Peter Wadhams in Murder Mystery?

[Donna]

It is unclear how disastrous that would be. There is certainly chances of large amounts of methane and CO2 being released but there are also chances that such emissions won't increase all that dramatically for quite a while. .

Serious question - what is to prevent large amounts of methane being released? And how long is quite a while?

[crandles]

Serious question - what is to prevent large amounts of methane being released? And how long is quite a while?

Flippant answer:
What would cause large amounts of methane release?

Seriously warming the sea bed will I think eventually release large quantities. But winter is long and heat built up over summer seems easily vented to atmosphere and space. Freeze up is not being delayed much - maybe a week over last 20 years or so. Suggests we will get ice cover each winter for a long time yet - easily 50 years if not 100 years or more. Warming ESS for an couple of weeks to a month extra then the heat is vented in winter again seems like it would take many years for heat to penetrate very far. 30cm down in soil, temperature stays constant year round here in the UK.

Why would there be much temperature increase more than 30cm below sea floor with the sort of changes being caused?

If not temperature affecting stability of hydrates, what else? Sunlight changing ecosystem? Probably will occur but having effects that release large quantity of methane? Possible but I haven't seen much in the way of suggestion that will happen. Sunlight causing chemical reactions? Possible but presumably would happen to some extent in polyna if not also in leads. Again, I haven't seen much in the way of suggestion that will happen.

[Tor Bejnar]

30cm down in soil, temperature stays constant year round here in the UK.

  This raises some interesting questions.  The atmosphere above your UK soil hasn't changed much in 30 years.  Has it changed enough to shift the '30cm down' soil temperature any?  [I have no idea.]  The average temperature and movement of the water column above the ESS floor is changing much faster, I suspect.  In addition, fluid exchange on and below the sea floor may create a very different set of dynamics from a (relatively dry) surface soil.  (One gas bubble going up may cause a similar volume of 'warm' water to go down.)

[F.Tnioli]

3. is there any doubt that 500+ ppm CO2e in the athmosphere causes Blue Arctic, given sufficient time for the new equilibrium to set in?

Removing ice cover causes ice to grow back in 2 or 3 years and I believe that would happen now at 580 CO2e. The time to equilibrium is fairly short for ice. There is much longer period for ocean temperatures and maybe hundreds of years after 500ppm CO2e would give months of ice free arctic but that is a long way off compared to short term equilibrium of ice level.

Not that it makes much difference to your argument:

Solar and wind are cheaper than ff if comparing before investment in either or after investment in either Unfortunately the comparison is after investment in ff plant and before investment in solar/wind. FF plants even if not able to squeeze out profits, they will still want to squeeze whatever cash they can back out from the investment. (It could become OK to run at a loss if the depreciation is larger than the loss so the operation is cash positive.)

Even with good incentives to overcome above and take ff plant out of use with renewables over next couple of decades, aerosols would then plummet and within a few years of that we could well have a month of ice free Arctic.

It is unclear how disastrous that would be. There is certainly chances of large amounts of methane and CO2 being released but there are also chances that such emissions won't increase all that dramatically for quite a while. Lower ice levels allow more heat to be vented to space in the Arctic winter. That can't do enough to balance the heat budget and rearranging distribution of heat probably isn't good, but if the imbalance is lowered a little.... the effects are unclear and maybe not catastrophic for quite a long time.

That the Arctic will soon be ice free seems to me to be a relatively poor reason for a 'we're all doomed' conclusion. Rising ocean temperatures seem much harder to stop without taking lots of carbon out of the atmosphere and the effects of destabilising West Antarctic ice sheet seems more certain in its effects so that seems more convincing to me.

Perhaps that is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. But it does allow more time and who knows what will happen with technology that might become available that is able to bring atmospheric carbon levels down. I am dubious of miracle cures but lots of investment in renewables might lead to surplus power during sunny windy days that can be channelled into providing energy for genetically modified/artificial organisms that convert atmospheric carbon to soot or something else that is easily buried.

Maybe I am too optimistic - lots of things have to turn out well for the outcome to not be too terrible.

You are too optimistic, for sure, - if that's optimism. Perhaps, its instead (or, also) subconscious denial? And/or, perhaps you are not paying proper attention to some facts? Anyhows, what you write does not compute with what others write, at multiple points. Namely:

1. Removing ice cover does not cause summer ice to grow back in 2-3 years, as far as leading scientists of Earth can tell. Here's a quote from this Yale publication, and i very much recommend to read said article in its entirety:
"
... Scambos and other experts say that recent data on plummeting ice extent and volume show that the Arctic has entered a “new normal” in which ice decline seems irreversible. Because of thinning ice and swiftly expanding areas of open water, the Arctic Ocean will no longer be kept frigid in summer by the reflectivity of snow and ice — the so-called ice-albedo effect, in which ice and snow reflect a high percentage of the sun’s energy back into space.
"

2. Your statement, quote, "There is much longer period for ocean temperatures and maybe hundreds of years after 500ppm CO2e would give months of ice free arctic", is simply incorrect, to the best of my knowledge. Even very slow - in compare to present, - rate of athmospheric CO2 increase, which happened at the end of the last glacial ~18000 years ago, demonstrates such period to be ~120 years - i can't call this "hundreds", can you? However, what we have today is nothing slow.

I hope you're familiar with hockey stick graphs, like this one, based on data from Antarctic ice cores - i.e., this is hard evidence, as hard as it can be. Correspondedly, much faster and much greater in its scale increase of CO2 than the one at the end of natural glacial periods - results in much shorter response time in terms of SSTs, in particular. Current estimates for the period you talk about - are ~40 years, as for example calculated by James Hansen et al (i hope you know who he is); more precisely, Hansen's paper estimates that 60% of the full temperature change would "arrive" 25...50 years after corresponding change of CO2 athmospheric content, as elaborated here. More recent estimates for such "period" similarly demonstrate that "period" you talk about, realistically, is not hundreds but few dozens years, like this one.

Please note that 100 gigatons of CO2's "carbon", which is the "pulse" used to estimate the "period" in the latter work - equals 100Gt / 35Gt/44*12 = ~10 years of actual mankind's CO2 emissions, today (where 35Gt is a bit outdated global CO2 anthropogenic CO2 annual emission, 44 is molecular mass of CO2, 12 is atomic mass of carbon), and please note the latter work assumed - for clarity of calculation, - zero CO2 emissions after such CO2 pulse. In practice, with such pulse being not instant but spred over ~10 last years (and another one next 10 years, just a bit bigger), we'll see corresponding to each decade of ongoing mankind's CO2 emissions temperature increases happening with a lag of ~17...45 years, which once again nothing like "hundreds". Of course, other factors which influence surface temperature can change, and in fact are and will be changing, the actual temperature trend - such as, for example, both natural and man-made aerosols. This in particular means that man-made CO2 emissions already happened during last 2...3 decades - which were record-high all-timers almost every year, - have not realized most of their warming potential yet, but they will in some 10...20 years. Welcome to the reality, eh?

Feel free to point out any error, if you happen to spot one/some in provided sources. But to me, they look like rather solid science and i'm unable to see any massive error in them.


I'll continue to respond to your post somewhat later.

[crandles]

1.
Impact of instantaneous sea ice removal in a coupled general circulation model
D. Schröder, W. M. Connolley
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030253/full

and
Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice
S. Tietsche, D. Notz, J. H. Jungclaus, J. Marotzke



support what I said about ice recovering in 2 or 3 years.

Your article is not a science paper. In articles like that the albedo effect gets lots of attention because it is easy to explain and understand and get across an idea of catastrophic collapse. It does dominate in summer. However in winter not only is lots of heat vented to space but much more can be if there is less ice. That didn't get the same attention did it? If that does get mentioned then is the article biased in a way science shouldn't be?

2. "There is much longer period for ocean temperatures and maybe hundreds of years after 500ppm CO2e would give months of ice free arctic"

I think the ice will be gone in September within 10 to 25 years but that will be with CO2e of 590 or more. CO2e of 500 is the level of around the 1990s. If atmospheric levels had been held at that level then: The ocean warming would have continued to now pretty much as it has but the atmosphere would be allowing more heat to escape to space.

To be honest I am not too sure how much extra ocean temperature you would need to compensate for CO2e 90ppm lower but gut reaction would be at least 0.5C and quite possibly more than 1C. At a rate of rise of 0.125C per decade that is 40 to 80 years on top of the 35 to 60 years that it looks like taking to get to virtually ice free from 1990 with our actual higher CO2e levels. Also I said months of ice free not virtually ice free.

Over 100 years looks more likely than not to me. So perhaps 'hundreds' was misleading high.

Your comments don't seem to address the validity of the statement you seemed to be challenging [edit to clarify atmospheric carbon held at 500CO2e seems quite different to looking at historical records where CO2e was not held at 500ppm CO2e].

120 years you referenced did not seem relevant but as to whether 120 years is 'hundreds', I think it could be argued that one and a fifth hundreds would be said rather than one and a fifth hundred but perhaps I am pushing that a bit.

'Over 100 years looks more likely than not' does seem a clearer and better.

[F.Tnioli]

1. Not every paper is good science nowadays, unfortunately. When i read this in the abstract of the paper you provided, quote: "Sensitivity experiments show an almost complete recovery from total removal or strong increase of sea ice after four years" - i weigh it against above mentioned "irreversible decline". Your source claims such decline would be reversible, and even more, self-occuring. Obvious conflict of data, so one of those sources must be wrong.

Which one is wrong, then? There are mechanics and numbers related to albedo, (huge) opacity of liquid water to IR radiation and significant transparency to visible light, and highest on Earth insolation in Arctic's summer. It's very easy, really, to know which one of the above sources is wrong. I am much surprised you bring in a paper which starts with such a nonsense in its abstract. I am curious why you did that.

They may model anything they want, but if their model spits out utter nonsense - then their model is wrong. I don't care why or how, intentionally or not (i'd bet on the former, though). What i care is that both my own common sense and opinions of most respected (by me, personally) scientists tell me that such an "almost complete recovery" is utter and complete nonsense.

The graph from S. Tietsche is a fantasy. Please do see actual summer ice obervatins for last three decades. I see no similarities. Ergo, another piece of... You know. Here's the mainstream data:


Let's see those dots for minimums on S. Tietsche graph and compare to what we have here, shall we (in millions km^2):
1980: 4.6 vs ~7.5
2000: 2.8 vs ~6.7

Yep, it's sure easy to talk about big recoveries when you are giving your readers _fake_ minimums, eh? =)

The point of more IR vented into space if there's less ice - i don't think is correct. Last time i checked, absorption spectrums of liquid water and ice were very similar for near IR and mid IR, and far IR has them different somewhat, but both, for whole far IR region, both liquid water and ice have much over 1000/m attenuation coefficient, which makes me think both substances absorb most of far IR in mere millimeters - so nope, where it matters (near IR), they don't differ any much, where they differ - both are basically opaque to IR frequences involved, so this whole idea about "thinner ice = more heat vented to space" seems to be a fantasy, to me. At best, that is. At worst, it'd be an attempt to misguide, of course.


2. Ok, i hear you. You "think" that 590 CO2e would be needed to have Blue Arctic happening. I don't. However, i assure you i respect your right to think what you like to think. Please feel free to keep doing it. I hope you similarly respect my thoughts, just as much - no more, no less. It seems we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm ok with that.
 
Your argument "athmosphere would allow more heat to escape" doesn't compute. If athmosphere stays the same CO2e 500, then i think it would allow same amount of heat to escape in frequencies blocked by CO2 and other gases with make up the "e" part. However, further noticeable temperature growth which would be caused by the remainder of the "CO2 temperature lag" since 1990s would still raise surface temperature a bit more, which would result - duh! - in a bit more evaporation of surface water, which would result - duh! - in a bit more water vapour in the athmosphere, which is, i hope you know, the main GHG. As a result, if CO2e would remain strictly the same 500 CO2e, then still with more time athmosphere would allow a bit less heat to vent into space, due to extra water vapour part. Dig?

Of course, reality is CO2e isn't 500, and won't stay constant in observable future - it'll grow. So why exactly you bring whole argument in the 1st place? Is 590 CO2e not right ahead of us? What your argument does to give any rational hope for Blue Arctic not happening? =)

Rate of SSTs rise actually observed is not a sole result of CO2e forcing. Reality has aerosols, ocean currents (changing with time as we go), biosphere feedbacks and more. Assuming linear trend for several decades ahead, which is what you do for 40...80 years, is not convincing, and i'd say misleading. Especially in case of Blue Arctic event, to which we're about half-way (extent, minimum annual) and more than half-way (volume, minimum annual) there comparing to pre-1980.

I now have an impression you are one of people who utilize wide range of all possible figures of speech, made-up arguments and outright lies to defend their points. I am sorry if this impression is wrong. If it is not, though, then i shouldn't waste more forum space to argument my opinion to you, since you probably know it's correct, but for whatever reason are unwilling or unable to express your agreement here in the forum. I can imagine both unfair but also honorable reasons to do so. Which is why i now stop to respond to your further argumentation, and won't address the remainder of your previous post, unless i see you being successful to invalidate said impression of mine (which is something you may or may not want to do, of course).

For now, good bye, and thank you for the conversation.


P.S. Just one more thing. Where, exactly, did i spell "we're all doomed"? I didn't. You won't find anything in my here posts which in any form is equivalent to "we're all doomed". Quite the opposite, i expressed my hopes - big hopes, - in the postscriptum of one my here posts. I wonder, do you talk to me, or to someone/something which you imagined yourself? =)

[Jim Hunt]

Goodbye F.Tnioli.

Is there any chance we can now stick to the "Peter Wadhams in Murder Mystery" stuff in here, and address the "Peter Wadhams & AMEG" stuff elsewhere?

A Google search for "peter wadhams assassination"  (without the quotes) currently returns 8,560 results, whereas a search for "peter wadhams assassination ipso complaint"  (without the quotes) currently returns 940 results.

A good demonstration of "Churnalism" in action?

[Neven]

Any news on that front, Jim? When will IPSO come with a 'verdict'?

[Jim Hunt]

Any news on that front, Jim? When will IPSO come with a 'verdict'?

The process takes months. For an example of a typical Arctic "ruling" see:

IPSO Powerless to Prevent The Great White Con

which took 5 months to conclude that an article by David Rose in The Mail on Sunday "was not significantly misleading"!

[Laurent]

Is it possible to have facts about what happened to Mr Wadhams ? Surely there is some police report or/and insurance claim, some photos of the car. Ok may be it wasn't damage, so it will be very hard to prove !  So we may talk about it but it is just chitchat, like the idea of geoengineering going on in the arctic as long as we don't have evidences.

[Peter Ellis]

"Almost hit by a lorry" doesn't tend to leave much of a mark on a car, and nor would any mark tell you anything about the state of mind of either the lorry driver or the car driver.

[F.Tnioli]

Goodbye F.Tnioli.

Is there any chance we can now stick to the "Peter Wadhams in Murder Mystery" stuff in here, and address the "Peter Wadhams & AMEG" stuff elsewhere?

A Google search for "peter wadhams assassination"  (without the quotes) currently returns 8,560 results, whereas a search for "peter wadhams assassination ipso complaint"  (without the quotes) currently returns 940 results.

A good demonstration of "Churnalism" in action?

Err, my bad english strikes again. I wasn't saying goodbye to the topic. I was saying goodbye to the particular - one which you designate as off-topic, - conversation here.

Sorry... For bad english, - but not for off-topic, as i am sure it wasn't. YMMV, though. Personal opinion here.

Churnalism is certainly there, yes. But i see worse; i see degradation of matherial. From place to place it gets "pulp fictionalized", if you know what i mean; more talk about could or could not other deaths be accidental, less and less talk about who those people and mr. Wadhams are and why exactly they would possibly be assasinated.

Meanwhile, i found rather interesting (if at times a bit too stretched) piece, done October 2014, which is IMHO related to the subject of... silencing, in one way or another, some voices which powers that be do not want to be heard. Of particular interest to me, though, was one of comments to it, which i'll quote here:

Dale LananOctober 17, 2014 at 10:46 AM
Full knowledge of where Earth is relative to GHG increase and Extinction would rock the boat of the fine enterprise of converting resources to money in the world we have..
The exclusion of findings that could rock the boat and get the people of the world interested in change best aligning world enterprise toward keeping Earth alive strikes me as a feedback loop, Closed System amplification of the dire situation we have. I implore the Royal Society to consider.

Assuming above is correct - i guess it is, - i expect further information about Peter Wadhams' circumstances to remain scarce, if any at all, and things like IPSO not helping the situation, yes.

This is, definitely, very extremely sad....

[Jim Hunt]

Although IPSO's decision about the "Peter Wadhams Murder Mystery" was apparently reached earlier this month it has only just been publicised:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/professor-peter-wadhams-complaint-to-ipso/#comment-212099

The verdict?

The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial Action Required: N/A

[crandles]

The moral of this tale would seem to be “Don’t speak to journalists without taping the conversation” and “Don’t speak to journalists without saying the magic words ‘off the record’ first” or quite possibly simply “Don’t speak to journalists”!

Perhaps alternatively the moral might be considered to be:

Don't hold crazy views and tell a journalists about those views and then expect a story about your craziness not to be published.

Also if this does happen, don't complain about it: People who might believe it was the newspaper doing a hatchet character assassination job will be convinced by the failing complaint that it is you 'going emeritus'.

[crandles]

Complaint included

I asked that this be completely off the record because of (a) the sensibilities of relatives ...,
(b) my own scientific reputation (I did not want to be made out to be a crazy person),

My reaction was that if Wadhams had been sensible enough to think that in the first place then the problem would not have occurred. This sounds much more like something realised later. Does it ring true as a honestly reported complaint? I did think this earlier but didn't say it in case I was wrong.

I don't want to say it was dishonest - probably he did believe it when he made the complaint. However it seemed to me to have a strong sense of having been mentally manipulated to fit what Wadham's wanted to believe he had done and not believe what he hoped he hadn't done.

A complaint based on believing what you want to believe, seems like a recipe for a complaint to be a disaster.

[Jim Hunt]

My reaction was that if Wadhams had been sensible enough to think that in the first place then the problem would not have occurred. This sounds much more like something realised later. Does it ring true as a honestly reported complaint? I did think this earlier but didn't say it in case I was wrong.

"Arctic" complaints seem to have a habit of being "not upheld" by IPSO. See e.g. this one from Bob Ward

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/04/ipso-powerless-to-prevent-the-great-white-con/

Judging from his comment on Twitter Bob agrees with your analysis in this case:

Actually, I think the lesson is "Don't say stupid things to journalists".

Given that IPSO apparently consider him to be "practiced at dealing with the media" it seems that Prof. Wadhams should have said "Off the record!" after 10 minutes rather than towards the end of the half hour conversation, or (particularly with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight!) the infinitely preferable "Goodbye".

IPSO did say that "it was regrettable that no further conversation had taken place as the journalist had suggested", but nonetheless demanded nothing in the way of "remedial action" from The Times.