By Steven Goddard,
From The Vancouver Sun, a survey of leading climate scientists.
“More than half the experts think there is a more than 10 per chance we’ll get five degrees C warming under that scenario,” he says. “And five degrees C is gigantic,” says Keith, noting it is enough to “knock out” the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The meltwater would eventually raise sea level by as much as 100 metres.
The experts seem to be having a little difficulty with their maths. Temperatures have risen a whopping 0.7C over the last 120 ppm CO2 – but just for fun, let’s pretend that the next 150 ppm increase really did raise temperatures by 5C. What would that do to Antarctica? As you can see below, it would move the summer 0°C line inwards maybe 50 miles. At least 95% of the ice sheet would remain below freezing all year round. Ice does not melt below freezing. Warmer winter temperatures would mean more snow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic_surface_temperature.png
The video below shows in green the areas of Antarctica which would move above 0C in summer with 5C warming.
Ah – but what about Polar Amplification? While the earth has warmed 0.7C, Antarctica has warmed about 0.0c. That gives us an amplifcation factor of zero.
Must be the Ozone? I’m curious how one gets to be a “climate expert.”
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”
– Richard Feynman
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Climate optimum (9,000 – 5,000 BC) was about 4C warmer. It didn’t melt even Greenland which has been like this for at least 650,000 years.
Here…let me translate the article…
“It is known the climate will warm as a result of the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide bumped into the atmosphere each year through the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. But it is still not clear how much, says Keith, director of the U of C’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy.”
I need some climate ca$h and publicity for my institute, so I’m supplying hysterical statements on my research for an alarmist AGW article for the MSM. Global warming is a BIG DEAL! Please send me lots of climate ca$h – quickly.
A survey by Keith, an engineer, and colleagues, canvassed 14 leading climate scientists mostly from the IPCC. And concludes “There is more than a 10 per cent chance the planet could undergo dramatic warming even if humanity manages to curb emission in coming decades”.
Keep making it up as you go along. And a news paper prints this stuff?
“but just for fun, let’s pretend that the next 150 ppm increase really did raise temperatures by 5C. What would that do to Antarctica? As you can see below, it would move the summer 0°C line inwards maybe 50 miles.”
Comparable to temperature rises at the end of an ice age. It DOES melt the Scandinavian sheets, for example. It does so from the low lying edges. Thicker ice in the centre then runs out with accelerating speed, thinning the entire cap until it eventually reaches the freezing level.
But that 5° C is just a scary daydream, of course.
So, half of Climate “experts” think there is a 90% chance that the planet won’t warm by 5°c the other half are certain it won’t. Uh uh looks like high quality climate science stats to me. 🙂
Is there any info out there on snow accretion rates on greenland and antarctica? Particularly interesting would be the deposition rates as during the early holocene when we know it was warmer than now. That would give a pretty good basis for deciding it there would be growth or shrinkage of the icecaps with more warming.
Your real world observations and maths do not jive with my agenda, infidel. In computer models and leftwing virtual realities ice’s melting point is -20C and water’s boiling point is 0.1C.
Frank K . . . You’ve nailed it.
When it looks like their Gravy Train is slowing down, or they feel the need for more time on the Fame Train, they just make up some sh*t and issue a press release to the media.
People become journalists because math & science were too difficult for them at college.
“The risk just builds with every extra kilogram of CO2 we put in the air,” says Keith, who likens CO2 to nuclear waste.”
C02 is like nuclear waste? Amazing. Belief in CAGW/CC really does seem to be a type of mental illness.
“More than half the experts think there is a more than 10 per chance we’ll get five degrees C warming”
So more than half the experts think there is close to a 90% chance we won’t.
Which is more robust?
Must be the Ozone? I’m curious how one gets to be a “climate expert.”
Easy, you must first start trying “Kool-Aid”….and you will end, after receiving the Nobel prize, soliciting XXX massaging.
Actually I can’t see much science in this post, unless we should call science trivial math applied to complex problems.
temperature is measured in 1.5 m high and shadow.
monthly averages might hide temperatures that allow melting.
Steven, your ideas about temperatures below 0°C seem confused to me.
ps: how about that Barrow ice?
Suppose at some time an increase of 400 ppm to 500 ppm of CO2 occurs. This means 1 CO2 molecule is added to a group of 10000 air molecules and 4 CO2 molecules.
If this extra CO2 molecule increases the average temperature and therefor the average kinetic energy of the group of 10000 airmolecules with say only 1% then it should have an kinetic energy equal to the total kinetic energy of 100 airmolecules !!!.
The extra CO2 molecule receives its radiation energy from a small band in the infrared spectrum radiating from a surface with an average temperature of only 15 degrees Celcius .
The CO2 molecule must also transfers all the radiation energy it receives into kinetic energy and not into internal energy ?????.
If all this is true we should have great respect for CO2 the SUPERMOL
Take a look at this paper by Hansen:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1984/Hansen_etal_1.html
Click on the Download PDF at the bottom, and you’ll see where he gets his figures.
He assumes a feedback of 1.6 for water vapor, 1.3 for clouds, and 1.1 for ice/albedo effects.
I think the feeback factors are overestimated, but take a look at equations
#10 and #12. Anyone who has taken high school algebra should be able to figure out that they’re obviously wrong.
for a multiplier of 1.6, lambda must be 0.375 for water vapor, since 1/(1-0.375) = 1.6.
likewise, lambda must be 0.231 for clouds and 0.091 for ice/albedo feedback, using Hansen’s figures.
Hansen plugged in 1/(1 -.375-.231-.091) and got a multiplier effect of 3.3 total times the original increase of around 1.2 C for a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks.
Using Hansen’s equation, with 3 multiplier effects of 0.333… each, you get a combinded multiplier effect of
1/(1 – .333… -.333…-.333…)= infinity.
Using 4 feedbacks with lambda of 0.333, each, you get a multiplier of 1/(-.333) = MINUS 3, so instead of an increase of 1.2 C, you plug in that -3 multiplier and get a DROP of 3.6 C – obviously the equation is flawed badly.
Achab
So you are suggesting to hide error behind complexity? That is funny, because it is indeed the MO of climate science – like the hockey stick.
Eemian interglacial was only 2C warmer with oceans about 7m higher.
Oh and scienceofdoom had something to say about Mr Goddards Venus theory
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/12/venusian-mysteries/
But I have yet too see him respond, clearly Steve needs to teach scienceofdoom some science.
Indeed. The Alps, which are about the same height as the mountains in Antartica, are 20Celsius warmer than those at the COAST at the south pole. Doesn’t stop them having glaciers at the top however.
These “scientists” seem awfully keen to prove we are all going to be inundated with water. As I keep saying, the way to test this is not by awkward satellite measurements and models of ice sublimation at the poles. The simplest approach is to look at how much land mass is actually disappearing under the waves. Now why don’t they actually apply themselves to the simple task of comparing maps of the world’s coastlines from the last 100 years or so and measuring the difference? A few weeks spent in the British Museum Library and a paper could readily be put together. Interestingly the British Museum has a special exhibition on “Magnificent Maps” right now.
Why are they so intent on peering closely at an individual tree when they could take a good look at the whole forest?
Dear sod,
See OHC in the Arctic. Please interpret.
http://i45.tinypic.com/28iahe9.jpg
Thanks.
sod
You are quite confused. The UofA mass balance site is 8 miles NE of the city of Barrow webcam, and there is still plenty of ice there.
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup
Here is a video to help you understand. A chunk of ice broke off from adjacent to the city of Barrow a few days ago.
The North Pole never sees any melt until average temperatures get above zero C.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/
Looks like you just struck out.
RR Kampen says:
July 2, 2010 at 5:26 am
“but just for fun, let’s pretend that the next 150 ppm increase really did raise temperatures by 5C. What would that do to Antarctica? As you can see below, it would move the summer 0°C line inwards maybe 50 miles.”
Comparable to temperature rises at the end of an ice age. It DOES melt the Scandinavian sheets, for example. It does so from the low lying edges. Thicker ice in the centre then runs out with accelerating speed, thinning the entire cap until it eventually reaches the freezing level.
But that 5° C is just a scary daydream, of course.
———————————————————————————
Um, but you forgot something. It still snows on glaciers….Glaciers are about snowfall… not temperature. With a 5C rise there would be higher snow fall…. Glaciers would probably advance, not retract.
“Ah – but what about Polar Amplification? While the earth has warmed 0.7C, Antarctica has warmed about 0.0c. That gives us an amplifcation factor of zero.”
Therefore, a 5C rise in global temperature couldn’t melt much of the Antarctic ice sheet?
I don’t know about that logic.
In response to Hank W : July 2, 2010 at 6:04 am .
LoL… Aye, that’s the way I’ve looked at it also….. If a CO2 molecule was that powerful…. It’d have to wear its underpants on th’ outside;-)
One of the signs of bad theories or science, i.e. research headed off on the wrong track, is an enormous amount of complexity. The basic idea behind AGW is simple, but trying to make it fit with what we actually observe, involves incredibly tortuous adjustments and explanations.
E = hv, where v (“nu”) is the frequency of black-body electromagnetic radiation EMR, is trivial mathematics, high school algebra. On this basis, quantum physics is not complex, but rather subtle to the nth degree. Maxwell in the 1860s stated that all of physics’ fundamental equations could easily be traced upon his palm… if that offends credentialed sensibilities, so be it.