UN Climate Report Fails To Capture Arctic Ice: MIT 465
An anonymous reader writes "The United Nations' most recent global climate report 'fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends,' says a new research from MIT. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, forecasts an ice-free Arctic summer by the year 2100. However, the Arctic sea ice may be thinning four times faster than predicted, according to Pierre Rampal and his research team of MIT's Department of Earth, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS)."
Better link (Score:3, Informative)
Screw ibtimes, worthless ad-walling craps.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811113956.htm [sciencedaily.com]
Re:Doesn't matter what they report (Score:5, Informative)
So it's just an amazing coincidence that we'll have ice-free summers in the Arctic 200 years after we started burning fossil fuels en masse?
We have excellent "undeniable [reuters.com]" evidence of global warming. We have over 100 years of climatology that tell us that the carbon sensitivity is probably between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, starting with Arrhenius [wikipedia.org] and continuing to the latest estimations [wikipedia.org]. We have agreed that we want to keep the global temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius [wikipedia.org]. The only way we can achieve this goal is to begin reducing carbon dioxide emissions immediately, given the information we presently have. To me, that says "Act now!"
Re:Typical science news... (Score:3, Informative)
There is so much to say about the latest swine flu fiasco I wont get into it in details, because its a much too long converstation.
However, 18000 deaths for a seasonal flu is just par for the course and also much below average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flu_pandemic [wikipedia.org]
There are many reasons why the flu, though something to keep a close eye on, is not to be as feared as it once was. Nutrition, general population health and hygiene to name a few.
Now, I'm not against vaccines, keeping a close eye on the flu strains and even putting out warnings when necessary, however the 2009 swine flu scare was not a media scare, it was a Pharmaceutical scare. They had ramped up the scaremongering, production and used their influence in the WHO to make huge profits.
With the scaremongering and WHO feeding the frenzy, countries had no choice but to buy in and buy in WAY TOO MUCH. Even if the scare is fake, if all other countries are buying vaccines, not buying them could kill a political career. :) I've gone and started on the subject... like I said, there is much still to be said about this subject.
Re:Doesn't matter what they report (Score:5, Informative)
Non-anthropogenic causes (Score:5, Informative)
> It'll also give us time to weed out alternate explanations for the perceived global warming such as changes in solar activity, orbital configuration, or other non-anthropogenic possibilities.
What's an example of one that's not already been weeded out?
Solar output has been measured by satellite since 1978, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ACRIMIII/Images/solar_irradiance_right.gif [nasa.gov]. Orbit cycles have been understood for a long time.
Re:Doesn't matter what they report (Score:3, Informative)
So it's just an amazing coincidence that we'll have ice-free summers in the Arctic 200 years after we started burning fossil fuels en masse?
Could be. After all, coincidences still happen even in today's world. And that's part of my point. You don't want to set global policy based on coincidences.
We have over 100 years of climatology that tell us that the carbon sensitivity is probably between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, starting with Arrhenius and continuing to the latest estimations.
And this may well be right.
We have agreed that we want to keep the global temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius.
No, "we" haven't. For example, I'm not a signatory to the Treaty of Copenhagen, nor did I vote for Obama who did sign the treaty, and it's worth noting that his signature has no weight since the treaty was not ratified by US Congress. So not only do we have a random slashdot poster who hasn't bought in to the above, we have whole countries! Finally, there's a vast difference politically between a non-binding agreement to do something and actually doing that thing.
The only way we can achieve this goal is to begin reducing carbon dioxide emissions immediately
Oops. No evidence for your assertion. Plus, it's not a useful goal for us. We have to sacrifice more important goals such as poverty reduction and building a technological civilization.
Re:Doesn't matter what they report (Score:4, Informative)
The mechanism by which CO2 is theorised to retain heat is poorly understood and far from proven.
It's actually very well-understood. Arrhenius figured it out ages ago. The details in situ turn out to be moderately more complicated, but no intractable.
Water vapour has a far higher heat capacity to act as a greenhouse gas and yet isn't accounted for in most of the models,
I suspect talking science at you is like talking to a wall, but it's not heat capacity. Heat capacity is a different thing. Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas, It's also accounted for in most of the models, funny that. The reason it's not as significant a factor is that it's difficult to actually change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (overall).
Re:Doesn't matter what they report (Score:3, Informative)
You've misunderstood the IPCCs view on the sun.
They understand the Sun to be a major contributor to the climate, but they do understand that the recent warming is NOT due to the Sun for a number of reasons.
(1) The Suns output has not increased, yet temperatures increased.
(2) The Stratosphere is COOLING. This is important. If the Sun were warming things then the Stratosphere would NOT be cooling. This cooling is predicted to occur due to the physics of CO2 and is being observed.
Re:Doesn't matter what they report (Score:5, Informative)
It seems you're getting your info on environmentalists from Fox News stereotypes rather than the real world. Most intelligent environmentalists (the type you're likely to run into on Slashdot) DO advocate for nuclear power, and none want to turn the world communist or have us live in caves.