So much for exagerations in the models


Study: Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Most Scientists Project
04-30-2007 5:34 PM

BOULDER, Colo. (Associated Press) -- Arctic sea ice is melting three times faster than many scientists project, U.S. researchers reported Monday, just days ahead of the next major international report on climate change.

Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado in Boulder concluded, using actual measurements, that Arctic sea ice has declined at an average rate of about 7.8 percent per decade between 1953 and 2006.

By contrast, 18 computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-sponsored climate research group, estimated an average rate of decline of 2.5 percent per decade over the same period, the researchers said.

International delegates are meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, this week to hammer out the final wording of the third IPCC report.

Both the observations cited in the new study and projections from the IPCC computer models are for September, when Arctic sea ice is typically at its low point for the year. For March, when the ice is typically at its most extensive, the new study found the rate of decline was 1.8 percent per decade, about three times larger than the mean from the computer models.

The researchers said their observations indicate the retreat of summertime Arctic sea ice is about 30 years ahead of the pace projected by climate models.

"While the ice is disappearing faster than the computer models indicate, both observations and the models point in the same direction: the Arctic is losing ice at an increasingly rapid pace and the impact of greenhouse gases is growing," said NCAR scientist Marika Holland, one of the study's co-authors.

Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies who wasn't involved in the study, said the study is "a good reminder that uncertainty in model projections cuts both ways." Critics of some global warming scenarios say the models exaggerate the potential problems.

"My feeling (along with the authors) is that it is likely that the models are insufficiently sensitive," Schmidt said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. He said the reasons for the lack of sensitivity are unclear.

"Overall, the models have a track record of getting large scale changes right, particularly in temperatures, but at the regional scale (like in the Arctic), there is more variability," he wrote.

The Boulder-based researchers used a combination of early reports from aircraft and ships and more recent satellite measurements to come up with their observations of the ice melt.

They said the discrepancy between their observations and computer projections indicate computer models may have failed to portray the entire impact of increasing levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The computer models indicated that increased greenhouse gases and natural climate variations were about equally responsible for ice loss between 1979 and 2006, the researchers said. They said their own study indicates greenhouse gases may have a "significantly greater" role than the models suggested.

A number of factors may lead the computer models to underestimate the rate of decline in sea ice, the researchers said. Several models overestimated the thickness of the ice, and the models may have failed to fully account for changes in currents in the atmosphere and oceans that transfer heat to polar regions, they said.

The study, "Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster Than Forecast," will appear in the online edition of Geophysical Research Letters on Tuesday, three days before the IPCC issues its report.

___

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

In addition, the arctic ice melting has caused the seal population to decline. Of course, the annual seal hunt doesn't help either.
As one can see, there are two problems here. The Arctic sea melting, and the seal hunt. We need to take steps to stop both.

Why?

What are the ramifications for humanity if the seals die and the ice melts?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

It only matters to those of us who have souls.

kthxbye.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Of course, such an emotional response doesn't even come close to being an answer to the question.

I don't care if it "matters" to you or not.

What the the real ramifications of seals dying and ice melting?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Of course you don't care. I already know your stand on seals and environmental issues. Kill 'em all, the more the brutal the slaughter the better. Am I close?

I believe the economic impact is a more determining factor. If efforts to combat global climate change have a negative impact on the next quarter's bottom line, then it should not be implemented. Kinda like urging the doctor to pull the plug on Grandma so your soon to be inheritance is not diminished. What the hell, she was going to die soon anyway, and she is a net drain on everyone's pocketbook.

Stay on topic and answer the question.

Focus, PuJii/3.14/Rahul, focus...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

If it was just seal dying i suppose it would only matter to the seals and the small amount of poeple who rely on them for their subsistence (we have no right to destroy this, if indeed we are the cause). But in reality the seal is part of the larger ecosystem that surrounds it. Polar bears feed on seals, and seals feed on fish. Take away the seal rapidly, and you throw the system off balance, changing more than we could possibly predict.

But more alarming would be the disappearances of ice in the arctic. Constant ice cover in the north contributes to the cooling of the earth through the reflection of sunlight off the glaring white surface. Its called albedo and it is a significant factor in the climate system. As the ice disappears the darker ocean is exposed, this absorbs even more heat from the sun, and contributes to the further warming of the climate and the warming of the oceans. This is a positive feedback loop X2. First we have the extra heat from less sunlight reflection off the ice, and on top of that a warmer ocean might release methane from calthrates stored in the ocean.

The loss of arctic ice would also result in warmer temps throughout North America (arctic cold fronts would not be near as cold). This is not good for agriculture.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

The polar bear population is also on the decline as their habitat is melting away.

one we can't stp. it is nature. However, when it comes to the seals. as I have said before that should be rergulated and perhaps (repeat) PERHAPS, be halted if the problen is severe enough.

one we can't stop. it is nature. However,

when it comes to the seals. as I have said before that should be rergulated and perhaps (repeat) PERHAPS, be halted if the problen is severe enough.

Special note to 3.14: See, you have now posted something that seems Really relevant instead of just a rant.

Doniston.

Well, we appear to disagree on the issue of seal numbers reducing significantly due to the hunt itself, but I've now provided a link which shows their numbers to be declining not just due to the hunt, but also the disappearance of the ice floes.

As for not being able to stop the ice from disappearing, well, there is a lot we can do to combat global warming, however, I am unsure if anything will resolve the situation fully. Perhaps mankind has already dug it's grave (figuratively speaking!).

I am sorry if my posts on the other thread sound like a rant full of pictures, but sometimes that is the only way to draw attention to the subject. Otherwise, people simply ignore the topic.

I have to disagree. One can't measure damage to the climate/environment/earth simply in terms of dollars. In addition, the consequences are far reaching and the issue will eventually impact everyone financially anyway, probably.

That makes no sense. The damage to the landbase is directly correlated to the economy. I.e., the more successful the economy, the greater destruction to the landbase.

It only stands to reason that if we are going to have more respect for the land and the earths systems, the more we will have to sacrifice the economy.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown