Computer simulation strengthens link between climate change and release of subsea methane

Dec 17, 2009
Computer simulations capture the evolution of hydrate saturation underneath the seafloor over a 200-year period. As water temperatures rise, the upper (leftmost) extent of methane gas hydrate (in red) recedes approximately 1,500 meters downslope.

(PhysOrg.com) -- A first-of-its-kind computer simulation that mirrors real-world observations of methane bubbling up from a seabed in the Arctic Ocean provides further evidence that warming oceans may unleash vast quantities of methane trapped in hydrate deposits buried beneath the seafloor.

A first-of-its-kind computer simulation that mirrors real-world observations of bubbling up from a seabed in the Arctic Ocean provides further evidence that warming oceans may unleash vast quantities of methane trapped in hydrate deposits buried beneath the . Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

The simulations, conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists, focus on oceanic gas hydrates, which are solid crystalline compounds in seafloor sediment. Methane molecules are lodged within the compounds’ icy latticework.

Scientists are concerned that climate change-induced ocean warming may cause oceanic hydrates to break apart, potentially releasing large amounts of methane into the atmosphere and further accelerating .

Much more research is needed to understand this process, however, which is why Berkeley Lab scientists George Moridis and Matthew Reagan ran the largest-scale simulation ever conducted on the break up of oceanic gas hydrates.

Reagan will present their research today at the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting in San Francisco. Their research is also published this week in the scientific journal .

They based their simulation on a seafloor off the coast of Spitsbergen, a Norwegian island in the where a recent scientific expedition observed more than 250 methane plumes.

The methane’s source isn’t known. But there is one intriguing clue: The seabed slopes upward as it approaches the island’s coastline, and the methane vents happen to occur at the depth where the water becomes too warm for methane hydrates to remain stable. Because of this, some scientists speculate that the plumes may be the first visible sign of the dissociation of methane hydrate deposits due to climate change.

To help test this hypothesis, the Berkeley Lab scientists created a simulation that matches the seabed’s slope and depth over a five-kilometer, two-dimensional slice of seafloor. They cranked up the water temperature three degrees Celsius over a 100-year period, matching a temperature increase recorded in the waters off Spitsbergen since 1908. The ocean temperature was also held constant for another 100 years into the future.

They then watched what happened to methane hydrates buried in up to 300 meters of sediment.

As the water warmed, the boundary at which the hydrates remain stable crept deeper down the sloping , dissociating the hydrates in the sediment and creating a receding line of gas plumes along the way. And when the simulation stopped at the water temperature currently found in the waters off Spitsbergen, this boundary line stalled near the depth where the methane vents were spotted by the expedition.

“Our simulations are consistent with what has been suggested based on the field observations: the methane is coming from the dissociation of shallow methane hydrates,” says Moridis of Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division.

Adds Reagan, “The location of the methane plumes match the receding gas hydrate stability zone in our simulation, which for us was the ’smoking gun’.”

The simulation uses a computer code developed at Berkeley Lab, called TOUGH+HYDRATE, which allows Moridis and Reagan to model the dissociation of hydrates and the migration of gas in the sediments. To model this system, they used 300,000 gridblocks to capture features as small as 25 centimeters.

“This is an extremely high-resolution simulation,” says Moridis. “And this gives us a very accurate description of the system, which is critical because hydrates are very heterogeneous.”

The simulation will help shore up what scientists know about the potential impact of methane hydrates on climate change, which remains hazy. Estimates vary widely over how much methane is trapped in oceanic hydrates. It’s also unclear how much methane will make it to the upper atmosphere, where it can contribute to global warming, as a result of oceanic hydrate dissociation. What is known is the physics of hydrate dissociation, and this offers a way to fill in knowledge gaps from the bottom up.

“We start with well-defined information about hydrates, and then simulate their behavior underneath the seafloor,” says Reagan. “Our simulations can then be coupled to ocean circulation and atmospheric models, which will eventually give us an estimate of the possible effect on global climate.”

Explore further: 2014 Antarctic ozone hole holds steady

More information: Read more about the computer simulation in a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

A new acceleration additive for making 'ice that burns'

Oct 23, 2006

Japanese scientists are reporting discovery of an additive that can speed up the formation of methane hydrates. Those strange substances have sparked excitement about their potential as a new energy resource and a deep freeze ...

Warming ocean contributes to global warming

Aug 14, 2009

The warming of an Arctic current over the last 30 years has triggered the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from methane hydrate stored in the sediment beneath the seabed.

Gas hydrates research expedition begins

Sep 23, 2005

An international team of scientists has started a six-week expedition off the coast of Vancouver Island to conduct research beneath the Earth's crust.

Recommended for you

2014 Antarctic ozone hole holds steady

12 hours ago

The Antarctic ozone hole reached its annual peak size on Sept. 11, according to scientists from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The size of this year's hole was 24.1 million ...

New study finds oceans arrived early to Earth

15 hours ago

Earth is known as the Blue Planet because of its oceans, which cover more than 70 percent of the planet's surface and are home to the world's greatest diversity of life. While water is essential for life ...

Magma pancakes beneath Lake Toba

15 hours ago

Where do the tremendous amounts of material that are ejected to from huge volcanic calderas during super-eruptions actually originate?

User comments : 73

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mysticshakra
2.1 / 5 (17) Dec 17, 2009
Simulations are not science and are meaningless unless know all parameters involved in a process....which we obviously don't.
defunctdiety
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 17, 2009
I don't disagree with you mystic, however I congratulate them for at least not overtly proclaiming AGW as scientific fact. In fact they didn't mention anthropogenic anything at all. Just some suppositions and ifs and thens. Objectivity? Amazing!
tpb
2.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2009
Do these "methane vents" occur at other depths and similar temperatures elsewhere in the ocean?
If so this theory is incorrect or incomplete.
How do we know that the methane isn't simply leaking from a natural gas field?

However if true, and the planet is warming, we better start mining the methane hydrates and burning them for energy since methane is 77 times the greenhouse gas as CO2.
SincerelyTwo
2.8 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2009
defunctdiety,

I have this suspicion about why this is occuring more recently in new articles on global warming, this renewed vigor towards objectivity. Having exposed the work ethic of many scientists through the e-mail incident recently seems to have forced unaffected groups to get their act together in fear of consequences, we might see a lot less of the blabbering morons than we used to.

Hackers couldn't have done society a better service, exploiting the emotional poison saturating all of this research previously. The hit to the scientific community at large was a gift to everyone, now that the rotting appendage of science has been chopped at with an axe, so brutally severed, the research ethics can heal and reapply itself in a much more mature, productive, mannar.

NOW WE GET TO THE ACTUAL SCIENCE! >:]

Things might become a little bit more interesting, if we can prevent fraud from continuing to saturate the scientific process at least...
thermodynamics
3.3 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2009
Simulations are a major part of science. To declare every simulation meaningless just because some of the parameters are not know shows that you do not understand the use of simulations in modern science and engineering. I think you are confusing simulation with "engineering estimation" which is also commonly used. For instance, we use engineering estimation software to do the calculations for a bridge when we know all of the parameters. This gives us the information we need to build the bridge to a given set of specifications.

However we can also use simulation software to subject the bridget to the equivalent of an earthquake to see how it behaves. In the case of the simulation we do not know all of the parameters (such as the behavior of the floor of the span). We let the software tell us about what will most likely happen. This is an important part of modern engineering and science. (I am runnning out of space so I will continue in the next post).
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2009
In the case of the simulation above, the methane containment the are addressing is an intersting form of cage of ice around a molecule (in this case methane). The term is clathrate hydrate and covers a large class of central molecules including hydrocarbons and CO2.

http://en.wikiped...lathrate

A lot is known about the clathrates and what they are doing in this simulation is looking at how heat transfer in the system (also known to enginers to reasonable uncertainty) affects the bonds in the cage. What they saw is that the measured values of ocean temperature match the level at which the bubles are appearing. Note how careful they were to say the origin of the bubles was not known. This is good science. They are producing a careful simulation of a possible source of the bubbles and drawing the conclusion that this is a possible cause. They can then go farther and say that "IF" the temperatues go up this could happen. Good science using computers.
defunctdiety
2.2 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2009
NOW WE GET TO THE ACTUAL SCIENCE! >:]

Obviously we should welcome objective evidence towards either side. But as touched on by someone in another thread, there really is no way to conclusively prove AGW theory as there is no scientific or experimental control. And no, historic proxy data, no matter how good or representative of past and current conditions, is not a control - despite AGW theorists trying to pass it off as such.

Furthermore we simply cannot quantify all of the necessary factors that would be required to prove anything conclusively on either side. The science really has nowhere to go beyond where it was 30 years ago:

We know there are thermodynamic and chemical principles backing AGW, it's why our planet is habitable in the first place. But we do not and cannot know how significant that subtle chemistry is in global climate because of the complexity of the system. The natural variability is too great, the science is too incomplete and the models too uncertain.
jonnyboy
2.5 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2009
The problem, thermodynamics, is when politicians start using those simulations as if they were real, instead of for the purpose for which they were created. When you build a bridge using simulation software, all the factual work has been done concerning the strength, elasticity, etc. of all the materials involved AND a large safety factor built into the calculations to allow for unforeseen and/or improper events to occur and still not lead to failure. This is entirely different from the purpose to which politicians are putting GW simulations.
defunctdiety
1.9 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2009
we use engineering estimation software to do the calculations

Here's the thing about architects and engineers though.

They go to jail if they are wrong.

You design a bridge or building and it collapses and kills 40 people, you're going away for life not to mention financial ruin. Engineers ALWAYS err on the side of certainty, they make damn sure they know their structures will hold because if they don't, it's literally their ass.

What can we say about AGW science and it's certainty and accountability?

Furthermore, things like compression and tensile strength, gravity and thermal expansion are much easier to represent mathematically and to quantify than global net irradiance, the interplay between surface and atmospheric albedo and thermal absorption, and natural carbon uptake and release are.

Well, jonnyboy beat me to the punch on a couple points here, but ultimately there is no comparison between the legitimacy of engineering models and climate models.
Parsec
3.7 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2009
It is absolutely true that we cannot say with certainty that mankind's contribution to greenhouse gases are what is causing the planet to warm up. The same is true for any trial in the criminal justice system. We may have pictures of the lady performing the deed, and all sorts of evidence, but the certainty is never 100%.

However, just like everything else in life, we must place our bets where the preponderance of the evidence lies. In the case of AGW, we have a few hacked emails and some smoke and mirror stuff sourced from people who stand to lose big money on changes to the status quo. On the other side we have thousands of reports, model simulations, etc. some more credible than others, supporting AGW. For now, I believe AGW wins hands down as a rational explanation that fits all of the measurements on the table.
defunctdiety
1.9 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2009
In the case of AGW, we have a few hacked emails...from people who stand to lose big money on changes to the status quo.

That was a wonderfully biased summation. We have a thousand emails demonstrating how the most prominent scientific body in the IPCC is destroying data, preventing peer review and "tricking" data and out right fudging models. You equivocating worm!

Who really is going to lose money from AGW legislation, Parsec? Do you have any clue at all what is being proposed? It doesn't seem you do. It's not the fossil fuel companies. They will pass down the cost of whatever controls, restrictions and cap-and-trades are imposed upon them directly onto the consumer with interest. Wake up man. Not to mention the cost of swelling gov't.

China and India, with the most dynamic and highest potential economies in the world, have fooled H.R. Clinton, at least, to pledge hundreds of BILLIONS $$$ per YEAR to them, when her nation is facing the worst economic future in it's history.

thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2009
Excuse me guys. Please read the article. The reason I wrote the piece about simulations is that mysticshakra made the comment that simulations are not science. The article is about a specific simulation that is straight forward and is careful to say that "IF" warming continues their software says that the expulsion of methane from the sea floor is possible. They don't say it will happen and they don't say the earth is begin warmed by CO2. Neither did I. I can't believe that a neutral, scientific article can produce this noise between true believers and true disbelievers. My money is on the idea that neither extreme side is right. Articles like this give us a better idea of what can happen. Those Luddites in the readership should realize that computers are tools that can be useful. Those of you in the readership who believe the earth is going to ignite in a fireball due to your using a toaster should realize that physics is not your friend. There is a middle road.
SincerelyTwo
3 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2009
Judging by all of the 1/5's someone doesn't like anything being said. Sometimes I wish that in order to rate someone's post it would be required to give a response.
VINDOC
Dec 17, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otto1923
3.6 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2009
recent scientific expedition observed more than 250 methane plumes
It doesnt say whether these are new plumes or if theyve been venting for the last few 1000 years
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (51) Dec 18, 2009
"...computer simulation that mirrors real-world observations of methane bubbling up from a seabed in the Arctic Ocean provides further evidence that bla bla"

The relavent quote in regard to computer simulatons being science is above. Naturally computer simulatons are a powerful tool in science as a guide in validating models. However they are not "evidence" nor are they "experiments", because they cannot be used to learn new things. The predicate is already contained in the subject. It's the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. Science is inductive.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Dec 18, 2009
If CO2 increases in the atmosphere wouldn't vegetation then respond by growing more vigorously, absorbing co2 and radiation? Do these models count the plants? There would seem to be a natural balance. Nature always has the most efficient solutions to non-problems, several orders of magnitude more so than politically bias social engineers. Free market capitalism is also Natural because it's motive force is inherent in all humans. Once coal/oil become more expensive alternative markets will compete. Humans WILL use the least expensive fuel available first,.. this is just fact, so let it happen, and in one hundreded years from now the energy technology will exists. There is NO viable replacement for coal/oil right now that would even make a dent, so all of this poitical bs is pointless.
Velanarris
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2009
This article has little to do with CO2.

Realistically if the methane clathrates on the ocean's floor were to all release as gas it would be devastating indeed, however, since the sea floor turns over so quickly and clathrates remain stable in their location, one would wonder how often there's a catastrophic release and over what regular time period?
bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2009
The Coal Oil Point seep field offshore from Santa Barbara, California is a petroleum seep area of about three square kilometers and releases about 40 tons per day of methane and about 19 tons of reactive organic gas about twice the hydrocarbon air pollution released by all the cars and trucks in the county in 1990. This is likely the largest seep but thousands of these seeps exist.

With underwater vents, volcano eruptions and seeps, how is it that industrial activity is deemed the principal source of climate change?
dachpyarvile
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2009
I do not recall where I read it but I recall that the information said that catastrophic releases of CH4 occur about every 700,000 to 800,000 years and that we are overdue for another one. Wish I could remember where I read it, though. That would be some useful information right about now.

Of course, I would prefer to see the raw data rather than the new simulation. After what has been seen from the AGW supporters of late I want to fact-check their data at every turn to ensure that something is not being hidden that should not be.
otto1923
5 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2009
@dachypyrevile
https://www.agu.o...;search=
-geez am I the only one who uses google around here?
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2009
I do Google quite often but this is not what I read. It does contain some of the information I was looking for but this definitely is not what I read. Still looking for what it was that I read.

And, I still have yet to find the full raw data dataset.
3432682
1 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2009
The ARGO ocean temp monitoring system shows that ocean temp is declining.
Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2009
The ARGO ocean temp monitoring system shows that ocean temp is declining.

I have a feeling we'll see CO2 level off or decline within a few years.
Benier_Duster
3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2009
The ARGO ocean temp monitoring system shows that ocean temp is declining.

I'm gonna call your bluff on this one, especailly as sea levels are continuing to rise (thermal expansion/glacier melt). http://ibis.grdl....ries.php
Benier_Duster
Dec 21, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2009
So come on, where's your source, where's the beef!


There's a problem with your source. It's incomplete. It only measures half the global ocean level. 66N to 66S.
Benier_Duster
3 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2009


There's a problem with your source. It's incomplete. It only measures half the global ocean level. 66N to 66S.

I have three words for you 'SEASONAL SEA ICE'!
LOL!! So how do you think they can have year round records in those areas with all that sea ice floating around each winter!
You deniers are unbelievable, the more gullible may see this as an issue (like yourself they 'forget' about factors such as sea ice).Maybe you genuinely forgot about the sea ice if so I apologise and suggest you look at a globe to see what is above/below 66 degrees.
As you want to join in, show me the data that shows the oceans are cooling, show the beef!
Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2009
I have three words for you 'SEASONAL SEA ICE'!


You might want to look at a globe before you spout off nonsense.
dachpyarvile
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2009
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. ***
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.


http://www.npr.or...88520025

Even the CRU couldn't account for lack of warming. "Hide the data."
dachpyarvile
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2009
Forgot to include the text for the decline, mentioned above. It would not have fit anyway, so here it is from the same site, the text following "no warming of the global oceans":
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says.


So, there has been a slight cooling. In other words, it is a decline. However, I think I want to look at all the raw data before taking the fellow's word at his claim that it is "not anything really significant." :)
thermodynamics
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2009
dachpyarvile: That is a great article. You did a good job of finding the "beef." This is an interesting mystery. The idea that measureable sealevel rise is continuing while the temperature measured by these devices is staying the same is probably driving the scientists doing the measuring nuts. This is the kind of issue that is fun to work on when it is your project. I would love to see how they reconcile this over time. The sea level rise is much too large to be melt (and not be identified). It fits in with the idea of warming (really the only way they could get that much rise). However, I am sure the instruments are well designed and calibrated (or they would not have tossed 3,000 of them out in the oceans). Again, thanks for the article. It is a great one. If you hear any more about it please send me a PM. This is a great problem for someone to figure out.
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2009
dachpyarvile: I assume that when they say "not anything really significant" they are talking about statisitical significance. However, you are right in that you can't take anything at face value. I will try to track down any of the articles they have written to see if they address the concept of "significant" in some meaningful way.
MikeyK
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2009

There's a problem with your source. It's incomplete. It only measures half the global ocean level. 66N to 66S.


Half the global ocean? Take a look at your globe (the round shaped thing with pictures of continents on it) and look at the surface area compared to the rest of the globe, now come back with an accurate figure.
Benier has mentioned the ice coverage so I won't go into it (does seem guite obvious though) but I wonder what difference missing out the Arctic and Southern Oceans would make to a global trend?
Are you suggesting that the Earth is rotating more rapidly and moving water away from the poles or will you admit that it must be thermal expansion and/or glacial melt?
MikeyK
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2009
Dachpyarvile- still up to your same tricks! Look at the date of your source, March 2008, now look at the CURRENT Sea Level chart, find where the points intersect. Do you notice anything....yes, that's right the cooling of the oceans. What could be causing that...the strong La Nina of 2007-2008.
What's happened since then, sea level has risen approximately 10mm. Now we have a confirmed El Nino we can expect the sea level to rise further.
The ENSO effects are the loudest 'noise' but they are not medium/long term trend setters. Check out the sea level graph and you can clearly see previous ENSO events along the line.
MikeyK
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2009
The ARGO ocean temp monitoring system shows that ocean temp is declining.


I'd also like to ask where is the data (and please no more nutjob blogs or radio stations)
MikeyK
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2009
The idea that measureable sealevel rise is continuing while the temperature measured by these devices is staying the same is probably driving the scientists doing the measuring nuts.


Sometimes it's easier to find real sources and apply a little application. See my comments above about ENSO
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2009
Nope, no tricks on my part. That is something the CRU and other institutions are quite good at, however.

Now, I can understand the influence of La Nina. In fact, that would go a long way toward explaning the decline seen in 2007-2008.

Of course, a confirmed El Nino is afoot and that explains the warming on your other post in another thread for July 2009.

But, this is the least of your problems. The ARGO data, as mentioned by the lead person involved in the project in an interview, shows that overall there has been zero warming since 2003--present El Nino excluded, of course.

Additionally, the meltwater hitting the ocean is not enough observed to account for the present increases in sea level.

I have a potential suggestion, however. Were you aware that a number of undersea volcanos are spewing huge amounts of heated water back from under the sea floor into the ocean?

Subduction takes water into the crust. Undersea volcanos and vents spew it out. Just a thought... :)
VeIanarris
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2009
Well done Dachpy, why those scientist can't see that all the ocean heating is by underwater vents and all glacial melt is by sumblitation is beyond me.
thermodynamics
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2009
Gang: I thought the old saw about global ocean cooling was already old news. I guess I was wrong. The "ocean cooling" was bad sensors that have since been corrected. At least the scientist involved was good enough to admit he had made a mistake. Here is a link to the story. Please don't use old data (his own old data) to miss the fact that the oceans are heating as predicted.

http://earthobser...Cooling/

It is really a good story about how he was a good enough scientist to find his own mistake and correct it.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2009
There still are problems with the data. At least he is honest about that. What I find very curious is that the page was posted and updated TODAY.

last updated: December 23, 2009


It is an interesting coincidence, that. :)

I still want to see *all* the raw data, though, before I take his word at anything.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2009
There still are problems with the data. At least he is honest about that. What I find very curious is that the page was posted and updated TODAY.

last updated: December 23, 2009


It is an interesting coincidence, that. :)

I still want to see *all* the raw data, though, before I take his word at anything. I also want to see exactly how they are correcting the data.

CRU got rid of the decline this way:
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'


I'd be very curious as to seeing how the ARGO scientists are getting rid of the decline.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2009
I neglected to share this the other day. From page 6 of "IPCC WGI THIRD ASSESSMENT REPORT – (TAR)
GOVERNMENT/EXPERT REVIEW – APRIL-JUNE 2000":

Carbon cycle

Our global Carbon Cycle Model reveals a half-life time of only 38 years for any CO2 excess. With present constant global CO2 emission until 2100, the temperature would only further increase by 0.15 °C. Scenario IS92a would end up with 571 ppm only. IPCC assumed that far more fossil reserves would be burnt than being available. Using a flawed eddy diffusion ocean model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic CO2 uptake. Hardly coping with biomass response, limited fossil reserves and using a factor 4 temperature sensitivity, all this leads to an IPCC exaggeration factor of about 6 in yr 2100. The usable fossil reserves of 1300 GtC burnt by 2090, merely cause 548 ppm – not even a doubling.


Yet more exaggeration by IPCC. There is more. The scientist who made this statement demanded not to be listed.
MikeyK
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2009
For someone who keeps on insisting on 'Raw Data', you seem to have no idea about code. The code used is IDL, this means that a semicolon is used for comment. Basically this means that any line beginning with one, (just for you here is the symbol ;) is ignored. The actual full code used without the ignored lines in next response
MikeyK
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2009

loadct,39
multi_plot,nrow=3,layout='caption'
if !d.name eq 'X' then begin
window,ysize=800
!p.font=-1
endif else begin
!p.font=0 device,/helvetica,/bold,font_size=18
endelsedef_1color,20,color='red'
def_1color,21,color='blue'
def_1color,22,color='black'
restore,'compbest_fixed1950.idlsave'
plot,timey,comptemp(*,3),/nodata,$ /xstyle,xrange=[1881,1994],xtitle='Year',$ /ystyle,yrange=[-3,3],ytitle='Normalised anomalies',$ title='Northern Hemisphere temperatures and MXD reconstruction'
yyy=reform(comptemp(*,2))
filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy,tslow=tslow
oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=22
yyy=reform(compmxd(*,2,1))
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!
'yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy,tslow=tslow
oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=21
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
MikeyK
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2009
And to complete it;

plot,[0,1],/nodata,xstyle=4,ystyle=4
legend,['Northern Hemisphere April-September instrumental temperature',$
'Northern Hemisphere MXD'],$
colors=[22,21],thick=[3,3],margin=0.6,spacing=1.5
end

Just to highlight the area so often misused by the blogosphere, see the difference from your exerpt:
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!

I bet the deniersphere blogs never told you about the value of the semi-colon

[/blockquote]
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2009
MikeyK: So you are saying that the section:

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;

and the section:

; fudge factor

Was added by someone to the code after it was hacked?

It was always presented to me that those statements were in the code. Without them it has a much different impact. Instead, they are just processing the data to make it work in the model. If the other text is put in it makes it look like this is some nefarious plan. I have to admit that I have never seen the raw code that was hacked into. Now I have to suspect every thing I see as being manipulated to make it appear in the worst light. Thank you for showing us this dishonest reporting of the code.
ForFreeMinds
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2009
Ignoring the merits of a computer simulation, I must be reading this wrong. It says "As water temperatures rise, the upper (leftmost) extent of methane gas hydrate (in red) recedes approximately 1,500 meters downslope." So what does gas being downslope (I assume deeper in the water) have to do with release of methane into the atmosphere? If the methane is deeper, isn't there less chance of release? And doesn't this imply less global warming so it a negative feedback on global temperatures?
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2009
For someone who keeps on insisting on 'Raw Data', you seem to have no idea about code. The code used is IDL, this means that a semicolon is used for comment. Basically this means that any line beginning with one, (just for you here is the symbol ;) is ignored. The actual full code used without the ignored lines in next response


Yes, I know. But, I did not get this from a blog. I have the files. True, the associated code was commented out later. However, please note that the fudge factor code was left uncommented. It was experimental code. Fact is, however, they abandoned that quick fix, anyway. That is what the remainder of the IDL code shows.

They were working on a way to hide the decline (this can be seen from emails dated to the time period of the code in question) and this file shows that they were indeed looking for a way to do just that before determining that it was better and easier just to remove the post-1961 proxy data completely. Problem solved; decline hidden.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2009
The remainder of the commented code in the source code file shows that they were looking for creative ways to "hide the decline."

Commented out or not for the rest of the code, it still shows that they were looking for ways to "hide the decline." This entire code combined with the emails and documents is pretty damning evidence when taken altogether.

They left a paper trail of their attempts at finding creative ways of manipulating the data to "hide the decline."
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2009
thermodynamics,

No, the commented code was not added later. It is part of the integral coding. The file was part of experiments to find creative ways to "hide the decline."

If you look at the full source code, you can see several pieces of code were commented out and the more damning piece of code was not commented out.

There are several things that one can do with the variables created besides pass them within the file itself. It also can be used to export data to another program or another program can pull the variable from this program with the right coding.

The question is, why leave the damning code uncommented? Is that not a waste of memory when running programs? Or, is it just the evidence of experimental attempts at altering data that was abandoned when they found a better way?

The structure of the source code overall shows that they were indeed experimenting with this before they came up with the final solution with the data--replacement of post-1961 proxy data.
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2009
dachpyarvile: Thanks for the clarification. It was not clear to me at all from the initial post.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2009
No problem. It is, however, clear that MikeyK has fallen for the attempts of the AGW anti-blogosphere agenda to smooth over the full ramifications of all the leaked data, not just the emails and commented-out/uncommented-out code.

Notice that he keeps referring to blogs when I am referencing no such information.

As I have said several times before, I actually have the files themselves. I have them on my Unix system, where they are displayed as written. I keep them in a read-only archive so as to prevent their modification--even accidentally.
brant
1 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2009
Is it the CO2, the methane or the water? Where does the extra energy come from to heat the earth??
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2009
brant: The extra energy all comes from the sun. The CO2, methane, and water only prevent the earth from radiating back IR to space. What happens is that short wavelength radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth. The earth heats and radiates long wave (IR) radiation to space. However, the active gases (H2O, CO2, and CH4 and others) absorb infrared and reradiate it iin all directions. So, some of it is prevented from escaping the earth. It is the net difference due to the active gases that makes earth livable. Changing any of the gases changes the earth's ability to radiate. The predominant greenhouse gas is H2O. However, there are some bands where H2O does not absorb but CO2 and CH4 (and others) do. That is why each gas contributes to making earth habitable.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2009
Is it the CO2, the methane or the water? Where does the extra energy come from to heat the earth??


It is all of the above and more. There is radiative forcing as well as radiative output of the sun and so forth. Methane is worse than CO2 and it is water vapor that makes the whole thing work with additional forcing.

Of course, there are a couple even worse GHGs out there than all of these combined. They are created for use in the manufacturing process of thin-film photovoltaic cells and many tons have been released into the atmosphere since 1978.

These are NF3 and SF6. These nasty little gases have over 17,000 and 23,000 times the radiative forcing and potency respectively than CO2 and last many times longer in the atmosphere.

For the longest time the AGW agenda have gone on record to say that solar radiation has little to nothing to do with current climate change. Many of them over the last couple of years have now backtracked on that one but a few still try to hold on. :)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2009
Nonetheless, virtually all the radiation involved in the greenhouse effect comes from the sun. It is the gases that trap and reflect part of that back to earth in the form of Infrared radiation. Without this greenhouse effect, there would be no life on earth as we know it and earth would be a virtual frozen ball of ice.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2009
By the way, it would appear that MikeyK has fallen for the AGW agenda's attempt to smooth things over because he is relying on the web information regarding the 'd' incarnation of the 'fudge factor' IDL programming code where parts are commented out later as part of an experimentation phase in attempting to "hide the decline."

What he does not appear to know is that the very same, meaning "identical", fudge factor code in the newer 'e' incarnation of the same source is alive and well, and the code to filter the raw data and interpose the 'fudge factor' upon it is NOT commented out.

The final version in the 'e' incarnation was being used to "hide the decline" before adopting their final solution simply to remove and replace the post-1961 proxy data altogether.

MikeyK's information source references the older 'd' incarnation rather than the fully functional 'e' incarnation of the decline-hiding IDL source code.

Reference: file:///FOIA/documents/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2009
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'


This is followed a few lines later with the following inside the 'for loop':
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
;
; Now plot them
;
filter_cru,20,tsin=densall,tslow=tslow,/nan
cpl_barts,x,densall,title='Age-banded MXD from all sites',$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
zeroline=tslow,yrange=[-7,3]
oplot,x,tslow,thick=3
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;


There be no commenting-out there, MikeyK! :)

Following this is code to "overplot" with the adjusted Harris data. Again, there is no commenting out of code for filtering with "fudge factor."
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2009
Silly me! I forgot to post the further code from the same source that even used the 'fudge factor' code to alter data taken from a Nature article containing the Hugershoff NHD1 data. Here it is:
;
; Restore the Hugershoff NHD1 (see Nature paper 2)
;
xband=x
restore,filename='../tree5/densadj_MEAN.idlsave'
; gets: x,densadj,n,neff
;
; Extract the post 1600 part
;
kl=where(x ge 1400)
x=x(kl)
densadj=densadj(kl)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densadj=densadj+yearlyadj
;
; Now plot it too
;
filter_cru,20,tsin=densadj,tslow=tshug,/nan
cpl_barts,x,densadj,title='Hugershoff-standardised MXD from all sites',$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
zeroline=tshug,yrange=[-7,3],bar_color=20
oplot,x,tshug,thick=3,color=20
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1

In this above code, there is one line commented-out but notice carefully what is NOT commented out. Fudge factor is alive and well and used to alter published data for their purposes.
MikeyK
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2009

.., I actually have the files themselves. I have them on my Unix system, where they are displayed as written. ....

Hmmm, your story just doesn't ring true. If, as you claim, you have all the data, why did you not show the alleged later version instead of the version shown around the blogs? Isn't it convenient that an allegedly later version suddenly appears once the original has been shown to be an early draft? If you do have the actual data then upload it and reference so we can see ALL the emails, including dating, correspondence etc. At least then we can see the context of the information.
The fact you showed the first version instead of the alleged later version I think proves you do not have the information, but are instead embroiled in the campaign of disinformation the soviets or Al Qaeda would be proud of.
Another small point, why have you posted 8 comments on Christmas Day. I am a Christian and I certainly wouldn't post on His day.
GrayMouser
1 / 5 (2) Dec 27, 2009
Nonetheless, virtually all the radiation involved in the greenhouse effect comes from the sun. It is the gases that trap and reflect part of that back to earth in the form of Infrared radiation. Without this greenhouse effect, there would be no life on earth as we know it and earth would be a virtual frozen ball of ice.

Read "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE
EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS" By GERHARD GERLICH & RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER (the preprint is at http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161 otherwise it's $25 to download the published version at http://www.worlds...4X.html)
The information and conclusions are:
1) Arrhenius' hypothesis was proven wrong as early as 1907. IR & CO2 don't warm a greenhouse.
2) The calculations to model the atmospheric thermodynamics is beyond and computer system available in the near future.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Dec 27, 2009
Sorry to disappoint MikeyK but I do have the files. The files exist. They are unmodified by me and the files are in the locations given. The 'e' revision has always been here and the actual 'fudge factor' code is identical in both revisions 'd' and 'e' with the bare exception of the fact that the remarks are written in using all-caps in places. But, it is hard not to realize that the revisions are experimental. They are, after all, marked briffa_sep98_a, briffa_sep98_b, briffa_sep98_c and so on to briffa_sep98_e. The 'e' revision is in a different folder. A lot of people don't know about it.

But, the files exist in spite of your wish to go into denial concerning them. They are available all over the internet so there is no need for me to upload anything. Get them while they are hot and before they start to disappear and get modified to hide the data. I have referenced the locations of the files above. Just download the archive, chmod it to read-only and go to town for yourself. :)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2009
Besides, if I did not have the data, how did I manage to post the 'e' revision code above? Come on, MikeyK, stop living in denial. The CRU and IPCC scientists have been involved in defrauding the public. The evidence is out there in the public eye. They have been fudge-factoring data and it is time to take a fresh look at all the data and see just what has been fudge-factored, the above model included.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2009
Here is a partial file directory listing from the relevant directory containing the 'e' revision of the code. Notice the date on the file briffa_sep98_e.pro, taken from a terminal window on my Mac OS X machine.

dachpy's-mac-pro:harris-tree dachpy$ ls -lT
total 208
drwxr-xr-x 17 dachpy staff 578 Jan 7 07:34:56 2005 banding
-rw-r--r-- 1 dachpy staff 695 Jan 28 10:07:14 1998 boxregions.pro
-rw-r--r-- 1 dachpy staff 4016 Sep 7 13:20:22 1998 briffa_sep98_e.pro
-rw-r--r-- 1 dachpy staff 530 Mar 1 05:52:28 2002 calibrate_batch.pro
-rw-r--r-- 1 dachpy staff 7045 Jan 7 07:34:56 2005 calibrate_nhrecon.pro
-rw-r--r-- 1 dachpy staff 1780 Jan 28 09:58:38 1998 mapregions.pro

* * *

I would have included the whole directory, but see no reason to do so. I also want to note that I had to extract the data from the archive to give you this list but I instructed the archive utility to preserve the original date information although the extraction added my name as the owner.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2009
As you can see from the date on the file, it has not been touched or modified by me in any way and has been in its present form since 1998. The date displayed would have been altered to November 2009 had it been altered by the original hackers and would have had the present date and time or the day before yesterday's date had I altered it or created it myself. Yes, I have the files and I have altered none of them. Nor did I obtain the information from a blog.

Of course, I am positive that you will try to say that I have altered the date information or spin this information another way anyway in an effort to preserve faith in AGW. Have fun. :)
MikeyK
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2009
The 'e' revision is in a different folder. A lot of people don't know about it.


Ohhhh, spooky. So let's get this straight, this 'new' code was plucked from a 'magic' folder that no-one else knows about. Right. Sounds too much like the Roswell files or the Grassy Knoll' file known only to a few Looney Tunes.
So, if you knew about this why did you use the 'old' version if you knew it was updated by the magical 'e' file. As I said your story just doesn't add up and the posts you have just submitted mean nothing, it is all too easy to manipulate data before making it 'Read only'. If you want us 'to believe' then upload YOUR data, no-one else's, and lets look for ourselves.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2009
I did not say that no one knows about it, only that a lot of people do not seem to know about it. You like to twist people's words like a nose of wax, don't you? I used the older version because that is the one I was looking at at that moment. I had forgotten which directory the 'e' revision was in at the moment I posted the code used to hide the decline and I was looking through another directory which had files a-d.

Nothing more sinister than that. Where would you like me to upload over 168 MBytes of data? And, why would I need to upload anything when the files are publicly available anyway? Just download the data and you will see what I see. I have provided the location of the data in the archive above.

Aside from this, your latest posts are red herrings. Except for the format of the comments the source code of revision 'e' is identical to revision 'd'. Had I used the code without the comments you would not have known the difference. The fudge factor code in both d&e is identical.
MikeyK
Dec 29, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MikeyK
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2010
Used the older version ehh, but isn't it true that the 'e' code is actually date stamped six months prior to the 'd' code? This strongly suggests that the codes aren't alphabetically chronologically ordered and that they are, as we all knew anyway, merely the playing around with the code. Of course without any contextual literature it's all irrelevant anyway....unless you have this 'magically' downloaded on your top secret hard drive somewhere ;-)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2010
It is called modification of the source code in version 'd' six months after version 'e' was used. This is confirmed by checking the 'last modified' date and comparing it with the 'last opened' date. Both dates and times are an exact match, confirming that version 'd' was altered at a later date.

That version 'd' is earlier originally is seen in both the name of the file and in the fact that the file itself shows experimentation with the source code before the 'e' version was decided and actually put to use on both their and other people's data.

And, there is contextual literature and documentation. You just need to read each and every single file and arrange it by date and timeline. I know you haven't done that or you would not make comments as you have.

Truthfully, I just got hold of the data in December and I still have not finished going through all of it myself. There is much more there than "just a few emails." Anyone who says otherwise is unaquainted with the facts.
PheIankell
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2010
Hmm, so what you are saying is that these codes are not the finished article and have been constantly changed exactly as you would when experimenting with any code to see how it reacts to certain data. If I was doing that I would make sure that certain parameters may have unusual responses, and would make it clear, maybe by doing this " ***** APPLIES(/applied) A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
Not exactly subterfuge is it? I like the comment " You just need to read each and every single file...."
and then follow it up with ".. I still have not finished going through all of it myself".... priceless!
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2010
The finished article was the 'e' revision. The person using the 'd' revision just needed to set up some data for comparison and altered it to comment out the fudge factor at that moment in time. The 'e' code needed no modification, working perfectly at fudging the data. The 'e' code was used on two sets of data at least before they decided to drop the proxies from 1961 to their present.

The code itself does tell the story. But, that is all well and good considering that repeated requests to SEE the program code were denied to investigators. These codes were never intended for public eyes. In fact, the particular server containing the data was slated for removal from service and erasure.

In addition, it is clear that you misunderstand yet again. Although, I will admit that I could have been more precise in writing. Skimming through every single file and actually taking the time to go through and study each and every one are two different things. I have not finished the latter.
MikeyK
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2010
The glaring error with your logic was why, if the 'e' code worked so well, why was the 'd' code deemed in need of revising? Despite your uncomfortable wriggling around the subject it is obvious that these were experimental coded seeing how they would react with different data complete with highly visual warnings for errant results. I'll ask you once again, where is the chronologically correct and contextual correspondence that accompanies the code? You try and tell us you have it all and have read it, now you try and tell us you haven't read it all.
Maybe your extremist criminal friends can help you find the correspondence for the "codes never intended for public eyes", somehow I doubt you can.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2010
It was deemed in need of revising because the rest of the code did something they wanted to see and the other code would have interfered with what they were doing at that time. How hard is that to understand? Seriously, the code combined with the system flags speaks for themselves.

You again need to read my clarifying remarks above and do it very carefully. You may have to unhide the comment, however, by turning ranking off but read it again and again until you get it.

I have skimmed through all of the files but the careful study of the entire collection is not yet complete on my part. It is not all that hard to figure out...

And, for the last time, the code was not for public eyes. When they had requests to see the source code made, they denied them--all of them, even when Congress requested them. That most certainly is contained in the documents and correspondence. That you are not aware of that shows you have not even scratched the surface of the information in the files.
MikeyK
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2010
So if thieves burgled your home and stole your video recorder, then asked for the instructions, you'd give them??
Your paranoia and conspiracy theorist mind set is actually a remarkable phenomenon, mind if I send you details of some friends who could help you?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.