Climate Change: The Next Generation

Peter Sinclair: JPL’s Josh Willis Looks Ahead to Continuing Sea Level Rise

2012-02-02T22:14:00.000-06:00

JPL’s Josh Willis Looks Ahead to Continuing Sea Level Rise

by Peter Sinclair The Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, February 2, 2012

In the first of a new series, Jet Propulsion Lab climate scientist Josh Willis provides context for 2011′s small decline in sea level rise. Bottom line: Drop not long-lived, and further sea level rise inevitable. See the video.

“For the past 18 years, the U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been monitoring the gradual rise of the world’s ocean in response to global warming,” NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory said in a 2011 release.

“While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump,” it continued. In 2011, “ it’s been more like a pothole” as global sea level fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter between the summers of 2010 and 2011.”

“So what’s up with the down seas, and what does it mean?”

In the accompanying video by Peter Sinclair, independent videographer, NASA/JPL climate scientist Josh Willis points to the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific.

Willis said that while 2010 had begun with a sizable El Niño, by year’s end it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. According to JPL, in Pasadena, Ca., that sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns across the globe, bringing “massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States.”

JPL pointed to data from the “Grace” spacecraft indicating that extra rain piled onto the continents in the early parts of 2011.

“By detecting where water is on the continents, Grace shows us how water moves around the planet,” Steve Nerem, a sea level scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, said in the JPL press statement.

The extra water flooding Brazil and Australia actually came from the ocean, JPL said.

“Each year, huge amounts of water are evaporated from the ocean. While most of it falls right back into the ocean as rain, some of it falls over land.

“The continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year,” Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, said.

Willis put the kibosh on those thinking a long-term decline in global sea level is in the works. Sea level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up, he said.

JPL’s quick take: “Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again.”

“We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise,” Willis added. “But El Niño and La Niña always take us on a rainfall rollercoaster, and in years like this they give us sea-level whiplash.”

AUTHOR
Peter Sinclair is a veteran videographer who originated the “Climate Crock of the Week” series and now contributes regularly to The Yale Forum.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/02/jpls-josh-willis-looks-ahead-to-continuing-sea-level-rise/

Wall Street Journal rapped over climate change denial stance. Leading scientists, including climate change experts, complain about opinion piece akin to 'dentists practising cardiology'

2012-02-02T22:12:00.000-06:00

Wall Street Journal rapped over climate change stance

Leading scientists, including climate change experts, complain about opinion piece akin to 'dentists practising cardiology'

by Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, guardian.co.uk, February 1, 2012

A letter from some 40 leading scientists, which the Wall Street Journal published, noted that 97% of researchers who publish on climate change agree the phenomenon is real and caused by humans. Photograph: Mark Lennihan/AP

The Wall Street Journal has received a dressing down from a large group of leading scientists for promoting retrograde and out-of-date views on climate change.

In an opinion piece run by the Journal on Wednesday, nearly 40 scientists, including acknowledged climate change experts, took on the paper for publishing an article disputing the evidence on global warming.

The offending article, No Need to Panic About Global Warming, which appeared last week, argued that climate change was a cunning ploy deployed by governments to raise taxes and by non-profit organisations to solicit donations to save the planet.

It was signed by 16 scientists who don't subscribe to the conventional wisdom that climate change is happening and is largely man-made - but as Wednesday's letter points out, many of those who signed don't actually work in climate science.

"Do you consult your dentist on your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field, and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations," the article said.

The scientists went on: "On 27 January, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed on climate change by the climate science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert.

"This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes Aids. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science."

The letter goes on to note that some 97% of researchers who actively publish on climate science agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. It concludes: "It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses."

The letter does not go into the background of the 16 scientists who signed the original article, but at least two used to work for Exxon and six others have worked for thinktanks funded by industry groups including Exxon.

The letter also choose not to dig into the long history of the Wall Street Journal's rejection of climate science. The paper had earlier refused to publish a similar letter from 255 scientists from the National Academy of Sciences that supported the mainstream view on climate change.

The rejection was seen by some as further evidence that Rupert Murdoch is using his news organisations, such as the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, to further his own anti-regulatory agenda.

The article from the National Academy of Sciences was eventually published in Science.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/01/wall-street-journal-climate-change

Climate scientists not cowed by relentless climate change deniers

2012-02-02T01:36:00.000-06:00

Climate scientists not cowed by relentless climate change deniers

Groups that provide moral support, legal counsel, and swift rebuttals of misinformation are sprouting up.

by Toni Feder, Physics Today, February 2012

Receiving an email with a statement like “You should resign, and if you don’t, I’ll work to see that you are fired” or “I know where your kids go to school” would be unsettling enough. But they “pale compared to what other climate scientists are getting,” says Raymond Orbach, director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, at whom the first threat above was aimed.

Now climate scientists—in atmospheric physics and chemistry, geophysics, meteorology, hydrology, and oceanography, among other disciplines—have begun to fight back. “I think the community is finding a voice,” says Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, whose work has largely focused on identifying the human influence on global climate, and who once answered a late-night knock to find a dead rat on his doorstep.

Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is happening, although details of how it will play out are uncertain. Every few years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues a report prepared by hundreds of scientists and government officials from around the world; the next is due out in 2014. The latest, published in 2007, says that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid 20th century is due to human activities, and that past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will contribute to warming and sea-level rise for more than a millennium. Yet deniers have hampered efforts to tackle climate change, and their actions, especially in North America, the UK, and Australia, have led to climate researchers being investigated by their governments, suffering nervous breakdowns, and spending time and money defending their rights and reputations.

Ben Santer testified in May 2010 before the now-defunct House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming about the harassment of climate scientists.

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Successful tactics

Harassment of climate scientists by climate-change deniers goes back at least to 1995, after the IPCC published its Second Assessment Report. Santer was the lead author of chapter 8, which looked at the causes of climate change. “The single sentence ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate’ changed my life,” he says. “I was the guy who was associated with this sentence. Those who did not like that finding did everything not only to undermine the finding but also to undermine my scientific reputation.”

The harassment has ramped up in recent years, says Michael Mann of the Pennsylvania State University, whose book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, due to be published by Columbia University Press in early March, includes a retelling of his own ongoing experiences with harassment. “Political intimidation, character attacks, what appear to be orchestrated phone and email campaigns, nasty and thinly veiled threats, not just to us but to our families, are what it means in modern American life to be a climate scientist,” says Mann. Even this magazine, after publishing last October articles on the science of climate change—about its being under fire and about communicating that science to the public—received an abundance of letters with the tenor, “How could PHYSICS TODAY print such a one-sided portrayal of climate science when many reputable scientists disagree?”

Fossil-fuel interests, says Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher at NASA, “have adopted a shoot-the-messenger approach. It’s been a very successful strategy. They have created a chilling effect, so other [scientists] won’t say what they think and the conversation in public stays bereft of anyone who knows what they are talking about.” Schmidt cofounded RealClimate.org, a forum for climate scientists to “provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.” Meanwhile, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a vocal opponent to limiting greenhouse gas emissions, is suing NASA for the release of Schmidt’s personal emails.

Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research says he has seen young scientists get a surge of nasty emails when they publish on climate change. “They are flabbergasted. A lot of the community is unaware this is happening.” And, he notes, the people who send the emails have “gotten off scot-free.”

Although direct correlation is difficult to prove, climate scientists point to governmental inaction to exemplify deniers’ successes. The US never signed on to the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and in December Canada became the first country to withdraw from the agreement. Public concern about climate change is volatile, and the US and many other governments have dragged their feet on requiring emissions reductions. “Burning fossil fuels has consequences for air quality, acid rain, climate change,” says Trenberth. “The biggest problem is that [the US] has not put a price on carbon. There ought to be a cost attached [to emissions] to compensate future generations for all the environmental and health damages, especially those damages yet to come.”

Climate scientist Gavin Schmidt in December 2011 receiving the first annual American Geophysical Union Climate Communications Prize.

GARY WAGNER PHOTOS

“We as a society have suffered lost opportunities due to the climate change denial movement,” says Mann. “If their goal has been to mortgage the lives of their children and grandchildren, then the campaign has been successful. It has certainly set back efforts to curtail emissions.” It hasn’t helped, he says, that the media have often been one-sided or inaccurate in their coverage of deniers’ attacks on climate change.

Still, climate scientists say they don’t think the denier movement has discouraged people from doing climate-related research. “I hope not,” says Santer. “It would be a sad outcome if it deterred people from working on these critically important issues.”

Denying the deniers

Santer’s approach to false claims is to set the record straight. For example, when some scientists claimed that global warming has stopped and that computer models cannot simulate decade-long periods with little or no warming, Santer and colleagues showed that simulations can indeed produce such hiatus periods. Santer says, “I have tried to do the science necessary to address extraordinary and incorrect claims of no warming or no human influence. I don’t think we have the luxury of letting such false claims go unchallenged. If our elected representatives are to take wise decisions on how to address climate change, they need access to the best scientific information, not to wishful thinking and misinformation.”

Debunking the myths by summarizing the science “should be the ultimate tool to push back,” says Eelco Rohling, a paleoclimatologist at the UK’s University of Southampton. “But at the moment it’s a losing battle.” Rohling is involved in efforts to create a uniform framework for analyzing and reporting paleoclimate research results. “What we need for both science and for outreach to the public is to all sing from the same hymn sheet,” he says. “Hopefully [the framework] will create more uniformity in the numbers that come out, so deniers can’t cherry pick the numbers they use.”

Rather than trying to change people’s minds, Orbach, who served as undersecretary for science at the US Department of Energy under President George W. Bush, says he is focusing on “adaptation”—on practical responses to climate change. “There is an area of disagreement—the anthropogenic contribution to climate change—but evidence points to an increase in global temperature, whether or not people are responsible. Now let’s find a way to deal with the situation we face—houses in areas that flood, lack of water, and so on.”

Throwing punches

Climate scientists have gotten some good publicity. Most prominent was the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, which was shared by Al Gore and the IPCC “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” New annual prizes for climate change communication were created last year by the American Geophysical Union and Climate One, a radio and TV program from the Commonwealth Club of California. And the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in June issued a rare statement saying they were “deeply concerned” by the attacks on climate scientists. The “hostile environment” created by the attacks, the statement continued, “both impedes the progress of science and interferes with the applications of science to the solution of global problems.” The AAAS statement was a way to “fight back,” says Orbach, who is on the board of directors.

One new development is the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, which features more than 140 climate scientists plus a few historians and economists on call to provide information to journalists and lawmakers. Trenberth, a member of the team, says, “[We] provide rebuttal, response, and clarification” to misleading reports in the media.

This past September, rapid response team cofounder Scott Mandia and others launched the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. The nonprofit group raises money for climate scientists embroiled in legal battles. As of December, it had raised more than $20,000 for Mann, who is fighting Freedom of Information Act demands by the American Tradition Institute think tank for 5,000 pages of his email correspondence. The fund also offers informal counseling to harassed climate scientists and plans to hire a staff attorney to offer quick and experienced help. “Many scientists think they can win by blocking punches. You have to throw them,” says Mandia, who teaches physical sciences at New York’s Suffolk County Community College. “The main thing is that the world understands there is a group that will defend climate scientists who are being harassed.”

http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v65/i2/p22_s1?bypassSSO=1

"Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty," by Norman G. Loeb et al., Nature Geoscience, 5 (2012); doi: 10.1038/ngeo1375

2012-02-01T14:22:00.000-06:00

Nature Geoscience,

110–113

(2012)

doi:10.1038/ngeo1375

Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty

Brian J. Soden and

Abstract

Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space¹. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system². Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements³, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm⁻² (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/abs/ngeo1375.html

Shawnee National Forest in southern Illinois would swap fragile forest wet lands with Peabody Energy in violation of the Endangered Species Act

2012-02-01T10:36:00.001-06:00

Faustian Bargain: Proposal Seeks to Swap National Forest Land for Strip Mining

Shawnee National Forest would swap lands with Peabody Energy

by Common Dreams staff, January 30, 2012

A proposal to swap land from the Shawnee National Forest in southern Illinois to Peabody Energy has conservationists up in arms.

The Harrisburg, IL, Daily Register describes the deal this way:Shawnee National Forest (photo: christina rutz)

Ron Scott of the U.S. Forest Service said one parcel of land owned by the federal government has minerals that Peabody desires. Peabody's subsidiary, American Land Holdings of Illinois, spoke with the Forest Service regarding available lands the agency desired that adjoined other Forest Service properties and purchased those with the intent of trading for the piece of federal property. That federal property is 384 acres on both sides of the Saline River in Gallatin County 2 miles west of the Ohio River.
The Forest Service would receive a 481-acre parcel in Pope County north of Lusk Creek, 80 acres in Pope County within the Lusk Creek Wilderness Area surrounding Little Lusk Creek and 270 acres in Jackson County between Fountain Bluff and the Mississippi River. The Forest Service would receive half the mineral rights of the 481-acre parcel where there are no desirable minerals, but no mineral rights on the other two parcels where there are also no desirable minerals, Scott said.

Peabody's goal? Strip-mining for coal.

Conservationists are not happy about the proposal. The Daily Register reports:

Barney Bush of the Vinyard Indian Settlement in Herod said he is in opposition to the plan because he does not want further strip mining in the region. [...]
"Nothing good comes out of a strip mine." [...]
Brian Perbix of the Prairie Rivers Network said his river conservation organization is concerned about a future strip mine's effect on the purity of the river ecosystem.
Perbix said he toured the federal property earlier in the day and is concerned about 50 to 70 acres of forest wetland there.
"It was recognized in the 2006 Forest Plan there was a focus on preserving clean water as well as habitat," Perbix said.

And The Southern Illinoisan offers this succinct take:

"This is by and far the dumbest and worst thing they've ever proposed," said Chairman Jim Bensman of the Sierra Club's Shawnee National Forest Committee. "This exchange is clearly a violation of the Endangered Species Act."

The endangered species in question is the Indiana bat.Hibernating Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) (photo: USFWS/Ann Froschauer)

Two environmental groups, the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club, oppose the deal and have filed a notice of intent to sue the Forest Service today for failing to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“Swapping away the homes of endangered bats so that a coal company can strip mine them is unconscionable,” said Mollie Matteson, a bat specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Just two weeks ago, the federal government issued the staggering news that nearly 7 million bats have died over just the past few years from white-nose syndrome, a fungal disease that has been spreading across the country like wildfire, wiping out bats from Nova Scotia to Tennessee. Now the Forest Service proposes to intentionally put bats in harm’s way?”
Said Jim Bensman, chair of the Sierra Club's Shawnee National Forest Committee: “The Forest Service has a legal obligation to make protection of endangered species a top priority. When the agency found out last summer there were Indiana bats and gray bats on the land, its first move should have been to safeguard that habitat, not move forward with a plan with Peabody to have it strip-mined.”

The Shawnee National Forest is still taking comments on the proposal until tomorrow.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/30-11

Monckton Pitches 'Fox News Australia' Idea To Mining Magnate, Seeks 'Super-Rich' Backers

2012-02-01T10:16:00.000-06:00

Monckton Pitches 'Fox News Australia' Idea To Mining Magnate, Seeks 'Super-Rich' Backers

by Graham Readfearn, DeSmogBlog, January 31, 2012

BACK in July last year in a boardroom of a western Australian free-market think tank, the extrovert British climate change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton was holding court.

The topic for discussion? How to better capture the Australian media to help push a right wing, free-market and climate sceptic agenda. At the time, Lord Monckton was in Australia at the behest of a mining association and Gina Rinehart to deliver a series of talks on climate change and spread his conspiracy theories that human-caused climate change is a left-wing plot to bring down the West.

At one point during the tour, Monckton told a boisterous partisan crowd: “So to the bogus scientists who have produced the bogus science that invented this bogus scare I say, we are coming after you. We are going to prosecute you, and we are going to lock you up.”

Lord Monckton had been invited to Australia by the iron and coal mining boss Rinehart, the country’s richest woman with a rising personal fortune in the region of $20 billion.

Hosting the meeting was the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation, a group chaired by mining “Hall of Fame” member Ron Manners to promote free-market ideals and low government intervention.

Manners is also a member of Gina Rinehart’s lobby group ANDEV, which has been joined by the Institute for Public Affairs to lobby for a separate low-tax low regulation economic zone for the north of Australia to make mining projects easier to develop.

It would be safe to presume, given Manner’s background in mining and the make-up of his staff, that this aim to lower government intervention would include any regulations and taxes on mining.

As far as its position on climate change goes, Mannkal’s website only appears to promote sceptical and largely debunked views on climate science, with links to many climate change denial websites which form part of a global network.

The Lord Monckton gathering, posted on YouTube [see below], had all the air of a strategy meeting.

“Is there an Australian version of Fox News?… No,” Monckton told the gathered group, which included Manners himself.

“Frankly whatever you do at a street level – which is what you are talking about here – is not going to have much of an impact compared with capturing an entire news media.

“You look at the impact that Andrew Bolt has had since he was rocketed to fame and – without giving away too many secrets – Joanne [climate sceptic Jo Nova] is going to end up doing quite a bit more on that channel if all goes according to plan.”

In a second YouTube video, sceptic blogger Jo Nova is heard talking about her own work as the group discuss a way to create an improved echo chamber of online climate sceptic blogs. Another guest, writer and blogger Rafe Champion, describes socialising with Tim Blair, another climate sceptic blogger who works for the same Murdoch-owned News Ltd stable as popular sceptic blogger and commentator Andrew Bolt. Champion also blogs and promotes climate sceptic views at the centre-right, libertarian blog Catallaxy Files.

Just a few months after this meeting, Gina Rinehart finally secured herself a seat on the board of Channel Ten after buying up shares the previous year. Just before that meeting, right-wing blogger and Andrew Bolt was given his own show The Bolt Report on which to promote his climate “sceptic” agenda.

Rinehart is not averse to overt climate science denial herself, writing in a mining publication last year that she had “never met a geologist or leading scientist who believes adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will have any significant effect on climate change, especially not from a relatively small country like Australia.”

Last night, it emerged that Rinehart had made a $192 million purchase of shares in Fairfax Media Ltd, giving her a 9.9 per cent stake.

Fairfax owns leading print and online newspapers the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the Brisbane Times (which I have worked for on a freelance basis), a suite of regional rural newspapers and popular city-based radio stations including 4BC, 4BH and 2UE and3AW.

Commentators on the ABC are already indicating that Rinehart is looking to increase her influence on the public discourse through her media interests.

Back in the Mannkal boardroom, Monckton told the group that Australia needed to emulate the Fox news model from the United States and should target the “super rich” for some investment.

He also discusses working with Nova, a staunch climate sceptic blogger, and Andrew Bolt to “put together a business plan”.

“That is the way to do it,” Monckton continued. “You have to capture the high ground on what are still the major media and I think will remain so for some time and until we crack that one both in the UK and Australia, we are going to suffer from a disadvantage over and against the more libertarian-minded right-thinking people in the US who have got Fox News and therefore have got things like the Tea Party movement and therefore have at last put some lead into the pencil of the Republican party."

"If you look at Glenn Beck, for instance, who has been explaining how the US constitution works - an essentially libertarian democratic document - you have the business people explaining how free-market concept in business works every day and reaching thousands of millions of people around the world.

“It seems to me that devoting some time and effort to encouraging those that we know who are super-rich to invest in perhaps even establishing a new satellite news channel – not an expensive thing to do – and getting a few Jo Novas and Andrew Bolts to go on and commentate – but keep the news fair, straight and balanced as they do on Fox.”

“That,” Monckton said to an approving board room, would “break through and give to Australia a proper dose of free market thinking.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/monckton-pitches-fox-news-australia-idea-mining-magnate-seeks-super-rich-backers#comment-725227

Whether or not Australia is about to get a further dose of free market climate denial through the outlets of Fairfax is now open to question.

PEOPLE UNDER 35 HAVE NEVER SEEN NORMAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES

2012-01-31T17:05:00.000-06:00

PEOPLE UNDER 35 HAVE NEVER SEEN NORMAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES

by Brad Johnson, ThinkProgress Green, August 2, 2011

“If you’re younger than 26, you have never seen a month where the global mean was as cold as the 161 year average,” observes Robert Grumbine. In contrast, “there are no periods as long as even 20 years of continual below reference temperatures.” He finds that the period 1880-1940 seems to best represent a stable long-term average for global temperatures. If that’s the case, then the “last time the global mean was below the climate normal was March, 1976. If you’re 35 or younger, you have never seen a global mean below climate’s real normal.”

Cumulative deviations from the 1850-1940 global mean temperature.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/08/02/285660/people-under-35-have-never-seen-normal-global-temperatures/

Arctic climate change 'to spark domino effect, according to Western Australia University researcher, Carlos Duarte

2012-01-30T22:31:00.000-06:00

Arctic climate change 'to spark domino effect

The rate of Arctic climate change was now faster than ecosystems and traditional Arctic societies could adapt to.

The Sydney Morning Herald, January 31, 2012

WA-based scientists have warned of "dire consequences" to the human race after detecting the first signs of dangerous climate change in the Arctic.

The scientists, from the University of WA, claim the region is fast approaching a series of imminent "tipping points" which could trigger a domino effect of large-scale climate change across the entire planet.

In a paper published in the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' journal AMBIO and Nature Climate Change, the lead author and director of UWA's Oceans Institute, Winthrop Professor Carlos Duarte, said the Arctic region contained arguably the greatest concentration of potential tipping elements for global climate change

"If set in motion, they can generate profound climate change which places the Arctic not at the periphery but at the core of the Earth system," Professor Duarte said. "There is evidence that these forces are starting to be set in motion."

"This has major consequences for the future of human kind as climate change progresses."

Professor Duarte said the loss of Arctic summer sea ice forecast over the next four decades − if not before − was expected to have abrupt knock-on effects in northern mid-latitudes, including Beijing, Tokyo, London, Moscow, Berlin and New York.

Research showed that the Arctic was warming at three times the global average and the loss of sea ice – which had melted faster in summer than predicted − was linked tentatively to recent extreme cold winters in Europe.

Professor Duarte − winner of last year's prestigious Prix d'Excellence awarded by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea − said the most dangerous aspect of Arctic climate change was the risk of passing critical "tipping points."

In the next 10 years, Professor Duarte warned summer sea ice could be largely confined to north of coastal Greenland and Ellesmere Island, and was likely to disappear entirely by mid-century.

A drop in Arctic ice had opened new shipping routes, expanded oil, gas and mineral exploitation and led to new harbours, houses, roads, airports, power stations and other support facilities.

It had triggered a new gold rush to access these resources, with recent struggles by China, Brazil and India to join the Arctic Council where the split of these resources was being discussed.

But increased deposits of black carbon (soot) from coal-burning power stations had accelerated warming and ice melt.

Professor Duarte said the rate of Arctic climate change was now faster than ecosystems and traditional Arctic societies could adapt to.

The Arctic was expected to stop being a carbon dioxide sink and become a source of greenhouse gases if seawater temperatures rose by 4-5C.

"It represents a test of our capacity as scientists, and as societies to respond to abrupt climate change," Professor Duarte said.

"We need to stop debating the existence of tipping points in the Arctic and start managing the reality of dangerous climate change.

"We argue that tipping points do not have to be points of no return.

"Several tipping points, such as the loss of summer sea ice, may be reversible in principle − although hard in practice.

"However, should these changes involve extinction of key species − such as polar bears, walruses, ice-dependent seals and more than 1000 species of ice algae − the changes could represent a point of no return.

"Confusion distracts attention from the urgent need to focus on developing early warning indicators of abrupt climate change, address its human causes and rebuild resilience in climate, ecosystems and communities.

http://www.smh.com.au/wa-news/arctic-climate-change-to-spark-domino-effect-20120130-1qpgv.html

Andrew Glikson: Trends and tipping point in the climate system: portents for the 21st century

2012-01-30T13:02:00.000-06:00

Trends and tipping point in the climate system: portents for the 21st century

Andrew Glikson (Earth and Palaeo climate science , Australian National University )

Mass extinctions in the history of Earth occurred when the atmosphere-ocean-land carbon and oxygen cycles, on which the biosphere depends, have been perturbed at rates to which species could not adapt. Rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels above 330 ppm CO2 at rates of ~2 ppm/year and mean temperature rise of ~0.02 oC/year since 1975 and 1976 are driving the fastest climate change trend recorded since about 34 million years ago, representing a critical climate threshold leading into uncharted territory and threatening the biosphere and human civilization. It is suggested the arrest of carbon emissions may not be sufficient to halt the current trend, except if accompanied with global efforts at drawdown of atmospheric CO2 using a range of bio and sequestration, organic and chemical methods.

Future of human kind faces dire consequences due to dangerous climate change in the Arctic, say leading international scientists from the University of Western Australia

2012-01-30T04:02:00.000-06:00

Monday, 30 January 2012

The future of human kind faces dire consequences due to arguably the first signs of dangerous climate change in the Arctic, say leading international scientists from The University of Western Australia.

They say the Arctic region is fast approaching a series of imminent "tipping points" that could trigger an abrupt domino effect of large-scale climate change across the entire planet.

In a paper published in the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' journal AMBIO and a parallel commentary in Nature Climate Change, the lead author and Director of the University's Oceans Institute, Winthrop Professor Carlos Duarte, said the Arctic region contained arguably the greatest concentration of potential tipping elements for global climate change.

"This has major consequences for the future of human kind as climate change progresses."

Professor Duarte said the loss of Arctic summer sea ice forecast over the next four decades - if not before - was expected to have abrupt knock-on effects in northern mid-latitudes, including Beijing, Tokyo, London, Moscow, Berlin and New York.

Research showed that the Arctic was warming at three times the global average and the loss of sea ice - which had melted faster in summer than predicted - was linked tentatively to recent extreme cold winters in Europe.

Professor Duarte - winner of last year's prestigious Prix d'Excellence awarded by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea - said the most dangerous aspect of Arctic climate change was the risk of passing critical "tipping points".

Arctic records showed unambiguously that sea ice volume had declined dramatically over the past two decades, Professor Duarte said. In the next 10 years, summer sea ice could be largely confined to north of coastal Greenland and Ellesmere Island, and was likely to disappear entirely by mid-century.

"Some environmental and biological elements may be linked in a domino effect of tipping points that cascade rapidly once the summer sea ice is lost," Professor Duarte said.

However, semantic confusion masquerading as scientific debate - although providing excellent media fodder - had delayed an urgent need to start managing the reality of dangerous climate change in the Arctic, Professor Duarte said.

A drop in Arctic ice had opened new shipping routes, expanded oil, gas and mineral exploitation, increased military and research use, and led to new harbours, houses, roads, airports, power stations and other support facilities

It had triggered a new gold rush to access these resources, with recent struggles by China, Brazil and India to join the Arctic Council where the split of these resources was being discussed.

But increased deposits of black carbon (soot) from coal-burning power stations and stoves on snow and ice had accelerated warming and ice melt.

Top predators such as polar bears were declining, more methane gas was entering the atmosphere as permafrosts and submarine methane hydrates thawed, freshwater discharge had increase 30 per cent recent years and the Arctic Sea was warming faster as the ice cap melted, trapping more solar heat instead of reflecting it back into space.

In the subarctic region, dieback of the boreal forest and desiccation of peat deposits leading to uncontrolled peat fires (such as those that affected Russia in the summer of 2010) would further enhance greenhouse gas emissions.

Professor Duarte said the rate of Arctic climate change was now faster than ecosystems and traditional Arctic societies could adapt to.

The Arctic was expected to stop being a carbon dioxide sink and become a source of greenhouse gases if seawater temperatures rose 4-5ºC.

"It represents a test of our capacity as scientists, and as societies to respond to abrupt climate change," Professor Duarte said.

"We need to stop debating the existence of tipping points in the Arctic and start managing the reality of dangerous climate change.

"We argue that tipping points do not have to be points of no return.

"Several tipping points, such as the loss of summer sea ice, may be reversible in principle - although hard in practice.

"However, should these changes involve extinction of key species - such as polar bears, walruses, ice-dependent seals and more than 1000 species of ice algae - the changes could represent a point of no return.

Media references

Winthrop Professor Carlos Duarte (Director, UWA Oceans Institute) (+61 8) 6488 8123
Michael Sinclair-Jones (UWA Public Affairs) (+61 8) 6488 3229 / (+61 4) 00 700 78

http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201201304303/climate-science/arctic-scientists-warn-dangerous-climate-change

Estimating the global radiative impact of the sea ice–albedo feedback in the Arctic by Stephen R. Hudson, JGR 116 (2011) doi: 10.1029/2011JD015804

2012-01-29T17:36:00.000-06:00

Journal of Geophysical Research, 116 (2011) D16102; doi: 10.1029/2011JD015804

Estimating the global radiative impact of the sea ice–albedo feedback in the Arctic

Stephen R. Hudson (Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway)

Key points:

The radiative forcing due to sea ice loss can be simply calculated
Current forcing is small, around 0.1 W/m2; it could increase to about 0.3 W/m2
Better understanding of related cloud changes is critical for full understanding

Abstract

A simple method for estimating the global radiative forcing caused by the sea ice–albedo feedback in the Arctic is presented. It is based on observations of cloud cover, sea ice concentration, and top-of-atmosphere broadband albedo. The method does not rely on any sort of climate model, making the assumptions and approximations clearly visible and understandable and allowing them to be easily changed. Results show that the globally and annually averaged radiative forcing caused by the observed loss of sea ice in the Arctic between 1979 and 2007 is approximately 0.1 W m⁻²; a complete removal of Arctic sea ice results in a forcing of about 0.7 W m⁻², while a more realistic ice-free summer scenario (no ice for 1 month and decreased ice at all other times of the year) results in a forcing of about 0.3 W m⁻², similar to present-day anthropogenic forcing caused by halocarbons. The potential for changes in cloud cover as a result of the changes in sea ice makes the evaluation of the actual forcing that may be realized quite uncertain since such changes could overwhelm the forcing caused by the sea ice loss itself, if the cloudiness increases in the summertime.

Figure 1 of 3

Next image Previous image Enlarge

Received 11 February 2011; accepted 10 May 2011; published 16 August 2011.

Citation: Hudson, S. R. (2011), Estimating the global radiative impact of the sea ice–albedo feedback in the Arctic, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D16102, doi: 10.1029/2011JD015804.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD015804.shtml

Dynamic response of oceanic hydrate deposits to ocean temperature change by Matthew T. Reagan & George J. Moridis, JGR 113 (2008); doi: 10.1029/2008JC004938

2012-01-29T17:26:00.000-06:00

Journal of Geophysical Research, 113 (2008) C12023; doi: 10.1029/2008JC004938

Dynamic response of oceanic hydrate deposits to ocean temperature change

Matthew T. Reagan and George J. Moridis (Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.)

Abstract

Vast quantities of methane are trapped in oceanic hydrate deposits. Because methane is a powerful greenhouse gas (about 26 times more effective than CO₂), there is considerable concern that a rise in the temperature of the oceans will induce dissociation of oceanic hydrate accumulations, potentially releasing large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Such a release could have dramatic climatic consequences because it could amplify atmospheric and oceanic warming and possibly accelerate dissociation of the remaining hydrates. This study assesses the stability of three types of hydrates (case I, deep-ocean deposits; case II, shallow, warm deposits; and case III, shallow, cold deposits) and simulates the dynamic behavior of these deposits under the influence of moderate ocean temperature increases. The results indicate that deep-ocean hydrates are stable under the influence of moderate increases in ocean temperature; however, shallow deposits can be very unstable and release significant quantities of methane under the influence of as little as 1 °C of seafloor temperature increase. Less permeable sediments, or burial underneath layers of hydrate-free sediment, affect both the rate of hydrate dissociation and methane transport to the seafloor but may not prevent methane release. Higher-saturation deposits can produce larger methane fluxes with the thermodynamics of hydrate dissociation retarding the rate of recession of the upper hydrate interface. These results suggest possible worst case scenarios for climate-change-induced methane release and point toward the need for detailed assessment of the hydrate hazard and the coupling of hydrate-derived methane to regional and global ecosystems.

Received 30 May 2008; accepted 13 October 2008; published 24 December 2008.

Citation: Reagan, M. T., and G. J. Moridis (2008), Dynamic response of oceanic hydrate deposits to ocean temperature change, J. Geophys. Res., 113, C12023, doi: 10.1029/2008JC004938.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JC004938.shtml

Arctic Oscillation flips to extreme negative; temperatures at Svalbard expected to be in low to mid 40s (F) all week

2012-01-29T13:50:00.001-06:00

This is not so good:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html

And neither is this (get a better idea at this link http://synoptic.envsci.rutgers.edu/site/sat/sat.php?sat=nhem&url=../imgs/wv_nhem_anim.gif):

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