Recent Comments

Prev  687  688  689  690  691  692  693  694  695  696  697  698  699  700  701  702  Next

Comments 34701 to 34750:

34701. Klaus Flemløse at 01:42 AM on 26 August 2014
       Southern sea ice is increasing
       

        Antarctica
       I have a good question with respect to sea temperature and sea ice: Who leads who?
       It is commonly accepted that there is a feedback between temperature and sea ice. It can go both ways:
       1) Lower temperature causes more sea ice
       2) More sea ice causes lower temperature.
       In the skeptical sphere they believe that 1) is valid.

       However, it is a little more complicated, which is explained in the following article from 1991 by John W. Weatherly :
       

       Antarctic Sea ice variations and seasonal air temperature relationships

       ABSTRACT Data through 1987 are used to determine the regional and seasonal dependencies of recent trends of Antarctic temperature and sea ice. Lead-lag relationships involving regional sea ice and air temperature are systematically evaluated, with an eye toward the ice-temperature feedbacks that may influence climatic change. Over the 1958-1087 period the temperature trends are positive in all seasons. For the 15 years (l973-l987) for which ice data are available, the trends are predominantly positive only in winter and summer, and are most strongly positive over the Antarctic Peninsula. The spatially aggregated trend of temperature for this latter period is small but positive, while the corresponding trend of ice coverage is small but negative. Lag correlations between seasonal anomalies of the two variables are generally stronger with ice lagging the summer temperatures and with ice leading the winter temperatures. The implication is that summer temperatures predispose the near-surface waters to above-or below-normal ice coverage in the following fall and winter.

       This means that in the summer the temperature leads the sea ice and in the winter the sea ice leads the temperature.

       Question: Does there exist an updated confirmation of this?

        

34702. Tom Curtis at 00:49 AM on 26 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
       

       Leland Palmer @54:

       First, thankyou for acknowledging your error.

       Second, it would be nice if you linked to the source of the information that forms the basis of your claims.

       Third, I did find a comprehensive discussion of thermokarst lakes (including Kettle lakes) by Grosse, Jones and Arp (2013).  It turns out they can be formed by two known methods, to which it appears a third one can now be added.  The second of the known methods is from permafrost melt, and is explained in detail in Figure 7.  It is an ongoing process that has been observed, as has happened in Alaska (Fig 6).

       Fourth, drained thermokarst lakes have been dated using C14, and show ages from 5.5 thousand years ago up to the present.  Therefore the approximately 2 million thermokarst lakes worldwide have formed over that 5 thousand year interval, at an average rate of 400 per year.  Total thermokarst lake and pond surface area is estimated at between 250 and 380 thousand km^2, and hence with an average formation rate of 63 km^2 per year.   No doubt that rate is not even over time, but never-the-less this is obviously an ongoing process that has been part of the background cause of atmospheric methane for a long time, and has not caused any methane catastrophes in that period.  Further, ongoing formation of thermokarst lakes is budgetted into expected increaseses of methane emission with time under global warming (including those by Archer).

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Also see the NSF news release of July 16, 2014:

       Certain Arctic lakes store more greenhouse gases than they release

34703. One Planet Only Forever at 00:35 AM on 26 August 2014
       Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
       

       Lloyd Flack,

       We agree that providing more information and rational evaluation of the full and constantly expanding information available is the only way to sustainably change someone's mind. But you may be misunderstanding the real motivations of the people most reluctant to better understand the issue. I have sympathy for those who did not realize they were tempted to be greedy and will change their minds. They will readily better understand the issue, including understanding how they were being fooled.

       However, some people will persist at resisting the development of better understanding that it is unacceptable to profit or benefit to the detriment of other life (environmentally or socially), or to profit or benefit in ways that cannot be continued forever by humanity on this amazing planet. That resistance is directly linked to their motivation to benefit as much as possible from activities like burning dug-up hydrocarbons which is damaging and unsustainable. And that resistance shows up as a resistance to better understanding climate change science.

       You may have dealt with may denialists but my attribution of greed also applies to the motivations you are chosing not to attribute to greed. I have also dealt with many denialists. I live in Alberta.

       Human accomplishments that have no future are not accomplishments. Pride in those things often masks greed related to not caring to do the harder and less 'personally profitable' task of living more considerately and more sustainably.

       Unfortunately, most of the developed Western economy is fundamentally unsustainable and damaging, it really is. Without significant change it is destined for a dead-end. This development has happened because unsustainable and damaging activity is easier and cheaper for someone to profit from if they can get away with it. This motivates people to try to get away with as much of that as possible, to get the biggest competetive advantage. It also leads to tremendous resistance against admitting that it is not acceptable. Some even declare that they expect the future to be better because of human ingenuity, yet they refuse to strive to better understand how to live their life in a way that would assist in that development of a better future when doing so would reduce the present they enjoy for themselves (greed). They prefer to live their life in ways that will set more challenges for the future.

       Economic Game playing is also greed motivated unless the game is being played totally fairly with the objective being the development of a sustainable better future for all life. Part of my MBA was the classic Game Playing scenario where the best total solution, and best possible result for any "Team" is through full honest cooperation. The result in MBA classes, which are sure to include certain types of people motivated to take such classes for personal profit, is never the best result because one team ultimately game-plays in a way they believe will be to their advantage (being deliberately dishonest). The result of their game-playing choice is really only a momentary sense of superiority over the others and is ultimately contrary to their best possible result, and definitely contrary to the overall total best possible result for all players. Such game playing is all about getting away with profting to the detriment of others, rather than competing the best you can for the best result for all. Sports played by talented athletes without vicious cheaters among them is an amazing activity, and global economic competition could be equally beautiful, but like sports needs vigilant effort to keep cheaters from prospering.

       Environmentalism rationally challenges the illigitimate pursuits of profit. It challenges the unsustainable and damaging ways some people try to profit. Pursuit of Civil Society also challenges the unsustainable and damaging ways some people try to profit. And, like it or not, Climate Change science's biggest hurdle to it being broadly better understood is that it also challenges the unsustainable and damaging ways some people try to profit.

       Also, being familiar with many religions I am aware that almost all of them include the point about all life on this amazing planet being precious and for humanity to be responsible stewards in that diversity of life. Noah and the Arc is a very plain and clear presnetation of that, even though it was not as clear to include all plant life in the Arc. So claims made to sound like religious resistance can be greed motivated irrational claims unsupported by the actual facts of the religious scripts.

       And Liberty is often deliberately misunderstood to exclude the requirement for rational, reposponsible considerate behaviour. Those trying to maximize their personal profit through unsustainable and damaging actons often tempt people to become callous supporters of their greed by waving the "Liberty" flag. Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason" provides a good presentation of this and other aspects of the deliberate actions by some against the development of a fully informed reasonable considerate populaton.

       Other books pointing out what needs to change include Paul Hawken's "The Ecology of Commerce", Naomi Klein's "No Logo" and "Shock Doctrine", Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", Daniel Goleman's "Ecological Intelligence", and David Suzuki's "The Sacred Balance".

       And I am aware that almost all of the troubles created by humanity, and there are many, cross the political spectrum but have been all been due to greedy or intolerant people, unconcerned about the development of a sustainable better future for all, who have been able to succeed to the detriment of others in their time and to the detriment of the future of humanity.

       That highlights that a lot needs to change for Climate Science to be better understood by the entire global population. It is not simply about the science, because better undestanding climate science is 'not in the interests' of many people. And I am in favour of striving towards the required changes of global socio-economics and humanity that would  lead to sustainable broader better understanding of the science of climate change.

34704. Leland Palmer at 23:32 PM on 25 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
       

       OK, I was wrong, mea culpa.

       The vast majority of those circular landforms in Siberia are kettle lakes, left behind by the retreat of glaciers. There aren't thousands - there are millions - 300,000 on the Yamal Peninsula alone.

       So, yes, there are two processes that can leave circular holes operating simultaneously in the same area, and Occam's Razor works better with simple systems than with complex ones.

       But, just because I got excited and acted like an idiot doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. We've still got cold eruption craters appearing in the same area, mixed in with hundreds of thousands of circular kettle lakes. 

34705. Jim Hunt at 23:31 PM on 25 August 2014
       2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
       

       Personally I reckon there's a potential sting in the tail of the 2014 Arctic sea ice melting season that no amount of statistics can cater for:

       http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/the-arctic-surf-forecast-for-late-august-2014/
       
       For the science behind that slightly surreal assertion see also:
       
       "Swell and sea in the emerging Arctic Ocean"

       
       It is possible that the increased wave activity will be the feedback mechanism which drives the Arctic system toward an ice-free summer. This would be a remarkable departure from historical conditions in the Arctic, with potentially wide-ranging implications for the air-water-ice system and the humans attempting to operate there.

34706. MA Rodger at 21:13 PM on 25 August 2014
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       Some images from the net which appear to originate from the Chen & Tung paper linked @284.

       

       Caption @CarbonBrief.org - Heat stored in the global ocean (top) and major oceans compared to the 1970 to 2012 average. Coloured lines show heat from the surface down to different depths (left scale). Black lines are average sea surface temperature (right scale) Source: Chen & Tung (2014)

       

       Caption @Science20.com - (Top) Global average surface temperatures, where black dots are yearly averages. Two flat periods (hiatus) are separated by rapid warming from 1976-1999. (Middle) Observations of heat content, compared to the average, in the north Atlantic Ocean. (Bottom) Salinity of the seawater in the same part of the Atlantic. Higher salinity is seen to coincide with more ocean heat storage. Credit: University of Washington

       

       Attribution @ScienceMag.org - Xianyao Chen/Ka-Kit Tung

34707. Dikran Marsupial at 19:42 PM on 25 August 2014
       2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
       

       OPOF There are good statistical reasons for trying to predict the mean (for example, it more obviously justifies the statistical assumptions of least-squares based regression methods), rather than the minimum, so it is a sensible thing to do.  While there is a good deal of media interest in the minimum daily value, I suspect the September mean is of more scientific interest, I suspect the difference between the two is well in the noise as far as long term evolution of Arctic sea ice is concerned.  As my model shows, the previous years September extent is not that good a predictor of next years September extent, too much depends on the Arctic weather over the year.

34708. Lloyd Flack at 16:50 PM on 25 August 2014
       Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
       

       One Planet Only Forever,
       Both Rob and I have corresponded with more denialists than you have. The groups we have dealt with overlap. We have a better idea of what they are about than you do.
       It is wishful thinking but the motives aren’t what you describe. There are, I think, two main motives.
       One is the value placed on human accomplishments and on liberty and in particular on the accomplishments of Western civilization. Many feel, unfortunately often correctly, that environmentalists undervalue these and are idealizing alternatives, alternatives that they believe are impractical on the required scale.
       But there is also an element of game playing. Many see environmentalism as a characteristic of the opposing team and oppose it because of that. This tendency gets aggravated by sanctimoniousness on the part of environmentalists.
       In my experience there is an aggravating element among many denialists. Religion. Many denialists refuse to believe that God created a world in which they have to act against their ethical preferences. I’ve found it easier to get a non-religious denialist to re-examine their beliefs than a religious one. Even so it is a matter of patiently explaining what is happening. That is what you have to do, explain, not denounce. You have to appeal to the desire to understand, to point out that the Universe cares nothing about their ideology. When doing this you will be more successful if you have some sympathy with their point of view, If you have ambivalent feelings about the necessary measures.
       Also remember some of these motives are not found only on the right. The Soviet Union had a really bad environmental record. Some of the reasons were the same, an unlimited belief in what humans could accomplish, just collectively rather than individually in their case.

34709. citizenschallenge at 12:17 PM on 25 August 2014
       Ancient ocean currents may have changed pace and intensity of ice ages
       

       And now there's this

       
       "Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration"

       Xianyao Chen, Ka-Kit Tung

       Science 22 August 2014:
       Vol. 345 no. 6199 pp. 897-903
       DOI: 10.1126/science.1254937

       http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897

       Deep-sea warming slows down global warming

       Global warming seems to have paused over the past 15 years while the deep ocean takes the heat instead. The thermal capacity of the oceans far exceeds that of the atmosphere, so the oceans can store up to 90% of the heat buildup caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Chen and Tung used observational data to trace the pathways of recent ocean heating.

       They conclude that the deep Atlantic and Southern Oceans, but not the Pacific, have absorbed the excess heat that would otherwise have fueled continued warming.

       Science, this issue p. 897

       ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

       For more see:

       August 21, 2014
       Cause of global warming hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean
       Hannah Hickey

       http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/

        

        

34710. citizenschallenge at 12:07 PM on 25 August 2014
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       Update:

       "Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration"
       Xianyao Chen, Ka-Kit Tung

       Science 22 August 2014:
       Vol. 345 no. 6199 pp. 897-903
       DOI: 10.1126/science.1254937
       RESEARCH ARTICLE

       http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897

       ===============

       August 21, 2014
       Cause of global warming hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean
       Hannah Hickey

       http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/

       Following rapid warming in the late 20th century, this century has so far seen surprisingly little increase in the average temperature at the Earth’s surface. At first this was a blip, then a trend, then a puzzle for the climate science community.

       More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus, ranging from air pollution to volcanoes to sunspots. New research from the University of Washington shows that the heat absent from the surface is plunging deep in the north and south Atlantic Ocean, and is part of a naturally occurring cycle. The study is published Aug. 22 in Science.

       Subsurface ocean warming explains why global average air temperatures have flatlined since 1999, despite greenhouse gases trapping more solar heat at the Earth’s surface.

       ...

       The results show that a slow-moving current in the Atlantic, which carries heat between the two poles, sped up earlier this century to draw heat down almost a mile (1,500 meters). Most of the previous studies focused on shorter-term variability or particles that could block incoming sunlight, but they could not explain the massive amount of heat missing for more than a decade.

       “The finding is a surprise, since the current theories had pointed to the Pacific Ocean as the culprit for hiding heat,” Tung said. “But the data are quite convincing and they show otherwise.”

       Tung and co-author Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China, who was a UW visiting professor last year, used recent observations of deep-sea temperatures from Argo floats that sample the water down to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) depth, as well as older oceanographic measurements and computer reconstructions. Results show an increase in heat sinking around 1999, when the rapid warming of the 20th century stopped.

34711. One Planet Only Forever at 04:34 AM on 25 August 2014
       Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
       

       You may be missing my point, but I admit I have little sympathy for people who deliberately resist better understanding this rather easy to better understand issue.

       The greedy people I am referring to include people who have a motivation like comfort, convenience or personal pleasure. All of those fall under the definition of profit and would be greed related motivations to not better understand this issue and the changes of human activity that need to be accepted when the issue is better understood.

       Please elaborate on the nature of the ideological leanings of your father you are referring to, and explain why you belive he adheres to them rather than being willing to better understand this issue. He may be one of the many people who are easily impressed by the attempts by greedy people to misinform and discredit climate science, because of the motivation to maximize personal profit, easily impressed beciase of a motivation to want more comfort, convenience and pleasure even if it is gotten through damaging actions.

       I am genuinely interested in learning more about the motivations of people who resist better understanding this issue that is not really that difficult to better understand. There may be non-greed motivations, but I have seen little evidence of those.

       I will admit thta many people who prefer to focus on entertainment and sport may not understand the issue. That is a significant problem, but it is not what we are discussing here. This is a discussion about people in that category who will resist better understanding the issue if it is brought up, people who resist changing their mind about it, even if their initial opinion is based on misunderstanding or very little actual understanding of the issue.

       I am not interested in pleasing people. I am interested in increasing the number of people who are more fuly informed and rationally evaluate what is going on. That includes accepting that such activity will displease some people who may never change their mind, because of their personal motivation not to change their mind, which commonly is motivated by greed or irrational fear created and promoted deliberately by greedy people.

34712. ghooghkirk at 01:50 AM on 25 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #34B
       

       I just read,  ''Climate change: meteorologists preparing for the worst."

       "Average temperatures have increased by 0.47 percent degres Celsius so far."

       "Scientists have predicted a two-percent rise in average temperatures by 2050."

       "Meating ice of Greenland could result in a six-meter (200-foot) rise..."

       Where is the editor?

34713. CBDunkerson at 22:28 PM on 24 August 2014
       Ancient ocean currents may have changed pace and intensity of ice ages
       

       If the theory they suggest for the cause of the ocean circulation slowdown, larger / longer lasting ice sheets, is correct then the current global warming may result in a return to prior conditions... or something new. That could be 'good news' in that increased ocean circulation might draw CO2 down from the atmosphere faster than predicted based on models using current values... but it would likely also mean massive changes in weather patterns.

       In any case, this is all 'long term stuff'... by the time any of this comes in to play faster moving human impacts could have changed the entire equation. The greatest significance of this may be as another piece in the puzzle which may eventually allow us to understand the climate system well enough that we can mitigate our impacts.

34714. Robert Murphy at 14:05 PM on 24 August 2014
       Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
       

       OPOF said:

       Lloyd Flack,

       Please share some examples of the motivations of people who resist better understanding the climate science that are not greed related.

        

       Most of the people I know who think climate science is bunk have no financial stake in the issue.  My father would be a good example.  His resistence is purely based on his previous ideological leanings.  That's not greed, it's ignorance.  You have completely missed Lloyd's point, and I doubt you will ever get it if you insist on such an extreme position.  You have no ability to empathize with someone who disagrees with you.  They are not all evil and most think that their position is right. 

34715. One Planet Only Forever at 07:21 AM on 24 August 2014
       2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
       

       The confusion about "September Mean Arctic Ice Extent" which is the minimum monthly average, and the "Minimum Arctic Ice Extent" which occurs in September shows how important it can be for everyone to always be talking the same way about an issue.

       It would be better if all the exercises and reporting related to minimum Arctic Sea Ice were always about the "Minimum". The NSIDC Reporting seems to mainly present information showing the "Minimum" as in the projected minimums in their latest report on August 19 (here).

       p.s. I also find the different baselines used by different global average surface temperature sets to also potentially lead to misunderstanding that can be exploited by someone who deliberately wants to cause trouble. It would be better if all the researchers and reporters agree to adjust their values to always be the anomaly from the pre-industrial value (provided they could all agree on that), and all use degrees C. I know this move to consistency would potentially be exploited by trouble-makers to claim a conspiracy or 'errors being hidden', but their attempts to do so could allow the scientific community and its supporters to collectively and consistently point out the deliberate trouble-makers to the general population.

34716. mlyle at 02:18 AM on 24 August 2014
       Ancient ocean currents may have changed pace and intensity of ice ages
       

       Not having seen the study yet, it is hard to completely critique it. However, what they measure is a response, and the cause is still missing or poorly understood.

34717. scaddenp at 21:16 PM on 23 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
       

       I'm with Tom. This is utterly irrational. As has repeatedly been pointed out to you, in deep geological time, the world was different with shallow seas and the possibility of much more methane hydrate. Pleistocene glaciations are with a world that is much like ours. 

       It doesnt actually matter how big those fields are because as has been also repeatedly pointed out to you, loss rates from gas fields are very slow and incapable of producing the dangerous amounts of methane. If you could leak gas fast there wouldnt be a gas field - their very existance implies tight deep seal rocks.

       You might see more subsidence etc from methane hydrate loss (a far more plausible explanation than frozen ground holding back a gas seep) but 20,000,000? or even 2,000,000? Anyway, russian scientists are investigating and we will await data with interest.

       Your sincere concern is noted but more attention to the science (and arithmetic) instead of uninformed alarmism would be nice. 

34718. Tom Curtis at 19:12 PM on 23 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
       

       Leland Palmer @51, you are motivated a firm belief that causes you to ignore all contrary evidence, and to seize upon any evidence that may trivially support your belief as proof of the belief's rationality.  Your approach, in other words, is that of pseudo-science, not sciene.  The primary effect of your approach to evidence, if persuasive to any, is to teach those who are persuaded that pseudoscience is "rational", thereby making them more vulnerable to the pseudoscience from AGW deniers.  In other words, you are a hindrance, not a help towards effective action on the real problems stemming from global warming.

34719. Leland Palmer at 16:56 PM on 23 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
       

       Hi scaddenp-

       Past recent glaciations, you mean. There are a series of mass extinction events associated with massive carbon isotope excursions, consistent with the release of trillions of tons of light carbon from the oceanic methane hydrates, if you go further back. And recent glaciations have arguably occurred more slowly and randomly than current warming, without the terrible speed, non-randomness and scale of our current fossil fuel emissions.

       You know, thanks for pointing out the immense probably thermogenic methane gas fields in that area of Siberia. Gazprom says that one field there, Zapolyarnoye, has about 3 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. Thats a little bigger than two gtons of methane, right there, compared to about 5 Gtons of methane in the atmosphere right now. Boy howdy, I hope hundreds of Yamal style craters don't start blowing the roof off of that gas field, in say 20 years, or 50 years!

       Zapolyarnoye

       Now that we know such cold gas eruptions like Yamal exist, we would be remiss in our duties as stewards of Earth if we didn't investigate that possibility, wouldn't we? As the permafrost melts, and weakens I hope gas pressure doesn't blow that those Gazprom gas wells out of those soils formerly known as permafrost.

       Looking at it in Google Earth, that area looks a little pockmarked, by the way, showing a landscape dotted with circular lakes, perhaps suggestive of past Yamal style gas eruptions plus subsidence.  There has been some water streambed erosion through there, though so it's hard to be sure. Gazprom says that this immensly productive field is in an area only 50 km long and 30 km wide, and they are annoyingly vague about its exact boundaries. If you know the exact boundaries of this field, that would be helpful.

       You've totally got the shoe on the wong foot, though, abut responsible action. Fear is a totally natural reaction to danger. I truly believe we are in a lot of danger, and it would be irresponsible not to investigate the Yamal cold eruption phenomenon. Given the apparent occurance of past methane catastrophes, we are in fact being remiss right now in not banning fossil fuel use, just on the chance that we might set one off.

       Personally, I think that we're going to see more of these Yamal cold gas eruptions. I think they're going to start popping like popcorn. I think we're going to see all sizes of them, many thousands of them, and some of the ones to come are going to make the current Yamal crater look very tiny, indeed. After they blow, I think we're likely to see large chronic emissions from some of them, and a repeated series of explosive eruptions from others. After we get thousands of them, the combined instantaneous and chronic eruptions will likely create a truly significant impact on global warming, I think, and may be large enough to start the widespread dissociation of the continental shelf methane hydrates.

       It would be irresponsible not to say this. I know that I have no bad motives in making these posts. I'm not motivated by profit, or greed, or glee at scaring people. I'm motivated by sincere concern, and a conviction that we are only seeing a tiny preview of coming attractions in these Yamal cold gas eruptions.

34720. swampfoxh at 11:24 AM on 23 August 2014
       President Obama gets serious on climate change
       

       Why y'all got to give Pierre a hard time.  He's one of us!  Obama's not a real asset anyway.  Bill McKibben points out his pandering to the oil companies in Bill's book "Oil & Honey".  Obama's waiting until December 2016 to approve XL, after he know his successor, but before his successort (if a Democrat) has to take the blame for approving XL.  Obama's like Bush, neither of them can walk the walk, but both can talk the talk.

34721. scaddenp at 07:16 AM on 23 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
       

       You cant have certainty but you can make some ballpark figures. Firstly, there is no trace of a methane catastrophe in previous glaciations when it has been warmer than now. Second, CH4 analysis suggest methane associated with deglaciation is organic, not hydrate or thermogenic. 

       Now, assume that arctic has say twice as much deep leaky gas fields as rest of the world, and using the Etope and Klusman 2002 figures for thermogenic output, and you still cant generate 50GT/y or anything like it. You need 5x as much output from thermogenic to even double atmospheric methane. In short, take a reality check and dont go scaremongering where not needed. Climate activism doesnt need a credubility problem. 

34722. Dikran Marsupial at 04:23 AM on 23 August 2014
       2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
       

       @billthefrog, cheers, hopefully the blog post is better for the editing. 

       SIPC could use the minimum as the criterion, as I understand that there is daily resolution extent data available, and I did consider modelling the actual minimum instead, but it would have been too time consuming to do it in a statistically interesting way!  The model I used was actually just an excuse to play with the GPML toolbox for MATLAB, rather than as a serious exercise; it is interesting that it hasn't done that badly.  I was thinking of going back and seeing what the model would have forecast in the earlier rounds of the exercise that I didn't take part in.

       I completely agree about the loaded question put to Phil Jones (with whom I have worked on a couple of projects - he is a thoroughly good egg IMHO).  The last part of the quote suggests he has a good intuitive understanding of statistical power that is sadly lacking in most of the discussion of the significance of recent trends!

       I tend to keep "outliers" in the model, unless I know there is something wrong with the measurements (or there is some other known issue in the data generating process, e.g. a large asteroid hitting the Earth ;o).  If you get rid of points that are a long way from the (conditional) mean, then it reduces the apparent variance of the system, and often getting the predicted variance right is very important (one of my research interests).

34723. billthefrog at 03:27 AM on 23 August 2014
       2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
       

       @ Gavin,

       Absolutely no need for a mea culpa. I've been looking at the SEARCH (and now SIPN) stuff for about 5 years, and for the first 12-18 months I thought the same as you - and for exactly the same reason. It was only as I became more familiar with the data, that I realised it had to be the monthly mean which was being used. Largely as a consequence of this confusion, I've tried to drill myself to always explicitly state the time period of a min (or max). 

       I totally agree with your comments regarding the fact that, whatever the confidence interval selected, there is a gradual transition in the "confidence" of the result. A classic example of this being twisted to nefarious purpose was the loaded question that Phil Jones was presented with in 2010. The case was eloquently described by Dana on the SkS site, with the crux of the matter being the following question and answer...

       Q: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

       A: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

       When I tried to work out the actual confidence level using the HadCRUT3 dataset, I think it came out at around 93% or 94%, but that's not how it was reported by the usual suspects.

       For what it's worth, I tend to omit outliers such as 2007 (and latterly 2012) when trying to "outguess" the Arctic. This strategy wasn't bad in 2010 and 2011, but failed spectacularly in 2012, 2013 and 2014. (No prizes for guessing in which direction I was wrong about each of those years.)

       Cheers   Bill F

34724. One Planet Only Forever at 03:16 AM on 23 August 2014
       Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
       

       Lloyd Flack,

       Please share some examples of the motivations of people who resist better understanding the climate science that are not greed related.

       I agree that greed will not necessarily be the motivation for everyone who is reluctant to better understand what the constantly improving understanding of climate science is indicating about the acceptability of developed and developing human activity.

       However, greed is definitely the motivation behind almost every effort to create and disemminate misleading marekting regarding the issue and attempts to discredit climate science. And greed is also likely the root motivation for almost all the members of the 'audience of information providers' who prefer to believe misleading criticisms of climate science.

       What climate science, and so many other fields of scientific investigation, are developing is a better understanding that much of the developed and developing global economic and fiscal activity is fundamentally unsustainable and damaging. And the changes to the socioeconomic system that are needed to lead to have the system actually develop a sustainable better future for everyone are contrary to the interests of callous greedy people who have become powerful and wealthy by getting away with unsustainable and damgaing activity, and are contrary to the interests of people hoping to become wealthy and powerful through similar unacceptable pursuits.

       Admittedly there are fearful people and desperate people also easily impressed by the attempts to misinform and discredit climate science. Many fearful people are afraid that they will not be able to live without burning dug-up hydrocarbons. That fear is related to their greed. They want the lifestyle they are accustomed to and fear not having it. That is a valid fear. But the lifes being enjoyed by high-consumption people not paying the full costs of ensuring there is no damage done by their lifestyle are living an illigitimate damaging life. Those who do not care to better understand the sustainability of how they live their life, do not care about future generations also being able to continue the same lifestyle, not caring that others who want to try today to live the same way cannot all be allowed to (only the winners of the dog-eat-dog competition to win to the detriment of others benefit, rather than having everyone compete to live sustainably better which would allow all people to live decently with competition finding even better ways for everyone to live decently) , would fear losing some of their benefits which are also illigitimate ways of living.

       So, although there may be many other 'described motivations' most of them could be related to greed, even if the person does not internally recognise their motivation as greed.

       And the media likes of Murdoch are not necessarily deliberately against climate science. It is just that greed can lead them to do what they are doing. Media sell advertising. And advertisers want to know what kind of people they are advertising to. The success of the likes of Murdoch can be seen as an ability to attract an audience that 'wants more new stuff', does not care about understanding negative implications of how they live or what they chose to consume, is easily impressed by a message that suits their image and is unlikely to check into the validity of a claim they thought they liked. That type of audience is golden for misleading advertisers who want to profit any way they can get away with.

34725. Leland Palmer at 03:03 AM on 23 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
       

       "If it is connected to deep thermogenic gas, then no problem. No possibility of a methane apocolype from that kind of cause."

       I admire your certainty, so soon after the appearance of this new cold eruption phenomenon.  But, you've actually been quite helpful, and have helped advance the "cold eruption as a cause of the circular lake phenomenon associated with Siberian gas fields" hypothesis. 

       I'm afraid, though, I cannot agree with your statement about "no possibility". The permafrost weakening mechanism could likely produce cold eruptions from any high pressure source, and it may be that the thermogenic gas fields have the highest pressure. 

       So, thanks for your help.

34726. Dikran Marsupial at 21:41 PM on 22 August 2014
       2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
       

       billthefrog If you look at the call for contributions, you will find it talk about the September minimum right at the top of the page

       "The Sea Ice Outlook provides an open process for those interested in arctic sea ice to share ideas about the September minimum sea ice extent. The monthly reports contain a variety of perspectives—from advanced numerical models to qualitative perspectives from citizen scientists. A post-season report will provide an in-depth analysis of factors driving sea ice extent this summer as well as explore the scientific methods for predicting seasonal ice extent"

       but September mean much further down.  Presumably that is where the confusion arose, mea culpa (I don't appear to be the only one to make that mistake).   Thanks for pointing this out, I'll update the page to reflect this.

       What difference does it make?  Well not much really, if you have a 95% credible interval (note: it is not a frequentist confidence interval), it means you should expect the observations to lie outside the intervals 5% of the time, even if the model is perfect.  If the observations lie very slightly outside the CI they are only slightly more unexpected than if the lie very slightly within.  The important thing the model learned from the last two years (where the observations were at opposite ends of the interval) was that it was probably underestimating the variability, which is why the credible interval is a bit wider this year.  If you look around 1995, you will see that the observations were outside the CI then, even though that is in the calibration period.  This sort of thing does happen from time to time, especially if the model is non-physical - you know it is "wrong" (in the GEP Box sense) a-priori.

       
       Now, nobody is claiming the model is perfect, or even good, just a simple statistical baseline that expert opinion or physical models ought to be able to improve upon.

34727. billthefrog at 21:08 PM on 22 August 2014
       2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
       

       @ Gavin & Franklefkin,

       Hi guys,

       Perhaps it might help if we go through this one step at a time. Gavin correctly points out that, in previous years, this exercise was carried out under the Study of Environmental ARctic CHange umbrella (ie SEARCH).

       However, I think Gavin is mistaken in the assertion that the criterion requested for 2013 was the daily minimum recorded in September. In the SEARCH background page, it clearly states that...

       An integrated monthly report is produced that summarizes the evolution and expected state of arctic sea ice for the September mean arctic sea ice extent, based on the observations and analyses submitted by the science community.   (My underlining)

       More specifically, the SEARCH Report for June 2013 states...

       With 23 pan-arctic Outlook contributions, an increase over the last two years (thank you!), the June Sea Ice Outlook projects a September 2013 arctic sea extent (defined as the monthly average for September) median value of 4.1 million square kilometers, with quartiles of 3.8 and 4.4 million square kilometers (Figure 1). (Again my underlining)

       If the submission was made mistakenly thinking that the daily minimum had been sought by SEARCH, then we are into the realms of chalk and cheese. Should this be the case, then the projection of 4.1 +/- 1.1 million sq kms does indeed encompass the observed NSIDC daily minimum of 5.1 million sq kms. (Especialy as NSIDC have, I believe, an uncertainty figure of around 50,000 sq kms.) However, that was not what the SEARCH team was looking for.

       On the other hand, if, as Franklefkin suggests, the 4.1 million sq kms daily figure is somehow derived from an intermediate calculation giving the projected monthly average, then we are in the dark as to the value of this hypothesised monthly mean.

       A third alternative is that the 4.1 million figure does represent the monthly mean. In that case - barring Snowball Earth and Hothouse Earth intervals - it is impossible, both physically and mathematically, for the daily mean to equal the monthly mean.

       Sorry about this guys, but if got to sign off and go exploring ancient ruins on Dartmoor. I will log in again later this evening to explain my "jangling nerves" comment further.

       Cheers     Bill

34728. Tom Curtis at 13:44 PM on 22 August 2014
       Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
       

       To the moderator, I know I probably provoked him by posting a sensible post on a related topic, such that Donny had to rush in to fill the space with distracting nonsense, but surely Donny's quota of irrational, unsupported online "arguments" is used up.  If he cannot state a cogent case, with clearly linked supporting evidence, why is he permitted to waste our time?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] As long as you and others choose to respond to Donny's "distracting nonsense" before a Moderator can take action to delete his post, the problem will persist. 

34729. Tom Curtis at 13:41 PM on 22 August 2014
       Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
       

       Donny @71, the total cost of the Conservation Reserve Program from 1995-2012 was 31.5 billion dollars, for an average payment of 34 thousand dollars per recipient, or 1.9 thousand dollars per annum per recipient.

       For comparison, farm commodity subsidies amounted to 177.6 billion dollars over the same period, for an average of 60 thousand dollars per recipient, or 3,356 per annum.  Further, there were only 1.4 million eligible recipients for the CRP, compared to the 2.9 million recipients of commodity subsidies.  In all, the CRP represented only 13.3% of US farm subsidies.  The 1.75 billion payed out in CRP in 2012 represented just 0.4% of gross farm income in the US, and 1.3% of net income.

       Given these statistics, the claims made about the CRP at the site to which you link are hardly credible.  Having acreage under cultivation results in higher net subisidies for the farmer, which are more easilly obtained.  Once income from sale of products is included, it can only be commerically advantagious to have acreage rented under the CRP program if that acreage generates a marginal return in the first event.  Further, the CRP does result in a net conservation gain, so that its stated purpose is its most likely actual purpose.  (Arguing that a minor tie up of land focussed on degraded land that results in improvement of land quality and recovery in population of threatened species was not introduced for the stated purpose of conservation looks very like a conspiracy theory to me.)

       Finally, in total, as of 2014, 5.62 million acres of farmland were tied up by CRP contracts.  That is just 0.55% of total US agricultural land.  So even it, as per your fantasy, the land tied up by the CRP was as productive as the rest of US agricultural land, releasing it would not compensate other than to a minimal extent to the expected loss in agricultural productivity from global warming.

34730. Donny at 12:24 PM on 22 August 2014
       Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
       

       www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-does-the-govt-pay-farmers/

       Ending CRP would help in the extremely unlikely event that there was a shortage. 

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] This is not science. It is not even basically relevant. Other commentators have produced data to support their argument that climate change is not going create new farmland due to warming temperatures at a rate commeasurate with crop decline in other sectors. Things like actual studies, soil maps etc. Change of land use in existing areas of arable soils are not relevant. Expect further offtopic, essentially political points to be deleted.

34731. Tom Curtis at 11:10 AM on 22 August 2014
       Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
       

       Further to my post @69, here is a map of the geological regions of Canada:

       

       It is interesting to note that Canadian agriculture is largely confined to the spur in Ontarion between Lake Huron and Lake Erie, and to the Interior Platform in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

34732. Tom Curtis at 10:45 AM on 22 August 2014
       Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
       

       Just to put the "new agricultural lands" idea into perspective, and in lieu of boots on the ground, compare the following views from google Earth:

       Prime agricultural land north of Saskatoon

       This image is centered on Warman.  To get the relevant view, tilt twice so that you are looking north, then (while retaining Warman in the forground), scale in to 200 m.  Having done so you will see the extensive farmland, which has been plowed, and is evidently intended from growing grains.  You will also see the system of small lakes that are a consequence of past erosion from the Laurentide ice sheet.

       This map will help you place the view, which is evidently looking north toward the black (best) soil, although whether it is in that belt or just below it I am unsure.

       

       Scrolling the view north you find greener fields, and then forest, but throughout the pattern of extensive lakes persists.  Therefore the glacial erosion pattern certainly persists through the best soil of the Canadian Prairie.

       Non-Agricultural Land north of Preston Lake

       Looking further north within Saskatchewan, we have the view from Preston Lake.  Again, tilt twice to look north but focus in till the scale is 500 meters rather than 200 meters, again retaining the main feature (Preston Lake) in the foreground.  We focus in to 500 meters because the 200 meter resolution is not available in this part of Canada.

       It is interesting to see that here we have a similar pattern of lakes formed by glacial erosion to that found in south Saskatchewan north of Saskatoon.  Here, however, the green represents forests.  A large proportion of the dry land, however, is taken up by of-white formations that apparently resist tree cover.  Comparison with the far whiter sands near lake Athabasca (further north) suggest the of-white  formations are not sand, but rock.  Indeed, a description of a minereological claim in the area states:

       "[The claims] includes a large area of partially exposed pre-Cambrian shield rocks. ... The claims are underlain by Phanerozoic rocks (limestone and sandstone)..."

       The of-white exposed portions are, therefore, most probabily the pre-cambrian shield rocks as shown here:

       

       Or possibly exposed areas of the underlying sandstone/limestone as shown here:

       

       Clearly this area, while apparently very suitable for a uranium mine, is not at all suitable for agriculture.  The brunisolic soils of the area apparently provide a thin cover over the base sedimentary rocks, with earlier (and harder) exposed pre-cambrian rock covering much of the territory.  The soil under actual forested areas is probably thicker than in the photo above (where the clearing is probably a clearing for a reason), but is not thick. 

       Non-agricultural land in Northern Quebec

       Finally, for completeness, is the area around Lac Bienville in northern Quebec.  Again, centering the google Earth image on the lake, tilting twice to look north and and focusing in to the highest resolution view (500 meters), we see a similar, but for more intensive glacial erosion pattern.  Further, as with north Saskatchewan we see extensive pale regions marking regions, whose nature can be determined from this surface photo taken slightly further north at Bienville Sud:

       

       I do not feel the need to point out why that land is not suitable for agriculture.

       I'll make an important caveatte that google Earth and photos found on the internet are no substitute for on ground experience, so that my discussion below is premised on the supposition that anybody with onground experience in these regions agrees with my assessment of them.  (In this discussion, by "anyone" I primarilly mean Bob Loblaw, who has previously asserted such experience.)

       I think this comparison of agricultural vs non-agricultural shows very clearly why land in northern Canada is for the most part unsuitable for agriculture quite independent of current climate.  The past history of climate in the region is relevant because formation of soil would have been far faster in a tropical region (for example), but that is no help over the next few hundred years.  Even such soil that does exist in northern Saskatchewan is brunisolic, ie, it is "... a stage in an evolutionary sequence that begins with an unweathered parent material (Regosolic soils) and ends with development of a “mature” forested soil of the Podzolic or Luvisolic orders" and as such is unsuitable for agriculture in any event.

       Finally, scaddenp @68 mentions Hobson et al (2002).  That paper discusses the conversion of forest to agriculture in a belt across the middle of Saskatchewan, more or less on the latitude of Pince Albert, and hence mostly south of Edmonton.  As such, it is mostly in, or on the northern edge of the black soil region shown in the map above (first image).  Clearly statistics on clearing forest in regions of known good agricultural soil have no bearing on the potential for conversion from forest to agriculture further north where there are large areas of exposed pre-cambrian rock and the soils are of a much lower quality.

       As a footnote, I have found a new online map of canadian soils which has the distinction of also being able to show simultaniously the limits of current agriculture.  That feature helps show the importance of soil type in placing the northern limit of agriculture.  It shows the limited conversion of luvisolic soils to agriculture in Alberta and Saskatchawan, along with the almost complete absence of conversion of brunisolic soils.  In west Ontario, regions with brunisolic soils on the US border are still agriculture free.  Anybody arguing the brunisolic soils of northen Aberta and Saskatchewan will suddenly become suitable for agriculture due to climate change need first to explain why equivalent soils on the US border are currently unsuitable for agriculture.

34733. chriskoz at 10:30 AM on 22 August 2014
       Climate Change Impacts in Labrador
       

       Robert,

       In this movie by Zach Kunuk, that you probably know very well, Inuit elders are saying that bears are not threatened by climate change at all: in fact they are thriving in this dramatically new climate, despite sicetific evidence to the contrary.

       What's your opinion about it? How many bears did you see and were they annoying? Perhaps hunger makes bears more desperate and they congregate around human settlements in search for food making the appearance to Inuits as if their population were increasing?

34734. Dikran Marsupial at 04:22 AM on 22 August 2014
       2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
       

       Billthefrog, thanks for your comments, I'll fix the minor errors when I have a moment (hopefully tomorrow).  Last year (2013) the exercise was run by SEARCH, rather than SIPN, and last year, the criterion was the September minimum.

       The SEARCH Sea Ice Outlook is an international effort to provide a community-wide summary of the expected September arctic sea ice minimum. Monthly reports released throughout the summer synthesize community estimates of the current state and expected minimum of sea ice—at both a pan-arctic and regional scale.

       If it is September mean this year, then that means my model is a better fit to the criterion, but the prediction interval is so large I doubt it would make much difference in practice.

       I don't see why the sentence

       "Note also that the model actually predicts the mean Arctic sea ice extent for the month of September, and so can be expected to somewhat over-estimate the September minimum."

       should jangle the nerves, it is just pointing out a known bias in the model, it isn't excusing anything.   This is the norm for reporting science, pointing out the flaws and biases in the model.  As you can see from the caveat lector at the end, I am not suggesting my statistical model is anything more than a useful statistical baseline, as it does not take into account any of the physics.  It also only uses the annual September means, so it is a prediction based on (a little of) what we knew last September.  I would be very surprised if it doesn't turn out to be substantially pessimistic.

       Note also in recent years the observations have been first at the very bottom of the prediction interval and then at the very top, so this issue doesn't actually help make the model look any more accurate overall anyway!  The bias "helps" in some years,  and it "hinders" in others, but it is always there.

34735. franklefkin at 03:52 AM on 22 August 2014
       2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
       

       billthefrog,

       Gavin's method uses past September averages to predict a new September average, which then predicts a one day low - hence minimum extent-----I believe.  He is obviously better able to describe his method.  Given the above, his prediction for last year was just within the bounds.

34736. billthefrog at 03:32 AM on 22 August 2014
       2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
       

       @ OP

       Gavin,

       There's a little proof reading problem in the OP, in that Figures 1 & 3 are reversed from the way they are described in the body text.

       Also - and please forgive the pun - but I think you're skating on thin ice as regards your characterisation of your model's prediction for last year. My understanding (not that that's saying much) is that all the figures submitted to the SIPN should relate to the mean September figure, rather than the absolute one-day minimum.

       The observed figure for the Sept 2013 average was, as shown above, 5.4 million sq kms. (This is, I think, an upward rounding of the 5.35 million sq kms given by the NSIDC.) That being the case, I'm afraid the observed figure did fall outwith your model's error bar range.

       I'm usually reticent about criticising the choice of phraseology that people employ (each to his/her own and all that stuff) but one sentence did seriously jangle the nerves. You wrote that...

       Note also that the model actually predicts the mean Arctic sea ice extent for the month of September, and so can be expected to somewhat over-estimate the September minimum.

       It may not have been your intention, but that sentence sounds as if you were trying to account for some of the divergence between the observed and predicted values. There would be no problem with that if the model had indeed produced an over-estimate, and it was being compared to the absolute daily minimum. If that was the case, it would indeed explain away some, or perhaps even all, of the divergence.

       However, since the model produced an underestimate for the monthly average, it doesn't help at all as a mitigating factor in explaining the divergence from the observed one-day minimum. In fact, if you give some thought to the matter, it has quite the opposite effect! 

       Please note that I'm not in any way suggesting that there is some significant reversal of the decades-long trend in Arctic Sea Ice. Sadly, it is in no way surprising that, in a breath-taking display of revisionism, the lessons regarding the so-called "recovery" between 2007 and 2009 seem to have already been expunged from the collective memory in some quarters.

34737. wili at 01:48 AM on 22 August 2014
       Scientist in focus – meteorologist and climate communicator Paul Huttner
       

       I was just listening to Paul and Kerri broadcasting this excellent program from the first day of the Minnesota State Fair. I second all of John's praise for the program. I hope they expand it.

34738. Lloyd Flack at 00:36 AM on 22 August 2014
       Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
       

       As several have pointed out here it is usually a waste of time trying to convince a denier. What you have to do is expose them them to their audience.

       What I think you have to do is to expose their irrationality. You won't do that by attacking their arguments. What you have to do is get them to display their willful blindness. You have to get them into a position where they have a choice between accepting logic and holding on to their beliefs.

       And when they are obviously looking for reasons to keep on believing something try to get then to answer why.

       But to effectively do all this you have to actually understand their motives rather than attribute to them motives that are easy to denounce. And that means don't talk about greed. Other things are more important. Some are actually worse or at least more dangerous.

34739. scaddenp at 00:34 AM on 22 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
       

       If it is connected to deep thermogenic gas, then no problem. No possibility of a methane apocolype from that kind of cause.

       You cant have methane hydrates at depth since only stable in a narrow pressure range. I cant see any plausible mechanism to have long term high rates of methane flow from hydrates.

34740. One Planet Only Forever at 00:01 AM on 22 August 2014
       Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
       

       Mancan18,

       It is unfortunte that Australia appears to have ended up with a similar situation Canada is currently in, hopefully returning to developing toward a sustainabe better future for all with earnest, if the impending 2015 election unseats a similar group of characters. Polls indicate that the general population in Canada is becoming more aware of the threat posed by such characters, and are not as easily tempted to be fooled by the made-up claims of these people who have 'made-up their minds to never chage their minds' no matter what information is provided that contradicts their interests.

       Al Gore's book "The Aussault on Reason" (2007), includes a fairly comprehensive presentation on the problem of consolidation of media power by the likes of Murdoch. And he has some recommendations for actions that might defeat the irrational influence of such arrangements.

34741. KR at 23:45 PM on 21 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
       

       Leland Palmer - The Yamal craters are quite interesting, and should certainly be studied. However, concern should be weighted by risk, and by analysis, and reasonable estimations of melt rates, emissions, and methane decay indicate that a Shakhova type methane catastrophe is simply not in the cards. 

       You have posed increasingly implausible scenarios, including permafrost decay and methane percolation rates hugely larger than the physics would indicate, you have conflated thermogenic gases (deep seeps) with biogenic sources (permafrost decay), and from a few crater events have extrapolated ~7 orders of magnitude to a methane catastrophy. You are IMO extending concern far far past what the physics indicate as risks. 

       Given the decay time of methane, I would be far more concerned about subsea hydrates than permafrost decay - and neither is terribly likely if you actually look at the physics and numbers. In the meantime, going overboard with unsupported "we're doomed" scenarios is a distraction from acting where we can, and focusing on controlling our emissions. A focus, I'll point out, that greatly reduces the already low chances of a methane catastrophy by minimizing total climate change. 

34742. Leland Palmer at 23:39 PM on 21 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
       

       scaddenp-

       "Leland, the "door to hell" can maintain production over a long period because it is effectively connected by a "pipe" to a very large high pressure reservoir at depth."

       The initial gas eruption at Yamal might be pretty good evidence that the same is true at Yamal.

34743. mancan18 at 14:28 PM on 21 August 2014
       Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
       

       One Planet Only Forever

       Sadly, in Australia, the Murdoch press who Andrew Bolt and a number of other deniers write for reaches around 83% of Australia's literate population. Also, the Institute of Public Affairs, of which Maurice Newman and others are associated with, and whose closest American equivalent would be the Marshall Centre, wields a high proportion of business and economic policy influence with the Liberal Party, which currently holds Government. There is very little challenge to their climate change narrative, although the Government does profess to agree that climate change is happening, it then gives the green light to burning more coal as a method of counteracting it, and promotes a policy called Positive Action but then provides it with inadequate funding.

       There are a few fringe commentators and comedians who do make cynical and satirical statements regarding the situation in Australia, however, the only place where climate science is reported honestly in the media anywhere Is on the ABC program Catalyst with a few press releases by the CSIRO and the now private Climate Commission. There is very little to offset the bias in the Murdoch press.

34744. PhilippeChantreau at 13:06 PM on 21 August 2014
       Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
       

       Bob Loblaw has it right. Unfortunately, large masses of people are so undereducated in general that they can't even have a concept of the significance of the stuff they don't know. After years of being nice to everybody and giving points for trying, we end up with countless people who believe that their opinions matter even when they are completely clueless. Isaac Asimov summarized that attitude very well: "my ignorance is just as good as your expertise."

       What kind of exchange can happen, in the thick fog of today's bullshit wars with those who live by this motto?

34745. Leland Palmer at 13:01 PM on 21 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
       

       "As Archer has said, our focus should be on our emissions."

       No.

       This cold gas eruption release mechanism is a new effect, and we should focus on understanding it. 

       After we understand it, then we can come to some conclusions about how significant it is.

34746. One Planet Only Forever at 12:59 PM on 21 August 2014
       2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
       

       NSIDC reporting on Arctic Ice extent (here) indicates their expected minimum is between 5 and 5.5 million square kilometers. A range of possible extents from about 5.9 down to about 4.8 based on a variety of projections from the current extent is also presented.

       The revised WUWT forecast is indeed still in the race though it is above the upper side of the NSIDC likely range for this year's minimum. But unusual things can and do occassionally happen in the complex climate system of our planet, so we still have to wait to see how this will turn out, and add this year to the total set of information, making no claims based on this year compared to last year.

34747. Bob Loblaw at 11:56 AM on 21 August 2014
       Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
       

       Ashton @ 13: "You have to structure the argument for your point of view so "they" can follow it."

       That sounds an awful lot like what my sister would call "Sesame Street Learning" - the student just has to sit back and watch/listen, and the teacher has to do all the work. Unfortunately, I've seen too many students with that attitude, even at the university level - they expect to get good marks for just showing up at lectures.

       Learning takes effort by the student. People that don't want to learn, won't - no matter how good the teacher is. If they don't want to learn, then their opinions will often be uninformed, as Dikran alludes to @14. If people refuse to learn, then their uninformed opinions are not a positive contribution to the discussion.

34748. One Planet Only Forever at 11:51 AM on 21 August 2014
       Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
       

       Ashton,

       I provided a comment on the recent sks report about this year's potential El Nino (here), showing that the global temperature record shows that the warming has continued without getting into explanations of how La Nina conditions result in temporarily lower global average surface temperatures as more heat is taken into the ocean. Yet that simple and easy to present case will not 'convence anyone against their will'. So I would disagree with your comparison of convincing students, with convincing the general public. The method of appeal to the general public needs to be both emotional and rational, even though the rational approach has far less chance of success.

       Using the points in my earlier comment here, I have had some success delving into 'why a person is reluctant to accept the science'. And by bring up all the other unacceptable consequences and fundamantal unsustainability of benefiting from burning dug up non-renweable hydrocarbons the result is usually a realization by the person that they were deliberately not wanting to understand the science. Some then change their mind and want to learn more. Others dig in further in a fight to preserve their internal justification for something that is clearly unacceptable. Either way, a better understanding has been established.

       As for the media attention, does Australia have its equivalents of The Daily Show, Real Time with Bill Maher, the Colbert Report, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver like Canada has This Hour has 22 Minutes and the Rick Mercer Report? There would seem to be a potential market for providing public entertainment in Australia at the expense of all the 'deniers' including Australia's Government-of-the-Moment. And the show could target more than just Climate Change deniers. It could target all the people who deliberately are doing anything they think they can get away with to get more profit quicker for as long as they can get away with.

34749. mancan18 at 08:17 AM on 21 August 2014
       Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
       

       scaddenp, Dikran Marsupial and Ashton

       The reason for thinking that in any argument with a denier, you need to reveal their core belief in order to get a baseline for debate (argument).

       A few months ago, I had a very heated argument with a denier. It took me half-an-hour for him to admit that CO2 levels had reached 400 ppm, was rising at 2ppm p.a., and another 15 minutes for him to admit that in his lifetime, levels had risen nearly 100 ppm from a situation that has existed for at least a million years. Amongst all this, I never got him to admit that CO2 was a greenhouse gas even using the simple examples of Venus compared to Mercury, and the Earth versus the Moon. Along the way I was called a socialist, Marxist, greenie, and other things and told in no uncertain terms that it was all crap and just some sort of conspiracy. Now this denier usually doesn't believe in conspiracy theories but in this case he does. I probably shouldn't have pushed the argument once I realised he just didn't believe the CO2 argument. I should have simply stated he was wrong and he needs to do more reading.

       However, the Bolts and Newmans of this world do need to be challenged because of their wide influence. At a site like Skeptical Science arguing using scientific evidence should win the debate, but in the wider media it won't. Evidence needs to be used selectively and sparingly otherwise it just overwhelmes the wider public. It is probably better to ask deniers the right questions to reveal the unscientific nature of their core beliefs than just arguing from polarised positions. In the non-scientific world, a bit of Socratic questioning is probably better than copious amounts of evidence. In a one-on-one debate with the likes of Bolt or Newman you will probably always lose unless you expose the weakeness of their arguments, which you can do by asking the right questions. In fact, proving the case beyond reasonable doubt in some sort of mock trial would be far more effective in convincing the wider public than just trying to overhwelm deniers with evidence.

34750. KR at 07:15 AM on 21 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
       

       Leland Palmer - A relevant paper to this topic is Etiope and Klusman 2002, discussing global CH4 emissions from all sources. These include biogenic and thermogenic methane, and the totals from atmospheric CH4 isotopic ratios indicate that such seeps are a rather small fraction of that emitted from biosphere sources. 

       Reality checking indicates that thermogenic seeps are not major contributors, and that even if there were trapped seeps under permafrost they wouldn't be sufficient to cause a Shakhova type catastrophe - by multiple orders of magnitude. There simply aren't enough seeps globally. 

       Again, I understand your concerns regarding methane emissions - but the numbers show that a methane catastrophe (from either hydrate or seeks) is very unlikely. Your increasingly hypothetical scenarios are just not plausible.

       As Archer has said, our focus should be on our emissions. 

Prev  687  688  689  690  691  692  693  694  695  696  697  698  699  700  701  702  Next