NASA’s updated data appears to suggest the annual rate of global polar ice loss has actually decreased
Greenland’s Riviera – their green southwest. Will another Maunder minimum
grip the region in cages of ice again, or will bells ring in the portside squares,
as they did in the 1300’s before that cooling came, and ships sailed the fiords?
(Source: NASA)
Excerpt:
Washington Post correspondant Juliet Eilperin, in her 12-26-08 report entitled “New climate change estimates more pessimistic,” dutifully surveys the latest bleak findings of the climate change community. Her primary source is a recently released survey comissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program – expanding on the findings of the 2007 4th IPPC Report on Climate Change. Apparently this “new assessment suggests that earlier projections may have underestimated the climatic shifts that could take place by 2100.” One of Eilperin’s primary examples of alarming new data is reported as follows:
“In one of the reports most worrisome findings, the agency estimates that in light of recent ice sheet melting, global sea level rise could be as much as 4 feet by 2100. The IPCC had projected a sea level rise of no more than 1.5 feet by that time, but satellite data over the past two years show the world’s major ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than previously thought. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are now losing an average of 48 cubic miles of ice a year, equivalent to twice the amount of ice that exists in the Alps.”
Three years ago what NASA quantified as an alarming loss of annual ice loss from Greenland was easily demonstrated at that time to be an insignificant loss, and today NASA’s updated data appears to suggest the annual rate of global polar ice loss has actually decreased since then.
http://ecoworld.com/blog/2008/12/26/pessimistic-reporting-optimistic-data/
Michael – I think you have the right ideas re a “broken science” blog but the tricky bit is how to apply them in the “real” world. All necessary change starts with oneself. I called my own project “RECLAIMING Climate Science” as I strongly believe in positive attitudes while starting from the real data and the real situation, however bad they may be. I started off knowing very little but just hanging on in there because I smelled a rat and in my world, integrity is important, and persistence achieves a lot. Call in at our forum.
TonyB (12:25 on 30/12): I attend the occasional UK sea level conference (which is why I was hoping Mary Hinge would tell everyone how accurate satellites aren’t) and there is a pecking order on this subject which in the UK’s case is:
The IPCC
EU Govt
British Govt
Defra
UK Govt agencies
This points to IPCC being the cornerstone, the key to unravel. And within IPCC, one finds pointers to the editing work done by just ONE scientist, Ben Santer, to vanish all the other 52 scientists’ conclusions that said they did not find any certainty of serious manmade climate effects, and to insert material which said they did.
An important bit of investigative work and publicity to be done here./viewforum.php?f=22″>our forum. There are others like Roger Pielke.
happy new year to all from a regulare lurker.
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.“
This is an interesting quote, however this scenario will never happen. The genie has been loosed from the bottle. What I believe WILL happen… Those countries that deindustrialize will become the slaves of those who do not. The most industrialized countries, with the added benefit of capitalism, won WWII.
Perhaps we should all bone up on Chinese.
“A “scientist” in NZ recently claimed that Koala bears may be endangered in NZ because ecalyptus trees will be harmed by increasing CO2 – thus, the bears will be killed on the ground when they leave one (dead) tree to get the next (dying ?) tree as they escape starvation. Well, http://www.co2science.com has 4 research articles alone that sow ecalyptus trees growing as much as 26% FASTER with increasing CO2.”
The so called scientist should realize that Koala Bears don’t live in NZ, at least not outside of a zoo. The Koala, which is not a bear as pointed out in a previous post, is indeed a marsupial which lives in Australia. I just got back from Aus and NZ, saw a few Koalas in Aus. They may be in some danger, but not due to GW, more due to other human activities like farming and residential housing projects which disrupt the forests that they need to live in. Its just more convenient to blame every problem on GW.
Maurice Strong and some other green leaders WANT the de-industrialization to occur, that’s why they fight ANY new technology to bring cheap and efficient energy to the masses. They know wind and solar are neither efficient nor cheap, so they let those pass.
There’s an interesting pdf (the link is on the page) on Greenland’s history during the last interglacial (Eemian):
http://www.agu.org/pubs/sample_articles/cr/2001JB001731/index.html
Their studies suggest Greenland’s icecap was less than half the volume then as today.
Pierre (and anyone else interested in a bet)-
I’m sorry my comment is being posted late, maybe I can put up a pointer at a more recent post as well. I’m very interested in betting over climate change and have arranged a bet with David Evans, who is now somewhat well known among the skeptics.
I would be interested in a fair bet over sea level rise, just as David and I negotiated a fair bet over temperature. Unfortunately, I don’t think the bet Pierre suggested is a fair one, and I believe the information he posted about Gore’s and Rahmstorf’s opinions on sea level rise in the next 100 years is inaccurate. I put the reasons and my suggestion for a fair bet at my own blog, here:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2009/01/sea-level-rise-id-love-to-bet-over-it.html
The summary is that skeptics who think temperatures haven’t risen over the last 11 years should believe that future sea level changes should be random, while I think the rise will continue at its current pace. Let’s bet at halfway in between the two positions.
I suggest we bet at Longbets.org to deal with trust issues, with all monies given to the charity chosen by the winner.
I look forward to hearing from you.
My own email to Juliet Eilperin:
Dear Ms. Eilperin,
I’m responding to someone who claims he challenged you to a bet over sea level rise. He inaccurately described Gore’s and Rahmstorf’s position on sea level rise and actually wanted to bet over a point that was within Rahmstorf’s predicted range of outcomes.
It’s not your job as a journalist to take sides anyway, but feel free to refer him or anyone to my response on a fair bet over sea level rise here:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2009/01/sea-level-rise-id-love-to-bet-over-it.html
Or a variety of bets I’m willing to make over climate change here:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_backseatdriving_archive.html#111700433898143899
Cheers,
Brian Schmidt