Single Page
Climate change panel's 2007 predictions on Arctic ice loss too optimistic?By now, the drumbeat of satellite observations, field reports and headlines have become a familiar rite of autumnal doom across the Far North: Arctic sea ice shrinks again. Arctic sea ice has thinned faster than expected. Arctic sea lanes have opened sooner than thought possible. The polar sea has been losing about 10 percent of its permanent ice every decade since 1980, with the 2011 melt season delivering the lowest volume seen during the modern age, and virtually matching the minimum record for the smallest extent set in 2007. If the current trend continues, some scientists say, the polar ocean could become essentially ice free during summers within a decade or two. That outcome is about 80 years sooner than what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2007. So what gives? It turns out those IPCC supercomputing climate models, which conjured the once-unthinkable possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean by summer of 2100, all fumbled a key calculation. They underestimated just how fast thinning floes could exit south to the Atlantic Ocean where they would melt into slushy oblivion. Arctic sea ice has been about thinning four times faster than previously forecast and is now at least 40 years ahead of some previous worst-case estimates for its summertime demise, according to new research by a French-American team of scientists published in the Journal of Geophysical Research. "This strong underestimation of sea ice thinning and drift acceleration in models would imply that former projections for an ice‐free summer in the Arctic by 2100 ... are too conservative," wrote the four authors, including Jean-Marshal Campin at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, along with three other scientists from French research institutions, the Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques and the Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l’Environnement. "When this mechanism was taken into account to correct the discrepancy between simulations and observations, results from the new model suggested that there will be no Arctic sea ice in summer by the end of the century," the authors added in this story about the research. The problem comes down to how the computer models envision the speed that ice will flow out of the Arctic through Fram Strait into the warmer waters of the Atlantic. Within the immensely complex computer models, this mass of sea ice drifts "freely" -- at the same speed, no matter the season or thickness. But in the real world, the movement of sea ice out of the Arctic has been speeding up while the floes shrink and bust up. It makes sense that a soup of bits and pans would be able to drift much faster than a gridlocked jumble of island-sized bergs and growlers. "Sea ice has become thinner and more fragile," the scientists explained this story. "Because it breaks up more easily, its mobility is increased, as is its export from the Arctic Ocean through the Fram Strait between Greenland and the Svalbard archipelago, followed by its melting." In the paper, the scientists tweaked the model estimates to take into account the acceleration of ice export. The results were chilling. "This mechanism suggests that, well before the end of the century, the Arctic Ocean will be devoid of sea ice in late summer," they explained. "The disappearance of Arctic sea ice will probably occur in the next few decades, with far-reaching consequences for ecosystems, sea routes and off shore exploitation of resources." Contact Doug O'Harra at doug(at)alaskadispatch.com More rubbish from the Church of Climatology. Fraudulent liar scientists who want to keep their bohemian lifestyle and grant money by crafting up lies for the oligarchical collectivists who want to bring about a new world order and tax every human for breathing air. The Church of Climatology, despite being totally discredited, caught in lies, and well over half the peer-reviewed published scientists who disagree with the Church of Climatology the political and propaganda war the Church of Climatology rages on. Despite being disproven, caught in fraud, proven to be frauds, liars, political hacks and propagandists, we are still bombarded with half baked lies. In this study, the "researchers" threw out NINTEY FIVE percent of the datapoints to make it look like its a bad ice situation. They cheery pick the outliers and bad data points, average those, and call it AGW. Frauds caught red handed. Strictly speaking, bergs and growlers come from glacier’s or ice shelves. Though I’m not a rabid language prescriptivism, I’ve gotta complain. Some of these ice types are mixed into the flow exiting the Arctic Ocean over the top of and down the east coast of Greenland, but the cited study deals with the vast greater bulk of ice formed on the Arctic Ocean’s surface, not that formed on land (glacial) or grounded on the coasts of the northern most lands where any meaningful periods of open water haven’t existed for many centuries (ice shelf). All climate issues are spun relentlessly, with every lack of precision seized-on and trumpeted as evidence of evil doings by those blatantly fabricating woo in hopes that something sticks on the wall. The public has for several years accepted predictions of pending ice-free summers on the Arctic Ocean as another aspect of the "Climate Change" nee "Anthropogenic Global Warming" discourse. So although researchers may exert the discipline to examine Arctic conditions as relatively 'stand-alone' science questions, the public hears "Ice Free" as an alternate pronunciation of "Global Warming". The public standing of AGW reach its zenith in 2005, and polls in 2006 began showing (uh-oh) slippage. For the past 5 years, Climate Politics has been steadily losing public mind-share. Al Gore made several especially-dramatic pronouncements on Arctic Ocean ice, doing perhaps more than any other singe contributor to put the subject on a Late Nite Comedy footing. Professional scientists can of course ignore Al Gore & Co, in their technical work. But their appeal for authority on these matters, not to mention their expectation of credibility, comes up against an eroding public opinion of their field. The military is vastly better-equipped, better-funded, better-staffed and better-trained to conduct climate & weather studies, than all of the non-military agencies & institutions combined. In the oceans, at depths, their submarines continuously collect data that any oceanographer would kill for. "Academic oceanography" compares with the classified activities of the US Navy and Pentagon, as "Kung Bushman oceanography" would compare with theirs. The atmosphere throbs 24/7/365 with Air Force planes sending telemetry to centralized data collection & analysis facilities ... which have been in continuous service for well over half a century. (The Roswell UFO myth emerged in the context of stratospheric research being conducted by the military.) On the ground, the Pentagon (CIA, NSA, State Dept., etc) run more than 100 permanent, large bases around the world, with special further attention devoted to those regions of the world where we do *not* have bases. All of them harnessed into orchestrated data-gathering roles. That climate studies & students conduct themselves as though the military isn't there, when in fact they are deep within their shadow, is fascinating. President Obama is entirely uninvolved with any of the civilian climate-related agencies under his authority (except for politics). He pays no attention to climate-guru Dr. James Hanson, at GISS. But he confers closely with his Pentagon liaison (and a wide range of transient military & intelligence specialists), almost daily. The simply reality is, climate and the possibility of climate change has been a top-level National Security matter since the day we became aware of them. Significant fluctuations of the climate, or especially-dramatic or sustain deviations from typical weather could very seriously damage, cripple, or destroy us. Therefore, 'climate' is in reality under the military purview. Has been, all along. You are correct that the U.S. Department of Defense is engaged in long-range planning for its relevant needs based on current findings of climate science. Also ballistic science, nuclear science, and what ever other science that applies to the rational requirements of the DOD, which is essentially concerned with the multi-disciplinary "military science." For climate planning, DOD relies on science provided by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its collaboration with NASA. Both of these are astonishing organizations. Especially, these days, NOAA. So then, if nine doctors at nine different major hospitals, each independently gave you CAT scans MRIs, biopsies, etc. and each independently said you had cancer and six months to live, and then an additional doctor said you just need to eat more spinach... I had an early Junior High science-class teacher in the mid-1960s. One day, in the fully occupied classroom, he mixed a half-cup of powdered sulfur with a half-cup of powdered zinc in a small porcelain bowl, inserted a magnesium strip into the powder, and put a match to the fuse. The improvised, inverted rocket engine burned violently & brightly for a few seconds, a dense column of hot, opaque smoke hit the ceiling and spread out rapidly, swirling toward the pre-opened high-boy windows. Wow. "Ok, come on" - he beckons us out into the hall, and closes the door. We loiter excitedly while the fumes clear. We also had radioactive samples, and a Crook's Tube. I pressed him for a fuller account of atomic & sub-atomic goings-on. A few days later he quietly slips me a book: "Nuclear Physics: A Programmed Learning Text". Oh, my. A few year later I enlisted in the Naval Nuclear Power Program, and volunteered for submarines. Did the standard 6-year nuke tour, 1970-76. I was an implacable 'little scientist', and have spent a lifetime backpacking & camping along the remote scientific boundaries. That (and the real backcountry) is the best part of the world, to me. But the world of backcountry science is like the Alaskan bush: although it can be exciting and beautiful and rewarding, it pays not to gloss over the downside & darkside. It's there, in both cases. Those of us who love it, don't care; but that's not the same as ignoring it. I don't care that my chainsaw - at any time - can shred the meat off my arm to the bone. It does not discourage me or stress or bum me, at all. But I am "religiously" attentive to the liabilities inherent in my use of the tool ... and the Rules that minimize the chances of a 'false move'. Just as we see unguided enthusiasm & romanticism lead Alaskans to places they shouldn't have gone, in the bush; science & scientists also have their all-too-real susceptibilities, weaknesses & liabilities. Individually & in concert, they face the consequences of 'false moves' that are always possible with the tools & techniques they employ. I would be perfectly happy to 'see' that carbon dioxide is driving a determinative climatic dynamic. It would be no skin off my nose, if it was. (I am a serious 'individualist', and never adapted to "institutions": not the military, not academia, not business & corporate life. They are all 'alien' to me.) But I do not 'see', cannot 'follow' this assertion about CO2, and this is where my core ability comes into play ... comes to bear. The 'stepping stones' to the CO2 conclusion on the far bank, aren't all there. Some of those that are in view, are of unknown & untestable stability. Computers are wonderful, for me, and I love them. Scientific Models, too - absolutely. But I know, as a programmer, and as a deeply experienced science student, that both have decided limits. I also know that real science is often a matter of withstanding the scorn of "consensus" - a theme that repeats as a virtual Icon within the culture of science. Repeatedly, progress is a matter of overcoming consensus. Scientists can be terrible conformists: problems with consensus-structures long predate CO2 & climate investigations. |
Comments