Leaking Siberian Methane

[BethesdaWX]

As I've mentioned over on Eastern Wx, I think of the response to a solar min kind of like a seasonal change. The minimum temperature occurs just a slight amount after the minimum radiative forcing. This would be about 30-60 degrees of phase of a sinusoidal oscillation corresponding to about 1-2 years for an 11 year solar cycle. More details on one assessment is here:

http://www.drroyspen...lar-irradiance/

As for the longer term changes, solar activity has been high though basically level for the past 50 years. Yet the temperatures have been rising more during this period. Seems like a lack of correlation - except when you add in the CO2.

With the treelines and glaciers I haven't yet look edat all the data, though I have looked a bit. Perhaps it's warming fast enough now, so the glaciers and treelines haven't had a chance to reach equlibrium levels. There is certainly accelerating melting of the glaciers now, so if they aren't yet at record low ice volumes, they will probably be soon.

Also, if things were all that warm in the past, we should have seen higher sea level then, which I haven't seen.

You missed a few things... remember our earlier discussion on the warming caused by the drop in GCC? What was shown, GCC has dropped more than 3%, corresponding directly to recent warming... this has nothing to do with Co2.

1) It depends whether you're talking about "effects" of solar on the atmosphere, or the global temperature, which is somewhat of a distinction. The 11yr cycle definitely has a lag of at least 2-3 years temperature wise, this of course depending on the strength of the solar cycle.

2) Multi Century Solar Warmings take several low solar cycles to reverse, the 11yr cycle is unrelated here, because 2 similar cycles will show no change, the end result will take decades to show up.

3) The MWP.. that is the problem with our proxies, we cannot use proxies to accurately determine the exact temperature, Sea Level.....but, now, there is a discrepancy somehwhere here, because we know for a fact that the glaciers in the Arctic were ALOT smaller, because Tree remains, & Viking Burial Grounds are being found under todays retreating glaciers. We also know the climate across North America, Asia, & Europe was significantly warmer by over 2C based on our growing of crops near the arctic Circle... Arctic Summers were most likely Ice Free, as viking expeditions through the arctic were rarely hindered by ice. We also know the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was hit to a somewhat less extent, however, was still alot smaller than todays West Antartcic ice sheet.... again, sea level is alot harder to determine.

4) Global Treelines... It doesn't take a long time for treelines to head upward, seeds spread, & trees grow, its that simple, strong winds blowing upslope spread the seeds in 1yr. In the time that our warming has commenced, we'd have trees growing up there now. Instead, we see the remains of Very Large Trees at higher altitudes, where they cannot grow at this time.

5) Glaciers/Ice in the Antarctic have been growing, the acceleration of glacier loss in the Arctic comes as no surprise to me, the arctic has been very warm since the mid 1940's.... the 1970's actually saw a comeback of the Glaciers up there, but that was short lived, as the modern max, +PDO, Decreasing GCC, & the resulting warming took over the area by a storm.

Again, it can all be explained naturally... at this point, we do not need any Co2 warming to get the effects we have seen.

[salbers]

Thanks for organizing your points that I'll consider.

For (1), both Roy Spencer and Jim Hansen are saying a 1-2 year lag in temperature effect from the 11 year solar cycle irradiance.

For (2), I'm not so sure the lag would be enough to expect continued rising temperatures after 50 years of constant (and now declining) solar activity.

For (3), I thought glaciers actually are one of the proxies used in making hockey stick analyses. Sea level is pretty good, since it is a single global measure.

For (5), I have the say the evidence for Antarctic Ice Sheet decreasing at this time is pretty strong as has been discussed. Pine Island Glacier is rapidly shrinking now I think. So are Patagonian glaciers.

[BethesdaWX]

Thanks for organizing your points that I'll consider.

For (1), both Roy Spencer and Jim Hansen are saying a 1-2 year lag in temperature effect from the 11 year solar cycle irradiance.

For (2), I'm not so sure the lag would be enough to expect continued rising temperatures after 50 years of constant (and now declining) solar activity.

For (3), I thought glaciers actually are one of the proxies used in making hockey stick analyses. Sea level is pretty good, since it is a single global measure.

For (5), I have the say the evidence for Antarctic Ice Sheet decreasing at this time is pretty strong as has been discussed. Pine Island Glacier is rapidly shrinking now I think. So are Patagonian glaciers.

No Problem

I have a few rebuttals.

For 1) Well, when you have a record breaking El Nino, Solar cooling will be Beaten Down. Global Temps are -0.3C as we speak, & still dropping. This still isn't multi-century, which takes several low cycles do trop the temp maybe 0.4-0.5C, and longer to reach the -0.8C or lower in the LIA.

For 2) Again, Global Cloud Cover (GCC) and the Warming AMO/PDO with More El Nino is your answer here, the GCC drop has been huge by earth standards.. (3% in 3 decades is insane!).

For 3) Again, that is the issue. We know glaciers were smaller, we know treelines were higher, we know the climate was warmer in the NH. SH is vague because there is insufficient proxy evidence. We also know the West Antarctic Sheet was smaller.

4) The Antartcic has been cooling for the Past 3+ decades via satellite, which is the best method covering more area. If you're using GRACE, theres your problem! It shows Ice Mass Loss where summer temperatures never get above -30C, and have never gotten -15C ever... Ice mkelt is not possible across most of the Antartcic ice Sheet! So, if there are retreating glaciers, its the natural ebb & flow of Nature.

[salbers]

For (3) as I've mentioned the glaciers are melting in an accelerating fashion, so if they're not at record low volumes yet, they probably soon will be. How do we know the WAIS was smaller - can you repost this?

For (4) We've talked about GRACE before. The ice sheet melts at the margins where the air is warmer and the ice is in contact with the warm ocean. The ice then flows from the colder interior trying to replace it at the warmer margins. GRACE is supported by IceSat and on-the-ground measurements. A recent analysis shows even the air temps over Antarctica have warmed in the past 50 years.

Also, there is water underneath the coldest parts of the ice if you consider Lake Vostok and others. Maybe some lubrication is possible?

Anyway the observations are the observations - hard for me to ignore. Sea levels are at record highs for this interglacial, so it seems the melting is becoming significant, along with overall global warming.

[BethesdaWX]

We've talked about GRACE before. The ice sheet melts at the margins where the air is warmer and the ice is in contact with the warm ocean. The ice then flows from the colder interior to the warmer margins. GRACE is supported by IceSat and on-the-ground measurements.

Also, there is water underneath the coldest parts of the ice if you consider Lake Vostok and others. Maybe some lubrication is possible?

Anyway the observations are the observations - hard for me to ignore.

1) GRACE is showing Ice loss on the main ice sheet, that is physically impossible right now. Its so friggin cold there, record highs there would be -15C... killer cold.

2) There has been Increasing Sea ice, & the antarctic SST's been lower than avg... this doesn't make sense. Everything has been cooling down there since measurements began.

3) Satellite UAH, RSS, etc show everything cooling down there, Surface Temps, SST's, all dropping. Ice Has been Increasing.

4) The warming on the antarctic penn is definitely aty least partially UHI.

5) I have my doubts about our sea level measurements, I'm actually doing some research on it, and I've found a few "things".....I hope to tear apart the idea that our sea levels are rising faster than 0.0035mm per year.....will be done hopefully in a few years.....but for now, I'll keep that to myself.

[salbers]

(1) Most of the GRACE ice loss is in the WAIS, where it is warmer. It's a very small change on the EAIS - besides deep inside this ice it is warmer and the ice can flow.

(3) Sea ice is increasing slightly while land ice is going away. Can you repost info about the WAIS in the MWP?

(4) Where is the metropolis on the Antarctic Peninsula ?

[BethesdaWX]

(1) Most of the GRACE ice loss is in the EAIS, where it is warmer. It's a very small change on the WAIS - besides deep inside this ice it is warmer and the ice can flow.

(3) Sea ice is increasing slightly while land ice is going away. Can you repost info about the WAIS in the MWP?

My point, GRACE shows Ice loss where it cannot melt because it is too cold. SST's have been dropping in the antarctic as well.

Didn't I just post a link? If it still isn't working for you, I'll post new ones.

[BethesdaWX]

FYI you dont need a metropolis to create warming, in a very cold climate like that, the areas where we take measurements are slightly developed, which, in cold climates, has a much larger "effect" so to speak.

[salbers]

Antarctic ice is dynamic and can change (at least slowly - as observed) anywhere. This is confirmed by GRACE and radar measurements, mostly though maybe not completely in the warmer WAIS. The EAIS loss is less and mostly at its warmer edges.

http://www.nasa.gov/...ca_Melting.html

"But little, if any, surface warming is occurring over East Antarctica. Radar and laser-based satellite data show a little mass loss at the edges of East Antarctica, which is being partly offset by accumulation of snow in the interior, although a very recent result from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) suggests that since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought ⁵. Overall, not much is going on in East Antarctica -- yet."

Also, Pine Island glacier is accelerating and thinning.

http://en.wikipedia....rctic_Ice_Sheet

Yes, your Antarctic link is still not working for me.

[BethesdaWX]

Antarctic ice is dynamic and can change (at least slowly - as observed) anywhere.

Also, Pine Island glacier is accelerating and thinning.

http://en.wikipedia....rctic_Ice_Sheet

Yes, your Antarctic link is still not working for me.

Exactly, temperature is not the only measure. This doesn't change the fact that there is more Ice everywhere down there in general, sea/land/whatever combined.

Anyhow, sorry about the links. Maybe this one will work

http://www.co2scienc...pantarctica.php

[salbers]

Sorry this doesn't square with the observations as I've updated two posts ago if you can take another look. Only seasonal sea ice is increasing slightly. Land ice and glaciers are decreasing significantly. So I'd suggest there is now less ice overall.

I'll look now at your link for the MWP in Antarctica.

[BethesdaWX]

Sorry this doesn't square with the observations as I've updated two posts ago if you can take another look. Only seasonal sea ice is increasing. Land ice and glaciers are decreasing.

I'll look now at your link for the MWP in Antarctica.

Land Ice can't decrease where it can't melt! Land Surface Antarctic temps have been Cooling for 3+ decades...again, that is not disputable via satellite, by far the best method to measure.

[salbers]

A major contributor to Antarctic Ice Sheet loss is Pine Island Glacier. It is land ice in contact with the sea and it can melt due to contact with warm subsurface waters as discussed here.

http://www.ouramazin...-is-found-0304/

Another mention of this is here.

[BethesdaWX]

A major contributor to Antarctic Ice Sheet loss is Pine Island Glacier. It is land ice in contact with the sea and it can melt due to contact with warm subsurface waters as discussed here.

http://www.ouramazin...-is-found-0304/

Thats a Big Picture! lol. Still it is unfortunately unrelated to the larger issue.

1) Did you read my link? Clearly, there the Antarctic was hit by trhe MWP, thus it was most likely global, and warmer than today in the SH as well as the NH.

2) Again, that does not explain the amount of ice loss on the main ice sheet, ecen under the main ice sheet, its still way too cold to melt. Not to mention, again, the antarctic has been cooling, & SST's & Sea ice are increasing.

Please don't be a denialist on this matter, there is already so much denial by warmists over this matter

[salbers]

(1) It does sound from your post like the Antarctic was hit by the MWP. I'll keep an eye out for more on this. I'm wondering though if the equilibrium ice levels, once today's warming has a chance to melt the ice, will cause us to easily exceed the record low ice for the interglacial. It still doesn't seem the MWP lowered sea level by much. And sea level is rapidly rising. Ice melt is accelerating. Hard to deny these trends.

(2) Actually snow may be increasing the interior of the EAIS. The melting of this is mostly at the edges. Even under the interior EAIS there are lakes. Most melting is in the WAIS and cannot reasonably be disputed. Anything close to 16m per year is a lot for this glacier.

[BethesdaWX]

Actually snow may be increasing the interior of the EAIS. The melting of this is mostly at the edges. Even under the interior EAIS there are lakes. Most melting is in the WAIS and cannot reasonably be disputed.

Again... the Antarctic is Cooling... and has been for 3+ decades... Cooling does not support additional snowfall.

Its too cold on the main ice sheet for any melting to occur, everything is still below freezing, under & over.

SST's have been cooling

Please dont go into denial over it

[BethesdaWX]

(1) It does sound like the Antarctic was hit by the MWP. I'm wondering though if the equilibrium ice levels, once today's warming has a chance to melt the ice, will cause us to easily exceed the record low ice for the interglacial. It still doesn't seem the MWP lowered sea level by much. And sea level is rapidly rising. Ice melt is accelerating. Hard to deny these trends.

(2) Actually snow may be increasing the interior of the EAIS. The melting of this is mostly at the edges. Even under the interior EAIS there are lakes. Most melting is in the WAIS and cannot reasonably be disputed.

Sea level had to be higher than today in the MWP since glaciers on both poles were alot smaller. Global temps were warmer as well...all that was solar caused.

I'm actually researching the sea level rise of our current warm period... I think I might be able to tear apart the argument that our sea levels is rising at a mean faster than 0.0035mm per year on avg in a few years, I'm still in procedure mode......I'm keeping this to myself for now though

If we want our warming to melt the antarctic ice... the antarctic has to start warming first! With todays warming most likely solar caused, I wouldnt be too concerned.

Again, if the measurement system we're using is depicting ice loss on the center of the main ice sheet (which is physically impossible), there is no way to trust it with anything...especially given the fact that it has been cooling in the antarctic for 3+ decades.

[salbers]

I'm disputing, not denying. There is a study showing warming overall in Antarctica for air temps.

http://news.mongabay...antarctica.html

Most of the ice melt though may be caused so far by contact with warm water under the glacier edges. See link in post #193.

Now what do you have to say about the WAIS and the Pine Island Glacier (big image in #193)?

I don't think GRACE is showing much change in the center of the EAIS - the amounts were small. I think small changes are possible. Are you saying only zero changes are possible, neither increase or decrease in the middle of the EAIS? Some snow increase is possible, as is glacier flow (as it is warm in the interior depths). So slight changes are possible.

Even if you discount GRACE - the other data sources are showing the same thing. Pretty robust case I think.

[BethesdaWX]

I'm disputing, not denying. There is a study showing warming overall in Antarctica for air temps.

http://news.mongabay...antarctica.html

Most of the ice melt though may be caused so far by contact with warm water under the glacier edges. See link in post #193.

Now what do you have to say about the WAIS and the Pine Island Glacier (big image in #193)?

I don't think GRACE is showing much change - I'm trying to remember. The amounts were small. I think small changes are possible. Are you saying only zero changes are possible, neither increase or decrease in the middle of the EAIS?

Even if you discount GRACE, the other data sources are showing the same thing. Pretty robust case I think.

A few things. SST's have been cooling, UAH & its actual OBS of the cooling temperature trend is not very disputable unfortunately, RSS less so but true as well. The Big, Bad Boy Satellites that measure global temps all have cooling.

GRACE doesn't show a ton of ice loss in the main sheet admittedly, but it is definitely showing "low end moderate" ice loss on middle of the main ice sheet.

And no, I'm not arguing that there can be ZERO change due to factors other than temps, but the amount of change being shown is too much.

[salbers]

Actually figure 4a below shows about zero net change from GRACE in the EAIS. Could be in the noise. Good overall agreement with IceSat (4b). And they both agree the big story is the WAIS with the Pine Island Glacier:

http://repository.tu...e-3df225c73af7/

[BethesdaWX]

Actually figure 4a below shows about zero net change from GRACE in the EAIS. Could be in the noise. Good overall agreement with IceSat (4b). And they both agree the big story is the WAIS with the Pine Island Glacier:

http://repository.tu...e-3df225c73af7/

What does 1 glacier have to do with the overall point that the Antarctic is cooling based on satellite superiority?

[salbers]

This one glacier is a significant source of sea level rise from current Antarctic Ice Melt. So this can outweigh satellite temperature measurements, since we see an overall ice melt from Antarctic ice sheets. We'll see whether this accelerating trend continues.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0908/09081405

By the way, GRACE, IceSat, and InSAR ice data represent satellite measurements too - rather superior I'd agree

[BethesdaWX]

This one glacier is a significant source of sea level rise from current Antarctic Ice Melt. This can outweigh satellite temperature measurements, since we see an overall ice melt from Antarctic ice sheets. We'll see whether this accelerating trend continues.

By the way, GRACE, IceSat, and InSAR ice data represent satellite measurements too - rather superior I'd agree

We're straying off topic.

Yes, but this glacier melting has nothing to do with Temperature down there, its obviously a natrural process taking into account the cooling SST's. UAH, RSS, all of the Main global temperature monitoring devices show cooling... and have a smaller "cone of error", so to speak than those that measure mass... a new & error filled method... plate techtonics need to be taken into account.

GRACE, IceSat, & InSAR show conclusions that are physically impossble... this is BS

I'm not sure you realize why the Mass measurements are either Manipulated, or just untrue. Most of the Ice sheet has never gone above freezing....ever. The summer averages are at highest -30C around most of the ice Cap...the ice cannot melt under those conditions!

Even underneath the Ice on the main sheet, its below freezing, all the time.

[salbers]

I'm unsure how to respond to your contradictory assertions. You seem to grant that this glacier is melting "due to natural processes". Then you say the data supporting the melting is BS. Which is it please?

Also UAH is showing lots of warming where the Pine Island Glacier is melting - at least in the waters offshore where the warmer water may be emanating from to do the melting.

We might move over to this thread?

http://www.americanw...elerating-rate/

Glaciers are dynamic with continuous melting as they flow towards the ocean. Have you ever seen an glacier time lapse showing the motion? They are replenished by snow in the interior. As I showed earlier, most or all of the melting is observed on the edges, right as one would expect for the initial stages of a warming episode. Seems like the multiple data sources are both consistent and physically plausible. I agree there's little or no melting in the interior right now, though this could change simply due to glacier flow. Overall there is still accelerating ice loss.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes it can. Glaciers are dynamic with continuous melting as they flow towards the ocean. Have you ever seen an glacier time lapse showing the motion? They are replenished by snow in the interior.

My last post before I get back on topic. Bottom line is the MWP was warmer with less ice on both poles, as I demonstrated with my link... thus whatever you're reading that shows sea level not as high back then is incorrect.

I never argued the dynamics of glaciers, but the fact is the Antarctic has been cooling for 3+ decades... this you just dont understand apparently.

ok?

[salbers]

Maybe there were very small sea level changes, though it's been basically flat the past 2000 years. And ice is melting in most places at an accelerating rate. Will probably catch up soon to what was seen in the MWP, where it hasn't already.

http://commons.wikim...e_Sea_Level.png

I again note this study showing overall Antarctic warming - via a combination of satellite and surface data:

http://news.mongabay...antarctica.html

The ozone hole could be keeping things relatively cooler over the interior portions, perhaps influencing the graph you show above.

Yet, even UAH is showing warming (at least for the waters feeding in) for those regions where the melting is fastest.

Here is a 20000 year history of Antarctic Ice animation if I can get this to work in my browser:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9902/03/antarctic.ice.sheet/

[BethesdaWX]

Maybe there were very small sea level changes, though it's been basically flat the past 2000 years. And ice is melting in most places at an accelerating rate. Will probably catch up soon to what was seen in the MWP, where it hasn't already.

http://commons.wikim...e_Sea_Level.png

I again note this study showing overall Antarctic warming - via a combination of satellite and surface data:

http://news.mongabay...antarctica.html

The ozone hole could be keeping things relatively cooler over the interior portions, perhaps influencing the graph you show above.

Yet, even UAH is showing warming (at least for the waters feeding in) for those regions where the melting is fastest.

Here is a 20000 year history of Antarctic Ice animation if I can get this to work in my browser:

http://www.cnn.com/T...ctic.ice.sheet/

So far, our observed warming is due to a combination of Solar, GCC decrease, & the Oceanic annular modes, not CO2, and I demonstrated this in several posts. We're going in circles because we disagree with the basics of the argument. In the end, we'll end up back here every time.

I demonstrated, in several posts further back, on why the observed warming is naturaly caused, & why, at least so far, the warming is consistant with solar, GCC, & the annular modes. We do not need any Co2 warming to reach our current temp.

As for the antarctic, it has been cooling for the entire satellite era, SSTs have been cooling, and this is where the debate stands.

I'm heading out for a dinner date, have a good evening

[skierinvermont]

So far, our observed warming is due to a combination of Solar, GCC decrease, & the Oceanic annular modes, not CO2, and I demonstrated this in several posts.

No you didn't .. not in a way that has persuaded anybody here and it would be unlikely to persuade anybody familiar with the subject either.

[BethesdaWX]

No you didn't .. not in a way that has persuaded anybody here and it would be unlikely to persuade anybody familiar with the subject either.

Elaborate. I posted legit evidence, such as GCC drops, divergence at 500HPA pressure analysis through wx balloons, MWP having lower glaciers at both poles (linked), & why additional warming from Co2 has thus far been absent.

I'm not trying to change anyones opinions, I'm really just defending my turf. I have no interest it tearing opinions from people, GHG theory, or whatever you wanna call it.

[skierinvermont]

Elaborate. I posted legit evidence, such as GCC drops, divergence at 500HPA pressure analysis through wx balloons, MWP having lower glaciers at both poles (linked), & why additional warming from Co2 has thus far been absent.

I'm not trying to change anyones opinions, I'm really just defending my turf. I have no interest it tearing opinions from people, GHG theory, or whatever you wanna call it.

The fact that global low level clouds have dropped in the last 30 years doesn't prove anything really.

By the wx balloon data I assume you are referring to the well known predicted equatorial 'hot spot' that was missing in the observations? I believe new observations have corrected the poor data that did not show the hot spot. Moreover, the lack of a hot spot would not disprove AGW theory. It would prove that we don't understand how AGW (or other types of warming) affect lapse rates. The presence of a hot spot would not confirm AGW and the lack of one would not disprove AGW, it's completely irrelevant. It is only relevant to the issue of how ANY type of warming affects lapse rates.

See Titchner 2009, Haimberger 2008, and Sherwood 2008 for information on the latest weather balloon observations of the hot spot which are generally consistent with climate model results.

Also:

http://www.skeptical...ic-hot-spot.htm

I checked your links on glacial ice and I could not find where it says there was less ice at both poles. Perhaps you can point me to which paragraphs you are referring to.