The UN panel of 2,500 scientists said in February that summer sea ice could almost vanish in the Arctic towards the end of this century.
"There may well be an ice-free Arctic by the middle of the century...
Dr. Rapley also said the IPCC was "restrained to the point of being seriously misleading" in toning down what he said were risks of a melt of parts of Antarctica, by far the biggest store of ice on the planet that could raise world sea levels.
New islands:
Previously unknown islands are appearing as Arctic summer sea ice shrinks to record lows, raising questions about whether global warming is outpacing UN projections, experts said.
"Reductions of snow and ice are happening at an alarming rate," Norwegian Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoy said at a seminar of 40 scientists and politicians that began late on Monday in Ny Alesund, 1,200 kilometres from the North Pole.
"This acceleration may be faster than predicted" by the UN climate panel this year, she told reporters at the Aug. 20-22 seminar.
"I know of two islands that appeared in the north of Svalbard this summer. They haven't been claimed yet," said Rune Bergstrom, environmental expert with the Norwegian governor's office on Svalbard.
Interesting that while some still argue that the IPCC is spreading environmental propaganda, we keep hearing more and more expert opinion arguing that their predictions were too tame. While some still argue about the wisdom of relying on computer models, we have recent releases which suggest the computer models are wrong, the only difference, they tend to underestimate what is actually occuring.
10 comments:
"the IPCC was "restrained to the point of being seriously misleading" in toning down"
This has been my experience with all four IPCC reports. I personally think that they are over cautious because they know if they take a radical position in even one section or area and that position is found to be an exaggeration their reputation would be mud.
Anyone who says (and I have heard it repeatedly) that the IPCC is spreading global warming hysteria, has obviously never read one of their reports.
"I personally think that they are over cautious because they know if they take a radical position in even one section or area and that position is found to be an exaggeration their reputation would be mud."
I just find it amazing that people like yourself, that are obviously well versed, find the positions timid, meanwhile there is a group so detached from reality that they attack cautious as alarmist.
No, The climate chance models all underestimated global warmer because of a phenominon known as global dimming. This is the lowering of sunlight getting to the earth's surface because of particulate pollution and air plane exhaust. This phenomonon was around but discredited before Sept. 11, 2001. However, when all air travel was suspended, global temperatures rose about 2 degrees EVERYWHERE. We are continually reducing particulate pollution through increasing pollution controls expecially in developing nations. This is the factor that was not accounted for in global climate change models. Scientists now believe the models are off by about 2 degrees, now. Another test of this theory will be Beiing. As they redduce particlate pollution in China for the Olympics, temperatures will rise. global dimming
I meant climate change not climate chance of course.
sorry can't get that link to work just go to wikipaedia. its explained pretty clearly there. A reduction in Global Dimming has not been accounted for in climate change models.
The IPCC is a bogus, non-scientific UN panel of politicos. Every time they release a "Summary" they downgrade the dire predictions. The "Hockey Stick Graph" is now history, just like Hansen's skewed data is now discredited. Many scientists have removed their names from the IPCC scam reports . . . some even had to threaten lawsuits.
Imagine a real world problem . . . who would you put in charge? The UN . . . sooo nuts!!!
The next summary will even downgrade the threat even more . . . until they are talking about "Global Cooling" once again in 3 or 4 years.
anon
This link is relevant to your comment.
"The IPCC is a bogus, non-scientific UN panel of politicos."
Except for the 2500 non-political scientists who produce the IPCC reports.
"Every time they release a "Summary" they downgrade the dire predictions."
This is exactly 100% opposite from the truth. But it is proof that you have never read an IPCC report or summary and stick to reading your conspiracy literature.
"The "Hockey Stick Graph" is now history,"
Both the National Accademy of Sciences and the National Research Council Report have found that the corrections to Mann's original hockey stick were small. McIntyre's corrections were more error-prone then Mann's work. Plus about a dozen studies have all confirmed that the hockey stick graph is similar to Mann's original.
"just like Hansen's skewed data is now discredited."
Steve, nicely covered this in a previous post. You KNOW that you are completely FULL of SHIT on this.
"Many scientists have removed their names from the IPCC scam reports . . . some even had to threaten lawsuits."
There have been a couple who have removed their names, that is mainly because the IPCC has long incorporated as many skeptical scientists as possible (like Christy, Spencer, Landsea and even Michaels) as the science became stronger these skeptics lost a good deal of their influence with other scientists and some left. The case of note is Chris Landsea, who long held enormous influence over the IPCC in regards to hurricanes. In the last IPCC report Landsea found his influence was diminished due to the majority of scientific evidence regarding hurricanes showing that he was wrong. Landsea had a temper tantrum and left the IPCC saying that it was no longer listening to his opinions and had been overrun by politics. Pielke (a fellow skeptic) who was the first to post Landsea's letter (and was also the first to post McIntyre's recent find) latter backed away from supporting Landsea when he actually had a chance to read the section in the report regarding hurricanes. Pielke then stated: "that the actual IPCC report "maintain[s] consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts." Meaning that Landsea was pissed because he couldn't overrun the rest of the relevant scientists. Well Mr. Landsea there really must be a conspiracy if the IPCC takes all expert opinion into consideration instead of just yours. Sad.
"Imagine a real world problem . . . who would you put in charge? The UN . . . sooo nuts!!!"
Yes, examples where the UN didn't participate are huge successes. Iraq for instance. Political problems at the UN have no relevance to the solid work done by the IPCC.
"The next summary will even downgrade the threat even more . . . until they are talking about "Global Cooling" once again in 3 or 4 years."
Oh yes talking about "global cooling" again. That scientific consensus from the 70s which involved one Newsweek cover (well known for their accuracy in science reporting). Maybe you should check with the scientific magazines and journals for their articles on cooling. You will find, in fact that the scientific community at the time was already starting to worry about warming. And only a handful of scientists ever took cooling seriously.
Anon, certainly some of the computer models have underestimated warming due to dimming. I agree the wikipedia article is a good explanation.
"Except for the 2500 non-political scientists who produce the IPCC reports."
The guy is a ridiculous boob, with ideological tunnel vision.
Post a Comment