Yet, still the data doesn’t support it. As I reported two days ago, the sea level threat just isn’t there. Oh noes! Sea level rising three times faster than expected (again) and we’ve heard it before, right before the 2009 Copenhagen conference. This appears to be nothing more than recycled alarm.
Steve Goddard plotted a telling graph comparing sea level rates:
The image below shows actual sea level rise in blue measured by Envisat, versus the claimed rate of the experts (green) (15 mm /year.)
Even the University of Colorado Sea Level trend only shows 3 mm per year, not 15mm, as would be required to get the sort of sea level rises they are talking about
From Lund university:
Effects of climate change in the Arctic more extensive than expected
A much reduced covering of snow, shorter winter season and thawing tundra. The effects of climate change in the Arctic are already here. And the changes are taking place significantly faster than previously thought. This is what emerges from a new research report on the Arctic, presented in Copenhagen this week. Margareta Johansson, from Lund University, is one of the researchers behind the report.
Together with Terry Callaghan, a researcher at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Margareta is the editor of the two chapters on snow and permafrost.
“The changes we see are dramatic. And they are not coincidental. The trends are unequivocal and deviate from the norm when compared with a longer term perspective”, she says.
The Arctic is one of the parts of the globe that is warming up fastest today. Measurements of air temperature show that the most recent five-year period has been the warmest since 1880, when monitoring began. Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years. As a consequence, the snow cover in May and June has decreased by close to 20 per cent. The winter season has also become almost two weeks shorter – in just a few decades. In addition, the temperature in the permafrost has increased by between half a degree and two degrees.
“There is no indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw”, says Margareta Johansson.
Large quantities of carbon are stored in the permafrost.
“Our data shows that there is significantly more than previously thought. There is approximately double the amount of carbon in the permafrost as there is in the atmosphere today”, says Margareta Johansson.
The carbon comes from organic material which was “deep frozen” in the ground during the last ice age. As long as the ground is frozen, the carbon remains stable. But as the permafrost thaws there is a risk that carbon dioxide and methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, will be released, which could increase global warming.
“But it is also possible that the vegetation which will be able to grow when the ground thaws will absorb the carbon dioxide. We still know very little about this. With the knowledge we have today we cannot say for sure whether the thawing tundra will absorb or produce more greenhouse gases in the future”, says Margareta Johansson.
Effects of this type, so-called feedback effects, are of major significance for how extensive global warming will be in the future. Margareta Johansson and her colleagues present nine different feedback effects in their report. One of the most important right now is the reduction of the Arctic’s albedo. The decrease in the snow- and ice-covered surfaces means that less solar radiation is reflected back out into the atmosphere. It is absorbed instead, with temperatures rising as a result. Thus the Arctic has entered a stage where it is itself reinforcing climate change.
The future does not look brighter. Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees. In Canada, the uppermost metres of permafrost will thaw on approximately one fifth of the surface currently covered by permafrost. The equivalent figure for Alaska is 57 per cent. The length of the winter season and the snow coverage in the Arctic will continue to decrease and the glaciers in the area will probably lose between 10 and 30 per cent of their total mass. All this within this century and with grave consequences for the ecosystems, existing infrastructure and human living conditions.
New estimates also show that by 2100, the sea level will have risen by between 0.9 and 1.6 metres, which is approximately twice the increase predicted by the UN’s panel on climate change, IPCC, in its 2007 report. This is largely due to the rapid melting of the Arctic icecap. Between 2003 and 2008, the melting of the Arctic icecap accounted for 40 per cent of the global rise in sea level.
“It is clear that great changes are at hand. It is all happening in the Arctic right now. And what is happening there affects us all”, says Margareta Johansson.
The report “Impacts of climate change on snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic” has been compiled by close to 200 polar researchers. It is the most comprehensive synthesis of knowledge about the Arctic that has been presented in the last six years. The work was organised by the Arctic Council’s working group for environmental monitoring (the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme) and will serve as the basis for the IPCC’s fifth report, which is expected to be ready by 2014.
Besides Margareta Johansson, Torben Christensen from Lund University also took part in the work.
For more information:
Margareta Johansson, Division of Physical Geography and Ecosystems Analysis, Lund University, telephone: 046-2224480, mobile: 070-6842965, email: Margareta.Johansson@nateko.lu.se
Terry Callaghan, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, email: terry_callaghan@btinternet.com
Read more information on the report and The Artic as a messenger for global processes – climate change and pollution conference in Copenhagen where it is being presented today.
So now the greenies are predicting a melted Arctic devoid of ice. Reminds me of some here who predicted a dead Sun, devoid of spots, asleep in a grand minimum frozen Earth epic.
Watching a trend without understanding its mechanisms is a primrose path. The world continues to turn, the trade winds continue to exist, the pressure differentials between the equator and polar regions continue to work they way they should. The mechanisms for our weather pattern variations are still in place.
If you want to put your butt on the line (reverently referred to as the model trend line) and placard us with Armegeddon warning, be prepared to be kicked in the arse by the trendline you stand on to raise your Chicken Little warning.
The article states explicity that this report “will serve as the basis for the IPCC’s fifth report, which is expected to be ready by 2014.”
If that is the case then some very smart skeptics need to dismantle the claims piece by piece before then. Sarcasm and witticism, entertaining though they may be, will not suffice. I hope Fred Singer is on top of this.
Speaking of Sol.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/synoptic/sunspots_earth/mdi_sunspots_1024.jpg
Wow, looks like we are all gonna die in a fiery flood!!!!!! Now, I ain’ts no climate scince thingie guy, and may need some help countin’ all them there sunpot thingamajiggers. Looks like,,,,,,,2.
Was not some environutjob saying just a few weeks ago that the “exceptionally quiescent minimum phase” was over and there was to be a major increase beginning in March? If they are as accurate with sea level increase and Arctic Sea ice melt as with sunspot prediction, why is anyone giving them money?
“There is no indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw”, says Margareta Johansson.
Interesting way of thinking. It is not looking for supporting evidence of a changed condition where permafrost is going to continue to thaw. Instead it is concluding that nothing proves the opposite.
If tomorrow is warmer than today, than it can esily be stated that there is no evidence that the heat increase will stop. Based on that, the temperature can be predicted to reach 200 degree Celcius in just a few months. What happeed to science using thesis together with reasonable null hypotheses?
— Mats —
2Hotel9 says:
May 5, 2011 at 3:13 am
Really, Kamp? Got any actual proof to support that?
Depends. What is ‘actual proof’ for you? (with AGW-skeptics, this always depends. Don’t worry. I’m used to receiving either nil answer to this simple question, or some ad hominem remark).
RR Kampen says:
May 5, 2011 at 8:37 am
2Hotel9 says:
May 5, 2011 at 3:13 am
Really, Kamp? Got any actual proof to support that?
Depends. What is actual proof for you? (with AGW-skeptics, this always depends. Dont worry. Im used to receiving either nil answer to this simple question, or some ad hominem remark).
—
Translation – “No, I don’t have any proof. I just like to tweak you d*niers here at WUWT”
The Arctic is one of the parts of the globe that is warming up fastest today. Measurements of air temperature show that the most recent five-year period has been the warmest since 1880, when monitoring began. Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years.
Effects of this type, so-called feedback effects, are of major significance for how extensive global warming will be in the future. Margareta Johansson and her colleagues present nine different feedback effects in their report. One of the most important right now is the reduction of the Arctic’s albedo. The decrease in the snow- and ice-covered surfaces means that less solar radiation is reflected back out into the atmosphere. It is absorbed instead, with temperatures rising as a result. Thus the Arctic has entered a stage where it is itself reinforcing climate change.
The future does not look brighter. Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees.
Then please would they explain how we got into the ‘Little Ice Age’ if the increased temperatures create runnaway warming? Remember the Greenland graves buried in current permafrost?
Roots of plants and deep Viking graves found in South Greenland in soil that is now tjaele (permafrost or permanently frozen ground) indicate that the annual mean temperature must have been 2-4°C warmer than now. It is possible to estimate the summer temperature on the basis of the story in Landnámabók (985-1000) about Thorkel Farserk, who swam out to Hvalsey (in Hvalseyfiord) in order to fetch a sheep to make a feast for his cousin, Erik the Red. By way of comparison, Dr. Pugh from The Medical Research Laboratories in England has established on the basis of studies of Channel swimmers and the like, that 10°C would be the lowest temperature that a man who had not been in special training would be able to endure, even if he was fat. The average August temperature of the water in the fiords along this coast now rarely exceeds 6°C. The water in Thorkel’s time must therefore have been at least 4° warmer and probably more than that. The summer temperatures (for the air) in the fiords in South Greenland would then have been 13-14°C (as compared with the present 8-10°C), and in Godthaab’s fiord about 12°C, with a correspondingly shorter growth season. Further north around Melville Bay the summer temperatures would have been 9-10°C, as compared with the present 3-5°C.
http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/vinland/othermysteries/climate/4157en.html
155% of normal snow pack for 5 May
http://snowpack.water-data.com/uppercolorado/index.php
http://graphs.water-data.com/ucsnowpack/
DD More says:
May 5, 2011 at 11:00 am
The MWP was localised and longer lasting than the present day temperature in Greenland. I think that’s fairly well documented and explains that observation.
FYI Anthony: today on NPR/PRI there was an interview with your friend Walt Meier, after which the hostess concluded,
In the interview, Dr. Meier focused on melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica, which he claims was proceeding at a rapid pace, and yes, he did say that sea levels could rise “three to five feet.”
Might be worth exploring this new paper in a separate post.
/Mr Lynn
I have one question:
Where are the pictures?
my background is engineering and so a couple of questions rise to mind.
water is an ultimately flexible medium. it literally moves if you look at it. (we can detect storm surges from even the mildest weather at great distances.)
and then there are gravitational anomolies (the “hump” in the mid atlantic.)
water is pulled around by the moon, stars, planets and other heavenly bodies. some of these movements have not been explained to any degree of accuracy yet.
then we have density/volume fluctuations caused by temperature, impurities, even fish f^&%ing.
and so i say that if one of the scientists are predicting a rise of sealevel of .00001″ they must tell us just where and when that rise will occour. otherwise it seems to me to be simply speculation with funding in mind.
so just where is sea level measured?
are the instruments calibrated, are the calibration instruments traceable and what was the date for that?
what day and what time is the great happening going to occour?
vast numbers of people want to know (some of them so they can set up hotdog stands on the site in anticipation of the event. )
C
Andy Wehrle says:
May 5, 2011 at 7:03 am
You are absolutely right about that. It is fun and relatively easy to cast aspersions at the holes in the arguments of AGW proponents (I’m trying to be diplomatic). But, as it is said – these people ain’t playin’.
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” – Thomas Jefferson
Colerado University plots a sea level trend of 3mm increase a year. Hmm, thats 3cm a decade and, let me see, 3 metres increase in 100o years…OMG… Noah’s flood is with us still!
Frank K. says:
May 5, 2011 at 9:23 am
[..]
Depends. What is actual proof for you? (with AGW-skeptics, this always depends. Dont worry. Im used to receiving either nil answer to this simple question, or some ad hominem remark).
–
-> Translation – “No, I don’t have any proof. I just like to tweak you d*niers here at WUWT”
Thank you, you live up to my expectations. Excellently.
A hint. Check out the pool of open water over the North Pole.
Check out where the bulk of the ice is – it is at the Bering Strait side (Chuckci, Beaufort, East-Siberian seas). This region sees the fastest melt in summer, early autumn and especially since 2005 becomes ice free.
OK, Kamp, you are at least honest enough to admit you have no actual proof. We get it.
“A hint. Check out the pool of open water over the North Pole.” Really? Reeaalllyyy, Marge? You mean the pool of open water underneath several meters of solid ice?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I especially love this from the May 4 entry,”Slow start to summer sea ice melt”
Here, look long and lovingly at the image taken at the end of April, http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110504_Figure1.png Wow, that ice is just vanishing before your eyes! Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
2Hotel9 says:
May 6, 2011 at 3:44 am
OK, Kamp, you are at least honest enough to admit you have no actual proof. We get it.
OK 2Ote9, what do YOU consider ‘actual proof’?
(given my the succes of my expectation of getting nil answer to this simple question, I would take increasing heed of my expectations re Arctic sea ice!).
Poor Kamp, can’t follow links or grasp reality. I know! Tell us about the Hockey Stick Graph again, that will end the debate! OOh, ooh, ooh, I know! Trot out the UN’s IPCC report. That will show us.
Here, lets us try this again, you click your pointer thingie on the purple letters
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ and it will magically take you to another place, which has “information” about the Arctic and its ice. Now, you are going to have to read, even though there are purty pictures and whatnot, in order to understand what is going on. Although, you can just check http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110504_Figure1.png and just look at the image, it should get reality through to you. Maybe.
SteveE:
Your post at May 5, 2011 at 1:27 pm is both silly and disingenuous.
The paper being discussed in this thread asserts that “3 to 7 deg.C” of warming would cause permafrost to melt with resulting ‘runaway’ warming. But DD More provided evidence at at May 5, 2011 at 11:00 am which clearly indicates that a thousand years ago the temperatures in Greenland were at least 4 deg.C higher than now. On the basis of that evidence he asked;
“Then please would they explain how we got into the ‘Little Ice Age’ if the increased temperatures create runnaway warming?”
Now, that is a serious question which deserves an answer.
But your reply says, in full:
“The MWP was localised and longer lasting than the present day temperature in Greenland. I think that’s fairly well documented and explains that observation.”
Firstly, it does not matter if “MWP was localised and longer lasting than the present day temperature in Greenland” because that cannot affect the answer to the question from DD More in any way.
Secondly, the MWP was NOT localised: it was world-wide. And this is documented by hundreds of research papers; follow the links from
http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/globalmwp.php
Your response would satisfy those who attend warmist web sites. But readers of WUWT can think and are capable of checking assertions such as yours.
Richard
Somewhat tangentially related. The PTB finally admitted that the sea level here on the West Coast of the US is falling. Of course they inserted all sorts of caveats “PDO, blah, blah, blah … eventually AGW will make it surge in the opposite direction, blah, blah, blah.” Still … 🙂
Oh dearie 2Hotel9, you will have guessed I know those sites too well and so much longer than you and what is so much more: I can interpret them. Naturally, these facts are taboo, as facts are, no?
I really like your bending over backwards to skirt my simple question. What is actual proof (prod, prod)?
Yep, checked again this morning and, still, no “open pool of water” at the North Pole. Wow, that actual proof you can not produce keeps coming around to kick you in your a$$ every single day.