The whole silly warming pause, warming hiatus thing

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:26 AM GMT on February 21, 2014

Share this Blog
34
+

The whole silly warming pause, warming hiatus thing: Bumps and Wiggles (9)

I want to finish my start-of-the-semester important research findings with my synthesis of the knowledge we have about the pause or hiatus in warming. In my little collection of blogs, I have written about this several times, and I link some of those entries below. Sometime in 2005, those in the lobby opposing climate-change science started to beat the drum that warming of the planet had stopped and that the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were in fundamental error. The drumbeat was amplified by a knowledge-twisting article in the Daily Mail, which I discussed in It’s Not Getting Warmer – Again, Really? Increased credibility to the pause in warming was added by an article in The Economist reporting on the story of the “pause” and that, indeed, if you looked at the temperature record it was not documenting an unrelenting increase in global-average surface temperature (from when the Economist article was published).

When I first wrote about the warming pause, I referred to my piece Form of Argument on how to analyze this news report. The article focused on a single piece of information, isolated, and posed as an unanswerable contradiction. The reporting and figures did not carry the full descriptions of the graphs that proved no warming. There were also implications of stealth. The list goes on. The warming hiatus as a challenge to the body of science-based knowledge on climate change was a manufactured problem.

The planet is warming from the trapping of energy near the Earth’s surface. It is reasonable to expect the average surface temperature to increase; it has and it will (Just Temperature). However, the heat being accumulated does not have to go only to increasing the average surface temperature. Some of that heat has been melting glaciers, sea ice and ice sheets. In addition, much of that heat has been heating the ocean, causing it to expand and further raising sea level. Energy goes into motions in the atmosphere and ocean. As for temperature of the surface, the Arctic is warming at an alarming rate; the temperature does not change uniformly over the Earth’s surface. The graphs isolated to substantiate the warming pause don’t challenge the entire body of research. They only raise questions about that particular graph, the underlying knowledge used in the construction of that graph and whether or not that graph is being presented in a way consistent with its underlying knowledge. There are also questions about that graph as a communication tool – both to convey that the climate is warming and to prove that it is not.

No doubt, the discrepancies between global-average surface temperature and the same quantity calculated from model projections require attention. The need to explain the bumps and wiggles in the global average temperature is an important scientific exercise; it is one of research elements to improve predictive skill. This was the subject of my Bumps and Wiggles Series and specifically Some Jobs for Models. From a science-based perspective, discrepancies of the type in this graph don’t threaten the body of knowledge of climate science, because they don’t represent the body of knowledge of climate change. From a science-based perspective, the discrepancies in the graph are clues for growing the body of knowledge. Any challenge to the body of knowledge comes from either a deliberate or ignorant misrepresentation of information and its implications.

What I present below is a small synthesis of some of the research that has taken place to explain the warming pause / hiatus. Here is a picture (Figure 1) of the hiatus from the Economist article.


In Figure 1, the warming pause is the leveling off of the rise in temperature after that big peak in the late 1990s, about 1998 to be precise. The blue-shaded area is the temperature taken from an ensemble of models reported in the IPCC reports.

My climate-change course does not rely on equations, but I contend that it’s solidly anchored in science-based reasoning. I broke my students into groups and I asked for an analysis of the graph in Figure 1. After about 15 minutes, they came up with a list of items that needed to be addressed. One item on the list was that given the very definition of climate as a 30-year average, did it make sense to look at a 10-year trend? Were the surface-temperature measurements distributed properly to sample the warming in the Arctic? There were even questions about the objectivity of the chart maker. These are basic questions of scientific method.

There was another line of questions about whether the sunspot cycle might have an influence and if there had been changes related to reflection from aerosols, the particles in the atmosphere that absorb and reflect energy. These are ways the energy budget might be altered. There were questions of internal variability, especially that big spike in 1998, a known large El Nino warming. Shouldn’t that variability be removed so that a trend might be more confidently isolated? Could the ocean be a buffer? Are the models expected to represent El Nino and other types of internal variability on a case-by-case basis?

These are science-based questions. They pose no challenge to entirety of the climate-science knowledge base.

If we look into the scientific literature, there is a paper by Cowtan and Way (2014), entitled “Coverage Bias in the HadCRUT4 Temperature Series and its Impact on Recent Temperature Trends.” This paper does investigate the sampling of the surface temperature observations and, indeed, there are impacts on the temperature trend. They have been underestimated. Thompson et al. (2009) wrote “Identifying Signatures of Natural Climate Variability in Time Series of Global-Mean Surface Temperature: Methodology and Insights.” In this paper, they account for El Nino, which exposes the changes in temperature due to volcanoes. After extracting these signals to reveal the trends, their conclusions include “Filtering global-mean temperature time series to remove the effects of known sources of natural variability enriches the signal of the anthropogenically induced warming over the past century. The trends in the raw and residual data for the period January 1950–March 2009 are comparable (~0.12 K / decade); but the standard deviation of the (detrended) residual data is only 2/3 as large as the standard deviation of the raw data (~0.10 versus ~0.15 K).” The uncertainty in the trends has been reduced.

The point I want to make is that there are studies focused on the scientific questions that my students raised. Many of these papers have been reported on in the blogosphere, individually touted as proof or deconstructed in isolation for their shortcomings. Collectively, they are a systematic investigation of the “pause” in warming. Collectively, they tell a coherent and convergent story of a warming planet.

In the previous two blogs, I have mentioned the paper of Trenberth and Fasullo (2013), who are following the heat of the warming earth, with the primary goal of understanding of how much heat is contributing to warming the Earth’s surface-air temperature versus how much is going to heating the ocean and melting ice and snow. Their focus is on approximately the past 15 years. Therefore, they pay attention to known ways that the atmosphere and ocean vary (Some previous Rood tutorials: Still Following the Heat and Ocean, Atmosphere, Ice and Land). Trenberth and Fasullo document the strong influence of the 1997-1998 El Nino. El Nino has a large effect on global temperature. The 1997-1998 El Nino was especially large. Trenberth and Fasullo show that the temperature in the atmosphere and oceans still remembers the 1997-1998 El Nino. They also examine the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, which is characterized by sea surface temperature differences being above (or below) average in the north-central Pacific, while they are below (or above) in the north and east Pacific near the Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska. The Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation has been in a pattern of being cooler than average in the north and east Pacific since the 1997-1998 El Nino.

In another paper focused on the Pacific Ocean, England et al. 2014 investigate an extended period of strong trade winds. These strong trade winds have kept the eastern Pacific in a sustained cool period. The Pacific is so large, that the cool surface reduces the global-average temperature. England et al. present a suggestive figure of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) and the global temperature record. (Figure 2: Top frame: Global surface temperature anomalies. Bottom frame: Pacific wind stress anomalies. From England et al., 2014) The suggested relation is that in the positive (warm eastern Pacific, +IPO in Figure) the temperatures rise rapidly. In the negative cool phase (cool eastern Pacific, -IPO), the temperature rise is halted. Note that it has not been declining. Their analysis accounts “… for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001. This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue; however, rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.”

This body of research focused on understanding the pause or hiatus in warming is quite impressive. The consistent story that is emerging is, in fact, worrisome from the point of view of planetary temperature. It is virtually certain that the warm water in the western Pacific Ocean will, once again, move into the eastern Pacific. At this time, there will be a spike in the temperature increase.

The lobby opposing climate-change science is fundamentally political. A political tactic is the deliberate, distorted misrepresentation of information and its implications. It is effectively disruptive. It is not a threat to the science-based knowledge we have of our climate. It is, however, a much deeper threat to us all.

r

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 896 - 846

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

896. weatheringpoints
2:58 PM GMT on March 04, 2014
Member Since: February 26, 2008 Posts: 13 Comments: 1986
895. Physicistretired
1:14 PM GMT on March 04, 2014
Quoting 881. QuiqsOtic:
All theories are wrong, a precious few are useful. How we define useful--in Science--is in a theory's ability to predict future events.


Greetings, Shawn!

Slow day on Spencer's blog? Or did you just think you'd dip your toes in the waters of an actual science blog to see if that stuff flies?

Allow me to fill in just one of the (many) gaps in your understanding of the 'art' of science.

All existing theories are useful, because they all have predictive capabilities. After all, that's the primary (and most important) requirement of a Scientific Theory (the absolute pinnacle of scientific understanding).

It must have predictive capabilities, and those predictions must be testable/falsifiable.

If it can't do that, then - by definition - it isn't a Theory. Period. You've learned something today.

Now, as a scientific 'religious zealot', I give you your penance for writing such complete drivel here:
Go home. Say three Hail Marys, three Our Fathers, and then flog yourself with the nearest copy of Halliday and Resnick.

Or just try actually reading it.

Quoting 881. QuiqsOtic:
This is what separates science from every other art.


The 'art' of science. Thanks for the chuckle.
Member Since: December 21, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 214
894. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
6:22 AM GMT on March 04, 2014
RickyRood has created a new entry.
893. AlwaysThinkin
5:12 AM GMT on March 04, 2014
Quoting 892. no1der:


Wow that turf is outta this world man! They outta call it ASTROTURF or something :D
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
892. no1der
3:52 AM GMT on March 04, 2014
Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 441
891. yoboi
2:58 AM GMT on March 04, 2014
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1983
890. Xulonn
2:17 AM GMT on March 04, 2014
Quoting 881. QuiqsOtic:
Baseless first post at WU - straight from the Heartland Institute School of Climate Denial Blog Activism Course
Wow - what a gish-gallop of AGW/CC denialism for a newbie's first comment. You not only have no credibility, but you destroyed your chances of ever gaining credibility here where science is the bottom line.

I like how you started by trashing Dr. Rood with a non-sequitur. Dr. Rood is quite capable of doing the math, but that does not mean that he cannot teach a class on basic climate science and AGW/CC problem solving to students with little math background.

I find it sadly amusing that you cannot differentiate between introductory lower division climate science courses and the scientists who do climate science research.

And you came here not as a skeptic or one who is interested in discussing science, but rather as a classic internet blog & forum troll.

Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1139
888. pcola57
1:13 AM GMT on March 04, 2014
Totally off topic but extremely exciting..Click HERE
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6641
886. Birthmark
12:22 AM GMT on March 04, 2014
Quoting 884. yoboi:




This is the best post I have seen here in a very long time......I hope that you will continue to post......

Well, of course you like it! It contains baseless assertions, statements of feelings, very little reality, and not a drop of science. LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5184
885. Patrap
12:06 AM GMT on March 04, 2014
O this should be rich.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125572
884. yoboi
11:58 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 881. QuiqsOtic:
All theories are wrong, a precious few are useful. How we define useful--in Science--is in a theory's ability to predict future events.

This is what separates science from every other art.

What is disturbing is science is looking more and more like religious zealotry.

The author states:
"My climate-change course does not rely on equations, but I contend that it’s solidly anchored in science-based reasoning."

I have several folks that he may want to look up--Copernicus, Galileo, DE Broglie, Einstein...

Not one of their theories was accepted by those who were using solidly anchored science until future events were predicted based on their ideas.

Over the last 15 years the models based on AGW have failed to predict future events.

This is truly part of science. Except, since the model is wrong and useless... why are politicians pushing everyone to act?

Is this really wise? To engage the body politic to make massive economic changes when the models are not predictive and we don't really know why?

I noticed that not one of the "scientific questions" actually questioned the model--just the data or how the data was collected.

Where were the questions regarding the actual model's factors: What sensitivity is associated with man-made factors which are not falling into predicted levels? What sensitivity is associated with natural factors etc...

The ony one that came close was the one about sun spots.

This is precopernican--i.e. not to question the theory but the data surrounding because the theory cannot be questioned.

What I find offensive--and it is offensive--is that you claim politics is the fundamental concern of skeptics.

it would not be if the adherents were not pushing political solutions for a useless set of models.

I'm not a politician, but I am skeptical of any theory where the proof is: "my white lab coat posse agrees with me." followed up by "you are a [explicative inserted here] if you don't agree with me and my posse."

You can have 100 out of 100 people in the body politic agree with your theory but if nature does not agree with you (as is clearly the case in the last 15 years...) and you stubbornly adhere to the body politic... and push politcal solutions you are not practicing science.




This is the best post I have seen here in a very long time......I hope that you will continue to post......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1983
883. Neapolitan
11:15 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 881. QuiqsOtic:
All theories are wrong, a precious few are useful. How we define useful--in Science--is in a theory's ability to predict future events.

This is what separates science from every other art.

What is disturbing is science is looking more and more like religious zealotry.

The author states:
"My climate-change course does not rely on equations, but I contend that it’s solidly anchored in science-based reasoning."

I have several folks that he may want to look up--Copernicus, Galileo, DE Broglie, Einstein...

Not one of their theories was accepted by those who were using solidly anchored science until future events were predicted based on their ideas.

Over the last 15 years the models based on AGW have failed to predict future events.

This is truly part of science. Except, since the model is wrong and useless... why are politicians pushing everyone to act?

Is this really wise? To engage the body politic to make massive economic changes when the models are not predictive and we don't really know why?

I noticed that not one of the "scientific questions" actually questioned the model--just the data or how the data was collected.

Where were the questions regarding the actual model's factors: What sensitivity is associated with man-made factors which are not falling into predicted levels? What sensitivity is associated with natural factors etc...

The ony one that came close was the one about sun spots.

This is precopernican--i.e. not to question the theory but the data surrounding because the theory cannot be questioned.

What I find offensive--and it is offensive--is that you claim politics is the fundamental concern of skeptics.

it would not be if the adherents were not pushing political solutions for a useless set of models.

I'm not a politician, but I am skeptical of any theory where the proof is: "my white lab coat posse agrees with me." followed up by "you are a [explicative inserted here] if you don't agree with me and my posse."

You can have 100 out of 100 people in the body politic agree with your theory but if nature does not agree with you (as is clearly the case in the last 15 years...) and you stubbornly adhere to the body politic... and push politcal solutions you are not practicing science.
No. Just, no.

Your lengthy first comment reads like--I mean, exactly like--something from Joanne Nova's website: all muted and not-so-muted insults, anti-science nonsense, debunked blather, ideological-based silliness, and plain old denial.

Sigh...

Most of us here treat curious and polite, if misguided, newcomers with politeness of our own. But you've waded in here, accused the blog's author--and most climate scientists--of "religious zealotry"; you've attempted to perpetuate the lie that the planet hasn't warmed for "15 years"; you've attempted to perpetuate the Soon-ian nonsense about "sun spots" being the only valid factor in global temperature swings; you've downplayed the overwhelming scientific consensus behind climate change theory; you've stated that evil climate scientists are out to take away all your money. And then you've closed by claiming offense at those who consider you and others of your ilk politically-based.

Indeed.

Just a suggestion: I believe you'll quickly discover that such talk will likely have a difficult time finding purchase here. Oh, you'll doubtless find a few fellow traveler willing to latch onto your every syllable. But I think you'll find those to be the exception...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13268
882. Birthmark
11:02 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 881. QuiqsOtic:
Over the last 15 years the models based on AGW have failed to predict future events.


That is, in fact, wrong.



Of course, surface air temperature is just one measure of AGW. Sea level rise has proceeded near the top of the model projections. Arctic sea ice has crashed faster than almost all model projections.

The rest of your post appears to be largely a product of imagination and beliefs.

You might also want to ponder this.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5184
881. QuiqsOtic
10:51 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
All theories are wrong, a precious few are useful. How we define useful--in Science--is in a theory's ability to predict future events.

This is what separates science from every other art.

What is disturbing is science is looking more and more like religious zealotry.

The author states:
"My climate-change course does not rely on equations, but I contend that it’s solidly anchored in science-based reasoning."

I have several folks that he may want to look up--Copernicus, Galileo, DE Broglie, Einstein...

Not one of their theories was accepted by those who were using solidly anchored science until future events were predicted based on their ideas.

Over the last 15 years the models based on AGW have failed to predict future events.

This is truly part of science. Except, since the model is wrong and useless... why are politicians pushing everyone to act?

Is this really wise? To engage the body politic to make massive economic changes when the models are not predictive and we don't really know why?

I noticed that not one of the "scientific questions" actually questioned the model--just the data or how the data was collected.

Where were the questions regarding the actual model's factors: What sensitivity is associated with man-made factors which are not falling into predicted levels? What sensitivity is associated with natural factors etc...

The ony one that came close was the one about sun spots.

This is precopernican--i.e. not to question the theory but the data surrounding because the theory cannot be questioned.

What I find offensive--and it is offensive--is that you claim politics is the fundamental concern of skeptics.

it would not be if the adherents were not pushing political solutions for a useless set of models.

I'm not a politician, but I am skeptical of any theory where the proof is: "my white lab coat posse agrees with me." followed up by "you are a [explicative inserted here] if you don't agree with me and my posse."

You can have 100 out of 100 people in the body politic agree with your theory but if nature does not agree with you (as is clearly the case in the last 15 years...) and you stubbornly adhere to the body politic... and push politcal solutions you are not practicing science.
Member Since: March 3, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
880. Neapolitan
9:28 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 876. Birthmark:
I don't know if this has been posted previously. It's a very good read.

Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
Climate Progress is on it.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13268
879. FLwolverine
8:49 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 866. Physicistretired:
After spending a month in Fargo (I mean Wisconsin), my East Coast town felt downright warm.

Until today.

And I really felt like grousing about that, until I saw this.

Now all I need to do is find a big plastic ring. Because that really does look like fun.
Ah, but you need to be able to fly back up to the top!
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1895
878. barbamz
8:36 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
So the mild winter at least is good for something ... Imagine storages were very low - sure political voice from Europe would be much more timid right now ;-)

Ukraine crisis: Europe's stored gas high as prices soar
BBC, 3 March 2014 Last updated at 14:40 GMT
Gas and oil prices have risen amid fears the Ukraine crisis could have a damaging effect on one of Europe's main energy supply routes.
But analysts say high European gas stocks will limit the turbulence.
Gas futures climbed by up to 10% in early trading, while the benchmark price for oil rose by more than 2%.
Traders are worried about the stability of supplies from Russia, which provides a quarter of Europe's natural gas, half of it through Ukraine.
However, a relatively mild winter has reduced demand for heating fuel, with storage levels at the main gas hubs about 20% greater than last year.
In Germany, Europe's biggest gas consumer and Russia's largest customer, stocks are at more than 60% of capacity, capable of satisfying 60 days of demand.

Russian reliance?
Russia is Europe's biggest supplier of natural gas, but the continent has been weaning itself off dependence on its neighbour for the last decade.
It now imports less than 30% of its natural gas from Russia, compared with 45% in 2003, according to European Union statistics.
Europe is also less reliant on the Ukraine link, with improved gas infrastructure now meaning supplies could go via alternative routes in the event of disruption. ...

Whole article see link above.

Gazprom says Europe to depend more on Russian gas in years to come
Reuters, by Dmitry Zhdannikov, LONDON, March 3 Mon Mar 3, 2014 10:28am EST

----------------------


Source: This Is The Gas Pipeline Map That Shows Why The Crisis In Ukraine Affects All Of Europe
Michael Kelley Tomorrow at 2:10 AM
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 43 Comments: 5020
877. yonzabam
8:33 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 876. Birthmark:
I don't know if this has been posted previously. It's a very good read.

Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr


Anyone who doubts that AGW will result in more droughts (and floods) is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. It's a logical certainty, irrespective of what any analysis of current trends shows.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2421
876. Birthmark
8:23 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
I don't know if this has been posted previously. It's a very good read.

Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5184
875. pintada
8:17 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 854. no1der:
Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost

"Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification and an increase in global temperature of about 5deg C within a few thousand years. [...]  Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate-ecosystem-soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. [...] A mechanism linking Earth's orbital properties with release of soil carbon from permafrost provides a unifying model accounting for the salient features of the hyper thermals."

Some of the content of this Nature Letter may be found in this Skeptical Science document:

DeConto et al: Thawing permafrost drove the PETM extreme heat event 

"Sudden spikes in global temperatures that occurred 50-55 million years ago were caused by thawing of permafrost in Antarctica and northern high latitudes, according to recent research. The trigger for this sudden destabilization was a variation in orbital configurations that resulted in warmer polar summers. This model also provides an analogue for the releases of carbon from modern permafrost caused by current man-made global warming. Modern permafrost volumes are smaller than the estimates for those of 55 million years ago, but will nevertheless amplify the climatic effect of fossil fuel consumption and will provide continuing warming feedbacks for centuries after human emissions cease."

[Repeat: "after human emissions cease."]


I always wondered what people meant by "bridge fuel", or "bridge technology" when they referred to fracing. Now I get it. It is a bridge to this:

The "New Scientist" article:
"Fred Pearce, The New Scientist
IF YOU thought shale gas was a nightmare, you ain't seen nothing yet. A subterranean world of previously ignored reserves is about to be opened up. These are the vast coal deposits that have proved unreachable by conventional mining, along with gas deposits around them. To the horror of anyone concerned about climate change, modern miners want to set fire to these deep coal seams and capture the gases this creates for industry and power generation. Some say this will provide energy security for generations to come. Others warn that it is a whole new way to fry the planet.

A primitive version of the technology behind this Dantean inferno of underground coal gasification (UCG) has already been running for 50 years in the former Soviet republic of Uzbekistan. Some 300 metres beneath the plains east of Tashkent, Stalin's engineers and their successors have been burning a seam of brown coal that can't be mined conventionally. There are two well heads on the surface: one pumps air down to fan the flames while the other retrieves a million cubic metres of combustion gases a day. Scrubbed of coal dust, cooled and compressed on site, the gases are then sent down a pipeline that snakes across the countryside to a sprawling power station on the outskirts of the industrial town of Angren, where they are burned to generate electricity.

A deadbeat town in a forgotten rust-belt backwater of the former Soviet Union is an unlikely test bed for a cutting-edge technology. But if it can be scaled up successfully, the Australian engineers who bought the operation seven years ago think it could transform the world's energy markets, open up trillions of tonnes of unmineable coal and provide a new carbon-based energy source that could last a thousand years.

With trials of UCG under way globally from China to Queensland, and South Africa to Canada, the stakes are high. Not least for the atmosphere. Without a way to capture all the carbon and store it out of harm's way, it could raise the world's temperature by 10 degrees or more. Is this burning desire for fossil fuel pushing us towards disaster?...
(13 February 2014)

Yup. Easy-peezy we can keep the economy growing well into the next century! Hurray! Think the above is overblown?

The Chinese are installing "clean coal" technology.

Makes me want to head right down to WalMart and do my patriotic buying to keep the economy growing.
Member Since: July 15, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 218
874. barbamz
8:07 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Tim Cook to Climate Change Deniers: Get Out of Apple Stock
Mashable, March 1, 2014
Apple CEO Tim Cook has not been known for taking a strong stand on, well, just about anything. Caution has been the watchword of Cook's three-year tenure at the top of the world's wealthiest technology company. So far his legacy is largely comprised of incremental improvements in established products, tweaks to the supply chain, and more corporate transparency.
But Cook does care about the environment — and that became very clear on Friday, when the CEO had a terse exchange with an anti-environmental lobbying group. ...
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 43 Comments: 5020
873. CuriousAboutClimate
8:04 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 867. yoboi:


yoboi, do you think there's only one hemisphere?


and for perspective





net = -0.391
Member Since: January 28, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 114
872. Patrap
7:39 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Monsanto Linked to Deaths of Thousands of Farmers
Monday, March 3, 2014


Farmers in developing countries are dying in their thousands from a mysterious kidney disorder, which has been termed as "Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology" (CKDu).

The disease is running rife through farmers from the rice paddy regions of Sri Lanka, and in El Salavdor, it is the second leading cause of death among male adults, posing a greater risk to health there than diabetes, AIDS, and leukemia combined. A new study has now linked the unexplained deaths to the use of a herbicide patented by the giant biochemical company, Monsanto.

The CKDu originally manifested in Sri Lanka a couple of decades ago, and has spread rapidly throughout the country's farming communities where it now affects up to fifteen per cent of adults. Over the years, 400,000 people have been affected and 20,000 have died from the disease. The Sri Lankan Ministry of Health reported that the condition did not appear to follow risk factors normally associated with chronic kidney diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension or kidney inflammation.

The recent study, which was published in the Swiss-based International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, may now be able to explain how the CKDu develops: it has suggested that a widely used glyphosate-based herbicide can become a fatal brew once it is combined with the metals often contained in hard water or soil, and that the resulting toxic compounds can destroy kidney tissue.

Soil can contain metals such as arsenic and cadmium, and the metal content of hard water can be made up of many different elements, including calcium, magnesium, strontium, and iron. The study states that glyphosate, a molecule patented as a herbicide by Monsanto in the 1970s, can form “strong complexes with metal ions,” complexes that are capable of retaining nephrotoxic metals and delivering them to the kidney. Glyphosate is an toxic molecule in its own right, but is not harmful enough to cause the type of deleterious effect on kidney tissue observed in CKDu. Combined with other metal elements, however, it appears to become a deadly poison. The herbicide, known commercially as "Roundup," can be easily ingested via consumption of contaminated hard water, in food, or through the skin. The findings of the study, which was conducted by Channa Jayasumana (Rajarata University, Sri Lanka), Sarath Gunatilake (California State University, USA) and Priyantha Senanayake (Hela Suwaya Organization, Sri Lanka), indicated that up to 96 per cent of patients had consumed “hard or very hard water for at least five years, from wells that receive their supply from shallow regolith aquifers.”

"The phosphorous atom in the phosphonic group in the glyphosate/AMPA molecule can possibly be replaced by As (Arsenic)," an excerpt from the study explained. "Following dermal and respiratory absorption of glyphosate, it can form complexes with nephrotoxic metals and As derived from rice, vegetables and tobacco within the circulation."

Glyphosate-metal complexes (GMCs) are not evacuated via normal liver’s detoxification process, and the researchers believe that the toxic complexes may accumulate in the body over a long period of time, so that it could take many years before signs of the CKDu are observed in affected individuals. This hypothesis is based on the fact that agrochemicals have been used in the affected areas since the 1970s, but the CKDu did not begin to afflict the population until the 1990s.

The spread of the disease is thought to be due to the fact that glyphosate is easily ingested through a variety of different means, and also because, once it has reacted to form hard complexes, its half-life can increase from 47 days up to 22 years. This means that it can potentially accumulate in increasingly large amounts, multiplying the risk of exposure, a fact of even greater concern when one considers that it is used in copious quantities throughout countries like Sri Lanka.

The researchers noted that Roundup is used alongside triple-super-phosphate (TSP) fertilizer which contains arsenic and heavy metals.

"...Within a couple of weeks after the spraying of glyphosate farmers apply triple phosphate (TSP) to the paddy fields," said the authors. "Recent findings have shown that the TSP available in Sri Lanka is contaminated with significant amounts of Cd (Cadmium), Cr (Cromium), Ni (Nickel) and Pb (lead). Furthermore, it was also found that TSP used in Sri Lanka is a very rich source of arsenic."

According to the study, even the World Health Organisation had associated the CKDu with arsenic, cadmium and pesticide contamination, along with hard water consumption. It also proposed that other outbreaks of kidney disorders in Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Andra Pradesh in India, could also be attributed to the use of Roundup.

A series of articles published in the journal Science last year claimed that developing countries need stronger pesticide regulation, and an international body to carry out regular pesticide safety assessments. The special report suggested that new technologies must be developed in order to make pesticides safer, ultimately producing crops that will not require pesticides at all.

Jeffery Dangl, a biology professor at the University of North Carolina, United States, and his colleagues, revealed advances in the understanding of plant immune systems and DNA sequencing that have allowed the production of crops that are less susceptible to pests and disease.

"We lose 20 to 30 per cent of our global food supply to pests and pathogens every year," Dangl told SciDev.Net. "If you reduce plant diseases and recover that, you could feed 20 to 30 per cent more calories to people."

The research could potentially have the greatest impact in developing countries, where currently there is poor regulation of pesticide use.

"One often sees farmers throwing chemicals on their plants, using their hands, and without proper clothing, and they often use fungicides and pesticides that are no longer allowed in the developed world," explained Dangl. "There's poor regulation and poor administration of the regulation."

Reducing contamination of the environment and food by pesticides would seem to be a very positive step forward in farming, though engineering such pesticide-resistant crops would surely require some genetic modification to achieve that result. This fact that could prove to be an emotive issue for those opposed to GM foods, an issue that has provoked strong reactions over the past few decades.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125572
871. Neapolitan
7:25 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 870. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Yeah. Like that's the problem! It is almost as if you would run 50 miles to point out that the garbage collector dropped a napkin on the ground! That is very disingenuous of you, Yoboi!
Yeah, he's just engaging in the typical, attention-starved, childish Whac-A-Mole denialism. You know:

"It's the sun!"

Whack!!!

"But Al Gore is rich!"

Whack!!!

"But Spencer says you're Nazis!!!"

Whack!!!

"But it was cold last night in Ypsilanti, Michigan!"

Whack!!!

"But the protestors left behind some garbage!!!"

Whack!!!

"But it's the..."

Whack!!! Whack!!! WHACK-WHACK-WHACK-WHACK-WHACK!!!

And just like the actual carnival game, it's only fun and fulfilling for a little while. Eventually it becomes tiresome beyond belief hitting the same exact plastic rodents popping up in the same exact manner from the same exact holes over and over and over again. It's no longer a challenge, then; it's just dumb, pointless tedium. And that's why I finally unplugged him.

I don't miss it. Not at all.

wam
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13268
870. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:03 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 817. yoboi:



I hope this time they pick up their litter instead of leaving it on the ground.....


Yeah. Like that's the problem! It is almost as if you would run 50 miles to point out that the garbage collector dropped a napkin on the ground! That is very disingenuous of you, Yoboi!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
869. Naga5000
5:41 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 867. yoboi:


Context is your friend. Link It's amazing what a better understanding of our warming world you will get if you look beyond WUWT and actually look to the science and see WHY the observations are what they are.

You are failing science class, Yoboi.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2682
868. Xandra
5:26 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
XL Dissent: 398 Youth Arrested at Anti-Keystone XL Pipeline Protest at White House

Published on March 3, 2014

http://www.democracynow.org - On Sunday, 398 opponents of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline were arrested in front of the White House in what could be the largest youth sit-in on the environment in a generation. Students from more than 80 colleges rallied at Georgetown University and then marched to the White House, wearing mock "hazmat suits" and holding banners with slogans like "Keep your oil out of my soil" and "Even Voldemort Hates Tar Sands." President Obama is expected to issue a decision in the next few months on the pipeline, which would transport 830,000 barrels of crude every day from Alberta's oil sands to refineries on the U.S. gulf coast. We speak to American University student Deirdre Shelly about why she was arrested on Sunday and the growing student-led movement to convince universities, colleges and cities to divest from fossil fuel companies.

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1225
867. yoboi
5:23 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1983
866. Physicistretired
3:49 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
After spending a month in Fargo (I mean Wisconsin), my East Coast town felt downright warm.

Until today.

And I really felt like grousing about that, until I saw this.

Now all I need to do is find a big plastic ring. Because that really does look like fun.
Member Since: December 21, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 214
865. pcola57
3:32 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6641
864. pcola57
3:21 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
From Union of Concerned Scientist..
Tricks of the Trade

How companies anonymously influence climate policy through their business and trade associations


Excerpt:

Holding member companies accountable for the activities of their associations is not easy. As tax-exempt non-profit organizations, trade associations are not required to publicly list their membership or boards of directors—and member companies can take advantage of limited corporate-disclosure laws to engage in political activities through trade associations without much scrutiny from government, investors, or the public.
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6641
862. Xulonn
1:48 PM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 857. Birthmark:
The Mammoth Cometh was a very interesting read, though it mostly was about "de-extincting" the Passenger Pigeon.
However, both projects are similar to individuals working hard to reduce their carbon footprint. De-extincting is only a feel-good set of projects that are interesting science, but do little to help the global extinction trend.

If a thousand species go extinct during the time it takes to resurrect one famous and beloved species - at a huge cost and effort - it doesn't change the downward trend.

De-extinction is an admirable goal, and certainly involves cutting-edge science, but it won't stop the mass extinction event that is now under way when one considers geological time frames and the current rate of the loss of species.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1139
861. FLwolverine
11:40 AM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 860. Astrometeor:
Is 17 years of age "old enough"?

*Desperately wishes for a "yes".*
Sadly, I doubt it.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1895
860. Astrometeor
7:05 AM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 859. Birthmark:

It's only slightly terrifying. But I'm old enough that unless it happens very quickly...well, it probably doesn't apply to me.


Is 17 years of age "old enough"?

*Desperately wishes for a "yes".*
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 79 Comments: 8252
859. Birthmark
5:15 AM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 858. no1der:
This means that in the right configuration of continents and carbon stores, Earth was able to cough up a hairball like the PETM triggered by orbital forcing alone

And we're about to find out what happens when you push that system orders of magnitude faster. The geological record doesn't tell us that.



It's only slightly terrifying. But I'm old enough that unless it happens very quickly...well, it probably doesn't apply to me.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5184
858. no1der
4:43 AM GMT on March 03, 2014
This means that in the right configuration of continents and carbon stores, Earth was able to cough up a hairball like the PETM triggered by orbital forcing alone

And we're about to find out what happens when you push that system orders of magnitude faster. The geological record doesn't tell us that.

Quoting 855. Birthmark:


Things that make you say un-postable words. Their hypothesis seems plausible.

Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 441
857. Birthmark
4:11 AM GMT on March 03, 2014
The Mammoth Cometh was a very interesting read, though it mostly was about "de-extincting" the Passenger Pigeon.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5184
855. Birthmark
3:20 AM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 854. no1der:
Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost


DeConto et al: Thawing permafrost drove the PETM extreme heat event



Things that make you say un-postable words. Their hypothesis seems plausible.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5184
854. no1der
3:08 AM GMT on March 03, 2014
Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost

"Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification and an increase in global temperature of about 5deg C within a few thousand years. [...]  Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate-ecosystem-soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. [...] A mechanism linking Earth's orbital properties with release of soil carbon from permafrost provides a unifying model accounting for the salient features of the hyper thermals."

Some of the content of this Nature Letter may be found in this Skeptical Science document:

DeConto et al: Thawing permafrost drove the PETM extreme heat event 

"Sudden spikes in global temperatures that occurred 50-55 million years ago were caused by thawing of permafrost in Antarctica and northern high latitudes, according to recent research. The trigger for this sudden destabilization was a variation in orbital configurations that resulted in warmer polar summers. This model also provides an analogue for the releases of carbon from modern permafrost caused by current man-made global warming. Modern permafrost volumes are smaller than the estimates for those of 55 million years ago, but will nevertheless amplify the climatic effect of fossil fuel consumption and will provide continuing warming feedbacks for centuries after human emissions cease."

[Repeat: "after human emissions cease."]
Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 441
853. Creideiki
2:30 AM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 852. FLwolverine:
And therefore .... what?


Don't you know? It's cold in Minnesota. Therefore it can't be cold anywhere. Are you as shocked as I am?

I know that even if the Arctic melts completely in the summers, it will probably be a while before it becomes a beach resort for February vacationers.
Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 151
852. FLwolverine
1:59 AM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 849. overwash12:
Yeah,but have you ever gone swimming in lake Superior? In August,it might hit 54 degrees!
And therefore .... what?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1895
851. ScottLincoln
1:44 AM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 849. overwash12:
Yeah,but have you ever gone swimming in lake Superior? In August,it might hit 54 degrees!

I've swam (waded more like it) in the northshore Superior waters when it was in the mid 60s or so. Only gets there for a brief period in late August, especially right at the shore where it is shallow, after several sunny days with light winds.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2874
850. Creideiki
1:36 AM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 849. overwash12:
Yeah,but have you ever gone swimming in lake Superior? In August,it might hit 54 degrees!


I grew up on the shore of Lake Michigan. I swam on both the Michigan and Illinois shores. It warms up pretty quickly.
Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 151
849. overwash12
12:48 AM GMT on March 03, 2014
Quoting 846. Neapolitan:
The Great Lakes have some thick ice, that's for sure. Of course, it will melt--every speck of it--under summer's relentless heat and sun as it does every year. The question is this: will the Arctic ice melt before the GL ice?
Yeah,but have you ever gone swimming in lake Superior? In August,it might hit 54 degrees!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1437
848. JohnLonergan
11:50 PM GMT on March 02, 2014
From the



Cause and Effect, by Scott Denning
Why are scientists so confident that a business as usual future based on fossil fuels will lead to major changes in the Earth%u2019s climate? Because we seek to understand climate in terms of cause and effect.

A very common misconception about climate change is that projections of future warming are based on extrapolation of recent warming trends. This misconception is fed by media reporting: both %u201Cfourth warmest January on record%u201D and %u201Cglobal warming pause%u201D narratives suggest that we%u2019re waiting with bated breath to see what the climate will do, and whether emerging trends can be understood. Even well-intentioned science outreach often starts off with a graph showing rising temperatures as if this is the basis for our understanding and prediction.

But our expectations of future warming are not based on extrapolation of recent trends. Rather, we expect climate to be warmer in the future than in the past because we know that greenhouse gases absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. As people around the world burn more and more fossil fuels, concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, so that solar energy accumulates under the extra absorbing gas. Scientists expect accumulating heat to cause warming temperatures because we know that when we add heat to things, they change their temperatures.

Earth%u2019s climate results from a balance of energy flows into the planet (from the Sun) and out of the planet (by thermal infrared radiation) back to space. If more energy flows in than flows out, the Earth warms up. If more flows out than flows in, it cools off. This %u201Ccause and effect%u201D framework is completely consistent with our everyday experience. ...

Read more ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2744
847. Birthmark
11:40 PM GMT on March 02, 2014
Let's take a comprehensive look at the Arctic sea ice. We'll start with the anomaly of the volume of Arctic sea ice:
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Looks like the downward trend is continuing there.

Okay, let's see just how thick the ice is on average:
Image and video hosting by TinyPic">
It is a bit thicker. Eyeballing it, I make it ~10cm or ~4 inches thicker than in 2012. Not much to get excited about.

Putting that into a somewhat more meaningful graph, we can see that Arctic sea ice extent is riding that 2-sigma low anomaly pretty closely.

Looking at extent for yesterday, we can see that the extent is much below the median extent:


Anyone who can look at all of that and convince themselves of anything other than the fact that Arctic sea ice is in trouble has an outstanding imagination.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5184
846. Neapolitan
11:23 PM GMT on March 02, 2014
Quoting 844. iceagecoming:
Great Lakes Sees Thick Ice, Busy Ice Breakers
UPDATED:
Tuesday, January 7, 2014, 10:51am
By
Mike Simonson


With ice clogging the upper Great Lakes, some ships are stuck, another one shutdown for the winter, and then... there's the little tug that could.
The Coast Guard at the Soo Locks in Sault St. Marie, located in eastern Lake Superior, was busy yesterday. Dispatcher Mark Dobson couldn't talk much. He was on the radio with two ice breakers trying to free vessels. “It's that point in the year that everything's freezing in. So it's just a matter of wait and see who gets stuck and go get 'em. That's the kind of game we're playing.”
Another Coast Guard dispatcher at the Soo says they freed three ships Monday. He called this ice significantly worse than other years.
The Madeline Island Ferry shut down last Friday. Considering they didn't lay-off at all in 2012, Ferry vice-President Robin Trinco-Russell says it's an early shutdown. She says ice on the two miles of Lake Superior to Bayfield is up to a foot thick. Conditions, she says, are severe. “You can barely see the mainland. Right now I can't see the mainland. It's blowing snow. It looks like the Arctic.”
Duluth-Superior tugboat Captain Mike Ojaard says the ice is the worst he's seen and keeps getting thicker. “One ice chunk touches another and it just keeps building down: some areas it's as much as five feet thick. It's the toughest winter that I've seen in my 68 years.”

The Great Lakes have some thick ice, that's for sure. Of course, it will melt--every speck of it--under summer's relentless heat and sun as it does every year. The question is this: will the Arctic ice melt before the GL ice?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13268

Viewing: 896 - 846

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.