Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Arctic sea ice reported melting 30 years ahead of projected pace
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Last update: April 30, 2007 - 9:46 PM

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

Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 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 (IPCC), 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.

We can't trust those computer models because they are way off...

Walter, the fact that the forest surface is now the same than in the 14th century (which I seriously doubt) does not refute my claim that it has dramatically shrunk up until the start of 20th century...

High Seas wrote:

hamburger wrote:

i noticed that the report high seas is citing was issued "10/18/01" -
or am i mistaken ?

An actual reading of the report will clear this up in your mind, Hamburger..

Was the report not issued in 2001?

minitax, you accused the British of being hysterical, but I detect a note of hysteria in your posts of late, even if not hysterically funny.

First, no one doubts peak oil anymore. Governments dont. Oil companies dont, and an increasing number of the general public dont. Its just the timing that is in doubt. It ranges from NOW to 2030 or so, depending on who you listen to. Its the sort of phenomenum we cant predict precisely, and probably wont be able to pin it down until we have passed it. But even so, 25 years is not a long time ahead.

A few "flat earth" economists still believe oil supply is dependent on demand and price, but petroleum geologists know better.

As for GW being a figment of my imagination, or whatever it was you said, that is rather typical of some of the silly things you have been coming out with lately.

George, you are of course correct that all human activity generates CO2. The manufacture and fabricating of concrete structures generates a lot. As does the manufacture of solar panels or whatever. All I was saying is that to get an accurate measure of the carbon footprint of any endeavour, you have to take into account not only the carbon dioxide produced during its lifetime, but also the CO2 generated in building or manufacture and in disposal or decommissioning.

I was not arguing for the extermination of mankind.

Fear of catastrophie and the collapse of optimism about the future appears to be an increasingly widespread phenomenon among Europeans, particularly the British. Perhaps this is a by product of the ageing populations and increasingly rigid social welfare systems that prevail there.

parados wrote:

We can't trust those computer models because they are way off...

Come on Parados. Don't pretend you are interested in facts :wink:
That study suits you only because it's highly alarmist, that's it all about.

Steve 41oo wrote:

First, no one doubts peak oil anymore. Governments dont. Oil companies dont

Those are ludicrous claims you can only find on peak oil web sites. Show us a single oil company document or a government (from the energy department, the ones who know what they talk about) official declaration which support what you said. If you can't, what you say is just what peakoiler have repeated for nearly 20 years : unfounded hysteria from people with a near religious attraction for catastrophy propheties. (I gave earlier a link to trendline.ca which has plotted different prediction from EIA, IEA, Total, Exxon...).

What they don't want you to know about the coming oil crisis.
Soaring fuel prices, rumours of winter power cuts, panic over the gas supply from Russia, abrupt changes to forecasts of crude output... Is something sinister going on? Yes, says former oil man Jeremy Leggett, and it's time to face the fact that the supplies we so depend on are going to run out.

Many of the official sources of data used to model oil peak such as OPEC figures, oil company reports, and the USGS discovery projections, upon which the international energy agencies base their own reports, can be shown to be very unreliable. Several notable scientists have attempted independent studies, most notably Colin Campbell

That petroleum production will one day peak and subsequently decline is but a tautology -- hardly an interesting "discovery"

Walter posted before I could edit my previous post ...
And re Walter's post: CERA is not ExxonMobile

Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast?

From 1953 to 2006, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the melt season in September has declined sharply. Though all models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report show declining Arctic ice cover over the observational record, none of the models individually shows trends comparable to observations during this time period. Hypothesizing that the average of all model simulations provides an accurate representation of both natural and human-induced climate change feedbacks in the Arctic, Stroeve et al. (2007) suggested that 33-38% of the observed September trend from 1953 to 2006 is externally forced by greenhouse gas emissions. If only the past 27 years are considered, changes induced by greenhouse gas emissions increase to 47-57% of the observed September trend. Given that as a group, the models still underestimate observed ice loss, the authors expect that the externally forced component of Artic sea ice decline may be larger. This suggests that the Arctic could be seasonally free of sea ice earlier than the IPCC projections, which range from 2050 to well beyond 2100.

Published: 01 May 2007

View full article. (Subscription required.)

Citation: Stroeve, J., M. M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos, and M. Serreze (2007), Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L09501, doi:10.1029/2007GL029703.

HokieBird wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes that information has been posted in various forms several times Hokie, and each time it is ignored or dismissed by the pro-AGW crowd.

Of equal interest is that Pluto is also warming. I wonder if all the planets in between here and Pluto are also warming?

I thought Steve41oo might want to start a movement to save the Martian polar bears.

(They'd pay attention if they could find someone on Mars to tax)

I dont care about Martian polar bears, nor much about terrestrial hokie birds....when they come out with silly comments like that.

Steve 41oo wrote:

HokieBird wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes that information has been posted in various forms several times Hokie, and each time it is ignored or dismissed by the pro-AGW crowd.

Of equal interest is that Pluto is also warming. I wonder if all the planets in between here and Pluto are also warming?

I thought Steve41oo might want to start a movement to save the Martian polar bears.

(They'd pay attention if they could find someone on Mars to tax)

I dont care about Martian polar bears, nor much about terrestrial hokie birds....when they come out with silly comments like that.

Silly is how I'd describe your eco-religion global warming scam, so good choice of words there.

Fruitcake is how I'd describe anyone buying into the "peak oil" scaremongering.