The scorchio continues at ground level. At +0.79ºC, GISStemp February 2015 is the 6th hottest anomaly on record and the hottest February.
Pete Bestsays
Re #95 – that is a good article but lets await on judgement as to what is causing these craters. It might not be climate change but mining for gas etc.
Phew! I thought I knew why the arctic region is heating so rapidly with respect to the rest of the world?, not withstanding the west Antarctic peninsula. However when I googled the question I received about 5-7 different reasons. I’ll try to arrange them in degrees of impact. 1) Changes in ice albedo ( does not explain why winter has the greatest temp rise) : 2)troposphere is thinner at the poles thus less energy to warm a given mass of atmosphere : 3)Polar regions are drier thus less humidity to moderate the temp and again less energy required to raise temp by a given amount : 4) changes in weather patterns and cloud formation over the poles leading to greater or lessor reflectivity thus affecting air temp: 5)Dust over the poles is 1/10 the amount it was during the last ice age 20,000y/ago. (Someone please explain to me the significance of that one!) : 6) changes in arctic ocean currents causing more heat to melt the ice from below during summer and winter.
Many sites had any one of those factors as their main reason for the heating or a combination of a few of them. I’m sure there a few more factors of varying levels of credibility out there somewhere.
How does those I’ve listed reflect the current understanding of RC’s contributors?. Thanks!
Lawrence Colemansays
95: Wili, Gavin covered that one in an earlier unforced variations. His take was that the amount is neglible at the moment when you consider other natural and anthropogenic sources. Saw in science daily that lakes in the permafrost regions of the northern hemi have shrunk 2/3 in the past 50 or so years as the temp warms and increasing vegetation coverage soaks up the remaining water in them. Surely the thawing of the permafrost will be an unstoppable source of greater and greater amounts of methane and CO2 for the next 100s of years…let alone the CH4 clathrates on the precipice of being liberated.
Lawrence Colemansays
I can’t help thinking of the way Einstein went about his watershed theories especially when he was in his younger years. He was a true scientist and yet he was guided by his ability to visualise the abstract and then to form a hunch or inference that this the right path to take. Then go about the mathematics to support his case. Gavin might say this is probably not the best way to approach a problem as one must be guided by observation and reliable hard data and a highly formulamatic structure to expand your idea. In the field of climate science and the blinding speed that the symptoms are now progressing, my understanding is that once you finally are satisfied you have all the data one needs to devise a theory the sheer pace of CC keeps throwing other hitherto unthought-of spanners and factors into the works. Take the ridiculously conservative projections by the IPCC not even factoring in the effects of methane, or the likely disintegration of the west Antarctic ice shelf within most of our lifetimes. This is current the scientific method based on available data and evidence. It’s like running after a wild horse, waiting for the horse to run out of puff and take a breather, then as soon as you’ve almost caught up with him – he has regained energy again and off he runs on and on. You just never have the chance to jump onto his back and begin to understand how the horse acts and feels under you and then begin to slowly reign him in by intimately feeling the animals character and pre-empting his next move. I think more visualising and thinking into the future character of CC is needed to forecast credible timeframes for us, world governments/policy makers and business to work with.
Ray Ladburysays
Lawrence Coleman, The issue is not the slowness with which climate science progresses. We’ve known since the ’80s that we had a problem that we needed to address. Hell, we’ve really known since the 1890s.
Scientists know we are in the soup. The uncertainties have to do with how quickly the soup pot is heating up, how bad things are going to get, and whether any mitigations short of complete decarbonization of the energy infrastructure will be effective.
In risk mitigation when faced with a credible threat where the uncertainties have to do with the consequences and the rate at which those consequences will manifest, the appropriate attitude is conservatism–in the sense that you act as quickly as possible to avoid the realization of the consequences.
Instead, we have cowards in government elected by cowards in the population, none of whom have the courage to accept reality and responsibility. I do not know why you think that lopping off another decimal in the uncertainty will change that.
Thomassays
Lawrence @103, My two cents on Arctic amplification:
(1) Yes. This acts as a positive feedback loop, enhancing temperature change from any other driver. Don’t forget, its not just ice, but decreased snow on land, and plants are growing taller, reducing
the albedo increasing effects of a given depth of snow.
(2,3) claim there is less to heat up. In one narrow sense this is true, often only the air close to the ground responds, because the air is convectively stable, whereas when the convection layer is deep, the whole convective layer must heat almost uniformly. However the time scale of atmospheric heating is much much slower than relevant climate change timescale. [And you have lots of ocean (and ice) heat content to change.
(4) Changes in cloudcover. Could go either way.
(5) Dustier during ice age. I don’t think this is relevant in the modern context. However blackcarbon probably is.
(6) Changes in the way the oceans redistribute heat from lower lat latitudes -almost certainly.
(7) Changes in atmospheric circulation. I’d venture cold season heat transfer has increased.
(8) Albedo changes on land. Less snow, and taller plants decreasing the effect of the snow on the ground.
MARodger – February 1998 was .86C, so .79C is not a record. To me the cool aspect is the 12-months ended on February 28, 2015 appears to be the hottest 12 months in the GISS record. At .709C, its .036C hotter than the new value for the warmest year – 2014 is now .673C. That took all of 59 days.
Lawrence @104: Yes, that post of Gavin’s was what I was alluding to. I guess I should have been a bit more explicit. What you missed is that the other craters were a few meters across. This new one is a full kilometer across.
That rather changes the math, but I leave it to you or Gavin or others to figure out. There were two new ones last year, at least seven major (and several more smaller) ones this year. Extrapolate that rate out a few years, too, before deciding whether or not it’s a major threat. And of course there may be even larger than 1k craters in the future.
I do agree that melting permafrost is the main thing to keep our eyes on. I just think it should be possible to pay attention to more than one thing at a time.
wilisays
Lawrence @ 103. Good list. But there’s another one I’ve heard of, but someone else may have to help explain it or find sources since I’m a bit short on time now (Uncle Hank?? ‘-)).
Since the difference between the temperature of a body its surroundings has a huge effect on how fast it looses heat, (the fourth power, Stefan-Bolzmann Law, and all that), and since the Arctic is (still) much colder than the rest of the planet, it loses heat to space less ‘efficiently’ than warmer parts of the planet do. (There are also issues of lapse rate, but I never fully understood that stuff.)
Now others can chime in and point out where I’ve gone terribly wrong! ‘-)
Old, but still (I think) a useful general discussion.
I expect you did see this, which points firmly at sea ice declines, but also (maybe as secondary feedback) a factor I didn’t see in your list–water vapor feedback:
What specific claim of mine were you trying to address. For someone who always wants people to be clear in their citations, I notice you are rarely clear about who or what you are addressing. That often makes it very hard to understand the context of your posts.
I didn’t make any claim, in fact. I just pointed to a site discussing a report. The site makes quite explicit that it is a preliminary report. It doesn’t strike me as a fear mongering site. But I guess perceptions of such things can vary.
Is it our business to ignore reported developments in the Arctic?
Perhaps if my posts upset you so much you should just avoid reading them?
(Thanks for your link to Yurganov’s site (though the first one doesn’t seem to be working). I am very familiar with him and his excellent work.)
Again, please follow your own excellent advise. If there is a specific claim you choose to question, please indicate exactly what it is and where you found it. Otherwise rational discussion becomes impossible. (And maybe cut back on the caffeine! ‘-))
Assuming that…PR rate is proportional to the rate of ascension of air…
It is probably CAPE that is related to the rate of ascension of air, not PR. Remember, the 12% increase found by Romps et al. was due mainly to the increase in CAPE, not PR.
Recall also that there is an efficiency factor, taken to be constant, multiplying CAPExPR. Other factors would affect a putative relation between CAPE and sensible heat transfer, such as the changes in the moist adiabat and the atmospheric boiundary layer.
Finally, projected changes in sensible heat transfer are actually projected to be either small or negative: see the discussions at Held’s blog, and, particularly Lu and Cai, 2009.
In order to really understand the relation between the Romps et al. result and other aspects of convective energetics, I suspect that one needs to dig into the physics of lightning generation, which involves issues of charge transfer and separation, as well as the convective velocity fields and, per Lu and Cai, the atmospheric boundary layer. I regard the Romps et al. result as empirically justified at this point, and have not tried to find a further, theoretical justification. That would be interesting.
There’s certainly more than one thing at play in Arctic amplification.
The seasonality of Arctic amplification (i.e., more “amplification” relative to low latitudes in the winter) is not evidence against the importance of the ice-albedo feedback. It’s true that the summertime is where you have the insolation (which is obviously a pre-requisite for the feedback), but the summer is also the time when you have a lot of ice melting and so temperatures get pinned to the freezing point. That energy is still there though, so you see more amplification during the other seasons simply because that’s where it can be expressed in temperature.
But you do get Arctic amplification even without surface albedo feedbacks. Other feedbacks, like water vapor, would cause tropical amplification. It’s a bit difficult to do a really good attribution because the framework we commonly use for thinking about climate feedbacks breaks down a bit in the polar regions, but here’s one good entry point into the literature on this that also attempts to sort out what feedbacks give you tropical vs. high-latitude amplification (e.g., Figure 2).
Thinking about changes in poleward energy transport is complicated because the transport itself depends on the pole-to-equator structure in net top-of-atmosphere radiation. In equilibrium, and also when taking averages over longitude, the energy transport converging/diverging into/out of some latitude can be inferred from a residual in net radiation- that is, TOA absorbed solar minus outgoing longwave radiation in the tropics is a positive number and so implies energy diverging out of the tropics, and opposite in the high latitudes. But it turns out that it’s hard to actually change total meridional heat transport much, when you include both the ocean and atmosphere transports. One tends to see at least some degree of compensation between the two in modeling exercises, if e.g., one perturbs the ocean heat transport the atmosphere tends to partially compensate for that. I’m not sure we have a well-developed theory for that compensation, but it tends to be rather robust.
Moreover, atmospheric processes which control that atmospheric poleward energy transport (at least in the extratropics) are usually sensitive to the prevailing pole-to-equator T gradient (i.e., if one were to build a simple model that did not resolve the circulation from which we could then extract the statistics of energy transport, a useful place to start would be to parameterize that transport as being diffusive and proportional to the pole-to-equator T gradient, which decreases in global warming scenarios). That doesn’t work so well for moist dynamics, since there’s so much more water vapor in the low latitudes that the poleward latent energy transport probably listens to the lower latitudes than it does to the gradient, so atmospheric energy transport may increase in warm climates. Even more compensating transport, there may also be a disproportionate effect of ocean transport on the sea ice edge, so what we call a sea ice albedo feedback may partially reflect the horizontal movement of energy into a region rather than an isolated, local process. But the point is that these things are a two-way coupled problem so talking about “causation” is difficult. Brian Rose and David Ferreira have explored this issue here and show that the answers depends partially on the local feedbacks arising when one changes the transport.
So we don’t fully understand Arctic amplification (could one concoct a much different climate change scenario that was tropically amplified?) but people have at least identified a lot of the relevant feedbacks and it remains one of the most robust responses across a reasonably wide range of climates and across the spectrum of model complexity.
Matthew R Marlersays
114 Pat Cassen: Finally, projected changes in sensible heat transfer are actually projected to be either small or negative: see the discussions at Held’s blog, and, particularly Lu and Cai, 2009.
I can not find the reference or link to Lu and Cai, 2009, at Isaac Held’s blog. Could you provide more information? I would appreciate it. I appreciate your comments on my posts about Romps et al.
> wili says: … clear about who or what you are addressing.
The bloggers I am critical of for failing to cite sources, so far, have not allowed my comments to appear on their blogs. There’s nothing so pointless as complaining on one blog about another blog that won’t publish critical comments about content and sources. Some do it right, some don’t.
So my point is: when you see a scientist’s name invoked, followed by a short quotation, followed by text that could, casually, be misattributed, I strongly recommend you look up the original scientist’s actual words. When those blogs fail to give you the cites — well, you know how to find this stuff, don’t you? ‘oogle Scholar wants to help.
There’s way too much bullshit trying to scare people — some scary black helicopters, some scary methane monsters. Science doesn’t work there.
Check the sources.
Clear enough? Any place that _has_ published my critical comments, you can find them. Those that don’t — hey, who can prove unpublished criticism?
CAPE is a specific energy, Joules per kilogram, not a flow rate. They multiplied by the rainfall rate in order to get a flow rate. They assumed that the fraction of each kilogram of air that was water vapor was constant. Thus, CAPE*PR was proportional to the energy flow rate. It just is not perfectly clear that it corresponds exactly to one of the flow rates reported by Stephens et al.
wilisays
hank, now I really have no idea what you’re talking about. What specific scientist’s statement are you referring to?
Are you saying that no one should ever post a link here to something that you might find scary?
Do you see why that’s just not going to work?
Jim Eatonsays
Well, we shattered records for Pi Day today in California. Sacramento 85 (83) Salinas airport 92 (88) Los Angeles 93 (88) Long Beach airport 94 (85) Santa Maria airport 95 (88) San Diego 90 (83) Newport Beach 85 (76) Chula Vista 94 (78). From Alturas in the extreme northeast corner of the state to San Diego, there were numerous high temperature records not just broken, but shattered. With an unpresendated drought already hammering California, now we have late spring temperatures in the middle of March.
Thomas O'Reillysays
Wiki asks: “Is it a bit odd historically to have two cyclones hit Australia at the same time?”
Yes it is, though it has happened before. Anyone who suggest it is “normal” is slightly off the rails. What is normal most common is NO cyclones making landfall in any particular season.
So this weekend was Three in a latitudinal line NW Aust Cat 3 now bringing floods all the way down the west coast; NE Aust Cat 2, no biggy a bit of wind, and out in the Coral Sea at Vanuatu a record breaking CAT 5, yes +500 miles diameter, as powerful as Cyclone Yasi .. the worst ever to hit australia. Vanautu sounds maybe as bad as Phillipines the other year, not sure yet, early reports say 90% of houses/buildings in capital city Port Vila have been damaged, no contact elsewhere. Suspect whole villages been destroyed ….. death toll barely begun.
Keeping in Mind it is now March/Autumn and not Jan-Feb. Noting that temps in mid-east coast still 31-33C or 5-6C above normal highs. The central Northern Territory this last week had high humidity and 42.5C highs inland about 10C above normal.
And that only 10 days ago there was two other major cyclones Cat 3-4 in nth Northern territory (missed Darwin population centres) and a Cat 3 in NW australia making landfall on the same day. about 1000 miles apart and about the same latitude.
Ocean temps are very high (above normal) across nth australia and asian tropics; and the south pacific. (i believe, do check that)
This comes 1-2 months after many long weeks of major bush fires in SW western australia (unprecedented ones size numbers) plus in South Australia and Victoria sept-dec period.
Native plants in far nth australia are confused with multiple and wrong season flowerings, which 10 years ago was happening in Sydney area with citrus and mulberry trees etc etc. Honey bees reported as under stress all over.
and the Govt thinks their plan of increase the intensity of agriculture output by 50% in the next 3-5 years is doable.
Bottom line is that Australian weather, nay Australia’s CLIMATE, is totally nuts now and dysfunctional and unpredictable. Normal iso charts no longer normal, all patterns no longer fit any old established patterns by month, season or daily typical norms by location.
An anecdotal report, sure. The science data will catch up one day. AFTER it’s too late anyway. But this comes on the back of record heat waves, national high temps, catastrophic bushfires (they needed to make a new extreme fire warning rating to suit)
Meanwhile agw/cc climate science deniers are still deniers and will always be deniers.
JCH @108.
Thank you for spotting my mistake. I must have not done my sorting back far enough because GISS February 2015 was the 7th hottest anomaly not the 6th. I shall blame my fat fingers.
1 Jan ’07 – +0.93ºC
2 Mar ’02 – +0.89ºC
3 Mar ’10 – +0.87ºC
4 Feb ’98 – +0.86ºC
5 Apr ’10 – +0.82ºC
6 Sep ’14 – +0.81ºC
7 Feb ’15 – +0.79ºC
As you point out, the rolling 12-month average to Feb 2015 is a new record for GISS overtaking that set in 2010.
HadCRUT4 will also set a new record, this a certainty because the Feb 2014 anomaly was so low.
NCDC has been setting such new records since Sept 2014.
Thomas O'Reillysays
PS Wili, the “political climate” is even worse in Australia. Absolutely ZERO political or practical action regarding Climate change issues, nothing of any import being doen re paris 2015. Half the Great barrier reef has been destoryed by crown of thorsn star fish, and acidicfication and poluttion and violent storm damage now.
Politics and social cohesion (?) is Extreme, polarized, dysfunctional, unprecedented, racism, bigotry, insecurity, loads of corruption and BS, and psychologically off the wall.
The electorate is like a tinder-box of frustrations. I expect protests this year or next not seen since the vietnam war days, if things dont change soon. with riots not a surprise either. Nothing is “normal” here right now. Eating of raw onions is but a sideline joke. It’s nuts frankly, and the natives are very restless and stressed… or trying to ignore it all.
deconvolutersays
re: #110 Wili.
Since the difference between the temperature of a body its surroundings has a huge effect on how fast it looses heat, (the fourth power, Stefan-Bolzmann Law, and all that),….
True except, perhaps, the term huge can be misleading
(You may know this, but for the sake of other readers); the SB law refers to the absolute or Kelvin temperature T which is of the order of 300K whereas variations of it across the surface are substantially smaller in relative terms. i.e. the departure (T-T(av)) from the average T(av) is considerably smaller than T(av). It follows that T^4 reduces to a linear function of {T-T(av)} with a ‘smallish’ quadratic correction (binomial expansion).
Thanks for those perspectives on the situation in Australia, Thomas. “Australian weather, nay Australia’s CLIMATE, is totally nuts now and dysfunctional and unpredictable” Yeah, that’s my impression from casual and distant observation.
“Meanwhile agw/cc climate science deniers are still deniers and will always be deniers.”
Good point. Pretty much gives the lie to the frequent claim that, once CC effects become really bad, those catastrophes alone will be enough to turn public opinion. If that were true, places like Oklahoma in the US should be electing the most climate-hawkish congressmen, but that’s not exactly the case.
And thanks for the attempted clarification on SB law, deconvoluter, though I’m not sure I follow it completely.
And, to check claims that there’s a trend in arctic methane, following citing papers forward in time.
Lots of people have been looking and publishing on this. E.g.
First published: 1 July 2013
DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50480
Cited by: 7 articles
Abstract
[1] The causes of renewed growth in the atmospheric CH4 burden since 2007 are still poorly understood and subject of intensive scientific discussion. We present a reanalysis of global CH4 emissions during the 2000s …. Most of the inferred emission increase was located in the tropics (9–14 Tg CH4/yr) and mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere (6–8 Tg CH4/yr), while no significant trend was derived for Arctic latitudes.
Variations in global methane sources and sinks during 1910–2010
… bottom-up emission data set underestimates the rate of change of global total CH4 emissions by ~30% during the high growth period of 1940–1990, while it overestimates by ~380% during the low growth period of 1990–2010. Further, using the CH4 stable carbon isotopic data (δ13C), we attribute the emission increase during 1940–1990 primarily to enhancement of biomass burning. The total lifetime of CH4 shortened from 9.4 yr during 1910–1919 to 9 yr during 2000–2009 by the combined effect of the increasing abundance of atomic chlorine radicals (Cl) and increases in average air temperature. We show that changes of CH4 loss rate due to increased tropospheric air temperature and CH4 loss due to Cl in the stratosphere are important sources of uncertainty to more accurately estimate the global CH4 budget from δ13C observations.
Citation: Ghosh, A., Patra, P. K., Ishijima, K., Umezawa, T., Ito, A., Etheridge, D. M., Sugawara, S., Kawamura, K., Miller, J. B., Dlugokencky, E. J., Krummel, P. B., Fraser, P. J., Steele, L. P., Langenfelds, R. L., Trudinger, C. M., White, J. W. C., Vaughn, B., Saeki, T., Aoki, S., and Nakazawa, T.: Variations in global methane sources and sinks during 1910–2010, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 2595-2612, doi:10.5194/acp-15-2595-2015, 2015.
128 Pat Cassen:it is much smaller than any of those flow rates.
What is much smaller is the energy flow into the lightning, not the energy flow of the process that sustains the lightning. They have a large constant of proportionality.
Mike Roddysays
The last time I checked, RealClimate and most other climate blogs have never discussed domestic deforestation as a major climate issue. I did some research here a few years ago, and expect the ratios to stay the same: The US consumes and produces 25% of the earth’s wood products. Result: a (probably lowballed) figure from EPA of around 430 million tons of CO2 annually caused by logging.
You requested no talk about mitigation, but let’s just get the science clear here: it’s not just driving big cars. It’s the forests we choose to throw away. Other countries that log trees, such as Sweden and Canada, come up with similar figures. A lot of good things would happen if their people took note.
wilisays
I give up. It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who refuses to specify what he is disagreeing with. Best wishes on playing whatever game you think you’re playing.
On the sidelines of the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, president Lonsdale described Cyclone Pam as a monster that had set back the government and the people of Vanuatu. “After all the developments that has taken place, all this has been wiped out. So it means that we will have to start anew again”. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-16/vanuatu-president-breaks-down-describing-cyclone-devastation/6322586
I would love to discuss wili’s and Thomas O’Reilly’s comments but my mother died last week aged 92 so got to make funeral plans for Thursday.
Will catch up soon.
I’m not offering to patrol the Internet to protect you from misstatements made on other blogs out there.
I’m urging you to check the claims that worry you, that you repost here.
You can check these claims — look up the scientists’ names mentioned — find them in Scholar. Read what they actually write. Don’t trust paraphrases.
I’m not going to pick arguments here with other blogs I’ve criticized that exaggerate. Some of them have posted my comments, others don’t do that.
Same either way — I recommend you check’em before deciding to repeat their stories, as you know how.
John Jacksonsays
I would like to know if anyone here is familiar with the January 2014 American Physical Society workshop that featured a colloquy among six climate scientists, three of whom are believers and three of whom are skeptics in regards to the AGW hypothesis.
The scientists are John Christy, William Collins, Judith Curry, Isaac Held, Richard Lindzen, and Benjamin Santer. The colloquy was held as part of the APS’s preparation to update its 2007 statement on climate change.
The APS published the colloquy, and the setup questions, in a 500+-page document. I am especially interested in whether anyone has actually read the document, and if so, whether you think it’s a good (accurate, complete, clear, fair) statement of the pros and cons on the issue.
hank, thanks for the (typically school-marmish) advice. Why you think I don’t already do these things still remains a mystery. (Did I link to AMEG somewhere without realizing it?)
I will continue to link stories and analyses that I think might spark a good conversation, even if they may not be 100% up to your standards. I’ll just apologies ahead of time now for doing so in the future…
Lawrence, so very sorry to hear about your loss. We look forward to your return, but please do take the time you need.
wilisays
Apologies again to Hank if this scares him, but Skripps reports that we have yet another daily CO2 reading above 403 ppm, this one for March 15. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
Jim Larsensays
140 Hank R said, I’m urging you to check the claims that worry you, that you repost here.”
If somebody posts claims that they cite that you don’t agree with, it is up to YOU to challenge the claim. Do the work or be quiet.
Remember how AJCC turned down my drought paper because “This paper is of low quality and recommend not to publish?” I asked for clarification. Yesterday I got back, “1.Your paper is impressive to us, however the manuscript is more suitable to be published in other chemical journals such as acs (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences: http://www.scirp.org/journal/acs/)”
So it’s either
A) a bad paper, or
B) an impressive paper better suited for a chemistry journal
Which really makes me think they haven’t read the damn thing.
Well, I’m done. I’ve shopped this paper around to 12 different journals, only 4 of which bothered to send it out for peer review. And this isn’t the first time I’ve gotten contradictory reasons why they won’t print it. For whatever reason, I’ve been neutralized, and I don’t have a hope in hell of finding out why. So from now on I’m leaving the climate activism to others. I will make no further efforts to publish my paper or my book. Let someone else save the world. It’s not my problem.
Lawrence Coleman, I’m very sorry to hear about your mother. I’ll pray for peace for you and your family.
Ray Ladburysays
Lawrence Coleman,
So sorry to hear of your loss. I hope her long life was a happy one.
Steve Fishsays
Re- Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 17 Mar 2015 @ 5:51 AM, ~#147
BPL, it was mentioned above, but have you contacted a scientist who publishes research similar to what you are attempting, perhaps an author in your references list, and asked for help. I strongly suggest that your first contact be by phone because of the many crazies who e-mail scientists with their impossible ideas. Also, is there a draft available on line?
The scorchio continues at ground level. At +0.79ºC, GISStemp February 2015 is the 6th hottest anomaly on record and the hottest February.
Re #95 – that is a good article but lets await on judgement as to what is causing these craters. It might not be climate change but mining for gas etc.
one more worrying thing,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27149-rich-nations-are-laying-road-to-ecological-armageddon.html#.VQQFGP9ya9I
Paris 2015 has to do a lot.
Phew! I thought I knew why the arctic region is heating so rapidly with respect to the rest of the world?, not withstanding the west Antarctic peninsula. However when I googled the question I received about 5-7 different reasons. I’ll try to arrange them in degrees of impact. 1) Changes in ice albedo ( does not explain why winter has the greatest temp rise) : 2)troposphere is thinner at the poles thus less energy to warm a given mass of atmosphere : 3)Polar regions are drier thus less humidity to moderate the temp and again less energy required to raise temp by a given amount : 4) changes in weather patterns and cloud formation over the poles leading to greater or lessor reflectivity thus affecting air temp: 5)Dust over the poles is 1/10 the amount it was during the last ice age 20,000y/ago. (Someone please explain to me the significance of that one!) : 6) changes in arctic ocean currents causing more heat to melt the ice from below during summer and winter.
Many sites had any one of those factors as their main reason for the heating or a combination of a few of them. I’m sure there a few more factors of varying levels of credibility out there somewhere.
How does those I’ve listed reflect the current understanding of RC’s contributors?. Thanks!
95: Wili, Gavin covered that one in an earlier unforced variations. His take was that the amount is neglible at the moment when you consider other natural and anthropogenic sources. Saw in science daily that lakes in the permafrost regions of the northern hemi have shrunk 2/3 in the past 50 or so years as the temp warms and increasing vegetation coverage soaks up the remaining water in them. Surely the thawing of the permafrost will be an unstoppable source of greater and greater amounts of methane and CO2 for the next 100s of years…let alone the CH4 clathrates on the precipice of being liberated.
I can’t help thinking of the way Einstein went about his watershed theories especially when he was in his younger years. He was a true scientist and yet he was guided by his ability to visualise the abstract and then to form a hunch or inference that this the right path to take. Then go about the mathematics to support his case. Gavin might say this is probably not the best way to approach a problem as one must be guided by observation and reliable hard data and a highly formulamatic structure to expand your idea. In the field of climate science and the blinding speed that the symptoms are now progressing, my understanding is that once you finally are satisfied you have all the data one needs to devise a theory the sheer pace of CC keeps throwing other hitherto unthought-of spanners and factors into the works. Take the ridiculously conservative projections by the IPCC not even factoring in the effects of methane, or the likely disintegration of the west Antarctic ice shelf within most of our lifetimes. This is current the scientific method based on available data and evidence. It’s like running after a wild horse, waiting for the horse to run out of puff and take a breather, then as soon as you’ve almost caught up with him – he has regained energy again and off he runs on and on. You just never have the chance to jump onto his back and begin to understand how the horse acts and feels under you and then begin to slowly reign him in by intimately feeling the animals character and pre-empting his next move. I think more visualising and thinking into the future character of CC is needed to forecast credible timeframes for us, world governments/policy makers and business to work with.
Lawrence Coleman, The issue is not the slowness with which climate science progresses. We’ve known since the ’80s that we had a problem that we needed to address. Hell, we’ve really known since the 1890s.
Scientists know we are in the soup. The uncertainties have to do with how quickly the soup pot is heating up, how bad things are going to get, and whether any mitigations short of complete decarbonization of the energy infrastructure will be effective.
In risk mitigation when faced with a credible threat where the uncertainties have to do with the consequences and the rate at which those consequences will manifest, the appropriate attitude is conservatism–in the sense that you act as quickly as possible to avoid the realization of the consequences.
Instead, we have cowards in government elected by cowards in the population, none of whom have the courage to accept reality and responsibility. I do not know why you think that lopping off another decimal in the uncertainty will change that.
Lawrence @103, My two cents on Arctic amplification:
(1) Yes. This acts as a positive feedback loop, enhancing temperature change from any other driver. Don’t forget, its not just ice, but decreased snow on land, and plants are growing taller, reducing
the albedo increasing effects of a given depth of snow.
(2,3) claim there is less to heat up. In one narrow sense this is true, often only the air close to the ground responds, because the air is convectively stable, whereas when the convection layer is deep, the whole convective layer must heat almost uniformly. However the time scale of atmospheric heating is much much slower than relevant climate change timescale. [And you have lots of ocean (and ice) heat content to change.
(4) Changes in cloudcover. Could go either way.
(5) Dustier during ice age. I don’t think this is relevant in the modern context. However blackcarbon probably is.
(6) Changes in the way the oceans redistribute heat from lower lat latitudes -almost certainly.
(7) Changes in atmospheric circulation. I’d venture cold season heat transfer has increased.
(8) Albedo changes on land. Less snow, and taller plants decreasing the effect of the snow on the ground.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/unforced-variations-march-2015/comment-page-3/#comment-626892
MARodger – February 1998 was .86C, so .79C is not a record. To me the cool aspect is the 12-months ended on February 28, 2015 appears to be the hottest 12 months in the GISS record. At .709C, its .036C hotter than the new value for the warmest year – 2014 is now .673C. That took all of 59 days.
Watch the pause go paws up.
Lawrence @104: Yes, that post of Gavin’s was what I was alluding to. I guess I should have been a bit more explicit. What you missed is that the other craters were a few meters across. This new one is a full kilometer across.
That rather changes the math, but I leave it to you or Gavin or others to figure out. There were two new ones last year, at least seven major (and several more smaller) ones this year. Extrapolate that rate out a few years, too, before deciding whether or not it’s a major threat. And of course there may be even larger than 1k craters in the future.
I do agree that melting permafrost is the main thing to keep our eyes on. I just think it should be possible to pay attention to more than one thing at a time.
Lawrence @ 103. Good list. But there’s another one I’ve heard of, but someone else may have to help explain it or find sources since I’m a bit short on time now (Uncle Hank?? ‘-)).
Since the difference between the temperature of a body its surroundings has a huge effect on how fast it looses heat, (the fourth power, Stefan-Bolzmann Law, and all that), and since the Arctic is (still) much colder than the rest of the planet, it loses heat to space less ‘efficiently’ than warmer parts of the planet do. (There are also issues of lapse rate, but I never fully understood that stuff.)
Now others can chime in and point out where I’ve gone terribly wrong! ‘-)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/?wpmp_tp=2.php/ar06/01/polar-amplification/?wpmp_tp=2
Old, but still (I think) a useful general discussion.
I expect you did see this, which points firmly at sea ice declines, but also (maybe as secondary feedback) a factor I didn’t see in your list–water vapor feedback:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=67
Hank at # 97. Goodness.
What specific claim of mine were you trying to address. For someone who always wants people to be clear in their citations, I notice you are rarely clear about who or what you are addressing. That often makes it very hard to understand the context of your posts.
I didn’t make any claim, in fact. I just pointed to a site discussing a report. The site makes quite explicit that it is a preliminary report. It doesn’t strike me as a fear mongering site. But I guess perceptions of such things can vary.
Is it our business to ignore reported developments in the Arctic?
Perhaps if my posts upset you so much you should just avoid reading them?
(Thanks for your link to Yurganov’s site (though the first one doesn’t seem to be working). I am very familiar with him and his excellent work.)
Again, please follow your own excellent advise. If there is a specific claim you choose to question, please indicate exactly what it is and where you found it. Otherwise rational discussion becomes impossible. (And maybe cut back on the caffeine! ‘-))
“Watch the pause go paws up.
Comment by JCH — 14 Mar 2015 @ 10:42 AM”
Be very careful what you wish for.
Matthew @100 –
A couple of points:
Assuming that…PR rate is proportional to the rate of ascension of air…
It is probably CAPE that is related to the rate of ascension of air, not PR. Remember, the 12% increase found by Romps et al. was due mainly to the increase in CAPE, not PR.
Recall also that there is an efficiency factor, taken to be constant, multiplying CAPExPR. Other factors would affect a putative relation between CAPE and sensible heat transfer, such as the changes in the moist adiabat and the atmospheric boiundary layer.
Finally, projected changes in sensible heat transfer are actually projected to be either small or negative: see the discussions at Held’s blog, and, particularly Lu and Cai, 2009.
In order to really understand the relation between the Romps et al. result and other aspects of convective energetics, I suspect that one needs to dig into the physics of lightning generation, which involves issues of charge transfer and separation, as well as the convective velocity fields and, per Lu and Cai, the atmospheric boundary layer. I regard the Romps et al. result as empirically justified at this point, and have not tried to find a further, theoretical justification. That would be interesting.
There’s certainly more than one thing at play in Arctic amplification.
The seasonality of Arctic amplification (i.e., more “amplification” relative to low latitudes in the winter) is not evidence against the importance of the ice-albedo feedback. It’s true that the summertime is where you have the insolation (which is obviously a pre-requisite for the feedback), but the summer is also the time when you have a lot of ice melting and so temperatures get pinned to the freezing point. That energy is still there though, so you see more amplification during the other seasons simply because that’s where it can be expressed in temperature.
But you do get Arctic amplification even without surface albedo feedbacks. Other feedbacks, like water vapor, would cause tropical amplification. It’s a bit difficult to do a really good attribution because the framework we commonly use for thinking about climate feedbacks breaks down a bit in the polar regions, but here’s one good entry point into the literature on this that also attempts to sort out what feedbacks give you tropical vs. high-latitude amplification (e.g., Figure 2).
Thinking about changes in poleward energy transport is complicated because the transport itself depends on the pole-to-equator structure in net top-of-atmosphere radiation. In equilibrium, and also when taking averages over longitude, the energy transport converging/diverging into/out of some latitude can be inferred from a residual in net radiation- that is, TOA absorbed solar minus outgoing longwave radiation in the tropics is a positive number and so implies energy diverging out of the tropics, and opposite in the high latitudes. But it turns out that it’s hard to actually change total meridional heat transport much, when you include both the ocean and atmosphere transports. One tends to see at least some degree of compensation between the two in modeling exercises, if e.g., one perturbs the ocean heat transport the atmosphere tends to partially compensate for that. I’m not sure we have a well-developed theory for that compensation, but it tends to be rather robust.
Moreover, atmospheric processes which control that atmospheric poleward energy transport (at least in the extratropics) are usually sensitive to the prevailing pole-to-equator T gradient (i.e., if one were to build a simple model that did not resolve the circulation from which we could then extract the statistics of energy transport, a useful place to start would be to parameterize that transport as being diffusive and proportional to the pole-to-equator T gradient, which decreases in global warming scenarios). That doesn’t work so well for moist dynamics, since there’s so much more water vapor in the low latitudes that the poleward latent energy transport probably listens to the lower latitudes than it does to the gradient, so atmospheric energy transport may increase in warm climates. Even more compensating transport, there may also be a disproportionate effect of ocean transport on the sea ice edge, so what we call a sea ice albedo feedback may partially reflect the horizontal movement of energy into a region rather than an isolated, local process. But the point is that these things are a two-way coupled problem so talking about “causation” is difficult. Brian Rose and David Ferreira have explored this issue here and show that the answers depends partially on the local feedbacks arising when one changes the transport.
So we don’t fully understand Arctic amplification (could one concoct a much different climate change scenario that was tropically amplified?) but people have at least identified a lot of the relevant feedbacks and it remains one of the most robust responses across a reasonably wide range of climates and across the spectrum of model complexity.
114 Pat Cassen: Finally, projected changes in sensible heat transfer are actually projected to be either small or negative: see the discussions at Held’s blog, and, particularly Lu and Cai, 2009.
I can not find the reference or link to Lu and Cai, 2009, at Isaac Held’s blog. Could you provide more information? I would appreciate it. I appreciate your comments on my posts about Romps et al.
> wili says: … clear about who or what you are addressing.
The bloggers I am critical of for failing to cite sources, so far, have not allowed my comments to appear on their blogs. There’s nothing so pointless as complaining on one blog about another blog that won’t publish critical comments about content and sources. Some do it right, some don’t.
So my point is: when you see a scientist’s name invoked, followed by a short quotation, followed by text that could, casually, be misattributed, I strongly recommend you look up the original scientist’s actual words. When those blogs fail to give you the cites — well, you know how to find this stuff, don’t you? ‘oogle Scholar wants to help.
There’s way too much bullshit trying to scare people — some scary black helicopters, some scary methane monsters. Science doesn’t work there.
Check the sources.
Clear enough? Any place that _has_ published my critical comments, you can find them. Those that don’t — hey, who can prove unpublished criticism?
114 Pat Cassen: It is probably CAPE that is related to the rate of ascension of air, not PR. – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/unforced-variations-march-2015/comment-page-3/#comment-626921
CAPE is a specific energy, Joules per kilogram, not a flow rate. They multiplied by the rainfall rate in order to get a flow rate. They assumed that the fraction of each kilogram of air that was water vapor was constant. Thus, CAPE*PR was proportional to the energy flow rate. It just is not perfectly clear that it corresponds exactly to one of the flow rates reported by Stephens et al.
hank, now I really have no idea what you’re talking about. What specific scientist’s statement are you referring to?
Are you saying that no one should ever post a link here to something that you might find scary?
Do you see why that’s just not going to work?
Well, we shattered records for Pi Day today in California. Sacramento 85 (83) Salinas airport 92 (88) Los Angeles 93 (88) Long Beach airport 94 (85) Santa Maria airport 95 (88) San Diego 90 (83) Newport Beach 85 (76) Chula Vista 94 (78). From Alturas in the extreme northeast corner of the state to San Diego, there were numerous high temperature records not just broken, but shattered. With an unpresendated drought already hammering California, now we have late spring temperatures in the middle of March.
Wiki asks: “Is it a bit odd historically to have two cyclones hit Australia at the same time?”
Yes it is, though it has happened before. Anyone who suggest it is “normal” is slightly off the rails. What is normal most common is NO cyclones making landfall in any particular season.
So this weekend was Three in a latitudinal line NW Aust Cat 3 now bringing floods all the way down the west coast; NE Aust Cat 2, no biggy a bit of wind, and out in the Coral Sea at Vanuatu a record breaking CAT 5, yes +500 miles diameter, as powerful as Cyclone Yasi .. the worst ever to hit australia. Vanautu sounds maybe as bad as Phillipines the other year, not sure yet, early reports say 90% of houses/buildings in capital city Port Vila have been damaged, no contact elsewhere. Suspect whole villages been destroyed ….. death toll barely begun.
Keeping in Mind it is now March/Autumn and not Jan-Feb. Noting that temps in mid-east coast still 31-33C or 5-6C above normal highs. The central Northern Territory this last week had high humidity and 42.5C highs inland about 10C above normal.
And that only 10 days ago there was two other major cyclones Cat 3-4 in nth Northern territory (missed Darwin population centres) and a Cat 3 in NW australia making landfall on the same day. about 1000 miles apart and about the same latitude.
Ocean temps are very high (above normal) across nth australia and asian tropics; and the south pacific. (i believe, do check that)
This comes 1-2 months after many long weeks of major bush fires in SW western australia (unprecedented ones size numbers) plus in South Australia and Victoria sept-dec period.
Native plants in far nth australia are confused with multiple and wrong season flowerings, which 10 years ago was happening in Sydney area with citrus and mulberry trees etc etc. Honey bees reported as under stress all over.
and the Govt thinks their plan of increase the intensity of agriculture output by 50% in the next 3-5 years is doable.
Bottom line is that Australian weather, nay Australia’s CLIMATE, is totally nuts now and dysfunctional and unpredictable. Normal iso charts no longer normal, all patterns no longer fit any old established patterns by month, season or daily typical norms by location.
An anecdotal report, sure. The science data will catch up one day. AFTER it’s too late anyway. But this comes on the back of record heat waves, national high temps, catastrophic bushfires (they needed to make a new extreme fire warning rating to suit)
Meanwhile agw/cc climate science deniers are still deniers and will always be deniers.
JCH @108.
Thank you for spotting my mistake. I must have not done my sorting back far enough because GISS February 2015 was the 7th hottest anomaly not the 6th. I shall blame my fat fingers.
1 Jan ’07 – +0.93ºC
2 Mar ’02 – +0.89ºC
3 Mar ’10 – +0.87ºC
4 Feb ’98 – +0.86ºC
5 Apr ’10 – +0.82ºC
6 Sep ’14 – +0.81ºC
7 Feb ’15 – +0.79ºC
As you point out, the rolling 12-month average to Feb 2015 is a new record for GISS overtaking that set in 2010.
HadCRUT4 will also set a new record, this a certainty because the Feb 2014 anomaly was so low.
NCDC has been setting such new records since Sept 2014.
PS Wili, the “political climate” is even worse in Australia. Absolutely ZERO political or practical action regarding Climate change issues, nothing of any import being doen re paris 2015. Half the Great barrier reef has been destoryed by crown of thorsn star fish, and acidicfication and poluttion and violent storm damage now.
Politics and social cohesion (?) is Extreme, polarized, dysfunctional, unprecedented, racism, bigotry, insecurity, loads of corruption and BS, and psychologically off the wall.
The electorate is like a tinder-box of frustrations. I expect protests this year or next not seen since the vietnam war days, if things dont change soon. with riots not a surprise either. Nothing is “normal” here right now. Eating of raw onions is but a sideline joke. It’s nuts frankly, and the natives are very restless and stressed… or trying to ignore it all.
re: #110 Wili.
True except, perhaps, the term huge can be misleading
(You may know this, but for the sake of other readers); the SB law refers to the absolute or Kelvin temperature T which is of the order of 300K whereas variations of it across the surface are substantially smaller in relative terms. i.e. the departure (T-T(av)) from the average T(av) is considerably smaller than T(av). It follows that T^4 reduces to a linear function of {T-T(av)} with a ‘smallish’ quadratic correction (binomial expansion).
UN backs fossil fuel divestment campaign http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/15/climate-change-un-backs-divestment-campaign-paris-summit-fossil-fuels
Thanks for those perspectives on the situation in Australia, Thomas. “Australian weather, nay Australia’s CLIMATE, is totally nuts now and dysfunctional and unpredictable” Yeah, that’s my impression from casual and distant observation.
“Meanwhile agw/cc climate science deniers are still deniers and will always be deniers.”
Good point. Pretty much gives the lie to the frequent claim that, once CC effects become really bad, those catastrophes alone will be enough to turn public opinion. If that were true, places like Oklahoma in the US should be electing the most climate-hawkish congressmen, but that’s not exactly the case.
And thanks for the attempted clarification on SB law, deconvoluter, though I’m not sure I follow it completely.
> What specific scientist’s statement are you referring to?
The one you thanked me for finding for you — mere days ago, in this thread.
Don’t you remember?
Here, wili: look in the lower right corner of the page.
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/files/2012/11/AGU12ch4v2.pdf
Matthew @116 –
Lu and Cai should fix it.
Matthew @118 –
It just is not perfectly clear that [CAPExPR] corresponds exactly to one of the flow rates reported by Stephens et al.
It does not correspond to one of the flow rates of Stephens et al. Remember, it is much smaller than any of those flow rates.
And, to check claims that there’s a trend in arctic methane, following citing papers forward in time.
Lots of people have been looking and publishing on this. E.g.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50480/full
You’d expect to find that mentioned at the places that have been posting scary methane stories, right?
I haven’t found any scientific studies that would throw any light on the black helicopter worries. I’ll leave that to someone else.
Cite for prior post (no trend for arctic methane), not sure it posted:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50480/full
Another:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2595/2015/acp-15-2595-2015.html
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 2595-2612, 2015
doi:10.5194/acp-15-2595-2015
09 Mar 2015
Variations in global methane sources and sinks during 1910–2010
Matthew, the paper you are looking for is here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JHM1058.1
128 Pat Cassen:it is much smaller than any of those flow rates.
What is much smaller is the energy flow into the lightning, not the energy flow of the process that sustains the lightning. They have a large constant of proportionality.
The last time I checked, RealClimate and most other climate blogs have never discussed domestic deforestation as a major climate issue. I did some research here a few years ago, and expect the ratios to stay the same: The US consumes and produces 25% of the earth’s wood products. Result: a (probably lowballed) figure from EPA of around 430 million tons of CO2 annually caused by logging.
You requested no talk about mitigation, but let’s just get the science clear here: it’s not just driving big cars. It’s the forests we choose to throw away. Other countries that log trees, such as Sweden and Canada, come up with similar figures. A lot of good things would happen if their people took note.
I give up. It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who refuses to specify what he is disagreeing with. Best wishes on playing whatever game you think you’re playing.
The president of Vanuatu says climate change is contributing to more extreme weather conditions and cyclone seasons, after cyclone Pam ripped through the island nation.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/16/vanuatus-president-blames-climate-change-for-extreme-weather
On the sidelines of the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, president Lonsdale described Cyclone Pam as a monster that had set back the government and the people of Vanuatu. “After all the developments that has taken place, all this has been wiped out. So it means that we will have to start anew again”.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-16/vanuatu-president-breaks-down-describing-cyclone-devastation/6322586
Helping poor countries tackle climate change is affordable: http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2399667/helping-poor-countries-tackle-climate-change-is-affordable-says-study
I would love to discuss wili’s and Thomas O’Reilly’s comments but my mother died last week aged 92 so got to make funeral plans for Thursday.
Will catch up soon.
[Response: Condolences from us all. – gavin]
Last attempt for wili:
I’m not offering to patrol the Internet to protect you from misstatements made on other blogs out there.
I’m urging you to check the claims that worry you, that you repost here.
You can check these claims — look up the scientists’ names mentioned — find them in Scholar. Read what they actually write. Don’t trust paraphrases.
I’m not going to pick arguments here with other blogs I’ve criticized that exaggerate. Some of them have posted my comments, others don’t do that.
Same either way — I recommend you check’em before deciding to repeat their stories, as you know how.
I would like to know if anyone here is familiar with the January 2014 American Physical Society workshop that featured a colloquy among six climate scientists, three of whom are believers and three of whom are skeptics in regards to the AGW hypothesis.
The scientists are John Christy, William Collins, Judith Curry, Isaac Held, Richard Lindzen, and Benjamin Santer. The colloquy was held as part of the APS’s preparation to update its 2007 statement on climate change.
The APS published the colloquy, and the setup questions, in a 500+-page document. I am especially interested in whether anyone has actually read the document, and if so, whether you think it’s a good (accurate, complete, clear, fair) statement of the pros and cons on the issue.
Thanks.
Lawrence (#139),
Condolences.
No surprise here, but disheartening all the same.
Antarctica: It Just Got Worse
hank, thanks for the (typically school-marmish) advice. Why you think I don’t already do these things still remains a mystery. (Did I link to AMEG somewhere without realizing it?)
I will continue to link stories and analyses that I think might spark a good conversation, even if they may not be 100% up to your standards. I’ll just apologies ahead of time now for doing so in the future…
Lawrence, so very sorry to hear about your loss. We look forward to your return, but please do take the time you need.
Apologies again to Hank if this scares him, but Skripps reports that we have yet another daily CO2 reading above 403 ppm, this one for March 15. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
140 Hank R said, I’m urging you to check the claims that worry you, that you repost here.”
If somebody posts claims that they cite that you don’t agree with, it is up to YOU to challenge the claim. Do the work or be quiet.
Remember how AJCC turned down my drought paper because “This paper is of low quality and recommend not to publish?” I asked for clarification. Yesterday I got back, “1.Your paper is impressive to us, however the manuscript is more suitable to be published in other chemical journals such as acs (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences: http://www.scirp.org/journal/acs/)”
So it’s either
A) a bad paper, or
B) an impressive paper better suited for a chemistry journal
Which really makes me think they haven’t read the damn thing.
Well, I’m done. I’ve shopped this paper around to 12 different journals, only 4 of which bothered to send it out for peer review. And this isn’t the first time I’ve gotten contradictory reasons why they won’t print it. For whatever reason, I’ve been neutralized, and I don’t have a hope in hell of finding out why. So from now on I’m leaving the climate activism to others. I will make no further efforts to publish my paper or my book. Let someone else save the world. It’s not my problem.
Lawrence Coleman, I’m very sorry to hear about your mother. I’ll pray for peace for you and your family.
Lawrence Coleman,
So sorry to hear of your loss. I hope her long life was a happy one.
Re- Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 17 Mar 2015 @ 5:51 AM, ~#147
BPL, it was mentioned above, but have you contacted a scientist who publishes research similar to what you are attempting, perhaps an author in your references list, and asked for help. I strongly suggest that your first contact be by phone because of the many crazies who e-mail scientists with their impossible ideas. Also, is there a draft available on line?
Steve