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

international | environment | feature

Sunday March 10, 2013 22:31

by T

2012 Measurements show dramatic rise in methane emissions from the Arctic

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 6^oCelsius 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

Fig 8: Arctic Temperature Anomaly and Exponential Curve Fit

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 60^oN/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.

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.

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.

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

save preference

Comments (37 of 37)

A counter-point to what the Government Scientists claim in this article

by Janes Hanson

Tue Mar 05, 2013 04:47

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

The Scientific Concensus

RE; video claiming to refute global warming

by mac the knffe

Sat Mar 09, 2013 22:12

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.

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

by Mike Czech

Mon Mar 11, 2013 18:33

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

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

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

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

Re: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

Mon Mar 11, 2013 21:00

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

Let's be honest here: Most of it's not worth addressing

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.

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.

I'll listen to the real experts.

by Rational Ecologist.

Mon Mar 11, 2013 21:30

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.

Personally I prefer to just look at the data myself

Mon Mar 11, 2013 21:40

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!!!!"

IMHO James Hansen's so-called "Expertise" is mostly just a figment of his own imagination

Mon Mar 11, 2013 22:02

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

“If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 40 years?”

“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.”

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.

Re: IMHO James Hansen's so-called "Expertise" is mostly just a figment of his own imagination

Mon Mar 11, 2013 22:09

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.

James Hansen : Also NOT a Cassandra

Mon Mar 11, 2013 22:17

@ 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:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=llJeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=...hl=en

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

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=n39JAAAAIBAJ&sjid=...hl=en

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.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CZJVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=...hl=en

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:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aKxdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=...hl=en

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:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change....html

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

Re: James Hansen : Also NOT a Cassandra

Mon Mar 11, 2013 22:35

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.

No need to Keep repeating yourself T

Mon Mar 11, 2013 23:05

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.

(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?

Clearly you don't "get" it

Mon Mar 11, 2013 23:14

"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

Dark Snow Project

Mon Mar 11, 2013 23:57

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.

The Shamelessness of the Climate Predicters

Mon Mar 11, 2013 23:59

" 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:

November 16, 2007 - "Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 " - http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?i...53683
12 December 2007 - "Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' "- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Friday, 27 June 2008 - "Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer" - http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change....html
12 August 2008 - "First Arctic Ice-Free Summer Could be in 2015" - http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/12/arctic-melting-...5.php
August 31st, 2009 - "Kerry claims the Arctic will be ice-free by summer 2013" - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009...2013/
October 15, 2009 - "Arctic Largely Ice Free in Summer Within Ten Years?" - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091015-....html

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.

Now you're just making stuff up or deliberatly misrepresnting what's been stated

Tue Mar 12, 2013 00:09

"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"

Re: Now you're just making stuff up or deliberatly misrepresnting what's been stated

Tue Mar 12, 2013 00:17

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

Clearly you don't "get" it, once again

Tue Mar 12, 2013 00:28

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

You're ignoring NASA statements which clearly contradict what you, Mr Box, and the Author have claimed regarding the Greenland Melt event of July 2012

Tue Mar 12, 2013 00:34

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

delusions

by mac the knife

Tue Mar 12, 2013 01:36

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

Remember that 'Methane Panic' and 'Runaway Global Warning' they were ranting about? Well, Nevermind

Tue Mar 12, 2013 01:55

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

Several of the gas outlets have been active for hundreds of years.

Above all the fear that the gas emanation is a consequence of the current rising sea temperature does not seem to apply.

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

"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

It’s Deja Vu . . . . all over again!

Tue Mar 12, 2013 03:30

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:

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)

Nov 2 1922 - Headline: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt"

Tue Mar 12, 2013 03:37

climate alarmism through the ages - disappointingly unoriginal

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

try comparing like with like

by fred

Tue Mar 12, 2013 05:31

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!

Your comment makes no sense, fred

Tue Mar 12, 2013 06:01

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

Your 'trust-issues' are clearly your own problem Fred

Tue Mar 12, 2013 06:10

" 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.

Re: Methane expedition and old report

Tue Mar 12, 2013 23:28

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

oh look, climate troll "real scientist" is up to his old tricks again.

Wed Mar 13, 2013 08:16

"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? ;-)

You really are rather pathetic fred

Wed Mar 13, 2013 09:17

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.

fossil fuel fools

Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:24

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.

A new soubriquet for me!

Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:17

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.

you're the real troll here

Wed Mar 13, 2013 16:48

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!

Government Science

by Joe Snow

Tue Apr 02, 2013 13:37

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.

maybe it's not either or here...

Wed Apr 03, 2013 19:24

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.

Video demonstrating Arctic Sea Ice Decline

Mon May 06, 2013 22:29

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 Volumes 1979-2012 Animation

Temperatures demonstrating Temperature Decline in Alaska

by Fuckin Freezin

Sat May 11, 2013 20:44

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

"Runaway Global Warming" me arse

All consistent with(enhanced) Climate Change(d).

by Rational Ecologist

Thu May 16, 2013 17:12

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.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Cedar Lounge

Irish Left Review

NAMA Wine Lake

MediaBite

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

Dark Snow Project - Research into soot on Greenland

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

You are now entering the non-linearity zone

Comments (37 of 37)