Climate-gate

[iceaura]

Climate simulations have difficulty in producing such a degree of warmth with the then greenhouse gas and orbital (Milankovitch) forcings alone, suggesting there must be some other factor at work, such as amplifying feedbacks.
The fact that the sheer amount of Arctic warming that occurred exceeds that simulated by climate models is both interesting and somewhat worrying

One possibility: Some of the discrepancy between models and proxy-based evaluations in deep time may be due to the influence of Oxygen levels - higher percentages of Oxygen are thought to have implied more actual atmosphere, higher atmospheric pressures, which reduce greenhouse gas effects. https://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6240/1210.summary?related-urls=yes&legid=sci;348/6240/1210
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6240/1238
Mechanism in lay terms: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...looked-factor-in-past-climate-study-suggests/

 

[Billy T]

Just wondering: Are there still any deniers of AGW posting here? If so, do you have courage (or stupidity?) to self-identify?
Here is latest potential AGW disater, but no humans will still be living to be harmed by it.

Global warming has triggered an array of apocalyptic scenarios for future generations, from worsening drought, storms and floods to melted icesheets and rising seas. ... Now a new study, published Tuesday and coinciding with the UN climate talks in Paris, adds to the grim tableau: the risk that warming at the far end of the scale could rob our planet of oxygen.

"We have identified another possible consequence of ... global warming that can potentially be more dangerous than all others," say a pair of scientists from Britain's University of Leicester. Their study, based in the peer-reviewed journal the Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, is based on a computer model of phytoplankton, the microscopic sea plants which produce about two-thirds of the oxygen in the atmosphere.

Average global warming of 6 C (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) would be a threshold at which the phytoplankton's vital oxygen-generating abilities, determined by water temperature, would be impaired, ...

At less than 6C increased we are all dead, so we have no need for O2, and earth can return to the anaerobic life forms it once had - at least the deep sea vent life forms should be OK (if acidification of their ocean can be tolerated).

 

[billvon]

Global warming has triggered an array of apocalyptic scenarios for future generations, from worsening drought, storms and floods to melted icesheets and rising seas. . .

Wow, what lousy reporting.

The reports of the impending ice age back in 1970 generated a similar array of apocalyptic scenarios for future generations; after all, the "evidence in support of the predictions" of the incipient ice age had "begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The "resulting famines could be catastrophic", due to "drought and desolation." We will see "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons." It will be "impossible for starving peoples to migrate."

Someone reading both these reports could, with some validity, conclude "once again they have no idea what they are talking about."

 

[Quantum Quack]

"We have identified another possible consequence of ... global warming that can potentially be more dangerous than all others," say a pair of scientists from Britain's University of Leicester. Their study, based in the peer-reviewed journal the Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, is based on a computer model of phytoplankton, the microscopic sea plants which produce about two-thirds of the oxygen in the atmosphere.

Billy T , all you have done is prove yet again why persons find the AGW lobby, data etc to be hard to believe.
You and others have claimed a potential disaster. A scary night mare scenario enough to feed the paranoid millions with further justification for jumping of a bridge, performing mass shootings or dare I suggest holding millions hostage in the Middle East ( not to forget the rest of the world as well being held hostage by their fears as well)
Yet all you have stated is that there is yet another "potential of global warming" whether Anthro' or not. ( is still hotly debated )

I think the fact that our global climate is changing is indisputable.
However as to whether this amounts to a long term mean temperature rise or not is yet to be revealed, beyond statistical trend analysis and other fear based speculations about the future.
I am reminded of the fact that statistical data can be and is often terribly misleading. ( depending on the interpreters preconceptions and fears)

Promoting an "end times" scenario does not help in the proper assessment of the global position, nor does prematurely claiming anthro causation as being the only cause involved in what we are experiencing.
Suggestion:
If you want to get serious about making predictions, help work out peak heat potentials for the coming 10 years and suggest ways that humans can adapt to the growing dynamic ( hot and cold) the climate appears to be developing. ( Certainly there is plenty of data to strongly suggest a growing dynamic??)

 

[Quantum Quack]

I believe that the focus on climate dynamics is being buried under AGW preoccupations. When what the world needs to do is focus on weather dynamics instead. The anthro warming approach is inhibiting an "open" approach to what is actually happening, and preventing the world from getting on with surviving climate change IMO


Here in Australia, we have just got through one of our hottest Springs. Many temp. records broken. Southern Fire season started a few weeks earlier with a number of fatalities.
Yet on our first days of Summer we had snow falling in the Alps which is extraordinary especially after such a warm Spring. ( strong El Nino influences?)
The government is warning it's citizens to prepare for unprecedented and extraordinary heat waves this summer.
yet
At the moment I have a heater on when normally I would be trying to cool down.

So to me there is ample evidence of a growing dynamic in our weather and not much evidence of long term (say 100 + year ) global warming.

 

[billvon]

So to me there is ample evidence of a growing dynamic in our weather and not much evidence of long term (say 100 + year ) global warming.

There is a very large amount of data for a 100+ year warming trend.

Warmest years on record:
1 2014 0.69
2 2010 0.65
3 2005 0.65
4 1998 0.63
5 2013 0.62
6 2003 0.62
7 2002 0.61
8 2006 0.60
9 2009 0.59
10 2007 0.59

Warmest decades on record:

1 2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F)
2 1990–1999 0.313 °C (0.563 °F)
3 1980–1989 0.176 °C (0.317 °F)
4 1940–1949 0.035 °C (0.0630 °F)
5 1970–1979 −0.001 °C (−0.00180 °F)
6 1960–1969 −0.014 °C (−0.0252 °F)
7 1950–1959 −0.02 °C (−0.0360 °F)
8 1930–1939 −0.043 °C (−0.0774 °F)
9 1920–1929 −0.175 °C (−0.315 °F)
10 1890–1899 −0.254 °C (−0.457 °F)
11 1900–1909 −0.259 °C (−0.466 °F)
12 1880–1889 −0.274 °C (−0.493 °F)
13 1910–1919 −0.276 °C (−0.497 °F)

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is a very large amount of data for a 100+ year warming trend.

Warmest years on record:
1 2014 0.69
2 2010 0.65
3 2005 0.65
4 1998 0.63
5 2013 0.62
6 2003 0.62
7 2002 0.61
8 2006 0.60
9 2009 0.59
10 2007 0.59

Warmest decades on record:

1 2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F)
2 1990–1999 0.313 °C (0.563 °F)
3 1980–1989 0.176 °C (0.317 °F)
4 1940–1949 0.035 °C (0.0630 °F)
5 1970–1979 −0.001 °C (−0.00180 °F)
6 1960–1969 −0.014 °C (−0.0252 °F)
7 1950–1959 −0.02 °C (−0.0360 °F)
8 1930–1939 −0.043 °C (−0.0774 °F)
9 1920–1929 −0.175 °C (−0.315 °F)
10 1890–1899 −0.254 °C (−0.457 °F)
11 1900–1909 −0.259 °C (−0.466 °F)
12 1880–1889 −0.274 °C (−0.493 °F)
13 1910–1919 −0.276 °C (−0.497 °F)

I am sure you are familiar with the many contra arguments concerning these statistics.
This doesn't change what I am attempting to suggest.
Why do you think the trend is being caused solely by human activity?

Keep in mind all the other unprecedented phenomena that has happened in the world over the last 40 years or so...

The picture being looked at is too small... need a bigger picture... IMO

 

[Quantum Quack]

for example:
Geothermal over heating could cause "deep" permafrost meltdown releasing methane in enough quantities to disrupt the typical co2 balance especially when added to relatively minor global human co2 outputs etc...

Anecdotal:
(Scientists were recording early plant blooms in Victoria's ( Australia) alpine regions even though ambient atmospheric temperatures were as per typical many years ago if I recall correctly.)

 

[billvon]

I am sure you are familiar with the many contra arguments concerning these statistics.

Of course. There are people who will deny anything.

Why do you think the trend is being caused solely by human activity?

It's not. It is MOSTLY caused by human activity, because the predicted increase in retained heat caused by AGW matches the actual increase in temperatures seen.

Keep in mind all the other unprecedented phenomena that has happened in the world over the last 40 years or so...

Like what?

Geothermal over heating could cause "deep" permafrost meltdown releasing methane in enough quantities to disrupt the typical co2 balance especially when added to relatively minor global human co2 outputs etc...

You are talking about one of the positive feedback mechanisms. Climate warms, permafrost melts, methane is released; this adds to the warming, causing more permafrost to melt etc.

 

[Write4U]

Can anyoe name me an organism that adversely affects the earth's ecosystem and specifically the air, besides humans? Most all oganisms recycle surface (available) CO2. Man is the only organism that uses billions of years of *sequestered* CO2 and releases that previously unavailable CO2 back into the air at a rate totally out of proportion to any other living thing, thereby destabilizing the balance of our atmosphere and ecosphere. This process is not seasonal or from need, it is a 365 day, 24/7 process of industrial pollution of life sustaining natural resources such as air, rivers, lakes, oceans and the natural conversion processes on the surface of the earth.
And we deny this FACT?

4,786,650 Forest loss this year (hectares)

Quick Facts:

• 
  
• The number shown above is net of reforestation
  

Sources and info:

• 
  
• Global Forest Resources Assessment (2010) - FAO
  

6,444,116 Land lost to soil erosion this year (ha)
Sources and info:

• 
  
• Dimensions of need: Restoring the land - FAO
  

33,653,301,983 CO2 emissions this year (tons)
Sources and info:

• 
  
• International Energy Agency (IEA) Statistics
  
• Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - United States Department of Energy
  
• U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
  

11,044,982 Desertification this year (hectares)
Sources and info:

• 
  
• United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
  

9,013,054 Toxic chemicals released
in the environment this year

http://www.worldometers.info/

 

[Quantum Quack]

Keep in mind all the other unprecedented phenomena that has happened in the world over the last 40 years or so...

Like what?

All still subject to further research but certainly there is evidence of other factors beside just anthro CO2 influences.
1]
Well...among many things at the moment I have been looking into the sink hole phenomena dramatically occurring in the Yamal Peninsular region in Russia ( Siberia)

"The peninsula consists mostly of permafrost ground and is geologically a very young place —some areas are less than ten thousand years old.

Yamal is inhabited by a multitude of migratory bird species.

The well preserved remains of Lyuba, a 37,000-year-old mammoth calf, were found by a reindeer herder on the peninsula in the summer of 2007. The animal was female and was determined to be one month old[1] at the time of death.
src= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamal_Peninsula​

more images if wanted can be found at :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...sinkhole-crater-in-Siberia.html?frame=2982960

To me hypothetically at this stage these sinkholes are due to significant permafrost thaw, well beyond anything the climate could cause.

Affirmed by:

"It is believed the hole was formed when higher than normal temperatures* allowed ice to melt beneath the frozen ground releasing gas resulting in an effect similar to a popping champagne cork"​

Notice the incredible shape of these holes, the sides and textures etc...

*the commentary fails to indicate whether the higher than usual temperatures were atmospheric or geo thermal.
The average annual temp for the region of Yamal is well below zero C with only a short Arctic summer so it is unlikely atmospheric temperatures were high enough to cause such an incredible thawing of the perma frost.
Further:

"According to researchers at Norway's Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate (CAGE), through a process called geothermal heat flux, the Siberian permafrost, which extends to the seabed of the Kara Sea, a section of the Arctic Ocean between the Yamal Peninsula and Novaya Zemlya, is thawing. According to a CAGE researcher, Aleksei Portnov:[12]​

The permafrost is thawing from two sides... [T]he interior of the Earth is warm and is warming the permafrost from the bottom up. It is called geothermal heat flux and it is happening all the time, regardless of human influence."​

— CAGE 2014
Methane is leaking in an area of at least 7500 m2. In some areas gas flares extend up to 25 m (82 ft). Prior to their research it was proposed that methane was tightly sealed into the permafrost by water depths up to 100 m (330 ft). Close to the shore however, where the permafrost seal tapers to as little as 20 m (66 ft), there are significant amounts of gas leakage"
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamal_Peninsula​

2]

"Dead zones are hypoxic (low-oxygen) areas in the world's oceans and large lakes, caused by "excessive nutrient pollution from human activities coupled with other factors that deplete the oxygen required to support most marine life in bottom and near-bottom water. (NOAA)."[2] In the 1970s oceanographers began noting increased instances of dead zones. These occur near inhabited coastlines, where aquatic life is most concentrated. (The vast middle portions of the oceans, which naturally have little life, are not considered "dead zones".)

In March 2004, when the recently established UN Environment Programme published its first Global Environment Outlook Year Book (GEO Year Book 2003), it reported 146 dead zones in the world's oceans where marine life could not be supported due to depleted oxygen levels. Some of these were as small as a square kilometre (0.4 mi²), but the largest dead zone covered 70,000 square kilometres (27,000 mi²). A 2008 study counted 405 dead zones worldwide."

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)​

Whilst some of the zones can be easily attributed to human activity many can not be so easily dealt with.

Note: also for something so serious as this there has been no update to the 2008 405 dead zone result as far as I know.

3]
Unexplained mass animal die off events, of which there are too many to count.

4]
Significant Magnetosphere declination.

and the list goes on...

Any way I am not going to attempt to convince any one... all I am suggesting is that a bigger picture needs to be considered rather than focusing only on anthro CO2 impacts.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Also in a documentary shown a few years or so ago concerning the major impact of a ocean dead zone North of the North Island, New Zealand, the blackish oily sludge that was appearing in coastal areas appeared to be oozing upwards from under the ground. Suggesting "extraordinary" geo thermal/ pressure was involved. ( there are no major human affluent factors in this region )
Of course if it wasn't for over 400 other dead zones recorded in 2008 one could suggest that the NZ zone is just a one off, but there are over 400 other zones in question all manifesting approximately over the same span of time.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

a bigger picture needs to be considered rather than focusing only on anthro CO2 impacts.

1- perhaps science/scientists concentrate on anthro sources because we can actually change or affect them?
2- no scientist studying the climate says that AGW sources are the only problem; just that it is a major problem
3- those sinkholes are also part of a dangerous feedback cycle, much like the interactions and cyclical feedback between CO2 and Water vapor (see: Lacis et al, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full )
4- ignoring the problem will not make it go away
5- judging by your list above (and certain comments), your sources tend to be sites that are catering to your conspiractist ideation and confirmation bias ... you sure aren't reading original source material, reputable science, journals or studies, IMHO

To me hypothetically at this stage these sinkholes are due to significant permafrost thaw, well beyond anything the climate could cause.

the warming can't cause this?
is this your quote?

Also in a documentary shown a few years or so ago concerning the major impact of a...

you do know that documentaries are not always 100% accurate, and can be wrong.... don't you? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Wilderness_(film)
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56 )
This is one reason you should only use original sources (reputable peer reviewed journal studies) that are validated to argue a point, especially WRT a highly complex system like the climate... and not a "documentary" or opinion pieces (or comments) listed in articles ...

 

[Quantum Quack]

1- perhaps science/scientists concentrate on anthro sources because we can actually change or affect them?
2- no scientist studying the climate says that AGW sources are the only problem; just that it is a major problem
3- those sinkholes are also part of a dangerous feedback cycle, much like the interactions and cyclical feedback between CO2 and Water vapor (see: Lacis et al, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full )
4- ignoring the problem will not make it go away
5- judging by your list above (and certain comments), your sources tend to be sites that are catering to your conspiractist ideation and confirmation bias ... you sure aren't reading original source material, reputable science, journals or studies, IMHO

the warming can't cause this?
is this your quote?

you do know that documentaries are not always 100% accurate, and can be wrong.... don't you? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Wilderness_(film)
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56 )
This is one reason you should only use original sources (reputable peer reviewed journal studies) that are validated to argue a point, especially WRT a highly complex system like the climate... and not a "documentary" or opinion pieces (or comments) listed in articles ...

confirmation bias can work both ways yes...
Of course wiki is about as useful as a dunny with out paper.
However where there is enough stink I smell a rabbit.
Re: the documentary. ( I am trying to find a copy to post)
Pictures tell a thousand words and that black sludge shown in the doco was real blackish. Certainly not what you would expect from what was a pristine ocean environment.


When I read an environmental scientist stating that alpine plants in Australia were blooming months early with out atmospheric causation years ago I started to question many things reported.
Wouldn't you?

 

[Quantum Quack]

the warming can't cause this?
is this your quote?

as I said confirmation bias works both ways.
see my post about average atmospheric temperatures for the Yamal peninsular being well below zero ( you may have missed it due to editing )

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

However where there is enough stink I smell a rabbit.

the problem is not the stink, it is your choice to ignore the obvious for the sake of conspiracy, especially WRT the known biased and intentionally misleading information being specifically put out to make otherwise semi-smart people look like lunatics

the media feel a need to post multiple sides of a story (like climate change) because it sells and makes them money, not because there is any real evidence that it isn't real

Pictures tell a thousand words and that black sludge shown in the doco was real blackish

pictures can also lie, or mislead

When I read an environmental scientist stating that alpine plants in Australia were blooming months early with out atmospheric causation years ago I started to question many things reported.
Wouldn't you?

1- never take a singular study as anything other than a point of interest.
2- i don't even pay attention to what is "reported"... especially in the news (see above- or see the stories that caused "Saturday Night Fever")
3- i never, ever (ever) accept evidence that isn't validated, by anyone, for any reason (see also singular studies... as a point of argument, a singular study is also far better than, say... an opinion, but a singular study doesn't mean validated )

as I said confirmation bias works both ways

if you only follow the evidence, then how can confirmation bias affect your perspective?
i don't "make up my mind"... i simply follow the evidence. period.

see my post about average temperatures for the Yalim peninsular being well below zero ( you may have missed it due to editing )

is there a link to a study or is it just your opinion?
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/education/reading_genie/Fact-opinion.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Of course wiki is about as useful as a dunny with out paper.

about this... wiki can be very useful...
however, when you make a claim, like

"The peninsula consists mostly of permafrost ground and is geologically a very young place —some areas are less than ten thousand years old.

but you intentionally leave off the important part... like the "citation needed" part... it seems a bit intentionally disingenuous to me...
this is a media tactic, and it is also used by those hiding from reality, IMHO
the whole comment should have read"

The peninsula consists mostly of permafrost ground and is geologically a very young place —some areas are less than ten thousand years old.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamal_Peninsula

this is just ONE reason that original sources should be used and not secondary non-supported sources, regardless of their past or current other pages

 

[Quantum Quack]

Looking for a conspiracy are you?
Exercising a little confirmation bias perhaps?
Attempting to discredit with out actually dealing with the issues raised perhaps?

just kidding...

but you intentionally leave off the important part... like the "citation needed" part... it seems a bit intentionally disingenuous to me...
this is a media tactic, and it is also used by those hiding from reality, IMHO
the whole comment should have read"

I deleted the citation needed link because the forum software carried the link over into the next blank line.

 

[Quantum Quack]

According to researchers at Norway's Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate (CAGE), through a process called geothermal heat flux, the Siberian permafrost, which extends to the seabed of the Kara Sea, a section of the Arctic Ocean between the Yamal Peninsula and Novaya Zemlya, is thawing. According to a CAGE researcher, Aleksei Portnov:[12]
The permafrost is thawing from two sides... [T]he interior of the Earth is warm and is warming the permafrost from the bottom up. It is called geothermal heat flux and it is happening all the time, regardless of human influence."

— CAGE 2014
Methane is leaking in an area of at least 750
0 m2. In some areas gas flares extend up to 25 m (82 ft). Prior to their research it was proposed that methane was tightly sealed into the permafrost by water depths up to 100 m (330 ft). Close to the shore however, where the permafrost seal tapers to as little as 20 m (66 ft), there are significant amounts of gas leakage"
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamal_Peninsula

keeping in mind that average atmospheric temperatures are well below zero for the Yamal Peninsula, I don't know how such a huge permafrost thaw could occur except by geo thermal means.
all ideas welcome!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Truck Captain Stumpy,
I am not disputing that human activity is contributing to climate change. I am merely suggesting that there appears to be other factors ( geothermal for one) involved that may be significant when attempting to model the future climate.
To create models that are exclusively anthropocentric I believe is erroneous and will lead to misleading results.