The definitive word 5

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Laurence Aurbach Posted 7:12 am
   02 Feb 2007

   phase changeI know this was previewed in the media, but I still think it's kind of a bombshell:
   Current models suggest [Greenland] ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C. If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m.
   -- IPCC Summary p. 13
   In other words, if the status quo continues for some (unspecified) number of centuries, the models are telling us we'll see the huge rises in sea level that Al Gore warned about. Say goodbye to Miami, Venice, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, etc. And this is supposed to be a conservative consensus document.
   The Real Climate folks say this:
   How good have previous IPCC reports been at projecting the future? Actually, over the last 16 years (since the first report in 1990), they've been remarkably good for CO2 changes, temperature changes but actually undepredicted sea level changes.
   I never knew melting ice could be so chilling.

   Permalink

2. 

   amazingdrx Posted 7:56 am
   02 Feb 2007

   Forget millenia LaurenceExponential rates of ice melting don't give us anywhere near millenia.
   Perhaps the IPCC report writers all live in southern climes?  It is very hard to understand how scientists could overlook the factor of exponential growth. Exponential growth is science and mathematics 101.
   Watching ice melt every spring here all my life, it was truly shocking to see the movie and realize it is happening right now on a global scale, but people are not sufficiently alarmed because they must not understand the exponential nature of ice melting.
   Maybe watching an ice cube in a glass might help?  Yikes.  What a scientifically illiterate culture we have.  But even scientists themselves unaware of one of the  most basic principles? Unbelievable!
   "The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest" Albert Einstein
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

3. 

   gamoonbat Posted 3:38 am
   03 Feb 2007

   Ice sheet decayI do not think the omission was due to a lack of understanding about fundamental concepts. An exponential decrease would have to be represented with more sophisticated mathematics than are being used for the other sea level rate calculations. There are models, but they have not used them before and will have to tinker. They may not have a glaciologist on the panel right now.

   Permalink

4. 

   amazingdrx Posted 4:10 am
   03 Feb 2007

   Hope you're rightPersonally I think that political pressure was brought to bear on the panel to minimize this and other aspects that would certainly frighten the public.  
   Some think that we all ought to be frightened, as people were here in their last great battle against almost certain doom, WW2.
   Some think that fear is politically counter productive, since it is already a propaganda weapon over used by the exxonmob and it's political servants, this administration, the GOP, and the wing nut media.
   The trouble with that POV, is that it leaves our side vending it's own propganda.  Always ending up pandering for "credibility" by repeating conventional wisdom.  That conventional wisdom is skewed to the anti- GHG climate change mob POV by their propaganda campaign.  So our side ends up spreading their propaganda.
   All to try and gain credibility!  mighty strange.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

5. 

   Jones Posted 9:43 am
   04 Feb 2007

   No Offense Dr X,But I'm going to go with the thousands of respected scientists on this one. I don't doubt your observations--I've seen it happen myself. But assuming that you caught on to something that the entire scientific community missed, is precisely what the denialists do.Let's remember that the beginning of any exponential curve is very shallow. The first couple years of compound interest don't get you squat.
   About getting the message out: I always say to myself "it's common sense, stupid". People still think of the earth as a charity. I just keep calmly reminding them of the fudamental calculus: "economy" + "climate chaos" = "oh shit" or "nuclear proliferation" + "tense international situation" + "climate chaos" = "oh shit"
   Bottom line is, if this were a military or terrorist situation and there was, say, a 30% chance of an enemy attack, the government would be out curtailing freedoms left right and centre, and the public would be loving it. Climate Change has a much better chance of succeding, and only a small chance of not causing chaos when it does, and yet we're incredibly complacent.
   People have had a bit of an avoidance-response to climate change so far, but I think that when people stop to ponder the facts, as they're beginning to do, then they'll appreciate that driving an SUV is roughly equivalent to dangling your 3-year-old  over the balcony railing of a Berlin Hotel. Playing games with your children's future.
   Al Gore's huge success came from talking calmly and straighforwardly about the risks involved. Then Katrina, warming-related or not, provided us with a concrete example of that risk. And that's what we've all got to do. Just lay out the facts as you know them. Leave it to them to be be alarmed.

   Permalink