Author: Neville

  • Methane emergency in the Arctic?

    Methane emergency in the Arctic? August 20, 2013 12:32 AM | 7 Comments Thanks to Bob Baker for this. It really isn’t that hard to know what is true and what isn’t. From kindergarten to junior high to high school to college to graduate school, I cannot recall a lot of confusion or controversy. Within the education departments across the planet a fact is a fact. Two plus two is four. E=Mc2. Redding is really hot in the summer. It is only when politicians and media companies and Anthony Watts get involved that the science becomes distorted and confused. When money and power need the truth to be something it isn’t. And people are easy to fool. If their television tells them, they believe. And yet trustworthy sources exist. Like Skeptical Science, where “there is an ongoing effort to combat disinformation from those who maintain that climate change is a non-issue or non-reality.” And where sometimes, they must call out those who “overhype the impacts of climate change beyond the realm of plausibility. Some of this is well-intentioned but misguided. For those who advocate climate literacy or for scientists who engage with the public, it is necessary to call out this stuff in the same manner as one would call out a scientist who doesn’t think that the modern CO2 rise is due to human activities.” While I was in Colorado in June at AGU’s Communicating Climate Science Conference, I asked a question of one of the presenters who was an expert on the Arctic who worked with the National Snow & Ice Data Center. I asked about the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) and whether current science had evidence that there is indeed an emergency in the Arctic and whether the global climate is at risk of an imminent release of a massive methane burst. The scientist was perplexed — she had never heard of AMEG — and seemed quite certain, that at least in the short run, we were not in danger of a methane catastrophe. Now I was confused until I spoke directly with another scientist with whom I was quite familiar and deeply trusted. And he stated with adamant certainty that AMEG could not be trusted with any of their doomsday scenarios. He said he had repeatedly confronted their bad math and science and appealed to AMEG directly to no avail. They ignored him and refused to correct their flawed calculations. According to Skeptical Science, “Many overblown scenarios or catastrophes seem to involve methane in the Arctic in some way. There are even groups out there declaring a planet-wide emergency because of catastrophic, runaway feedbacks, involving the interplay between high latitude methane sources and sea ice. “In this article, I will argue that there is no compelling evidence for any looming methane spike. Other scientists have spoken out against this scenario as well, and I will encompass some of their arguments into this piece. In summary, the reason a huge feedback is unlikely is because of the long timescale required for global warming to reach some of the largest methane hydrate reservoirs (defined later), and because no evidence exists for such an extreme methane concentration sensitivity to climate in the past record. Permafrost feedbacks are of concern, but there is no basis for assuming a dramatic ‘tipping point’ in the atmospheric methane concentration.” Read the whole article if you are interested. But here is the conclusion: “The observed methane venting from the East Siberian shelf sea-floor to the atmosphere is probably not a new component of the Arctic methane budget. Furthermore, warming of the Arctic waters and sea ice decline will likely impact subsea permafrost on longer timescales, rather than the short term. “Methane feedbacks in the Arctic are going to be important for future climate change, just like the direct emissions from humans. This includes substantial regions of shallow permafrost in the Arctic, which is already going appreciable change. Much larger changes involving hydrate may be important longer-term. “Nonetheless, these feedbacks need to be kept in context and should be thought of as one of the many other carbon cycle feedbacks, and dynamic responses, that supplement the increasing anthropogenic CO2 burden to the atmosphere. There is no evidence that methane will run out of control and initiate any sudden, catastrophic effects. There’s certainly no runaway greenhouse. Instead, chronic methane releases will supplement the primary role of CO2. Eventually some of this methane oxidizes into CO2, so if the injection is large enough, it can add extra CO2 forcing onto the very long term evolution of global climate, over hundreds to thousands of years.” And if you want to wade more deeply into the weeds on this issue, here is Joe Romm’s take from last year. – See more at: http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/08/methane-emergen.html#sthash.U179SPt8.dpuf

  • With the forthcoming IPCC report, the contrarians finally agree we are changing the climate

    With the forthcoming IPCC report, the contrarians finally agree we are changing the climate

    Climate contrarians may concede more than they bargained for when the next IPCC report is published

    UN logo on a door at U.N. headquarters in New York

    The next UN IPCC report is due out in September. Photograph: Joshua Lott/REUTERS

    We are weeks away from the much-anticipated release of the 5th climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization has worked very hard to summarize the latest science on climate change, with thousands of donated hours from scientists around the globe. Although there are many other climate reports that synthesize the science, the IPCC is the largest and most comprehensive.

    I know many of the scientists who have taken on leadership author roles, without pay, to produce this document. We owe them our gratitude and congratulations.

    So, what will the report say? I will admit that I have not read the report (it hasn’t been released). Early drafts have been leaked, primarily by people trying to disrupt the process. These early drafts allow us to predict what will be contained within the report. An alternative approach is to review the immense body of literature from which the report is drawn. Based on the literature I’ve reviewed, I will predict the central themes of the IPCC report.

    First, readers will likely find that this report is very similar to the last report (which was released in 2007). There will be slight changes to our confidence in certain observations. Climate models will have improved slightly, particularly in how they handle atmospheric particulates and cloud formation. A major effort since the last report has been the use of climate models to predict changes at the regional level. The report will likely say that this endeavor has had mixed success.

    The new report will describe how climate changes are continuing without abatement. In particular, temperatures are rising, oceans are heating, waters are rising, ice is melting, the oceans are acidifying, heat is even moving to the deepest parts of the oceans. Just as importantly, the report will show that these changes are largely human-caused.

    Some items are worse than we thought. In the last report, ice loss, particularly from Greenland, was a minor issue. Now, it is clear that not only Greenland, but also Antarctica are melting and this melt is raising sea levels. Furthermore, Arctic sea ice is being lost faster than previously reported.

    The new report will likely have continued questions. For instance, how will hurricanes change in a warming world (the most powerful hurricanes are becoming even more powerful, but the change in frequency is not known) is still an open question.

    Extreme weather will be a mixed bag. Some extreme weather has certainly increased (heat waves for instance, drought in certain areas, and heavy precipitation events). Changes to tornadoes and thunderstorms? That is one area that is highly uncertain.

    So, in short, since 2007 we have developed better tools, and we are more certain about how we are changing the climate. Other areas still vex us. But, it is clear we certainly know enough to take action to stop the coming changes to our climate.

    How does this square with my title? One continuing question is, how much and how fast will the climate change. Are we going to be in a “slow simmer” or a “fast boil”? The answer to this question rests on how sensitive the climate is. If the climate is not very sensitive, it means the Earth’s temperature will change more slowly. A more sensitive Earth will have a more rapid temperature change.

    There is some belief that the IPCC will lower the range of climate sensitivity by a tiny amount. If my crystal ball is correct, the denialosphere will latch onto this, and will, unwittingly, be agreeing that the IPCC is correct; we are changing the climate. You cannot both accept the IPCC conclusions that humans are changing the climate and simultaneously claim that climate change is either not occurring or is natural. In the end, the contrarians will be in the “slow simmer” camp. So listen carefully to the Christopher Moncktons, James Inhofes, and Rush Limbaughs of this world. Wait for them to bring up the IPCC sensitivity and realize just how much they have conceded.

    But back to the IPCC; in a certain sense, the IPCC has done its job. For this fifth report, they have synthesized the science and provided enough evidence that action is warranted. How many more reports of this type do we need? Will a sixth report that confirms what we already know make much of a difference? Will a seventh? Do these reports need to be written every 5-6 years? Perhaps one a decade would be sufficient? These reports require enormous amounts of time and energy. Scientists who take authorship roles put their own research on hold, sometimes for years.

    Whatever the future holds for the IPCC, the history books will tell us we were warned. Time and time again, the world’s best scientists have sent us clear messages. Whatever happens, whatever pathway we choose, whatever are the future climate disruptions, we owe these scientists, and the IPCC our deepest gratitude. Thanks.

  • Australian HNWI Population Grew by 19.7% during 2007-2012, According to WealthInsight Report Published at MarketPublishers.com

    Australian HNWI Population Grew by 19.7% during 2007-2012, According to WealthInsight Report Published at MarketPublishers.com

    PRWeb
    Published 5:35 pm, Monday, August 19, 2013

    0
    0
    inShare
    Comments (0)
    Larger | Smaller
    Printable Version
    Email This
    Georgia (default)

    Verdana

    Times New Roman

    Arial

    Font

    Page 1 of 1

    Topical research report “Australia 2013 Wealth Book: Western Wealth, Eastern Growth” worked out by WealthInsight has been recently published by Market Publishers Ltd. According to the study, Australia’s HNWI numbers surged by 19.7% during 2007-2012.

    London, UK (PRWEB) August 19, 2013

    There were just over 302,000 high net worth individuals (HNWIs) in Australia in 2012, collectively holding USD 899 billion in wealth. At the end of 2012, Australian HNWIs held more than 20% (USD 198 billion) of their wealth outside their home country, which is in line with the global average of 20–30%. Over the period 2007-2012, Australian HNWIs overperformed vis-a-vis the global average – worldwide HNWI volumes declined by about 0.5%, whereas Australia’s HNWI numbers surged by 19.7%. There were 2,741 UHNWIs in Australia in 2012, with an average wealth of USD 121 million per person.

    Sydney has the greatest number of HNWIs in the country with about 30% share, followed by Melbourne with just over 16.5% of HNWIs. Brisbane and Perth also boast of sizable HNWI populations.

    New research report “Australia 2013 Wealth Book: Western Wealth, Eastern Growth” worked out by WealthInsight has been recently published by Market Publishers Ltd.

    Report Details:

    Title: Australia 2013 Wealth Book: Western Wealth, Eastern Growth
    Published: August, 2013
    Pages: 118
    Price: US$ 4,995.00
    http://marketpublishers.com/report/business_services/wealth_management/australia-2013-wealth-book-western-wealth-eastern-growth.html

    The report provides extensive research and in-depth analysis of the high net worth individual (HNWI) population and wealth management market in Australia. The study, in particular, focuses on HNWI performance between the end of 2007 (the peak before the global financial crunch) and the end of 2012, which enables to determine how well the country’s HNWIs have performed through the crisis.

    Report Scope:

    •     Independent market sizing of Australian HNWIs across five wealth bands.
    •     HNWI volume, wealth and allocation trends from 2007 to 2012, plus forecasts to 2017.
    •     HNWI and UHNWI asset allocations across 13 asset classes.
    •     Geographical breakdown of all foreign assets.
    •     Alternative breakdown of liquid versus investable assets.
    •     Number of UHNWIs in major cities.
    •     Number of wealth managers in each city.
    •     City wise ratings of wealth management saturation and potential.
    •     Details of the development, challenges and opportunities in the wealth management and private banking sector in Australia.
    •     Size of the Australian wealth management industry.
    •     Largest domestic private banks by AuM.
    •     Detailed wealth management and family office information.
    •     Insights into the drivers of HNWI wealth.

    More new market research studies by WealthInsight can be found at http://marketpublishers.com/members/wealthinsight/info.html .

    About Us:

    MarketPublishers.com is a multilingual hypermarket offering hundreds of thousands of comprehensive studies of motley markets, sectors, industries, companies, etc. We perform professional services aimed to equip our clients with high-quality market research products as well as support critical decision-making.

    For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/8/prweb11039109.htm

    The End of the “Made-In-China” Era

    The 21st century industrial revolution has already begun. All because of an incredible invention that’s made in America.

    Business Insider calls it “the next trillion dollar industry.” The Economist compares its impact to the steam engine and the printing press. And technology experts — like the guys who brought you the BMW 3-series, the F-35 fighter jet, and Amazon.com — think it could be “bigger than the internet.”

    A new investment video reveals the impossible (but real) technology that could make you impossibly rich. Watch it now, before the skeptics on Wall Street wise up and start looking for their piece of the action. Just enter your email:

  • Molten Magma Can Survive in Upper Crust for Hundreds of Millennia

    Molten Magma Can Survive in Upper Crust for Hundreds of Millennia

    Aug. 19, 2013 — Reservoirs of silica-rich magma — the kind that causes the most explosive volcanic eruptions — can persist in Earth’s upper crust for hundreds of thousands of years without triggering an eruption, according to new University of Washington modeling research.


    Share This:

    That means an area known to have experienced a massive volcanic eruption in the past, such as Yellowstone National Park, could have a large pool of magma festering beneath it and still not be close to going off as it did 600,000 years ago.

    “You might expect to see a stewing magma chamber for a long period of time and it doesn’t necessarily mean an eruption is imminent,” said Sarah Gelman, a UW doctoral student in Earth and space sciences.

    Recent research models have suggested that reservoirs of silica-rich magma, or molten rock, form on and survive for geologically short time scales — in the tens of thousands of years — in the Earth’s cold upper crust before they solidify. They also suggested that the magma had to be injected into the Earth’s crust at a high rate to reach a large enough volume and pressure to cause an eruption.

    But Gelman and her collaborators took the models further, incorporating changes in the crystallization behavior of silica-rich magma in the upper crust and temperature-dependent heat conductivity. They found that the magma could accumulate more slowly and remain molten for a much longer period than the models previously suggested.

    Gelman is the lead author of a paper explaining the research published in the July edition of Geology. Co-authors are Francisco Gutiérrez, a former UW doctoral student now with Universidad de Chile in Santiago, and Olivier Bachmann, a former UW faculty member now with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.

    There are two different kinds of magma and their relationship to one another is unclear. Plutonic magma freezes in the Earth’s crust and never erupts, but rather becomes a craggy granite formation like those commonly seen in Yosemite National Park. Volcanic magma is associated with eruptions, whether continuous “oozing” types of eruption such as Hawaii’s Kilauea Volcano or more explosive eruptions such as Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines or Mount St. Helens in Washington state.

    Some scientists have suggested that plutonic formations are what remain in the crust after major eruptions eject volcanic material. Gelman believes it is possible that magma chambers in the Earth’s crust could consist of a core of partially molten material feeding volcanoes surrounded by more crystalline regions that ultimately turn into plutonic rock. It is also possible the two rock types develop independently, but those questions remain to be answered, she said.

    The new work suggests that molten magma reservoirs in the crust can persist for far longer than some scientists believe. Silica content is a way of judging how the magma has been affected by being in the crust, Gelman said. As the magma is forced up a column from lower in the Earth to the crust, it begins to crystallize. Crystals start to drop out as the magma moves higher, leaving the remaining molten rock with higher silica content.

    “These time scales are in the hundreds of thousands, even up to a million, years and these chambers can sit there for that long,” she said.

    Even if the molten magma begins to solidify before it erupts, that is a long process, she added. As the magma cools, more crystals form giving the rock a kind of mushy consistency. It is still molten and capable of erupting, but it will behave differently than magma that is much hotter and has fewer crystals.

    The implications are significant for volcanic “arcs,” found near subduction zones where one of Earth’s tectonic plates is diving beneath another. Arcs are found in various parts of the world, including the Andes Mountains of South America and the Cascades Range of the Pacific Northwest.

    Scientists have developed techniques to detect magma pools beneath these arcs, but they cannot determine how long the reservoirs have been there. Because volcanic magma becomes more silica-rich with time, its explosive potential increases.

    “If you see melt in an area, it’s important to know how long that melt has been around to determine whether there is eruptive potential or not,” Gelman said. “If you image it today, does that mean it could not have been there 300,000 years ago? Previous models have said it couldn’t have been. Our model says it could. That doesn’t mean it was there, but it could have been there.”

    The work was funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Scientific and Technological Research Commission of Chile.

    Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:
  • Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming

    Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming

    Tim Wimborne/Reuters

    A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that the authors are now 95 percent to 100 percent confident that human activity is the primary influence on planetary warming.

    By
    Published: August 19, 2013 541 Comments

    An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace.

    Gene Wong/FEATURECHINA, via European Pressphoto Agency

    The level of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is up 41 percent since the Industrial Revolution. Emissions from facilities like coal-fired power plants contribute.

    Readers’ Comments

    The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors.

    The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound.

    “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”

    The draft comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of several hundred scientists that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, along with Al Gore. Its summaries, published every five or six years, are considered the definitive assessment of the risks of climate change, and they influence the actions of governments around the world. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, for instance, largely on the basis of the group’s findings.

    The coming report will be the fifth major assessment from the group, created in 1988. Each report has found greater certainty that the planet is warming and greater likelihood that humans are the primary cause.

    The 2007 report found “unequivocal” evidence of warming, but hedged a little on responsibility, saying the chances were at least 90 percent that human activities were the cause. The language in the new draft is stronger, saying the odds are at least 95 percent that humans are the principal cause.

    On sea level, which is one of the biggest single worries about climate change, the new report goes well beyond the assessment published in 2007, which largely sidestepped the question of how much the ocean could rise this century.

    The new report also reiterates a core difficulty that has plagued climate science for decades: While averages for such measures as temperature can be predicted with some confidence on a global scale, the coming changes still cannot be forecast reliably on a local scale. That leaves governments and businesses fumbling in the dark as they try to plan ahead.

    On another closely watched issue, the scientists retreated slightly from their 2007 position.

    Regarding the question of how much the planet could warm if carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere doubled, the previous report largely ruled out any number below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The new draft says the rise could be as low as 2.7 degrees, essentially restoring a scientific consensus that prevailed from 1979 to 2007.

    But the draft says only that the low number is possible, not that it is likely. Many climate scientists see only a remote chance that the warming will be that low, with the published evidence suggesting that an increase above 5 degrees Fahrenheit is more likely if carbon dioxide doubles.

    The level of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is up 41 percent since the Industrial Revolution, and if present trends continue it could double in a matter of decades.

    Warming the entire planet by 5 degrees Fahrenheit would add a stupendous amount of energy to the climate system. Scientists say the increase would be greater over land and might exceed 10 degrees at the poles.

    They add that such an increase would lead to widespread melting of land ice, extreme heat waves, difficulty growing food and massive changes in plant and animal life, probably including a wave of extinctions.

    A version of this article appears in print on August 20, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming.
    • Save
    • E-mail
    • Share

    541 Comments

    Share your thoughts.

    Newest
    Write a Comment
    Loading
    How One Man Saved Over $8,000 on Brand-New Products
  • Weather-related losses take their toll

    Weather-related losses take their toll

    Published Aug 19, 2013 at 8:00 am (Updated Aug 17, 2013 at 6:26 pm)
    Comments ( 0 )
    • (AP Photo/Fosphotos, Elina Liberta) Weather woes: A flash of lighting is seen in Piraeus, near Athens during a rainstorm in February. Hours of heavy rainfall in Athens caused extensive flooding. Across Europe severe weather and flooding have caused economic losses estimated at more than $22 billion so far this year.
    • (AP Photo/dpa,Patrick Pleul, file) Costly: In aerial view from June this year houses stand in the floods of Elbe river in Riesa, eastern Germany. Severe flooding in central Europe has caused economic losses estimated at more than $22 billion.
    • (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Jonathan Hayward) Streets under water: This aerial photo shows a flooded downtown Calgary, Alberta, Canada, in June.

    Extreme weather events are taking their toll on the insurance industry even though midway through August the North Atlantic has yet to see its first hurricane of the year.

    So far there have been five tropical storms including the currently active system Tropical Storm Erin, which is expected to dissipate in the mid-Atlantic.

    But while there have been no hurricanes to wreak economic losses, there have been plenty of weather-related events elsewhere to keep risk managers and (re)insurance executives on their toes.

    Zurich Insurance Group reported on Thursday a sharp decline in its second-quarter profits, mainly due to weather-related losses in Europe. The company’s net income fell 27 percent to $789 million.

    Other insurers and reinsurers are counting the cost of this year’s severe weather-related events.

    The major economies of the US, China and Canada have all suffered billions of dollars of losses as a result of severe weather, flooding and — in the case of China — earthquakes.

    Strong thunderstorms and rain across the greater Toronto metropolitan region last month caused significant flooding and power outages, which affected businesses, vehicles and infrastructure. Economic losses from that single event have been estimated by AON Benfield at $1.45 billion, with around half of that cost covered by insurance. There was further severe weather in Ontario and Quebec provinces during July, with winds gusting up to 100mph during intense thunderstorms, which caused millions of dollars in insured losses.

    Even before July, Canada had already suffered severe weather and flooding. Floods that occurred between June 19 and 24 claimed four lives and caused economic losses of $5.3 billion.

    The insurance arm of Canada’s TD Bank Group expected claims costs from the severe weather in Alberta and Toronto to have a pre-tax impact of approximately $170 million after reinsurance.

    Group president Ed Clark, in a statement to investors last month, said: “While banks and insurance companies can incur losses from severe weather events, our greatest concern is with the communities and individuals who experienced the devastation in Alberta and the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). We also thank our employees for their efforts to support our customers through these events, when many employees themselves were dealing with the impact.”

    In the US weather-related losses have also been significant since the start of the year, with the Plains, Midwest and Northeast suffering economic losses of $6.5 billion in two bouts of severe weather in May and June.

    For China it has been worse. During July torrential rainfall across many parts of the country brought floods that claimed the lives of almost 200 people and caused economic losses of more than $7 billion. A magnitude 5.9 earthquake on July 22 in the Gansu Province killed at least 95, damaged 80,000 homes and caused economic losses of $3.25 billion. Since the start of the year China has suffered economic losses due to a number of smaller earthquakes and weather-related events, by far the most significant is the $6 billion loss attributed to drought conditions in parts of the country since January 1.

    Europe, Asia, Africa and South America have all suffered weather-related economic losses. A drought in Brazil between January and June caused losses estimated at $8.5 billion, while flooding in central Europe in May and June caused economic losses of $22 billion.

    In the aftermath of the devastating floods in Europe, Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research unit, said: “It is evident that days with weather conditions that lead to such flooding are becoming more frequent and that such weather systems tend to remain stationary for longer. With this higher persistence of weather patterns, the potential for heavy and long-lasting precipitation within a trough situation, for example, increases. The counterpart to this are stationary high-pressure systems which in summer increase the risk of heatwaves and periods of drought.

    “Debate in climate research is currently focusing on what the causes of such changes in weather patterns could be and what role climate change might play in this. But it is naturally not possible to explain single events on this basis.”

    Even places as remote as the Azores archipelago have not escaped the wrath of the weather. In March the North Atlantic island group took a $45 million economic hit, with more than 500 properties damaged and three lives lost after days of heavy rain lashed the island of Terceira causing severe flooding.

    Significant economic losses during July:

    US (Severe weather) $175m+

    Canada (Severe weather) $1.45b+

    China (Flooding) $7b+

    Significant economic loss events (January to June 2013):

    US (Severe weather May 18-22) $4.5b+

    Canada (Flooding June 19-24) $5.3b+

    Brazil (Drought Jan 1-May 31) $8.3b+

    Europe (Flooding May 30-June 15) $22b+

    China (Drought Jan 1-July 31) $6b+

    * Economic loss figures from AON Benfield’s Global Catastrophe Recap.