I remember the Heartland Institutes mindless hatchet man Russell Cook commenting on the atmospheric CO2 levels when it first went over 400 ppm. He commented how it was just barely over 400 ppm and was only for a few days. This, he claimed, was no need to be concerned.
As in everything else Russell Cook says, it was all a bunch of crap.
On March 8 and 9, there was a dubious event - the hourly measurements exceeded 410 ppm on the Keeling Curve. This, as far as my research has shown, is the highest daily levels ever recorded. But, it doesn't stop there. The daily, weekly and monthly averages are consistently setting new records. I postulated that the last year we would ever see a CO2 level below 400 ppm would be in 2016. The Scripps Institute, which conducts the measurements made on Mauna Loa, stated they believed 2015 was the last year. It now looks as though they were correct.
The monthly average is currently about 407 ppm, with the yearly peak still to come in May. The fall drop is in the range of of 6 or 7 ppm, which means we will not drop below 400 ppm ever again in our lifetimes. The real goal should be, at this time, of stopping us from exceeding 450 ppm. 400 ppm is long gone and we need to stop focusing on it.
You can read the comments from the Scripp's Institute here. They are pretty bleak.
Where's Russell Cook now? Like I said, everything he says, and by extension, the Heartland Institute, is crap. Unfortunately, that is poor solace for a world destined to live with the damage done.
Friday, April 29, 2016
Arctic Sea Ice Doing Poorly
It is still early in the melt season, but the trend line established this year for the Arctic sea ice extent is for at least a near-record low extent this year. This spring saw the lowest sea ice maximum ever recorded. Additionally, throughout the winter ice growth season the extent was consistently a record low for the season and stayed near the 2-sigma line.
NSIDC gets its ice data from the DMSP series satellites. Most recently, this was the F17 satellite in that series. Unfortunately, there has been a sensor malfunction on the satellite and the data is not reliable. As a result, NSIDC has stopped publishing daily updates on the sea ice extent. The good news is that NSIDC is not the only source of sea ice data. The European Union has the EUMETSAT program and the Polar Portal, maintained by Danish Arctic research institutes, publishes daily updates on the ice conditions. Here is their most recent plot and you can see the extent is dramatically low.
Not only is the extent the lowest ever recorded for this time of year, it is also well below the two-sigma shaded region. The fact that it is well below the 2012 extent is getting attention as well. That was the record-low year shown in red. Now, some researchers are saying this year might break that record.
What is really getting their attention is how this year is record or near-record low for ice volume. The previous low was 2012.
Notice the maximum volume occurs later than the maximum extent. This is because the ice cap is still getting thicker towards the middle due to very cold temperatures way up north, while is starting to melt at the edges. As you can see from the graph, this year's volume is challenging the record. Combine that with record extent and the situation is favorable for a break-up of the ice cap.
I think it is too early to be able to make accurate forecasts about the ice extent. I would prefer to wait until at least late-June. But, at this point I would estimate the ice extent will be lower than last year's second-lowest extent but not as low as the record of 2012. Right now, my estimated forecast is around a minimum of about 4 million square kilometers.
And, that would not be good.
NSIDC gets its ice data from the DMSP series satellites. Most recently, this was the F17 satellite in that series. Unfortunately, there has been a sensor malfunction on the satellite and the data is not reliable. As a result, NSIDC has stopped publishing daily updates on the sea ice extent. The good news is that NSIDC is not the only source of sea ice data. The European Union has the EUMETSAT program and the Polar Portal, maintained by Danish Arctic research institutes, publishes daily updates on the ice conditions. Here is their most recent plot and you can see the extent is dramatically low.
 |
| Source: Polar Portal |
Not only is the extent the lowest ever recorded for this time of year, it is also well below the two-sigma shaded region. The fact that it is well below the 2012 extent is getting attention as well. That was the record-low year shown in red. Now, some researchers are saying this year might break that record.
What is really getting their attention is how this year is record or near-record low for ice volume. The previous low was 2012.
 |
| Source: Polar Portal |
Notice the maximum volume occurs later than the maximum extent. This is because the ice cap is still getting thicker towards the middle due to very cold temperatures way up north, while is starting to melt at the edges. As you can see from the graph, this year's volume is challenging the record. Combine that with record extent and the situation is favorable for a break-up of the ice cap.
I think it is too early to be able to make accurate forecasts about the ice extent. I would prefer to wait until at least late-June. But, at this point I would estimate the ice extent will be lower than last year's second-lowest extent but not as low as the record of 2012. Right now, my estimated forecast is around a minimum of about 4 million square kilometers.
And, that would not be good.
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Is Sarah Palin Really That Stupid?
I keep wondering if Sarah Palin is a mindless dimwit, or is it an act? Then she says something and I no longer wonder - it isn't an act. Take for example her recent comment that Bill Nye is "no more of a scientist than I am." Really? Bill Nye has a mechanical engineering degree from Cornell University. One of his professors was Carl Sagan. So, I have a word of advice for Mrs. Palin - Yes, Bill Nye is much more of a scientist than you could ever hope to be.
However, I agree with her when she states he was an actor on a TV show for children and compares herself to him. She has the mentality of a child, so I guess the comparison has a basis.
However, I agree with her when she states he was an actor on a TV show for children and compares herself to him. She has the mentality of a child, so I guess the comparison has a basis.
AGU Refuses To Diassociate From Exxon
Much to my disappointment, the American Geophysical Union,
the main professional union for geophysics, has decided to continue its
association with ExxonMobil. This debate over accepting funds from ExxonMobil
was precipitated by a letter to the AGU from the Union of Concerned Scientists
petitioning AGU to severe ties with the company due to Exxon's efforts to
mislead the public on climate change and interfere with efforts to address the
problem. Comments were solicited from union members and these comments were
considered in the debate. Hopefully, my comment was included in that list. The
union president, Margaret Leinen, states in her letter below that over 400
pages of documents were considered. And yet, the board voted to continue as
is.
I was able to find agreement wit Dr. Leinen on one thing.
She said the union was likely to lose members, no matter which way the board
voted. Well, they have. I sent an email to her stating that you can tell a lot
about someone by the company they keep. I feel the vote to continue accepting
funds from a fossil fuel company falls in this category. Likewise, a lot could
be said about the company I keep, so I will no longer be keeping company with
the AGU and have resigned after nearly 30 years of membership.
 |
|
Dear AGU Member,
As you know from my previous messages, the question of AGU's relationship with ExxonMobil (and our relationship with the larger oil and gas industry) has been a topic of great discussion for the last few months. When the most recent request to end ExxonMobil sponsorship and address questions about how our community should respond to the urgency of climate change was received in February, in the form of a letter signed by more than 170 AGU members and others in the climate science community, we treated it with the utmost concern and respect. The Board spent several hours over the course of our two-day meeting last week discussing the diversity of opinions amongst the membership of AGU, as well as the pros/cons of the various choices we might make, giving each equal importance and weight. In my nearly 5 year tenure on the AGU Board, I can say that this was one of the most important and nuanced discussions* the Board has ever had. We knew that our decision would have implications for our members, our programs and our relationships with the many sectors and industries that comprise AGU's broad membership. We knew that it could even result in the loss of members, as some individuals on both sides of the issue vowed to resign if our decision did not support their view. Given the importance of this decision, we proceeded carefully by reviewing more than 400 pages of background material** including a detailed report provided by the letter writers, every comment documented at our Council meeting and every communication sent to me by an individual member. We then conferred in a manner that allowed the range of opinions on the subject to be expressed and considered. As with our members, board members presented various viewpoints and we thoroughly considered all of them. We had detailed discussions about whether ExxonMobil's current actions are inconsistent with our organizational support policy in two areas: 1) promoting science misinformation and funding groups that are currently promoting misinformation about science, and 2) the potential impact of publicity about investigations into the company on AGU's reputation. We concluded that it is not possible for us to determine unequivocally whether ExxonMobil is participating in misinformation about science currently, either directly or indirectly, and that AGU's acceptance of sponsorship of the 2015 Student Breakfast does not constitute a threat to AGU's reputation. We also discussed a multitude of options for moving forward, ranging from severing all ties with ExxonMobil, to maintaining our engagement with ExxonMobil but no longer accepting their sponsorship, to maintaining the relationship and sponsorship agreement, as well as developing new ways to strengthen our engagement and influence with the energy industry – and everything in-between. In all of those discussions, we were careful to listen to each other closely and respectfully, even when we didn't agree on a particular point. We did not take up our final votes until the Board affirmed that all viewpoints were heard and understood and that they were ready to make decisions. In the end, by a majority vote, the board passed a motion that approved "continuing our current engagement between ExxonMobil and AGU including acceptance of funding from ExxonMobil." (In 2015 that support consisted of a $35,000 sponsorship of the Student Breakfast at the Fall Meeting; based on current information, if we are offered support for 2016, we can accept it). We were unanimous in our view that this issue has presented an opportunity and an obligation for us to exercise our convening role by bringing together those with diverse views across the science community to engage more directly with the private sector, and with ExxonMobil in particular. AGU is committed to creating an environment for dialogue about the roles of the science and business communities in all the sectors where science plays an essential role, and to exploring broadly and deeply the issues of energy, environment and climate change with the energy industry, our members and other stakeholders. As always, I encourage you to share your thoughts and input on these decisions with us. You can do so by leaving a comment on this post, or by sending an email to president@agu.org. In particular, I ask that you share your ideas about how we can more productively engage with the energy industry moving forward. We are already working on plans for an event/events to bring together the many views on these issues in a civil dialogue, but that cannot be the end of our engagement. Our intent is to develop a longer-term effort that draws on our ability as a scientific community to engage with the private sector to grapple with the challenging issues faced by society – including not just climate and energy issues but also scientific integrity. In closing, I want you all to know that, whether you agree with the Board's decisions or not, I personally thank you for your commitment to your science and your commitment to AGU. Even though it has been difficult at times, seeing you speak out, passionately and thoughtfully, about an issue like this has made me incredibly proud of our community and honored to serve as your president. Please don't limit that passion and action to just this one issue. AGU is your organization, and when you engage with it like you have these last few months, you make it a better place for science. Because we know that you may have questions regarding the Board's decision and the path we have chosen for moving forward, we have scheduled two times next week for interested AGU members to call in and share their thoughts with Executive Director/CEO Christine McEntee, President-elect Eric Davidson and me. The first call will be held on 20 April at 10 A.M. ET; the second will be held on 22 April at 3 P.M. ET. Space will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. To participate in one of these calls, please email your R.S.V.P. to feedback@agu.org. A copy of this statement is also posted on AGU's leadership blog, From the Prow, where you can also see my previous posts on this topic: Exxon, AGU, and Corporate Support; and UPDATE: Exxon, AGU, and Corporate Support.
Sincerely,
Margaret Leinen
*Prior to any discussion on these issues, all Board members were asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest. Three individuals declared potential conflicts of interest – though it was noted that nearly every university represented in the room receives some degree of funding from ExxonMobil. One Board member volunteered to recuse himself from voting on the issue and that offer was accepted. **Prior to the meeting, Board members reviewed a nearly-400-page packet of background materials that included copies of all correspondence AGU has received on the subject: the letters sent to us (and our responses); the more than 150 emails we received; the numerous tweets and blog comments that have come in over the last few months; a detailed report on ExxonMobil activities presented by the originators of the letter (in addition to the letter itself and other supporting materials); published news reports and peer-reviewed articles on ExxonMobil's activities; statements about climate change from ExxonMobil's website, a transcript from one of its shareholder meetings, and a letter that ExxonMobil sent to us; a report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists; and a report on the feedback provided by the Council during their meeting in March. |
Monday, April 11, 2016
What Just Happened to the Arctic Sea Ice?
The extent of the Arctic sea ice has skyrocketed in the last few days. Take a look at these plots from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
It was thought we had passed the maximum sea ice extent. Instead, in the space of only four days, the extent has increased by 490,000 square kilometers, not only surpassing the level that had been tagged as the maximum, but passing the maximum from last year as well. And, it appears more increase is likely.
Is this data valid or the result of some anomaly? If valid, what does this surge mean? Is there more ice or is this merely the artifact of the 15% threshold. If the ice breaks up and spreads, there is more ice extent even with less total ice. Or, has there been some kind of temperature drop resulting in the growth of ice in certain regions?
This is what the temperature across the region looked like for April 10th (the dark areas are areas with no data).
This is what it looked like a week ago.
If anything, it looks to me as if the ice is warmer now than a week ago. I see nothing that would make me expect a surge to occur.
It will be interesting to see what NSIDC says.
UPDATE:
NSIDC has stated "The daily sea ice extent images are sporadically displaying erroneous data. NSIDC is investigating with our satellite data providers." What it looks like to me is one axis has been reversed somehow. If we change the change in the y-directions (up and down on the graph) and leave the x-components the same, we would get a plot that is entirely consistent with the trendline of the previous data. We'll see how this plays out.
It was thought we had passed the maximum sea ice extent. Instead, in the space of only four days, the extent has increased by 490,000 square kilometers, not only surpassing the level that had been tagged as the maximum, but passing the maximum from last year as well. And, it appears more increase is likely.
Is this data valid or the result of some anomaly? If valid, what does this surge mean? Is there more ice or is this merely the artifact of the 15% threshold. If the ice breaks up and spreads, there is more ice extent even with less total ice. Or, has there been some kind of temperature drop resulting in the growth of ice in certain regions?
This is what the temperature across the region looked like for April 10th (the dark areas are areas with no data).
 |
| Source: Polar Portal |
This is what it looked like a week ago.
 |
| Source: Polar Portal |
It will be interesting to see what NSIDC says.
UPDATE:
NSIDC has stated "The daily sea ice extent images are sporadically displaying erroneous data. NSIDC is investigating with our satellite data providers." What it looks like to me is one axis has been reversed somehow. If we change the change in the y-directions (up and down on the graph) and leave the x-components the same, we would get a plot that is entirely consistent with the trendline of the previous data. We'll see how this plays out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)