quote:

What I'd be interested to see is a graph that shows the hadcrut3 global average temperature from 1880 ish but with the theoretical temperature rise due to CO2 rise removed from it. Does such a graph exist?

Page 121 (FAQ9.2) of the IPCC AR4 Technical Summary shows a plot of model results with and without greenhouse gas forcings. Actually, it's a large document, so a quicker download is the Summary for Policy makers, where the plot is on page 11 (Figure SPM 4). The observations are plotted on it rather roughly- it's not HadCRUT3.

ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

quote:

Steve_M, do you know whether Hadley or others have factored in the permafrost methane into the prediction models?

The IPCC scenarios do not include either permafrost methane or carbon cycle feedbacks.

Studies of these impacts are done separately, but they do not assess the impacts in detail, partly because noone knows when or if it will be released and how quickly. If a prediction for the amount of methane were available, I think the quick answer would be to calculate the additional radiative forcing it has and estimate the warming from that.

There is probably something in the Lynas 6 degrees book that realprimate says he's read recently.

From Lucibee

quote:

Did anyone see the Earth: Power of the Planet episode 2 on the atmosphere? Loved the bit where Iain Stewart gets a bit singed while setting fire to the methane beneath the permafrost!

No he did not. He flared off some of the trapped Methane from below the ice cover. Methane most certainly from the decaying plant/animal material in the lake bottom.
Good televisual material, but irrelevant to the point he was trying to make.

So are you saying that increasing temperatures won't lead to an increase in methane released from melting permafrost, or that the permafrost won't melt, or that somehow a lake that has been frozen for thousands of years is not relevant?

quote:

From Luciebee
So are you saying that increasing temperatures won't lead to an increase in methane released from melting permafrost, or that the permafrost won't melt, or that somehow a lake that has been frozen for thousands of years is not relevant?

The third attempt to get past the thought police. Let me direct you to the publication by G Delisle 2007 in Geophysical Research Letters 34 in a paper titled near surface permafrost degradation:How severe during the 21st Century?

In this publication Delisle notes in the abstract that scenarios calling for massive release of methane in the near future from degrading permafrost are questionable. In his/her view the continuous permafrost in Alaska and Siberia will survive over the next 100 years even if there is the proposed rise in climatic temperature.
Further it is noted that there does not appear to be methane peaks present in the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores during the Holocene Climatic Maximum or Medieval Warm Period that would suggest a massive release from degrading permafrost.

So in answer to your question, yes it is not relevant. And are you sure the lake has been frozen for thousands of years?

Steve_M

quote:

Page 121 (FAQ9.2) of the IPCC AR4

Thanks Steve but not what I was looking for as it bundles the other anthropic forcers like aerosols together with CO2.

Lucibee.

I concur!

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Thanks Steve but not what I was looking for as it bundles the other anthropic forcers like aerosols together with CO2.

I don't think I've ever seen a plot from a model with everything except CO2. I think I've seen plots with everything except solar and everything except aerosols, but not what you ask. I imagine it would get warmer in the first few decades of 20th century as solar increases and volcanoes decrease, then will get steadily cooler as aerosols build up and the sun levels off.

quote:

In this publication Delisle notes in the abstract that scenarios calling for massive release of methane in the near future from degrading permafrost are questionable. In his/her view the continuous permafrost in Alaska and Siberia will survive over the next 100 years even if there is the proposed rise in climatic temperature.
Further it is noted that there does not appear to be methane peaks present in the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores during the Holocene Climatic Maximum or Medieval Warm Period that would suggest a massive release from degrading permafrost.

I can't find any publications that back up Delisle's opinions that methane release is irrelevant to the climate. Also, as far as I can tell (though I don't have a subscription to Geophys Letts to see the whole article) he (Georg) is saying that he doesn't think that the entire permafrost region will degrade over the next 100 years. But the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas means that the permafrost doesn't need to disappear entirely for there to be serious consequences for the climate.

Walter et al in Nature 2006; 443(7107):71-5 - Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming - take a different stance, which seems to be backed up by other studies, and by the televisual evidence I linked to! They estimate that thaw lake volumes have increased over the past 30-40 years, and that present levels of methane emission are underestimates. They also think that the historical record does indicate a positive feedback effect of methane on climate.

I'm not surprised there aren't methane gas peaks in the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores, when the permafrost layers themselves are to be found in Siberia and Alaska, since methane itself is highly reactive in the atmosphere, and probably only exists in abundance near to where it is formed.

That methane is released as the permafrost melts is not under dispute here. We need more research to see how fast and what potential impact this could have, but to say that it is irrelevant I think is incorrect.

Steve_M

quote:

I don't think I've ever seen a plot from a model with everything except CO2. I think I've seen plots with everything except solar and everything except aerosols, but not what you ask. I imagine it would get warmer in the first few decades of 20th century as solar increases and volcanoes decrease, then will get steadily cooler as aerosols build up and the sun levels off.

Strange because if one was trying to get across what an impact CO2 increase was having that would be a very useful graphic....I assume.

The paper seemed to be a test, using models, of the possibility of very large scale releases as opposed to providing an estimate of likely releases, and concluded that this century the permafrost was definitely safe north of 70 degrees and won't melt deep enough north of 60 degrees.

quote:

I'm not surprised there aren't methane gas peaks in the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores, when the permafrost layers themselves are to be found in Siberia and Alaska, since methane itself is highly reactive in the atmosphere, and probably only exists in abundance near to where it is formed.

Of the top of my head, methane has a 10-15 year lifetime in the atmosphere, so one would expect large scale methane releases in the northern hemisphere to be reflected in the southern hemisphere - if the release is slow enough not to show up it is also slow enough not to be a big contributor to warming.

On the other hand, the northern hemisphere temperatures in the MWP are at best likely to be less than they are now, and definitely less than it could be later this century. The temperatures in the Holocene Optimum may have been higher during summer, but they could also have been lower during winter which, I guess, means the impact on the permafrost may be different to the future when it may be warmer in both summer and winter. The paper indicates that neither scenario has been modelled.

quote:

Strange because if one was trying to get across what an impact CO2 increase was having that would be a very useful graphic....I assume.

But it could be regarded as dishonest and unrealistic to exclude warming anthropogenic influences and include cooling anthropogenic influences as well as giving the incorrect implication that CO2 is preventing the earth from entering a new little ice age.

After many failed attempts to answer this (the infamous Internal Server error), I'll try once again to answer this.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo Nithic:
Well, can you list the organisms on this planet that have been responsible for climate changes over Earth's long history that have either been advantageous or have led to massive extinctions, as your mate, (I say mate since you are taking the trouble to answer for him/her), Lucibee asserts?

I don't understand your point. Lucibee was merely alluding to the fact that we are the first organism on this planet to be able to alter the climate and know we are doing it. As such we can indeed hasten our own extinction.

quote:

Well, here on planet Earth we have Environmental Campaigners, sometimes known as Greens, the Eco-lobby, etc. Are there no such people on your planet?

On my planet we have green/eco campaigners who have little real effect. Policies they advocate are adopted not because of green campaigning but because they make sense for other practical reasons, such as recycling instead of ever-growing landfill.

On my planet we have large corporations and multinationals who have far more effect. We also have conspiracy theorists, usually right-wing for some reason, who see only "eco-nazis" wherever they look and yet are strangely blind to the influence of those with real power.

quote:

'Some'? Did you type that with a straight face? I'd estimate 99.5% pro AGW, 0.5% the other way. And who is content to live with the scare stories? Yes, the scientists. If you believe there is more than 0.5% the other way, give us the evidence.

Most is simply straight reporting. I doubt that "scare stories" much outnumber reporting of "sceptic" claims, but anyway, it's your claim so you produce the figures.

quote:

Politicians do not recognise the problem - they are 'advised' of the problem by the IPCC. As the IPCC will only continue to exist if there IS a problem, they are hardly likely to turn around and say otherwise!

If the problem (GW) goes away, we'll all be happy, but how will we know? I suggest an international body representing the world's climate scientists. Got a better idea?

quote:

Yes, shockingly it HAS cost £Billions, yet co2 levels continue to rise. Unlike climate scientists, the others you mention are more than likely judged by their achievements.

Again, you give a figure with no reference, but let's accept it for now. Are you blaming the continued increase in CO2 on the very people who are warning us about it? Either these people are everywhere with their propaganda (your view) or they have little ability to influence policy or public opinion. Which is it? Please also provide us with evidence of how other scientists are judged.

quote:

They are told that any development must be 'sustainable'. When requiring electricity they are left instead with feeble solar panels. They want and need to industrialise - they need power stations - fast.

I asked for evidence, not something from TGGWS. Developing nations are exempt from CO2 quotas.

quote:

I was talking of the Africans when I mentioned hardship. It's easy to say it would be 'worse in the future if we do nothing about it at all and they went up at a faster rate'. It would also be worse in the future if cows grew wings and suicidal tendencies and started dropping themselves on people. It would also be worse in the future if the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted - something of which it can be truthfully said that it WILL actually happen, unlike co2 levels increasing at a faster rate.

Your claim about Africans is unsupported.

Yes, a supervolcano would be very bad news, but what can we do? OTOH we can do something about resource usage, pollution, and CO2 output, but only if the will is there. It is certain that CO2 will rise for some time. What probability is there of Yellowstone going up in the next 50 years?

quote:

So from now until the end of eternity levels of co2 in the atmosphere will never be lower than they are now?

Again, you are misquoting me. They are unlikely to be below current levels for the rest of this century; after that, who knows?

quote:

Ten years is rather a long pause! Many times before? Do you mean in the history of the planet, or just this most recent warming scare, which is only about 20 - 30 years old?

This has been covered elsewhere.

quote:

Without a time machine you cannot possibly know if global temperature 'will rise again after this pause'.

Not with 100% certainty, no, but with very high probability, yes, based on the work of climate scientists.

How do you know it won't? Intuition? Crystal ball? Tea-leaves?

quote:

You can have a well paid job and nice lifestyle without a film-star salary. I did not assert what you say above - I felt sure anyone with intelligence would realise that I was actually pointing out that the fact that temperature has stopped increasing for ten years is NEWS! Why was it not announced by climate scientists? Why was it not on the NEWS?

Because it's not really true? Insults won't help you either.

quote:

Really? So, you have no environmental lobby on your world, and now you say you have a band of people called 'denialists', (odd name to choose for themselves), who appear to be as vocal on your world as the environmental lobby is here on Earth.

They don't call themselves that, of course, but that is what they mostly are. They certainly are vocal. We get a few here and boy do they make their views known! They will believe anything, no matter how bizarre, before they accept that CO2 is largely responsible for recent warming.

quote:

As noted above - no announcement and the story kept out of the news, so very few people HAVE noticed!

Which story is that again?

quote:

No, I don't - their behaviour is reprehensible. The key to their attitude is how they fail to react in any way to the outrageous media scare stories. If they were serious, responsible scientists they would feel duty bound to set the record straight, despite the effect it might have on their career. Instead they are content to let the general public believe that the problem and the dangers posed by it are outrageously worse than they actually are, thereby ensuring that those research grants keep coming in.

I think it would help if you gave us a specific example of an outrageous scare story that they failed to react to. In any case, how much power do you imagine scientists have over the media?

Again, you need to tell me why they wouldn't get grants for work that suggests that the problem is not real. Some already do.

quote:

I think it would help if you gave us a specific example of an outrageous scare story that they failed to react to. In any case, how much power do you imagine scientists have over the media?

I can think of three, they all happened in the last twelve months,all in Britain, all involved rain, a degree of flooding and a mention somewhere in the reporting of global warming. Not once have I heard a scientist murmur "Well actually this sort of thing happens all the time"

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
I can think of three, they all happened in the last twelve months,all in Britain, all involved rain, a degree of flooding and a mention somewhere in the reporting of global warming. Not once have I heard a scientist murmur "Well actually this sort of thing happens all the time"

But you don't listen to scientists so how would you know?

Links, please, for the 3 news items and let's see if they are actually scare stories.

my answer to the question "has global warming stopped"?

yes. we are now calling it "climate change" instead.

This is because the poor stupid people don't understand that a rainy british summer and not being able to sunbathe in the back garden, doesn't necessarily mean the planet is not warming.

was that too many double negatives?
as a poor stupid animal, i have confused myself.

quote:

But you don't listen to scientists so how would you know?

I listen to you TS and you're a scientist are you not?

quote:

Links, please, for the 3 news items and let's see if they are actually scare stories.

Hhhmmmm we have a slight problem here, try www.locallandfill.co.uk/sldc. If that doesn't work let me know and I'll ask my local dictatorship what they actually do do with my re-cycled newspapers
And yes I do re-cycle,and I did before it was made mandatory

quote:

I can think of three, they all happened in the last twelve months,all in Britain, all involved rain, a degree of flooding and a mention somewhere in the reporting of global warming. Not once have I heard a scientist murmur "Well actually this sort of thing happens all the time"

I have heard the following climate scientist's mantra many many times before:

quote:

We cannot say that [insert disastrous weather event] is caused by increased greenhouse gases. All we can say is that the theory suggests that the likelihood of such events may increase as the climate warms.

although it doesn't strictly apply to the summer floods which suggest that winters will be wetter and summers drier in the UK. As an aside though, I saw an abstract today that states that globally, precipitation has increased 7% per degree celsius in the last couple of decades, which is twice as much as the models predict (oops!).

Steve_M

quote:

But it could be regarded as dishonest and unrealistic to exclude warming anthropogenic influences and include cooling anthropogenic influences as well as giving the incorrect implication that CO2 is preventing the earth from entering a new little ice age.

Would it give such an implication? I'd have thought it would show some warming still happening because aerosols have been reducing since 1970ish. I'd be interested to see with CO2, without aerosols; with aerosols without CO2 and without both. All without worrying about what impression it may leave or should we ban all non-realistic what-ifs on the grounds that they might mislead or give the wrong impression?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

I have heard the following climate scientist's mantra many many times before:

quote:

We cannot say that [insert disastrous weather event] is caused by increased greenhouse gases. All we can say is that the theory suggests that the likelihood of such events may increase as the climate warms.

although it doesn't strictly apply to the summer floods which suggest that winters will be wetter and summers drier in the UK. As an aside though, I saw an abstract today that states that globally, precipitation has increased 7% per degree celsius in the last couple of decades, which is twice as much as the models predict (oops!).

I think the question was more on the lines of: "why aren't climate scientists taking over the media to make their real views known" (imagine guerilla takeover of TV and press).