Port Edward to receive $150 million from agreement
http://www.thenorthernview.com/news/285971451.html
http://www.thenorthernview.com/news/285971451.html
Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
GLG
Well-Known Member
[VNgqv4yVyDw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw
Published on Apr 9, 2014
SOURCES:
1:48 "Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland"
Ola M. Johannessen et al, Science November 2005
2:10 "Recent Greenland Ice Mass Loss by Drainage System from Satellite Gravity Observations" -- S. B. Luthcke, et al., Science November 2006
2:12 "Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet Satellite Gravity Measurements Confirm Accelerated Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet" --
J. L. Chen, et al., Science 2006
3:19 "Satellite gravity measurements confirm accelerated melting of Greenland ice sheet" J. Chen et al., Science, 2006
3:22 "Recent Greenland Ice Mass Loss by Drainage System from Satellite Gravity Observations" -- Luthcke et al, Science, 2006
3:24 "Lower estimates of Antarctic sea level contribution from satellite gravimetry" King et al, Nature 2012
3:26 Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling" -- Rignot et al, 2008
3:28 "Recent Contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise from GRACE"
3:30 "A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance"
Shepherd et al Science 2012
4:01 "Recent Contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise from GRACE"
4:24 "Toward prediction of environmental Arctic change"
W Maslowski, JC Kinney, J Jakacki - Computing in Science 2007
5:25 "Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise" -- WT Pfeffer et al., Science 2008
5:40 "Global sea level linked to global temperature" --
Martin Vermeer and Stefan Rahmstorf, PNAS 2009
6:10 Table adapted from "Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes"
-- R. J. Nicholls et al., OECD 2008
8:02 "Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise" -- WT Pfeffer et al., Science 2008
8:57 "Climate: Observations, projections and Impacts" -- Met Office 2013.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-g...
10:05 "Precipitation and its extremes in changed climates"
-- T. Schneider and P. A. O'Gorman, Journal of Climate 2008
11:30 "Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios" -- Parry et al, Global Environmental Change 2004
11:52 "Threats to Water Supplies in the Tropical Andes" Bradley et al., Science 2006
11:55 "Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive "Acidified" Water onto the Continental Shelf" -- Richard A. Feely, Science 2008
12:01 "Coral Reefs: Present Problems and Future Concerns Resulting from Anthropogenic Disturbance" -- RH Richmond, American Zoologist 1993
12:06 "Global Warming and Coastal Erosion" -- Zhang et al., Climatic Change
12: 08 "Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models" -- Cramer et al., Global Change Biology 2001
12:25 "The Recent Increase in Atlantic Hurricane Activity: Causes and Implications" -- Goldenberg, Science 2001
12:34 "A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents"
Petoukhov, V., and V. A. Semenov,
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, Nov 2010
14:08 I backtracked this new "CAGW" label, and it seems to have started with author Michael Crichton in 2007, but was popularized in 2010 with an opinion piece in the Washington Post.
14:42 Table adapted from "Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes"
-- R. J. Nicholls et al., OECD 2008
15:07 "Projected impacts of climate change on marine fish and fisheries"
Anne B. Hollowed
15:12 "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change" -- UK Government report, 2006
Published on Apr 9, 2014
SOURCES:
1:48 "Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland"
Ola M. Johannessen et al, Science November 2005
2:10 "Recent Greenland Ice Mass Loss by Drainage System from Satellite Gravity Observations" -- S. B. Luthcke, et al., Science November 2006
2:12 "Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet Satellite Gravity Measurements Confirm Accelerated Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet" --
J. L. Chen, et al., Science 2006
3:19 "Satellite gravity measurements confirm accelerated melting of Greenland ice sheet" J. Chen et al., Science, 2006
3:22 "Recent Greenland Ice Mass Loss by Drainage System from Satellite Gravity Observations" -- Luthcke et al, Science, 2006
3:24 "Lower estimates of Antarctic sea level contribution from satellite gravimetry" King et al, Nature 2012
3:26 Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling" -- Rignot et al, 2008
3:28 "Recent Contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise from GRACE"
3:30 "A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance"
Shepherd et al Science 2012
4:01 "Recent Contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise from GRACE"
4:24 "Toward prediction of environmental Arctic change"
W Maslowski, JC Kinney, J Jakacki - Computing in Science 2007
5:25 "Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise" -- WT Pfeffer et al., Science 2008
5:40 "Global sea level linked to global temperature" --
Martin Vermeer and Stefan Rahmstorf, PNAS 2009
6:10 Table adapted from "Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes"
-- R. J. Nicholls et al., OECD 2008
8:02 "Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise" -- WT Pfeffer et al., Science 2008
8:57 "Climate: Observations, projections and Impacts" -- Met Office 2013.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-g...
10:05 "Precipitation and its extremes in changed climates"
-- T. Schneider and P. A. O'Gorman, Journal of Climate 2008
11:30 "Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios" -- Parry et al, Global Environmental Change 2004
11:52 "Threats to Water Supplies in the Tropical Andes" Bradley et al., Science 2006
11:55 "Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive "Acidified" Water onto the Continental Shelf" -- Richard A. Feely, Science 2008
12:01 "Coral Reefs: Present Problems and Future Concerns Resulting from Anthropogenic Disturbance" -- RH Richmond, American Zoologist 1993
12:06 "Global Warming and Coastal Erosion" -- Zhang et al., Climatic Change
12: 08 "Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models" -- Cramer et al., Global Change Biology 2001
12:25 "The Recent Increase in Atlantic Hurricane Activity: Causes and Implications" -- Goldenberg, Science 2001
12:34 "A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents"
Petoukhov, V., and V. A. Semenov,
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, Nov 2010
14:08 I backtracked this new "CAGW" label, and it seems to have started with author Michael Crichton in 2007, but was popularized in 2010 with an opinion piece in the Washington Post.
14:42 Table adapted from "Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes"
-- R. J. Nicholls et al., OECD 2008
15:07 "Projected impacts of climate change on marine fish and fisheries"
Anne B. Hollowed
15:12 "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change" -- UK Government report, 2006
GLG
Well-Known Member
LOL from a website called "Stick you head where the sun don't shine.con" yup that's science from your side.... Give it up OBD your science is base on astrology. It's the sun or the stars in a pattern anything but CO2.... Why would anyone take your team serious? Bunch of less then stellar performers at the clown show.... Amateurs..... Typical...
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Its all about the oil.
A new cold war: Denmark gets aggressive, stakes huge claim in Race for the Arctic
For years, the Race for the Arctic had promised to be one of the most gentlemanly land grabs in history: Using only science and a whiff of diplomacy, the oil-rich Arctic Ocean could be peacefully divvied up between Russia, Canada, the United States and Europe.
That is, until the tiny nation of Denmark approached the United Nations on Monday with a staggering claim to nearly one third of the total prize — including the North Pole.
“It is ironic that the only country that right now could be said to be acting provocatively in the Arctic is Denmark,” said Michael Byers, the Vancouver-based author of Who Owns the Arctic? speaking to Danish media on Monday.
Canada has not yet wrapped up its final claim to areas of the Arctic Ocean now considered international waters, although it is rumoured that Ottawa’s submission will include 1.7 million square kilometres of ocean, including the North Pole. There is no definitive scientific evidence that Canada has any claim to the North Pole, but that did not stop Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander from issuing Santa Claus with Canadian citizenship last year.
On Monday, Rob Huebert at the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military and Strategic Studies called Denmark’s claim evidence that it was wrong to ever believe that the Arctic could be divvied up simply with geological data.
“I think we got sold a bill of goods,” he said. “I don’t think the Russians or the Danes, once it came up to the political leadership, ever really intended to do that.”
In its official filing to the UN’s Commission on the Limits and the Continental Shelfthe Kingdom of Denmark officially laid claim to an 895,000 square kilometer chunk of the Arctic Ocean.
Bolstered by $64-million in Arctic scientific research (some of which was carried out jointly with Canada), the Danish claim hinges on the assertion that that the Lomonosov Ridge, a massive underwater mountain range, is an extension of Greenland.
Not only does the Danish claim push right to edge of Russia’s existing Arctic boundaries, but it includes thousands of hectares of resource-rich seafloor previously claimed by Moscow.
Recent estimates put Arctic undersea oil reserves at 13 per cent of the global total of undiscovered oil, and natural gas at 30 per cent of the total.
“It doesn’t exercise self-restraint … a lot of people are surprised they went for the whole enchilada,” said Mr. Byers, speaking from a hotel room in Novosibirsk, Russia, where he is appearing for a book launch.
‘It is ironic that the only country that right now could be said to be acting provocatively in the Arctic is Denmark’
While Denmark’s science is technically correct, Mr. Byers said he expects that Moscow will react by filing an equally massive claim.
“Everyone’s going for everything they can at this stage,” he said, adding that Denmark’s no-holds-barred claim is merely posturing for future negotiations with the four other Arctic powers: Canada, Russia, Norway and the United States.
When that occurs in about 15-20 years, said Mr. Byers, Canada will likely end up with as much as half of the Danish claim.
“This process will take a lot of time and patience, one of my colleagues called it a ‘ping pong game,’” said Joël Plouffe, a fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute.
With the Danish general election only a few months away, the gargantuan claim has garnered wide political support in Denmark.
On Monday, Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard called it a “historic and important milestone,” and boasted in an interview that expanding their kingdom to the North Pole would boost the country’s “voice in the world.”
Following Russian-sponsored incursions into Ukraine, Denmark has seen a dramatic increase in Russian military patrols over the Baltic Sea in recent months, leading to a near-collision last week between a Russian jet and a Copenhagen airliner.
Johannes Nordby, an analyst with the Royal Danish Defence College, said he expects Russia’s saber-rattling to increase even further in a drive to “put pressure on Denmark” over the Arctic issue.
“I think you’re going to see some kind of overt military movements … I would not be surprised by that,” he said.
Nevertheless, Seva Gunitsky, a Russian-born political scientist at the University of Toronto, said the government of Vladimir Putin is likely going to follow the rules in its Arctic policy dealings — at least for the anticipated future.
“Russia has little to gain materially from pursuing its Arctic claims too aggressively at this point, unless the Putin government thinks they can use the conflict to bolster domestic support,” he wrote in an email to the National Post.
CORRECTION: An initial draft of this story claimed that Ottawa had “vowed” to file a 1.2 million square kilometre claim in the Arctic. The 1.2 million figure actually refers to a separate Atlantic Ocean seabed claim.
National Post, with files from the Canadian Press
• Email: thopper@nationalpost.com | Twitter:
© Copyright (c) National Post
A new cold war: Denmark gets aggressive, stakes huge claim in Race for the Arctic
For years, the Race for the Arctic had promised to be one of the most gentlemanly land grabs in history: Using only science and a whiff of diplomacy, the oil-rich Arctic Ocean could be peacefully divvied up between Russia, Canada, the United States and Europe.
That is, until the tiny nation of Denmark approached the United Nations on Monday with a staggering claim to nearly one third of the total prize — including the North Pole.
“It is ironic that the only country that right now could be said to be acting provocatively in the Arctic is Denmark,” said Michael Byers, the Vancouver-based author of Who Owns the Arctic? speaking to Danish media on Monday.
Canada has not yet wrapped up its final claim to areas of the Arctic Ocean now considered international waters, although it is rumoured that Ottawa’s submission will include 1.7 million square kilometres of ocean, including the North Pole. There is no definitive scientific evidence that Canada has any claim to the North Pole, but that did not stop Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander from issuing Santa Claus with Canadian citizenship last year.
On Monday, Rob Huebert at the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military and Strategic Studies called Denmark’s claim evidence that it was wrong to ever believe that the Arctic could be divvied up simply with geological data.
“I think we got sold a bill of goods,” he said. “I don’t think the Russians or the Danes, once it came up to the political leadership, ever really intended to do that.”
In its official filing to the UN’s Commission on the Limits and the Continental Shelfthe Kingdom of Denmark officially laid claim to an 895,000 square kilometer chunk of the Arctic Ocean.
Bolstered by $64-million in Arctic scientific research (some of which was carried out jointly with Canada), the Danish claim hinges on the assertion that that the Lomonosov Ridge, a massive underwater mountain range, is an extension of Greenland.
Not only does the Danish claim push right to edge of Russia’s existing Arctic boundaries, but it includes thousands of hectares of resource-rich seafloor previously claimed by Moscow.
Recent estimates put Arctic undersea oil reserves at 13 per cent of the global total of undiscovered oil, and natural gas at 30 per cent of the total.
“It doesn’t exercise self-restraint … a lot of people are surprised they went for the whole enchilada,” said Mr. Byers, speaking from a hotel room in Novosibirsk, Russia, where he is appearing for a book launch.
‘It is ironic that the only country that right now could be said to be acting provocatively in the Arctic is Denmark’
While Denmark’s science is technically correct, Mr. Byers said he expects that Moscow will react by filing an equally massive claim.
“Everyone’s going for everything they can at this stage,” he said, adding that Denmark’s no-holds-barred claim is merely posturing for future negotiations with the four other Arctic powers: Canada, Russia, Norway and the United States.
When that occurs in about 15-20 years, said Mr. Byers, Canada will likely end up with as much as half of the Danish claim.
“This process will take a lot of time and patience, one of my colleagues called it a ‘ping pong game,’” said Joël Plouffe, a fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute.
With the Danish general election only a few months away, the gargantuan claim has garnered wide political support in Denmark.
On Monday, Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard called it a “historic and important milestone,” and boasted in an interview that expanding their kingdom to the North Pole would boost the country’s “voice in the world.”
Following Russian-sponsored incursions into Ukraine, Denmark has seen a dramatic increase in Russian military patrols over the Baltic Sea in recent months, leading to a near-collision last week between a Russian jet and a Copenhagen airliner.
Johannes Nordby, an analyst with the Royal Danish Defence College, said he expects Russia’s saber-rattling to increase even further in a drive to “put pressure on Denmark” over the Arctic issue.
“I think you’re going to see some kind of overt military movements … I would not be surprised by that,” he said.
Nevertheless, Seva Gunitsky, a Russian-born political scientist at the University of Toronto, said the government of Vladimir Putin is likely going to follow the rules in its Arctic policy dealings — at least for the anticipated future.
“Russia has little to gain materially from pursuing its Arctic claims too aggressively at this point, unless the Putin government thinks they can use the conflict to bolster domestic support,” he wrote in an email to the National Post.
CORRECTION: An initial draft of this story claimed that Ottawa had “vowed” to file a 1.2 million square kilometre claim in the Arctic. The 1.2 million figure actually refers to a separate Atlantic Ocean seabed claim.
National Post, with files from the Canadian Press
• Email: thopper@nationalpost.com | Twitter:
© Copyright (c) National Post
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
GLG
Well-Known Member
Well how about this then....
If you can't explain the rise, then you don't know dick.....
Hint: It's CO2
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
Published on Dec 2, 2014
Visit http://science.nasa.gov/ for more.
Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are both affected by climate change, but the two poles of Earth are behaving in intriguingly different ways.
[hauoepPqns4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hauoepPqns4
Visit http://science.nasa.gov/ for more.
Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are both affected by climate change, but the two poles of Earth are behaving in intriguingly different ways.
[hauoepPqns4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hauoepPqns4
Cuomo to Ban Fracking in New York State, Citing Health Risks
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/n...-new-york-state-citing-health-risks.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/n...-new-york-state-citing-health-risks.html?_r=1
Obama Indefinitely Bans Drilling in Alaskan Bay
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/us/obama-indefinitely-bans-drilling-in-alaskan-bay.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/us/obama-indefinitely-bans-drilling-in-alaskan-bay.html?_r=1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141217074442.htm
Global carbon dioxide emissions increase to new all-time record, but growth is slowing down
Date: December 17, 2014
Source: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)
Summary:2013 saw global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and cement production reach a new all-time high. This was mainly due to the continuing steady increase in energy use in emerging economies over the past ten years. However, emissions increased at a notably slower rate (2%) than on average in the last ten years (3.8% per year since 2003, excluding the credit crunch years).
This slowdown, which began in 2012, signals a further decoupling of global emissions and economic growth, which reflects mainly the lower emissions growth rate of China. China, the USA and the EU remain the top-3 emitters of CO2, accounting for respectively 29%, 15% and 11% of the world's total. After years of a steady decline, the CO2 emissions of the United States grew by 2.5% in 2013, whereas in the EU emissions continued to decrease, by 1.4% in 2013.
These are the main findings in the annual report 'Trends in global CO2 emissions', released today by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the JRC. The report is based on recent results from the joint JRC/PBL Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), the latest statistics on energy use and various other activities.
In 2013, global CO2 emissions grew to the new record of 35.3 billion tonnes (Gt). Sharp risers include Brazil (+ 6.2%), India (+ 4.4%), China (+ 4.2%) and Indonesia (+2.3%). The much lower emissions increase in China of 4.2% in 2013 and 3.4% in 2012 was primarily due to a decline in electricity and fuel demand from the basic materials industry, and aided by an increase in renewable energy and by energy efficiency improvements. The emissions increase in the United States in 2013 (+2.5%) was mainly due to a shift in power production from gas back to coal together with an increase in gas consumption due to a higher demand for space heating.
With the present annual growth rate, China has returned to the lower annual growth rates that it experienced before its economic growth started to accelerate in 2003, when its annual CO2 emissions increased on average by 12% per year, excluding the credit crunch years. In 2013, the Chinese per capita CO2 level of 7.4 tonnes CO2/cap just exceeded the mean EU28 level of 7.3 tonnes CO2/cap, which is 50% above the global average. It is still less than half than those of the United States of 16.6 tonnes CO2/cap, which has one of the highest per capita emissions.
In terms of CO2 emissions per 1000 US$ of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), China is declining, yet still scoring high with 650 kg CO2 per 1000 US$ of GDP. In comparison, China's emissions per 1000 US$ of GDP are almost twice those of the US (330 kg CO2/1000 US$) and almost three times those of the EU (220 kg CO2/1000 US$). This is due to a relatively high, although steadily declining, energy intensity of the sectors contributing to GDP growth. China started to take new measures to improve energy efficiency and to make a fuel shift away from coal, including coal consumption targets, an increase in hydropower and structural changes.
Full report http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_...in-global-co2-emissions-2014-report-93171.pdf
Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC). Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Global carbon dioxide emissions increase to new all-time record, but growth is slowing down
Date: December 17, 2014
Source: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)
Summary:2013 saw global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and cement production reach a new all-time high. This was mainly due to the continuing steady increase in energy use in emerging economies over the past ten years. However, emissions increased at a notably slower rate (2%) than on average in the last ten years (3.8% per year since 2003, excluding the credit crunch years).
This slowdown, which began in 2012, signals a further decoupling of global emissions and economic growth, which reflects mainly the lower emissions growth rate of China. China, the USA and the EU remain the top-3 emitters of CO2, accounting for respectively 29%, 15% and 11% of the world's total. After years of a steady decline, the CO2 emissions of the United States grew by 2.5% in 2013, whereas in the EU emissions continued to decrease, by 1.4% in 2013.
These are the main findings in the annual report 'Trends in global CO2 emissions', released today by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the JRC. The report is based on recent results from the joint JRC/PBL Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), the latest statistics on energy use and various other activities.
In 2013, global CO2 emissions grew to the new record of 35.3 billion tonnes (Gt). Sharp risers include Brazil (+ 6.2%), India (+ 4.4%), China (+ 4.2%) and Indonesia (+2.3%). The much lower emissions increase in China of 4.2% in 2013 and 3.4% in 2012 was primarily due to a decline in electricity and fuel demand from the basic materials industry, and aided by an increase in renewable energy and by energy efficiency improvements. The emissions increase in the United States in 2013 (+2.5%) was mainly due to a shift in power production from gas back to coal together with an increase in gas consumption due to a higher demand for space heating.
With the present annual growth rate, China has returned to the lower annual growth rates that it experienced before its economic growth started to accelerate in 2003, when its annual CO2 emissions increased on average by 12% per year, excluding the credit crunch years. In 2013, the Chinese per capita CO2 level of 7.4 tonnes CO2/cap just exceeded the mean EU28 level of 7.3 tonnes CO2/cap, which is 50% above the global average. It is still less than half than those of the United States of 16.6 tonnes CO2/cap, which has one of the highest per capita emissions.
In terms of CO2 emissions per 1000 US$ of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), China is declining, yet still scoring high with 650 kg CO2 per 1000 US$ of GDP. In comparison, China's emissions per 1000 US$ of GDP are almost twice those of the US (330 kg CO2/1000 US$) and almost three times those of the EU (220 kg CO2/1000 US$). This is due to a relatively high, although steadily declining, energy intensity of the sectors contributing to GDP growth. China started to take new measures to improve energy efficiency and to make a fuel shift away from coal, including coal consumption targets, an increase in hydropower and structural changes.
Full report http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_...in-global-co2-emissions-2014-report-93171.pdf
Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC). Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Good news from #AGU14 ‘Arctic sea ice is holding up to global warming better than expected’
From the “no death spiral” department comes this press release made at AGU from ESA.
Arctic sea ice is holding up to global warming better than expected, according to the latest data from the CryoSat-2 satellite, a team from University College London will tell the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco.
Five_years_ice-thickness_change[1]
Arctic sea ice volumes in the autumn of 2014 are above the average set over the last five years and sharply up on the lows seen in 2011 and 2012, according to the latest satellite data.
Data from the European Space Agency (ESA) CryoSat-2 satellite to be presented to the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco later today (Monday 15 December, 2014) will show Arctic sea ice volumes in October and November 2014 averaging 10,200km3 – slightly down on the 10,900km3 reported in 2013 but sharply up on the lows seen in 2011 and 2012.
This is the second year in a row where a relatively cool Arctic summer has led to less sea ice melting than has been typical during the summers of recent years and this has resulted in thicker and older ice surviving into the autumn and winter during both 2013 and 2014.
Arctic_sea-ice_thickness_node_full_image_2
The team of researchers from University College London (UCL) who are presenting the CryoSat-2 data to the AGU Fall Meeting state in the abstract of their presentation that their data indicates “the Arctic sea ice pack may be more resilient than has been previously considered”.
The autumn 2014 volume is the second-highest since satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice thickness began in 2010, and the data shows that “the five-year average is relatively stable”, according to ESA.
This news comes as the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported that Arctic sea ice extent – the area of ocean covered by sea ice – in November was “fairly average”.
It is a combination of sea ice extent and sea ice thickness which gives rise to sea ice volume. CryoSat was designed to measure sea-ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean using radars, and this has allowed scientists to monitor the overall change in Arctic sea ice volume accurately over the last five years.
However, researchers are careful to caution that this apparent stability shown in the satellite data does not mean there has been a recovery in Arctic sea ice. A news release from ESA quotes Professor Andrew Shepherd from UCL and the University of Leeds as saying: “We must to take care when computing long-term trends as this CryoSat assessment is short when compared to other climate records”. Shepherd is one of the authors of the AGU presentation.
Here is a news release from the European Space Agency regarding this research issued on 15 December 2014:
CryoSat Extends Its reach Into The Arctic
CryoSat has delivered this year’s map of autumn sea-ice thickness in the Arctic, revealing a small decrease in ice volume. In a new phase for ESA’s ice mission, the measurements can now also be used to help vessels navigate through the north coastal waters of Alaska, for example.
Measurements made during October and November show that the volume of Arctic sea ice now stands at about 10 200 cubic km – a small drop compared to last year’s 10 900 cubic km.
The volume is the second-highest since measurements began in 2010, and the five-year average is relatively stable. This, however, does not necessarily indicate a turn in the long-term downward trend.
“We must to take care when computing long-term trends as this CryoSat assessment is short when compared to other climate records,” said Prof. Andrew Shepherd from University College London and the University of Leeds.
“For reliable predictions, we should try other approaches, like considering what is forcing the changes, incorporating the CryoSat data into predictive models based on solid physics, or simply waiting until more measurements have been collected.”
CryoSat was designed to measure sea-ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean, enabling scientists to monitor accurately the overall change in volume.
While the amount of ice normally fluctuates depending on the season, longer-term satellite records show a constant downward trend in ice extent during all seasons, in particular in summer, with a minimum occurring in the autumn of 2012.
Establishing whether the ice volume is following a similar trend is one of CryoSat’s key mission objectives.
A team of UK researchers at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling are presenting their findings this week at the American Geophysical Union’s autumn meeting in San Francisco, California.
“October is interesting because it is the first month we get data directly following the sea-ice minimum in September, so that’s where we see the largest interannual variability in our volume estimates,” said the Centre’s Rachel Tilling, who is working on the CryoSat measurements as part of her PhD studies.
Launched in 2010, CryoSat has long surpassed its planned three-year life. At the mission’s recent mid-term review, it was further extended until February 2017.
Tommaso Parrinello, ESA’s CryoSat Mission Manager, said, “CryoSat has already achieved outstanding results, both within its original mission objectives and for unexpected applications.
“Looking ahead, we are working hard to prototype new operational capabilities so that the measurements can be used for routine assessments in climate science and for services affected by Arctic sea ice.”
To test this, scientists have produced an assessment of sea-ice thickness north of Alaska and eastern Russia with data acquired over the last month. Products like this could prove useful for maritime services, such as shipping and exploration.
End of ESA news release.
Abstract
Despite a well-documented ~40% decline in summer Arctic sea ice extent since the late 1970’s, it has been difficult to estimate trends in sea ice volume because thickness observations have been spatially incomplete and temporally sporadic. While numerical models suggest that the decline in extent has been accompanied by a reduction in volume, there is considerable disagreement over the rate at which this has occurred. We present the first complete assessment of trends in northern hemisphere sea ice thickness and volume using 4 years of measurements from CryoSat-2. Between autumn 2010 and spring 2013, there was a 14% and 5% reduction in autumn and spring Arctic sea ice volume, respectively, in keeping with the long-term decline in extent. However, since then there has been a marked 41% and 9% recovery in autumn and spring sea ice volume, respectively, more than offsetting losses of the previous three years. The recovery was driven by the retention of thick ice around north Greenland and Canada during summer 2013 which, in turn, was associated with a 6% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred – climatic conditions more typical of the early 1990’s. Such a sharp increase in volume after just one cool summer indicates that the Arctic sea ice pack may be more resilient than has been previously considered.
Citation
CryoSat-2 observes Arctic sea ice volume recovery, after anomalously low melting in summer 2013 by Rachel Tilling, Andy Ridout, Andrew Shepherd and Duncan Wingham presented to the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San francisco on 15 December 2014.
Read the abstract here.
From the “no death spiral” department comes this press release made at AGU from ESA.
Arctic sea ice is holding up to global warming better than expected, according to the latest data from the CryoSat-2 satellite, a team from University College London will tell the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco.
Five_years_ice-thickness_change[1]
Arctic sea ice volumes in the autumn of 2014 are above the average set over the last five years and sharply up on the lows seen in 2011 and 2012, according to the latest satellite data.
Data from the European Space Agency (ESA) CryoSat-2 satellite to be presented to the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco later today (Monday 15 December, 2014) will show Arctic sea ice volumes in October and November 2014 averaging 10,200km3 – slightly down on the 10,900km3 reported in 2013 but sharply up on the lows seen in 2011 and 2012.
This is the second year in a row where a relatively cool Arctic summer has led to less sea ice melting than has been typical during the summers of recent years and this has resulted in thicker and older ice surviving into the autumn and winter during both 2013 and 2014.
Arctic_sea-ice_thickness_node_full_image_2
The team of researchers from University College London (UCL) who are presenting the CryoSat-2 data to the AGU Fall Meeting state in the abstract of their presentation that their data indicates “the Arctic sea ice pack may be more resilient than has been previously considered”.
The autumn 2014 volume is the second-highest since satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice thickness began in 2010, and the data shows that “the five-year average is relatively stable”, according to ESA.
This news comes as the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported that Arctic sea ice extent – the area of ocean covered by sea ice – in November was “fairly average”.
It is a combination of sea ice extent and sea ice thickness which gives rise to sea ice volume. CryoSat was designed to measure sea-ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean using radars, and this has allowed scientists to monitor the overall change in Arctic sea ice volume accurately over the last five years.
However, researchers are careful to caution that this apparent stability shown in the satellite data does not mean there has been a recovery in Arctic sea ice. A news release from ESA quotes Professor Andrew Shepherd from UCL and the University of Leeds as saying: “We must to take care when computing long-term trends as this CryoSat assessment is short when compared to other climate records”. Shepherd is one of the authors of the AGU presentation.
Here is a news release from the European Space Agency regarding this research issued on 15 December 2014:
CryoSat Extends Its reach Into The Arctic
CryoSat has delivered this year’s map of autumn sea-ice thickness in the Arctic, revealing a small decrease in ice volume. In a new phase for ESA’s ice mission, the measurements can now also be used to help vessels navigate through the north coastal waters of Alaska, for example.
Measurements made during October and November show that the volume of Arctic sea ice now stands at about 10 200 cubic km – a small drop compared to last year’s 10 900 cubic km.
The volume is the second-highest since measurements began in 2010, and the five-year average is relatively stable. This, however, does not necessarily indicate a turn in the long-term downward trend.
“We must to take care when computing long-term trends as this CryoSat assessment is short when compared to other climate records,” said Prof. Andrew Shepherd from University College London and the University of Leeds.
“For reliable predictions, we should try other approaches, like considering what is forcing the changes, incorporating the CryoSat data into predictive models based on solid physics, or simply waiting until more measurements have been collected.”
CryoSat was designed to measure sea-ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean, enabling scientists to monitor accurately the overall change in volume.
While the amount of ice normally fluctuates depending on the season, longer-term satellite records show a constant downward trend in ice extent during all seasons, in particular in summer, with a minimum occurring in the autumn of 2012.
Establishing whether the ice volume is following a similar trend is one of CryoSat’s key mission objectives.
A team of UK researchers at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling are presenting their findings this week at the American Geophysical Union’s autumn meeting in San Francisco, California.
“October is interesting because it is the first month we get data directly following the sea-ice minimum in September, so that’s where we see the largest interannual variability in our volume estimates,” said the Centre’s Rachel Tilling, who is working on the CryoSat measurements as part of her PhD studies.
Launched in 2010, CryoSat has long surpassed its planned three-year life. At the mission’s recent mid-term review, it was further extended until February 2017.
Tommaso Parrinello, ESA’s CryoSat Mission Manager, said, “CryoSat has already achieved outstanding results, both within its original mission objectives and for unexpected applications.
“Looking ahead, we are working hard to prototype new operational capabilities so that the measurements can be used for routine assessments in climate science and for services affected by Arctic sea ice.”
To test this, scientists have produced an assessment of sea-ice thickness north of Alaska and eastern Russia with data acquired over the last month. Products like this could prove useful for maritime services, such as shipping and exploration.
End of ESA news release.
Abstract
Despite a well-documented ~40% decline in summer Arctic sea ice extent since the late 1970’s, it has been difficult to estimate trends in sea ice volume because thickness observations have been spatially incomplete and temporally sporadic. While numerical models suggest that the decline in extent has been accompanied by a reduction in volume, there is considerable disagreement over the rate at which this has occurred. We present the first complete assessment of trends in northern hemisphere sea ice thickness and volume using 4 years of measurements from CryoSat-2. Between autumn 2010 and spring 2013, there was a 14% and 5% reduction in autumn and spring Arctic sea ice volume, respectively, in keeping with the long-term decline in extent. However, since then there has been a marked 41% and 9% recovery in autumn and spring sea ice volume, respectively, more than offsetting losses of the previous three years. The recovery was driven by the retention of thick ice around north Greenland and Canada during summer 2013 which, in turn, was associated with a 6% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred – climatic conditions more typical of the early 1990’s. Such a sharp increase in volume after just one cool summer indicates that the Arctic sea ice pack may be more resilient than has been previously considered.
Citation
CryoSat-2 observes Arctic sea ice volume recovery, after anomalously low melting in summer 2013 by Rachel Tilling, Andy Ridout, Andrew Shepherd and Duncan Wingham presented to the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San francisco on 15 December 2014.
Read the abstract here.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
International Emissions Idiocy
Most of the people of the world have concluded that the decades of warnings about “global warming” and its successor, “climate change”, is just idiotic nonsense. Few believe that humans ever had or ever will have any role in what the weather will be tomorrow or a thousand years from now. They are right.
One of the most distinguishing factors about the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has been the way its advocates have always predicted major changes decades into the future. When the future arrived, as it has since the first doomsday predictions were made in the late 1980s, they simply push off the next arrival date for another couple of decades. A classic example is the prediction that that Arctic and Antarctic sea ice would have all melted by now. Instead the global cold weather have been making new records of late.
Delegates from two hundred nations attended the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties and the 10th session of the Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol which took place from December 1 through 12. COP 20/CMP 10 was hosted by the Government of Peru in Lima. The event is part of the United Nations agenda that began with the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.
The Kyoto Protocol dates back to 1997 and sets limits on how much “greenhouse gas” emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), nations could permit. The theory, now long since debunked, that CO2 was rising and would cause the Earth to warm too much was right in only one respect. There is more CO2, but the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for some 19 years at this point. The U.S. did not ratify, i.e. sign onto the Protocol. The Senate unanimously rejected it. Canada later withdrew from it. China and India were both exempted from it!
So what we have been witnessing have been a bunch of international officials wrangling over something that did not happen and will not happen.
The hard core “Warmists” wanted the climate change agreement to be legally binding under international law. They were led by those from the European Union. They and others wanted more money to be spent on renewable energy, wind and solar, and money given to poor countries to help them deal with climate change.
The COP20 conference was not about the climate. It was about funding wind and solar energy projects that have proven globally to be huge, expensive failures, and about providing money to poor countries that, as often as not, are poor because they are poorly governed. It’s a scheme based on totally false “science.”
As to the “science” proclaiming a warming Earth and that “greenhouse gas emissions” are responsible, the easiest and most entertaining way to learn the real science is to read Anthony Bright-Paul’s new book, “Climate for the Layman.”
Bright applies the known knowledge of the universe in which we live with the kind of logic you are not likely to hear from the likes of Al Gore or Bill Nye the “science guy.” Add to them the blissfully ignorant legions of “leaders” of various nations who have signed off on “global warming” without a lick of knowledge with which to refute the lies and you get idiotic conferences and demands to end the beneficial use of fossil fuels which improved our lives long before and since the IPCC was created.
“So how does one measure the temperature of something that has a multiplicity of temperatures and is constantly on the move?” asks Bright. “It is clearly impossible.” How difficult is that to understand?
“In my dictionary,” says Bright, “’Global’ is defined as ‘worldwide’. So let us ask ourselves the question—has there been a worldwide warming of 0.07 degrees Celsius? Has there been a uniform increase in temperatures worldwide? The answer is simple. It is utterly impossible to make such declaration”, adding that “It is completely impossible to measure the temperature of the atmosphere which is 100 kilometers high and which has a huge range of temperatures in a continuous state of flux.”
If it cannot be measured then years from now the climate cannot be predicted. The weather—what is happening where you live—can only be predicted in general terms for the next few days and that is largely thanks to modern satellites. Moreover, the weather is never exactly the same from day to day. Meteorologists focus on what’s happening now, but climatologists measure the climate in units of decades, the smallest of which is thirty years. The largest take in millions of years.
Carbon dioxide is such a minor “trace” gas—0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere--that most people are astonished to learn that it is Nitrogen and Oxygen that make up 99% of the atmosphere. Both are transparent to incoming and outgoing radiation. It is the Earth that acts as a conductor of heat, affected as always by solar radiation. It is the Sun along with the actions of the oceans and volcanic activity that determines the weather and, long term, the climate.
Virtually everything you have heard or been told about “greenhouse gas emissions” is pure bunkum.
The Earth is not a greenhouse closed in by heat trapping gases. It is the mass of the Earth that absorbs the Sun’s radiation and reflects it into the atmosphere. The process is so dynamic that there is no way to accurately predict what the temperature anywhere on any day.
The IPCC and its idiotic “climate change” conference wants you to believe it can predict the climate of the entire world! And control it.
Not a single dime of U.S. taxpayer’s money should be devoted to either the U.N. or any bogus “global warming” claims. We could begin by defunding the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations to limit “greenhouse gas emissions”, the reason they give for closing coal-fired plants to produce electricity.
We should laugh Secretary of State John Kerry off the stage every time in claims that climate
Most of the people of the world have concluded that the decades of warnings about “global warming” and its successor, “climate change”, is just idiotic nonsense. Few believe that humans ever had or ever will have any role in what the weather will be tomorrow or a thousand years from now. They are right.
One of the most distinguishing factors about the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has been the way its advocates have always predicted major changes decades into the future. When the future arrived, as it has since the first doomsday predictions were made in the late 1980s, they simply push off the next arrival date for another couple of decades. A classic example is the prediction that that Arctic and Antarctic sea ice would have all melted by now. Instead the global cold weather have been making new records of late.
Delegates from two hundred nations attended the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties and the 10th session of the Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol which took place from December 1 through 12. COP 20/CMP 10 was hosted by the Government of Peru in Lima. The event is part of the United Nations agenda that began with the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.
The Kyoto Protocol dates back to 1997 and sets limits on how much “greenhouse gas” emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), nations could permit. The theory, now long since debunked, that CO2 was rising and would cause the Earth to warm too much was right in only one respect. There is more CO2, but the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for some 19 years at this point. The U.S. did not ratify, i.e. sign onto the Protocol. The Senate unanimously rejected it. Canada later withdrew from it. China and India were both exempted from it!
So what we have been witnessing have been a bunch of international officials wrangling over something that did not happen and will not happen.
The hard core “Warmists” wanted the climate change agreement to be legally binding under international law. They were led by those from the European Union. They and others wanted more money to be spent on renewable energy, wind and solar, and money given to poor countries to help them deal with climate change.
The COP20 conference was not about the climate. It was about funding wind and solar energy projects that have proven globally to be huge, expensive failures, and about providing money to poor countries that, as often as not, are poor because they are poorly governed. It’s a scheme based on totally false “science.”
As to the “science” proclaiming a warming Earth and that “greenhouse gas emissions” are responsible, the easiest and most entertaining way to learn the real science is to read Anthony Bright-Paul’s new book, “Climate for the Layman.”
Bright applies the known knowledge of the universe in which we live with the kind of logic you are not likely to hear from the likes of Al Gore or Bill Nye the “science guy.” Add to them the blissfully ignorant legions of “leaders” of various nations who have signed off on “global warming” without a lick of knowledge with which to refute the lies and you get idiotic conferences and demands to end the beneficial use of fossil fuels which improved our lives long before and since the IPCC was created.
“So how does one measure the temperature of something that has a multiplicity of temperatures and is constantly on the move?” asks Bright. “It is clearly impossible.” How difficult is that to understand?
“In my dictionary,” says Bright, “’Global’ is defined as ‘worldwide’. So let us ask ourselves the question—has there been a worldwide warming of 0.07 degrees Celsius? Has there been a uniform increase in temperatures worldwide? The answer is simple. It is utterly impossible to make such declaration”, adding that “It is completely impossible to measure the temperature of the atmosphere which is 100 kilometers high and which has a huge range of temperatures in a continuous state of flux.”
If it cannot be measured then years from now the climate cannot be predicted. The weather—what is happening where you live—can only be predicted in general terms for the next few days and that is largely thanks to modern satellites. Moreover, the weather is never exactly the same from day to day. Meteorologists focus on what’s happening now, but climatologists measure the climate in units of decades, the smallest of which is thirty years. The largest take in millions of years.
Carbon dioxide is such a minor “trace” gas—0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere--that most people are astonished to learn that it is Nitrogen and Oxygen that make up 99% of the atmosphere. Both are transparent to incoming and outgoing radiation. It is the Earth that acts as a conductor of heat, affected as always by solar radiation. It is the Sun along with the actions of the oceans and volcanic activity that determines the weather and, long term, the climate.
Virtually everything you have heard or been told about “greenhouse gas emissions” is pure bunkum.
The Earth is not a greenhouse closed in by heat trapping gases. It is the mass of the Earth that absorbs the Sun’s radiation and reflects it into the atmosphere. The process is so dynamic that there is no way to accurately predict what the temperature anywhere on any day.
The IPCC and its idiotic “climate change” conference wants you to believe it can predict the climate of the entire world! And control it.
Not a single dime of U.S. taxpayer’s money should be devoted to either the U.N. or any bogus “global warming” claims. We could begin by defunding the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations to limit “greenhouse gas emissions”, the reason they give for closing coal-fired plants to produce electricity.
We should laugh Secretary of State John Kerry off the stage every time in claims that climate
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Update On Geothermal Heat And Arctic Ocean Sea Ice Melt
mid-arctic rift
This article was UPDATED on Dec 17, 2014 with new information on the Arctic's rift system and its likely affects on sea ice:
The floor of the Arctic Ocean is comprised of several significant geological features, most notably the giant Mid-Arctic Rift and associated Rift System. The system is 1100 miles long / 120 miles wide and topographically expressed as high mountains and Grand Canyon scale trenches.
In geological terms this is a major rift system, forming the boundary between two tectonic plates. Given its magnitude one would expect that it has been completely researched and is thoroughly understood. Quite the contrary scientists know very little about its geology due to its remote location, thick ice cover, and perceived geological inactivity. It is understandable that to date only limited amounts of data have been gathered concerning its heat flow and fluid expulsion.
However relatively new research has indicated that this giant rift system may not be so inactive after all. Given that overwhelming amounts of data now virtually prove selective melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is caused by geologically induced geothermal heat flow from the West Antarctic Rift System, it only seems reasonable to reevaluate the limited amount of data available on the Mid-Arctic Rift System.
The Mid-Arctic Rift System has long been considered geologically “inactive”, and presumed to be of little consequence relative to geothermal heat and fluid expulsion into the overlying Arctic Ocean. This assumption was primarily based on the Rift’s very slow “spreading rate”, 0.05 centimeters per year and its typically low seismicity.
Documentation and reinterpretation of this relatively recent research is as follows. First and most telling a recent 4.5 earthquake along the Gakkel Ridge Rift clearly shows that this large fault system is active. Although this was only a moderate size earthquake it was associated with a geographically extensive release of methane into the atmosphere as illustrated on the maps below from the Arctic News Blog (March 14, 2014).
Given that the fault induced methane release was this extensive, it is very reasonable to conclude that the effect of the fault movement was not limited to just the epicenter, rather it affected the entire length of Gakkel Ridge Rift Fault System. The presence of currently active deep Gakkel Ridge hydrothermal vents has been well documented, however what was not well known was the number and geographical distribution of these vents. This new methane release map is an excellent proxy for vent geographical distribution.
It shows that active vents are present along the entire length of the Gakkel Ridge. Given this new information it is clear that this geographically extensive active vent system has the capability to be a powerful source of heat and fluid release, one that could easily influence Arctic climate and ice sheet melting.
Not documented in any known published research is the composition of the other gases released by this latest fault induced Gakkel Rift “methane” pulse. Vents typically release other associated gases, most notably CO2.
Documentation and reinterpretation of this relatively recent research is as follows. In 1999 researchers in a nuclear submarine documented the presence of active volcanoes along the rift system spreading center ridge. In 2001 researchers utilized icebreaker vessels to collect deep ocean rock samples along the Gakkel Ridge portion of the rift system. They observed numerous active hydrothermal vents.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute’s 2007 AGAVE expedition discovered unconsolidated pyroclastic volcanic deposits. These deposits indicate that a very recent and strong sub-ocean volcanic eruption occurred along a significant portion of the Gakkel Ridge.
Additionally the chemical make-up of these deposits indicates high volatility, upwards of ten times more volatile than volcanic beds researched to date along other major deep ocean rift systems. The Woods Hole expedition also found evidence of chemosynthetic microbial mats. This type of chemosynthetic life is known to be associated with hydrothermal vents.
The implications of this new information are powerful. First and most obvious, what if any effect has this hydrothermal vent heat flow had on the overlying ice sheet. Is this geothermal heat flow the cause of Arctic Ice sheet melting? Has the heat and associated fluid release altered deep Arctic Ocean currents? Both cases are certainly worth considering.
Secondly and more importantly, a reinterpretation of this relatively new information shows that spreading rates and seismic activity do NOT not necessarily correlate to heat flow frequency or intensity. The Mid-Arctic Rift System has some seismicity associated with it and low amounts of plate spreading, however the amount of hydrothermic vent activity and volcanic activity appear to be much greater than would be projected based solely on seismicity or rift spreading rate.
This has significant implications concerning all other large deep ocean rift systems. Previously assumed inactive portions of other major worldwide rift systems that are not seismically active can no longer be presumed to be emitting small amounts of heat and chemically charged fluids. They may in fact be emitting significant amounts of heat and fluid. Low amounts of seismic activity and rift spread rate can no longer be confidently used as direct measures of geologically induced heat flow and fluid release.
Other information shows that the crest / spreading center of the Mid-Arctic Rift System has in past actively emitted heat into the overlying Arctic Ocean.
A fascinating new development is the discovery of Phytoplankton blooms under the ice in the Chukchi Sea area of the Arctic Ocean by Stanford University scientists. Their research showed that these blooms have likely existed in this area for decades.
The discovery of well-developed and aerially extensive blooms beneath large ice areas that have not been melted in known human times has forced a dramatic change in considering how and where Arctic blooms occur. This fascinating new discovery has not yet led to proof that there is a direct relationship of these types of blooms with geologically induced deep ocean heat flow, however, this should be considered as a factor.
In summary, the Mid-Arctic Rift has emitted significant amounts of heat in ancient times, has active deep ocean geothermal vents, has very recently emplaced volcanic rocks at its crest, and a recent moderate earthquake has helped clarify the geographical extent of what turns out to be a world class size active hydrothermal vent system . All of this evidence shows that at the very least climate scientists should consider geologically induced heat and associated fluid flow from the Mid-Arctic rift as a possible explanation for Arctic Ocean Sea ice melting and possibly the explanation for newly discovered sub ice plankton blooms.
James Edward Kamis is a Geologist and AAPG member of 40 years and has always been fascinated by the probable connection between Geology and Climate. Years of research / observation have convinced him that the Earth’s Heat Flow Engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is also an important driver of the Earth’s climate.
mid-arctic rift
This article was UPDATED on Dec 17, 2014 with new information on the Arctic's rift system and its likely affects on sea ice:
The floor of the Arctic Ocean is comprised of several significant geological features, most notably the giant Mid-Arctic Rift and associated Rift System. The system is 1100 miles long / 120 miles wide and topographically expressed as high mountains and Grand Canyon scale trenches.
In geological terms this is a major rift system, forming the boundary between two tectonic plates. Given its magnitude one would expect that it has been completely researched and is thoroughly understood. Quite the contrary scientists know very little about its geology due to its remote location, thick ice cover, and perceived geological inactivity. It is understandable that to date only limited amounts of data have been gathered concerning its heat flow and fluid expulsion.
However relatively new research has indicated that this giant rift system may not be so inactive after all. Given that overwhelming amounts of data now virtually prove selective melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is caused by geologically induced geothermal heat flow from the West Antarctic Rift System, it only seems reasonable to reevaluate the limited amount of data available on the Mid-Arctic Rift System.
The Mid-Arctic Rift System has long been considered geologically “inactive”, and presumed to be of little consequence relative to geothermal heat and fluid expulsion into the overlying Arctic Ocean. This assumption was primarily based on the Rift’s very slow “spreading rate”, 0.05 centimeters per year and its typically low seismicity.
Documentation and reinterpretation of this relatively recent research is as follows. First and most telling a recent 4.5 earthquake along the Gakkel Ridge Rift clearly shows that this large fault system is active. Although this was only a moderate size earthquake it was associated with a geographically extensive release of methane into the atmosphere as illustrated on the maps below from the Arctic News Blog (March 14, 2014).
Given that the fault induced methane release was this extensive, it is very reasonable to conclude that the effect of the fault movement was not limited to just the epicenter, rather it affected the entire length of Gakkel Ridge Rift Fault System. The presence of currently active deep Gakkel Ridge hydrothermal vents has been well documented, however what was not well known was the number and geographical distribution of these vents. This new methane release map is an excellent proxy for vent geographical distribution.
It shows that active vents are present along the entire length of the Gakkel Ridge. Given this new information it is clear that this geographically extensive active vent system has the capability to be a powerful source of heat and fluid release, one that could easily influence Arctic climate and ice sheet melting.
Not documented in any known published research is the composition of the other gases released by this latest fault induced Gakkel Rift “methane” pulse. Vents typically release other associated gases, most notably CO2.
Documentation and reinterpretation of this relatively recent research is as follows. In 1999 researchers in a nuclear submarine documented the presence of active volcanoes along the rift system spreading center ridge. In 2001 researchers utilized icebreaker vessels to collect deep ocean rock samples along the Gakkel Ridge portion of the rift system. They observed numerous active hydrothermal vents.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute’s 2007 AGAVE expedition discovered unconsolidated pyroclastic volcanic deposits. These deposits indicate that a very recent and strong sub-ocean volcanic eruption occurred along a significant portion of the Gakkel Ridge.
Additionally the chemical make-up of these deposits indicates high volatility, upwards of ten times more volatile than volcanic beds researched to date along other major deep ocean rift systems. The Woods Hole expedition also found evidence of chemosynthetic microbial mats. This type of chemosynthetic life is known to be associated with hydrothermal vents.
The implications of this new information are powerful. First and most obvious, what if any effect has this hydrothermal vent heat flow had on the overlying ice sheet. Is this geothermal heat flow the cause of Arctic Ice sheet melting? Has the heat and associated fluid release altered deep Arctic Ocean currents? Both cases are certainly worth considering.
Secondly and more importantly, a reinterpretation of this relatively new information shows that spreading rates and seismic activity do NOT not necessarily correlate to heat flow frequency or intensity. The Mid-Arctic Rift System has some seismicity associated with it and low amounts of plate spreading, however the amount of hydrothermic vent activity and volcanic activity appear to be much greater than would be projected based solely on seismicity or rift spreading rate.
This has significant implications concerning all other large deep ocean rift systems. Previously assumed inactive portions of other major worldwide rift systems that are not seismically active can no longer be presumed to be emitting small amounts of heat and chemically charged fluids. They may in fact be emitting significant amounts of heat and fluid. Low amounts of seismic activity and rift spread rate can no longer be confidently used as direct measures of geologically induced heat flow and fluid release.
Other information shows that the crest / spreading center of the Mid-Arctic Rift System has in past actively emitted heat into the overlying Arctic Ocean.
A fascinating new development is the discovery of Phytoplankton blooms under the ice in the Chukchi Sea area of the Arctic Ocean by Stanford University scientists. Their research showed that these blooms have likely existed in this area for decades.
The discovery of well-developed and aerially extensive blooms beneath large ice areas that have not been melted in known human times has forced a dramatic change in considering how and where Arctic blooms occur. This fascinating new discovery has not yet led to proof that there is a direct relationship of these types of blooms with geologically induced deep ocean heat flow, however, this should be considered as a factor.
In summary, the Mid-Arctic Rift has emitted significant amounts of heat in ancient times, has active deep ocean geothermal vents, has very recently emplaced volcanic rocks at its crest, and a recent moderate earthquake has helped clarify the geographical extent of what turns out to be a world class size active hydrothermal vent system . All of this evidence shows that at the very least climate scientists should consider geologically induced heat and associated fluid flow from the Mid-Arctic rift as a possible explanation for Arctic Ocean Sea ice melting and possibly the explanation for newly discovered sub ice plankton blooms.
James Edward Kamis is a Geologist and AAPG member of 40 years and has always been fascinated by the probable connection between Geology and Climate. Years of research / observation have convinced him that the Earth’s Heat Flow Engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is also an important driver of the Earth’s climate.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
In the Arctic, nearby soot may be a larger forcing than CO2
From the AGU Weekly Highlights, something I’ve pointed out more than a few times. See this photo of a moulin in upper Greenland, where carbon soot has collected at the bottom:
Image from National Geographic online slide show – Photo: James Balog – click for more
The authors find that BC (black carbon) emitted within the Arctic has an almost five times larger Arctic surface temperature response (per unit of emitted mass) compared to emissions at midlatitudes.
The Arctic is especially sensitive to black carbon emissions from within the region
Black carbon, also known as soot, emitted from combustion of fuels and biomass burning, absorbs solar radiation in the atmosphere and is one of the major causes of global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions. When black carbon is deposited on snow and ice, the soot-covered snow or ice absorbs more sunlight, leading to surface warming. Due to the large amount of snow and ice in the Arctic—which has warmed twice as fast as the global average over the past century—the region is likely to be especially sensitive to black carbon.
To investigate how sensitive the Arctic is to black carbon emissions from within the Arctic compared to those transported from mid-latitudes, Sand et al. conducted experiments using a climate model that includes simulation of the effects of black carbon deposited on snow.
They find that most of the Arctic warming effect from black carbon is due to black carbon deposited on snow and ice, rather than in the atmosphere. Black carbon emitted within the Arctic is more likely to stay at low altitudes and thus to be deposited on the snow and ice there, whereas black carbon transported into the Arctic from mid-latitudes is more likely to remain at higher altitudes. Because of this, the Arctic surface temperature is almost 5 times more sensitive to black carbon emitted from within the Arctic than to emissions from mid-latitudes, the authors find.
They note that although there are currently few sources of black carbon emissions within the Arctic (the most dominant ones are oil and gas fields in northwestern Russia), that is likely to change as human activity in the region increases. Therefore, the authors believe there is a need to improve technologies for controlling black carbon emissions in the Arctic.
Source:
Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 10.1002/jgrd.50613, 2013
Title:
Arctic surface temperature change to emissions of black carbon within Arctic or mid-latitudes
Abstract
[1] In this study, we address the question of how sensitive the Arctic climate is to black carbon (BC) emitted within the Arctic compared to BC emitted at midlatitudes. We consider the emission-climate response spectrum and present a set of experiments using a global climate model. A new emission data set including BC emissions from flaring and a seasonal variation in the domestic sector has been used. The climate model includes a snow model to simulate the climate effect of BC deposited on snow. We find that BC emitted within the Arctic has an almost five times larger Arctic surface temperature response (per unit of emitted mass) compared to emissions at midlatitudes. Especially during winter, BC emitted in North-Eurasia is transported into the high Arctic at low altitudes. A large fraction of the surface temperature response from BC is due to increased absorption when BC is deposited on snow and sea ice with associated feedbacks. Today there are few within-Arctic sources of BC, but the emissions are expected to grow due to increased human activity in the Arctic. There is a great need to improve cleaner technologies if further development is to take place in the Arctic, especially since the Arctic has a significantly higher sensitivity to BC emitted within the Arctic compared to BC emitted at midlatitudes.
From the AGU Weekly Highlights, something I’ve pointed out more than a few times. See this photo of a moulin in upper Greenland, where carbon soot has collected at the bottom:
Image from National Geographic online slide show – Photo: James Balog – click for more
The authors find that BC (black carbon) emitted within the Arctic has an almost five times larger Arctic surface temperature response (per unit of emitted mass) compared to emissions at midlatitudes.
The Arctic is especially sensitive to black carbon emissions from within the region
Black carbon, also known as soot, emitted from combustion of fuels and biomass burning, absorbs solar radiation in the atmosphere and is one of the major causes of global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions. When black carbon is deposited on snow and ice, the soot-covered snow or ice absorbs more sunlight, leading to surface warming. Due to the large amount of snow and ice in the Arctic—which has warmed twice as fast as the global average over the past century—the region is likely to be especially sensitive to black carbon.
To investigate how sensitive the Arctic is to black carbon emissions from within the Arctic compared to those transported from mid-latitudes, Sand et al. conducted experiments using a climate model that includes simulation of the effects of black carbon deposited on snow.
They find that most of the Arctic warming effect from black carbon is due to black carbon deposited on snow and ice, rather than in the atmosphere. Black carbon emitted within the Arctic is more likely to stay at low altitudes and thus to be deposited on the snow and ice there, whereas black carbon transported into the Arctic from mid-latitudes is more likely to remain at higher altitudes. Because of this, the Arctic surface temperature is almost 5 times more sensitive to black carbon emitted from within the Arctic than to emissions from mid-latitudes, the authors find.
They note that although there are currently few sources of black carbon emissions within the Arctic (the most dominant ones are oil and gas fields in northwestern Russia), that is likely to change as human activity in the region increases. Therefore, the authors believe there is a need to improve technologies for controlling black carbon emissions in the Arctic.
Source:
Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 10.1002/jgrd.50613, 2013
Title:
Arctic surface temperature change to emissions of black carbon within Arctic or mid-latitudes
Abstract
[1] In this study, we address the question of how sensitive the Arctic climate is to black carbon (BC) emitted within the Arctic compared to BC emitted at midlatitudes. We consider the emission-climate response spectrum and present a set of experiments using a global climate model. A new emission data set including BC emissions from flaring and a seasonal variation in the domestic sector has been used. The climate model includes a snow model to simulate the climate effect of BC deposited on snow. We find that BC emitted within the Arctic has an almost five times larger Arctic surface temperature response (per unit of emitted mass) compared to emissions at midlatitudes. Especially during winter, BC emitted in North-Eurasia is transported into the high Arctic at low altitudes. A large fraction of the surface temperature response from BC is due to increased absorption when BC is deposited on snow and sea ice with associated feedbacks. Today there are few within-Arctic sources of BC, but the emissions are expected to grow due to increased human activity in the Arctic. There is a great need to improve cleaner technologies if further development is to take place in the Arctic, especially since the Arctic has a significantly higher sensitivity to BC emitted within the Arctic compared to BC emitted at midlatitudes.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
From #AGU14 – satellites detect albedo change in the Arctic, resulting in more absorbed solar radiation
NASA satellite instruments have observed a marked increase in solar radiation absorbed in the Arctic since the year 2000 – a trend that aligns with the steady decrease in Arctic sea ice during the same period.
While sea ice is mostly white and reflects the sun’s rays, ocean water is dark and absorbs the sun’s energy at a higher rate. A decline in the region’s albedo – its reflectivity, in effect – has been a key concern among scientists since the summer Arctic sea ice cover began shrinking in recent decades. As more of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the climate system, it enhances ongoing warming in the region, which is more pronounced than anywhere else on the planet.
Since the year 2000, the rate of absorbed solar radiation in the Arctic in June, July and August has increased by five percent, said Norman Loeb, of NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. The measurement is made by NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments, which fly on multiple satellites.
sea_ice_fraction_change_and_absorbed_solar_radiation_change[1]
The Arctic Ocean is absorbing more of the sun’s energy in recent years as white, reflective sea ice melts and darker ocean waters are exposed. The increased darker surface area during the Arctic summer is responsible for a 5 percent increase in absorbed solar radiation since 2000. Image Credit: NASA Goddard’s Scientific Visualization Studio/Lori Perkins
While a five percent increase may not seem like much, consider that the rate globally has remained essentially flat during that same time. No other region on Earth shows a trend of potential long-term change.
When averaged over the entire Arctic Ocean, the increase in the rate of absorbed solar radiation is about 10 Watts per square meter. This is equivalent to an extra 10-watt light bulb shining continuously over every 10.76 square feet of Arctic Ocean for the entire summer.
Regionally, the increase is even greater, Loeb said. Areas such as the Beaufort Sea, which has experienced the some of the most pronounced decreases in sea-ice coverage, show a 50 watts per square meter increase in the rate of absorbed solar radiation.
“Advances in our understanding of Arctic climate change and the underlying processes that influence it will depend critically upon high quality observations like these from CERES,” Loeb said.As a region, the Arctic is showing more dramatic signs of climate change than any other spot on the planet. These include a warming of air temperatures at a rate two to three times greater than the rest of the planet and the loss of September sea ice extent at a rate of 13 percent per decade.
While these CERES measurements could ultimately become another of those signs of dramatic climate change, right now scientists say they have obtained the bare minimum of a data record needed to discern what’s happening over the long term.
Getting data beyond 15 years will allow scientists to better assess if recent trend falls outside the realm of natural variability, said Jennifer Kay, an atmospheric scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research and Environmental Science at the University of Colorado.
“We need long time series to detect climate change signals over the internal variability. For example, observed sea ice loss over the last 30 years cannot be explained by natural variability alone.” Kay said. “Fifteen years is long, but climate is often defined as the average over 30 years – so we are only half-way there with the CERES observations.”
Kay and colleagues have also analyzed satellite observations of Arctic clouds during this same 15-year period. Kay’s research shows summer cloud amounts and vertical structure are not being affected by summer sea ice loss. While surprising, the observations show that the bright sea ice surface is not automatically replaced by bright clouds. Indeed, sea ice loss, not clouds, explain the increases in absorbed solar radiation measured by CERES.
Increasing absorbed solar radiation is causing multiple changes in the sea ice cover, said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland. Two of those changes include the timing of the beginning of the melt season each year and the loss of older, thicker sea ice.
The onset of the melt season in the high Arctic is now on average seven days earlier than it was in 1982, Meier said. Earlier melting can lead to increased solar radiation absorption. This is one step in a potential feedback cycle of warming leading to melting, melting leading to increased solar radiation absorption, and increased absorption leading to enhanced warming.
Since 2000, the Arctic has lost 1.4 million square kilometers (541,000 square miles) of older ice that is more than 3 meters thick, which during winter has essentially been replaced by ice that is less than 2 meters thick, according to data provided by Mark Tschudi at the University of Colorado. Once again, Meier said, this trend is a step in a feedback cycle.
“Having younger and thus thinner ice during winter makes the system more vulnerable to ice loss during the summer melt season,” Meier said.
CERES instruments are currently flying on the Terra, Aqua and Suomi-NPP satellites. The Terra satellite launched Dec. 18, 1999, and CERES first started collecting Arctic data in 2000 so 2015 will mark 15 continuous years of CERES measurements over the Arctic.
The instruments include three radiometers – one measuring solar radiation reflected by Earth (shortwave), one measuring thermal infrared radiation emitted by Earth (longwave), and one measuring all outgoing radiation, whether emitted or reflected.
For more information about NASA AGU presentations, visit:
www.nasa.gov/agu
NASA satellite instruments have observed a marked increase in solar radiation absorbed in the Arctic since the year 2000 – a trend that aligns with the steady decrease in Arctic sea ice during the same period.
While sea ice is mostly white and reflects the sun’s rays, ocean water is dark and absorbs the sun’s energy at a higher rate. A decline in the region’s albedo – its reflectivity, in effect – has been a key concern among scientists since the summer Arctic sea ice cover began shrinking in recent decades. As more of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the climate system, it enhances ongoing warming in the region, which is more pronounced than anywhere else on the planet.
Since the year 2000, the rate of absorbed solar radiation in the Arctic in June, July and August has increased by five percent, said Norman Loeb, of NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. The measurement is made by NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments, which fly on multiple satellites.
sea_ice_fraction_change_and_absorbed_solar_radiation_change[1]
The Arctic Ocean is absorbing more of the sun’s energy in recent years as white, reflective sea ice melts and darker ocean waters are exposed. The increased darker surface area during the Arctic summer is responsible for a 5 percent increase in absorbed solar radiation since 2000. Image Credit: NASA Goddard’s Scientific Visualization Studio/Lori Perkins
While a five percent increase may not seem like much, consider that the rate globally has remained essentially flat during that same time. No other region on Earth shows a trend of potential long-term change.
When averaged over the entire Arctic Ocean, the increase in the rate of absorbed solar radiation is about 10 Watts per square meter. This is equivalent to an extra 10-watt light bulb shining continuously over every 10.76 square feet of Arctic Ocean for the entire summer.
Regionally, the increase is even greater, Loeb said. Areas such as the Beaufort Sea, which has experienced the some of the most pronounced decreases in sea-ice coverage, show a 50 watts per square meter increase in the rate of absorbed solar radiation.
“Advances in our understanding of Arctic climate change and the underlying processes that influence it will depend critically upon high quality observations like these from CERES,” Loeb said.As a region, the Arctic is showing more dramatic signs of climate change than any other spot on the planet. These include a warming of air temperatures at a rate two to three times greater than the rest of the planet and the loss of September sea ice extent at a rate of 13 percent per decade.
While these CERES measurements could ultimately become another of those signs of dramatic climate change, right now scientists say they have obtained the bare minimum of a data record needed to discern what’s happening over the long term.
Getting data beyond 15 years will allow scientists to better assess if recent trend falls outside the realm of natural variability, said Jennifer Kay, an atmospheric scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research and Environmental Science at the University of Colorado.
“We need long time series to detect climate change signals over the internal variability. For example, observed sea ice loss over the last 30 years cannot be explained by natural variability alone.” Kay said. “Fifteen years is long, but climate is often defined as the average over 30 years – so we are only half-way there with the CERES observations.”
Kay and colleagues have also analyzed satellite observations of Arctic clouds during this same 15-year period. Kay’s research shows summer cloud amounts and vertical structure are not being affected by summer sea ice loss. While surprising, the observations show that the bright sea ice surface is not automatically replaced by bright clouds. Indeed, sea ice loss, not clouds, explain the increases in absorbed solar radiation measured by CERES.
Increasing absorbed solar radiation is causing multiple changes in the sea ice cover, said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland. Two of those changes include the timing of the beginning of the melt season each year and the loss of older, thicker sea ice.
The onset of the melt season in the high Arctic is now on average seven days earlier than it was in 1982, Meier said. Earlier melting can lead to increased solar radiation absorption. This is one step in a potential feedback cycle of warming leading to melting, melting leading to increased solar radiation absorption, and increased absorption leading to enhanced warming.
Since 2000, the Arctic has lost 1.4 million square kilometers (541,000 square miles) of older ice that is more than 3 meters thick, which during winter has essentially been replaced by ice that is less than 2 meters thick, according to data provided by Mark Tschudi at the University of Colorado. Once again, Meier said, this trend is a step in a feedback cycle.
“Having younger and thus thinner ice during winter makes the system more vulnerable to ice loss during the summer melt season,” Meier said.
CERES instruments are currently flying on the Terra, Aqua and Suomi-NPP satellites. The Terra satellite launched Dec. 18, 1999, and CERES first started collecting Arctic data in 2000 so 2015 will mark 15 continuous years of CERES measurements over the Arctic.
The instruments include three radiometers – one measuring solar radiation reflected by Earth (shortwave), one measuring thermal infrared radiation emitted by Earth (longwave), and one measuring all outgoing radiation, whether emitted or reflected.
For more information about NASA AGU presentations, visit:
www.nasa.gov/agu
GLG
Well-Known Member
I see you can't tell ******** when you see it.... So the "Rift ate my Ice" even if it is 4000 meters below that same ice.... This is typical of your team of deniers. You make no sense when you and your arguments are give even the slightest bit of scrutiny.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7199/full/nature07075.html
If for some reason that it could even happen then we would see thin ice over the ridge. So lets post up a couple of pictures from you favoriet climate denial websites to prove it as ********.
First from the author of this ********.
now one from watts "tony's house of pizza and climate change"
Well there you go most of the rift that is under the ice is thicker then the rest of the arctic.
Perhaps if you did some critical thinking you would not be fooled by these bullshitters... Or is that asking too much.
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
That's not what the article said. Here I will quote it for you again....
Why is it that you and your denial team continue to misrepresent the science. Did you think we would not see that.
I have been following a science project. It's called the "dark snow project". The project is studying Greenland and what they are finding is very troubling. The results of this research will have consequences for everyone who lives on the coast. If Greenland melts abruptly our kids are in serious trouble. When I say abruptly that's worst case scenario of 1 meter per decade. But then again we won't have to worry about that, as we will be gone and then it's their problem right? Your side, stealing the future to make a buck in the present.
Where do you think the "bio-mass" is coming from? Could it be from forest fires? What was it that IPCC said about that? NWT seems to have had a bad season last summer. Wonder how that worked out.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
