posted 12-19-2003 06:25 PM               

It is the height of arrogance to assume that you have the “best” and only approach to education and research on this matter.

Your assumption that I am “undermining an alternative approach” because I am attempting to inform others on the realities of climate change is equally absurd. Since when is it necessary for me to discount myriad sources of information that confirm that there is a real, and growing, anthropogenic influence on global climate instability? Just how does that in any way “undermine” an equally strong desire to understand the reasons for the intentional modification of the atmosphere with aerosols?

The Deep Shield “insider” information is highly suspect. As I have said before, it MAY be based on facts OR it may be complete disinformation. You may choose to believe this, but even if I think that the stated rationale for such a project is legitimate, I place no trust in TPTB to act in any way other than one that supports their own, limited, self-interest. This is a BLACK PROJECT, and in my opinion, no one to date has provided a satisfactory explanation as to who is controlling its operation and precisely what the intended goals are, as well as the unintended collateral consequences.

I can only image how pleased the debunker boards must be with your request for us to operate with “Gorbachev-style innovation”.

Frankly, I think I’ll pass on that one.

posted 12-19-2003 08:15 PM               

quote:

---

But please note that even in this "cut & paste" press release that you have provided it states that most of the world's glaciers are melting as a result of global warming".
Are you blind? or do you only see that which supports your beliefs?

---

The press release is not a “peer-reviewd” study, it is just that, a repetition of what a journalist heard from a “mediatic scientist”, assuming his words and claims are verified facts.

And, as usual, you have a mental block preventing to read what I say regarding the subject. So I will post it again, so you can read it this time:

posted 12-19-2003 09:28 PM               

Actually, not in the slightest. I have seen the accelerated aging effects of those who indulge in excessive exposure to the sun.

But then maybe you enjoy the aged, wrinkled look.

Each to his own.

And thanks for reminding me that we need to add the World Glacier Monitoring Service to your bin of discredited organizations.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm willing to review the thread if you wish), but I thought both Science and Nature magazines were on your hit list as well.

You don't seem to see the irony of using a 14 year old article from a journal that you have elsewhere condemned.

Perhaps that was in the good old days before they were politically infiltrated....just like the WGMS.

By the way, many of my posts, some of which were from much more current Science articles, contradict your claim (which seems to be shrinking) of glacial advance.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010605072007.htm

New Research Shows Mountain Glaciers Shrinking Worldwide

Source: American Institute Of Physics

Boston, MA (May 30, 2001) -- Mountain glaciers around the world are receding, said geophysicists today at the annual spring meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). In a finding he calls "dramatic," Dr. Rick Wessels from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) presented research that compared new satellite data to historical records and photographs of glaciers on mountains worldwide, showing that the majority of glaciers studied have decreased in size.

*******************************************

http://www.colorado.edu/PublicRelations/NewsReleases/1998/Worlds_Glaciers_Continu e_To_Sh.html

WORLD'S GLACIERS CONTINUE TO SHRINK,
ACCORDING TO NEW CU-BOULDER STUDY

The volume of the world's glaciers outside of Antarctica and the Greenland Ice Sheet continues to decline and the rate of ice loss continues to accelerate, according to a new University of Colorado at Boulder study.

"In the last century, there has been a significant decrease in the area and volume of glaciers, especially at mid- and low-latitudes," said Professor Emeritus Mark Meier of the geological sciences department. "The disappearance of glacier ice is more pronounced than we previously had thought."
The smaller, low-latitude glaciers seem to be taking the biggest hit, said Meier, noting the largest glacier on Africa's Mount Kenya lost 92 percent of its mass in the last century and Mount Kilimanjaro glaciers have shrunk by 73 percent in that time period. Although there were 27 glaciers in Spain in 1980, that number has since dropped to 13.

********************************************

http://www.etsimo.uniovi.es/solar/portug/earthpr1.htm

NASA Researchers Document Shrinking of Greenland's Glaciers

Greenland's southeastern glaciers are rapidly thinning and their lower elevations may be particularly sensitive to potential climate changes, a NASA study suggests.

March 5 issue of Science

********************************************
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/october2003/fastest_area_of_glacial_retreat .htm

South American glaciers' big melt
The Patagonia glaciers of Chile and Argentina are melting so fast they are making a significant contribution to sea-level rise, say scientists.

They report ice was lost at a rate sufficient to push up ocean waters by 0.04 millimetres per year during the period from 1975 through to 2000.

This is equal, the researchers say, to 9% of the total annual global sea-level rise from all mountain glaciers.

The American research team reports its findings in the journal Science.

*******************************************
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/138.cfm

South American Glaciers Melting Faster, Changing Sea Level

October 16, 2003

Patagonia Icefields of Chile and Argentina, the largest non-Antarctic ice masses in the Southern Hemisphere, are thinning at an accelerating pace and now account for nearly 10 percent of global sea-level change from mountain glaciers, according to a new study by NASA and Chile's Centro de Estudios Cientificos.

Researchers Dr. Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.; Andres Rivera of Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile; and Dr. Gino Casassa of Centro de Estudios Cientificos, Valdivia, Chile, compared conventional topographic data from the 1970s and 1990s with data from NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, flown in February 2000. Their objective was to measure changes over time in the volumes of the 63 largest glaciers in the region.

Results of the study, published this week in the journal Science, conclude the Patagonia Icefields lost ice at a rate equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.04 millimeters (0.0016 inches) per year during the period 1975 through 2000. This is equal to nine percent of the total annual global sea-level rise from mountain glaciers, according to the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Scientific Assessment. From 1995 through 2000, however, that rate of ice loss from the icefields more than doubled, to an equivalent sea level rise of 0.1 millimeters (0.004 inches) per year.

********************************************

So please explain to me Eduardo , just how is it that you choose to completely dismiss these recent articles in favor of ONE that is 14 years old?

Should we be adding the AGU, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the USGS to your list of incompetents?

posted 12-19-2003 11:44 PM               

quote:

---

Boston, MA (May 30, 2001)- Mountain glaciers around the world are receding, … and photographs of glaciers on mountains worldwide, showing that the majority of glaciers studied have decreased in size.

---

“Mountain glaciers around the world are advancing, … and photographs of glaciers on mountains worldwide, showing that the majority of glaciers studied have increased in size

Both press releases wouldn’t be lying. Both are equally true. Both are equally misinforming.

These three statements are also scientifically correct and honest 100%:

1. “Glaciers around the world are receding”
2. “Glaciers around the world are stable”
3. “Glaciers around the world are advancing”

Of course, if you concentrate in just one type of glaciers (receding or advancing) you will be right, and wouldn’t be lying. But some micro circumvoluted brains can’t perceive the difference.

quote:

---

The volume of the world's glaciers outside of Antarctica and the Greenland Ice Sheet continues to decline and the rate of ice loss continues to accelerate, according to a new University of Colorado at Boulder study.

---

quote:

---

NASA Researchers Document Shrinking of Greenland's Glaciers
Greenland's southeastern glaciers are rapidly thinning and their lower elevations may be particularly sensitive to potential climate changes, a NASA study suggests.

---

quote:

---

So please explain to me Eduardo , just how is it that you choose to completely dismiss these recent articles in favor of ONE that is 14 years old?
Should we be adding the AGU, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the USGS to your list of incompetents?

---

Why should you trust a 14-year paper and be suspicious of 2003 papers? I thought that was explained before, when referring to the present state of politicized climatic science, the crummy peer-review process, and the extensive corruption found on the high levels of any organization linked in any way with the United Nations Organization, the most corrupt organization in the whole world. Please, let us try to avoid this subject, or we are never going to end the GW discussion.

An why I am a sceptic on many "scientific" issues?:

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

posted 12-20-2003 05:11 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sore Throat:
Halva, I was active in the issue of the modification of our atmosphere YEARS before you ever hit the scene. Much of that history has departed, along with previous message boards, and while I appreciate your interest in this issue, you are very much a Johnny Come Lately.

It is the height of arrogance to assume that you have the “best” and only approach to education and research on this matter.

Your assumption that I am “undermining an alternative approach” because I am attempting to inform others on the realities of climate change is equally absurd. Since when is it necessary for me to discount myriad sources of information that confirm that there is a real, and growing, anthropogenic influence on global climate instability? Just how does that in any way “undermine” an equally strong desire to understand the reasons for the intentional modification of the atmosphere with aerosols?

The Deep Shield “insider” information is highly suspect. As I have said before, it MAY be based on facts OR it may be complete disinformation. You may choose to believe this, but even if I think that the stated rationale for such a project is legitimate, I place no trust in TPTB to act in any way other than one that supports their own, limited, self-interest. This is a BLACK PROJECT, and in my opinion, no one to date has provided a satisfactory explanation as to who is controlling its operation and precisely what the intended goals are, as well as the unintended collateral consequences.

I can only image how pleased the debunker boards must be with your request for us to operate with “Gorbachev-style innovation”.

Frankly, I think I’ll pass on that one.

By the way, I share your frustration with Greenpeace, and I routinely give them, and any other environmental organization, an earful when they disturb me at dinner time to request donations.

---

On the question of my being a Johnny Come Lately: this is something that Eddy and Mark Sky have also liked to remind each other and others. Is the message that we don't want Johnny Come Latelies, but only veterans? How I would like to see some more Johnny Come Latelies.

It was bad that you let your temper get the better of you and resigned from the Council just because (presumably) you didn't like the approach I was trying to take with debunkers.

Deborah's stance was more nuanced. She both approved and disapproved. If you change your mind and return to the Council she may do the same, because I think it was your resignation that triggered hers.

The debunkers I have been most impatient with are those who insist on trying to drag us back into the contrail vs chemtrail debate, which is apparently the debate for which they have been briefed. The Deep Shield revelations provide a starting point for a much more fruitful discussion and much more fruitful interventions, in my view, than public statements starting from the Unidentified Flying Object perspective or from people reacting to what they see in the sky.

If you take a look at Megasprayer you will see that Chem 11 also supports the view that the basic rationale behind chemtrails that of a strategy for mitigating global warming. This is what he says:

"Sedona makes some extremely valid points regarding how to best approach the subject matter (although I might take issue with her assertion that we "don't know" what is responsible for the phenomenon; this question has been answered to my satisfaction quite some time ago and other respected researchers and activists reached identical conclusions before I did).

The problem is that the truth, while a sickening confirmation of the reality and danger of the situation, isn't terribly interesting. Americans, espescially, expect to be entertained first and foremost... and a wrong-headed plan to seed the atmosphere with sulfate aerosols to mitigate global warming just doesn't have the same box office appeal as just about any of the other theories we were used to tossing around.

Sure, there's some suitably frightening military applications related to the project....(snip) "

What Chem 11 is saying (and I agree with this) is that the global warming mitigation project appears to be providing the basic infrastructure - including a reservoir of motivated personnel with the lugubrious and pseudo-public spirited mindset of a 'Deep Shield') onto which the black projects such as the dissemination of disease and the military HAARP-style functions can then be piggy-backed.

If we focus on the climate mitigation aspect and how the false solution being implemented is driven by the deadlock between scientists arguing that global warming is proven and scientists arguing that it isn't, just as the bipolar superpower nuclear arms race was driven by the deadlock between nuclear armed states promoting "capitalism" and "communism" respectively, then you have an interface with existing concerns of the ecological movement and do not come to that movement as an outsider propounding what can be caricatured as "conspiracy theories".

The discussion I had yesterday with the head of Greenpeace in Greece confirmed my presentiment that this might be a less self-defeating approach than slagging them off (much as I want to do it myself, and have done in the past). For better or for worse, the public don't want to hear criticism of Greenpeace. Perhaps it is because they think if you criticise Greenpeace you must be an Edufer.

It is a pity that David Stewart's participation here is so spasmodic, because he has said some things about the genuineness or otherwise of "Deep Shield" and doubtless could say much more. Personally I find it very plausible that there could be large numbers of ecologically motivated people with the mindset of a Deep Shield imagining that if the truth of what they are doing became an object for open political debate they would be endangered.

You are not the only person to have responded to the "Deep Shield" revelations in a way that, as I said, reminds me of the way that World Peace Council people reacted to criticisms of the Soviet nuclear arsenal.

William Thomas did the same, and Mark Sky and sucking eggs, to come closer to home, have views on this subject more or less similar to yours, I think.

Jay Reynolds and the debunkertorium are also anxious to ensure that the credibility of 'Deep Shield' remains something they can scoff about.

The fact that they would be laughing up their sleeves at my proposal for 'Gorbachev-style' innovations is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. None of them would know their ass from a hole in the ground on questions such as that.

I am telling the truth when I say that what I propose is an ALTERNATIVE approach. I don't want to undermine you in your debate with Edufer on global warming and I don't want to do to exponents of your views what rank-and-file Gorbachev-line Communists did to traditional Stalinist Communists. I am pleased that representatives of the World Peace Council viewpoint are still up and about. Greece is probably the country in the world where they remain strongest.

Sore Throat, I support Chem 11's and sucking eggs' view that you should come back to the Council.

posted 12-20-2003 10:20 PM               

quote:

---

For better or for worse, the public don't want to hear criticism of Greenpeace. Perhaps it is because they think if you criticise Greenpeace you must be an Edufer.

---

Some of them come from the very “kidney” of Greenpeace, so we have great inside information about this corrupt organization. But, as usual, those converted were sincere people that thought they were helping to “save anything”, and discovered the only thing they were saving was David McTaggart's fat Swiss accounts. When you deal with a serious Greenpeacer, one of the big guys in charge, you see they are in for the money, the power, the notoriety and everything that comes along with this. The middle ranks do it because it is a religion. The lower ranks do it because they are sincere imbeciles that can't see they are being used.

They couldn’t care less about the “salvation of the planet”. As told by Bjorn Oekern, former president of Greenpeace Norway, and director of Greenpeace International when resigning in 1994 from his positions in the organization: “Greenpeace is an eco-fascist organization” … “not a cent from the money Greeenpeace got from their campaigns, was spent in the conservation of the environment”.

Following Oekern resignation and the ensuing scandal, Frans Kotte, former head of accountants at Greenpeace International, also resigned, telling about secret Swiss Banks accounts belonging to the “heads” at Greenpeace International – providing their secret numbers. David McTaggart, Greenpeace’s owner, quietly resigned and went to a vacation in his luscious Italian villa in Perugia, putting Finnish attorney Matti Wuori in his place. Forbes magazine run a story on Greenpeace with a caption above McTaggart’s photo: “David McTaggart: former president of Greenpeace. Once more getting away in time? However, he keep managing the strings in the background. He is the owner.

They were referring to the manner McTaggart used to run his real estate business in Aspen, Colorado, and Bear Valley, California, where he mounted a scam about huge ski resorts and condominiums for millions of dollars. He is still required by the US justice. He even embezzled his own mother-in-law, Gertrude Huberty, and his wife, Betty before making a “discreet” retreat to New Zealand, where he was arrested some years later for smuggling Swiss watches in his ketch – that later became the first “Rainbow Warrior” in 1985, where KGB agent, Fernando Pereira was killed by the French secret service bomb in its keel.

McTaggart was recruited by E. Bennet Metcalfe, one of Greenpeace’s founding members, who said years ago: “By the way we started then and the way it is now, I often regard myself as a kind of Dr. Frankestein that created a monster that now has a life of his own”.

posted 12-21-2003 12:02 AM               

1. “Glaciers around the world are receding”
2. “Glaciers around the world are stable”
3. “Glaciers around the world are advancing”

I agree completely.

Where we disagree Eduardo is on the current proportion of each of these classes. You rely on dated information and say that the vast majority of what is presently being published is "politically" tainted and therefore unreliable.

That is your belief.

I doubt that you personally have access to the monitoring tools that are availble to the groups making the current reports on glacial retreat (Jet Propuilasion Laboratory, NASA, etc.).

You state:

"And why I am a sceptic on many "scientific" issues?:

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

Thomas H. Huxley

I of course would completely support a "healthy skepticism" when analyzing the science of others.

You may not be aware of this, but I have had lengthy "discussions" on the issue of persistent contrails with "The Esteemed" NASA researcher, Dr. Patrick Minnis.

On the issue of the modification of our atmosphere by the release of aerosols, I know that NASA is being far from candid with the American public.

You might ask what emperical evidence leads me to this conclusion.

The answer is direct observation. Air traffic in the San Francisco Bay Area is a relative constant. There are three major airports in this area and traffic patterns are well established. This certainly is not air space used for military exercises.

There are times when we experience horizon-to-horizon contrails that persist for hours and spread out into a blanketing cirrus-type cloud cover. On many such events, the local atmospheric soundings (taken right from the Oakland Airport) are nowhere near the conditions necessary for such persistent formations. These Skew-T data are further corrorborated by regional atmospheric conditions (i.e., dominant high pressure, low moisture) as being inappropriate for such persistence.

At other times, when conditions are far more favorable for such formations, they simply do not exist.

If you are at all interested in this topic, and the multitude of reasons why such aerosols modification could be underway, please review:

Chemtrails Over America — A Special Report

http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america.htm#Investigators

I stongly suspect you are not personally witnessing what is being experienced here in North America. Looking at pictures is one thing...being directly under such formations, with the knowledge of what you have experienced your entire life, is quite another.

Diane Harvey has written quite elequantly on this topic and I would encourge you to read her work as well:

The Continuing Catastrophe Called Chemtrails
http://www.rense.com/general45/chemt.htm

As far as man's impact on global climate change, this is an area where we strongly differ.

You take the position: "1) climate change is not induced by man, but it is a natural phenomenon".

I believe that the combined activities of the six billion perple on this planet are having an influence on increasing climate instability.

What is interesting to me is that you have repeatedly made the case, as in the issue of vineyards in England, that urban heat islands can impact "huge" areas. And yet, while you will readily acknowledge a very substantial regional effect, you appear equally adamant that these combined regional effects cannot in turn have a global impact.

A very strange disconnect if you don't mind me saying so. It seems quite illogical to me. And I find your absolutely certainty on this point to be truly a matter of belief on your part.

Since we cannot agree on the validity of current data on glacial retreat, would you like to explore the issue of coal reef bleaching? Since the oceans are a major heat sink for the planet, we should rightly assume that they would be a good indicator for a significant climate change on a planetary level.

posted 12-21-2003 05:55 PM               

December 17, 2003

Studies Show Global Warming is Likely to Drive Big Changes in California’s Coastal Waters

Global warming could have profound effects on the wind-driven upwelling of deep ocean water along the California coast, according to recent studies by researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The studies showed changes in both the intensity and the seasonal timing of the upwelling, which brings cold, nutrient-rich water into coastal ecosystems.

This seasonal upwelling supports California’s diverse marine life and productive fisheries, but how changes in the upwelling will affect these and other aspects of coastal ecosystems remains uncertain. The researchers, led by professor of Earth sciences Lisa Sloan, used computer simulations of the regional climate to show that wind-driven upwelling along the California coast will likely intensify over the next 50 years as a result of increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In addition, the models showed the upwelling season extending later into the fall.

The first set of experiments was published in the August 14 issue of Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), and a second paper with additional findings will be published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). ...more

********************************************

SCRIPPS RESEARCHERS PINPOINT HUMAN-INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING IN WORLD’S OCEANS
http://www.solcomhouse.com/Scripps.htm

Most efforts to detect signs of global warming have been directed to signals in the air temperature field. Breaking research conducted by Tim Barnett and David Pierce of Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, has shown preliminary evidence of human-produced warming in the upper 3,000 meters of the world’s oceans. Their findings are published in the April 13 edition of the journal Science.

Barnett and Pierce, with colleague Reiner Schnur, cross-referenced data from the U.S.-developed Parallel Climate Model (sponsored by the Department of Energy and the National Center for Atmospheric Research), which factors in the influence of greenhouse gases and direct sulfate aerosols over the last 50 years, and direct observations of heat content change in the ocean over the same period. They found that as the climate model ocean temperature rose and penetrated into the depths of the oceans, the observed global ocean temperature down to 3,000 meters rose right along with it.

They note that the agreement between the model and the observations is remarkably similar in all the oceans. "The initial results are certainly compatible at the 95 percent confidence level with the hypothesis that the warming observed in the global oceans has been caused by anthropogenic sources," said Barnett, a research marine physicist in the Climate Research Division at Scripps. "Our results provide a broader foundation for claims that global warming has been observed and attributed to human activities." Pierce notes: "This work also provides a new criterion for measuring the realism of computer climate models. As models are improved to better match ocean warming seen over the last fifty years, they should give better estimates of future climate change as well." The research was supported by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association Climate Change Data and Detection program and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research. Schnur was supported by the Max Planck Institut for Meteorology.

[img] ]http://www.solcomhouse.com/hotwat2.gif[/img]

*********************************************

Shrinking ice in Antarctic sea 'exposes global warming'

Frozen oceans that affect currents such as the Gulf Stream have decreased dramatically, say scientists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antarctic/story/0,13993,1085643,00.html

Australian scientists yesterday revealed new evidence of global warming, suggesting that sea ice around Antarctica had shrunk 20% in the past 50 years.

The research published in the journal Science traced the pattern of sea ice in the Southern Ocean as far back as 1840.

"Between 1841 and 1950 there was very little change but there is a marked decline in sea ice distribution since 1950 of around 20%," said the lead author, Mark Curran.

The change is important because sea ice - the area around the poles where seawater is frozen into layers no more than a few metres thick - is regarded as a crucial indicator of climate change.

...more
*********************************************
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20031117204012data_trunc_sys.shtml

Massive Salinity Changes In Oceans

Tropical ocean waters have become dramatically saltier over the past 40 years, while oceans closer to Earth's poles have become fresher, scientists report in the journal Nature. These large-scale, relatively rapid oceanic changes suggest that recent climate changes, including global warming, may be altering the fundamental planetary system that regulates evaporation and precipitation and cycles fresh water around the globe. The study was conducted by Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI); Bob Dickson of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Science in Lowestoft, U.K.; and Igor Yashayaev of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth, Canada.

"This study is important because it provides direct evidence that the global water cycle is intensifying," said Elise Ralph, associate director of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) physical oceanography program, which funded the research. "This is consistent with global warming hypotheses that suggest ocean evaporation will increase as Earth's temperature does. These issues are particularly important as pressure on freshwater resources has become critical in many areas around the world."
...more

*********************************************
Driving the Ocean Conveyor
http://wikyonos.seos.uvic.ca/people/weaver/documents/NatureNV2.html

“One of the central questions in understanding past and future climates concerns the North Atlantic conveyor and how it might respond to increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases and changes in the net flux of freshwater into its basin. Rahmstorf1, on page xxxx of this issue has for the first time undertaken a detailed study of the sensitivity of the conveyor to changes in the freshwater input into the North Atlantic using a global ocean model coupled to a very simple atmospheric model. His results suggest that the present-day conveyor may be less stable than many researchers have thought. He further suggests that 0.06 x 106 m3s-1 of additional freshwater continually maintained into the North Atlantic could irreversibly shut down the conveyor with a pronounced cooling effect on the surrounding areas.” ...more

*********************************************

Global Warming & Rising Oceans
http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/chanton.html

“
Evidence is accumulating that global warming, induced by fossil fuel use, is becoming a real threat:
·temperatures have been at a record high for a decade

·coastal shorelines have retreated

·island nations are losing habitable land

·glaciers are melting on five continents

*********************************************
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/uoc--sfe121703.php

Study finds evidence for global methane release about 600 million years ago

New findings may have implications for the stability of today's climate

Public release date: 17-Dec-2003

Scientists at the University of California, Riverside and Columbia University have found evidence of the release of an enormous quantity of methane gas as ice sheets melted at the end of a global ice age about 600 million years ago, possibly altering the ocean's chemistry, influencing oxygen levels in the ocean and atmosphere, and enhancing climate warming because methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. The study was published in today's issue of the journal Nature.

The global ice age is of particular interest to paleobiologists because it took place shortly before the first appearance of animals in the fossil record, and may have supplied an environmental drive to evolution. The Earth's most severe climate is thought to have occurred about 600 million years ago with ice sheets stretching to the tropics. Some scientists have referred to times of such extreme cold as a "snowball Earth" condition, assuming that the ocean would have been totally ice covered.

The new evidence is based on a chemical fingerprint of the methane gas from rocks in south China, which is strongly enriched in lighter carbon isotope, carbon-12, and which the researchers measured in ancient ocean carbonate sediments that were deposited as the temperature rose. The methane gas was apparently derived from the melting of frozen methane clathrate crystals that had accumulated beneath the seafloor.

"The extremely negative isotopic values from these sediments provide unambiguous evidence for methane-derived carbon," said Ganqing Jiang, a researcher at the University of California, Riverside, and the article's lead author. "The identification of a methane-derived isotope signal and widespread seep-like deposits indicate the massive passage of methane through the sediments," he added. "We now have an important record of the role methane plays in climate change and the global carbon cycle."

Methane clathrates are increasingly thought to play a role in mass extinctions associated with significant climate change in the Earth's history, and they are a large and exceedingly unstable source of greenhouse gas, greater than the equivalent of instantaneously burning all the oil reserves on Earth.

"Linking these dramatic climate events to changes in the methane clathrate pool has important implications for the stability of our current climate," said Martin Kennedy, an associate professor of geology at UC Riverside. "The Earth has a large unstable pool of these clathrates in ocean sediments today, and it is thought that a few degrees of ocean warming could trigger large-scale release into the atmosphere. We now have strong evidence of this doomsday scenario in one of the most important intervals of Earth's biologic history".

The recognition of extreme isotope variability in the rocks examined in south China is expected to stimulate new research.

"This is a very exciting result because the existence of methane seeps and their possible significance in explaining the unusual carbon isotopic signature of the carbonate deposits had been discounted by many on the basis of the lack of expected isotopic heterogeneity," said Nicholas Christie-Blick, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. "If the methane hydrate hypothesis is borne out by new studies that are sure to be stimulated by this research, it represents one more reason for questioning why the snowball Earth edifice is needed."

*********************************************
Livermore Scientists To Present Global Warming Mitigation Tool For Ridding The Atmosphere Of Excess Carbon

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — Researchers from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory today will present evidence that a new method for capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and placing it in the ocean has less impact on marine life than atmospheric carbon dioxide release or other global warming mitigation methods, such as direct injection and ocean fertilization.

LLNL earth scientists Greg Rau, Ken Caldeira and Kevin Knauss will showcase the research, called carbonate dissolution, today at the 2001 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. The proposal would hydrate the carbon dioxide in power plant flue gas with water to produce a carbonic acid solution. This solution would be mixed with limestone —-- that neutralizes the carbon dioxide by converting it to bicarbonate — and then would be released in the ocean. This process occurs naturally (carbonate weathering), but at a much slower pace.

"You are altering the chemistry of the carbon dioxide that causes a less drastic change to ocean pH (acidity) and is less biologically harmful than other methods such as direct injection ocean carbon sequestration and ocean fertilization," said Rau, an LLNL guest scientist who also works as a senior researcher with the Institute for Marine Sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Whether carbon dioxide is released in the atmosphere or the ocean, eventually about 80 percent of the carbon dioxide will end up in the ocean in a form that will make the ocean more acidic. While the carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, it could produce adverse climate change. When it enters the ocean, the acidification could be harmful to marine life.

"If the carbon dioxide were reacted with crushed limestone and seawater, and the resulting solution released to the ocean, the limestone would buffer the pH (acidity) of the ocean and prevent it from becoming more acidic," Caldeira said. "Furthermore, the dissolved limestone would tend to keep the carbon dioxide in the ocean and out of the atmosphere. This process would occur naturally anyway, but on about a 6000-year time scale."

LLNL scientists are now engaged in both experimental and modeling work to study the feasibility of the proposed method of ocean carbon sequestration. Caldeira said initial results appear promising. Researchers believe that the carbonate dissolution process would expand the capacity of the ocean to store carbon dioxide while minimizing the amount of carbon going back into the atmosphere, unlike some of the other forms of carbon dioxide sequestration.

Direct injection of carbon dioxide into the deep ocean will likely negatively impact marine organisms and their ecosystems, due to the increased acidity. Recent research shows that the acid-base imbalance can cause exoskeletal components to decay, retard growth and reproduction, reduce activity and cause loss of consciousness and even death to deep ocean marine life because of a disruption of oxygen-transport mechanisms (Science, Vol. 294, p. 319-320).

In addition, Caldeira, in previous studies, showed that unless carbon dioxide is converted to some other form before injection, it will degas back to the atmosphere when diffusion or ocean circulation returns it to the ocean surface. In ocean fertilization, the biology of phytoplankton (which grows close to the ocean surface) is changed so that it increases the conversion of carbon dioxide to biomass. The conversion is likely to transport acidity from the surface ocean to the deep ocean.

Rau said private companies operating power plants would need incentives to start a carbonate dissolution program. "They need motivation to sequester carbon dioxide, and they need methods that are effective and are economically and environmentally practical," he said. "Carbonate dissolution allows a power plant to continue burning fossil fuel but eliminate at least some of the carbon dioxide that is emitted, and in a way that is probably less expensive and more environmentally friendly than other carbon dioxide sequestration methods."

LLNL researchers will present their findings today and will be available to the press and public at 10 a.m. during a press conference titled "Global Warming Mitigation."

Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a national security laboratory, with a mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.

*********************************************

Enough for today. Hopefully this information will encourage a discussion of the role of the oceans in global climate change.

posted 12-21-2003 06:27 PM               

I do not believe that a public forum is an appropriate place to discuss council issues.

posted 12-21-2003 07:43 PM               

quote:

---

I believe that the combined activities of the six billion people on this planet are having an influence on increasing climate instability.

---

quote:

---

What is interesting to me is that you have repeatedly made the case, as in the issue of vineyards in England, that urban heat islands can impact "huge" areas. And yet, while you will readily acknowledge a very substantial regional effect, you appear equally adamant that these combined regional effects cannot in turn have a global impact.

---

But when we make up a total of “regional heat islands”, all over the world, we reach at a figure of not higher than 5%. And 5% of heat islands don't add too much to the 95% remainig of the world. The heat island remains a local and regional effect. When we quantify effects, things tend to look more real.

quote:

---

A very strange disconnect if you don't mind me saying so. It seems quite illogical to me. And I find your absolutely certainty on this point to be truly a matter of belief on your part.

---

quote:

---

Since we cannot agree on the validity of current data on glacial retreat, would you like to explore the issue of coal reef bleeching? Since the oceans are a major heat sink for the planet, we should rightly assume that they would be a good indicator for a significant climate change on a planetary level.
Is that a point of disagreement?

---

If warming is responsible of coral bleaching, then coral reefs would show that effect happening back between 800AD-1350AD, during the Medieval Warm period, whose temperatures were still 2º C higher than today. As there is no paleoclimatic evidence of such kind in proxy studies, we must assume warming has not a noticeable effect on coral reefs.

I found this on the web, that you surely know, but people in the forum might not:

From: http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/coral_reef/science.html

posted 12-21-2003 10:10 PM               

*********************************************
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/CB_indices/coral_bleaching_indices.html

Tropical Ocean
Coral Bleaching Indices
Degree Heating Weeks for 20 DEC 2003

The NOAA satellite-derived Degree Heating Week (DHW) is an operational product designed to indicate the accumulated thermal stress that coral reefs experience. A DHW is equivalent to 1 week of sea surface temperature 1 deg C above the expected summertime maximum. For example, 2 DHWs indicate 1 week of 2 deg C above the expected summertime maximum. We have observed that DHWs of 10+ have been accompanied by severe bleaching and often mortality.

********************************************
http://www.odysseyexpeditions.org/coralbleaching.htm

Coral Reef Bleaching

Coral reef bleaching, the whitening of diverse invertebrate taxa, results from the loss of symbiotic zooxantheallae and/or a reduction in photosynthetic pigment concentrations in zooxanthellae residing within scleractinian corals. Coral reef bleaching is caused by various anthropogenic and natural variations in the reef environment including sea temperature, solar irradiance, sedimentation, xenobiotics, subaerial exposure, inorganic nutrients, freshwater dilution, and epizootics. Coral bleaching events have been increasing in both frequency and extent worldwide in the past 20 years. Global climate change may play a role in the increase in coral bleaching events, and could cause the destruction of major reef tracts and the extinction of many coral species.

Bleaching, or the paling of zooxanthellate invertebrates, occurs when (i) the densities of zooxanthellae decline and / or (ii) the concentration of photosynthetic pigments within the zooxanthellae fall (Kleppel et al. 1989). Most reef-building corals normally contain around 1-5 x 106 zooxanthellae cm-2 of live surface tissue and 2-10 pg of chlorophyll a per zooxanthella. When corals bleach they commonly lose 60-90% of their zooxanthellae and each zooxanthella may lose 50-80% of its photosynthetic pigments (Glynn 1996). The pale appearance of bleached scleractinian corals and hydrocorals is due to the cnidarian’s calcareous skeleton showing through the translucent tissues (that are nearly devoid of pigmented zooxanthellae).

If the stress-causing bleaching is not too severe and if it decreases in time, the affected corals usually regain their symbiotic algae within several weeks or a few months. If zooxanthellae loss is prolonged, i.e. if the stress continues and depleted zooxanthellae populations do not recover, the coral host eventually dies .

Three hypotheses have been advanced to explain the cellular mechanism of bleaching, and all are based on extreme sea temperatures as one of the causative factors. High temperature and irradiance stressors have been implicated in the disruption of enzyme systems in zooxanthellae that offer protection against oxygen toxicity. Photosynthesis pathways in zooxanthallae are impaired at temperatures above 30 degrees C, this effect could activate the disassociation of coral / algal symbiosis. Low- or high-temperature shocks results in zooxanthellae low as a result of cell adhesion dysfunction. This involves the detachment of cnidarian endodermal cells with their zooxanthellae and the eventual expulsion of both cell types.

It has been hypothesized that bleaching is an adaptive mechanism which allows the coral to be repopulated with a different type of zooxanthellae, possibly conferring greater stress resistance. Different strains of zooxanthellae exist both between and within different species of coral hosts, and the different strains of algae show varied physiological responses to both temperature and irradiance exposure. The coral / algal association may have the scope to adapt within a coral’s lifetime. Such adaptations could be either genetic or phenotypic.

Spatial and temporal range of coral reef bleaching

Mass coral moralities in coral reef ecosystems have been reported in all major reef provinces since the 1870s. The frequency and scale of bleaching disturbances has increased dramatically since the late 70’s. This is possibly due to more observers and a greater interest in reporting in recent years. More than 60 coral reef bleaching events out of 105 mass coral moralities were reported between 1979-1990, compared with only three bleaching events among 63 mass coral moralities recorded during the preceding 103 years.

Nearly all of the world’s major coral reef regions (Caribbean/ western Atlantic, eastern Pacific, central and western Pacific, Indian Ocean, Arabian Gulf, Red Sea) experienced some degree of coral bleaching and mortality during the 1980s.

Prior to the 1980s, most mass coral moralities were related to non-thermal disturbances such as storms, aerial exposures during extreme low tides, and Acanthaster outbreaks. Coral bleaching accompanied some of the mortality events prior to the 1980s during periods of elevated sea water temperature, but these disturbances were geographically isolated and restricted to particular reefs zones. In contrast, many of the coral bleaching events observed in the 1980s occurred over large geographic regions and at all depths.

Most of the coral reef bleaching events of the 1980s occurred during years of large-scale ENSO activity (El Nino Southern Oscillation).

********************************************
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=511

[b]Early Warning Signs: Coral Reef Bleaching

Coral reefs are one of the most productive ecosystems on Earth, providing many critical services to fisheries, shoreline protection, tourism, and to medicine. They are also believed to be among the most sensitive ecosystems to long-term climate change (Nurse et al., 1998). Elevated sea surface temperatures can cause coral to lose their symbiotic algae, which are essential for the nutrition and color of corals. When the algae die, corals appear white and are referred to as "bleached." Water temperatures of as little as one degree Celsius above normal summer maxima, lasting for at least two to three days, can be used as a predictor of coral bleaching events (Goreau and Hayes, 1994). Studies indicate that most coral are likely to recover from bleaching if the temperature anomalies persist for less than a month, but the stress from sustained high temperatures can cause physiological damage that may be irreversible (Wilkinson et al., 1999).

In 1998 coral reefs around the world experienced the most extensive and severe bleaching in recorded history (ISRS, 1998; Wilkinson et al., 1999). Coral bleaching was reported in 60 countries and island nations at sites in the Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Mediterranean and Caribbean. Indian Ocean corals were particularly severely impacted, with greater than 70 percent mortality reported in the Maldives, Andamans, Lakshadweep Islands, and in Seychelles Marine Park System. Unlike most previous bleaching events in which severe impacts were limited to less than 15 m water depth the 1998 bleaching affected corals at up to 50 m water depth. This mass bleaching followed similar but less severe events in 1987 and 1990. Prior to the early to mid 1980s, bleaching tended to be rare and localized, and corals generally recovered.

The 1998 mass bleaching was coincident with anomalously high sea surface temperatures. That year was the warmest of this century (NOAA, 1999), and tropical sea surface temperatures were the highest in the modern record (Strong et al., 1998). For many parts of the Pacific, the 1997-98 mass bleaching has been linked to the strong El Niño-induced seawater warming. The relationship between El Niño and coral bleaching is less clear, however, for the Indian Ocean, Arabian Gulf, and some parts of the Pacific (Wilkinson, 1999; ISRS, 1998). The geographic extent, regional severity, and increasing frequency of recent mass bleaching events point to an underlying global cause namely a trend of increasing sea surface temperatures in some of the tropical oceans, driven by global warming (US Department of State, 1999).

Global mean sea-surface temperatures are projected to increase by about 1-2°C in the next century (Kattenberg et al., 1996). If the overall warming is accompanied by more frequent periods of sustained high temperatures, mass bleaching events will become more frequent and widespread. Increasing human stresses such as pollution, overfishing, soil erosion, and physical damage from boats and other recreational activities will also weaken corals, limiting their ability to adapt to climate change (Hodgson, 1999; Nurse et al., 1998). Furthermore, as ocean warming coincides with sea-level rise and perhaps more frequent tropical storms and El Niños (e.g., Timmerman et al., 1999), reefs are likely to experience greater coastal erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity, which would add to their demise.

References

Goreau, T. J. and R. L. Hayes, 1994. Coral bleaching and ocean "hot spots." Ambio 23, 176-180.

Hodgson, G., 1999. A global assessment of human effects on coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38, 345-355.

ISRS, 1998. ISRS statement on global coral bleaching in 1997-98. International Society for Reef Studies. http://www.uncwil.edu/isrs/

Kattenberg, A., F. Giorgi, H. Grassl, G. A. Meehl, J. F. B. Mitchell, R. J. Stouffer, T. Tokioka, A. J. Weaver, and T. M.L. Wigley, 1996. Climate models - projections of future climate, in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, 285-357, (Eds J. T. Houghton, L. G. M. Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

NOAA. 1999. Climate of 1998 annual review: global temperatures. National Climate Data Center. 12 January 1999. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/1998/ ann/global_temperatures.html

Nurse, L.A., R. F. McLean, and A.G. Suarez, 1998. Small island states. In The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability, 331-354, (Eds RT Watson, MC Zinyowera, RH Moss), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Strong, A. E., T. J. Goreau and R. L. Hayes. 1998. Ocean Hot Spots and coral reef bleaching: January July 1998. Reef Encounters 24, 20-22.

US Department of State, 1999. Coral bleaching, coral mortality, and global climate change. Report to the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, 5 March 1999. http://www.state.gov/www/global/ global_issues/coral_reefs/990305_coralreef_rpt.html

Timmerman, A., J. Oberhuber, A. Bacher, M. Esch, M. Latif and E. Roeckner, 1999. Increased El Nino frequency in a climate model forced by future greenhouse warming. Nature 398, 694-696.

Wilkinson C, O. Linden, H. Cesar, G. Hodgson, J. Rubens, and A.E. Strong, 1999. Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of 1998 coral mortality in the Indian Ocean: An ENSO impact and a warning of future change? Ambio 28, 188-196.

Additional Resources

An Introduction to Coral Reefs - An introduction to coral reef ecology by the University of the Virgin Islands. http://www.uvi.edu/coral.reefer/index.html

Brown, B.E., Odgen, J.C. 1993. Coral bleaching. Scientific American 269, 64-70.

Coral Bleaching Hotspots NOAA uses satellite observations of sea surface temperature to predict potential coral bleaching hotspots. Individuals can also report current or past incidents of coral bleaching using an electronic form. http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climohot.html

Status of Coral Reefs of the world: 1998 Electronic version of a report on the status of coral reefs in 1998, including a detailed chapter on the 1997-98 bleaching event. http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr1998/scr-00.html

NOAA s Coral Health and Monitoring Program A comprehensive website with coral-related web links, access to literature lists, electronic listservs, and other resources. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/

*********************************************

http://orbit-net.nesdis.noaa.gov/orad/sub/bleaching_pub_index.html

Coral Bleaching Publications

Be sure to check out:

Satellite Annual Coral Bleaching HotSpot Charts (1985-2000)
http://orbit-net.nesdis.noaa.gov/orad/sub/sub_pdf/crbpub_hotspotposter.pdf

*********************************************

Press Reports:

Fiji fouled by coral reef bleaching
http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/04/26/fiji.coral.enn/

Coral Reef Bleaching Found In Belize For The First Time
http://www.ambergriscaye.com/pages/town/barrierbleach.html

1998 CORAL REEF BLEACHING IN INDIAN OCEAN UNPRECEDENTED, NOAA ANNOUNCES
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr98/jul98/noaa98-42.html

Coral Reef Bleaching: Silent Sentinels
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s27282.htm

"This week ABC TV is broadcasting a film, "Silent Sentinels" which examines the coral bleaching event which took place around the world in 1998. New Australian work modelling sea surface temperatures, based on current warming trends, predicts that within 30 years time, bleaching could be an annual event"

Detecting and Monitoring 2001 Coral Reef Bleaching Events in Ryukyu Islands, Japan Using Satellite Bleaching HotSpot Remote Sensing Technique
http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jcrs/information/IGARSS02_draft.doc

posted 12-22-2003 01:01 AM               

quote:

---

Three hypotheses have been advanced to explain the cellular mechanism of bleaching, and all are based on extreme sea temperatures as one of the causative factors … Photosynthesis pathways in zooxanthallae are impaired at temperatures above 30 degrees C, …

---

But the stress is on temperature here, leaving out other well known possible causes. We'll see more on temperatures later on in this post.

quote:

---

Mass coral mortalities in coral reef ecosystems have been reported in all major reef provinces since the 1870s.

---

So they know coral reefs have been dying and recovering since at least 1870, when anthropogenic messing with the environment had not began. Could it be that these “scientists” are trying to put the blame of 1870 coral mortality on the Industrial Revolution of 1750, or the kerosene lamps of 1870?

quote:

---

“The frequency and scale of bleaching disturbances has increased dramatically since the late 70's. This is possibly due to more observers and a greater interest in reporting in recent years.”

---

This sounds much more credible, although the term "dramatically" should be banned from scientific literature... It is the same case of increased medical screening performed after some “suspicious cancer clusters” appear somewhere – and epidemiological studies show later there is no reason for concern. It showed extremely clear after the Chernobyl accident in 1986, when massive screening showed, one year later, the presence of many thyroid cancers - an “abnormal number” they said – something Greenpeace used to promote their anti-nuke campaigns. Of course, they didn't tell the people thyroid cancers take more than 6 years to develop.

So we agree that the increase of coral reef mortality reports is quite probably due, not to an increase in mortality but an increase in the number of reports. We are shedding some light onto this very dark subject.

quote:

---

More than 60 coral reef bleaching events out of 105 mass coral moralities were reported between 1979-1990, compared with only three bleaching events among 63 mass coral moralities recorded during the preceding 103 years.

---

quote:

---

Most of the coral reef bleaching events of the 1980s occurred during years of large-scale ENSO activity (El Nino Southern Oscillation).

---

This graph shows sea surface temperatures on Dec. 21, 2003., taken from: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/sst/latest_sst.gif

You should study the graph, comparing temperatures with the color bar at the bottom. It shows high temperatures in the area of New Guinea, extending in decreasing values eastward, in direction of South America. Could this mean there is an El Niño under way? Not likely. For predicting El Niño/ENSO events climatologists use a very effective way: the study of SOI indexes. SOI means Southern Oscillation Index.

It has been found that the cyclic warming and cooling of the eastern and central Pacific leaves it's distinctive fingerprint on sea level pressure. In particular, when the pressure measured at Darwin is compared with that measured at Tahiti, the difference between the two can be used to generate an "index" number. When there is a positive number, we have a La-Niña (or ocean cooling), but when the number is negative we have an El-Niño (or ocean warming).

This is the latest SOI index for Dec. 12th, 2003:

Here is the El-Niño Southern Oscillation Index for the last 30 days up to 19th December 2003

For a longer-term perspective, here is the Southern Oscillation Index (monthly) since 1950. it indicates there is a La Niña going on, (cooling of Equatorial Pacific waters).

What Does the SOI Index mean?

In the case of Australia, a negative SOI means there is an El-Niño under way, and therefore drought conditions can be expected in eastern Australia. The more negative the number, the further south does the drought extend. For example, the severe 1982-83 El-Niño was thankfully short-lived, but it's intensity was such (as shown by the deep plunge in the graph) that even regions as far south as Tasmania were severely affected by drought.

Conversely, the period in 1988 when the index went positive indicated a major La-Niña event, which in Australia was accompanied by severe flooding in Queensland and New South Wales. In 1996, we had another La-Niña event, albeit a weaker one than in 1988. However, there was extensive rainfall throughout eastern Australia in 1996 as a result of this. The 1998/2001 La Niña ran true to form in that rainfall was greater than normal throughout most of Australia.

The period from 1991 to 1995 was a weaker El-Niño than the 1982/83 event, but it was much more long-lasting. The effect of this was that southern states like Victoria and Tasmania were not seriously affected by drought, due to the weakness of the event, but Queensland and inland New South Wales suffered a long crippling drought for the full four years of the El-Niño. The 1996 La-Niña provided welcome relief.  El-Niño returned again in mid-1997, beginning with it a warming of the surface oceans off Peru and Ecuador, followed in mid-1998 by the return of La Niña. In other words, it is both the intensity of an event and it's duration which determines who gets floods and who gets drought, and for how long.

All this info can be seen in more detail in: http://www.john-daly.com/elnino.htm
Where the graphs and explanations presented here were taken from.

So, if temperature of the water is the main issue, variations caused by different El Niño/La Niña are much important (because its amplitude is quite big, in the order of 10º C and more), than a mere 0.5 – 1.0º C supposedly caused by “global warming”. I see that the insistence of blaming “global warming” for coral mortality is stretching science beyond reasonable limits. All studies are plagued by the potential tense “may be”, “could induce”, and vague statements “possibly”, “likely”, “points to”, “is linked to”, etc, without providing hard evidence for the claims. The studies shown, up to now, all are simply presumptions, wild guesses, projections from incomplete and flawed models, and other way out departures from scientific methodologies. But they are backed by prestigious institutions, of course, that receive official funding – what makes this matter, once again, highly suspicious. Forgive me, but I remain as skeptical as ever.

The Solar Factor

But there is also a very effective way to predict El Niño quite in advance, and is by the study of solar cycles. Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, from the Schroetter Institute of Solar Research, in Germany, has developed a method for these predictions that was proven to be extremely accurate: It predicted with four years in advance the development of the last El Niño. It might interest you to read its papers on this subject at:

El Niño Forecast Revisited (19 March 02), by  Dr Theodor Landscheidt (Germany). Dr Landscheidt reviews his prediction made over 3 years ago on this website of the El Niño now developing, and describes his method in layman's terms for the benefit of non-expert readers.

Decadal-Scale Variations in El-Niño Intensity by Dr Theodor Landscheidt (Germany) (20 May 2003). Where does El Niño and La Niña go from here?  Using his solar motions analysis (which successfully predicted the last La Niña and the recent El Niño), Dr Landscheidt looks 80 years into the future and finds La Niña more dominant.

Long-Range Forecast of U.S. Drought Based on Solar Activity by Dr Theodor Landscheidt (Germany) (15 Mar 2003).  Following from his stunning success in predicting the timing of the current El Niño over 4 years ago, Dr Theodor Landscheidt has now applied his solar analysis technique to the problem of periodic drought conditions in the U.S.  He has developed a long-range forecast covering the period up to 2030.  He predicts that the next extended wet period should begin around 2007 and last about 7 to 8 years.  A draught peak is to be expected from 2025 on and should last about five years.

All papers by Dr. Landscheidt have been translated into Spanish (by me) and published in our website at FAEC.

posted 12-22-2003 01:30 AM               

Would you suggest that Pacific Ocean El Niño conditions are responsible for the coral bleaching that has been recorded in the Caribbean and Indian Ocean?

While I suggested that we would not have an agreement on glacial retreat, I stumbled across the following which I thought you would find interesting:

http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=605&category=Environment

Glaciers Are Melting Around the World So Fast That Water Supplies Could Be Threatened

by Linda Moulton Howe

Top: In 1979, the dirty gray Aletsch Glacier in Switzerland reached far down the mountain slopes.
But on the bottom, in 2002 - only 23 years later - the glacier is nearly gone and trees and plants are growing.
Photographs courtesy World Wildlife Fund.

November 29, 2003 Milan, Italy - The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) released its new report this week about climate change and global glacier decline which headlines, "Unless governments take urgent action to prevent global warming, billions of people worldwide might face severe water shortages as a result of the alarming melt rate of glaciers." Glaciers have contained 70% of the world's freshwater reserves. But only a 4 degrees Celsius global temperature warming by the end of this 21st Century would "eliminate almost all of them." Greenland ice sheets could be triggered to a complete melt-down with only a temperature increase of 2-3 degrees Celcius.

Current expectation for global warming temperature increase over the next 100 years: 1.4-5.8 degrees Celsius.

WWF cites examples of human dependence upon glacial ice:
Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia are often the only water source for major cities during dry seasons.
Himalaya Mountain rivers from glacial ice supply water to one-third of the world's population.
Island nations where sea level rise is already submerging lowlands and contaminating drinking water supplies with saltwater.
WWF sights examples of glacier retreats on all continents:
Nearly all glaciers surveyed in Alaska are melting, thinning rates in the last 5 to 7 years are more than twice those seen in previous years.
The northern Andes contain the largest concentration of glaciers in the tropics, but these glaciers are receding rapidly and losses have accelerated during the 1990s.
Glacier melting has accelerated in the European Alps since 1980 and 10% to 20% of glacier ice in the Alps was lost in less than two decades.
WWF sights examples of animals at risk:
Royal Bengal Tiger, an endangered species, will lose a large portion of their worldwide habitat as the Sundarbans land succumbs to sea level rise.
Kittlitz's Murrelet are rare birds specialized to hunt in cloudy glacier water and nest on top of ice.
Coral Reefs vital to sea life are unique organisms that can be starved of energy from the sun when sea levels rise.

The Worldlife Fund is urging the governments of more than 180 countries attending the United Nations 9th Conference of the Parties (COP9) at the Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) December 1-12 in Milan, Italy, to speed up action to combat climate change.

Jennifer Morgan, Director of WWF's Climate Change Programme said, "Glacial meltdown is a clear signal that we must act now to fight global warming and stop the melting. COP9 must make it clear to the world that a multi-lateral approach to climate change is the only way forward, that Kyoto will soon enter into force and that international cooperation is well on track to tackle climate change." But neither the United States nor Russia has ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

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

Website:
http://www.panda.org/

posted 12-22-2003 07:13 PM               

REALITY CHECK: ARE THE WORLD'S GLACIERS REALLY MELTING AWAY?

CO2 Science Magazine, March 2003 http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/summaries/glaciers.htm

The advance/buildup or retreat/melting of glacial ice is often interpreted as a sign of climate change; and teams of glaciologists have been working for years to provide an assessment of the state of the world's many glaciers as one of several approaches to deciphering global climate trends. Although this effort has only scratched the surface of what must ultimately be done, climate alarmists have already rendered their verdict: there has been a massive and widespread retreat of glaciers over the past century, which they predict will only intensify under continued CO2-induced global warming. This assessment, however, may be a bit premature.

The full story must begin with a clear recognition of just how few glacier data exist. Of the 160,000 glaciers presently in existence, only 67,000 (42%) have been inventoried to any degree (Kieffer et al., 2000); and there are only a tad over 200 glaciers for which mass balance data exist for but a single year (Braithwaite and Zhang, 2000). When the length of record increases to five years, this number drops to 115; and if both winter and summer mass balances are required, the number drops to 79. Furthermore, if ten years of record is used as a cutoff, only 42 glaciers qualify. This lack of glacial data, in the words of Braithwaite and Zhang, highlights "one of the most important problems for mass-balance glaciology" and demonstrates the "sad fact that many glacierized regions of the world remain unsampled, or only poorly sampled," suggesting that we really know very little about the true state of most of the world's glaciers.

Recognizing the need for "more comprehensive, more homogeneous in detail and quality" glacier data (Kieffer et al., 2000), we shift our attention to the few glaciers for which such data exist. During the 15th through 19th centuries, widespread and major glacier advances occurred during a period of colder global temperature known as the Little Ice Age (Broecker, 2001; Grove, 2001). Following the peak of Little Ice Age coldness, it should come as no surprise that many records indicate widespread glacial retreat, as temperatures began to rise in the mid- to late-1800s and many glaciers returned to positions characteristic of pre-Little Ice Age times. What people may find surprising, however, is that in many instances the rate of glacier retreat has not increased over the past 70 years; and in some cases glacier mass balance has actually increased, all during a time when the atmosphere experienced the bulk of the increase in its CO2 content.

In an analysis of Arctic glacier mass balance, for example, Dowdeswell et al. (1997) found that of the 18 glaciers with the longest mass balance histories, just over 80% displayed negative mass balances over their periods of record. Yet they additionally report that "almost 80% of the mass balance time series also have a positive trend, toward a less negative mass balance [my bold]." Hence, although these Arctic glaciers continue to lose mass, as they have probably done since the end of the Little Ice Age, they are losing smaller amounts each year, in the mean, which is hardly what one would expect in the face of what climate alarmists incorrectly call the "unprecedented" warming of the latter part of the twentieth century.

Similar results have been reported by Braithwaite (2002), who reviewed and analyzed mass balance measurements of 246 glaciers from around the world that were made between 1946 and 1995. According to Braithwaite, "there are several regions with highly negative mass balances in agreement with a public perception of 'the glaciers are melting,' but there are also regions with positive balances." Within Europe, for example, he notes that "Alpine glaciers are generally shrinking, Scandinavian glaciers are growing, and glaciers in the Caucasus are close to equilibrium for 1980-95." And when results for the whole world are combined for this most recent period of time, Braithwaite notes that "there is no obvious common or global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years."

As for the glacier with the longest mass balance record of all, the Storglaciaren in northern Sweden, for the first 15 years of its 50-year record it exhibited a negative mass balance of little trend. Thereafter, however, its mass balance began to trend upward, actually becoming positive over about the last decade (Braithwaite and Zhang, 2000).

So, the story glaciers have to tell us about past climate change is both far from clear and far from being adequately resolved. Stay tuned.

References
Braithwaite, R.J. 2002. Glacier mass balance: the first 50 years of international monitoring. Progress in Physical Geography 26: 76-95.

Braithwaite, R.J. and Zhang, Y. 2000. Relationships between interannual variability of glacier mass balance and climate. Journal of Glaciology 45: 456-462.

Broecker, W.S. 2001. Glaciers That Speak in Tongues and other tales of global warming. Natural History 110 (8): 60-69.

Dowdeswell, J.A., Hagen, J.O., Bjornsson, H., Glazovsky, A.F., Harrison, W.D., Holmlund, P. Jania, J., Koerner, R.M., Lefauconnier, B., Ommanney, C.S.L. and Thomas, R.H. 1997. The mass balance of circum-Arctic glaciers and recent climate change. Quaternary Research 48: 1-14.

Grove, J.M. 2001. The initiation of the "Little Ice Age" in regions round the North Atlantic. Climatic Change 48: 53-82.

Kieffer, H., Kargel, J.S., Barry, R., Bindschadler, R., Bishop, M., MacKinnon, D., Ohmura, A., Raup, B., Antoninetti, M., Bamber, J., Braun, M., Brown, I., Cohen, D., Copland, L., DueHagen, J., Engeset, R.V., Fitzharris, B., Fujita, K., Haeberli, W., Hagen, J.O., Hall, D., Hoelzle, M., Johansson, M., Kaab, A., Koenig, M., Konovalov, V., Maisch, M., Paul, F., Rau, F., Reeh, N., Rignot, E., Rivera, A., Ruyter de Wildt, M., Scambos, T., Schaper, J., Scharfen, G., Shroder, J., Solomina, O., Thompson, D., Van der Veen, K., Wohlleben, T. and Young, N. 2000. New eyes in the sky measure glaciers and ice sheets. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 81: 265, 270-271.

Copyright © 2003. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

posted 12-22-2003 07:43 PM               

So let us focus on more direct matters as physics, chemistry, and relation of CO2 to increases in global temperatures. Let us start here:

GSA Today, Vol. 13, No. 12, December 2003, p4 ff

posted 12-23-2003 02:07 PM               

The Next El Niño - July 2006

(22 Dec 03)

posted 12-23-2003 08:27 PM               

The CO2 Science Magazine that he quotes from is the mouthpiece journal for Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

http://www.co2science.org/center.htm

The president of this non-profit organization (we remember Eduardo's scathing attack on the tax dodge of such non-profits) is non other than Sherwood B. Idso and the Vice-President is Keith E. Idso (isn't that sweet, a family cottage industry).

This non-profit is supported by grants from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientI D=1993

This is something that you should know about the Sarah Scaife Foundation:

Scaife Foundations

Financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune. At one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. Became active in funding conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman of the foundation. In the 1960s, Richard had inherited an estimated $200 million from his mother, Sarah. Forbes magazine has estimated his personal net worth at $800 million, making him the 38th richest person in the U.S. He controls the Scaife, Carthage and Allegheny foundations. In 1993, Scaife and Carthage reportedly gave more than $17.6 million to 150 conservative think tanks. As of December 31, 1992, Scaife assets were $212,232,888 and Carthage assets were $11,937,862.

--The Feeding Trough

Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation -- This foundation is financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune. At one time, its largest single holding was stock in Gulf Oil Corporation. It was estimated some years ago to be a $200 million foundation. It became active in supporting conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman. Since then, Scaife has been a leading financier of New Right causes. He controls not one -- but three (the Scaife, Carthage, and Allegheny) -- conservative family foundations. The Sarah Scaife Foundation is considered to be one of the top four conservative foundations.

According to a recent article, "In 1993, the Carthage and Sarah Scaife Foundations...gave more than $17.6 million to 150 conservative think tanks."

Scaife inherited an estimated $200 million from his mother, Sarah Mellon Scaife, in the 1960s. A recent issue of Forbes estimated his personal net worth at $800 million, ranking him as the 138th richest man in the United States. According to an article in the June/July 1981 issue of Columbia Journalism Review, Scaife travels in his personal DC-9 jet between his homes in Pittsburgh, Pa. and Pebble Beach, Ca.

All at the same address:
One Oxford Center
301 Grant Street, Suite 3900
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15219-6401
(412) 392-2900

Allegheny Foundation
Carthage Foundation
Scaife Family Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation

********************************************

Scaife: Funding Father of the Right
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain0502 99.htm

********************************************

Scaife Money In The News
http://www.politicalamazon.com/news.html

********************************************

Scaife-O-Rama
http://www.politicalamazon.com/scaifeorama.html

********************************************

But yes Eduardo, you can be sure that I will look this over carefully.

posted 12-23-2003 08:49 PM               

Go to the very non-biased Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

http://www.co2science.org/center.htm

Click on the link at the end of the first paragraph.

Central to our plan of accomplishing this goal has been the implementation of this web site, a full description of which is listed here.

or
http://www.co2science.org/about/web_features.htm

then click on Wolrd Temperatures in the left hand column.
http://www.co2science.org/temperatures/temps.htm

Four data sets are available:

Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)

Jones et al.

MSU Satellite

Upper-Air Radiosonde (Balloon)

Accept the default values for all four data sets (longest period of available data, widest global coverage), and click on the button, Calculate Trend.

Be sure to do all four.

Notice any emerging trends?

posted 12-23-2003 09:05 PM               

But if funding is the major issue for you, and speaking about biased sources, then can I remind you about one of the biggest promoter for the global warming?, Along with the NRDC, the EDF, Greenpeace, the WWF, Worldwatch Institute, Friends of the Earth, ("Earth First!" too...) and other “saints” of environmentalism, is the Pew Center on Climate Change which I must remind everyone is an industry-front group funded by the Pew family's fortune derived from owning the Sun Oil Company. It's too bad that Enron is no longer the leading business member of the Pew Center because conjuring grand appearances out of thin (or perhaps I should say hot) air was Enron's specialty.

posted 12-23-2003 10:10 PM               

quote:

---

Notice any emerging trends?
Thank You Eduardo.

---

Don't mention it, Sore. I followed your advice and saw some emerging trends. The trouble with you, Sore, is that you fall short of getting deeper into the subject. You have been demonstrating that since the beginning.

I played with Jones' trend, that are composed by reading from surface stations suffering from “urban heat island effect” and got nice upward trends for the period 1979–2002, a span needed for comparison with highly accurate radiosonde and satellite data, ranging in the same period. I concentrated on the Southern Hemisphere, because, if the warming is “global” the SH will warm along with NH, isn't it? See Jones' version of temperatures (try not to laugh). I got a trend from 0.05º C up to 0.35º C. It means an upward trend of 0.4 º C in 23 years.

Then, I made a whole world (global) calculation from MSU satellites readings, as suggested by you. For the same period 1979–2002 I got this graph, showing a global trend of 0.2º C in 23 years, consistant with Jones trends, from stations suffering from +4.0º C. Once corrected for this heat island efffect, both readings are in agreement. Not bad if we recall Earth is still coming out from the Little Ice Age. Remember I have never denied there was a Warming? I only said it was not catastrophic, and it was not human induced. The trend is quite within natural variation levels: from -0.1ºC to +0.1º C.

Then, I got the trend for the Southern Hemisphere, and Wow! Look what I got!:

NO TREND!

But I was curious, and went to radiosondes readings, making the same calculation, from 1979 – 2002:

COOLING TREND!

Thanks Sore, for such a good website, with such useful tools!

posted 12-23-2003 11:10 PM            

.....I concentrated on the Southern Hemisphere, because, if the warming is “global” the SH will warm along with NH, isn't it?.....

I can't believe you said that.

You're supposedly the expert here - while the rest of us apparently haven't a snowball's chance in Hell of even remotely comprehending the subtleties of the PROCESS at which we are looking.

Do you really believe that the regional impact(s) of pollution-driven climatic instability are going to manifest the same way in the southern hemisphere as in the northern hemisphere?

Do you think you're dealing with idiots here?

posted 12-24-2003 12:13 AM               

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031223/ap_on_sc/soot_global_warmi ng_6

"Scientists Blame Soot for Global Warming"

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - NASA (news - web sites) scientists say soot, mostly from diesel engines, is causing as much as a quarter of all observed global warming by reducing the ability of snow and ice to reflect sunlight.

Their findings on how soot affects reflective ability, known as albedo, raise new questions about human-caused climate change from the Arctic to the Alps.

"We suggest that soot contributes to near worldwide melting of ice that is usually attributed solely to global warming," National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists James Hansen and Larissa Nazarenko wrote in a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (news - web sites).

"Soot is a more all-around `bad actor' than has been appreciated," they wrote. Soot is a blackened material formed mainly from carbon particles that are, along with salts and dust, byproducts of burning fossil fuels and vegetation.

Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Nazarenko, a staff associate there, found soot is twice as potent as carbon dioxide in changing global surface air temperatures in the Arctic and the Northern Hemisphere.

Greenland may be an exception, they said, because it is downwind from Canadian forests and has little manmade pollution.

The biggest source of soot in developed countries is diesel fuel, but major sources elsewhere include burning wood, animal dung, vegetable oil and other biofuels.

Hansen told The Associated Press that the authors estimate the soot effect is equivalent to putting a 1-watt bulb, the size of a miniature Christmas tree bulb, over every two square yards in the Northern Hemisphere. The effect is greater in northernmost snow regions, and almost nonexistent in the tropics.

Levels of airborne soot as high as about 100 parts per billion were found in the Alps, enough to reduce the snow's ability to reflect light rather than absorb it from about 98 percent down to between 80 percent and 90 percent, Hansen said. In spring and summer, as the snow melts and some soot accumulates as crud on the surface, the remaining snow is even darker, he said.

The scientists suggest in their paper that the same pattern could occur in the Himalaya range of South Asia, where prevailing winds might deposit fossil fuel and biofuel soot carried in a brown haze from India.

Many scientists believe the burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, triggering what is called the greenhouse effect. A higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would trap more of the sun's heat, possibly causing the Earth to warm.

Scientists thought until recently that only carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have global reach and effect. They now are finding the same thing with these microscopic, suspended particles of pollutants, generically known as aerosols, that settle on ground hours later.

Soot particles, which absorb toxic organic material, are minute enough to penetrate skin. Soot is the aerosol most responsible for the haze in rapidly developing countries such as India and China, the scientists said.

Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton professor and expert on climate policy, called the study "an interesting early calculation" that could prove to be important.

"It means that — if it's right — we need to keep an eye on it," he said. "When we think about all these greenhouse gases, we ought also to think about controlling these particles that are also changing the climate."

The Bush administration in 2001 ordered pollution cuts from heavy-duty diesel engines and diesel fuel used in highway trucks and buses. This year it proposed requiring a 90 percent reduction in pollution from diesel-powered construction and other off-road equipment, starting with 2008 models.

posted 12-24-2003 12:24 AM               

quote:

---

Do you really believe that the regional impact(s) of pollution-driven climatic instability are going to manifest the same way in the southern hemisphere as in the northern hemisphere?

---

Or you perhaps meant SOx as the pollutants, more abundant in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern. If you mean sulphurous compunds, and soot, and other pollutants found in the atmosphere, I would remind you that those have been shown as "coolers" of the atmosphere, as James Hansen acknowledged back in 2001 - but now, under general cristicism by his fellow warmers partners has retreated from his assertions and now says otherwise. Nice scientist.

We are discussing Global warming here, and regional effects are just that: regional, lots of urban heat islands, affecting urban stations whose readings are used to give a distorted view of temperaure conditions in the world, and then claiming "global" effects.

Of course there will never be the same warming or cooling in both hemispheres, as the Southern hemisphere is almost 90% oceans, while the Northern hemisphere is about 50-50. And we all know oceans have a huge, quite inmensurable thermal inertia that will keep the southern hemisphere warmer or cooler than its brother in the north. The correct term for the ocean's action is "buffering". This effect is written down in geological records all over the Southern H.

I just showed you that "global warming" is not global, and climate "instability" is also regional and not global. If my analysis of trends in the south and north hemispheres made you feel an idiot, it is not my fault. I didn't use the word idiot (by the way, I told here before that the word idiot comes from ancient Greek and used to mean: "those who vote". If I thought people in this board were idiots, I would't be discussing here.

But sometimes you think I am an idiot, when you send a red herring like that, instead of focusing on the technical side of the cooling trend found in the southern hemisphere, that counteracts the warming trend shown by the northern hemisphere.

posted 12-24-2003 12:43 AM               

VIRTUAL CLIMATE ALERT
March 9, 2001 Vol. 2, No. 8

In the six short weeks since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Third Assessment report on January 20, two major scientific studies strongly shake its foundation. They may crumble it entirely. At risk is the much-publicized conclusion that average global temperature will rise between 1.4°C and 5.8°C over the next hundred years.

The IPCC arrived at that 4.4°C range of potential temperature increase by inputting thirty-five different scenarios – each describing an alternative IPCC vision of future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions – into seven different climate models. The seven climate models actually were just one, tweaked a bit to produce different output.

The major tweaking altered climate sensitivity – how much the earth warms for an atmospheric doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels. The low estimate was 1.7°C; the high, 4.2°C. In order to create the most extreme outcome from among the 245 possibilities (35 scenarios x 7 models), the greatest climate sensitivity was goosed by the most extreme emissions scenario, one in which carbon dioxide emissions are high and aerosol emissions are low. The result: a 5.8°C temperature rise.

That’s the edifice the Third Assessment erects. Let’s check the size of the termites gnawing away at its foundation.

The first is a study by Stanford scientist Mark Jacobson reported in the February 8, 2001, edition of Nature. Jacobson calculates the warming effect of atmospheric black carbon (soot) aerosols is more than twice the value of that incorporated in the IPCC calculations. Compounding the problem, the IPCC does not incorporate realistic changes in soot concentrations in its scenarios of future emissions. The implications are two-fold.

First, the warming effect of the current concentrations of soot aerosols goes much further toward balancing out the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols than the IPCC admits. Second, the IPCC’s anticipated warming – predicated on policies that are intended to reduce sulfate emissions – will be diminished greatly if soot emissions go down at the same time sulfate emissions do.

Power plant technologies that reduce soot (electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters) are comparably simpler than those that scrub sulfate aerosols (SOx). The fact the IPCC fails to consider soot reduction is a bit odd. But, had they, the bounds on the range of future warming would be much less.

The second study is more like a seismic shock wave than termite. In the March edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, MIT’s Richard Lindzen and two NASA scientists report that they have identified a mechanism by which the earth releases extra heat into space.

Lindzen, et al, studied cloud types over the tropical Pacific Ocean. They noticed how, when ocean temperature was warm, there were far fewer high-level cirrus clouds than when the ocean was cold. Because cirrus clouds act like a blanket and keep the earth’s warmth from escaping into space, the more cirrus clouds there are, the warmer the earth is. It appears, then, that the tropical Pacific Ocean is part of "a negative feedback loop." When the ocean warms, fewer cirrus clouds result and more heat is lost to space, cooling off the ocean.

Lindzen calls this the adaptive infrared iris because it resembles the way an eye reacts to changing light. Your eye’s iris opens and closes in order to maintain a near constant light level. In similar fashion, the Pacific Ocean’s "iris" apparently opens and closes in order to maintain a more constant level of heat.

Having identified this effect through actual observations, Lindzen and his colleagues looked to see if several climate models replicated it. Nope. None reproduce a now-observed relationship between high-level cloud coverage and sea-surface temperatures, among those they examined. They promise to do future model testing to learn if others might do so.

The implication of the "adaptive infrared iris" is that climate’s sensitivity to changes in greenhouse gas levels is much lower than the IPCC assumes. Remember that the IPCC fed its climate model a range of climate sensitivities from 1.7°C to 4.2°C. Lindzen finds that if the same negative feedback observed in the tropical Pacific is common to all tropical oceans, then the range of climate sensitivities should be between 0.64°C and 1.6°C – a reduction of about 60 percent in the IPCC numbers.

Take it a step further. If the amount of warming a climate models predicts is directly related to the climate sensitivity of the model, the projected warming should be reduced by about 60 percent as well. Applying this adjustment to the IPCC estimates would revise the range of potential warming to something between 0.6°C and 2.3°C. But remember, even that range would not reflect proper handling of soot’s impact.