How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Walter]

And the rush to claim territory in the Arctic currently under pack ice that may have rich natural resources is due to what?

Last year saw the greatest number of craft transit the Northwest Passage and China is building icebreakers in anticipation of saving 7000 miles in shipping products to Europe, it's also demanding a share in resources found there. The Arctic ice is dissappearing faster than most models have predicted, the faster it goes the faster the region will warm(once again simple physics due to albedo) since ice reflects most of the sunlight and open ocean absorbs most of the solar energy that arrives.

Climate change deniers are stuck in some bizarre version of OZ clicking their ruby slippers together and chanting "There's no such thing as Global Warming, there's no such thing as Global Warming".

Magical thinking is wonderful... in a child.

You must have brown eyes.

 

[Tonington]

You must have brown eyes.

You need better eyes, and better graphics to see clearly. Such as:

It's a nice graphic, and-click to embiggen- large format!

 

[AnnaG]

You must have brown eyes.

And you haven't got any eyes that work. Cobalt was talking about pack ice so you post a graph about sea ice. lol

 

[ironsides]

Bottom line, did the Artic remain ice free this winter?

 

[JLM]

Bottom line, did the Artic remain ice free this winter?

I'd be surprised- the Okanagan didn't remain ice free.

 

[ironsides]

This is global warming thing is probably one of the most confusing things we have discussed. If we are just going thru a normal climate change possibly accelerated by man, there is nothing we can do about it. You just may be able to swim comfortably in the lake some day, and I will have to move to higher ground.

 

[Tonington]

This is global warming thing is probably one of the most confusing things we have discussed. If we are just going thru a normal climate change possibly accelerated by man, there is nothing we can do about it. You just may be able to swim comfortably in the lake some day, and I will have to move to higher ground.

Are you serious? A recent analogy: If you own a certain car that say has a problem with the accelerator, and you find yourself accelerating out of control, there's nothing you can do?

 

[Walter]

Bottom line, did the Artic remain ice free this winter?

No ice at all if you don't count the 14 million square kilometers of the stuff.

 

[Tonington]

Better question: who said the Arctic would be ice free in the Winter? Seriously, whom was it that said that would happen? Or is this a red herring?

 

[JLM]

Better question: who said the Arctic would be ice free in the Winter? Seriously, whom was it that said that would happen? Or is this a red herring?

Yep- a red herring bordering on bullsh*t. I think someone observed parts of Greenland were thawing in the summer and it didn't take long for that to get grossly exaggerated. :lol:

 

[Walter]

Another 'gate' gets in the way of settled science.

 

[ironsides]

Are you serious? A recent analogy: If you own a certain car that say has a problem with the accelerator, and you find yourself accelerating out of control, there's nothing you can do?

I can put that car into neutral and coast to a stop. If all this is destined to happen, global warming/cooling it will happen. I cannot control what other people let along what other countries do. Supposedly we have approx. 50 years left before the East Coast of North America under goes some changes. Nothing man can do will stop that. This is not one of those things that barring a miracle or intervention by a alien species will be affected by anything we do now. If we had know this was going to happen maybe 100-150 years ago we might have had a chance.

 

[Tonington]

I can put that car into neutral and coast to a stop. If all this is destined to happen, global warming/cooling it will happen. I cannot control what other people let along what other countries do. Supposedly we have approx. 50 years left before the East Coast of North America under goes some changes. Nothing man can do will stop that. This is not one of those things that barring a miracle or intervention by a alien species will be affected by anything we do now. If we had know this was going to happen maybe 100-150 years ago we might have had a chance.

This makes no sense. To go back to the car analogy, we can ease off of emitting heat trapping pollutants. That is the same as shifting the transmission in the speeding car into neutral. Over time the Earth systems will "coast" the temperature back to normal.

You talk of all this as though what is happening is inevitable. It isn't. In the last 50 years, internal variables in Earth's climate are negative. So if we remove the dominant positive forcing, we coast back to normal.

If you really want to understand this better follow the bouncing ball:

Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation find an enhanced greenhouse effect (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). This result is consistent with measurements from the Earth’s surface observing more infrared radiation returning back to the surface (Wang 2009, Philipona 2004, Evans 2006). Consequently, our planet is experiencing a build-up of heat (Murphy 2009). These findings provide ”direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate“

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

And you haven't got any eyes that work. Cobalt was talking about pack ice so you post a graph about sea ice. lol

Bingo.

As the Inuit are finding out the pack ice is getting a lot thinner and seems to be melting from the bottom due to warmer ocean temperatures.

Pack ice can be several hundred feet thick at pressure ridges, sea ice thickness is measured in feet.

Walter seems to have a tough time understanding complex issues, that's the impression most people who are in denial over climate change give in my experience.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Bottom line, did the Artic remain ice free this winter?

The projection is for the Arctic to become ice free in the summer within several decades(maybe as little as one), not during the winter.

 

[Tonington]

Did you read David Barber's paper on sea ice conditions Cobalt? Rotten ice they called it. I think this will be a significant contribution in the future studies to square observations with model output, if the Arctic sea ice continues it's accelerated ice loss, unforseen by the models.

 

[ironsides]

This makes no sense. To go back to the car analogy, we can ease off of emitting heat trapping pollutants. That is the same as shifting the transmission in the speeding car into neutral. Over time the Earth systems will "coast" the temperature back to normal.

I do think that what will happen in the next 50+ years or so is inevitable. It is a fact that the world has warmed up a little, it is a fact that the methane trapped beneath the oceans and permafrost has started being released more than normal into the atmosphere. I do not think there is anything we can do about it except prepare and adjust the way we will have to live as things get worse. I do not believe that man is the main cause of this, just a contributor, instead of happening in the next 50 years it would have happened in a 100.

"The first evidence that millions of tons of a [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]greenhouse [COLOR=blue !important]gas[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] 20 times more potent than [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]carbon[/COLOR][/COLOR]

dioxide is being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists.

The Independent has been passed details of preliminary findings suggesting that massive deposits of sub-sea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats.
Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species. Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane – sometimes at up to 100 times background levels – over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.
In the past few days, the researchers have seen areas of sea foaming with gas bubbling up through "methane chimneys" rising from the sea floor. They believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost, which has acted like a "lid" to prevent the gas from escaping, has melted away to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the last ice age."
Exclusive: The methane time bomb - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

methane | 80beats | Discover Magazine
Methane gas bubbles up from Siberian lakes at up to six times the rate previously thought as a result of global warming, a new study suggests. The result: more global warming.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060906_methane_bubbles.html

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Did you read David Barber's paper on sea ice conditions Cobalt? Rotten ice they called it. I think this will be a significant contribution in the future studies to square observations with model output, if the Arctic sea ice continues it's accelerated ice loss, unforseen by the models.

Interesting, melting water also played a major role in the breakup of the Larsen B iceshelf in Antartica, which was expected to survive much longer. It's also acting to accerlerate the movement and erosion of the Greenland icecap.

 

[Tonington]

Yup, those would be the "dynamic changes" which the IPCC warned they have not included in their forecasts, hence why they underestimate reality.

 

[Tonington]

Another 'gate' gets in the way of settled science.

Another manufactured scandal you mean.

Back in 2007 a paper, Amazon Forests Green-Up During 2005 Drought, was published in Science:

Coupled climate-carbon cycle models suggest that Amazon forests are vulnerable to both long- and short-term droughts, but satellite observations showed a large-scale photosynthetic green-up in intact evergreen forests of the Amazon in response to a short, intense drought in 2005. These findings suggest that Amazon forests, although threatened by human-caused deforestation and fire and possibly by more severe long-term droughts, may be more resilient to climate changes than ecosystem models assume.
​

This finding that the Amazon was more resilient than previously thought was reported in the London Times and the New York Times.

Now a new paper contradicting the previous paper, Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought has been published:

We find no evidence of large-scale greening of intact Amazon forests during the 2005 drought - approximately 11%-12% of these drought-stricken forests display greening, while, 28%-29% show browning or no-change, and for the rest, the data are not of sufficient quality to characterize any changes. These changes are also not unique - approximately similar changes are observed in non-drought years as well.
​

So how does this get reported? Here's Terence Corcoran in the National Post:

But this week new research supports the original Amazongate version of the science. The Amazon may not be at risk from climate change. Researchers at Boston University, headed by Ranga B. Myneni, professor of geography and environment, found that satellite readings used by other scientists were based on contaminated data. In a paper published by Geophysical Research Letters, Prof. Myneni and associates say they found no evidence that the Amazon suffers extreme tree mortality, excessive forest greening or other trauma under extreme climate conditions.

The Myneni paper examined the impact on the Amazon of a major 2005 drought. Some scientists have argued that the 2005 drought caused significant rainforest disturbances. But Prof. Myneni says that science is based on satellite data that cannot be reproduced because much of it is "atmosphere corrupted."
​

Don't you love the way Corcoran describes greening as "significant disturbances" and implies that the earlier study found "extreme tree mortality" rather than geening?
But while Corcoran is being deceitful, you can't blame this all on him.
The Boston University press release also misrepresents the paper:

[Amazon rain forests] may be more tolerant of droughts than previously thought
(Boston) -- A new NASA-funded study has concluded that Amazon rain forests were remarkably unaffected in the face of once-in-a-century drought in 2005, neither dying nor thriving, contrary to a previously published report and claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
​

Simon Lewis comments on the new paper and the press release:

The new Samanta study uses satellites to assess the colour of the rainforest canopy in the dry season of the year 2005, compared to the dry seasons of the years 2003 and 2004. More detected green colour in 2005 may suggest that the forest is being more productive (more green leaves photosynthesising), or more brown colours may suggest leaves dying and less productivity, than the previous years. The results show that 2005 was little different to the previous years, despite the strong drought.

This is important new information, as in 2007, a paper using the satellite-based same method showed a strong 'greening-up' of the Amazon in 2005, suggesting tolerance to drought. The new study shows that those results were not reproducible, but also highlight the extreme caution that should be attached to satellite studies generally in this field, with instruments in space collecting data which is then used to infer subtle changes in the ecology of tropical forests.

In contrast to the 2007 paper, Oliver Phillips, myself and others, published a paper in Science, using ground observations from across the Amazon, that while the 2005 drought did not dramatically change the growth of the trees compared to a normal year, as Samanta also show, but the deaths of trees did increase considerably. The new study of Samanta et al., supports the Phillips et al. study, which itself shows the Amazon is vulnerable to drought. The Phillips paper showed that remaining Amazon forests changed from absorbing nearly 2 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere a year, to being a massive committed source of over 3 billion tonnes, from tree mortality.

The evidence for the possibility of a major die-back of the Amazon rainforest is due to two factors,

1. That climate change induced decreases in rainfall in the dry season occur, and
2. The trees cannot tolerate these reductions in rainfall.

The Samanta paper does not directly address the first point, this is addressed using modelling. The second point is only addressed in a limited way. The critical question is how these forests respond to repeated droughts, not merely single-year droughts. The forests are of course able to withstand these single droughts (otherwise there would be no rainforest!) - it is their ability to survive an increased frequency of the most severe droughts that is critical to answer. Drought experiments, where a roof is built under the forest canopy, show that most forest trees survive a single year's intense drought, but can't persist with repeated years of drought. The Samanta study does not address this point at all.

In conclusion the new study lends further weight to the emerging picture of the 2005 drought, that tree growth was relatively unaffected, but tree mortality increased, contributing to temporarily accelerating the rate of climate change, rather than as usual reducing it via additions of carbon to the atmosphere from the dead trees. Furthermore, the climate change model results suggesting decreasing rainfall in the dry season over Amazonia in the coming decades are unaffected by the new study, thus overall the conclusions in the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report are strengthened (because the anomalous result of the Saleska 2007 science paper appear to be at fault), not weakened, by the new study as the press release implies.
​

The press release also states:

The IPCC is under scrutiny for various data inaccuracies, including its claim - based on a flawed World Wildlife Fund study -- that up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically and be replaced by savannas from even a slight reduction in rainfall. ..."The way that the WWF report calculated this 40% was totally wrong, while [the new] calculations are by far more reliable and correct," said Dr. Jose Marengo, a Brazilian National Institute for Space Research climate scientist and member of the IPCC.
​

I contacted Marengo to see if this fairly represented his position, and, no it didn't, having been taken out of context. He wrote:

I did not know that Sangram would pass my comments for a blog.
I have exchanged few emails with him, and I agree with him about his position on the greening of Amazonia as shown by Saleska et al (2007). However, I have questioned him few times about his conclusions on the IPCC 40% value. In his paper he does not show anything that go against the 40%, and he did not mention IPCC at all. So this comparison is out of of context considering the finding of this high quality paper.

What I said is that the 40% was obtained qualitatively from a map from Nepstad et al (2004), comparing the area burn during the El Nino 1998 and the mean area. Nepstad considered the El Nino 1998 situation as an analogue of what the future could be, which may not be entirely realistic. I said that between an eye calculation to get the 40% reported by the WWF document and the calculations from Samanta et al (2010), even though they refer to different things, Samanta et al did more correct and reliable work.

Yes, I believe that the Amazon forests are vulnerable to rainfall reduction, and high temperatures, and this would lead to what some studies call the Amazon die back. However, the die back is still somewhat uncertain, but without reaching a level in which the forest would replaced by savanna, the forest is highly vulnerable to drought.
​

It's always bad news for the IPCC : Deltoid