.JPG "Earthen Spirituality")
Living within a living, loving planet
Global Warming
Background of the Hockey Stick and Climategate controversies
Dec 29th
I think you will find this article very interesting.
Sky
Michael Mann, hounded researcher
http://www.skepticalscience.com/MichaelMann.html
Posted on 30 December 2011 by Andy S
“Here is a translation of recent article (December 25th, 2011) in the French newspaper Le Monde by science journalist Stéphane Foucart. He reports on a talk that Michael Mann gave at the 2011 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco, in which Mann introduces his forthcoming book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Foucart interviews Mann and discusses the background of the Hockey Stick and Climategate controversies. What is refreshing is the absence of the false balance, both-sides-of-the-story, style of reporting that is found so often in English language newspapers. ”
“Those who attack us have won in the sense that they have succeeded in delaying any action on global warming by ten, twenty, maybe thirty years,” he concedes with worry as he sees his country succumbing to anti-science. “Denying either anthropogenic climate change or evolution has become a condition of admission to the Republican Party. That’s something quite new and very scary”.
Another warm year during a La Nina
Dec 2nd
The World Meterological Organisation
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/gcs_2011_en.html
reports their preliminary results for 2011. It should be regarded as shocking that although we were in a very strong La Niña state which usually results in .10 to .15C cooler temperatures than preceeding years, 2011 was warmer than most recent moderate to strong La Niña years. It seems obvious to me that we will now have an even hotter El Niño period.
“The 10-year average for the period 2002-11, at 0.46°C above the long-term average, equals 2001-10 as the warmest 10-year period on record.”
Artic Sea ice
Arctic sea ice extent was again well below normal in 2011. “Sea ice volume was even further below average and was estimated at a new record low of 4200 cubic kilometres, surpassing the record of 4580 cubic kilometres set in 2010.”
Droughts and floods
There was severe drought in the North American southwest, record-breaking inTexas, with the highest ever recorded temperature for any American state. “The January-October period was the wettest on record for several north-eastern states and for the north-east region as a whole, with precipitation totals widely 30-50% above normal.”
Hurricane Irene in August and Tropical Storm Lee in September brought extreme flooding. “Parts of the Mississippi River experienced the worst floods since 1933, and there was also major flooding in theMissouri Riverand several Canadian rivers.”
As if this wasn’t enough, “it was also one of the most active tornado seasons on record, with numerous major outbreaks, particularly in April and May. A tornado caused 157 deaths inJoplin,Missouriin May, the deadliest single tornado in theUnited Statessince 1947. 2011 (to date) has had the third-greatest number of tornadoes since 1950, after 2004 and 2008, and the fourth-greatest number of deaths (537) on record. There were also a number of major snowstorms, including the most significant October snowstorm on record in the north-eastern states.”
These were Global events
“For the second year in succession,Pakistanexperienced severe flooding in 2011. The floods were more localised than in 2010, being largely confined to the southern part of the country. It was the wettest monsoon season on record for theprovinceofSindh(247% above normal).”
More studies reveal a warming planet
Oct 21st
From the Berkeley Earth Project
“Climategate” accusations proven false by new study by the Berkeley Earth funded by the same people who funded the climate change skeptics. Data from 40,000 weather stations was checked and: “What came out was a graph remarkably similar to those produced by the world’s three most important and established groups, whose work had been decried as unreliable and shoddy in climate skeptic circles.” Skeptics claimed that the data was inaccurately compiled and did not reflect an upward trend in global warming. “Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the USand the UK,” said Professor Muller.
True or not, it is too late. The false accusations have been accepted as true by many who wish them to be true. A great number of people have not closed their minds to anything scientists say and choose to believe that climate change warnings are a conspiracy formulated by greenies who use scientific evidence to further their own agenda We all k now of instances where a false accusation gets wide coverage and a reputation is ruined. Few read the news that the accusation was false and malicious. It is too late to regain a good reputation once it has been drug through the mud. Global warming is old news now and very few wish to ditch the tragic belief in permanent economic growth and prosperity. People in countries such as Greece are turning violent when their government attempts to cut wages and services to the poor whilst the rich get richer. Meanwhile, glaciers and polar ice melt at an ever expanding rate, ocean levels rise, large populations are threatened, erratic weather conditions expand and CO2 levels continue to rise. It is past time to stop arguing about what is precisely causing it and simply do something to arrest the damage.
Reference:
Global warming ‘confirmed’ by independent study
By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News
21 October 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
Which is it? It can’t be both.
Aug 11th
Although methane (CH4) has always been included in charts and diagrams relating to greenhouse gasses, The potential hazard from the The East Siberian Artic Shelf which extends for 2 million square kilometers has until recently been ignored.
“In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions.
“These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren’t known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming,” said Dr Viner.” [David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at theUniversityofEast Anglia]
Ian Sample, science correspondent Thursday August 11, 2005 The Guardian
Since 2005, a few articles have been available to the layperson, however most of the fuss has been about CO2, a direct consequence of industrial, commercial and private activity. Unfortunately, there are several indirect possibilities, some that may be “tipping points” that trip a positive feedback loop which many scientists fear may spiral out of control. The artic tundra is one of them. In a recent article from the BBC news, Michael Fitzpatrick reports:
“The findings come from measurements of carbon fluxes around the north ofRussia, led by Igor Semiletov from theUniversityofAlaskaatFairbanks.
‘Methane release from the East Siberian Shelf is underway and it looks stronger than it was supposed [to be],’” he said.
Interesting how researchers are frequently revealing that global warming indications are often more serious than anticipated. I suppose it is easier and more politically correct to underestimate and then express surprise than to report on the high side and retract after people have sacrificed perhaps needlessly.
Fitzpatrick continues:
“Methane seepage recorded last summer was already the highest ever measured in theArctic Ocean. Acting as a giant frozen depository of carbon such as CO2 and methane (often stored as compacted solid gas hydrates),Siberia’s shallow shelf areas are increasingly subjected to warming and are now giving up greater amounts of methane to the sea and to the atmosphere than recorded in the past.”
What is a hydrate?
“WHAT do you get when you combine water and swamp gas under low temperatures and high pressures? You get a frozen latticelike substance called methane hydrate, huge amounts of which underlie our oceans and polar permafrost. This crystalline combination of a natural gas and water (known technically as a clathrate) looks remarkably like ice but burns if it meets a lit match. …Because methane is also a greenhouse gas, release of even a small percentage of total deposits could have a serious effect on Earth’s atmosphere.”
https://www.llnl.gov/str/Durham.html
Is this a problem?
Back to the Fitzpatrick article.
The left hand says: “Despite the high readings, Professor Gustafsson said that so far there was no cause for alarm, and stressed that further studies were still necessary to determine the exact cause of the methane seepage.”
The right hand says: “The release of this once captive carbon from destabilised ocean sediments and permafrost would have catastrophic effect on our climate and life on Earth, warn the scientists.”
No wonder we are confused and millions of people are turning a blind eye on global warming. If you are a skeptic, then you can quote the left hand. If you are a believer, then you can cite the right hand. This is somewhat like placing equal bets on the red and black numbers, around the roulette wheel. You are always a winner so it can be business as usual and you can claim that you are a team player.
Is the gulf stream slowing down?
May 31st
BBC News
Gulf Stream ‘is not slowing down’
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/8589512.stm
“The Gulf Stream does not appear to be slowing down, say US scientists who have used satellites to monitor tell-tale changes in the height of the sea.”
*****denotes Sky’s comments
****We need to know what scientists and what satellites and how the height of the sea can be used to measure ocean current flow.*****
******Of course, not being an Oceanographer, I cannot understand how a satellite can replace a flow meter for measuring the rate of current flow past a particular point across the Atlantic current.****
****There is a new satellite going up next month that will measure salinity. Salinity is a major player in the conveyor belt action of the Atlantic current. The more fresh water that mixes with the warm, salty surface water moving north, the lower in latitude will be drop which effectively terminates the flow. When the overturn and dropping of the heavier and cooled current occurs lower than the British Isles, then the average temperature will drop several degrees [ 4 to 6c] as is commonly known. If Artic ice and northern glaciers continue to melt, then the warm surface water will inevitably be pushed further south. Since there are absolutely no other known factors at present that can drive temperatures down, then it seems obvious to me that this will happen. It is just a matter of time.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-satellite-will-measur
“Confirming work by other scientists using different methodologies, they found dramatic short-term variability but no longer-term trend.”
***I very much doubt if measurements have been going on long enough to establish a longer-term trend. What is the definition of ‘longer-term? 10 years, 50 years, 100 years? In an article by this correspondent 16 August, 2007 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/6946735.stm] NOC’s Professor Harry Bryden said “But the reality is that anything we measure over 10 years even is going to be labelled interannual variability at the moment.” In 2007, the National Oceanographic Centre in Southhampton reported the following: “Last year the same UK-led team published evidence that the circulation may have weakened by about 30% over half a century. But that was based on historical records from just five sampling expeditions, raising concerns that the data was not robust enough to provide a clear-cut conclusion.” I think somebody got their hands slapped over this reporting because even though the flow meters have been extended and copious data has been collected, no spokesperson has emerged to make it clear, or at least clear to me, whether there is a downward turn of ocean current flow. *****
“The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.”
**** I searched but cannot find anything there. Of course, not having the document title makes it very difficult to find!!***
***There are hundreds of papers published here. Richard Black cites us no references for which we can use to find the paper***
“Between 2002 and 2009, the team says, there was no trend discernible – just a lot of variability on short timescales.”
****Has this satellite been up since 2002 collecting data? If so then this “team” has been very quiet. I wonder if this sudden assurance is due to the findings reported by theoretical physicist, Dr. Gianluigi Zangari, of the prestigious Research Division of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics at Frascati National Laboratories (LNF) of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics [http://www.lnf.infn.it/public/] who claims that the Gulf stream or ‘loop current’ in the Gulf of Mexico has stopped and further suggests this is due to the BP oil spill cutting down the vorticity of the current [vorticity is simply put the ‘flowingness’ of water.] Dr. Zangari claims that satellite photos show evidence of the loop current status. Now, I don’t know how credible Dr. Zangari is or whether he is just a maverick or whether he is being ignored purposely. I can’t even find a reference as to when and where Dr. Zangari published. All I have so far is the word of a person who calls himself Stirling. Stirling claims that Dr. Zangari said the following: “The Gulf Stream importance in the global climate themoregulation processes is well assessed. The latest real time satellite (Jason, Topex/Poseidon, Geosat Follow-On, ERS-2, Envisat) data maps of May-June 2010 processed by CCAR (Dolorado Center for Astrodynamics Research), checked at Frascati Laboratories by the means of the SHT congruent calculus and compared with past years data, show for the first time a direct evidence of the rapid breaking of the Loop Current, a warm ocean current, crucial part of the Gulf Stream” Perhaps I have missed something?
Can anyone help me check this out? ***
Climate change skeptics will love this
May 30th
Some examples of the material the climate change skeptics use to fuel their cause and spread doubt among those who probably don’t want to know.
“Key facts about climate change
- Burning fossil fuels releases gasses such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, creating a ‘greenhouse effect’ and trapping heat.
- Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are at their highest in 150,000 years.
- The last decade has been the warmest decade in history.
- If our greenhouse gas emissions are not brought under control, the speed of climate change over the next hundred years will be faster than anything known since before the dawn of civilization.”
from The Green Providers Directory
http://www.search-for-me.co.uk/climate_change_27.html
Bullet (1)
Burning fossil fuels does not “create” a greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is absolutely essential for the maintenance of life as we know it on the planet. It is naturally occurring and anthropogenic causes only ‘enhance’ or strengthen the effect. Be that as it may, too much of a good thing often, and in this case, turns nasty. So please, let us not claim that humans ‘cause’ the greenhouse effect.
“If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% (or 28%) of the incoming sunlight, the planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about −18 or −19 °C, about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C or 15 °C. The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Bullet (2)
This statement might appear to be silly to some. Of course, CO2 is higher than it has been for this period. Why? Simply because average global temperature and CO2 concentration in the troposphere follow roughly the same pattern. Their graphs look almost the same. So, naturally, CO2 has not been this high since the last warm cycle of the glacial/interglacial temperature/CO2 cycle which occurred around 120,000 years ago.
Bullet (3) “The last decade has been the warmest decade in history” NO. History goes back a long way. This statement is inaccurate. It would be better to say recent history and even better to say the warmest recorded in the present interglacial period. It is certainly the warmest recorded with thermometers and arguably the warmest as reflected in various ice core samples of the present interglacial period. Regardless who’s readings you cite, 10 years is not appropriate for climate analysis. Also, there are several abrupt temperature change phenomenon that affect short term temperatures. They interact and make short-term temperature predictions difficult. The primary one is the El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. It comes and goes with no predictable period. In other words it is not synchronous thus unpredictable. Another is the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. It is associated with droughts in the US Midwest and Southwest – the “dustbowl” in the 1930’s for instance.
So it is best to remain calm and relatively quiet about global warming when looking out the window and noticing more rain or less rain or when it is colder or hotter. Whatever you see or feel, it has probably occurred before in living memory. Far better to stick with the findings recorded and reported by credible scientists such as James Hansen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Bullet (4) Sweeping statements such as this are dangerous and invite derision. We just don’t know. We have not been here before. Even looking at the ice cores of the last two or three interglacial periods give us only probability. Better stick with what we do know and act on that. CO2 is increasing by 2ppm’s per year. Temperature and CO2 correlate. Humans definitely contribute to carbon content in the air. Sea ice and glaciers are melting. If the tundra thermafrost all melts, tons of methane will enter the troposphere. That’s enough to justify action to lower our contribution.