COP15: Gore and Støre Report on Arctic's Melting Ice

We can get off most fossil fuels within 20-30 years if we put a concerted effort into solar, wind, fuel cells, electric cars, algae biofuels, and new nuclear technologies.
We also need a new national smart power grid to move electricity.
We can use a carbon tax on fossil fuels to pay for it, and it'll provide millions of JOBS that can't be exported.
Europe & China are ALREADY doing this and America will lose out in future green energy technologies, if we don't.
We owe it to our grandchildren.

BTW: It has been stated in the Polish media that Mr. Masłowski had his data used and presented in a Gore-friendly manner, that is - manipulated one.

I want to hear from China in COP15

This is a very good point.
Another very good point I have heard is that "dirty ice" may impact melting.

Well, you've certainly said one thing that we can agree on: as temperature goes up, more ice melts. As a matter of fact, you're not going to find too many people who dispute that "assumption" - try Richard Lindzen, though!



But that this seems to make you optimistic suggests that you don't yet see the potential consequences.

1) Your math for the rate of disappearance of sea ice depends on the assumption that the amount of ice is equivalent to the surface area, but in fact the surface area rebound of 2008 was accompanied by a LOSS of overall volume (don't have numbers yet for 2009). There has been drastic thinning in the last four years (by 22.2"), and a reduction by 40% of multi-year ice in February. (These data are from ICEsat measurements). I don't think that I need to argue for the precedence of volume over surface area.

2) Your math also depends on no positive feedback supervention; but that is a difficult assumption to support, since we know that dark, iceless water absorbs more heat.

3) You yourself have reminded us that the sun also forces the climate; in fact we are apparently at a hundred-year low for solar activity, despite the fact that there has been a drastic reduction of Arctic sea ice. But the solar cycle, while variable, has predictably shown a ten- to twelve-year period, so it would be surprising if there were not a steady increase in solar irradiance over the next few years, with a concomitant increase in forcing.

4) The drastic reduction in ice volume has also occurred in spite of mild to strong La Nina conditions. We appear to be moving into the El Nino phase, which predictably accompanies (or causes, whatever it is) warmer temperatures globally.

5) Meanwhile, we are increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases. If you believe that there is no forcing from them, God bless you, but at this point that looks naive, or else in denial.

I think that you're going out on a limb with your apparently confident claim about the MWP, since there is reasonable disagreement about whether the numbers apply worldwide, or indeed what the numbers are; as I understand it the data are not from the Arctic as you claim, but in any case, and in the real world, your theory of the robustness of the sea ice there is testable and is being tested. Give me a call in, shall we say, five to seven years?

More fundamentally, the problem of sea ice doesn't suddenly begin when it disappears completely; the warmer water that we have now threatens to disintegrate the tongues of ice of the Greenland Ice Sheet that project into the water, which prevent glacial flow into the ocean by buttressing the glaciers. I take it you watched the video that we are commenting on (!): the news there is that the IPCC report was too conservative in its prediction of Greenland melt.


This is a contradiction. If the sun is forcing the climate, then there is one element, at least, that is not chaotic - that is to say, that is driving the chaotic elements of climate in a definite direction. And in fact the sun is one among several elements that force the climate, including greenhouse gases, aerosols, volcanoes, and ozone (and solar irradiance increases ozone, so these elements interact to some extent). The forcing from greenhouse gases and ozone appears to be substantial, and substantially more than the sun itself (though your Dr. Lindzen certainly has his reservations about how much they participate).

Dr. Lindzen, I believe, is performing a signal service with his critiques. He is exactly what climate science needs at this decisive moment: a gadfly. I think that his personality and personal psychology are irrelevant.

The IPCC modeling does indeed need tweaking, now that we've seen how conservative it was.

Thanks for engaging. After the last exchange I didn't think that I'd hear from you again, frankly. Nothing personal if I don't respond further; I've got to get on with other things. Good luck, and if you're working for an oil company I'd advise you to formulate an exit strategy, especially if you're in the southwest United States or live on the coast!


.

I am a pretty optimistic guy. It is reasonable to assume that more sea ice would melt in the summer period due to higher temperatures from the 1970's onwards. The raw data does not particularly concern me to alarm. If we extrapolate the trend it would take roughly 40 years for the entire of the sea ice to melt. If the Arctic ice sheet did not entirely melt during the 300 year period of the medieval warming where temperatures in that region were 1 degrees Celsius warmer than today I think it is safe to assume it won't during this warm period. I like to reiterate that climate is a chaotic system. It seems like we are at the mercy of the sun.

I read your comment before about non-scientists and I was wondering would a phd engineer, majors in chemical and environmental engineering with four years industry experience be sufficient to enter this debate?

Here is a link of 140 scientists with their credentials that dispute: http://www.copenhagenclimatechalleng...=article&id=64

I was wondering; do you have any idea where I can view papers and the data corresponding to experimentally deduced carbon dioxide absorptivity relating to its concentration?

There was a good paper by Professor Richard Lindzen but I would like to review the subject further. I distrust the computer modeling used by the IPCC after reviewing the code produced at the CRU.

Thanks for the link; I appreciate a discussion without name-calling and with a willingness to engage the facts.

On the contrary, the link you provide shows that the minima for 2008 and 2009 are both lower than any year except 2007; the drop has not by any stretch been, as you put it, "mitigated". If you look at all the data from 1979 on, there is an unmistakeable downward trend; it is only in 2007 that "the bottom falls out." The partial recovery in 2008 and 09 only brings the minimum up to about 3.5 million square km. This is not cause for optimism.

In the ten years previous to that the average was over 4; from 1979 to 1988 the average was over 5. Note the scale; there's just a lot less ice in the summer than there used to be. I would remind you that it is the amount of summer (minimum) ice that is at issue, since it is then that a warmer Arctic Ocean poses a threat to the Greenland land ice.

It should concern us greatly that this has happened in spite of a prolonged solar minimum. Given its 10-12 year cycle, the sun is due for increased activity sometime soon.


.

The news media should indeed discuss the other data, though the breakups of the Wilkins Ice Shelf (which, by the way, is the size of Connecticut; also by the way, it's not "Wilkens") and also the Larsen B Ice Shelf are naturally dramatic, and drama is usually judged more newsworthy.

Your source's claim that "The sea ice around the (Antarctic)continent is far above average (ref. UIUC)" is not supported by a reasonable interpretation of the data. Simply citing UIUC doesn't help much without a link, by the way.

Here's a more useful link for you: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html (from the National Snow and Ice Data Center). What this shows is that there is no discernible trend in 30 years; February (end of summer) 2009 sea ice is about where it was in 1979, and close to the 30-year mean - definitely NOT "far above average". Your source might be referring to the increase of summer 2008 (still not "far above average" though); but it was back down again in 2009.

That might sound like good news, but it's not. From 2007, succinct and comprehensible for non-scientists like yourself:

http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/walse/statement.html

The Amundsen Sea Embayment is one of the three basins for ice drainage in the WAIS. Both the grounded ice sheet and the ice shelf are thinning. This may explain why the water is still cold, since ice is melting off the ice shelf. Dr. Hansen claims that the loss is on the order of 100 cubic km per year; I can't tell where that number comes from, but it's likely from the work of Dr. Rignot at JPL, whom he cites. Get back to us if you find a different number.

While you're at it you should look up Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey. Here's a readable start:

http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-55525.html


Who are these 30,000? If you can count them, on what list are they to be found? Tell you what, pick 30 of them and list them with their qualifications and links to their work.

You're not going to persuade a lot of people by calling them "sheeple". I'll be blunt: you sound condescending as hell. I'll go further: I don't like being called a follower by someone who doesn't show any grasp of the issue beyond vague claims of a secret army of dissenting scientists and a link to someone's blog with dubious scientific merit. I'm tempted to ask: Who's the sheep here?


.

If you would take the time to look at this graph (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...rrent.area.jpg) posted on the cryosphere website you would notice that the loss of sea ice during 2007 has been mitigated by the increase in the amount of sea ice in 2008 and 2009.

@RMarkey
"1. Gore did NOT say the ice caps will disappear--he said that Dr Maslowsky feels that there is a 75% chance that within the next 7 years the North Polar icecap will be Ice Free."
This Dr Maslowsky later said publicly that Gore misquoted him.

"2. EVEN IF the data for Global Warming is questionable, ie, does not paint a simple Black and White picture that so many would like (like: Smoking causes cancer), the corollary FACTS are unambiguous:
A. Air pollution is NOT conducive to health.
B. Water pollution kills life in the foodchain.
C. Humans are a dependent life form in the web of life on earth.
D. Pesticide and "antibiotic" resistance is growing in species.
E. Arctic habitats changing more radically today than in ANYONE's memory."

I agree we need to stop polluting the planet but:
CO2 the gas that Gore want to restrict is not a pollutant but a natural essential part of the atmosphere. It is NOT harmful to humans or animals and is essential to plant growth and for proper respiration of mammals (which includes us).

This Climate change SCAM is very dangerous for our environment as it would divert huge resources towards limiting a harmless essential gas and away from tackling the REAL pollutants.

If you cannot see that, I think it's you who should leave.