New study backs UN's global warming projections

My My. The author (Mark Siddall of Britain's University of Bristol) must be spinning in circles trying to grasp how his work can be so misconstrued.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-0...

He actually concluded that historical relations between CO2 and sea level imply a 25 meter rise over time, a significant increase on the IPCC estimate of 7m ( mostly assuming that only Greenland and some of West Antarctica will melt).

And the IPCC projection of 18-59 centimetres over the next century SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED the highly uncertain contribution from ice sheets.

The study actually suggests that sea level rise will be on the order of one to two meters, totally different than this journalists claims.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14634-s...

See. That? Rather than 'confirm' IPCC estimate, it confirms that the water from ice sheets is going to be the major factor and that sea level rise will be much higher from it.

LessHype: very helpful. Thanks.

What is "helpful" about predictions of what MIGHT happen in 100 years time?

It says the oceans are warming.

As the oceans warm, they release CO2 like an open soda going flat.

Brian_G wrote:

It says the oceans are warming.
As the oceans warm, they release CO2 like an open soda going flat.

They would if it weren't for the fact that the partial pressure has increased by 40%. The partial pressure wins.

Northie wrote:

LessHype: very helpful. Thanks.

Actually, I goofed. The paper referenced was this one.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-0...
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurr...

His current work seems to agree that ice sheet retreat will be relatively slow for now. Of course, it does more or less match the fourth IPCC estimates.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_...

See the section on "Clarification on the Report’s Sea Level Rise Projections" which acknowledge that the contribution from ice sheets is poorly modelled and the IPCC estimates "exclude future changes in ice sheet behavior because of limited understanding of how to quantify potential changes from this source"

I.e.the high end forecast is almost certain to be too low unless we know more than we THINK we do.

Thanks again. Leave it to the IPCC to play it too safe.

Yawn...still a lot of guessing going on, both in the report and in its interpretation...

Northie wrote:

Leave it to the IPCC to play it too safe.

What a good idea, leave it to the IPCC to keep you in the dark.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2009/05/2...

http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2007/11/ip...

Northie wrote:

Thanks again. Leave it to the IPCC to play it too safe.

They have little choice. Because they are defining the science behind meaures that may cost money, they have to be sure of their facts, so any factor which is not nailed down with ten inch spikes has to be left as commentary.

Since we DO have a lot of evidence of factors which will increase ice sheet deterioration, it means that we should NOT expect the lower end of the forecast. I would suggest that the more recent and admittedly uncertain forecasts of one to two meters should be used when setting precautionary policy.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>What a good idea, leave it to the IPCC to keep you in the dark.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2009/05/2...
http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2007/11/ip...

Who the h*ll is Roger Helmer and why would ANYONE think he has a clue??

Earthling wrote:

What is "helpful" about predictions of what MIGHT happen in 100 years time?

Haven't you figured out that it doesn't suddently happen overnight on Jan 1, 2100?

Too bad the experimental research doesn't support climate change mitigation. Back to work, you lazy climatologists.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
They have little choice. Because they are defining the science behind meaures that may cost money, they have to be sure of their facts, so any factor which is not nailed down with ten inch spikes has to be left as commentary.
Since we DO have a lot of evidence of factors which will increase ice sheet deterioration, it means that we should NOT expect the lower end of the forecast. I would suggest that the more recent and admittedly uncertain forecasts of one to two meters should be used when setting precautionary policy.

True enough. And, I suspect, you are probably right about the 1-2 meter rise, although that's strictly my guess based on consistent underestimation by the IPCC.

The Fifth Assessment will likely shock many, but I'm afraid that the IPCC's conservatism still undermines its efforts. Being a UN body, the IPCC will always serve as a lightning rod for criticism by right-wing nationalists from any nation. By playing it safe, the IPCC legitimizes the "do-nothing" denier position, so that any accommodation with them forces climate protection into ineffective half-measures.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Who the h*ll is Roger Helmer and why would ANYONE think he has a clue??

Helmer is in a position to have access to more info than anyone at Topix.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Haven't you figured out that it doesn't suddently happen overnight on Jan 1, 2100?

Haven't you figured out that in 100 years time, it will be 2109?

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Helmer is in a position to have access to more info than anyone at Topix.
<quoted text>Haven't you figured out that in 100 years time, it will be 2109?

The projections are for 100 years after 2000, i.e the year 2100. The fact that we are 9% of the way now is not important.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Helmer is in a position to have access to more info than anyone at Topix.

He's a clueless politician. How does he know ANYTHING beyond the latest popularity poll and who is on the take?

Coincidence isn't science, experimental testing is.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

The projections are for 100 years after 2000, i.e the year 2100. The fact that we are 9% of the way now is not important.

True, but I decided to be as pedantic as you were being.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

He's a clueless politician.

You mean like Fat Al?

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

How does he know ANYTHING beyond the latest popularity poll and who is on the take?

Are you saying he doesn't and can you prove it?
I thought you were someone with 'some' scientific knowledge, not a fortune teller who claims to know everything about everyone?

Why dont we just build a big rocket motor in the U.S. state of utah and move the earth a half a mile more away from the sun. that will freeze up the poles