Climate Change: The Next Generation

NASA's JPL: Study Solves Case of Earth's 'Missing Energy'

2012-01-28T22:25:00.000-06:00

NASA Study Solves Case of Earth's 'Missing Energy'

Clouds play a vital role in Earth's energy balance, cooling or warming Earth's surface depending on their type. This painting, "Cumulus Congestus," by JPL's Graeme Stephens, principal investigator of NASA's CloudSat mission, depicts cumulus clouds, which transport energy away from Earth's surface. See more at http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu. Image credit: Graeme Stephens
› Larger view

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA, January 27, 2012

Two years ago, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., released a study claiming that inconsistencies between satellite observations of Earth's heat and measurements of ocean heating amounted to evidence of "missing energy" in the planet's system.

Where was it going? Or, they wondered, was something wrong with the way researchers tracked energy as it was absorbed from the sun and emitted back into space?

An international team of atmospheric scientists and oceanographers, led by Norman Loeb of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., and including Graeme Stephens of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., set out to investigate the mystery.

They used 10 years of data -- spanning 2001 to 2010 -- from NASA Langley's orbiting Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System Experiment (CERES) instruments to measure changes in the net radiation balance at the top of Earth's atmosphere. The CERES data were then combined with estimates of the heat content of Earth's ocean from three independent ocean-sensor sources.

Their analysis, summarized in a NASA-led study published Jan. 22, 2012, in the journal Nature Geosciences, found that the satellite and ocean measurements are, in fact, in broad agreement once observational uncertainties are factored in.

"One of the things we wanted to do was a more rigorous analysis of the uncertainties," Loeb said. "When we did that, we found the conclusion of missing energy in the system isn't really supported by the data."

"Missing Energy" is in the Ocean

"Our data show that Earth has been accumulating heat in the ocean at a rate of half a watt per square meter (10.8 square feet), with no sign of a decline," Loeb said. "This extra energy will eventually find its way back into the atmosphere and increase temperatures on Earth."

Scientists generally agree that 90% of the excess heat associated with increases in greenhouse gas concentrations gets stored in Earth's ocean. If released back into the atmosphere, a half-watt per square meter accumulation of heat could increase global temperatures by 0.3 or more degrees centigrade (0.54 degree Fahrenheit).

Loeb said the findings demonstrate the importance of using multiple measuring systems over time, and illustrate the need for continuous improvement in the way Earth's energy flows are measured.

The science team at the National Center for Atmospheric Research measured inconsistencies from 2004 and 2009 between satellite observations of Earth's heat balance and measurements of the rate of upper ocean heating from temperatures in the upper 700 meters (2,300 feet) of the ocean. They said the inconsistencies were evidence of "missing energy."

Other authors of the paper are from the University of Hawaii, the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, the University of Reading United Kingdom and the University of Miami.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-029

Sam Carana: The potential for methane releases in the Arctic to cause runaway global warming

2012-01-28T22:02:00.003-06:00

The potential for methane releases in the Arctic to cause runaway global warming

What are the chances of abrupt releases of, say, 1 Gt of methane in the Arctic? What would be the impact of such a release?

by Sam Carana, Arctic News, December 20, 2011, updated January 10, 2012

How much methane is there in the Arctic?

An often-used figure in estimates of the size of permafrost stores is 1672 Gt (or Pg, or billion tonnes) of Carbon. This figure relates to organic carbon and refers to terrestrial permafrost stores. (1)

This figure was recently updated to 1700 Gt of carbon, projected to result in emissions of 30 - 63 Gt of Carbon by 2040, reaching 232 - 380 Gt by 2100 and 549 - 865 Gt by 2300. These figures are carbon dioxide equivalents, combining the effect of carbon released both as carbon dioxide (97.3%) and as methane (2.7%), with almost half the effect likely to be from methane. (2)

In addition to these terrestrial stores, there is methane in the oceans and in sediments below the seafloor. There are methane hydrates and there is methane in the form of free gas. Hydrates contain primarily methane and exist within marine sediments particularly in the continental margins and within relic subsea permafrost of the Arctic margins. (3)

Hunter and Haywood estimate that globally between 4700 and 5030 Pg (Gt) of Carbon is locked up within subsea hydrate within the continental margins. This does not include subsea permafrost-hosted hydrates and so those of the shallow Arctic margin (<~300m) were not considered. (3)

Dallimore and Collett (1995) found high methane concentrations in ice-bonded sediments and gas releases suggest that pore-space hydrate may be found at depths as shallow as 119 m. (4) Recent studies indicate that hydrate formation can occur in upper gas-saturated horizons (up to 100-200 m) of permafrost. (5) Furthermore, methane hydrates have been found in Siberia at depths as shallow as 20 m. (6)

Shakhova et al. estimate the accumulated methane potential for the Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS, rectangle on image right) alone as follows:

- organic carbon in permafrost of about 500 Gt;
- about 1000 Gt in hydrate deposits; and
- about 700 Gt in free gas beneath the gas hydrate stability zone. (7)

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf covers about 25% of the Arctic Shelf (3) and additional stores are present in submarine areas elsewhere at high latitudes. Importantly, the hydrate and free gas stores contain virtually 100% methane, as opposed to the organic carbon which the above study (2) estimates will produce emissions in the ratio of 97.3% carbon dioxide and only 2.7% methane when decomposing.

How stable is this methane?

The sensitivity of gas hydrate stability to changes in local pressure-temperature conditions and their existence beneath relatively shallow marine environments mean that submarine hydrates are vulnerable to changes in bottom water conditions (i.e. changes in sea level and bottom water temperatures). Following dissociation of hydrates, sediments can become unconsolidated, and structural failure of the sediment column has the potential to trigger submarine landslides and further breakdown of hydrate. The potential geohazard presented to coastal regions by tsunami is obvious. (3)

Further shrinking of the Arctic ice-cap results in more open water, which not only absorbs more heat, but which also results in more clouds, increasing the potential for storms that can cause damage to the seafloor in coastal areas such as the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS, rectangle on image left), where the water is on average only 45 m deep. (8)

Much of the methane released from submarine stores is still broken down by bacteria before reaching the atmosphere. Over time, however, depletion of oxygen and trace elements required for bacteria to break down methane will cause more and more methane to rise to the surface unaffected. (9)

There are only a handful of locations in the Arctic where (flask) samples are taken to monitor the methane. Recently, two of these locations showed ominous levels of methane in the atmosphere (images below).

The danger is that large abrupt releases will overwhelm the system, not only causing much of the methane to reach the atmosphere unaffected, but also extending the lifetime of the methane in the atmosphere, due to hydroxyl depletion in the atmosphere.

Shakhova et al. consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. (10)

What would be the impact of methane releases from hydrates in the Arctic?

If an amount of, say, 1 Gt of methane from hydrates in the Arctic would abruptly enter the atmosphere, what would be the impact?

Methane's global warming potential (GWP) depends on many variables, such as methane's lifetime, which changes with the size of emissions and the location of emissions (hydroxyl depletion already is a big problem in the Arctic atmosphere), the wind, the time of year (when it's winter, there can be little or no sunshine in the Arctic, so there's less greenhouse effect), etc. One of the variables is the indirect effect of large emissions and what's often overlooked is that large emissions will trigger further emissions of methane, thus further extending the lifetime of both the new and the earlier-emitted methane, which can make the methane persist locally for decades.

The IPCC (2007) gives methane a lifetime of 12 years, and a GWP of 25 over 100 years and 72 over 20 years. (11)

The image by Dessus (2008) below illustrates how methane's GWP depends on the horizon over which its impact is calculated. (12)

Drew Shindell (2009) points out that the IPCC figures do not include direct+indirect radiative effects of aerosol responses to methane releases that increase methane's GWP to 105 over 20 years when included. (13)

Using the IPCC figures, applying a GWP of 72 times carbon dioxide would give 1 Gt of methane a greenhouse effect equivalent to 72 Pg of carbon dioxide over 20 years. Applying a GWP of 105 times carbon dioxide would give 1 Gt of methane a greenhouse effect equivalent to 105 Pg of carbon dioxide over 20 years.

By comparison, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 Pg C. (14)

Note that this 174 Pg C was released over a period of 150 years, allowing sinks time to absorb part of the burden. Note also that, as emissions continue to rise, some sinks may turn into net emitters, if they haven't already done so.

The image on the left shows the impact of 1 Gt of methane, compared with annual fluxes of carbon dioxide based on the NOAA carbon tracker. (15)

Fossil fuel and fires have been adding an annual flux of just under 10 Pg C since 2000 and a good part of this is still being absorbed by land and ocean sinks.

In other words, the total burden of all carbon dioxide emitted by people since the start of the industrial revolution has been partly mitigated by sinks, since it was released over a long period of time.

Furthermore, the carbon dioxide was emitted (and partly absorbed) all over the globe, whereas methane from such abrupt releases in the Arctic would - at least initially - be concentrated in a relatively small area, and likely cause oxygen depletion in the water and hydroxyl depletion in the atmosphere, extending methane's lifetime, while triggering further releases from hydrates in the Arctic.

This makes it appropriate to expect a high initial impact from an abrupt 1 Gt methane release, i.e. at a GWP of well over 100 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, which will last for decades.

Even more terrifying is the prospect that this would trigger further methane releases. Given that there already is ~5 Gt in the atmosphere, the impact of this initial 1 Gt combined with further releases of, say, 4 Gt of methane would result in a burden of 10 Gt of methane. When applying a GWP of 105 times carbon dioxide, this would result in a greenhouse effect equivalent to 1050 Pg of carbon dioxide over 20 years.

In conclusion, a release of 1 Gt of methane in the Arctic would be catastrophic and the methane wouldn't go away quickly either, since this would be likely to keep triggering further releases. While some models project rapid decay of the methane, those models often use global decay values and long periods, which is not applicable in case of such abrupt releases in the Arctic.

Instead, the methane is likely to stay active in the Arctic for decades at a very high warming potential, due to depletion of hydroxyl and oxygen, while the resulting summer warming (when the sun doesn't set) is likely to keep triggering further releases in the Arctic.

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/potential-for-methane-release.html

Excerpt (i.e., the good bits) from James Hansen's witness statement in support of an effort to reveal the name of the seed funder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) in the U.K., which spreads faux science purporting that climate change is not real

2012-01-28T20:47:00.000-06:00

The most basic matter, however, is not one of economics. It is a matter of morality – a matter of intergenerational justice. As with the earlier great moral issue of slavery, an injustice of one race of humans to another, so the injustice of one generation to another must stir the public’s conscience to the point of action. Until there is a sustained and growing public involvement, it is unlikely that the needed fundamental change of direction can be achieved.

A broad public outcry may seem implausible given the enormous resources of the fossil fuel industry, which allows indoctrination of the public with the industry’s perspective. The merits of coal, of oil from tar sands and the deep ocean, of gas from hydrofracking are repeatedly extolled, all of these supposedly to be acquired with utmost care of the environment. Potential climate concerns are addressed by discrediting climate science and scientists, including use of character assassination and every negative campaign trick that they have learned.

The fossil fuel kingpins who profit from the public’s fossil fuel addiction, some of them multi-billionaires, are loosely knit, but with a well-understood common objective of maintaining the public’s addiction. These kingpins have the resources to be well aware of the scientific knowledge concerning the consequences of continued exploitation of fossil fuels. However, they choose not only to ignore those facts, but to support activities intended to keep the public ill- informed. These kingpins are guilty of high crimes against humanity and nature. It is little consolation that the world will eventually convict them in the court of public opinion or even, unlikely as it is, that they may be forced to stand trial in the future before an international court of justice.

The fossil fuel kingpins are separated from the foot soldiers who serve as their public mouthpieces, separated by multiple layers of people, and even by corporations, which some courts have granted rights and protections of people.

The public has the right to know who is supporting the foot soldiers for business-as-usual and to learn about the web of support for the propaganda machine that serves to keep the public addicted to fossil fuels and destroys the future of their children.

This court cannot single-handedly cure the cancer that is afflicting democracies worldwide, the inappropriate power granted to money, to special financial interests. But by standing for the rights of the people, by exposing one link in the web of the oppressing fossil fuel propaganda machine, it just may start a process that allows the public to begin to realize what is at stake and where the public interest lies. Perhaps, if this process begins soon, there is still time to preserve a good future for young people and future generations.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

– James Hansen

James Hansen: Cowards in Our Democracy -- Part 1

2012-01-28T15:02:00.003-06:00

Cowards in Our Democracies: Part 1

by James Hansen, 27 January 2012

The threat of human-made climate change and the urgency of reducing fossil fuel emissions have become increasingly clear to the scientific community during the past few years. Yet, at the same time, the public seems to have become less certain about the situation. Indeed, many people have begun to wonder whether the climate threat has been concocted or exaggerated. Public doubt about the science is not an accident. People profiting from business-as-usual fossil fuel use are waging a campaign to discredit the science. Their campaign is effective because the profiteers have learned how to manipulate democracies for their advantage.

The scientific method requires objective analysis of all data, stating evidence pro and con, before reaching conclusions. This works well, indeed is necessary, for achieving success in science. But science is now pitted in public debate against the talk-show method, which consists of selective citation of anecdotal bits that support a predetermined position.

Why is the public presented results of the scientific method and the talk-show method as if they deserved equal respect? A few decades ago that did not happen. In 1981, when I wrote a then controversial paper (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html) about the impact of CO2 on climate, the science writer Walter Sullivan contacted several of the top relevant scientific experts in the world for comments. He did not mislead the public by dredging up and highlighting contrarian opinion for the sake of a forced and unnatural "balance."

Today most media, even publicly supported media, are pressured to balance every climate story with opinions of contrarians, climate change deniers, as if they had equal scientific credibility. Media are dependent on advertising revenue of the fossil fuel industry, and in some cases are owned by people with an interest in continuing business as usual. Fossil fuel profiteers can readily find a few percent of the scientific community to serve as mouthpieces -- all scientists practice skepticism, and it is not hard to find some who are out of their area of expertise, who may enjoy being in the public eye, and who are limited in scientific insight and analytic ability.

Distinguished scientific bodies such as national science academies, using the scientific method, can readily separate charlatans and false interpretations from well-reasoned science. Yet it seems that our governments and the public are not making much use of their authoritative scientific bodies. Why is that?

I believe that the answer, and the difficulty in communicating science to the public, is related to the corrosive influence of money in politics and to increased corporate influence on the media. It is a tragic and frustrating situation, because when all the dots in the climate-energy story are connected it becomes clear that a common-sense pathway exists that would solve energy needs, stimulate the economy, and protect the future of young people [1]. As I discussed in "Storms of My Grandchildren," a gradually rising carbon fee should be collected from fossil fuel companies, with the money distributed uniformly to legal residents. This would stimulate the economy, making it more efficient by putting an honest price on fuels, incorporating their costs to society.

"Captains of industry" told me they would prefer such a course with knowledge of a steadily rising carbon price, which would stimulate innovations in efficiency and clean energies. Despite the obstacles presented by the role of money in politics and by the huge advertising campaigns of the fossil fuel industry, the urgency of addressing the climate-energy issue demands that we do the best that we can to inform the public. One of the things we can do is try to expose how the public and our democracies are being manipulated for the benefit of those profiting from the public's fossil fuel addiction.

For that purpose I provided the witness statement below in support of an effort to reveal the name of the seed funder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) in the UK. GWPF is "successful" in casting doubt on the reality and significance of human-made climate change. The newsletters of Benny Peiser, Director of GWPF, can be quite entertaining and sometimes include useful references. He pings the impracticality and costliness of an energy approach that relies excessively on renewable energies. But ultimately his purpose seems to be to persuade the public that climate science is flawed. I don't know if GWPF is supported by the fossil fuel industry, but it seems to me that the public has the right to know. Ultimately, I hope and believe, the public will be able to appreciate how our democracies are being twisted by people with money for their own purposes. But that requires freedom of information.

Jim Hansen

Some clarification of what this is about, the secret efforts of Lords, the wealthy, the privileged, to dupe the public in our democracies into supporting their continued and growing privileges, is provided by this news article and press release:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/bid-to-out-the-money-behind-the-voice-againstclimate-change-20120126-1qjfp.html

http://requestinitiative.org/2012/01/lord-lawson-should-name-funder-of-climate-sceptic-thinktank-judge-told/

[1] The simple across-the-board fee on all fossil fuels would be collected at domestic mines or port-of-entry, with 100% of the money distributed to the public, via equal monthly electronic deposits to the bank account or debit card of all legal adult residents. More than 60% of the public would get more in their monthly dividend than they pay in increased energy prices. Knowledge that the carbon price will rise would affect decisions made by consumers, businesses and innovators. Economic models show that in 10 years fossil fuel emissions in the U.S. would decline 30%, which is equivalent to the oil carried by 13 Keystone XL pipelines – thus obviating the need to develop destructive energy sources such as tar sands, tar shale, and mountaintop removal.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120127_CowardsPart1.pdf

Wall Street Journal's infamous op-ed authors -- the 16 scientists -- are they really?

2012-01-28T14:38:00.000-06:00

Posted by roygrubb on January 27, 2012 | 2 notes

http://roygrubb.tumblr.com/post/16581690077/the-16-concerned-scientists-who-they-are

No Need to Panic About Global Warming say sixteen scientists. Judge for yourself how many are qualified to opine on climate science.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; Ageochemist and author of The Climate Lie which is alleged to have 100 actual errors and approximations (in French but Google does a reasonable translation).

J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Professor of Marketing - University of Pennsylvania.

Jan Breslow M.D., Senior Attending Physician, and Head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University.

Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs ExxonMobil Corporation (retired).

Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; Educated as an electrical engineer

William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy and Board member, George Marshall Institute which is a recipient of substantial funding from Exxon Mobil.

Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; Professor, Group:Solid State Electronics and Nanoscale Science. Dept. of Electrical Engineering

William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Meteorologist. Score 1!

Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; Interesting and relevant link.

James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; current research interests are focused in the area of synthesis and characterization of high performance matrix polymers.

Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; A distinguished career as an advisor and leader, but not a climate scientist.

Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne.

Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; A Geologist.

Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; An astrophysicist who attributes GW to cosmic rays.

Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service. Score 2!

Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva. Italian physicist who has worked in the field of nuclear physics.

There are many distinguished people in this list, but precious few researchers in climate science - so this looks like an argument-from-authority.

If it’s an argument from authority these gentlemen want, it’s telling that “[d]espite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society‘s 47,000 members signed o n.”

Arctic Sea Ice in deplorable state -- enormous leads forming -- and this is in the dead of winter!

2012-01-28T12:46:00.003-06:00

Dear Readers,

You can visually follow the state of the Arctic sea ice by looking at these IR images (they are updated several times per day):

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/satellite/hrpt_dfo_ir_100.jpg

I've been looking at these images for about 4 years now, and never have I seen anything even closely comparable to the current state of the ice in the dead of winter when the ice should be growing and becoming more tightly knitted.

But the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf did not disintegrate for no reason after thousands of years of stability.

I'm expecting to see a decline in volume after this month, no matter what the PIOMAS graph is saying right now.

For one thing, NSIDC's sea ice extent graph is also showing a decline (see below).

Perhaps if one could differentiate between the region around northern Greenland and that of the Chukchi Sea, but we only see the aggregate.

Right now the graph shows the data up through December 31, 2011. Check back in February to see what happened with the January numbers.

Below is their daily chart.

Further, we have a situation where the jet stream has moved north, and it appears this results in more warm air moving into the Arctic. You can see this at the link below which is a current animation of the water vapor streams, from the view of looking directly down at the North Pole. Very concentrated activity. Most all heat from the Atlantic being driven into the Arctic via the North Atlantic. http://synoptic.envsci.rutgers.edu/site/sat/sat.php?sat=nhem&url=../imgs/wv_nhem_anim.gif

Gary Houser's rebuttal: RealClimate's David Archer wrong to dismiss concern about potential methane runaway in Arctic: Why this threat is real and the imperative to exercise the Precautionary Principle when the stakes are this high

2012-01-27T20:24:00.007-06:00

REBUTTAL: DAVID ARCHER WRONG TO DISMISS CONCERN

ABOUT POTENTIAL METHANE RUNAWAY IN ARCTIC:

Why This Threat Is Real and the Imperative to Exercise

the Precautionary Principle When the Stakes Are This High

We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered

methane fields of a fantastic scale - I think on a scale not seen before...

This is the first time we've found continuous, powerful and impressive

seeping structures more than 1,000 meters in diameter. It's amazing.

-- Dr. Igor Semiletov (crew leader of Sept.-Oct. 2011, U.S.-Russian

methane expedition in interview with the UK Independent) [1]

In the first sentence of his January 4, 2012, entry on the "RealClimate" blog [2], David Archer links to a rebuttal I wrote to oppose blogger Andrew Revkin's "Dot Earth" dismissal of an article in the UK Independent about dramatic new observations of methane emissions in the Arctic [3]. Archer portrayed this rebuttal as an example of someone getting people un-necessarily "worked up" about the issue. As the co-producer of a documentary who has interviewed several leading-edge scientists on this topic, I have asked for space to respond. With all due respect to Archer, the result of these interactions has been a strong sense of urgency that stands in stark contrast to his dismissive stance.

Growing Concern About Rising Arctic Temperatures and Impact on Methane

It is acknowledged that the Arctic is the most rapidly warming region on earth. As indicators point toward a near-term loss of ice cover in the Arctic (with some studies pointing toward a late summer ice-free condition as soon as 2015 [4]), there is a growing concern about how amplification of Arctic temperatures will affect the massive deposits of frozen methane in the shallow seabeds of the continental shelf areas. Researchers on the "front line" in the Arctic gathering empirical evidence (e.g., Igor Semiletov and Natalia Shakhova) are now reporting methane plume activity on a scale not witnessed before now.

These observations were reported in the UK Independent and since that time have stirred up controversy as to whether humanity may be receiving a first glimpse of a situation that could escalate into one of the scenarios most feared by climate scientists -- an unstoppable positive feedback known as a methane "runaway" event. This controversy has been reflected in the above-described exchange on "Dot Earth" and is now expanding to RealClimate, and even more recently to Joe Romm's "Climate Progress." On January 11, Romm wrote about how the methane situation is combining with other factors to create an urgent danger in the Arctic [5]. The twin issues of contention in this controversy have been whether the methane threat is real and whether it is imminent, therefore deserving the urgent attention of the world.

The Big Picture Context of the Methane Controversy

Before launching into a discussion of those two points, it would seem useful to explore the larger context. A key question deserving exploration would be "What is at stake?" What are the potential consequences if humanity fails to pick up on warning signs and a methane runaway event becomes unleashed?

The topic at hand is what most climate scientists would likely see as the worst case "night- mare" scenario which could lead to a total global catastrophe. We are talking about a greenhouse gas that has a full 72 times more powerful warming impact than CO2 within the first 20 years [6]. We are talking about a global stockpile that contains as much carbon as all the world's known reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas combined. If there is even a chance that significant amounts might be released into the atmosphere by an unstoppable methane "runaway," a profound moral responsibility exists to approach the topic with utmost care and caution.

What is a Methane "Runaway" Event?

The term is defined by Ira Leifer (methane researcher at the Marine Science Institute at the University of California-Santa Barbara):

A runaway feedback effect would be where methane comes out of the ocean

into the atmosphere leading to warming, leading to warmer oceans and more

methane coming out, causing an accelerated rate of warming in what one could

describe as a runaway train. [7]

Due to the enormous size of the methane deposits, this process would "feed" on itself in a way that humanity would most likely be helpless to stop.

Possible Key Role of Methane in Two Mass Extinctions, Including Worst in Earth's History

In order to ascertain what kind of potential threat methane may be in the present context, it is important to look at earlier periods on earth when methane may well have played a key role in the most devastating mass extinction events in the geological record. Although not a "lock" in terms of absolute "proof," very strong circumstantial evidence points toward a major role of methane in two of these events. One is the "End-Permian" in which severe global warming led to such extreme heat and depletion of oxygen that over 90% of life forms were wiped out [8]. One attempt to take this association out of the abstract and make it more tangible can be seen in a nine-minute segment (highly recommended) from the acclaimed documentary series"Miracle Planet" [9].

James Hansen relates methane to another extinction event -- the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM:

There have been times in the earth's history when methane hydrates on the

continental shelves melted and went into the atmosphere and caused global

warming of six to nine degrees Celsius, which is 10 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit. [10]

It is difficult to imagine how the methane clathrates could survive, once the ocean

has had time to warm. In that event a PETM-like warming could be added on top

of the fossil fuel warming. [11]

We are clearly dealing with a destructive force of almost unimaginable power, which under-lines my earlier warning that it be approached with utmost caution.

Are the Factors Present Which Could Lead to a Runaway?

In exercising such appropriate caution in dealing with a force of this magnitude, a logical question would be to ask whether the factors are now existent (or may soon be in the very near future) which could potentially unleash such a runaway. Here are several factors which are already present:

The incredible warming power of methane as a greenhouse gas (already quantified)
The phenomenally huge volume of methane present in the continental shelf areas of the Arctic
The quite shallow depth of these seabeds, which allows direct venting to the surface and atmosphere (methane otherwise safely oxidizes in deep water)
Their location in the most rapidly warming region on earth, where such is accelerating due to the "albedo flip" (open water now absorbing solar heat rather than having it reflected away by ice cover) and warmer water infiltrating at the river mouths
Direct observations confirming that large scale methane plumes are venting to the surface and into the atmosphere, and
Direct observations confirming that seabed bottom temperatures are hovering at the thaw point. [12]

20 Degree (Fahrenheit) Rise in Arctic Temperature by 2095

A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) projects how much temperature rise could be expected in the Arctic by the year 2095 if world governments continue on a business-as-usual path. Its projection is an astounding 20 degrees (F) [13]. Even more astonishing, this projection does not even consider how feedbacks could amplify this warming even further. According to study co-author Ronald Prinn:

And the odds indicated by this modeling may actually understate the problem,

because the model does not fully incorporate other positive feedbacks that can

occur, for example, if increased temperatures caused a large-scale melting of

permafrost in Arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of

methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. Including that feedback “is just going

to make it worse. [14]

While it is not possible to pinpoint any particular time when a release of methane might hit "critical mass" and initiate the runaway, it certainly appears the necessary ingredients are present and a collision course has been set up. The question is no longer "if" but "when."

With the Arctic warming so much faster than the rest of the world and arriving at such incredible temperatures within this century, it is clear that the "writing is on the wall" in terms of the future of methane in the shallow Arctic seabeds. Unless there is a major shift away from the "business as usual" scenario, it is inevitable that they will thaw and vent into the atmosphere.

How Soon Could Late Summer Ice-Free Conditions Accelerate the Warm-up?

Most climate observers agree that the steady temperature climb in the Arctic will only accelerate once late summer ice-free conditions set in. Even with such astounding projections as that by M.I.T., the situation is actually more frightening and urgent. Almost every prediction of how rapidly climate impacts will occur has been out-paced by developments in the real world. If this consistent pattern repeats in regard to loss of Arctic sea ice (as it most likely will), the threat to hydrate stability will accelerate even more quickly. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been projecting a late summer ice-free Arctic by summer 2030. But experts who say that loss of ice thickness should be factored in, as well as loss of surface ice, are pointing toward an ice-free condition as early as 2015 [15].

One of the top experts on Arctic ice -- Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge in the UK -- supports the PIOMAS sea ice volume model [16].

Wadhams is concerned that the collapse could prove to be a point of no return for the ice:

It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us

to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious prediction, and I think I am pretty

much persuaded that's when it will happen. [17]

Archer Acknowledges Power of Methane and Vulnerability (especially in the Arctic)

In a piece Archer co-authored in 2009 [18], he acknowledged both the destructive power of methane and the fragile and "intrinsically vulnerable" nature of hydrates:

There are concerns that climate change could trigger significant

methane releases from hydrates and thus could lead to strong positive

carbon–climate feedbacks. .... Methane hydrate seems intrinsically

vulnerable on Earth; nowhere at the Earth's surface is it stable to

melting and release of the methane.

In this same piece, Archer affirms another key factor regarding this vulnerability:

Rapid warming well above the global average makes the Arctic hydrates

particularly vulnerable to climate change.

In his current post, he alludes to the immense scale of these methane stockpiles and continues to outline the parameters of what is at least an extremely significant potential threat:

The total amount of methane as ocean hydrates is poorly constrained but

could rival the rest of the fossil fuels combined.

It is significant that Archer acknowledges that the potential exists for a large scale positive methane feedback to occur. Where we disagree is in our assessment of how serious and how urgent this threat is.

THE CASE FOR URGENCY REGARDING THE METHANE THREAT:

Six Direct Challenges to David Archer

1) Human Warming *ON TOP OF* Natural Warming

Having acknowledged several key reasons why methane poses at least a very large potential threat to humanity, it is difficult to comprehend why Archer would set himself up as a naysayer and try to discredit those who see indications that this potential might soon become a reality. One of the ways he tries to do this is to point toward the possibility of natural geothermal warming coming up from below and ask the question: how do we know the plumes are coming from new, human-created warming? But this question severely misses the point and throws the conversation off track. If indeed there is pre-existing warming coming from below, then this is only going to combine with human-made warming from above to create an even more volatile and dangerous situation.

If the permafrost cap is becoming perforated (as suggested by Shakhova), then the hydrates may become subject to de-stabilization from both directions.

2) Arctic Warming Already Approaching Methane Thaw Point in Shallow Seabeds

Archer does not address the reports of scientists in the field who are describing how close the water temperature in the shallow seabeds is hovering near the thaw point. Igor SemiIetov (the crew leader of the recent U.S.-Russian methane expedition supported by the National Science Foundation) has been tracking the Arctic methane issue for over 15 years. In an interview for our documentary, he shared these remarkable comments on thaw points and warmer water at the surface being driven to deeper depths by increased levels of wind and wave action as the ice cover retreats:

When ice has gone, there are stronger winds and waves and a deeper mixing of water which causes the comparatively warm upper layer to mix with water at deeper levels. There are already studies which confirm that in some areas, bottom temperature in summer is 2 to 3 degrees above zero celsius (freezing). This means that when we determine average temperature of the year, it is already somewhere close to zero degrees celsius (the freezing-thaw point)... As this warming spreads to a larger area, the more that shelf-based permafrost will thaw. [19]

3) With Methane On Verge of Thawing Within Decades, How Does Archer Defend Complacency?

With methane-laden areas already so close to a thaw point, it becomes a critical question to determine how rapidly the temperatures in the Arctic will increase. Once the ice cover undergoes collapse, there is nothing to prevent an escalation of Arctic warming. Under the business as usual scenario, we are seeing stunning projections of how warm the Arctic could become within this century -- such as the M.I.T. study. These projections create a collision course whereby currently frozen methane will inevitably thaw. Now a strong case emerges that ice loss could happen even more rapidly than originally speculated, expanding the same open water that Semiletov says is driving warm temperatures downward to the seabed. With such a prospect of a warming Arctic releasing the colossal methane deposits, how does Archer defend the case for complacency?

I would ask him to respond to two science articles (illustrated with graphics) by Sam Carana, a member of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) which presented a poster, distributed a brochure, and gave a presentation at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco in December 2011. Carana explores the connection between ice loss, warming temperatures in the Arctic, and the release of methane [20, 21].

4) Grasping Irreversibility, Dropping Insistence on Absolute Evidence That May Come Too Late

Archer portrays the "alarmist" crowd as predicting a runaway within the next few years. This is not true. What they are saying is that a process may be initiated which could lead to a runaway. Sam Carana speaks to this point:

The danger is that if relatively large amounts of methane are released abruptly into the atmosphere in the Arctic, they will persist for decades, triggering yet further temperature rises and methane releases, in a vicious cycle leading to runaway global warming, even if the world did manage to take the necessary steps to dramatically reduce emissions. [22]

As it is the definition of "runaway" that such a feedback will be all but impossible to stop once it starts, the only option for humanity is to act preventatively. When Archer continues the quest for some kind of absolute "smoking gun" evidence that the methane emissions now occurring are being caused by human-made warming, it seems he is having trouble -- as are many people -- in grasping the full meaning of the concept of IRREVERSIBILITY. This quest is wrong not only for the reason shared earlier but because at the point this causal connection may well become unequivocally "proven," it is highly possible that the runaway will have already been triggered and therefore too late to stop.

There will be no chance for a do-over here. For those who advocated complacency and were wrong, there will not be an opportunity to reverse course. With all respect, I must ask Archer why he would advocate a position that could have such unspeakably tragic consequences? The incomparably more relevant question to ask is whether the factors may be lining up that could bring on a runaway, and what our societal response should be if they are.

5) Amplification and Other Consequences of Complacency

We are obviously in a situation where time is of the essence. There are also two other factors that come into play. Huge amounts of fossil fuel industry money are backing orchestrated efforts to discredit climate science in general and most certainly any sense of urgency. In addition, many people are struggling with a very natural form of psychological denial that blocks us from seeing how close humanity may be to oblivion.

I have no reason at all to doubt the sincerity of Archer and believe his stance to be genuine. But when a scientist on a blog as respected as RealClimate downplays urgency, it can inadvertently be used as fodder to support both of these factors. Such a stance can be amplified by the blog universe (e.g., at Scientific American, as well as many denialist sites) to give an impression of a "consensus" in the scientific community when this is emphatically not the case.

Archer is delivering a message of complacency (what Joe Romm refers to as "pushing the snooze button" [23]) at precisely the moment when humanity must be heightening its vigilance to avoid passing a point of no return. I sincerely state that nothing personal is intended, but from the standpoint of human survival I must respectfully ask Archer whether such a stance might not be justifiably characterized as irresponsible? I cannot believe that he would choose to occupy the position of being a scientist who contributed to a complacency which blunted expression of legitimate concern and the actions which might have prevented a catastrophe.

6) The Case for Invoking the Precautionary Principle and Assigning All Resources Necessary to Confirm Whether A Runaway Situation Is Being Approached

A methane runaway would qualify as a planetary emergency. It is the view of a growing network of concern that several factors are combining which point toward the near term potential for such to develop in the Arctic. Rather than discredit such concern, humanity would be much better served by a rigorous scientific inquiry that could confirm whether there is merit to it. Igor Semiletov, involved in cutting edge field research on methane emissions, has informed this writer that much more could be accomplished with expanded funding support.

I call upon Archer and all RealClimate contributors to vocally support an immediate and high-level escalation of research aimed toward "getting at the facts" on potential runaway -- no matter where they lead. As the stakes could not be higher, it would be unspeakably tragic if world governments failed to provide such and the situation evolved to a point where a catastrophe spun out of control.

Preparation of Safe Geo-Engineering Options Should Humanity Need to Use Them

The concept of geo-engineering has attracted a spectrum of opinions ranging from support to opposition and many shades in between. However, there is a fundamental reality staring in our face. If humanity waits until the point of no return is crossed and a runaway is unleashed, it will be too late to develop any such options. In the opinion of this writer, the prudent position is to work now on developing safe geo-engineering options so that there might at least be a chance to implement them should the world become convinced that a runaway is imminent.

Perceiving a threat that Arctic ice could conceivably collapse as soon as 2013, John Nissen (chairperson of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group) [24] offers a statement in support of urgent development of safe modes of geo-engineering:

The Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) has been set up for the express purpose of drawing the world’s attention to the danger arising from astonishingly rapid retreat of sea ice, accelerated warming of the Arctic and escalating methane emissions from the seabed, especially in the area off the Siberian coast. It is the methane that can produce abrupt climate change, but it is the retreat of sea ice that has triggered this crisis... We are approaching a likely point of no return, and therefore it is essential that emergency measures are taken to avoid passing this point. This involves intervention on a large scale to cool the Arctic, either directly or indirectly by cooling currents and rivers flowing into the Arctic. By definition such intervention constitutes what is called 'geoengineering,' but, whereas geoengineering has generally been considered on a global scale to counter global warming rising over decades, we need geoengineering geared to cool the Arctic with a timescale of just months, to prevent a possible collapse in sea ice extent in September 2013.

Critical Need for the Scientific Community to Speak Out More Forcefully

In the case of methane, we are not dealing with a dramatic image of an atomic fireball and its capacity to render immediate destruction. But extended over a longer range of time, the global devastation it would inflict would be no less sweeping. The spectre of a methane runaway is real and it is an existential threat to humanity.

In our society, the scientific community holds a position of great respect. In order to protect scientific "objectivity," our tradition has been to separate the institution of science from the realm of public policy. I do not call upon RealClimate to violate its internal agreement and issue specific policy directives. However, I do call upon it to release a generic warning to policy makers that humanity must break out of its state of denial, recognize that the laws of physics do not operate on a political calendar, realize we are dealing with a powerful force that can spin out of control, and therefore quickly educate ourselves as to the severity of the threat. It is my hope that RealClimate -- as well as the larger community of climate scientists -- will rise to the occasion and show the way.

- by Gary Houser, co-producer and writer of the documentary film "Sleeping Giant of the Arctic: Could Thawing Methane Trigger Runaway Global Warming?"

www.590films.org/methane.html

LINKS and NOTES:

[1] UK Independent, December 13, 2011. Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats ...

[2] RealClimate: Much ado about methane

[3] Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats ...

[4] Arctic sea ice 'to melt by 2015' - Telegraph

[5] RealClimate Is Alarmed by Arctic Methane, Should You Be ...

[6] Global-warming potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[7] Documentary interview with Leifer www.590films.org/methane.html (in progress); the crew has interviewed climate scientists Igor Semiletov and Natalia Shakhova (International Arctic Research Center (IARC) at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks), Ira Leifer (Marine Science Institute at University of California-Santa Barbara), Vladimir Romanovsky (IARC), and Katey Walter (University of Alaska-Fairbanks). On geological history and extinction events, paleo-climatologists Michael Benton (University of Bristol, U.K., author of the book When Life Nearly Died), and Andrew Glikson (Australian National University, Canberra). Also in consultation with Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge -- one of the top Arctic ice experts in the U.K.

[8] Wipeout: the end-Permian mass extinction

[9] Nine minute segment from "Miracle Planet": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exfNNDExxIc&list=PL0200B1524E220C5A&feature=player_embedded

[10] Interview segment with James Hansen: http://youtu.be/ACHLayfA6_4

[11] from Hansen's book Storms of My Grandchildren

[12] Documentary interview with Semiletov: www.590films.org/methane.html

[13] M.I.T. Study, M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 °F — with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20 °F

[14] M.I.T. Study, M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 °F — with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20 °F

[15] Arctic sea ice 'to melt by 2015' - Telegraph

[16] PIOMAS graph link: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi

[17] Arctic sea ice 'to melt by 2015' - Telegraph

[18] Archer, co-author Gas hydrates: entrance to a methane age or climate ... - IOPscience

[19] Documentary interview with Semiletov: www.590films.org/methane.html

[20] http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/warming-in-arctic.html

[21] http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/potential-for-methane-release.html

[22] http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/warming-in-arctic.html

[23] RealClimate Is Alarmed by Arctic Methane, Should You Be ...

[24] Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) website: www.arctic-methane-emergency-group.org

Awesome cool! Michael Ashley at the South Pole! Week 5 of the Antarctic Diaries!

2012-01-27T19:08:00.000-06:00

This stuff is so cool! Who knew?

The Antarctic Diaries. Week Five

It’s hard to ignore Antarctica’s natural beauty, especially when ice halos come out to play. Michael Ashley

Professor Michael Ashley is currently in Antarctica to deploy a telescope to one of the most remote locations on Earth – a place known as Ridge A, some 850 km from the South Pole.

This is the fifth instalment in Professor Ashley’s Antarctica Diaries. To read the previous instalments, follow the links at the bottom of this article.

January 9 – Airdrop, or not

An “airdrop” is where an aircraft flies over and, rather than landing, drops cargo using parachutes. This isn’t all that useful during summertime, where it is easier just to land an LC-130 on the ice. But during winter (when it’s not possible to land due to low ground temperatures which freeze the aircraft’s hydraulics) an airdrop can be the only way of getting urgent cargo such as medical supplies to the Pole.

For the past week, a C-17 aircraft has been waiting at Christchurch for the weather to be good enough for an airdrop. The C-17 will fly non-stop to the Pole, drop its cargo, and then head back to Christchurch.

Early this morning, after several false starts, the C-17 started its long journey south, and just after breakfast a group of 50 of us waited about 500 metres from the station to witness the airdrop. By all accounts it can be quite spectacular.

Much, much more at this link, and it just keeps getting more and more interesting as you keep reading, no kidding! Do you know what the SPUD experiment is, for example? The Holy Grail of cosmology...!

http://theconversation.edu.au/the-antarctica-diaries-week-five-5002

Large-Scale Simulation of Methane Hydrate Dissociation along the West Spitsbergen Margin by Matthew T. Reagan and George J. Moridis, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

2012-01-27T18:46:00.001-06:00

Large-Scale Simulation of Methane Hydrate Dissociation along the West Spitsbergen Margin

Matthew T. Reagan and George J. Moridis (Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA)

Abstract

Vast quantities of methane are trapped in oceanic hydrate deposits, and there is concern that a rise in the ocean temperature will induce dissociation of these hydrate accumulations, potentially releasing large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. The recent discovery of active methane gas venting along the landward limit of the gas hydrate stability zone (GHSZ) on the shallow continental slope west of Spitsbergen could be an indication of this process, if the source of the methane can be confidently attributed to dissociating hydrates. In the first large-scale simulation study of its kind, we simulate shallow hydrate dissociation in conditions representative of the West Spitsbergen margin to test the hypothesis that the observed gas release originated from hydrates. The simulation results are consistent with this hypothesis, and are in remarkable agreement with the recently published observations. They show that shallow, low saturation hydrate deposits, when subjected to temperature increases at the seafloor, can release significant quantities of methane, and that the releases will be localized near the landward limit of the top of the GHSZ. These results indicate the possibility that hydrate dissociation and methane release may be both a consequence and a cause of climate change.

Keywords: gas hydrates, methane clathrates, abrupt change

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/980747-DnltI7/980747.pdf

Andrew Glikson: As emissions rise, we may be heading for an ice-free planet

2012-01-27T18:35:00.000-06:00

As emissions rise, we may be heading for an ice-free planet

by Andrew Glikson, The Conversation, January 18, 2012

An ice-free world isn’t impossible – even though it seems the stuff of science fiction. Alistair Knock.

Last December’s meeting of the American Geophysical Union featured three of the world’s leading climate scientists: James Hansen (NASA’s chief climate scientist), Elco Rohling (National Oceanography Centre, Southampton) and Ken Caldeira (Stanford School of Earth Science). But it was Hansen who attracted the most attention when he stated:

“If you doubled CO₂, which practically all governments assume we’re going to do, that would eventually get us to the ice-free state” and “We would be sending our climate back to a state we haven’t adjusted to as a species."

Reaching ice-free-Earth conditions due to the addition of a few hundred parts per million CO₂ may sound like a science fiction story. But Hansen’s statement is consistent with the natural laws of physics (the Planck, Stefan-Boltzmann and Krichhoff laws of black body radiation), with atmospheric science and with the geological record.

A planet’s surface temperature is determined by the infrared absorption/emission characteristics of its atmosphere, determined by greenhouse molecules (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, O₃). Earth’s surface conditions (including the atmospheric pressure, temperature and gases in its atmosphere) occupy an intermediate position between those of Mars and Venus. Advanced life on Earth is controlled by the presence of water and by the carbon and oxygen cycles.

Figure 1. CO2 with time. Andrew Glikson (with thanks to D. Royer)

Click to enlarge

Studies of the evolution of the terrestrial atmosphere based on multiple proxies (carbon isotopes in phytoplankton and in fossil soils, plant leaf stomata pores, boron isotopes, boron/calcium ratios) confirm the upper stability boundary of the Antarctic ice sheet at about 500+/-50 ppm CO₂. Other estimates suggest 615 ppm CO₂ or near-800 ppm CO₂.

The original decline in temperature from the end-Eocene (~34 million years ago) and the onset of the Antarctic ice sheet occurred when CO₂ levels declined to below ~600 ppm (as shown in Figure 1). Greenhouse gases have increased by near 40% since 1750 (from ~280 to 392 ppm CO₂, at a rate increasing to ~2.6 ppm/year by 2010). At the current rate of increase, the climate could return to greenhouse Earth conditions within 50 to 200 years.

With current emissions growing by 5.9% in 2010 (see Figure 2) and a corresponding rise of temperature by 6.2% during the last decade (see Figure 3), Earth may be committed to an ice-free state.

Figure 2. Fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions in billion tons carbon per year (from Think Progress).

Click to enlarge

Figure 3. Percentage change in global average temperature since the 1860s by decade (from the World Meteorological Organization).

Click to enlarge

Climate change projections are complicated by the extreme rates of these processes. There is no precedent for such rates in the geological record, bar major greenhouse gas release triggered by methane eruptions, volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts.

Further warming of the Greenland ice sheet and of the west and east Antarctic ice sheets may lead to pulses of ice-melt water which will cool adjacent ocean basins. Such pulsations occurred repeatedly in the North Atlantic Ocean around 8.2 thousand years ago (the Holocene Optimum), 12.9-11.7 thousand years ago (the “Youngest dryas” cold phase), and cold phases associated with the peak of earlier interglacials.

The bulk of the continents continue to heat, due to a rise in greenhouse gases, feedbacks from fires, methane release from permafrost and reduction of CO₂ intake by warming oceans.

The resultant ocean-land temperature polarity generates storms, reflected in the title of James Hansen’s book, “Storms of My Grandchildren.” Similar conditions developed in November 2010 as north Siberia and Canada warmed to above 4 °C relative to 1951-1980 while snow storms occurred in the North Atlantic.

Figure 4. Surface temperature Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA.

Click to enlarge

The current consequences of polar temperature rises by 4 °C and higher (see Figure 4) for the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets are shown in Figure 5. Between 2002 and 2008 a total of near-2500 billion tons of ice was lost, while the projected rate of mass loss nearly doubled over the period.

Figure 5. Ice mass changes http://forum.gloresis.com/2011/06/05/paleoclimate-implications-for-human-made-climate-c/

Click to enlarge

As atmospheric CO₂ is reaching a level unknown for the last three million years, the disconnection between science and the human response is growing. Despite warnings over the last 30 years, we are still developing global infrastructures to extract every economically accessible ton of coal, barrel of conventional or shale/sand oil and cubic meter of natural gas and coal-seam gas.

Contrarian claims by sceptics, misrepresenting direct observations in nature and ignoring the laws of physics, have been adopted by neo-conservative political parties. A corporate media maintains a “balance” between facts and fiction. The best that governments seem able to do is devise cosmetic solutions, or promise further discussions, while time is running out.

Good planets are hard to come by.

http://theconversation.edu.au/as-emissions-rise-we-may-be-heading-for-an-ice-free-planet-4893

The Motherlode! Free access to thousands of High North (i.e., the Arctic) research documents made available by Norway's University of Tromsø

2012-01-27T18:22:00.000-06:00

Free access to thousands of High North research documents

Alaska Dispatch | Jan 26, 2012

Arctic policy nerds and Far North students of all kinds, prepare to get your geek on ... According to the Barents Observer, the library of Norway's University of Tromsø has collected a registry of thousands of research documents that concern the High North -- and has made it available online free of charge.

The searchable collection, called "High North Research Documents," features all sorts of writing and images from around the world concerning topics important in the circumpolar North.

The documents are written in many different languages, but the majority of them are in English, the library announced in a press release.

"This will be a very useful service for anyone interested in the High North, be it journalists, decision makers in business and public administration, politicians, NGOs, students and researchers," says academic librarian Leif Longva at the University of Tromsø.

At its launch, the website contained records of nearly 100,000 documents, but its administrators intend for it to be dynamic and ever-growing. Nearly 10,000 of the items pertain directly to Alaska.

Read more, here, and look up your favorite research topic, here.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/free-access-thousands-high-north-research-documents

Why is Indian Ocean warming consistently? by Suryachandra A. Rao et al., Climatic Change 110 (2012); doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0121-x

2012-01-27T17:39:00.000-06:00

Climatic Change, 110(3-4) (2012) 709-719; doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0121-x

Why is Indian Ocean warming consistently?

Suryachandra A. Rao, Ashish R. Dhakate, Subodh K. Saha, Somnath Mahapatra, Hemantkumar S. Chaudhari, Samir Pokhrel and Sobhan K. Sahu

Abstract

Observations have shown that the Indian Ocean is consistently warming and its warm pool is expanding, particularly in the recent decades. This paper attempts to investigate the reason behind these observations. Under global warming scenario, it is expected that the greenhouse gas induced changes in air–sea fluxes will enhance the warming. Surprisingly, it is found that the net surface heat fluxes over Indian Ocean warm pool (IOWP) region alone cannot explain the consistent warming. The warm pool area anomaly of IOWP is strongly correlated with the sea surface height anomaly, suggesting an important role played by the ocean advection processes in warming and expansion of IOWP. The structure of lead/lag correlations further suggests that oceanic Rossby waves might be involved in the warming. Using heat budget analysis of several ocean data assimilation products, it is shown that the net surface heat flux (advection) alone tends to cool (warm) the ocean. Based on above observations, we propose an ocean-atmosphere coupled positive feedback mechanism for explaining the consistent warming and expansion of IOWP. Warming over IOWP induces an enhancement of convection in central equatorial Indian ocean, which causes anomalous easterlies along the equator. Anomalous easterlies in turn excite frequent Indian ocean dipole events and cause anti-cyclonic wind stress curl in south-east and north-east equatorial Indian ocean. The anomalous wind stress curl triggers anomalous downwelling oceanic Rossby waves, thereby deepening the thermocline and resulting in advection of warm waters towards western Indian Ocean. This acts as a positive feedback and results in more warming and westward expansion of IOWP.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/131362w27500712j/

A link between Arctic sea ice and recent cooling trends over Eurasia by S. D. Outten & I. Esau, Climatic Change 110 (2012); doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0334-z

2012-01-27T17:33:00.000-06:00

Climatic Change, 110(4-3) (2012) 1069-1075; doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0334-z

A link between Arctic sea ice and recent cooling trends over Eurasia

S. D. Outten and I. Esau (G. C. Rieber Climate Institute, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Thormhlensgt. 47, 5006 Bergen, Norway)

Abstract

A band of cooling that extends across mid-latitude Eurasia is identified in the wintertime surface air temperatures of the latest ECMWF reanalysis. This cooling is related to extreme warming around the Kara Sea through changes in the meridional temperature gradient. Surface temperatures in the Arctic have risen faster than those at lower latitudes, and as the Arctic warming increases, this north–south temperature gradient is weakened. This change in the meridional temperature gradient causes a decrease in the westerly winds that help maintain the mild European climate by transporting heat from the Atlantic. Since decreasing sea ice concentrations have been shown to be a driving factor in Arctic amplification, a singular value decomposition analysis is used to confirm the co-variability of the Arctic sea ice, including the Kara Sea, and the temperatures over the mid-latitude Eurasia. These findings suggest that decreasing sea ice concentrations can change the meridional temperature gradient and hence the large-scale atmospheric flow of the Northern Hemisphere.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/245682l4416qhq7g/

Steve Horn: ALEC Model Bill Behind Push To Require Climate Denial Instruction In Schools

2012-01-27T16:54:00.000-06:00

ALEC Model Bill Behind Push To Require Climate Denial Instruction In Schools

by Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog, January 26, 2012

On January 16, 2012, the Los Angeles Times revealed that anti-science bills have been popping up over the past several years in statehouses across the U.S., mandating the teaching of climate change denial or "skepticism" as a credible "theoretical alternative" to human caused climate change came.

The L.A. Times' Neela Banerjee explained,

"Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom."

What the excellent Times coverage missed is that key language in these anti-science bills all eminated from a single source: the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.

ALEC Exposed: No, Not Alec Baldwin*

In summer 2011, "ALEC Exposed," a project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD)**, taught those alarmed about the power that corporations wield in the American political sphere an important lesson: when bills with a similar DNA pop up in various statehouses nationwide, it's no coincidence.

Explaining the nature and origins of the project, CMD wrote, "[CMD] unveiled a trove of over 800 'model' bills and resolutions secretly voted on by corporations and politicians through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). These bills reveal the corporate collaboration reshaping our democracy, state by state."

CMD continued, "Before our publication of this trove of bills, it has been difficult to trace the numerous controversial and extreme provisions popping up in legislatures across the country directly to ALEC and its corporate underwriters."

CMD explained that ALEC conducts its operations in the most shadowy of manners (emphases mine):

"Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership inALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve 'model' bills…Corporations fund almost all ofALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills."

So, what is the name of the "model bill" this time around?

The Trojan Horse: The "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act"

The Trojan Horse in this case is an Orwellian titled model bill, the "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act." [PDF]

The bill was adopted by ALEC's Natural Resources Task Force, today known as the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force, at ALEC's Spring Task Force Summit on May 5, 2000 — it was then approved by the full ALEC Board of Directors in June of 2000.

The bill's opening clause reads [PDF], "The purpose of this act is to enhance and improve the environmental literacy of students and citizens in the state by requiring that all environmental education programs and activities conducted by schools, universities, and agencies shall…"

Among other things, the bill stipulates that schools, universities and agencies should,

"Provide a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."
"Provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific and economic controversies."
"Be presented in language appropriate for education rather than for propagandizing."
"Encourage students to explore different perspectives and form their own opinions."
"Encourage an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas."
"Not be designed to change student behavior, attitudes or values."
"Not include instruction in political action skills nor encourage political action activities."

How does this language compare with legislation passed or proposed in various states? A review is in order.

ALEC Bills: From Model to Reality

The "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act," or at minimum, the crucial language found within it, has been proposed in seven states, and passed in three states, Louisiana in 2008, Texas in 2009 and South Dakota in 2010.

Louisiana

In 2008, the Louisiana state legislature introduced and eventually passed S.B. 733, the Louisiana Science and Education Act. The bill was originally sponsored by four members of the Senate, three of whom are current dues paying members of ALEC: Sen. Ben Wayne Nevers, Sr. (D-12); Sen. Neil Riser (R-32); and Sen. Francis Thompson (D-34).

The three ALEC members received a total of $9,514 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles in campaign money combined, and the four of them together received $13,814 in campaign cash from the oil and gas industry, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics' FollowTheMoney.org.

ALEC Model vs. S.B. 733

The Louisiana bill calls for, "an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including…global warming…" The bill also calls for "instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."

This bill mirrors the provisions of the ALEC bill which say that teachers should "provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific…controversies," and mandates that "balanced and objective environmental education materials and programs will…be used."

South Dakota

In 2010, the South Dakota Legislative Assembly passed House Concurrent Resolution 1009, a non-binding resolution introduced by 33 members of the House of Representatives and 6 members of the Senate, 39 in total, and 12 of whom are current members of ALEC. The bill calls for "balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota."

The 12 members of ALEC who sponsored HCR 1009 received $1,900 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles combined, according to FollowTheMoney.org.

The bill mirrors the provision of the ALEC bill that call for the providing of "a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."

Kentucky

In 2010, the Kentucky state legislature proposed H.B. 397, the Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act, a bill that eventually failed to pass.

The bill was co-sponsored by two members of the Kentucky House of Representatives who were not members of ALEC, but one of whom, Tim Moore (R-26), took $3,000 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles combined, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

ALEC Model vs. HB 397

Two key provisions of the H.B. 397 "encourage local district teachers and administrators to foster an environment promoting objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories" and "allow teachers to use, as permitted by the local board of education, materials in addition to state-approved texts and instructional materials for discussion of scientific theories including…global warming…"

This bill mirrors major provisions of the ALEC model bill that say teachers should "provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific…controversies," and mandates that "balanced and objective environmental education materials and programs will…be used."

New Mexico

In 2011, ALEC member, Rep. Thomas A. Anderson, introduced H.B. 302. In the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, he raised $2,650, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics' campaign finance database.

ALEC Model vs. H.B. 302

H.B. 302 says that schools shall "not prohibit any teacher, when a controversial scientific topic is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic." One "controversial scientific topic" listed is the "causes of climate change."

This bill mirrors the provisions of the ALEC model bill which call for teaching "a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner," teaching "different perspectives" to allow for students to "form their own opinions," and creating an "atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas."

Tennessee

Tennessee's House bill, H.B. 368, essentially a replica of the ALEC model bill, overwhelmly passed the House in April 2011, but its Senate-version cousin, S.B. 893, failed to pass. As the Los Angeles Times article makes clear, efforts to push the bill through are far from over.

Key clauses of that bill read,

"[T]eachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
"[P]ublic elementary and secondary schools…[should]…respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues."

These excerpts match, almost to a "T," bullet points one, three and four of the ALEC model bill.

Nine of the 24 co-sponsors of the H.B. 368 are ALEC members, according to CMD's ALEC Members database.

In addition, these nine ALEC member co-sponsors received $8,695 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry combined in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, according to FollowTheMoney.org. The other 15 sponsors of the bill, while not members of ALEC, received $10,400 in their campaign cofffers in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles combined.

S.B. 893, on the other hand, was sponsored by Sen. Bo Watson (R-11), a recipient of $1,800 in oil and gas industry money in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles combined.

Translation: between the 25 of them, on top of a model bill handed to them by corporate oil and gas industry lobbyists, they were also furnished with $20,895 in campaign cash by these industries with the expectation to do their legislative bidding.

Oklahoma

Titled, the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act,” H.B. 1551 is also essentially a copycat of Tennessee's version of the ALEC model bill — it failed to pass. A Senate version of that bill, S.B. 320, was also proposed in 2009, but failed to pass through committee.

Key clauses of that bill read (emphases mine),

"[T]eachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught."
"[N]o student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories."

Notice how the first bullet is exactly the same in both the Tennessee and Oklahoma bills — also notice how similar bullet number two is in both language and substance in both states' bills.

Rep. Sally Kern (R-84), sponsor of H.B. 1551, is a member of ALEC, according to CMD. She received $12,335 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, in total, according to FollowTheMoney.org. Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-34), sponsor of S.B. 320, while not a member of ALEC, received $22,967 from the oil and gas industry while running and losing for Governor of Oklahoma in 2010, according to FollowTheMoney.org.

On the whole, sponsors and co-sponsors from the six states in which the ALEC bill was proposed were recipients of $44,409 in campaign money from the oil and gas industry, a miniscule down payment for some of the most lucrative corporations known in the history of mankind.

Texas

Texas, in this case, is a bit of a wild card. Rather than a bill proposed by a state legislature, in 2009, the Texas School Board passed an amendent calling for the "balanced" teaching of climate change, meaning both science and "skepticism."

The Austin Statesman explained,

"The State Board of Education…adopted standards on the teaching of global warming that appear to both question its existence and prod students to explore its implications.
Standards are used to guide textbook makers and teachers.
Language…instructed students to 'analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming,'"…

This provision mirrors and is likely inspired by the ALEC model bill provision on global warming, which suggested science teachers should "Provide a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."

A Bill In the Corporate Polluter's Interest

The money paper trail for this ALEC model bill runs deep, to put it bluntly.

When the ALEC model bill was adopted in 2000 by ALEC's Natural Resources Task Force, the head of that committee was Sandy Liddy Bourne, who after that stint, became Director of Legislation and Policy for ALEC. She is now with the Heartland Institute as vice-president for policy strategy. In Sandy Liddy Bourne's bio on the Heartland website, she boasts that "Under her leadership, 20% of ALEC model bills were enacted by one state or more, up from 11%."

SourceWatch states that Liddy Bourne "…is the daughter of former Nixon aide and convicted Watergate criminal G. Gordon Liddy, who spent more than 52 months in prison for his part in the Watergate burglary…[and her] speech at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was titled, "The Kyoto Legacy; The Progeny of a Carbon Cartel in the States."

The Heartland Institute was formerly heavily funded by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, just like ALEC was at the time that Liddy Bourne's committee devised the "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act." These two corporations are infamous for their funding of climate change "skeptic" think tanks and front groups.

Today, the corporate polluter members of ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force include representatives from American Electric Power, the Fraser Institute, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the Heartland Institute, and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, to name several.

Getting Them While They're Young: A Cynical Maneuver

In the United States, the politics of big-money backed disinformation campaigns have trumped climate science, and serves as the raison d'être for DeSmogBlog. Polluters with a financial interest in continuing to conduct business without any accountability for their global warming pollution have purposely sowed the seeds of confusion on an issue seen as completely uncontroversial among scientists.

Maneuvering to dupe schoolchildren is about as cynical as it gets. Neuroscience explains that young brains are like sponges, ready to soak in knowledge (and disinformation, for that matter), and thus, youth are an ideal target for the "merchants of doubt."

The corporations behind the writing and dissemination of this ALEC model bill, who are among the largest polluters in the world, would benefit handsomly from a legislative mandate to sow the seeds of confusion on climate science among schoolchildren.

Alas, at the very least, the identity of the Trojan Horse has been revealed: its name is ALEC.

*Sorry Alec Baldwin, this isn't about you, please resume your Words With Friends. This ALEC is far more scandalous.

**Full Disclosure: At the time of the ALEC Exposed project's public release in mid-2011, Steve Horn was an employee of Center for Media and Democracy.

http://www.desmogblog.com/alec-model-bill-behind-push-require-climate-denial-instruction-schools

NASA Video Illustrates 130 Years of Global Warming, Hansen Expects New Global Temperature Record Within 3 Years

2012-01-27T16:13:00.000-06:00

NASA Video Illustrates 130 Years of Global Warming, Hansen Expects New Global Temperature Record Within 3 Years

by Stephen Lacey, Climate Progress, January 27, 2012

In 1880, when modern global temperature records began, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were at 285 parts per million. In 2011, they are were over 390 parts per million. That has trapped a lot of extra energy on earth — see “The Radiative Forcing of the CO2 Humans Have Put in the Air Equals 1 Million Hiroshima Bombs a Day.”

As we’ve spewed greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere at at a faster pace, global temperatures have accelerated upward, particularly since the 1970s. To illustrate this rise, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies released this fascinating video of 131 years of temperature records edited into a 30-second video.

“We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting,” said GISS Director James E. Hansen. “So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record.”
Hansen said he expects record-breaking global average temperature in the next two to three years…. “It’s always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it’s safe to say we’ll see one in the next three years,” Hansen said. “It won’t take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010.”

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/27/413227/nasa-video-global-warming/

Arctic Ocean freshwater bulge detected

2012-01-25T04:12:00.001-06:00

Arctic Ocean freshwater bulge detected

By Jonathan AmosScience correspondent, BBC News, 23 January 2012

UK scientists have detected a huge dome of fresh water that is developing in the western Arctic Ocean.The bulge is some 8,000 cubic km in size and has risen by about 15cm since 2002. The team thinks it may be the result of strong winds whipping up a great clockwise current in the northern polar region called the Beaufort Gyre.

This would force the water together, raising sea surface height, the group tells the journal Nature Geoscience.

"In the western Arctic, the Beaufort Gyre is driven by a permanent anti-cyclonic wind circulation. It drives the water, forcing it to pile up in the centre of gyre, and this domes the sea surface," explained lead author Dr Katharine Giles from the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM) at University College London.

Arctic summers have seen a decline in both ice extent and thickness

"In our data, we see the trend being biggest in the centre of the gyre and less around the edges," she told BBC News.

Dr Giles and colleagues made their discovery using radar satellites belonging to theEuropean Space Agency (Esa).

These spacecraft can measure sea-surface height even when there is widespread ice cover because they are adept at picking out the cracks, or leads, that frequently appear in the frozen floes.

The data (1995-2010) indicates a significant swelling of water in the Beaufort Gyre, particularly since the early part of the 2000s. The rising trend has been running at 2cm per year.

Model prediction

A lot of research from buoys and other in-situ sampling had already indicated that water in this region of the Arctic had been freshening.

This fresh water is coming in large part from the rivers running off the Eurasian (Russian) side of the Arctic basin.

Winds and currents have transported this fresh water around the ocean until it has been pulled into the gyre. The volume currently held in the circulation probably represents about 10% of all the fresh water in the Arctic.

Of interest to future observations is what might happen if the anticyclonic winds, which have been whipping up the bulge, change behaviour.

"What we seen occurring is precisely what the climate models had predicted," said Dr Giles.

"When you have clockwise rotation - the fresh water is stored. If the wind goes the other way - and that has happened in the past - then the fresh water can be pushed to the margins of the Arctic Ocean.

"If the spin-up starts to spin down, the fresh water could be released. It could go to the rest of the Arctic Ocean or even leave the Arctic Ocean."

If the fresh water were to enter the North Atlantic in large volumes, the concern would be that it might disturb the currents that have such a great influence on European weather patterns. These currents draw warm waters up from the tropics, maintaining milder temperatures in winter than would ordinarily be expected at northern European latitudes.

Cracks, or leads, in the ice provide vertical surfaces against which the wind can push

The creation of the Beaufort Gyre bulge is not a continuous development throughout the 15-year data-set, and only becomes a dominant feature in the latter half of the study period.

This may indicate a change in the relationship between the wind and the ocean in the Arctic brought about by the recent rapid decline in sea-ice cover, the CPOM team argues in its Nature Geoscience paper.

It is possible that the wind is now imparting momentum to the water in ways that were not possible when the sea-ice was thicker and more extensive.

"The ice is now much freer to move around," said Dr Giles.

Cryosat-2: Esa's newest radar satellite is dedicated to studying the polar regions

"So, as the wind acts on the ice, it's able to pull the water around with it. Depending on how ridged the surface of ice is or how smooth the bottom of the ice is - this will all affect the drag on the water. If you have more leads, this also might provide more vertical ice surfaces for the wind to blow against."

One consequence of less sea-ice in the region is the possibility that winds could now initiate greater mixing of the different layers in the Arctic Ocean.

Scientists are aware that there is a lot of warm water at depth.

At present, this deep water's energy is unable to influence the sea-ice because of a buffer of colder, less dense water lying between it and the floes above.

But if this warm water were made to well up because of wind-driven changes at the surface, it could further accelerate the loss of seasonal ice cover.

The CPOM team is now investigating the likelihood of this happening with Cryosat-2, Esa's first radar satellite dedicated to the study of the polar regions.

"We now have the means to measure not only the ice thickness but also to monitor how the ocean under the ice is changing," says Dr Seymour Laxon, director of CPOM and co-author of the study, "and with CryoSat-2, we can now do so over the entire Arctic Ocean."

Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk and follow me on Twitter

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16657122

Western Arctic Ocean freshwater storage increased by wind-driven spin-up of the Beaufort Gyre, Nature Geoscience, Katharine A. Giles et al., doi:10.1038/ngeo1379

2012-01-25T04:08:00.000-06:00

Nature Geoscience, (2012); doi: 10.1038/ngeo1379

Western Arctic Ocean freshwater storage increased by wind-driven spin-up of the Beaufort Gyre

Katharine A. Giles,

Seymour W. Laxon,

Andy L. Ridout,

Duncan J. Wingham and

Sheldon Bacon

Abstract

The Arctic Ocean’s freshwater budget comprises contributions from river runoff, precipitation, evaporation, sea-ice and exchanges with the North Pacific and Atlantic¹. More than 70,000 km³ of freshwater² are stored in the upper layer of the Arctic Ocean, leading to low salinities in upper-layer Arctic sea water, separated by a strong halocline from warm, saline water beneath. Spatially and temporally limited observations show that the Arctic Ocean’s freshwater content has increased over the past few decades, predominantly in the west^3,4, 5. Models suggest that wind-driven convergence drives freshwater accumulation⁶. Here we use continuous satellite measurements between 1995 and 2010 to show that the dome in sea surface height associated with the western Arctic Beaufort Gyre has been steepening, indicating spin-up of the gyre. We find that the trend in wind field curl—a measure of spatial gradients in the wind that lead to water convergence or divergence—exhibits a corresponding spatial pattern, suggesting that wind-driven convergence controls freshwater variability. We estimate an increase in freshwater storage of 8,000±2,000 km³ in the western Arctic Ocean, in line with hydrographic observations^4, 5, and conclude that a reversal in the wind field could lead to a spin-down of the Beaufort Gyre, and release of this freshwater to the Arctic Ocean.

View full text

Figures at a glance

left

right

Author information

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1379.html

Immense 'dome' of fresh water bulging atop Arctic Ocean off Alaska

2012-01-25T04:06:00.000-06:00

Immense 'dome' of fresh water bulging atop Arctic Ocean off Alaska

by Doug O'Harra, Alaska Dispatch, January 24, 2012

Enough extra fresh water to just about fill lakes Michigan and Huron to the brim has collected in the top layers of the Arctic Ocean northeast of Alaska during the past decade, according to new research published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

CPOM scientists have discovered that the freshwater stored in the western Arctic Ocean has increased by 8,000 km3 between the mid 1990s and 2010. UCL-ESA-PVL illustration

Driven largely by strong winds and an immense circular current, some 8,000 cubic kilometers of fresh water have bulged up into a widespread dome since the 1990s.

"In the western Arctic, the Beaufort Gyre is driven by a permanent ... wind circulation. It drives the water, forcing it to pile up in the centre of gyre, and this domes the sea surface," lead author Katharine Giles with the Centre for Polar Observation in London, told BBC news in this detailed and graphically illustrated story.

Giles and her four-member team monitored changes in the height of the sea surface between the mid 1990s and 2010 using the Eurorpean Space Agency satellites EFS-2 and Envisat. They found that the overall level in the Beaufort Sea and Canadian Basin has been rising about 2 centimeters per year, mostly during the 2000s.

“This increase in fresh water corresponds to an increase in the anti-cyclonicity (clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere) of the wind over the western Arctic,” they explained in this story posted by the Polar Observation center.

“Models had suggested that the action of the wind on the sea surface could cause a raised dome of freshwater to form in the middle of the Beaufort Gyre, but until now there had been no continuous observations of sea-surface height to categorically demonstrate this.”

A reversal of the wind could prompt a release of this fresh water into the rest of the Arctic Ocean or even into the Pacific and Atlantic, the scientists noted.

That’s not all. The scientists also found that the sea surface height didn’t always match the behavior of the wind — leading them to speculate that sea ice tweaks the pattern and changes the freshwater build-up in ways that still need to be analyzed.

“We were surprised to find that our results also suggested that something else was going on,” Giles said here. “One idea is that sea ice forms a barrier between the atmosphere and the ocean. So, as the sea-ice cover changes, the effect of the wind on the ocean might also change.”

There’s actually an ocean of freshwater perpetually sloshing around atop the Arctic Ocean — coming from river runoff, precipitation, evaporation, melting of sea ice and glaciers, and the complex interchange with the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the authors explained.

“More than 70,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater are stored in the upper layer of the Arctic Ocean, leading to low salinities in upper-layer Arctic sea water, separated by a strong (boundary) from warm, saline water beneath,” the scientists wrote.

How much is that? About 16,800 cubic miles — enough to fill six Lake Superiors.

Where that water flows and how it interacts with sea life and the warmer, saltier water beneath is critical to Arctic oceanography. A different group of researchers reported in Nature a few weeks ago that the central Beaufort Sea was the freshest it’s been in 50 years, with most of the additional water coming from Eurasian river runoff -- not ice melt.

“A hemisphere-wide phenomenon — and not just regional forces — has caused record-breaking amounts of freshwater to accumulate in the Arctic’s Beaufort Sea,” wrote Sandra Hines of the University of Washington in this story.

Contact Doug O'Harra at doug(at)alaskadispatch.com

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/immense-dome-fresh-water-bulging-atop-arctic-ocean-alaska

Arctic Temperatures Continue Rapid Rise as 2011 Breaks Record Set in 2010. Record Ice Loss and Tundra Melt Amplify Warming Feedbacks

2012-01-23T23:57:00.000-06:00

Arctic Temperatures Continue Rapid Rise as 2011 Breaks Record Set in 2010

Record Ice Loss and Tundra Melt Amplify Warming Feedbacks

by Nick Sundt, guest blogger, Climate Progress, January 23, 2012 (reposted from the World Wildlife Fund)

NASA just (19 January 2012) released data showing that last year temperatures in the Arctic rose beyond the record established in 2010 — setting a new record for 2011. News of the record Arctic temperatures follows a series of alarming developments related to the Arctic in recent months.

The surface temperature anomaly for the region extending from 64° N to 90° N, from 1880 through 2011, in degrees centigrade above or below the temperature during the 1951-1980 base period. Temperatures have risen substantially since 1880 and the rate of increase has been especially rapid since the late 1970s. Source: WWF, using data from NASA .

According to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the annual mean surface temperature (land and air) for the region north of 64° N (the Arctic Circle is at 66° 33′ N) in 2011 was 2.28 °C above that which characterized the 1951-1980 period. Temperatures in the region have been rising rapidly since the late 1970s and have not dropped below the long term mean since 1992 — nearly 20 years. This year’s annual mean temperature broke the record that was just set in 2010, when the temperature was 2.11 °C above 1951-1980 levels.

Global temperature data released by NASA indicates that global surface temperatures in 2011 were the 9th highest on record, and that the warming was especially concentrated in the Arctic. ”We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting,” said GISS director James E. Hansen in a NASA press release (NASA Finds 2011 Ninth Warmest Year on Record, 19 Jan 2012). “So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record.”

Annual global surface temperature anomalies, 2011. The largest and most extensive warming (indicated in shades of red) was concentrated in the Arctic. Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

News of the record Arctic temperatures follows a series of alarming developments related to the Arctic in recent months.

Declining Arctic Sea Ice Affecting Wildlife, Weather Patterns

According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic sea ice extent reached the second lowest level in the satellite record on September 9 2011 – just short of the record set in 2007. At the same time, the volume of Arctic sea ice volume dropped to a record low in 2011. NOAA this week listed the low Arctic sea ice extent as one of the top 10 global weather/climate events for 2011. The extent and volume of Arctic sea ice are declining rapidly and scientists reported in November that the decline is unprecedented for the past 1,450 years (Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years, Nature, 479: 509-512, 24 November 2011).

We have reported extensively on the negative impacts the sea ice decline has had on wildlife, including polar bears and walruses. Most recently, on 20 December 2011, NOAA declared that the recent deaths of ringed-seals in the region are an “unusual mortality event,” noting that one of the factors behind the deaths might be “stressors related to sea ice change.” According to NOAA (Deaths of ringed seals in Alaska declared an unusual mortality event; walrus pending, press release, 20 December 2011):

Since mid-July, more than 60 dead and 75 diseased seals, most of them ringed seals, have been reported in Alaska, with reports continuing to come in. During their fall survey, scientists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also identified diseased and dead walruses at the annual mass haul-out at Point Lay.

We also have covered some of the larger implications the sea ice decline has for weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere. Among these is an increase in coastal storms affecting Alaska. In Global Climate Change Impacts on the United States (2009), the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) said:

“Alaska’s coastlines, many of which are low in elevation, are increasingly threatened by a combination of the loss of their protective sea ice buffer, increasing storm activity, and thawing coastal permafrost….Over this century, an increase of sea surface temperatures and a reduction of ice cover are likely to lead to northward shifts in the Pacific storm track and increased impacts on coastal Alaska. Climate models project the Bering Sea to experience the largest decreases in atmospheric pressure in the Northern Hemisphere, suggesting an increase in storm activity in the region.”

The threat was illustrated in November by a Bering Sea super storm that the National Weather Service (8 November 2011) described as an “extremely dangerous and life-threatening storm of an epic magnitude rarely experienced.” The storm helped prompt the low-lying coastal community of Kivalina to relocate its school away from the coast and to higher ground. “This is just the beginning,” said Kivalina’s administrator Janet Mitchell (see Alaska village votes yes on school relocation, Associated Press, 4 January 2012).

The Threat of Accelerated Emissions of Carbon as the Arctic Thaws

Another ominous development came in the 1 December 2011 issue of the journal Nature. In Climate change: High risk of permafrost thaw, Edward A. G. Schuur (University of Florida, Gainesville), Benjamin Abbott (University of Alaska, Fairbanks) and other experts from the Permafrost Carbon Network warned that carbon from thawing permafrost in the Arctic “will be released more quickly than models suggest, and at levels that are cause for serious concern.”

In addition to calling for better data, observations and research, they said that their research “underscores the urgent need to reduce atmospheric emissions from fossil-fuel use and deforestation. This will help to keep permafrost carbon frozen in the ground.”

Concerned about mounting evidence that Arctic thawing is accelerating carbon emissions to the atmosphere, the Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman (Democrat, California), has called for a hearing on the issue. See the 18 January letter to Fred Upton (Republican, Michigan), the Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee and to Ed Whitfield (Republican, Kentucky), Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, from Congressman Waxman and Congressman Bobby L. Rush (Democrat, Illinois) the Energy and Power Subcommittee Ranking Member.

– Nick Sundt is the communications director for climate change at the World Wildlife Fund. This piece was originally published at the WWF blog.

Online Resources:

NASA Finds 2011 Ninth Warmest Year on Record. Press release (19 Jan 2012) from NASA.

2011 Global Temperatures. NASA Earth Observatory, 20 January 2012.

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

GISTEMP 2011 Analysis: Global Temperature, Trends, and Prospects

Arctic Sea Ice Decline and its Impacts: Online Resources. WWF Climate Blog.

Arctic section of WWF-US Web site

Arctic section of WWF International Web site

Arctic section of WWF Canada Web site

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/23/409099/arctic-temperatures-continue-rapid-rise-2011-breaks-record/

Methane belches (?) from Laptev Sea, January 1 through January 21, 2012

2012-01-21T16:09:00.008-06:00

Dear Readers,

UPDATE OF JAN. 25: please see my collection of images that cover the entire Arctic at http://crocodoc.com/5UOfu7A

UPDATE: please see the comments below the post. That will save me writing this stuff again. Thanks!

These false-color images are from a site maintained by the Danish Technical University (DTU). Images are updated daily. I'm not sure, but I think they are taken with microwave sensors aboard a satellite. The false colors are meant to show ice type, as I understand it.

I am sorry, but I have no scale to go with the colors. My interpretation is that the black blobs are below the ice and the orange is above the ice.

The dark blobs do not represent open sea. There is ice cover there.

There are much larger occurrences over toward the Bering Strait, but I have not had time to crop them, yet.

The main action seemed to really kick up in mid-November 2011.

http://www.seaice.dk/iwicos/latest/

The images start with January 1. The last one is from January 21, 2012.

Comments welcome.

The situation in the Arctic has been pretty stormy for a while -- have a look here:

http://synoptic.envsci.rutgers.edu/site/sat/sat.php?sat=nhem&url=../imgs/wv_nhem_anim.gif

and here:

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/satellite/hrpt_dfo_ir_100.jpg

UPDATE: I'm adding this drawing from 2010. Click on it to enlarge it. Note that there are at least two measures that are out of date. We know from Shakhova that the sediment cores they took from the sea floor were below 0 centigrade, but the sediments had melted anyway. Further, the temperature of the sea water is higher now.