Conservative IPCC predictions
The Arctic ice cap is melting much faster than expected and is now about 30 years ahead of predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.S. ice expert said on Tuesday.
This means the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020, three decades sooner than the global panel’s gloomiest forecast of 2050.
“Right now … the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool,” Ted Scambos said in a telephone interview. “Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster.”
That is because the ice reflects light and heat; when it is gone, the much darker land or sea will absorb more light and heat, making it more difficult for the planet to cool down, even in winter, he said.
“The IPCC report was very careful, very thorough and cautious, so they erred on the side of what would certainly occur as opposed to what might occur,” Scambos said.
Fact is – the chickens are probably coming home to roost a bit earlier than expected. But, why let facts get in the way of politics?
This is an excellent example of the IPCC making the most conservative statement possible, as expected. Even some of the same scientists on the IPCC, when not wearing their IPCC hats, can make a much stronger statement than the one that will be agreed to by consensus. So, again, when the IPCC says something, remember, it is a highly conservative statement. The truth is likely much worse.
I thought that the IPCC just made up global warming because they wouldn’t have jobs if there wasn’t global warming.
you know, just like all those cancer researchers.
picture GW dressed as Obi Wan in Star Wars working his Jedi mind-tricks, saying to the stormtroopers “there is no global warming”
And how do we know the heating and cooling of the earth isn’t a natural happening?
Oh that’s right – we don’t. We do know that there have been several ice ages, and then that ice has retreated. We don’t know how far it did retreat, we don’t know if it melted completely.
And I thought the latest global warming news was that Mars is getting the same amount of warming as Earth. Who news that the Mars Rover emitted so much CO2?
@4
Whether or not the heating and cooling of the earth is partly a natural process, we still kinda have a vested interest in attempting to keep things the way they are.
That’s kinda like saying well I got leukemia naturally so I probably shouldn’t do anything to stop it.
If the global temperature rises, then it will have a disastrous effect on this planet.
@5
Yes, your reading of one news story regarding data about the temperature on Mars clearly qualifies you to intelligently disagree with the IPCC.
Obviously they must not have gotten the paper that day.
#6, “That’s kinda like saying well I got leukemia naturally so I probably shouldn’t do anything to stop it.”
Well, since the biosphere is self regulating in a way, there probably is something to be said against interrupting or preventing these naturally occurring processes. Think 5 billions humans is a lot, imagine how overpopulated we would be if disease and illness could be totally prevented. Since we are apparently so destructive, it’s probably in the best interest of the rest of nature that a few more humans die.
Somethings up when even an editor at The Nation disagrees about global warming.
http://tinyurl.com/2qbj5t
It’s not surprising they would get a forecast wrong when their models are based on the wrong source. Higher CO2 concentrations happen after planetary warming not before.
Next they will be trying to forecast the rapture.
#6 even if science cures your lukemia.. your still going to die
just as the earth will cleanse itself
>>Think 5 billions humans is a lot, imagine how overpopulated we would be if disease and illness could be totally prevented.
See, I knew there was a reason for the Iraq war – thinking ahead our Bush is!
#8 – Mike,
Where’d you get that about the climate being self-regulating? Between what temperature extremes? Even in times of extreme mass-extinction?
Remember, when thinking about the biosphere, even if you were correct, which I doubt, it would require in-tact ecosystems. We’ve killed off 90% of the oceans. We’re starting to see a lot of pre-cambrian life forms taking over now.
#9,10 – MikeN,
Is The Nation your idea of a peer-reviewed science journal?
It’s also not about models. The models are used to attempt to predict local conditions. CO2 leads warming by 10 years. The 0.75 degree celsius warming we already experience is from 1997’s carbon dioxide. So, it predates the Humpers & Naggravators.
What climate scientists do for the global temperature is the measure all the heat input and all the heat output and add up all the numbers and perform calculations much like balancing your checkbook. When they account for everything, they see that the bulk of the warming we feel is from CO2.
Oh and Mike, yes, I think 5 gigahumans is a lot. But, we’re at 6.5 GH now. As for limiting the population, it can be done by a number of means. Some are voluntary, such as educating women and getting them into the work force. Some are forced, like starvation and disease. If we don’t solve the population problem, it will be solved for us.
I’m personally not really convinced that Earth can sustain a human population above about 6 million humans, but that’s just my opinion. We are currently stealing from future generations and from other species to feed the current generation. This can’t last, IMHO.
if humans are not causing climate change, then cleaning up the smog stacks unnecessarily causes a nasty economic hiccup, which america has proven time and time again that she can weather, but at least we wind up with a cleaner earth.
if humans are causing climate change and you spent your life fighting every attempt to reverse, have fun explaining to the kids why you did that.
2040: we can’t grow food in america any more! thanks grandpa!
#14, now you’re just making things up. We’ve killed 90% of the oceans? Does that include all the algae and protoplankton as well? Your name really is quite apt, since you are so keen to place the full blame on humanity for everything wrong with the world.
4,
The ice on the American continent during the Ice Age was there because the landmass was higher on the globe at the time. Siberia was lower, and had a temperate climate. Then a massive geological shift probably linked to the magnetic pole shift caused a shift in the Earth’s orientation in rotation (by whatever hotly-debated mechanism) that caused the climate change that ended the Pleistocene (Ice Age) and a lot of what was living on the planet at the time.
17,
There’s a HUGE dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and a growing one off the coast of California. How much of the ocean has to die before you are worried? 20%? 50%?
#18, that’s a far cry from the exaggeration of saying we’ve (as in humans) have killed off 90% of ocean life. I’m sure that figure of his was peer-reviewed as well. But of course, attack me, not the clown I called out for making an absurd claim.
Surf’s up.
“Fact is – the chickens are probably coming home to roost a bit earlier than expected. But, why let facts get in the way of politics?”
The only ‘fact’ here is that this proves the existing computer models are wrong, which doesn’t say much for their predictive power or the validity of conclusions drawn from them.
Why is it that you people always look at the negative side? This could be a very good thing. It will deffinately reduce transhipping times (since those HUGE ships will now be able to bypass the panama canal & not have to go around the southern edge of south america), and this will deffinatelty boost the economies of the countries involved.
There will be a LOT more beach front property available for development, and the warming climate will encourage tourists.
Sure, sea levels will rise, and displace a lot of people – but we knew that already…
Oh and Mike, calling me a clown is unlikely to convert me to your viewpoint. So, if you just like to see your words in print, go for it. If you’re looking for a battle of wits, just come armed and be civil.
Who are the pre-cambrian life forms that are taking over? Is that a new political party?
Solution, Kill them all. We don’t need all those people getting in the way.
Solve the world food shortage problems if all those short of food just go ahead and starve to death after the rains stop coming down, as long as a republican can make a buck off it, go ahead, let them die. It’s good for the administrations Mission Accomplished statement. Problem solved!
Except that CO2 increases happened after temperature increases in the past. I mention The Nation because you would expect a lefty outfit like that to be all aboard the Kyoto Express, yet even there they have doubts. The article mentions that CO2 output didn’t match atmospheric levels of CO2, so maybe there’s another cause. So again it’s not man-made global warming. Also, there have been higher CO2 levels in the past.
At this point, I think it would take alot for scientists who have been going all over the world to just say Oops, Never Mind. I imagine the withdrawal of the global warming doomsday scenarios will happen gradually so that noone notices. The latest report has already withdrawn the hockey stick and lowered the forecasts for sea level rise and temperature increases. The hurricane links are being discontinues, with hurricane expert William Gray leading on that front. In the meantime the US and other countries will continue to hand out billions of dollars a year in research, and eventually it will shift towards trying to adapt to a warmer climate.
19,
I’m more appalled at your trying to draw a line at an acceptable level of dead ocean.
Again so much passionate rhetoric in favour of pollution. I always thought it was wrong to pollute.
carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant, and neither is wator vapor. These are the top 2 greenhouse gases.
This figures! I’m always running out of ice.