to keep up with the negative feedbacks. There is no tipping point evident in these graphs, and no reason to expect to find one.
And if the MWP only affected Greenland, it hung around for an awfully long time for a local event, don’t you think?
I can assure you the permafrost is “quite safe from your pitiful little band.”
josh grella
February 19, 2011 6:03 am
Ross Brisbane says:
February 18, 2011 at 11:39 pm
“We don’t fully understand the implications, except that it’s reasonable to expect that carbon that was previously locked up could enter the atmosphere.”
Wow, Ross! You sure convinced me by quoting that obviously meticulous and flawless research and analysis. Such certainty should not be taken lightly. I mean, seriously that is some undeniable proof that humanity is causing irreversible climate damage. Now, if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go take the 40 pills that the pharmaceutical companies have told me MAY be able to control some disorder or diseaes that I just MIGHT have…
apachewhoknows
February 19, 2011 6:09 am
The guilty always return to the scene of the crime.
@Ross Brisbane
Additionally, it seems to have escaped your attention that the “carbon locked up in permafrost” was once, a part of the biosphere. We survived the warm periods when the fires burned in what is now Arctic Tundra, but you think if it warms again WE’LL ALL BE KILLED. “The sediment cores indicate that it’s happened before.”
Exactly. So what’s the problem?
-Why not include a Hockey-Stick holder, you know, the type the Black Adder had in one of his films?
Disputin
February 19, 2011 7:33 am
Ross Brisbane says:
February 18, 2011 at 3:52 pm
BOMBSHELL.
Yes, Ross, but it’s really only an acorn.
I see you have replied above to one or two criticisms, but only with further assertions. For instance:
“Is there any evidence (NB: models are NOT evidence) that any tipping points exist?
Yes – This crazy notion that you can discount ALL models is purely an opinion expressed by you and holds no veracity with me. Models are calibrated to past climate sensitivity as well. The data is not plucked from nothing.
Have they been observed in the past?
Yes”
Yes, where? and when?
Models are very handy in cases of linear responses in a fully-understood system, but climate is very far from being either linear or fully-understood. When computer modellers fight like tigers to keep their data and programs secret you should suspect something is not kosher, as Climategate showed. The code appears to be stuffed full of fiddle factors and “parameterisations” (i.e. guesses), so their forecasting skill is not unadjacent to zero. Using them to extrapolate into the distant future is pointless.
The concept of “tipping points” relies on positive feedback in which the output amplifies itself. It is inherently unstable and is therefore rare in nature (though not in Nature), as anything that was going to run away did so aeons ago. To try to claim we are approaching a tipping point now, when temperatures are well below maxima reached since the last ice age is just plain daft. So I ask again, Have any been observed in the past? If so, quote where and when.
I understand from reading your post that English may not be your first language, but phrases like “Runaway warming cannot sighted to any measure in our present as these only exist in likely projections based by present trends.” do not make any sense. I’d be grateful if you could try to rephrase that.
pascvaks
February 19, 2011 8:29 am
Little wonder that warmers insist “the science is settled”.
Little to wonder about indeed!
(Aren’t they on backwards? Where’s the.. you know.. porthole?)
Jeff Alberts
February 19, 2011 8:59 am
Sure glad you didn’t mention Stripbark. That could have been, erm, ugly.
Jeff Alberts
February 19, 2011 9:00 am
kwik says:
February 19, 2011 at 6:46 am
-Why not include a Hockey-Stick holder, you know, the type the Black Adder had in one of his films?
Or a Climate Codpiece…
Barry Day
February 19, 2011 3:49 pm
To Ross Brisbane
THE REAL BOMBSHELL. http://www.aips.net.au/908066.html
“The common issues raised by the Tall Poppies were the need for
>>increased funding<>increased job security<< within academia and increased support for interdisciplinary scientific research.
Bob Diaz
February 19, 2011 8:24 pm
If I could draw, it would have a drawing like this:
[img]http://api.ning.com/files/001eiwpSf4NRINaGy4VzNp1GP7eQI6ZNDl2RYzokjSAtKNiVkJ3ekkY1jr1yJcSc/montypythonspanishinquisition.jpg?width=504&height=375[/img]
CAPTION:
Nobody Expects The Carbon Brief!!!
Our three elements are SPAM, Misinformation, and a complete disregard for reality.
drewski
February 20, 2011 2:32 am
Climate Realists submit studies and Denialists submit cartoons — kind of sums it up don’t it?
pascvaks
February 20, 2011 5:48 am
Ref – drewski says:
February 20, 2011 at 2:32 am
Pride goeth before the fall!! “Climate Realists”?? Don’t you mean “Climate Realtors”??
It’s all about “Location! Location! Location!” with you guys, isn’t it?
Hu McCulloch
February 20, 2011 8:11 am
RE Carbon Brief’s preferred mode of communication —
twit (n): One who Twitters.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
February 20, 2011 12:46 pm
drewski said on February 20, 2011 at 2:32 am
Climate Realists submit studies and Denialists submit cartoons — kind of sums it up don’t it?
Sure does!
“Climate Denialist” is a fanciful imaginary creation meant to inspire ridicule, amusement, laughter. As countless fellow humans have done before, such a mantle is voluntarily worn for the benefit of others, as witnessed by history’s legions of Jesters, Fools, Clowns and similar. Thus submitting cartoons is very appropriate.
Meanwhile this site is chock full of Climate Realists who carefully, repeatedly, and tirelessly point out how nothing exceptional has been happening, the climate continues onward as it has for millenia, with its little fits and ripples, as we await the end of this interglacial. And they submit studies, which is appropriate as well.
You know, we should have a name for those who deny the small variations in climate that occur over periods longer than the time it takes for a young idealistic eco-activist to mature and realize there’s not much worth changing, that can point to small variances of a trace atmospheric gas as sufficient to cause waves of turbulence that will disrupt the climate and wreak havoc on the biosphere yet believe the climate is some monotonic entity that previously has existed for centuries on end with virtually no variations. Too bad “Climate Change Denier” has been co-opted. How about “Climate Variation Denier?”
bloody excellent!
Models have always been a poor substitute for reality, especially the supermodels. That said, some models are clearly more revealing than others, and it is these models on which we should spend most of our attention. What you never want to do, is presume a model is exposing truth. It is far better for the average person to assume that what they’re seeing in the model is a half-truth that can turn into self-deception about the worthiness of the model. It is only through laying the model bare in the sunlight to invite the criticisms of all that its flaws and strengths are exposed. It is this which we should be doing as often as possible.
/what? I’m talking about software.
I was drinking a cup of tea when I clicked on the “continue reading” link and saw Josh’s latest.
To whom should I send the bill for my new keyboard! 🙂
Sweeeeet, hmmmm …
It needs a front panel peer-review padlock…
Jeremy says:
February 18, 2011 at 7:38 am
“It is only through laying the model bare in the sunlight to invite the criticisms of all that its flaws and strengths are exposed.”
You must be in Britain. Here in the USA we have learned that we must also obtain all of the model’s medical records. Otherwise, we don’t know if the internals have been jerry-rigged to present a pleasing exterior.
Love the *Elastic Truth* part.
I might have made the *Hidden Decline* arrow a bit longer (pointing to the center).
Thanks
AndrewWH, very funny! I will add suggestions in to an update.
Stephen, sorry about the keyboard.
Is that Jones, Mann or Briffa?
LOL — great work Josh!
Maybe add a waist band label on the front indicating they are — inside out and backwards ; )
Carbon Brief must be having second thoughts already.
That one got me laughing out loud!
“hide the decline” … hahaha!
There are some great comments at the Bishop’s manse.
But how does it handle greenhouse gas emissions?
Where is a “blocking high stopping trade winds”? 😉
Think this is the MOST ROBUST post of the week! …..the only one without any “adjusted data” 🙂
Great work!
… methane sequestration?
Absolutely classic. What a stupid name for a web-site, deserves all it gets.
Josh’s cartoon now posted on Carbon Brief –
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/02/google-creates-21-science-communications-fellows
To be fair to them – everything is getting through moderation, including links to sceptic sources.
Since this is the first warmist site to allow free speech – I think we should make the most of it and win the argument.
Activating the Carbon Brief could neutralize that funny dead rat smell.
When does Al get a public debriefing?
Josh, I think the full component is referred to the “Pouch Panel Protective Peer-Review Padlock”. It is an erm… combination lock.
How about an extreme event leaking out of the briefs?
Does it have low alibido?
What up Josh, who you is!
Love the cartoons man. I am thinking about starting a site titled “realclimate2” and the objective of the site will be to ridicule the grand dragons of the global warming movement and their sister sites like Tamino. They’re all cowards who hide behind walls of comment moderation screens. The way the site will work is I will paste comments from losers at sites like realclimate and spin topics off the comments like why the people are such losers and cowards. Unlike those sites, there will be no moderation whatsover, unless the FBI comes directly to my house and threatens to put me in jail. Seriously, I want an anything goes site, complete with swearing and personal attacks. I find it insulting to my intelligence that a portion of my tax dollars go to funding a sham site like realclimate. But unlike those cowards, I will let them respond on my site. Anyone who is interested, please let me know. I’m going to bother doing it unless I have some interest. Josh, I have some great cartoon suggestions.
Is it made by Fruit of the Doom?
Theo Goodwin says:
February 18, 2011 at 8:36 am
“You must be in Britain. Here in the USA we have learned that we must also obtain all of the model’s medical records. Otherwise, we don’t know if the internals have been jerry-rigged to present a pleasing exterior.”
Well that is another black mark upon the alarmists. Silicone gel it turned out is perfectly safe – in fact it has even saved lives. So if it is a choice between the neurotoxin mercury in one’s home light fixtures in its volatalized form, or silicon enhancements which model ideal conditions (while preserving sensitive feedback within the system), I know which element men of science must choose. I mean for safety’s sake. Zeke
Awaiting moderation! Anthony are you kidding me? Dude, the whole moderation thing is for the cowards at realclimate and it’s sister sites. You don’t need to have a moderation screening thingy.
[Reply: You don’t see some of the vile posts that get deleted. ~dbs, mod.]
For more in this field of humour …
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/page/2/
The “DUDS” are on inside out,you know ,green on the outside,red on the inside,and “BACK TO FRONT”as well,like , Co2 comes after temperature and the Ocean warms the atmosphere not the other way round.
“Made from super non-transparent material”? Does this mean the AGW believers are admitting the fundamental flaw in the emperors’ new clothes?
An upgrade to “long johns” would not go astray. They come with a flap at the back.
What all the art work really paints is the truth. A bunch of crazies trying to paint the rational folks as insane because those “insane” folks are being rational.
What is the real mental state of crazed hippies really? Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, Romm, et al.
Compared to Watts, Pielke jr and his senior, Bastardi, Lidzen, Svalgaard, et al. Christ even Lord Monckton is behaving properly and adhering to ethics even when he’s smearing the opponents with verbal post-bananas.
So on the faithful die hard believer fanatical side you’ve got a bunch of anxiety ridden, stricken with chronic depression, paranoid to a fault, for what appears to be, schizoid personalities, who shout about end of the world stuff being perpetrated by evil big business and mankind. On the other side you’ve got a bunch of bores doing boring stuff that they present in a boring correctly manner to explain the current state of affairs, so to speak, all the while refraining from being judgmental, giving all information, as is, so the listener, who might happen to still be awake, can make an informed decision to come to his/her own conclusion.
Of course that might be a hard choice to make I imagine if one has gone completely and utterly bonkers to boot.
BOMBSHELL.
NSIDC bombshell: Thawing permafrost feedback will turn Arctic from carbon sink to source in the 2020s, releasing 100 billion tons of carbon by 2100
The permafrost permamelt contains a staggering “1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon, about twice as much carbon as contained in the atmosphere, much of which would be released as methane. Methane is 25 times as potent a heat-trapping gas as CO2 over a 100 year time horizon, but 72 times as potent over 20 years! One of the most conservative assumptions the study made, the lead author Dr. Kevin Schaefer confirmed in an email, is that all of the carbon would be released as CO2 and none as methane.
The carbon is locked in a freezer in the part of the planet warming up the fastest (see “Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss“). Countless studies make clear that global warming will release vast quantities of GHGs into the atmosphere this decade. Yet, no climate model currently incorporates the amplifying feedback from methane released by a defrosting tundra. Heck, the NSIDC/NOAA study itself doesn’t even incorporate the CO2 released by the permafrost carbon feedback into its warming model!
Even so, in their study, the permafrost is adding more than one billion tons of carbon a year to the atmosphere by the mid-2030s!
The UK’s National Oceanography Centre in Southampton reports:
The warming of an Arctic current over the last 30 years has triggered the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from methane hydrate stored in the sediment beneath the seabed.
German and British scientists “have found that more than 250 plumes of bubbles of methane gas are rising from the seabed of the West Spitsbergen continental margin in the Arctic, in a depth range of 150 to 400 metres” [See figure on right].
Methane released from gas hydrate in submarine sediments has been identified in the past as an agent of climate change. The likelihood of methane being released in this way has been widely predicted.
A lead researcher said, “Our survey was designed to work out how much methane might be released by future ocean warming; we did not expect to discover such strong evidence that this process has already started.”
http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/nocs/images/plumes_press_lg.jpg
Gnobuddy writes:
As I read the research papers appear one by one this past decade, making cautious conclusions about predicted warming a century from now, I felt as though I was watching the Rodney King trial once again – lawyers arguing for days over the legal justification for each individual brutal blow and kick by the LAPD, while ignoring the big picture that was instantly obvious to anyone at a glance: there was a brutal, vicious gang attack going on, with the victim helpless on the ground. In the same way, the climate change research papers each seemed to painstakingly address one tiny blow to the earth’s climate system, while it seemed nobody was bothering to look at the gut-clenching speed with which global weather patterns (and other climate-related events) were changing. How could cautious predictions for the climate a century later be accurate when dramatic change was already occurring during a single decade?
___________
Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming
KEVIN SCHAEFER1,*, TINGJUN ZHANG1, LORI BRUHWILER2, ANDREW P. BARRETT1
Article first published online: 15 FEB 2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0889.2011.00527.x
Tellus B © 2011 International Meteorological Institute in Stockholm No claim to original US government works
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0889/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=87bc2266fee8f558bc09030f505c67209d650566
ABSTRACT
The thaw and release of carbon currently frozen in permafrost will increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations and amplify surface warming to initiate a positive permafrost carbon feedback (PCF) on climate. We use surface weather from three global climate models based on the moderate warming, A1B Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenario and the SiBCASA land surface model to estimate the strength and timing of the PCF and associated uncertainty. By 2200, we predict a 29–59% decrease in permafrost area and a 53–97 cm increase in active layer thickness. By 2200, the PCF strength in terms of cumulative permafrost carbon flux to the atmosphere is 190 ± 64 Gt C. This estimate may be low because it does not account for amplified surface warming due to the PCF itself and excludes some discontinuous permafrost regions where SiBCASA did not simulate permafrost. We predict that the PCF will change the arctic from a carbon sink to a source after the mid-2020s and is strong enough to cancel 42–88% of the total global land sink. The thaw and decay of permafrost carbon is irreversible and accounting for the PCF will require larger reductions in fossil fuel emissions to reach a target atmospheric CO2 concentration.
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/NSDIC-Permafrost-.gif
This is not good news. The jokes about cartoons will begin wear thin.
What we are watching folks is the beginning of tipping points. I really pray that your tundra Northern of America parts actually freeze over.
Josh, is this the version that offers a charcoal liner?
“The thaw and decay of permafrost carbon is irreversible and accounting for the PCF will require larger reductions in fossil fuel emissions to reach a target atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
Looks like you’re going to have to add a matching carpetbag to those shorts, Josh.
Ross Brisbane says:
“BOMBSHELL.
“NSIDC bombshell: Thawing permafrost feedback will turn Arctic from carbon sink to source in the 2020s, releasing 100 billion tons of carbon [sic] by 2100”
Finally, some good news. The more CO2 the better.
[For some reason I had a mental image of Ross running around in circles and shouting, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!”☺]
The Carbon Sense Coalition shows the way on cutting costs on Climate Supercomputers.
Josh; how about a Carbon De-Briefing cartoon (with WUWT Rapid Response Team?)
Ross Brisbane says:
February 18, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Is there any evidence of this “gut-clenching speed” that climate is changing? Everything I see reported (other than shrill yelling and had-waving like this) tells me there is no increase in severe weather events. There is certainly a dramatic loss of life from such events over the last century.
Is there any evidence that this release of methane has not been going on all the time (with no discernible effects on the climate, mind you).
Is there any evidence (NB: models are NOT evidence) that any tipping points exist? Have they been observed in the past. Do any records indicate any such constant wild swings of climate that would be certain to exist if these tipping points existed. For example, in the MWP the temperatures rose to a greater level than today. This is pretty certain now. If these tipping points existed, and were reached through a rise in temperature (as you seem to claim) then why were these tipping points not reached then, and why did runaway warming not ensue. Same with the Roman Warm Period.
I would love to know the answers to these questions. I assume you have them, but just did not have space. Please feel free to continue.
Josh,
Also, you could add “These briefs are endorsed by the Climate Hockey Stick team, who say ‘the briefs keep your hockey sticks safe and snug’ “.
John
Josh – Here’s an idea. You know the film Heat by the Director Michael Mann….parody the film poster but replace Pacino with Tamino and De Niro with the hocket stick mann.
Those methane panickers are so drunk on Catastrophism I think their crises should be called “Tippling Points”.
On sale at trader Joes CO2 exchange.
Jerome,
Is there any evidence (NB: models are NOT evidence) that any tipping points exist?
Yes – This crazy notion that you can discount ALL models is purely an opinion expressed by you and holds no veracity with me. Models are calibrated to past climate sensitivity as well. The data is not plucked from nothing.
Have they been observed in the past?
Yes
Quote: Do any records indicate any such constant wild swings of climate that would be certain to exist if these tipping points existed.
Yes – tipping point can be both regional and global climate change and create population drift and even national and ethnic extinctions if the event happens too quickly. Greenland/Southern American Indians/Egypt. For example the brief little ice age event caused massive starvation across Europe, England and the Northern American continent. It is not a normal benchmark as claimed for temperature rise start and analysis. Its cause: Some of the most severe volcanic eruptions at that time causing massive ash cloud covers that plunged the world temporarily into a mini-ice age.
Climate change is when there is DISLOCATION on a massive scale and are extreme events affecting not thousands but millions or a whole nation at once.
Quote: For example, in the MWP the temperatures rose to a greater level than today. This is pretty certain now.
Limited Regional yes – globally no. Data is too spatial. Southern Europe cooler then today at the time of MWP.
Quote: If these tipping points existed, and were reached through a rise in temperature (as you seem to claim)
The most severe tipping points require a century prolonged free CO2 above 300ppm and is a quantum measurement. Your problem is that you see the tipping points in too short time framed durations.
Quote: Then why were these tipping points not reached then, and why did runaway warming not ensue.
Runaway warming cannot sighted to any measure in our present as these only exist in likely projections based by present trends.
Quote: Same with the Roman Warm Period.
These short durations of climate variance bear no correlation or magnitude of effects on humanity NOW as the world’s population at that time was way below a billion in population. You are talking of millions as opposed to billions. So any event today will affect humanity with huge impacts. There is no correlation to warming of the past 2,000 years to CO2 except in the last 175 years. We in a very different playing field and its cause is human based for the FIRST time. So you cannot correlate the direction our global climate will take in the next hundred years. The best we can derive from these events of the past is to understand the effects on those populations it presented itself to. Like crops/human occupation etc. You must also understand that we will pass 400ppm very shortly. This is not static. It will still continue to rise and have ever increasing effects, based on the radiative laws of physics.
Its about time you became aware of what’s happening now. The past will not help you.
Ross Brisbane @February 18, 2011 at 3:52 pm says:
What we are watching folks is the beginning of tipping points. I really pray that your tundra Northern of America parts actually freeze over.
Don’t worry , the tundra is frozen solid and the ice is nearly four feet thick. The ice road, which travels over the permafrost opened on January 28th.
http://jvtcwinterroad.ca/
But thank’s for praying!
Re: Tundra – early evidence of climate shift:
Climate change leave Arctic tundra vulnerable to fire
Montana State University
March 6, 2008
The ancient sediment cores showed the shrub tundra burned as frequently as modern boreal forests in Alaska — every 140 years on average, but with some fires spaced only 30 years apart.
Higuera’s research is important because other evidence indicates that as the climate has warmed in the past 50 to 100 years, shrubs have expanded across the world’s tundra regions.
“There is evidence of increasing shrub biomass in modern tundra ecosystems, and we expect temperatures to continue to increase and overall moisture levels to decrease. Combine these two factors and it suggests a greater potential for fires,” Higuera said. “The sediment cores indicate that it’s happened before.”
The world’s high latitude tundra and boreal forest ecosystems contain roughly 30 percent of the planet’s total soil carbon. Currently, much of the carbon is locked in permafrost. But a warming climate could cause the permafrost to melt and release its carbon stores into the atmosphere where it would contribute to the greenhouse effect.
“Vegetation change through an increase in shrub biomass and more frequent burning will change a great deal of the carbon cycle in these high latitudes,” Higuera said. “We don’t fully understand the implications, except that it’s reasonable to expect that carbon that was previously locked up could enter the atmosphere.”
The paper is the first in a series Higuera expects to publish from his field work. Future papers will examine how climate, vegetation, and fire regimes have interacted over the past 15,000 years in the region.
Higuera was assisted in his research by MSU undergraduate Alison Kennedy, who graduated in from Earth Sciences in 2007 and co-authors Linda Brubaker and Patricia Anderson from the University of Washington, Thomas Brown from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Feng Sheng Hu from the University of Illinois. A National Parks Ecological Research Fellow, Higuera works in the Paleoecology Lab led by MSU professor Cathy Whitlock.
Higuera PE, Brubaker LB, Anderson PM, Brown TA, Kennedy AT, et al (2008). Frequent Fires in Ancient Shrub Tundra: Implications of Paleorecords for Arctic Environmental Change. PLoS ONE 3(3): e0001744. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001744 http://www.plosone.org/doi/pone.0001744
____
Climate is like one hell a of picture puzzle – everything interlocks and not one situation stands alone as a Climate Change indicator.
@Ross Brisbane
What an ideal source of fuel. Surely the Americans could use all that methane to power their snow dragons. That would help by converting it into harmless and beneficial CO2.
Here’s a graph of CO2 temperature forcing in W/m^2.
And here’s a graph showing the additional heating effect for each 20 ppm increase of CO2.
Now would it really matter if the CO2 concentration were increased, say tenfold to around 4000 ppmv? That’s assuming, of course, that it’s even possible to keep up with the negative feedbacks. There is no tipping point evident in these graphs, and no reason to expect to find one.
And if the MWP only affected Greenland, it hung around for an awfully long time for a local event, don’t you think?
I can assure you the permafrost is “quite safe from your pitiful little band.”
Ross Brisbane says:
February 18, 2011 at 11:39 pm
“We don’t fully understand the implications, except that it’s reasonable to expect that carbon that was previously locked up could enter the atmosphere.”
Wow, Ross! You sure convinced me by quoting that obviously meticulous and flawless research and analysis. Such certainty should not be taken lightly. I mean, seriously that is some undeniable proof that humanity is causing irreversible climate damage. Now, if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go take the 40 pills that the pharmaceutical companies have told me MAY be able to control some disorder or diseaes that I just MIGHT have…
The guilty always return to the scene of the crime.
@Ross Brisbane
Additionally, it seems to have escaped your attention that the “carbon locked up in permafrost” was once, a part of the biosphere. We survived the warm periods when the fires burned in what is now Arctic Tundra, but you think if it warms again WE’LL ALL BE KILLED.
“The sediment cores indicate that it’s happened before.”
Exactly. So what’s the problem?
Slacko,
This link should work, no need for the public_html bit
http://endtimeclimate.org/climate/images/CO2_temp_force.jpg
Otherwise, most interesting!
And same for the second link
http://endtimeclimate.org/climate/images/CO2_heating_effect.jpg
-Why not include a Hockey-Stick holder, you know, the type the Black Adder had in one of his films?
Ross Brisbane says:
February 18, 2011 at 3:52 pm
BOMBSHELL.
Yes, Ross, but it’s really only an acorn.
I see you have replied above to one or two criticisms, but only with further assertions. For instance:
“Is there any evidence (NB: models are NOT evidence) that any tipping points exist?
Yes – This crazy notion that you can discount ALL models is purely an opinion expressed by you and holds no veracity with me. Models are calibrated to past climate sensitivity as well. The data is not plucked from nothing.
Have they been observed in the past?
Yes”
Yes, where? and when?
Models are very handy in cases of linear responses in a fully-understood system, but climate is very far from being either linear or fully-understood. When computer modellers fight like tigers to keep their data and programs secret you should suspect something is not kosher, as Climategate showed. The code appears to be stuffed full of fiddle factors and “parameterisations” (i.e. guesses), so their forecasting skill is not unadjacent to zero. Using them to extrapolate into the distant future is pointless.
The concept of “tipping points” relies on positive feedback in which the output amplifies itself. It is inherently unstable and is therefore rare in nature (though not in Nature), as anything that was going to run away did so aeons ago. To try to claim we are approaching a tipping point now, when temperatures are well below maxima reached since the last ice age is just plain daft. So I ask again, Have any been observed in the past? If so, quote where and when.
I understand from reading your post that English may not be your first language, but phrases like “Runaway warming cannot sighted to any measure in our present as these only exist in likely projections based by present trends.” do not make any sense. I’d be grateful if you could try to rephrase that.
Little wonder that warmers insist “the science is settled”.
Little to wonder about indeed!
(Aren’t they on backwards? Where’s the.. you know.. porthole?)
Sure glad you didn’t mention Stripbark. That could have been, erm, ugly.
Or a Climate Codpiece…
To Ross Brisbane
THE REAL BOMBSHELL.
http://www.aips.net.au/908066.html
“The common issues raised by the Tall Poppies were the need for
>>increased funding<>increased job security<< within academia and increased support for interdisciplinary scientific research.
If I could draw, it would have a drawing like this:
[img]http://api.ning.com/files/001eiwpSf4NRINaGy4VzNp1GP7eQI6ZNDl2RYzokjSAtKNiVkJ3ekkY1jr1yJcSc/montypythonspanishinquisition.jpg?width=504&height=375[/img]
CAPTION:
Nobody Expects The Carbon Brief!!!
Our three elements are SPAM, Misinformation, and a complete disregard for reality.
Climate Realists submit studies and Denialists submit cartoons — kind of sums it up don’t it?
Ref – drewski says:
February 20, 2011 at 2:32 am
Pride goeth before the fall!! “Climate Realists”?? Don’t you mean “Climate Realtors”??
It’s all about “Location! Location! Location!” with you guys, isn’t it?
RE Carbon Brief’s preferred mode of communication —
twit (n): One who Twitters.
drewski said on February 20, 2011 at 2:32 am
Sure does!
“Climate Denialist” is a fanciful imaginary creation meant to inspire ridicule, amusement, laughter. As countless fellow humans have done before, such a mantle is voluntarily worn for the benefit of others, as witnessed by history’s legions of Jesters, Fools, Clowns and similar. Thus submitting cartoons is very appropriate.
Meanwhile this site is chock full of Climate Realists who carefully, repeatedly, and tirelessly point out how nothing exceptional has been happening, the climate continues onward as it has for millenia, with its little fits and ripples, as we await the end of this interglacial. And they submit studies, which is appropriate as well.
You know, we should have a name for those who deny the small variations in climate that occur over periods longer than the time it takes for a young idealistic eco-activist to mature and realize there’s not much worth changing, that can point to small variances of a trace atmospheric gas as sufficient to cause waves of turbulence that will disrupt the climate and wreak havoc on the biosphere yet believe the climate is some monotonic entity that previously has existed for centuries on end with virtually no variations. Too bad “Climate Change Denier” has been co-opted. How about “Climate Variation Denier?”