Upcoming Events

International | Environment

no events match your query!

User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

forward

Cedar Lounge
For lefties too stubborn to quit

offsite link That apology over the UKIP song? 22:20 Wed Oct 22, 2014 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link A spot of bother over the Technical Group and some apparently unwelcome new arrivals 17:33 Wed Oct 22, 2014 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link A government called hope? 11:31 Wed Oct 22, 2014 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link What you want to say ? 22nd October 03:53 Wed Oct 22, 2014 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link SF, the IRA and another legacy of the conflict. 19:12 Tue Oct 21, 2014 | WorldbyStorm

Cedar Lounge >>

Dublin Opinion
Life should be full of strangeness, like a rich painting

offsite link Irish Labour movement 1889-1924: Lecture Five - 1913 Lockout 09:47 Fri Oct 17, 2014

offsite link Global Finance, Money and Power: Lecture Six - Tax Havens 07:09 Thu Oct 16, 2014

offsite link Irish Labour Movement 1889-1924: Tutorial - Erin?s hope & Class in Ireland 13:44 Mon Oct 13, 2014

offsite link Irish Labour Movement 1889-1924: Lecture Four - Jim Larkin and Larkinism 09:15 Fri Oct 10, 2014

offsite link Global Finance, Money and Power: Lecture Five - Market Institutions 19:48 Wed Oct 08, 2014

Dublin Opinion >>

Irish Left Review
Joined up thinking for the Irish Left

offsite link The Changing Pattern of Foreign Investment in China Wed Oct 22, 2014 13:36 | John Ross

offsite link Welcome to the New Tax Avoidance Scheme, Same as the Old Tax Avoidance Scheme Mon Oct 20, 2014 16:26 | Michael Taft

offsite link Revealed: EU science chief promised to be ?flexible? towards Israel?s war crimes Thu Oct 16, 2014 15:21 | David Cronin

offsite link Austerity is Over? Now Back to the Real World Wed Oct 15, 2014 17:21 | Michael Taft

offsite link A New Kind of Trade Unionism Emerging Wed Oct 15, 2014 16:24 | Irish Left Review

Irish Left Review >>

NAMA Wine Lake

offsite link Farewell from NWL Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Happy 70th Birthday, Michael Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Of the Week? Sat May 18, 2013 00:02 | namawinelake

offsite link Noonan denies IBRC legal fees loan approval to Paddy McKillen was in breach of E... Fri May 17, 2013 14:23 | namawinelake

offsite link Gayle Killilea Dunne asks to be added as notice party in Sean Dunne?s bankruptcy Fri May 17, 2013 12:30 | namawinelake

NAMA Wine Lake >>

Runaway Global Warming May Have Started. Has Arctic Methane 'Bomb' Just Gone Off?

category international | environment | feature author Sunday March 10, 2013 22:31author by T Report this post to the editors

2012 Measurements show dramatic rise in methane emissions from the Arctic

featured image featured image
Fig 1: Methane emissions from Arctic Sea Floor and Arctic Albedo

All the worry about Global Warming has tended to focus on carbon dioxide emissions but the real threat may be methane emissions.... In the past 5 years there have been major changes happening up in the Arctic. The annual summer melt of the sea ice floating on the Arctic Ocean has greatly increased, exposing a much larger area to heating during the summer months which in turn has warmed the ocean enough that the frozen methane hydrates on and below the seabed are beginning to melt, causing methane gas to bubble to the surface. The trouble is methane is up to 100 times (over initial 20 year period of release) more effective than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas and the estimated quantity of methane hydrates suggests the amount of carbon contained in them exceeds all the coal, oil and gas burned so far. And should the tundra melt in Siberia then the huge area of peatland will resume decomposing thereby emitting a very large quantity of carbon dioxide. This scenario would take us past extinction danger point which is reckoned for a rise of 6oCelsius or more would be close to certainty.

The Arctic has already measurably warmed over the past three decades, but this albedo flip from white ice/snow reflecting up to to 85% of the warm sunlight to a dark ocean that only reflects 15% or in other words absorbing 85% means the process is feeding back on itself. Combined with the extra warming caused by a rapid rise in methane emissions, it appears we are on the cusp of runaway climate change.

Scientists involved with monitoring the Arctic are so alarmed and concerned that a group of them formed the Arctic Methane Emergency Group earlier in 2012 to draw attention to this critical situation and in the hope that something will and can be done.

Regrettably due to capture of the political process and of the shaping of public opinion by the Coal and Oil & Gas industries there is a very high probability that exactly nothing will be done. There is a small chance with an all out war-type footing effort that some form of geo-engineering effort might mitigate the methane emissions, but given the vast area over which methane emissions are already occurring, it is likely that it is already far too late and we will be well into the depth of the dynamics of this process before there is any sort of realization emanating from a concerned public who will have by that stage managed to partially see through the decades of propaganda on just that particular topic as opposed to all the other daily lies and distortions from the media about many other aspects of society.

This may not be the first time this has happened on Earth. Back in the late 1970s when it was first suggested that a meteorite caused the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago because of the discovery of a relic meteorite impact zone in Central America matching that time; this theory was then applied to most other extinctions, but it triggered a flurry of science in this research area. Gradually it was realized that not all extinctions were of meteorite origin and in the case of the Permian extinction 250 million years ago where 90% of all forms of life were extinguished not just on land but in the oceans, it has since been determined this was very likely caused by a rapid heat pulse. The most likely culprit identified is methane. Another extinction event 55 million years ago known as the Paleocene-Eocene was also accompanied by a rapid heat rise. Again methane is thought to have been the trigger although there would have been other processes occurring to initiate the warming in the first place to then trigger the sudden release of methane clathrates.


featured image
Fig 2: Arctic Sea Ice Cover Decline of Annual Minimum. Going, going ....gone in 2015?

So there appears to be a precedent for this and the numbers at the present time unfortunately add up. The observations and feedback effects that we are seeing already are:

  1) The Arctic has already warmed up much more so than anywhere else on the surface of the Earth.
  2) The giant feedback albedo flip appears to be already in place and it is happening faster than the most pessimistic predictions of even just a decade ago.
  3) Because larger stretches of open water allows increased strength of storms which in turn churn the sea up to a depth of 500m bringing more saline water to the surface which in turn means slower ice formation and more open water.
  4) The Arctic land based snow cover has been dropping at a similar rate to the sea-ice and the reflectivity of the snow itself is falling due to global soot from forest fires and industrial aerosols. Last summer the entire surface of Greenland ice sheet was melting for several days.
  5) Methane emissions from the Arctic have already started.
  6) The rate of increase in methane emissions has been higher than the most pessimistic predictions.
  7) The quantity of methane hydrates along with additional sources of carbon like peat throughout the tundra is more than enough required for an extinction scale heat pulse.

Turning now to the actual data, this is the situation as it stands. The Arctic sea ice grows and wanes with the seasons each year and as expected tracking the long dark winter nights and long warmer summer days with the maximum melt occurring typically in September at the end of the Arctic summer. This has been tracked by satellite every day every year since 1979. Over the last decade, more and more of this ice has melted each summer with 2007 smashing all records up to last year (2012) when it was broken again. Compared to the 1979 to 2000 average where the minimum extent was roughly 7 million square kilometres, this had fallen 3.5 million sq km (see figure 2). At the same time the average thickness of the ice has thinned. The ice used to be several meters thick and consisted of ice from 1 year old to 5+ years old. Now most of the multi-year old ice is gone and the bulk of it is only 1 year old. Given it is so young it has less time to grow and therefore is much thinner making it easier to break and melt. The thinning of the ice has been happening steadily since the 1980s and is thought to have been melted by warmer ocean penetrating the Arctic and melting it from below and the steadily increasing air-temperatures above doing the job from that side.

featured image
Fig 3: Arctic PermaFrost Areas

Normally the Arctic tundra (Fig 3) which is composed of the vast areas of Northern Canada, Alaska, and Siberia would have snow on the ground for much of the year. This snow cover has been melting too and getting smaller with a result that as the dark soil and vegetation is exposed a much greater load of heat could be absorbed during the summer months and this has resulted in feedback on the melt process and increased air-temperatures. And from figure 4, it is evidently accelerating.

featured image
Fig 4: Arctic Tundra Snow Cover Decline

At one time it was thought we would have an end of summer Arctic ocean free of ice in 2070. Given the actual changes, the IPCC model is now saying in 2030 but this is wildly optimistic and the data itself (Figure 2) strongly suggests it will be in just 3 years time in 2015. However it is not a case that bad things start happening in 2015. They are already happening now. Vastly increased areas this year and for the last few years have already been absorbing and storing huge quantities of solar energy in the Arctic ocean and heating it. It then takes time for this heat to dissipate over the winter.

Turning to the methane hydrates also known by the name methane clathrates, these exist in the permafrost and in the frozen muds on the seabed. They are actually crystals of water and methane molecules and they are stable below 0°Celsius. Deposits occur throughout the Arctic along the huge expanse of shallow seas along the East Siberian Shelf and in deeper waters around Svalbard off Norway and around Greenland and Northern Canada. In the shallow seas the methane can escape directly to the atmosphere with little absorption by the water but in deeper waters it can be oxidised and or absorbed more although if there is too much it can be saturated in the water and therefore escape beyond that point. When the methane reaches the atmosphere it typically has a lifetime of 20 years and is broken down by free reactive hydroxyl (-OH) molecules in the air. If the hydroxyl level falls then the methane hangs around longer. And given that hydroxyl molecules are formed from ozone then any reduction will have negative effects. The hydrates remain in place so long as the seabed temperature does not rise above zero and the water temperature too. Because of the presence of salt in sea water, the water temperature can be still liquid slightly below zero Celsius. The sea-ice effectively puts a cap on the whole thing keeping warm sunlight out and the Arctic ocean temperature cold.

The wind also has little influence and so there is little disturbance or mixing to the water and because it has been this way for a very long time, it is separated into stable layers with the net effect that historically no heat was reaching the seabed to cause melting. This is no longer the case and greater mixing is happening. During research cruises off Siberia from 2003 through 2008 Russian scientists detected saturated levels of methane at numerous depths and elevated levels in the atmosphere. Reports of hundreds of plumes of bubbles tens of meters across rising from the seabed off the Svalbard archipelago also began to appear in 2008. In 2012 the Russian scientists had found methane bubbles plumes 1 km across over a wide area. It seems emissions have increased dramatically. But as it so happens there is a satellite called AQUA, launched in 2002 that is capable of measuring methane in the atmosphere and the data it is producing backs up the in-situ ground/sea observations. The series of images in figure 5 show the differences between 2008 and 2011 for November the figures for December 2012 while figure 6 shows measurements made in-situ (i.e. on the ground/sea) with a large increase in 2011 and 2012. One could argue that maybe these in-situ figures are just an anomaly in that area but the satellite measurements show it is across the board. And should we wait until all the readings have gone off the scale before reacting? It seems some scientists who are not even GW deniers are taking that approach and it is most likely because they are terrified of being called alarmists.

featured image featured image
Fig 5: Arctic Methane Emissions Nov 2008 - 2011 & Dec 2012

featured image
Fig 6: Spike in Methane Emissions in 2012 measured
off Svalbard (Spitzbergen)

Dark Snow Project - Research into soot on Greenland

Back in Feb 2012 Jason Box published a paper where he observed at the increasing amounts of global soot reaching the Arctic was darkening the surface and predicted that as more wildfires break as the climate warms this soot load would increase to the point that eventually it would have the effect of lower the reflectivity of the Greenland ice sheet enough to cause the whole thing to start melting. He predicted this would happen within a decade. In fact this is exactly what happened just a few months later in July 12th 2012 where the entire surface of the ice sheet was melting for at least one day. To investigate this the Dark Snow Project has been launched to carry out research next year in Greenland and they are using crowd-sourcing to try and fund it.

For more details on this see these links.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/07/greenland-is-melting-at-incredible-rate.html
http://www.greenlandmelting.com/uploads/1/3/0/5/13056389/box_et_al_2012_albedo_feedback.pdf
http://DarkSnowProject.org/ YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT6H7HPWkqU - Sampling Greenland: The Dark Snow Project

Research led by Natalia Shakhova detected significant methane emissions from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf which is only about 50 meters (164 feet) or less deep and these emissions equaled total emissions from all other world oceans. The study, published in Science, found that more than 80% of the deep water and more than 50% of surface water had methane levels more than eight times that of normal seawater. In some areas, saturation levels reached more than 250 times that of background levels in the summer and 1,400 times higher in the winter. In other words the methane has been bubbling out and absorbed by the water.

Shakhova said: "The release to the atmosphere of only one per cent of the methane assumed to be stored in shallow hydrate deposits might alter the current atmospheric burden of methane up to 3 to 4 times."

featured image
Fig 7: East Siberian Methane Emissions


The Call for Help by Earth Scientist Malcolm Light on Methane Hydrates Situation

Extracts from his call for help are presented here. The full text is at: Call for Help

I am an earth scientist and I have been working continuously on the severe methane threat posed by the destabilization of the Arctic subsea methane hydrates for more than a decade. It is absolutely clear to me that methane is now being expelled into the Arctic atmosphere by the subsea methane hydrates at a fast increasing rate and that this expulsion began in earnest in August 2010.

The methane is rising into the stratosphere and mesosphere where some of it is being oxidized to produce larger quantities of noctilucent clouds between 76 and 85 km altitude.........

.... The problem is that the methane being released into the Arctic atmosphere from destabilization of the submarine methane hydrates has an extremely high global warming potential compared to carbon dioxide, close to 100 times for the first 15 years of its life. Hence a methane concentration of 2 ppmv is approximately equivalent to adding 200 ppmv of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, i.e. multiplying the present carbon dioxide content by 1.5. But 2 ppmv is only 2 ten thousands of a percent of methane and you need about 15 percent of methane in the air for it to burn.........

This Stratospheric methane reservoir is going to increase in density, thickness and extent until it encompasses the entire Earth and will eventually cause catastrophic global warming and the extinction of all life on earth. Furthermore because the methane remains mostly in the stratosphere, it is not recorded when average atmospheric compositions are determined at Mauna Loa and other locations, so we don't know how much is up there yet. When the German-French Merlin Lidar methane detecting satellite is launched in 2014 we should have a better idea of the methane distribution from the surface to 50 km altitude.

When the Arctic ice cap melts towards the end of 2015, there will be a massive increase in the amount of heat being absorbed by the Arctic ocean from the sun and the Gulf Stream which presently feeds the Arctic with Atlantic water along the west side of Svalbard and through the Barents Sea. Normally, the Gulf Stream is cooled when it hits the floating ice pack and this will cease to happen bringing even vaster amounts of Atlantic heat via the Gulf Stream into the Arctic. Consequently, the Arctic subsea methane hydrates will destabilize at an even faster rate, because of the increasing Arctic ocean temperature, pouring methane into the Arctic atmosphere and stratosphere....

Existing weather polar orbiting satellites are capable of measuring the sea-surface temperature and this data too has been showing increases and the anomalies appear to be strongest in the very areas where measurements show methane emissions are highest. This would seem to confirm that at a local level the methane is already having enhanced regional warming effect. Figure 5 shows one such set of measurements for November 2011. The long term increasing temperature trend is shown in figure 8 and an exponential curve is fitted to it to show where it might be leading. The sea around Svalbard (Spitsbergen) is one such place where it has warmed and in the daily sea-ice cover maps generated by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, this is main area that is having trouble freezing over during the annual winter freeze. In figure 9 the orange line represents the sea-ice boundary and the white areas are obviously sea-ice extent on that date. As can be seen a huge area remains exposed (as of Jan 10th 2013) and this means as soon as the sun returns in spring, this will be absorbing sunlight whereas normally this might not occur until much later in the summer. Since then much of the area has since frozen over but this will be very young and thin ice that will quickly break up and melt come the spring.

featured image
Fig 8: Arctic Temperature Anomaly and Exponential Curve Fit


featured image
Fig 9: Arctic Sea Ice Extent compared to
1979-2000 average (orange line)

To give some perspective to this, another few facts need to be considered. To just turn ice that is very slightly below 0°C into water requires 334,000 joules of energy for every kilogram or basically for every one litre of water. However the same quantity of heat applied to water at 0° would bring it to 80°C. This means that once all the sea-ice is melted over the entire Arctic ocean in the summer in a few years time, then 100% of this heat will go into heating the water. Now this is not to suggest it will raise it anywhere near 80° because one year old ice was about 1 metre thick whereas the water varies from 50m to 100s of meters in depth and so the volumes are far greater and the same quantity of heat is therefore spread much thinner leading to a smaller overall temperature rise. But while the ice capped the ocean, no heat would have been entering from above, and this changes dramatically with it removed and in the process allowing winds to stir up the ocean and completely changing the weather in the Arctic. Indeed last Aug 2012 a huge stormed churned up the Arctic Ocean for several days battering what remained of the sea-ice. See Huge Cyclone Batters Arctic Sea Ice.

You are now entering the non-linearity zone

These are extracts from a blog entry by scientist Paul Beckwith. Full text is here

Push something and it moves a little. Push it a little more and it moves a little more. This is called a “linearity” response. But sometimes a little push can lead to something totally unexpected! This is called “nonlinearity” and, contrary to what one might think, nonlinearities are inherent in most systems - like our atmosphere, for example. In fact, abrupt and unexpected change happens at some point in most systems - we even have a saying for such unexpected outcomes: a tipping point.

Until recently, our atmosphere and oceans behaved like linear systems: incremental dumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere caused incremental changes, like rising temperatures and predictable rates of ice melt. But things are now changing unexpectedly fast – nonlinearity is kicking in! We only have to look at the rapidly vanishing arctic icecap for astonishing evidence...........

....... The rapidly disappearing Arctic icecap is a tipping point in motion. In all likelihood, statistically speaking, it’s gone, history. Within a few years when the ice disappears entirely, for the first time in 3 (or as many as 13) million years, hold on because our weather patterns will be drastically destabilized. Most folks in my field are still reluctant to acknowledge this 800 pound gorilla staring us right in the face.....

The difference in temperature between the equator and the poles is the engine that drives the climate / weather system and causes the winds to blow towards the poles. As part of that dynamical process, each hemisphere of the Earth has three main atmospheric circulatory cells and they are the Hadley cell from the equator to the tropics (~ 30° North/South, the Ferrel cell generating the westerly winds between the tropics and approx 60oN/S and the Polar cell which contains cold polar air. The polar jet stream separates the mid-latitude mild air-mass from the cold polar air-mass and in the process keeping the cold air within the Arctic for most of the time.

featured image
Fig 10: Weakening Jet Stream pinned down deflects Hurricane Sandy

Nearly all the storms and cyclones in the Atlantic track the position of the polar jet stream. It forms a high speed wind that circles the globe (at 60N/S) and fluctuates to some degree due to atmospheric (Rossby) waves that pass along it. However as the temperature difference becomes less due to warming in the Arctic, the intensity of the jet stream winds reduce and this has been observed in the past decade or so. Because it is weaker it is less stable and larger waves can be induced in it and this has resulted in warm air masses penetrating further into the Arctic. The reverse has also occurred where large tongues of polar air have reached further southward than normal and the two cold spells (over Europe including Ireland) in November and December in 2010 are an example of this. (See figure 10 for an illustration of this jet stream weakening where it swung south and pinned hurricane Sandy drawing it Westwards inland instead of the typical track North and Eastwards).

As a result of this weakening, the Jet Stream is also becoming stuck over geographical features. Again the series of wetter summers over UK and Ireland in the past 5 years are examples of blocking actions, where the same persistent pattern is stuck over the same place. The contrary is that other areas suffering hot dry periods had these conditions persisting too. It is these very conditions that led to crop failures in the Russia in 2010 and in USA in 2012. In figure 11, produced by Complex System Institute they demonstrate the linkage between crop failures, food prices increases and food riots and social unrest.



featured image
Fig 11: Food Prices linkage to Social Unrest (CSI)

This weakening effect of the polar jet stream is pretty much documented at Sea level pressure changes since 2007 where a series of average monthly pressure charts are presented and two of the charts are shown below in figure 12 and they depict for air pressure in June 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2012 and differences compared to the average for the period 1948 - 1978. A persistent low pressure is evident over UK and Ireland and these correspond to the very wet summers of those years. This ties in with the idea of the jet stream getting stuck in a blocking pattern.

It should be clear then that the measurements from weather stations, research cruises and data from satellites leave no doubt that major changes are occurring and with increasing rapidity and while many scientists even at this late stage will hedge their bets for fear of losing their jobs, it is quite clear to me and obviously to those who formed the Arctic Methane Emergency Group that we are already at the beginning of runaway Climate Change/Warming. We are well past the point of that frequent phrase we hear trotted out so often in the media to calm everyone down that there is 10 more years or 5 more years. These are excuses to continue as we are.


featured image featured image featured image featured image
Fig 12: North Atlantic Sea Level Pressure for July-June 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2012 compared to 1948-1978 average.
Note area of low pressure over North of UK & Ireland and high over Greenland

And whilst I was never a fan of geo-engineering in the vain hope that the right thing would be done, I would have to concede that there is now no option. It goes without saying though that this should nor cannot be a solution that allows business-as-usual. The predatory capitalist system cannot co-exist with an viable planet and we should not forget that the old Soviet system in the USSR was vastly wasteful of energy and thus had high emissions and destructive of resources too. We are faced with triple problems and they are 1) tackling the climate, 2) destroying the present dominant political-economic system and 3) fixing 1) and replacing 2) with a sustainable system. We could add a third problem which is the ongoing ecological problem but we will leave that aside here for the sake of brevity. At a minimum, should geo-engineering be taken on, then at the same time the entire functioning and structure of society would need to be rapidly changed to make use of the time that geo-engineering would buy.

The key challenge is that any complex society of whatever political form by its very nature uses a lot of energy and resources and yet a way has to be found to change this even though it appears to be an inherent property of such systems and therefore it is possible that you can't have a complex society with low energy use. (See for example: The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter). It may be impossible but there is no option but to try and the only way to reduce energy and resource usage is by greatly increasing sharing and in an urban environment the most obvious way would be to switch as much transport as possible away from the current form of the private car into walking, cycling and mass public transit. One way to encourage this would be to expand it and make it free. For example in the case of Dublin Bus, there are only about 2,000 buses to serve close to a million people so quadrupling the number of buses to 8,000 would give a vastly improved service and yet the same city probably has in the region of 300,000 cars. So the saving in all the fuel, resources and emissions to serve those vehicles would be huge -if replicated across every major city. Another change would be to set a very high standard of energy use for all buildings and then have them retrofitted to meet that standard. In parallel to a global scale program to reduce energy usage, there would also be a need for a wartime type like effort to further increase renewable energy whilst at the same time quickly phasing out fossil fuel usage although that is not necessarily as technically easy as some proponents would say it is. But the changes would not stop at energy usage because land usage and other effects of society on the environment would have to dealt with too. For example it may be necessary to rapidly increase the level of forestry and reduce agricultural land to increase the size of the carbon sinks again. Given it takes 10 kg of plant material to generate 1 kg of meat then this implies a reduction in the consumption of meat to offset reductions in agricultural output but still providing enough.

However while these appeals to rational behaviour are all fine, we all know that none of this is likely to happen. What person now is going to want that level of change, demand it or support it if to them it just seems that the weather is either a bit milder, wetter, dryer or hotter? Besides the enormous powerful vested interests that would be challenged and who would use the forces of the State to batter anyone into the ground. No, it is only when agriculture has been so disrupted by weather that is unseasonal and unsuitable to the conditions for crop growth, followed by the associated unrest that the political base for that sort of change could begin to form. Yet for things to get to that stage, we would be even further into runaway climate change and higher up that exponential curve in figure 8.

It is thus hard to see how anything can be done and will be done. Humans are just not good at getting worked up emotionally over abstractions like global problems and react much better to immediate and in your face events. Probably the only way to stimulate responses to these more abstract issues is through saturation propaganda and this implies a very unsettling, dangerous and unreliable way to solve it because this is the same technique used to send millions off to war or to buy overpriced property or most ironically to be prolific consumers. It is the very same politicized tool that has played a major role in us getting to our situation. The only way to break the reckless, suicidal and immature behaviour of society as it lurches forward in a stupor towards multiple fatal global problems is to get on a sustainable path and break the stranglehold of the present system is for people everywhere to be far more aware, mature, educated and not just in the academic sense but in the life and nature sense and to be clued in and empowered enough to want and be able to make rational informed decisions. So the real challenge is getting there. The current capitalist system has managed to create a largely narcissistic dumbed-down society where people invest all their intellect and attention in having encylopaedic knowledge of unimportant trivia because by virtue of saturation trivia it is a way of saying to people there is nothing to worry about, everything is working fine and all you have to worry about is watching this TV SOAP or following the daily life of these vain celebrities. Because if there really was a problem then surely this shit wouldn't still be broadcast and since it is, then all is generally fine. In the meantime back in the real world massive problems loom but since the system in control can't deal with them, it denies them and shuts them out for everyone else. These problems also are a threat to their power and status because it should be clear to anyone that solving them requires a radical overhaul of the structure of society. We can't blame this solely on the capitalist system although it is really a creditism system since it has been debt fueled for quite awhile because the same dynamics would probably apply to any form of hierarchical power group whatever political label was used on it.

Alas, there is no time for these changes to happen to get us where we need to be. It is too late. So one ought to consider whether we are just another failed natural experiment at trying to make the transition from individual intelligence to collective intelligence whilst grappling with the Pandora's box opened by technology and take on the inherent responsibility to not just ourselves but the wider biosphere that comes with attaining great knowledge. From an outside perspective it certainly looks like these seemingly inbuilt natural challenges are a way of preventing the lunatics and psychopaths escaping from the asylum which in our case is the Earth itself. And so just like over the course of evolution, many species have tried out different forms, failed and gone then there is no reason to believe we are not just one of the many failures as statistically this is probably more likely than the successful cases and in this sub-domain of evolution of intelligent civilisations, the testing ground occurs at a much broader scale across entire galaxies with 100s of billions of planets thereby giving it the sheer numbers of trials it needs, in the same way that say one in a billion cells might have the right mutation to acquire some particular capability, to get to the next point in its evolutionary path.

Therefore the best you can do is follow the links to blogs and articles provided and at least try and understand what is happening and keep an eye on the Arctic sea ice melt in 2013 and see how things unfold.

Note: I wish to acknowledge that much of the background data for this essay was based on material from the Arctic News blog and many of the graphs were sourced from there also.

Fig 13: Overlay of areas suffering lack of winter ice or thin ice and methane emissions. Wait few secs for gif image to animate

author by Janes Hansonpublication date Tue Mar 05, 2013 04:47Report this post to the editors

This video refutes the Global Warming consensus proposed by the government scientists.

Caption: The Scientific Concensus


Related Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWDc6lpcqzc
author by mac the knffepublication date Sat Mar 09, 2013 22:12Report this post to the editors

No it very much dosnt, unfortunately for the rest of us refute anything based as it is on half truths, selective facts and misleading interpretations of science.Smacks of another half arsed effort by deniers and co to cloud the facts and delay the kind of action we need to stop a disaster.

author by Mike Czechpublication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 18:33Report this post to the editors

13 years ago a Leading "Climate Scientist" at the CRU said
"Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-....html

    Monday 20 March 2000

    " According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

    "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," said.Dr Viner of the CRU"


Anyone interested in a less ridiculous, alarmism-free look at recent global temperatures can see graphs here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss...trend

See all that Whtie Powdery Stuff? - 13 years agao leading Climate "Scientists" assured us we had seen the last of it forever
See all that Whtie Powdery Stuff? - 13 years agao leading Climate "Scientists" assured us we had seen the last of it forever

16yr temperature trend is essentially flat (actually slightly negative) - The Climate Modelling "Scientists" said such a long period of no rise could not happen
16yr temperature trend is essentially flat (actually slightly negative) - The Climate Modelling "Scientists" said such a long period of no rise could not happen

author by Tpublication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 21:00Report this post to the editors

You clearly haven't read the article because you don't address any of the points.

author by Mike Czechpublication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 21:19Report this post to the editors

it's just the usual alarmist/Sky-Is-Falling/"OMFG We're all gonna DIe!!!" crap, except this time they have merely substituted Methane, instead of CO2, as the nefarious Boogy-man that's supposedly gonna kill us all

I guess the Clima-bots finally realised that people were becoming aware that we've had 16yrs of constant CO2 rise while Temperatures have remained flat over that time.

Such an occurance has in fact been previously explicitly ruled out by the "Climate Scientists"and their luvverly (and fairly useless) computerised models.

It is something which they explicitly said WOULD NOT HAPPEN! (of course they have been back-pedalling like crazy on that statement since it became obvious that there's a 16 yr flatline in temps)

So to cover up for the complete and utter failure of their predictions regarding the claimed relationship between CO2 and Temperature someone seems to have decided to distract from that utter failure by waving around Methane as the newest latest Climate-killer.

Basic distraction techniques even a sleazy 2nd-hand car salesman could master

The whole notion of "Runaway Global Warming" is alarmist nonsense.

author by Rational Ecologist.publication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 21:30Report this post to the editors

I'll listen to James Hansen and his colleagues. If you want to fool yourself that Climate Catastrophe is not imminent, then nothing will convince you otherwise. I came at this issue very sceptically and with a very open mind, listening to both sides(we are all on the same side on this) and have, atfer extensive research, came to the conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence points to DISASTER!! I do hope I am proved wrong: I am no Cassandra.

author by Mike Czechpublication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 21:40Report this post to the editors

Relying on so-called "experts" to interpret it for me is just another way of saying "I prefer someone else to do my thinking for me".

"Climate Catastrophe"
a Silly little alliterative phrase that means absolutely nothing at all - please provide a definition of "Climate Catastrophe"

" came to the conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence points to DISASTER!! "
Yet for some reason you neglected to post some of this actual evidence you claim to have studied, which supposedly "points to DISASTER!!!!"

author by Mike Czechpublication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 22:02Report this post to the editors

In 1988, Hansen was asked for a prediction of what the scene outside his window would look like in 40 years time:

    While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 40 years?”

    He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained,
    • “The West Side Highway will be under water. And
    • there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And
    • the same birds won’t be there.
    • The trees in the median strip will change.”
    Stormy weather – Salon.com http://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/

Well we're half way through Hansen's 40yr prediction and a grand Total of NONE of these things Hansen predicted look even remotely like they are going to occur within the 40 yr timeframe.

For example there has been NO significant change whatsoever in the rate of sea-level rise, since Hansen made his little "prediction".

It really does not get more "wrong" that that.

author by Tpublication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 22:09Report this post to the editors

Again you clearly haven't read the article. There was no mention of James Hansen in the article. The article is mostly about what has happened and is happening.

author by Mike Czechpublication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 22:17Report this post to the editors

@ RE "I do hope I am proved wrong: I am no Cassandra."

Have no fear - your hero James Hansen is also definitely no Cassandra.

Cassandra Hansen would need at least a ten foot rise in forty years to make his prediction work.

According to the actual data, after 23 years, we’ve seen about a 2.5 inch rise.

There’ s still a very long way to go to ten feet to cover the West Side Highway there. So Hansen would need something like a 7.5 inch rise in sea level in NY over the next 17years.

Hansen has a long history of loudly making preposterous and scary-sounding "predictions" which later prove to be absolute nonsense. 25 metre rises in sea level, tropical temperatures in England, and widespread crop failures are only some of the predictions from Cassandra Hansen.

For example in 1986 he claimed :- " Within 15 Years Temps Will be Hotter Than Past 100,000 Years."

This one from 1986 on temperature increase in America:


Staying in 1986 for the moment, we have this unequivocal prediction:

Going back to 1982, we find Hansen arguing that if fossil fuel use was restricted, England might be a tropical paradise by 2050. If we carried on as normal, the world would be back in the sort of heat last seen in the age of the dinosaurs.
    Hansen presented results of studies which indicated likely climate changes under different energy policies.
    If there were slow growth in the use of hydrocarbon fuels, the world in the middle of the next century would be as warm as it was 125,000 years ago, when lions, elephants and other tropical animals roamed a balmy southern England.
    Pursuing present plans for coal and oil, Hansen found, the climate in the middle of the 21st century “would approach the warmth of the age of the dinosaurs”
    - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CZJVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=...hl=en - The Leader-Post, January 9th, 1982. -

By 1989, far from toning it down, Hansen was starting to really turn up the heat, predicting totally unprecedented warming so far as mankind was concerned:
    “By the year 2050 we’re going to have tremendous climate changes, far outside what man has ever experienced” said James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
    Computer models by Hansen and others suggest that by the middle of the next century earth’s average temperature may rise 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, possibly altering storm patterns, making crops fail, and raising sea levels to flood low-lying coastal areas.
    - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aKxdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=...hl=en - Observer-Reporter, December 7th, 1989 -

And in 2006, he was still going strong. Unabashed by the failure of the world to warm significantly, Hansen was still predicting massive temperature increases. Remember that in the interview below, with a British newspaper, he is talking in degrees Celsius for temperature, and in metres (one metre = 3 feet) for sea level rise:
    “The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.”
    - http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change....html - The Independent, 17th February, 2006 -

That’s a 25 metre – 75 feet – rise in sea level by the end of the century. So far, it doesn’t look like this one will fare any better than the rest.

So when it comes to making predictions about the climate Hansen is clearly a failure

Oh, by all means, pay as much attention as YOU like to Dr Hansen's ridiculous "predictions" - but please have the basic decency and common courtesy not to go around demanding that the rest of us pay any attention to this obvious failure

author by Tpublication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 22:35Report this post to the editors

I get it. By attacking the prediction that one individual made years ago, you want us to discard regard all the observations and assume that all the climate scientists are wrong. It seems then there is nothing to worry about with all that sea-ice melting further back each year in the Arctic and the methane readings are nothing to worry about too because as you were saying it is just scare mongering.

In figure 2 above, the observations for the minimum extent of sea-ice are shown and the trend line suggests in either 2015 or 2016 it will be as good as ice free during the minimum. If we interpret the graph that way, is that considered following a model? And since models (completely different ones) have been wrong in the past, then I guess this and all other models are wrong and so figure 2 cannot be right? Or if for some strange reason we do have an Arctic free of ice in 2015 / 2016 during the minimum, are we to suppose it is not really true or nothing to worry because James Hansen's predictions about New York didn't come true on time or are we to suppose that all that extra sunlight will have no effect whatsoever because once again the reason would be that James Hansen's prediction hasn't come true right when he said so?

You have me confused now.

author by Mike Czechpublication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 23:05Report this post to the editors

Again you clearly haven't read the article.

I have. Simply repeatedly claiming I have not won't make it so

There was no mention of James Hansen in the article.

Clearly you are not paying attention to the comments being posted by others here - another commenter brought up James Hansen and his so-called "expertise". My comment was clearly a reply to that other commenter

The article is mostly about what has happened and is happening.

Actually that's just your opinion of what this article contains - personally I think it contains a lot of conjecture, spin and plays pretty fast and loose with the "science"

For example it states:

    "Dark Snow Project - Research into soot on Greenland

    Back in Feb 2012 Jason Box published a paper where he observed at the increasing amounts of global soot reaching the Arctic was darkening the surface and predicted that as more wildfires break as the climate warms this soot load would increase to the point that eventually it would have the effect of lower the reflectivity of the Greenland ice sheet enough to cause the whole thing to start melting. He predicted this would happen within a decade. In fact this is exactly what happened just a few months later in July 12th 2012 where the entire surface of the ice sheet was melting for at least one day. To investigate this the Dark Snow Project has been launched to carry out research next year in Greenland and they are using crowd-sourcing to try and fund it.

Some here may remember the event in question - at the time the media was full of headlines stating that "90-something % of Greenland melts" which was a completely inaccurate description of the event and went unchallenged by the majority of the AGW alarmist community.

What really happened was that for a brief moment in time a very thin layer of melt watered appeared on the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheets.

Far from being "unprecedented" this event was completely expected as such events occur approx every 150yrrs. The last such occurred in 1889.

So basically this event was right on time.

But that didn't stop the media claiming it was "unprecedented" and none of the leading so-called Climate "Scientists" that support the AGW theory bothered to take the time to publicly correct the media's blatantly false portrayal of this event

NASA was responsible for the press release and correctly placed this event in it's historical context, as in this line:

    Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”


(See more on this blatant alarmist misrepresentation here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/unpreceden...ears/ )

And now whoever wrote that article which T has cobbled together above, is curiously trying to claim that this completely expected and right-on-time event is actually proof of some theory of his - (Dark Snow Project)

Nowhere in the piece I excerpted above (Dark Snow Project) is it stated that this melting event was already predicted and completely expected, merely as a result of studying the historical record.

With that sort of carry on, that level of unscientific behaviour, why would anyone pay any attention to anything this person claims?

author by Mike Czechpublication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 23:14Report this post to the editors

"I get it. By attacking the prediction that one individual made years ago, you want us to discard regard all the observations and assume that all the climate scientists are wrong"

If you read back on the comments you will see that someone called "Rational Ecologist" posted a comment praising the ridiculous Hansen.

And my reference to Hansen was simply a reply to that

So clearly you don't "get" it at all.

I'm quite surprised you have to conjure up some sort of conspiracy theory about my suppossed/imaginary nefarious reasons for merely replying to a comment praising the Pope of the Church of the Holy Global Warming, Cassandra Hansen, in order to explain something that should be obvious just by looking at the thread of comments

Simply searching the page for "Hansen" would have shown you who first mentioned him.

Admittedly trying to discredit people that question your theories is a lot easier if you just attack their motives for questioning your theories in the first place. Just not very ethical

author by Tpublication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 23:57Report this post to the editors

The Dark Snow Project is about the decreasing albedo of Greenland which has occurred and it is due to the annual winter snow melting and exposing the underlying ice which contains a lot of grit, soot and other dark material from basically aerosols from industrial activity. And it was Jason Box who theorized that this would leading to an increase absorbition of solar radiation in the summer months and would lead to more widespread melting across a wider area of the surface. He thought it would take ten years. In fact it happened within a few months of him suggesting it. You are speculating this is a one off 150 year event. Actually previous summers had seen increased annual summer melt over Greenland.

Based on the decreasing albedo and extra heat load in the Arctic because of higher retention of heat and heating of the air because of the air-sea-surface interaction now that more of the ice is gone for longer periods and thus average regional temperatures rising, it is therefore likely similar melting events will be seen across Greenland each summer.

It is made clear above that this melt last summer of the entire surface of Greenland happened for approximately one day. I even bolded the text. And the point of including that box of text was to draw attention to this fact and to draw attention to the fact that further funds are needed for research and that no funds are available and these funds are being crowd sourced. Clearly you won't be donating.

author by Mike Czechpublication date Mon Mar 11, 2013 23:59Report this post to the editors

" if for some strange reason we do have an Arctic free of ice in 2015 / 2016 during the minimum, are we to suppose it is not really true or nothing to worry because James Hansen's predictions about New York didn't come true on time "

People have been shamelessly making loud and false predictions of an ice-free Arctic for quite some time now. So far all of them have been wrong. Doesn't stop them just pushing the date further down the road and repeat the whole idiotic prediction process all over again, exactly as before.

In the last 20 years such claims about 'Ice free Summers' have been made many times, though curiously the date by which this is 'predicted' to occur always seems to change.

So far I have heard that statement made in relation to the year 2010, 2013, 2015, 2020, 2030 etc etc ad nauseum.

For example:



When each predicted date approaches and the prediction is shown to be nothing but hysterical alarmist nonsense, a great palaver is convened and "hey, presto!" a new date, far off into the future, is conjured out of thin air, (or out of some pseudo-scientists rear-end, for all we know)

And BTW Hansen has had a lot more than ONE prediction fail.

author by Mike Czechpublication date Tue Mar 12, 2013 00:09Report this post to the editors

"You are speculating this is a one off 150 year event."

Complete nonsense - did you even read what I posted or just skim through it? Because I "speculated" about nothing at all in regard to this event. I posted about a press release from NASA that stated clearly that the Geeenland Melt of July 2012 was completed expected and predicted.

NASA made that claim not me.

Your friends Mr Box and whoever you copy&pasted this cobbled-together-hodge-podge of Methane Alarmism from, are the ones that have "speculated" - and speculated WRONGLY according to NASA - that the Greenland Melt was confirmation of some theory or other when in fact it was confirmation of nothing more than that ever 150yrs or so there is a wide-spread surface-melt on the Greenland Ice sheet.

At no point in the article have Mr Box nor the Author acknowledged that the event in question was expected and predicted merely from studying the historical record.

The Author of this article has falsely implied that the Melt event confirmed some theory of Box's, when in fact he has absolutely no grounds whatsoever for making that claim.

That is not "Science" - whatever it is, it ain't "Science"

author by Tpublication date Tue Mar 12, 2013 00:17Report this post to the editors

Mr. Box did not write anything about methane with regards his paper (which is linked) in relation to methane.

I find it quite amusing that you are so eager to assign this event to the 150 year event. By forcing this conclusion you are trying to use it to dismiss everything else. That just doesn't make sense in light of what has happened and is happening in the Arctic

author by Mike Czechpublication date Tue Mar 12, 2013 00:28Report this post to the editors

Mr. Box did not write anything about methane with regards his paper (which is linked) in relation to methane.

Well that's just fine and dandy, because I never made any claim that he did.

"I find it quite amusing that you are so eager to assign this event to the 150 year event."

I didn't assign anything to anything - NASA did.They actually claimed that they were able to predict it merely by looking at the historical record, which shows numerous such events occurring on exactly that time-scale.

I find it quite amusing that you're trying to ignore that rather salient fact.

" By forcing this conclusion you are trying to use it to dismiss everything else. That just doesn't make sense in light of what has happened and is happening in the Arctic"

I'm not 'forcing' anything - that's just something you have invented out of thin air.

NASA's press release and prior prediction of such an event forces that conclusion - not anything I have said.

" That just doesn't make sense in light of what has happened and is happening in the Arctic"

Whether or not it makes any sense to YOU, it still remains a fact that It makes perfect sense to NASA whose scientists went and studied the historical record and noted that such evens occur nearly every 150years

And now here you and your friends are trying to claim that it is proof of something else, despite the fact that it happens every 150yrs

author by Mike Czechpublication date Tue Mar 12, 2013 00:34Report this post to the editors

So far you have yet to even acknowledge that NASA have stated that this melt event is completely expected and happen s approx every 150 yrs.

And to simply attempt to dismiss that as "speculation", when it is pointed out to you, seems rather dishonest to me.

If anyone is speculating here it is clearly yourself and/.or Mr Box and/Or the author

author by mac the knifepublication date Tue Mar 12, 2013 01:36Report this post to the editors

Re Czech it out
Question;
How many of recorded hottest years on record have happened in last 20 years?
What effect has Co2 on global temps?
Has Co2 increased since the 1900s?
Is it likely this will have NO effect on climate and atmospheric Co2 levels?
Would Hurrican Sandy or another few dozen extreme weather events over the next few months make you think again?
No one, bar deniers like you (and idiots), claim the world is ending; just getting warming and threatening environmental chaos that will hit the poorerst and least able to adapt worst.. and ensuring that the systen that is the cause of the chaos continues its adiction to the profits from fossil fuels.
Is there a giant conspiracy involving thousands of climate and Met scientists to fool you about dangers of climate change?
Are there men in black outside your door?
Its ok thats the fossil fuel lobby with your weekly check

author by Mike Czechpublication date Tue Mar 12, 2013 01:55Report this post to the editors

Gas Outlets off Spitsbergen Are No New Phenomenon - http://www.geomar.de/index.php?id=4&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=903&tx_ttnews[backPid]=185&L=1

Expedition to the Greenland Sea with Surprising Results


    FS MARIA S. MERIAN journey: MSM21/4
    Head of Expedition: Prof. Dr. Christian Berndt (GEOMAR)
    Length of Expedition: 13th Aug. 2012-11th Sept. 2012
    Place of Departure: Reykjavik
    Research Area: West of Spitsbergen
    Place of Arrival: Emden
    Further Information on the GEOMAR expedition page

    September 19, 2012/Kiel. Marine scientists from Kiel, together with colleagues from Bremen, Great Britain, Switzerland and Norway, spent four and a half weeks examining methane emanation from the sea bed off the coast of Spitsbergen with the German research vessel MARIA S. MERIAN. There they gained a very differentiated picture: Several of the gas outlets have been active for hundreds of years.

    Frequent storms and sub-zero temperatures – nature drove the marine researchers that were assessing gas outlets on the sea bed off the coast of Spitsbergen for four and a half weeks to their limits. Nevertheless the participants were very pleased when they returned: “We were able to gather many samples and data in the affected area. With the submersible JAGO we even managed to form an impression of the sea bed and the gas vents” summarised the chief scientist Professor Dr. Christian Berndt from GEOMAR | Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel.

    The reason for the expedition was the supposition that ice-like methane hydrates stored in the sea bed were dissolving due to rising water temperatures. “Methane hydrate is only stable at very low temperatures and under very high pressure. The gas outlets off Spitsbergen lie approximately at a depth which marks the border between stability and dissolution. Therefore we presumed that a measurable rise in water temperature in the Arctic could dissolve the hydrates from the top downwards” explained Professor Berndt. Methane could then be released into the water or even into the atmosphere, where it would act as a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

    In fact, what the researchers found in the area offers a much more differentiated picture. Above all the fear that the gas emanation is a consequence of the current rising sea temperature does not seem to apply.

    At least some of the gas outlets have been active for longer. Carbonate deposits, which form when microorganisms convert the escaping methane, were found on the vents. “At numerous emergences we found deposits that might already be hundreds of years old. This estimation is indeed only based on the size of the samples and empirical values as to how fast such deposits grow. On any account, the methane sources must be older” says Professor Berndt. The exact age of the carbonates will be determined from samples in GEOMAR’s laboratories. . . . . . .


The graph below was posted earlier showing a spike in methane 2011/2012 - the above news report refers to what happened when the source of that 'spike' was investigated by a ship-based Scientific expedition.

So . . . . Panic over!

Phew!!!!!

almost had me going there T.

I actually foolishly thought for a minute or two that maybe this methane bogey-man you were waving around the place was actually something to worry about but as usual it's just, as I stated in my 2nd comment on this thread ,more of the usual climate-alarmist dramatic-hand-waving nonsense. You'd think I'd know better by now, eh?

So it seems I was right when I earlier stated

    Let's be honest here: Most of it's not worth addressing
    by Mike Czech Mon Mar 11, 2013 21:19

    "it's just the usual alarmist/Sky-Is-Falling/"OMFG We're all gonna DIe!!!" crap, except this time they have merely substituted Methane, instead of CO2, as the nefarious Boogy-man that's supposedly gonna kill us all

    I guess the Clima-bots finally realised that people were becoming aware that we've had 16yrs of constant CO2 rise while Temperatures have remained flat over that time. "


T's panic-inducing Methane-"Spike" graph - Panic over - Turns out to be not such a big panic after all
T's panic-inducing Methane-"Spike" graph - Panic over - Turns out to be not such a big panic after all

author by Mike Czechpublication date Tue Mar 12, 2013 03:30Report this post to the editors


A Washington, D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. - November 2nd, 1922.

The article mentions “great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,” and “at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

The original source of the story resurfacing recently was a Washington Post article from August 14th, 2007. The newspaper article was located in the Library of Congress archives by James Lockwood.
Here is the text of the Washington Post (Associated Press) article:


    - The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. -

    - Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. -

    - Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. -


Click the image below to see the full article or download the PDF of that page which exists @ http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589...a.pdf -(from NOAA’s archives)

author by Mike Czechpublication date Tue Mar 12, 2013 03:37Report this post to the editors

climate alarmism through the ages - disappointingly unoriginal

Climate Deja vu - Climate doom merchants were spreading the exact same alarmism 90 years ago
Climate Deja vu - Climate doom merchants were spreading the exact same alarmism 90 years ago

author by fredpublication date Tue Mar 12, 2013 05:31Report this post to the editors

how very scientific of you Mike!

dredging up some daft article from 1922 and comparing it directly with scientific data from 2012.

If that's any indication of your methodology then you'll forgive me if I don't trust what you have to say very much!

author by Mike Czechpublication date Tue Mar 12, 2013 06:01Report this post to the editors

You dismiss the report of the Scientific Expidition which thoroughly discredits T's Methane "Bomb" scare-mongering claims, which turn out to be little more than the usual Climate-Alarmist nonsense, and all because of a reprint of a newspaper article from 1922?

Can't speak for anyone else here, but to me that seems decidedly irrational and completely illogical

dredging up some daft article from 1922 and comparing it directly with scientific data from 2012."

where did i do that? I don't remember comparing any scientific data from 2012 with any article from 1922.

Are you sure about that Fred? cos I've double checked and I can see no instance of me comparing any scientific data from 2012 with any article from 1922.

Perhaps you're hallucinating, or maybe you just made that bit up? Bit of a mystery really

author by Mike Czechpublication date Tue Mar 12, 2013 06:10Report this post to the editors

" you'll forgive me if I don't trust what you have to say very much!"

Since everything I have claimed here is backed up by links from reputable sources, you don't have to take my word for any of it. Any claim I make can be easily sourced.

It's all linked and you could investigate it if you really felt it needed investigating or debunking

But of course it's clear you have no intention of doing any of that.

After all it is so much easier to try and sly cast aspersions on the character of anyone disagreeing with you than it would be to do something useful, such as providing a coherent counter-argument.

author by Tpublication date Tue Mar 12, 2013 23:28Report this post to the editors

I note the recent expedition found microorganisms and evidence yet to be confirmed that some of these vents that were leaking methane could be hundreds of years old. This is exactly as you would expect. The methane in the Arctic has been probably there from thousands to perhaps millions of years and I am sure and confident that it is continually made, leaks and is a source of food for these microorganisms. Some of the discussion around methane leaks suggest it would be expected at the head of glaciers where they meet the sea and other edges. On average you would expect a certain background level of emissions and nobody would dispute this. The difference is and why fig 6 was used is that these emissions have suddenly risen. Fig 6 is for just one area, but the satellite data was shown in figure 5 to demonstrate that it is not just a local occurrence and the levels of emissions have risen in recent years and seem to change quite rapidly.

In my own view I wouldn't expect microbe related emissions to change too much unless of course there was very strong currents and stirring caused by wave action but then the wave action is only expected in the ice-free periods of the year.

In my view the research cruise hasn't told us anything that would favour one interpretation of events or the other. Definitely it is prudent and if one were to follow the precautionary principle more in-situ measurements and research cruises are needed.

In summary, I really don't see why the outcome of that research cruise is some kind of proof that the whole methane thing is alarmist. I would say it would be reckless to just ignore these questions and now intensively investigate further and be concerned given the downsides are to say the least highly risky.

Regarding the 1922 report, I am sure it is valid, but I need to confirm it nevertheless. However, I am no expert on the climate record for this period and perhaps there was a regional warming at that time. Since the Gulf Stream more or less terminates around Spitsbergen, my guess is that the strength of it would be reflect in how far it penetrates the region all around. So if it was strong for a few years, you could expect a lot of heat to be transported into that area given the huge quantity of heat that water can transfer due to its heat capacity. But I would like to know how they documented the changes that they saw. Had they measurements and photographs from previous times or were they relying on the memory of the experienced sailors? What is most likely is that since humans didn't just start changing the climate since the Industrial Revolution but have been doing so since they started clearly forests and clearing it for agricultural land there is a longer term change already in progress and the last 100 years is just giving it a further kick. I found the attached image showing the temperature series for Spitzbergen / Svalbard since 1912 and when you iron out the bumps, it looks like an overall steady but slow increase since then, with indeed a significant increase have just completed by the time of the 1922 article

Svalbard meteorological observations since 1912. The thin lines indicate the annual values, while the thick line is the simple running 5-yr mean
Svalbard meteorological observations since 1912. The thin lines indicate the annual values, while the thick line is the simple running 5-yr mean

author by fredpublication date Wed Mar 13, 2013 08:16Report this post to the editors

"where did i do that? I don't remember comparing any scientific data from 2012 with any article from 1922.
Are you sure about that Fred? cos I've double checked and I can see no instance of me comparing any scientific data from 2012 with any article from 1922.
Perhaps you're hallucinating, or maybe you just made that bit up? Bit of a mystery really"


Well, you dredged up an article from 1922 and then you did say, (I quote) :
"climate alarmism through the ages - disappointingly unoriginal"

I didn't hallucinate that did I?

And thats clearly comparing T's researched article citing many high tech modern measurements over a wide area, made over time to those of some news article citing a few manual measurements made by one geology professor looking for fossil fuel deposits, over the course of one single voyage in 1922, and bundling them both into the same "broad strokes" category of climate alarmism

Thats
(a) not comparing like with like
(b) completely unscientific

considering you used to troll here calling yourself "real scientist", (b) is kinda ironic.
But considering you used to post diagrams from JoNova who had ties to the heartland institute, I guess "completely scientific" is a step up from "deliberately twisting the facts for money" which is what she was doing. (and you by proxy, in posting her material here)

Nice to see that, along with the "sock puppet" name change (other one got too tarnished I guess), you've toned down your ugly little persona somewhat too. In this incarnation, you've learned to limit the personal abuse to only saying to people who challenge you that they are "hallucinating". However your general use of language, rhetorical patterns etc give you away totally. D-. Must try harder!

However, being an optimist and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll instead choose to interpret this as "your spell commenting on indymedia has helped you to grow as a person". Maybe consider chucking the day job as a climate change holdout apologist for climate criminals, turn whistleblower on your paymasters and that growth process can continue? ;-)

author by Mike Czechpublication date Wed Mar 13, 2013 09:17Report this post to the editors

Despite all your blather about "Science" you have yet to even discuss any. So far all we have out of you is (completely against the rules) personal attacks - I guess that's what one has to do if one wants to comment bu actually has noting to say worth Listening to.

By any sane definition of the word "troll" there are 3 trolls in this thread, Mac the knife, RE and you fred.

Out of the 3 of you it's a toss up between YOU and Mac as to who as to who is the most troll-ish. After that latest troll-rant,Fred you're in first place, but Mac may be back with something equally trolling, so we wait for a while before I declare you Chief Troll.

author by mac the knifepublication date Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:24Report this post to the editors

my, but you have lots of time on you hand czech! now that youve taken to citing scientific evidence lets hope you will read a few more peer reviewed journals among the 99.999% out there confirming and warning of the dangers of climate change induced by fossil fuel use....or maybe just keep pedaling the carbon multinationals myths for them, seems to be working for you.

author by Rational Ecologist.publication date Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:17Report this post to the editors

Well, I've never been referred to as a troll before; however, I have been called much worse. Generally, that is more of a reflection on the other person, rather than me.
So I'm a troll and you-Mike Czech-are ignoring the vast bulk of the evidence indicating Climate Chaos/Disaster, which for many worldwide is already happening.
The precautionary principle-referred to above-would oblige us to act where risk is significant. No one can predict the future, however, it is best to plan to avoid disaster where there is a significant chance of it happening. Maybe I'm wrong but I am not happy crossing my fingers and hoping for the best. unlike your good self. Common sense my friend, enough is genius.

author by fredpublication date Wed Mar 13, 2013 16:48Report this post to the editors

see here:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101886?

and here:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101422

for previous examples of "real scientist" alias "mike czech" (and weak audio pun) doing the work of the heartland institute and the koch brothers.

thanks to "serf" for outing him. Funny!

author by Joe Snowpublication date Tue Apr 02, 2013 13:37Report this post to the editors

It's a pity the entire article is a mish-mash of questions, theories, hysterical fears, apocolyptic outcomes and what most non-government scientists call, 'junk science'. I prefer to read actual scientific argument from both sides of the Global Warming argument. And yes, I did read it, so don't try to dismiss my criticism with that glib rebuke, as you have done above.

Personally I mistrust the governments who seem to think they have some magical power to rule over us and when they start to tell us the sky is falling or the oceans are about to flood us I cynically ask, "what scam are they playing on us this time"? Is it more than just stealing our money as 'carbon tax'? I think it is about changing how we see ourselves in realation to nature. I think it is about making us feel we are a plague on the planet and we should all go and live in workers units in metropolises, to 'minimise our carbon footprint'.

For me it's not a question of whether or not these government scientists you cite are trying to pull the wool over our eyes, it's just a question of what is their agenda.

author by fredpublication date Wed Apr 03, 2013 19:24Report this post to the editors

Joe, governments and their masters do tend to have agendas and are opportunistic and will use anything available to further those agendas. I don't disagree.

It's not a black or white situation. Maybe several things are true here.

Maybe we are affecting the climate AND governments / their puppet masters have an agenda and will try to use this situation to their advantage if they can.

Cap and trade is an example of this kind of thing. Useless carbon taxes, while subsidising the oil and gas industry and invading oil rich countries may be other manifestations of this behaviour. Maybe they are using this situation to help ensure rising competitor economies like China / India encounter strong barriers to reaching the kind of living standards available in the US for decades.

Also maybe it's true that certain HUGE and very rich / powerful corporations and billionaires such as the Koch brothers who make billions from digging up and exploiting fossil fuels are desperately trying to play down the whole thing with paid PR campaigns as if the stark reality is widely perceived, it may impinge strongly on their particular business models and profits.

Maybe the fact that all three points have truth helps explain the confusion and the sometimes contradictory reports and publicity on the topic.

author by Tpublication date Mon May 06, 2013 22:29Report this post to the editors

This video was put together by Andy Robinson in an attempt to convey how over the past decade the Sea Ice volume has been dramatically declining. It is only a few minutes and is well worth viewing because it graphically demonstrates what is happening

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volume
Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volume

arcticdeathspiral1979201303.png

Caption: Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volumes 1979-2012 Animation


author by Fuckin Freezinpublication date Sat May 11, 2013 20:44Report this post to the editors

Alaska Endures Record Cold While Still Buried Under Snow - http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/alaska-exper...41665


    May 11, 2013; 8:07 AM

    The five-week period from April 3 to May 7 was the coldest in 109 years of record keeping at Fairbanks, Alaska, according to the National Weather Service (NWS).

    Temperatures during this period averaged only 19.9 degrees and broke the old record for the same stretch of days set in 1924.

    According to Expert Senior Meteorologist Joe Lundberg, "Fairbanks has not had a day above 50 degrees since Oct. 4, 2012."

    The chilly streak was the fourth longest on record.

    The normal high for May 8 is 58 degrees at Fairbanks.

    To go along with the cold, the city still had 10 inches of snow on the ground as of the midday hours on May 8, this was despite having a near-average amount of snow for the winter season at 68.5 inches. The average amount for Fairbanks is 64.5 inches.

    Snow has been consistently covering the ground since Oct. 15 in Fairbanks............

    ...............The record for the greatest number of days with 0.50 of an inch or more of snow on the ground for Anchorage is 193 days set during the winter of 1971-72, when snow was on the ground from Oct. 23 to May 3.

    Anchorage has received about 92 inches of snow so far this winter season, compared to a normal of about 75 inches.


"Runaway Global Warming" me arse

author by Rational Ecologistpublication date Thu May 16, 2013 17:12Report this post to the editors

I was sitting having a coffee in Dunleary a few years ago and was eavesdropping on two D4 types(Ross O' Carroll Kelly shtick of the south Dublin area), talking about the weather, when one said to the other and I quote "I'll believe in Global Warming when it's not so cold in Dalkey in June!". They both probably got into their Land Rovers to negotiate the local, treachorous terrain of South Dublin and did their bit to combat the Dunleary mini ice age.
My point is that record cold temperatures at ONE location neither prove or disprove anything. If one was being parochial, one would conclude the earth is cooling, after the so-called Spring we just had, and the fact it barely reached 10 degress Celsius today.
Extreme temperature variation and local 'freak' conditions will become the norm. Temperature distribution will be erratic, extreme and destructive, so the above post is pointless.

author by Scott Schaferpublication date Fri Jul 26, 2013 16:15Report this post to the editors

Those who say that global warming isn't happening because surface temperatures have been flat for the past sixteen years are either misinformed or are being disingenuous. The warming trend has slowed on land, but has accelerated in the deep ocean.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jul/22/climate-c...ceans

Combined with the spike in methane plumes, this is very concerning.

author by Tpublication date Mon Oct 21, 2013 16:46Report this post to the editors

The picture attached here is of University of Alaska Fairbanks research Katey Walter lighting a pocket of methane on a thermokarst lake in Siberia in March of 2007

uaf_kateywalter_lights_methane_on_thermokarset_lake_in_siberia_march_2007.jpg

Related Link: http://scodpub.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/arctic-ice-meth...ames/
author by Crazy Catpublication date Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:52Report this post to the editors

Greenhouse Gases Hit New Record High, an article from Environment News Service

http://ens-newswire.com/2013/11/08/greenhouse-gases-hit...NS%29

author by Crazy Catpublication date Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:11Report this post to the editors

Study doubles estimate for methane venting from shallow Siberian Arctic waters. Article from the Alaska Dispatch:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131126/study-do...aters

author by Real Sciencepublication date Sun Dec 01, 2013 13:40Report this post to the editors

This "arctic-methane-released-at-blinding-speed" meme is alarmist chicken-little nonsense - Climate alarmists make these scary-sounding claims about Arctic Methane at this time every year becase they can then run arond trying to scare people by babbling excitedly that

"methane has increased recently"!!!!!!
- well guess what?

Arctic Methane ALWAYS increases at this time of the year. - and these alarmists already know that before they try to con people by babbling about an increase in methane

see for yourself - see the graph of "Methane (CH4) by Latitude" here presented by the Earth System Research Laboratory. - http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/globalview/ch4/ch4_in....html

The Methane distribution data is presented "by Latitude" because there is a very uneven world-wide distribution - most of it sits over the Arctic and nearby regions - but you don't get told that by the Alarmists when they show you big scary graphs all decked out in red over the attic.

Astute observers will note that those all-decked-out-in-red graphs that the alarmists are so fond of are to be seen in the very misleading, and anyway now proven to be alarmist nonsense , article above.

What these dishonest people do not tell you is that because of how Methane is so unevenly distributed, the Arctic will always have extremely high concentrations of Methane - the Arctic areas will ALWAYS have the highest concentrations - but the Alarmists don't tell you that because then you might not get so alarmed by their nonsense.

anyone presenting such graphs of methane distribution are nothing but charlatans - less than 5 minutes research will show anyone that presenting methane in such a way is completely dishonest.


Here is a link to an HONEST attempt to graphs Methane by Latitude - http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/globalview/images/gvc...e.gif - this graphic will also show that Methane increases at this time of the year, EVERY YEAR

Also note that Methane is measured in "parts per billion", btw, not "parts per million" like CO2, and also degrades quite quickly in the natural environment - again not something the Alarmists have a habit of mentioning

And again, according to the ESRL, here are the "NOAA In Situ Methane (CH4) Measurements" - http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/esrl/met...html-

ESRL states, regarding trends in the data:
"Methane was steadily increasing in the 1980's, it's growth rate slowed in the 1990's, and it has had a near-zero growth rate for the last few years."
The EPA states that the near zero growth rate is a result of emissions-lowering efforts

Below are 3 graphs - the first shows Temp Anomalies over the past decade - absolutely no sign on Runaway Anything in that graph - certainly no sign of runaway global warming

The second and 3rd graphs are simple, accurate and easy to understand graphs of Methane Distribution by Latitude

Runaway Global Warming?  me arse
Runaway Global Warming? me arse

In contrast to the Graphs used in the article above <br>Here is an HONEST way to graph Methane Distribution -
In contrast to the Graphs used in the article above
Here is an HONEST way to graph Methane Distribution -

Another HONEST way to graph methane
Another HONEST way to graph methane

author by Crazy Catpublication date Sat Dec 28, 2013 14:33Report this post to the editors

An article from the National Academy of Sciences:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.asp...18373

author by Crazy Catpublication date Sun Dec 29, 2013 14:49Report this post to the editors

An excellent talk from Professor James White from the university of Colorado on
Climate Change: Where We Are Now and Where We Are Going?


http://vimeo.com/39835429

And a good educational site:

http://learnmoreaboutclimate.colorado.edu/

author by FFSpublication date Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:38Report this post to the editors



It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair
US novelist & socialist politician (1878 - 1968)

Caption: Catastrophic Human-caused Global Warming - It


author by Tpublication date Thu Jan 09, 2014 22:32Report this post to the editors

Ah yes that was the programme that appeared on the TV a few years back. Soon after it came out, a number of scientists who were interviewed on it, said they were taken out of context and misrepresented. Then when the points raised in it were analysed, each one was debunked and it was shown that many of the facts in it were not facts and the programme was just blatantly fraudulent

A good debunking of it can be found here: www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

Related Link: http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
author by FFSpublication date Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:35Report this post to the editors

Since this article, (of what looks to me like a pseudo scientific hodge-podge of deliberately misleading graphs and hilarious misdirection), was published, T, nearly a year has passed.

since you have posted no follow up showing a massive increase in Methane figures over the past year, one would have to suppose that the answer to your question

"Has Arctic Methane 'Bomb' Just Gone Off?"
is a fairly resounding
"No!"

author by FFSpublication date Tue Jan 14, 2014 15:13Report this post to the editors

Earlier you said

"Regarding the 1922 report, I am sure it is valid, but I need to confirm it nevertheless."


Did you even bother to confirm it's validity, T? It's been almost a year now, so you should have been able to do that by now, no?

If so, can you inform us here please whether or not it is "valid"?

If not then "Why Not"?

If you didn't bother to check it's "validity" then "Why Not"?

author by Tpublication date Tue Jan 14, 2014 22:58Report this post to the editors

To answer the methane bomb question as to whether it is gone off. I would say we are right in the middle of the process and it will unfold for many more years yet.

The image below is a comparison of methane emissions for the same periods in 2013 and 2014 and there is a clear increase in the Barents Sea, Greenland Sea, Davis Strait and Hudson Bay, whilst there is some reduction in Sea of Okhotsk off Eastern Siberia and the North Pacific generally. Once again this year the sea-ice has largely failed to form to it's traditional 30 year extent in the Barents Sea which corresponds to the locations of most intense emissions.

qf3_iasi_ch4_2013_2014_01_no1.jpg

author by ffspublication date Wed Jan 15, 2014 00:26Report this post to the editors

Tsk tsk

Anyone representing methane in the way you are doing is being dishonest

The methane bomb question as to whether it is gone off. I would say we are right in the middle of the process and it will unfold for many more years yet.


Jaysus T, thats some load of crap youjust cobbled together in that sentence. So you have to make some nonsense up, i understand that, since you tru-believers can NEVER admit any error, but really?

Right in the middle huh?

Oh, scary

Whatever it is youre doing T, I can assure you it aint science - PR or marketing more like

Once again this year the sea-ice has largely failed to form to it's traditional 30 year extent in the Barents
 

That quite a obfuscatory statement, especially since this years ice has seen a 26 percent rise on the previous year, and theres loads more multiyear ice as well

You trubelievers dont appear to do science nor honesty very well

author by ffspublication date Wed Jan 15, 2014 00:35Report this post to the editors

Way up on last year T, and lots on multiyear ice there as well

Whats yer nonsensical explanation for that T?

Too many polar bears?

author by ffspublication date Wed Jan 15, 2014 00:45Report this post to the editors

All that those dishonest graphs you use show, T, is a slightly different DISTRIBITION of methane, from 2013 to 2014

Nothing more

They show NO RISE in methane overall

Nor could they because thy are not designed to show such things.This is something you been already informed of, T, so your continued use of such graphs and continued pretence that they represent evidence of overall rise in methane is nonsense and dishonest

Instead of providing evidence that supports your claim you are trying to con people into thinking that those silly graphs of yours show something other than a redistribution of methane between now and last year

author by hahahpublication date Wed Jan 15, 2014 17:03Report this post to the editors

Methane is unstable and breaks down quickly in the atmosphere, and even if it doubled would have essentially no impact on the greenhouse effect. In the tropics, the effect would be an increase in downwelling longwave radiation of about 0.04%.

People ranting about methane 'bomb' need to get a grip - no one with any knowledge of the subject would make such claims

author by fredpublication date Wed Jan 15, 2014 20:27Report this post to the editors

I watched your video FFS, and it was interesting and I found it quite convincing.
Then I went to T's link: http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

Wow! It seems that convincing video was actually completely full of shit. I'm humbled.

C4 distanced itself from the film, academics sued them, graphs were totally "fluffed" to distort the facts and Durkin is a completely shady character.

You should go to the link.

author by FFSpublication date Wed Jan 15, 2014 20:58Report this post to the editors

I completely get what you are talking about Fred

it's just like when I went through T's original article on Methane and it was interesting and I found it quite convincing.

Right until I actually went and researched it for myself and found that T's article was completely full of crap - the graphs on Methane are completely unrepresentative, and the attempt to dishonestly link a 150yr event in greenland with "Dark snow" (or whatever that bullshit was called)

Wow! It seems that convincing article was actually completely full of shit. I'm humbled.

author by Tpublication date Wed Jan 15, 2014 21:06Report this post to the editors

I don't know what is dishonest about the graphs. It seems you have to rely on insults to make your point. I don't wish to engage in this type of ignorant behaviour.

The methane data are satellite measurements. The important point in them is that methane emissions are continuing to escape from the various regions around the Arctic and my reading of them which is plain for anyone to see is as I stated in the original comment. Methane remains in the atmosphere for approximately 25 years.

The figure regarding sea-ice has increased by 25% over last year is simply wrong. In fact for Dec 2013, the amount of sea-ice is the 4th lowest recorded since satellite measurements began. The actual volume of ice which is different and also important is still falling.

In the attached graph, are the comparisons of sea-ice extent for the past few years. I have placed a red-arrow to point to the blue line for this years ice extent covering 2013-2014.

Multi-year ice which predominately exists only North of Greenland and Baffin Island, only increased slightly and continues to escape into the Atlantic via the Fram Strait along eastern Greenland.

seaice_extent_comparisons_jan_2014.png

author by FFSpublication date Thu Jan 30, 2014 13:19Report this post to the editors

I don't know what is dishonest about the graphs. It seems you have to rely on insults to make your point. I don't wish to engage in this type of ignorant behaviour.


T you're really obliging I must say. Other than quoting YOUR OWN WORDS from the recent past, I don't even have to do hardly anything to demonstrate how dishonest your use of of a graph from JANUARY to bamboozle people once again.

Here's something T already knows and so does anyone that knows anything about Sea Ice and Honesty.

SEPTEMBER sea Ice figures are what the climate Alarmists claim are relevant- T already knows this and we already know that T knows this.

Well Done T!

Here is what T had to say back in December 2011
Re: Pure nonsense form the climate Alarmists - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100976?search_text=Arct...86276

author T

publication date Tue Dec 06, 2011 22:31

The graph above is a subset of the yearly change in Arctic sea ice cover. As the summer approaches a certain portion melts reaching the maximum melt at the end of the summer in September and then it freezes again. The different coloured lines showed that the extent of this summer melt is becoming greater.

With a bigger area free of ice this automatically more heat absorbed. Also not noted in the graph is that the ice that reforms is thinner because the proportion of just 1 year old ice is increasing. In previous years it would have a higher mix of older ice.


The Graph shown below, of Arctic Sea Ice in Sept, at the end of the melt season, is the sort of Graph T Should have used if he was intent on a reasonably honest representation of the situation.

As anyone can see the Sept level for 2013 lies well within the 2 Standard Deviation boundary.

For some reason T does not want to display that sort of info himself.

No! He'd rather talk about Dec2013/Jan2014 rather than September 2013

T might be the only man on earth concerned with JANUARY Sea Ice Levels in the Arctic

The figure regarding sea-ice has increased by 25% over last year is simply wrong.


Now T that's just a blatantly false statement from you, and anyone can see this for themselves simply by looking at the graph posted below.

The source for that graphs is the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/09/Figure2...6.png which is the Official repository of such info

Both T's unrepresentative graph and my much more informative Graph come from the EXACT same source - the difference is that T is trying to misrepresent the 2013 figures by referring to the completely irrelevant Dec 2013 figures and ignoring the highly relevant September 2013 figures, while I am not

For some reason known only to himself T chose to completely misrepresent the situation by choosing to play "hide-the-ball" by concentrating on Dec 2013/ January 2014

September Sea Ice - The Graph T doesn't want to display himself -<br>He seems to prefer a misleading January Graph
September Sea Ice - The Graph T doesn't want to display himself -
He seems to prefer a misleading January Graph

Sept Artic Sea Ice - This is what T SHOULD have shown<br> For some reason he chose not to . . .
Sept Artic Sea Ice - This is what T SHOULD have shown
For some reason he chose not to . . .

author by FFSpublication date Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:57Report this post to the editors

Earlier, T said :

Methane remains in the atmosphere for approximately 25 years.


That is just blatant dishonesty, T.

Anyone could check for themselves how long Methane stays in the atmosphere by simply googling "how long does methane remain in the atmosphere?" - the very first 2 articles I got were

In fact ALL the sources I checked on that page gave a figure of 12 years for methane (CH4)

So why would you come out with a figure that is 100% more than the real figure? That is very strange indeed, T.

What are you trying to do? Deliberately Mislead people?

Or is it that your knowledge of this subject so bad that you don't even know the most basic facts about this subject? And all this despite cobbling together a hodge-podge of alarmist nonsense on the subject and posting it here, complete with silly (mis/un)representative graphs, all decked out in red, meant to scare the pants off, and living daylights out, of anyone that didn't check out your statements too closely ?

I guess that was what all the graphs were for - to distract people from the fact that almost everything in T's article is false, completely unrepresentative nonsensical hyperbole is the absolute kindest description one cold offer
The important point in them is that methane emissions are continuing to escape from the various regions around the Arctic and my reading of them which is plain for anyone to see is as I stated in the original comment.


But, T, that is almolst exactly as was said in an earlier comment on this thread
Arctic Methane ALWAYS increases at this time of the year. [AND it always increases most in the latitudes T is highlighting - always - every year - T never once mentioned that FACT- Why Not?]

. . . . and these alarmists already know all that before they try to con people by babbling about an increase in methane . . .

. . . but you don't get told that by the Alarmists when they show you big scary graphs all decked out in red over the attic. . .

. . . less than 5 minutes research will show anyone that presenting methane in such a way is completely dishonest.

author by Rational Ecologist.publication date Mon Feb 10, 2014 13:07Report this post to the editors

Please check out a film titled 'Chasing Ice' on the topic of glacial retreat.
A picture is worth a thousand words.

author by FFSpublication date Thu Feb 13, 2014 22:04Report this post to the editors

We wouldn't want ye to end up like this guy . . . .

Just a few years ago the almost-hysterical ClimaBots wereTelling us that

"Children just won't know what Snow is!"


Plenty of Ice about too -

Next I spose some ridiculously gullible Climabot will reply that it's all been predicted.

Warming=ICE, according to the Clima-Zombies

"Children just won't know what Snow is!" - Climate "Scientist" in 2000
"Children just won't know what Snow is!" - Climate "Scientist" in 2000

Frozen sea in Blackrock Village in Dundalk Bay, co Louth. Photograph: Niall Caroll
Frozen sea in Blackrock Village in Dundalk Bay, co Louth. Photograph: Niall Caroll

author by FFSpublication date Thu Feb 13, 2014 22:19Report this post to the editors

On the ground in 49 of 50 US states

(Que plethora of Media propaganda telling us that all the Snow and Ice is because of the non-existent sweltering HEAT!)

Here’s the current US snow map. Note Florida has no snow. <br>Alaska, not shown, does, and Hawaii, not shown, does
Here’s the current US snow map. Note Florida has no snow.
Alaska, not shown, does, and Hawaii, not shown, does

author by FFSpublication date Thu Feb 13, 2014 22:46Report this post to the editors

According to leading Climate "Scientists" in 2000 Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-....html


Monday 20 March 2000
    "According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

    "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

    The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

    Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.

    Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".

    Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

    Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

    "We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

    David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold." [WTF is this idiot talking about "Virtual cold? - WTF is that?]


These so-called Climate "Scientists" mentioned above have really ended up looking very stupid indeed

No wonder people read the words of these fools years later and think "What a bunch of idiots!"

Snow -  A thing of the past? <br>According to Climate "Scientisrts" back in 2000
Snow - A thing of the past?
According to Climate "Scientisrts" back in 2000

author by Crazy Catpublication date Fri Feb 14, 2014 16:13Report this post to the editors

I just read this! From the Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-...DP0zj

author by FFSpublication date Fri Feb 14, 2014 16:45Report this post to the editors

So according to the scientifik genius above

If it's warm it's because of Globull Warming

AND

If it's Cold and Icy, it''s ALSO because of Global Warming?


Wow.

You Climabots have no shame whatsoever, do ye?

So basically: everything is "proof" of your pet theories?

there seems to be no set of circumstances that would prove you people wrong, on ANY level - (according to yourselves, that is)

THAT is almost identical to the certainty people with irrational Religious beliefs display in that face of contradictory evidence - which makes your linking to that silly LA Times Cartoon much more ironic than you initially thought it be, I'd say.

For example T has yet to admit that his whole article is founded on a thin tissue of hysterical alarmist ignorant pseudo-scientific clap-trap, backed up by a plethora of (mis/un)representative big-scary graphs topped-off with an unhealthy amount of deliberately misleading statements, all wrapped up in an appalling disregard for actual empirical scientific evidence.

Despite been proven wrong on pretty much ALL his major Scare-issues, T continues on regardless, clinging desperately to his discredited Beliefs regarding Global Warming

Sounds like Religion to me

author by co2publication date Fri Feb 14, 2014 18:45Report this post to the editors

It is climate change,this is not a scam this is our future,and the future of our children and our childrens children if we ever get to that,the future for them looks very bleak.

The facts remain polar bears are dying - this is the litmus test for the climate in the north pole,ice caps are calving at an alarming rate,the size of manhattan every couple of days..

We are using up more forest lands for agriculture,burning forests after cocaine making in dens for idiots who buy the stuff,more trees are being logged for an increasing demand for harmful meat (ch4 harmful meathan )and pestecide crop agriculture which is destroying the very important bee populations responsible for pollinating food to fruition.

By 2050,more trees will be logged for more agirculture,as the human population is expected to grow and we will need to feed 70% more people,of course they dont tell you about the poor,starving africans who can never afford food and will rely on food aid to prop them up.

Add two and two you anti enviornmentalist bigots,if more terees are being logged and the human population is growing(and more people driving co2 cars)well then what does that add up to?

author by FFSpublication date Sun Feb 16, 2014 14:30Report this post to the editors

Oh won't someone please think of the CHILDREN!!!!! (they might MELT!!!!)

They say that "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels", but reading the previous post reminds me of the arguments one hears regarding censorship in general, and censorship of the net in particular - "We have to do it for the Children!" -

It is climate change,this is not a scam this is our future,and the future of our children and our childrens children if we ever get to that,the future for them looks very bleak

Really, it's a cheap and pathetic attempt at melodrama, a quick fix of cheap emotionalism, to distract from the fact that there's little to no real evidence to back up any of your pet theories.

No matter how much silly misguided emotional investment you personally have in these silly theories, writing "It IS too!" as a counter argument is just childish, tbh

The facts remain polar bears are dying


Oh Really?

FACTS, eh?

Where?

I don't see any "facts" about "Polar bears dying", anywhere.

DO PLEASE show me these "facts" (as you call them)

this completely misleading, reference to "Polar Bears dying" is just more silly emotionalism, based on nothing at all other than moronic marketing campaigns complete with fake photoshopped imagery showing cute little balls of white fluff innocently frolicking on melting Icebergs, or some other fake nonsense.

some people will swallow anything if you put a picture of something cute and fluffy in it - kittens, puppies, likkle polar bear cubs etc etc.

Question NOTHING!!!!<br>Won't someone PLEASE ThinK of the KITTENS!!!!!!
Question NOTHING!!!!
Won't someone PLEASE ThinK of the KITTENS!!!!!!

author by Frostypublication date Sun Feb 16, 2014 23:14Report this post to the editors

Movie of Sea Ice Thickness Measurements



Click the image below for Dec/Jan movie - T seems to be interested only in Dec/Jan for some reason

Lots of multi-year ice, in direct contradiction to statements made here by others

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif

author by Spiderpublication date Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:34Report this post to the editors

Here's one for you guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFTddFk6zb8

author by FFSpublication date Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:25Report this post to the editors

TRDV - Too retarded - didn't view.

Maybe try something on-topic and relevant next time -

You could even try something actually with a scientific basis, though that would probably be a little too much for you

author by co2publication date Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:56Report this post to the editors

Oh won't someone please think of the CHILDREN!!!!! (they might MELT!!!!)


Your responses are childish,and melodramatic if anything.The polar bears are dying,their evniornment is rapidly changing,the ice caps are melting.ARE YOU DENYING THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING??http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-....aspx

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/06/star...-melt

Do you think 7 BILLION PEOPLE LIVING AND EATING,SHITTING AND GENERATING RUBBISH,USING TOILET PAPER,BUYING DUPLICATE PRODUCTS,BUYING FASHION TRENDS EVERY MONTH - IS SUSTATINABLE???

It is anti - envionrmenalist bigots like you that would DENY, DENY, DENY, DENY, CLIMATE CHANGE,EVEN WHEN YOU ARE UP TO YOUR NECK IN WATER WADING THROUGH IT!

There is a lot of ignorance,and selective ignorance moreso that we need to crack,this is half the challenge,which is why enviornmentalists get shouted down and ignored in most cases.

There was a right wing politician in america,who was asked about saving the fish populations in the waters of the US,and his response was arent fish stupid???!!!

There are a lot of thick bigots that need to be shunned for what they are.

author by FFSpublication date Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:31Report this post to the editors

Cllimabots say that settled global warming science says winters will be colder, . . . or warmer . . . . or whatever. Doesn't matter because Whatever happens they will go on to claim it to be proof of their theories. They even seem to believe that they have always believed that.

BUT in 2001 The IPCC said the something different.

IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001 – Complete online versions | GRID-Arendal – Publications – Other -
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=569

    15.2.4.1.2.4. Ice Storms

  • Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms


IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=674 -
  • Warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change, will decrease cold-related mortality in many temperate countries.


Climabots have no interest or knowledge in what actual science says, but then neither do most of the Climate "Scientists" themselves..

They just want the peasants to shut up and do what they say.

Here is a plot of JANUARY temperatures, since the IPCC made their 2001 statement

January Temps since 2001 Climate Scientists<br>" Warmer Winters, Less Snow" statements
January Temps since 2001 Climate Scientists
" Warmer Winters, Less Snow" statements

author by FFSpublication date Mon Feb 17, 2014 14:14Report this post to the editors

Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-po...2523/

From the Daily Globe and Mail in Canada:

    The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.

    The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut.

    \That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted [that's "Forecast" - NOT "counted"] the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt.

    The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.


survey done by the Government of Nunavut, here:

http://env.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/foxe_basin_pol...2.pdf

Regarding fluffy polar bear images - the image below is the sort of thing usually used to pluck at the heart-strings of the gullible - source : http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4095333-the-last...r.php

Stock photo description reads:
    A polar bear managed to get on one of the last ice floes floating in the Arctic sea. Due to global warming the natural environment of the polar bear in the Arctic has changed a lot. The Arctic sea has much less ice than it had some years ago. (This image is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real, they were just not together in the way they are now)

Ursus Bogus - not real
Ursus Bogus - not real

author by FFSpublication date Mon Feb 17, 2014 14:21Report this post to the editors

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/international-conse...lobal

Edit: Photo Caption below should read

    No decline In Polar Bear Population over last 4-to-8 years

No decline In Polar Bear Population Since 1960's
No decline In Polar Bear Population Since 1960's

author by FFSpublication date Mon Feb 17, 2014 14:44Report this post to the editors

2013 - Nice thick Multi-year Ice, currently plentiful

4 year Autumn Arctic Sea Ice thickness comparison

Autum sea Ice thickness - 2010
Autum sea Ice thickness - 2010

Autum sea Ice thickness - 2011
Autum sea Ice thickness - 2011

Autum sea Ice thickness - 2012
Autum sea Ice thickness - 2012

Autum sea Ice thickness - 2013
Autum sea Ice thickness - 2013

author by FFSpublication date Mon Feb 17, 2014 14:54Report this post to the editors

There is a lot of ignorance,and selective ignorance moreso . . . .


There certainly IS a lot of ignorance about this subject - the level of ignorance on display here as regards basic facts is astounding to be honest

. . .this is half the challenge,which is why enviornmentalists get shouted down and ignored in most cases.


Actually imho the reason "environmentalists" get ignored is because when questioned they often display a general all-round ignorance of a subject they claim to know much about, as well as displaying a complete disregard for what the empirical evidence says instead choosing to rant about mere "forecasts" or inaccurate Model "predictions")

then there's the completely ridiculous things they say such as "OMFG!!! . . . it's a Methane Bomb!!!!!" . . . . . .

author by fredpublication date Mon Feb 17, 2014 16:11Report this post to the editors

So...FFS, are you saying that there is no man made climate change, everything is hunky dory and we should keep relying on fossil fuels and dig up and use every last drop of oil and there will be no consequences?

author by Rational Ecologist.publication date Mon Feb 17, 2014 17:05Report this post to the editors

FFS, are you saying that the IPCC are totally wrong and that CO2e is not a problem and that we have nothing to worry about? Yes, some of the xtrapolations taken from the overall background situation tend to be sensationalsit and inaccurate, however, this does not negate the climate science. Glacial retreat is a fact, based on observation, especially in North America.
Please outline your view on the current state of the planet and explain how you think/feel the IPCC has got it wrong.
I personally feel the science may be understating things. I would dearly love to be wrong and take misguided comfort from your posts. But I don't.
Please elaborate your point of view, without refuting others' points of view.
I am deeply intereseted in where you are coming from.
Thanks, in anticipation of you setting out your overall view.

author by ffspublication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:52Report this post to the editors

Someone show me just One piece of evidence ( actual evidence, not media claptrap) that prooves that the co2 in the environment has the effect on temp that you people claim it has.

Just one piece of verifiable irrefutable evidence.

As regards "beliefs" about the climate?

I have no "beliefs" about climate and look with distaste at any one that does.

Religion is something one "believes", and you people certainly have a lot of beliefs regarding climate, (and almost all of them appear to be wrong)

Lke i said you people have something akin to religious belief concerning climate. Unshakable, irrational, beliefs not swayed by mere evidence.

Thats RELIGION, not Science. What you people practice is the opposite of Science

You can keep your religion, but to try ram it down the throat of others, those not convinced by your anti-science religious mumbo-jumbo, is the behaviour of despicable fascists. As soon as one disagree with even the most obviously moronic statements from the AGW camp, you people show your true colours, with CAPS LOCK no less.

"Anti environment bigot" -this is the language of complete morons.

author by ffspublication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:39Report this post to the editors

Glacial retreat is a fact, based on observation


O'Rly?

A "fact", eh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaci...tains
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows

    The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

    The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.


this came AFTER the IPCC stated in it's 2007 report that “Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035" - some may also recall that the claim was clearly shown to be complete and utter nonsense. but not by Climate "Scientists" - they happily agreed with it, the loons, or kept silent.

Himalayan glaciers melting deadline ‘a mistake’ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm)
By Pallava Bagla in Delhi

    The Himalayas hold the planet’s largest body of ice outside the polar caps

    The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.

    J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

    He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035”.


Not only that but the glacier all Melt by 2035" claim was taken not from any scientific publication but lifted wholesale from a WWF Marketing campaign.

Some people will believe anything

author by co2publication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 13:36Report this post to the editors

Exactly 76 years ago, Guy Callendar presented first evidence the Earth was warming & CO2 was responsible along with other greenhouse gases such as ch4 methane..

You anti climate deniers are way in over your heads here,considering a study has been done and throughly researched and expermented well over 70 something years ago..

Maybe you should do your research on both sides without any bias..

author by Ruapublication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 13:43Report this post to the editors

Tyndall measured greenhouse effect in 1861. Arrhenius did theory in 1896. Callendar showed obs evidence in 1938.

author by Rational Ecologist.publication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 13:56Report this post to the editors

Glacial retreat is a fact in North America and elsewhere.
FFS you still haven't answered my overall questions concerning what you believe the worldwide situation. I use the word-believe- in the vernacular sense. Nothing at all to worry about so? Having looked at the science, what's your opinion, conclusion? No Red Herrings please.
I am convinced that we are wrecking the planet.
So, without resorting to ad hominem, straw men/women, pedantic semantics or whatever other you may want to use to avoid answering a direct, simple question.
Outline your view in a paragraph or two.
Are all the IPCC scientists wrong?
Do you dispute it's findings?

author by FFSpublication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 14:37Report this post to the editors

Exactly 76 years ago, Guy Callendar presented first evidence the Earth was warming & CO2 was responsible along with other greenhouse gases such as ch4 methane..


thats not what I asked you for - I asked you for "evidence ( actual evidence, not media claptrap) that proves that the co2 in the environment has the effect on temp that you people claim it has." and you did not provide it.

You people claim that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere causes 2 to 4 degrees Celsius of additional Warming - this is known as Climate Sensitivity or Radiative Forcing. Deny it if you want , but that is the claim of the Climate Scientists that started this scam

so far there's not a scrap of real empirical evidence that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere causes 2 to 4 degrees Celsius of additional Warming

greenhouse gasses
author by Ruapublication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 13:43Report this post to the editors

Tyndall measured greenhouse effect in 1861. Arrhenius did theory in 1896.


No neither Tyndall nor Arenhuis provided empirical proof for the effect of CO2 doubling inj the atmosphere causing to 2 to 4 degrees Celsius of additional Warming

Glacial retreat.
author by Rational Ecologist.publication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 13:56Report this post to the editors

Glacial retreat is a fact in North America and elsewhere.


The facts say otherwise - again I repeat - and note that The Himalayas hold the planet’s largest body of ice outside the polar caps

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaci...tains
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows

    The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

    The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.


despite being informed of this you continue to ignore it and continue to repeat your claim without any evidence to back it up

That's Religion, not Science

author by FFSpublication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 14:42Report this post to the editors

So, on a sparsely visited site, 3 replies appear within minutes - all saying the same thing?

3 different personas "CO2" "Rua" and "Rational Ecologist"

Who was it that was famous for sockpuppetry around here?

So firstly a puppet called "CO2" posts a continuous stream of ridiculous "Ad hom" and rants in caps lock for a while, employing moronic phraseology such as "Climate deniers" ?-
The later under the name "Rational Ecologist" demands that no one use ad hom

that's what so appealing about you lot - your honesty (/snark)

=========

"Climate deniers!!!" - This is the language born of ignorance or idiocy - It's impossible to take seriously anyone that claims others "Deny the Climate!!"

No one Denies the Climate - it's all in yer head,. The fact that you have to invent such ridiculous phrases says quite a lot about you

author by FFSpublication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 14:45Report this post to the editors

Anti-Climate Deniers


Well I have to concede on that one

I actually do deny the existence of an Anti-Climate

There, I said it !!!!

author by FFSpublication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 14:57Report this post to the editors

Callendar actually proposed a logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature

this means that it initially has a discernible effect BUT it's effect gets weaker and weaker as it increases -

Such as that seen below in the first image below - this is something that latter-day so-called Climate "Scientists" rarely, if ever, acknowledge

CO2 Effect is Logaritihmic - <br> so it's effect decreases as it rises
CO2 Effect is Logaritihmic -
so it's effect decreases as it rises

bar chart showing similar loss of effect,  as above
bar chart showing similar loss of effect, as above

author by FFSpublication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 15:06Report this post to the editors

In a 1938 paper , (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.497064275...3/pdf) Callendar implicitly discounted the arguments for substantial positive feedbacks on initial forcing that characterize subsequent claims by the latter-day so-called Climate "Scientists", observing the negative feedback from clouds as follows:

    On the earth the supply of water vapour is unlimited over the greater part of the surface, and the actual mean temperature results from a balance reached between the solar ” constant ” and the properties of water and air.

    Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and temperature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.


This is in contrast to the claims that People here are trying to attribute to him

Guy Callandars Graph showing <br>LOGARITHIMIC relationship between CO2 and TEMP
Guy Callandars Graph showing
LOGARITHIMIC relationship between CO2 and TEMP

author by Rational Ecologist.publication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 16:00Report this post to the editors

I speak only for myself and have been posting to this site for years.
My questions remain unanswered!
Glacial retreat in North America has been established by observation and time-lapse photography.
Please address my questions.
Many thanks
Me, Myself, I.

author by co2publication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 16:38Report this post to the editors

Exactly 76 years ago, Guy Callendar presented first evidence the Earth was warming & CO2 was responsible along with other greenhouse gases such as ch4 methane..




thats not what I asked you for -


Well im sorry that truthful unbiased answer doesnt fit in with your anti climate diarrohea,its been going on for ages now you have hogged up whole pages with your anti climate clap trap.

author by Ruapublication date Wed Feb 19, 2014 17:41Report this post to the editors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1IWkbU0SG4&feature=c4-o...8229A

- This clip will lay it out for you in simple and obvious easy to grasp terms.

The biggest use of water is by agricultural irrigation,that would fill exactly 7 buildings the size of the empire state buidling.

Lands are being overfarmed,more forests are being logged for multi billion investors who want to run more businesses,and make money out of destruction of the enviornment,rivers are running dry,the first water riots appeared in punjab in india in 2007,86 people died in the clashes,how many more to come,and when will these water shoratges hit the west?

It is clear we are running out of time,there is nothing we can do until we sort out the human overpopulation problem we have - otherwise there will be more consumers and more billionaries,is this really the economic model we want? - one that DESTROYS THE PLANET,DEFORESTS LANDS,LEAVES IMPORTANT WILDLIFE HOMELESS?

Bees are even becoming extinct due to over use of pesticides and herbicides - look at the unabated destruction that monsanto is doing?

Why should we care about bees you might ask? Well bees can pollinate certain flowers to fruition - meaning food - the extinction of certain foods..

Everything we do to harm an animal,a fish or an insect will come back on us if we fail to see the value in these things..

The solution to this mess - is to put a cap on harmful businesses and to put a cap on the human population on earth.

author by Crazy Catpublication date Thu Mar 20, 2014 15:48Report this post to the editors

What the scientists have to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pFDu7lLV4

author by fredpublication date Sat Apr 05, 2014 21:29Report this post to the editors

Very sobering stuff from Guy McPherson. Game over. The Clathrate bomb HAS gone off.

author by fredpublication date Sat Apr 05, 2014 21:56Report this post to the editors

detailed December 2013 article on the methane problem from Malcolm light, whose work
was referenced by Guy McPherson in the above video

http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.nz/2013/12/act-now-on-me....html

author by Crazy Catpublication date Sun Jun 22, 2014 13:48Report this post to the editors

This article, by Pavol Stracansky :

http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/06/siberian-global-warming-...ssia/

reminds me of a book by Normand Spinrad written in 1999, A greenhouse summer.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/680455.Greenhouse_Summer

author by FFSpublication date Sun Jul 27, 2014 00:56Report this post to the editors

The actual situation, straight from the sources

You sock-puppet religious types will of course ignore these because they don't tell the lies you want them to tell

Oh noes!!! <br>We're all gonna DIE!!!!
Oh noes!!!
We're all gonna DIE!!!!

Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png

Source: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Source: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Source: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Source: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

author by FFSpublication date Sun Jul 27, 2014 01:08Report this post to the editors

[comment has been edited to remove unnecessary insulting language]

Callendar implicitly discounted the arguments for substantial positive feedbacks on initial forcing that characterize subsequent claims by Climate Scientists, observing the negative feedback from clouds as follows:

On the earth the supply of water vapour is unlimited over the greater part of the surface, and the actual mean temperature results from a balance reached between the solar ” constant ” and the properties of water and air.

Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and temperature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.


My guess would be that you don't realise the significance of the earlier statement
" Guy Callandar . . . implicitly discounted the arguments for substantial positive feedbacks on initial forcing"


you, , are the one that brought him into the conversation in the first place

Callandar's research actually explicitly rules-out "Runaway Positive Feedbacks"

The paper in question is linked above, but here it is again anyway, - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.497064275...3/pdf

author by FFSpublication date Sun Jul 27, 2014 01:51Report this post to the editors


Another highly amusing fact:

One of the triumvirate of sockpuppets (RE, "co2" & Rua") earlier stated

"Glacial retreat is a fact, based on observation"


That very definitive sounding statement was quickly reduced to

"Glacial retreat is a fact in North America and elsewhere."


which was once again quickly reduced to

"Glacial retreat in North America"


All of this was done, of course while not acknowledging the inaccuracy of any of the previous definitive sounding statements by this giant of the eco-sphere because, as you Religious Believers have so consistently demonstrated, like religious nutters everywhere, you cannot ever admit to ANY inaccuracy EVER.

At this rate it'll soon be reduced to something like

"Glacial retreat in ONE North American Valley" or somesuch

author by Wageslave - (moderator)publication date Sun Jul 27, 2014 02:10Report this post to the editors

No need for personal abuse in comments, just present your info / arguments ok?

Warning:
Any further personalised abusive statements in comments on this thread WILL result in a hide.

So just Play nice ok?

-Wageslave (mod)

author by Crazy Catpublication date Sat Aug 02, 2014 08:19Report this post to the editors

' Just a week into the methane sampling program and SWERUS-C3 Arctic expedition scientists have discovered vast methane plumes escaping from the seafloor of the Laptev continental slope.' Article from the Watchers:

http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2014/08/01/vast-methan...cean/

And the SWERUS-C3 programme:

http://swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/78-swerus/71-sweru...ogram

author by KMpublication date Wed Aug 13, 2014 14:46Report this post to the editors

Temperatures in the Arctic have risen twice as fast as the rest of the world since 2000, and this could have triggered changes to global wind patterns, which have brought extreme weather to lower latitudes, the researchers said.

A study has found that the number of extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, floods and droughts, has almost doubled over the same period and that this increase can be linked with unusual wind patterns in the upper atmosphere, influenced by warmer Arctic temperatures.

The researchers believe that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic may be contributing to the appearance of wide north-south swings in the high-altitude winds flowing globally west to east around the polar region, which can become stuck and amplified in a quasi-stationary pattern known as a “standing wave”.

Related Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/rapid-rise-in-....html
Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2014 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy