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?
#29, and now you’re swatting at strawmen, as I took no such position. I was challenging the absurd claim that we have killed off 90% of ocean life… which apparently “I hate mankind” Scott has since revised it to mean just 90% of large predatory fish.
#18, Alix, please cite your source for shift in Earth’s rotational axis. There is no reputable evidence for a rotational axis shift I can find. Magnetic pole reversals, yes, but no rotational axis shift in the last 2 billion years, at the least. The Earth’s axis wobbles (nutation) an a 22,000 year cycle but that’s about it, as far as I know. Thanks.
WOW, so the GREAT northern passage will be open AGAIN…
#35, you mean the northwest passage?
34,
As I have stated previously, I am among those who believe in crust displacement. The axis did not change, but the position of the continents on the globe did in relationship to it.
37. That could explain why they find ocean fossils at 10,000 ft in the Rockies. (Crust displacement).
You have to be careful about using warming on Mars as evidence that Earth’s climate is warming due to solar activity. It’s a complex thing, and on the sketchy data available, a case could be made that Mars is cooling.
That article is even more impressive. It says that you shouldn’t make assumptions about global warming based on a few years of warming, and that melting ice caps are a regional phenomenon, not planetary. Well people here in the media who insist on Kyoto do the exact same thing with the weather on Earth, including a melting ice cap, breakaway icebergs, and ‘record temperatures’ for such and such location.
Better go and get your polar bear hunting license before the bears drown.
3, Alix, Tectonics / plate movement are proven. Also raising and lowering of continents. Himalayas or the Permian Basin (W. TX) are great examples. You are correct, sir. Thanks for the clarification, I thought maybe you believed in that ‘rotational axis’ shift nonsense.
42,
the big controversy with the crust displacement theory is the speed. The pleistocene ended over a period of only a thousand or so years, an finger snap in geologic time. As hard as it is to accept, crust displacement is the only theory that works.
The sun has not changed its output significantly over millennia, and the overall temperature of the Earth is pretty constant, give or take several degrees. That’s enough to screw with those living here (an engine of evolutionary progress) but not enough to create three-mile-thick glaciers over parts of North America that are temperate now. The crust is less than 50 miles thick and floats on a sea of molten rock. Why couldn’t it shift like the skin on an orange?
43, Alix, no argument here. Look at Manhattan island, created in the blink of an eye with regard to geologic time. Glacier city. Ref: Cosmos, by Carl Sagan.
I do not trust a group to guess what is going to happen that far into the future. The sumbitches can’t even get a 5 day forcast right.
I predict that in 2030 humans will have grown wings because of flying so much on air liners and that the mole men will rule the world
I put $1000.00 dollars American that my prediction is more likely to come true than this stupid extrapolation taken from a few year period of above average temps
taking a fly on the wall approach… i’m just curious…
while i have no doubt about global warming as a whole…
i find it highly suspect in the *amount* or “flood”, if you will, of global warming and the associated doomsday reports, since the release of (and more importantly after the Oscar award) of al gore’s “an inconvenient truth” movie..
i find it an amusing coincidence that prior to the release and oscar awards of this movie, we saw very little mainstream reporting of anything related to global warming.. now its seems you cannot turn a corner without some global warming related report..
yes yes.. warming is an issue, no doubt. but i wonder how much of the reporting is legitimate as apposed to being politically motivated…
-personally, i think all the extra “content” being pushed is a clandestine move to sell hybrid cars.. and more importantly, to fuel guilt in order to promote trading of that ever popular Carbon Credit scam. and it’s little brother, the carbon footprint.
time will tell.
-s
Hey for 40 years I have been watching the snow disappear. Look at all the cars pumping out exhaust…da…
#33 – Mike,
I’ll still say 90% of the ocean, though I probably didn’t mean to include microbes. I’m just having a hard time finding the exact source in which I read it. But, keep challenging me to do so. It keeps things interesting.
And, while you’re at it, why don’t you post a peer-reviewed source for your statement ‘Except that CO2 increases happened after temperature increases in the past.’ You’ve stated it on multiple threads. I don’t recall a peer-reviewed source for it though.
I suppose it should be a chuckle watching scientific illiterates pass off their personal “ethical” sense onto scientific research. So many folks have no perception of what opening up your work for peer review means – how tough and unforgiving it is – and should be.
On the other hand, before my involvement with John’s blog, I don’t think I ever realized how much fun it can be – to play Cassandra.
50, Eideard, no argument from me.
Peer review is commonly accepted as an essential part of scientific publication. But the ways peer review is put into practice vary across journals and disciplines. What is the best method of peer review? Is it truly a value-adding process? What are the ethical concerns? And how can new technology be used to improve traditional models?
http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html
#49, nope, never made that claim.
#52 – Mike,
I’m terribly sorry. I got confused between you and MikeN.
#28 – MikeN,
Do you have a peer reviewed source for your claim that ‘Except that CO2 increases happened after temperature increases in the past’?
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
I thought this was pretty well known. Scientists are going all over trying to explain away this little detail. Now if they would just start with an experiment that can be done at home, they would realize that warming causes more CO2.
#54 – MikeN,
Thanks. It’s going to take a while to get back to you on this one. The thread will probably scroll away before I get the answer. If so, I’ll try to keep a few links for a future thread. You are aware, though, that this is only about antarctic temperature, not global, right? I’ll see what else correlates with or contradicts this.
#55 – MikeN,
I doubt you’ll keep reading this thread now that it scrolled off the main page. In case you do, did you note these passages from a middle paragraph and the ending paragraphs of your own posted article?
2This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO 2 increases (